Agenda 04/21/2009 S (RLSA)
BCC
SPECIAL
RLSA
MEETING
AGENDA
APRIL 21, 2009
~....
tt.,
SPECIAL MEETING
BCC AGENDA
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
[Continued to Wednesday, April 22, 2009 if needed]
9:00 a.m.
FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
DATED JANUARY, 2009
PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Donna Fiala, Chairman, Commission District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice Chairman, Commission District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY
MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD
MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS
AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE
HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES
UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST
TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301
EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
1
April 21, 2009
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Presentation of the Five Year Review of Phase II Rural Lands Stewardship
ProQram Report. dated January, 2009; prepared by the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Review Committee
3. Adjourn
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
2
April 21, 2009
n
0
-
-
-.
CD
~
n
0
s:::::
:::::l
-
'<
OJ
i )>g ""'0
..,
"'C ~ CD
~ Co en
. -.
(') -0 CD
0 1\)...., :::J
- -" n .-..
- CD
-. -
CD 1\)0 a.
.,
Os::::: .-..
0 O:::::l 0
. .
< (O~
.
:J n
CD
- 0
3
3
-.
C/)
C/)
-.
0
:::::l
CD
Cil
-c::.I~i8-- ~" T ". l--"'y',i's----r--'T.' S
T 48 S
~ ill
N ~~~
~ ~OI~
!,
'Il
'il ; '0
~~1 ; i
~i!
I
~ .
:: i
JO
Cp1,;: ')1\
~
:::
~
N
.
L
I ,..
,1;1
/
,
!
/
,
>
~
~ '1 ~
~ ~ ~
.
~
,
ri
~
N
.
i
!
\J
'.Vt Ii
:.II 1,. .
w
a ~
///
,,';;^----
~
,~
j-
"
;g ~ C>
~ ~ ~
;;;, l: P
i
r
~
W
N
-
~
w
w
m
~
w
~
-'A.,[ ,-\T,
g 6. 1
'il ,~@ '"~ ,.!
I-,~ ~ i
'.' I'
~~ !~S ~~ g~
~~ ,~~ ~~~H
~ ~ i ~ 8
s z:g 1
I. ,
, ,~~ i~
, ~ 't'
" -jii ~-
i!I"
; ,~~; _l;~
~ ~
t"
? t_
M ~
. 'I
~ 0'
',' 'I
. ,
; 1
. n 1
T 41 S
I'
:,0..11I0'0
",1''0"",,1,
,. " ."t'" ,
r} i :~;~ \!~::'i: ~
~:' ~ 8~~M~~~~ ~ g
r~ ~ ~%"~~t,~~ ~ ~
d R ~. ~H.~,:i!, l' ~
~~ ~ lr~r~~ ~
l' l! ~
,
[JiillDIIIHD
, , ' II" I' ," ~.
~ - ~ ~;.., Iii"'''
~ ' il ,! I ~I'
,,' ,0.
~b~~I~i
, JI, I' ~
n;
8 I ~
!
II2l 111I
~~~~Z~t~~
, i'l,d"
!;; -.~ ~ ~1: ,,~
~ ~i & ~~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~1 r
~ e ~~~.
, . 'I
."
c:
...
C
:D
om
!?
!t' r-
o~
gz
~CJ
" ~
g:c
"en
om
!Ii:
~
"V
,
,
.11I. 'cII11i!0C![J
i!I'!lh'lI11 i
i<\~ -~" q ~ ~ ot ~!
',', 1'~ 5 ~~" >1 ,,_
~l!ill!i1 - ,. n;+' ~-
"!'j "II i ,i
~ 7" jlio;; , -,
~" j" ~" '
,,~ 0 ~ J. t
; , !;I ~.. ,
"'I ',',
!:' ~ "
~;~ "I
~!
IIIDlim i u. ~i [fill..
't'i;,,,nll- ~ ""~qJ~" ~ ~~
IW,'!li!",I",
~\"~~ ~;,~~~li~:~,!~~>1
~~~~~~_ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~i i ~
!iilll, h !:~, II;!
',m ili I !!
"'~ ~' -< -i -lil _~ ~ if
k i b -
~ \ - ~
, ,
:1
~i
I , ; GJ ~~ [J III ill
i i1 ~ e ~~ i 5 A
.. ~ ~ ~ ;!Iii i! !;.
'I: b ~ ~ ~.. !i ..
t. M ~ li ....li : ..
~n ~ m ~ 5
~ ~ ~ iii !
F" ~ i
>
;
S II., 1
u 'Tj >-3 tx::I >-3 '--< U a tx::I z ~
....
~ ~ ~ .... 0 S po po ~ ~ 0
~ - po
- S <: ~ ::l ::l
~ 0.. ~ ~ .... 0.. 0
>-3 '-< 0.. trJ n ~
~ i:J"' .... n 0 0 'Tj VJ S
~ U ::l ~ .... 0 "0
0 po 0.. a po
- s z ~ ~ r:; ~ rFJ (fQ ~
~ [JJ s 0
po ~ 0.. ::l ~ ::l r
~ S .... ~ -
[JJ ~ - p n
'-< ~
~ -
n -< i:J"'
~ po
.... ~.
:;0:;- n
~
n ~
i:J"'
po
~.
~
~ U >-< trJ trJn tx::I a ~ r< >-3 'Tj >- n r< a
.... ~ n :><: 0 ~ - 0 po ~ 0 0.. 0 ~ ~
~ ~ 0 n ~ po ::l po ~ <: - -
g. ~ ::l po rFJ >- 0- ::l S - 0.. >-+,
n 0 rFJ 0 ....
0 0 <: [JJ rFJ ~ n
..... :;0:;- n ::l ~ -< '"d "0 ~ n ~ '"d
~ 0 e. a ~ po - 0 ~ po - ....
~ ~ po ~ n g .... po z ..... n ~ .....
- 0 n ::+ ~ a
0 ~ n ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ::l po 0 0
>-+, ~ u - ~ ::l ..... ~ ~ ::l rFJ
>-< - ~~ -, ~
~ >- ...' n ..... ::l a
~ rFJ ~ 0 i:J"' ~
<: - ~ 0 ~ u ::l Z q ~
~ n po ~
..... ~ ::l n ::l g:;, trJ 0
n .... - npo >- ~
<: 0.. [JJ o..::l 0..
0 .... 0 0 ~ ~{JQ 0"0 ~ ~
- [JJ "0 Z .g - ::l _. po - 0.. a ~
- ..... S ..... t:l ..... ~
_. ~ .... ..... g- o rFJ
~ ~ ::l ~ ~. (FJ
~ .... ~ _. - >-
~ ::l (fQ (fQ ~ 0 >- 0 0..
n 0.. s: u'"i ::l ~ rFJ
..... .... n ::l
~ ::l rFJ
0 'Tj n C ..... 0
0 rFJ 0 -, r:/J
S 0 0 ~ -< r< >-+, <: 0 a n
3 s i:J"' -, ....
q >-< n rFJ n po a
0 .... ..... -, .....
n < 0 ~ ~ ....
~ n 0 ~ po 0
'"d ~ ..... q
.... 0.. -, - ::l n ::l
- ~ - '"d n _.
po '"d >- ~ ~ 0.. .... trJ
S ~ ~ po .....
0 ~ ~ 'Tj ::l _.
[JJ n N :><:
~ ~ rFJ rFJ n 0 0- ~ ~
.... rFJ rFJ 0 .... P"
::l .... .... 0.. po 0 ~ >- ::l n
(fQ ::l 0.. n ~ -, :::: ::l ::::
~ .... ::l u~ ::l .... ~
(fQ po ~ .....
n ::l _.
..... ..... q ~ g- <:
~ ..... .... a
0 0 n ~
~ ::l 0 a" U
~ ..... P" 0
'"d 0.. po ::l ....
0 ~ ~ _. ~
_. ~ 0 ~
rFJ '"i ~ ::l
rFJ .... rFJ 0 >-+, n
.... q .... a >-+, 'Tj .....
0 0.. 0
::l trJ ~ po n r< ~
::l .....
:><: ~ ....
J'"" ..... '"d
~ trJ ....
n ~ N 0
~ ~ -
~ ::l _.
..... .... po n
.... ::l rFJ '-<
<: .....
S' ~
~ rFJ
{JQ
t
.
.J::>.
"0)>
-, CJ)
o CJ)
(") -.
CD CJ)
CJ) r-+-
CJ) ::::J
"0
-,
o
3
o
r-+-
::::J
ce
"0
C
c-
-.
(")
-.
::::J
r-+-
CD
-,
CD
CJ)
r-+-
::::J
r-+-
::::J'"
CD
-,
CD
<
-.
CD
:E
(,.)
Q) )>
::::J CJ)
0..CJ)
-.
0..CJ)
Q) r-+-
ro::::J
CJ) 0..
r-+-CD
o r-+-
::::J"'~
o 3
0..::::J
"0 -.
C ::::J
c-ce
_ r-+-
-. ::::J'"
(") CD
~ 3
CD 0
CJ) CJ)
CD r-+-
3. CD
9t~
o (")
::::J !::!:
CJ) <
CD
Q) <
::::J CD
0..::::J
C
CD
CJ)
o
-+.
r-+-
::::J'"
CD
o
<
CD
-,
Q)
'<
N
-, ;0
CD CD
8 <
3 CD
3 :E
CD r-+-
::::J ::::J'"
0.. CD
Q) ;0
!::!:r
o en
~ )>
r-+-O
o <
::::J CD
a ::l.
-, Q)
CD,<
Q) Q)
CJ) ::::J
CD 0..
r-+-
::::J"'3
CD Q)
CD ^
=+lCD
CD
(")
r-+-
<
CD
::::J
CD
CJ)
CJ)
-"
~~~
'-. CD <
~ Q. CD'
!::!: < . :E
< CD '"'
CD ::::J l-L.
Q) CD 9t
::::J CJ) Q)
o..CJ)a
-oS,o
o r-+- ::::J
-.......a
-. -J CD
("). CD -,
m 0 ::::J.
< ::::J
OCDce
-+'-'r-+-
r-+-Q)::::J'"
~'< CD
113"0
rCD~
C CD -.
m!::!:(")
::::J -.
oce-o
-+'r-+-9t
g ~ o'
CD ::::J
r"\G)Q)
UJ 0 ::::J
S:Q)0..
-0
.
.
.
'"
"lJ0 0 0 (Jl
0) )> "c )> 0 0 0 ;:;. '" 01 ::': -u
<c: CD< --1~ ~c:
", ~ ..., CD OJ ::J ::r = ::r ::r ::r 0"
~~en~,< Z'" (") CD CD CD_
1if o. g cO <p 0> g ::1. 0. 0. 0. 0'
Q:CD" en CD 3 "'C (Q < ll) ~ ll) :::::="
CD :::r _. __ __ __ ~
CD (") "c 0>. en 0 CD 2 ::r 0 CD
o c: ~Oo 0.0 CD OCD
a. 0" 0 0> C ;:l. -I m <=!:
-. == Q) == :J rr :::r 0 (j) :J
::1 (") 01 '< -< '< 2:;: to
to 0) + 2-0) O>::J en
en ~ ll) CD :J C. "'C 0 I
~c..<-+. CD-+.
0) CD 0.< Q < en... VJ
:J :J.., en 3 CD ,y-
o. 0. CD ~;o<::r
Q) en ~ -. CD CD 0
en ::1 ~ o. ~ co. '5: c
c (") CJ) :J 3 0 ll) .,
3 CD O:J~. en
3" CD ll) ll) CD
'" ~ :J ""'0 Q)
0) 0 @-o> (")
-< W , ~ ::r
3 0
-.
:J
C
~
CD
en
.
il
t
t
'L>'
"'
,
'1"
CD:T-1
CJCD::::J
o CD
33()
3~' 0
CD Q 3
:::J ;:::+: 3
Q..'<
m 0 :::::
!::!:"","CD
o () CD_
:::J C/)
C/)():::h
"'U:::J
()m
m ....,
:::J CD
Q.."'O
mO
)>~
():::J
CJ
o
....,
"'0
o
....,
m
r-+
CD
C/)
.
CD3()
x CD 0
~CD3
m !::!: 3
:::J :::::l
m (0 r-+
!::!:C/)~
o ~ \LI
:::::l "'0 CD
C/) a 3
m < CD
C/) ~ 3
...., CD 0-
~ Q.. CD
C "'0 en
CD ...., m
C/) C/)CD r-+
r-+ r-+
CD CD CD
Q..:::J:::J
. r-+ Q..
~CD
-. Q..
o
:::::l m
C/)
m 0
:::J"'O
Q..CD
:::J
.
o m
)>
CJ1()
a.
w "'0
'< C
en 0-
o -
- CJ
~ 3
< CD
CD CD
;::::+ r-+
~ S'
a. (0
3 C/)
CD
CD
.-..
:::::l
<0
en
.
.
o ()
m()
Q.."'U
Q) ()
~"'O
o C
_ 0-
W -.
a. CJ
C5 3
;::::+ CD
en CD
CD r-+
a. :::J
3(0
CD C/)
CD
.....
:::::l
<0
en
~
>~
~=
~ 0"
= ==
Q..~
~~
~~
~::1.
~ r;'
.....
~;
~ ::t.
a 0
1-" =
= .....
era =
.-...,l""l'-
~=-
~ ~
= ~
= .....
~ -<
""t ~
~I
I~
~~
~ ~
~ -<
=- 1-"
N~
=~
=
'C
'-"
aaaS;:
CD
Q.
< "l1 0 -.
Q) 0 0 Q)
~4.:::::(")
CD~CDO
en ":::: """ <
CJCDOCD
Q)(;3i:t..,
-. N Q)
~<CDCO
<CD~CD
CD ~
~ -b
(i3
en
en
.
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~
'-.
<cenenz~~~mooooooO~O...,
< ::J 0 -. Q) 0 0 0 Q) CD 0 0 0 0 0 ::J 0
(fl <' c ~ l:l ., ., ., (fl -CD ::J = = = = CD ., ""T'1
o CD ~ W CD a: a: a: CD ::J (flCD CD' CD' CD' CD' =+: a: CD
::J., (flQ)Q)Q)"Cl. """"~Q)co
~~~Om<~Q::JCD<OOOO""U~c
::: ~ Q C Q) ::::; (fl' C 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 Q) C Q)
~~a:~nCl.::J~00n5555~Cl...,
Q) ^ -. Q) 0 -. - ~ ..... ..... ..... ..... -. C r""\
~ '03CD'::J CD<O~~~~Cl.~"J
0:2: ~ Cl.g ~::::;--lmo""U03 go
~. Q) ...... ~ (fl v Cl. en ., ::J 0 - ::J
Cl. CD I ~ ~ ..... (3 0 ~ <. m ~ 0 eno ~
Q)., -. CD C l:l (if C (fl ., en ::J 0-
(fl ., Cl. ::J CD ..... l:l 0 -. n c
::J ~ 6" Q) = _. ;:+ ::J 0 ::J 0 ::J CD' .-
~ Q) -< d CD' ~ ~ ~;:+ 3 <' (0 -< Q
c~ ::JO~O (fl~CD1irO (J)
..... (0 0 ..... ::E ..... o' a -. 0
CD CD ::J~::J ~::JQ)g3
Q CD3 ~ ~ Q. 0 ~ 3.
., (fl ..... -. Cl. (fl
~::J < ......<< (fl
o ..... Q) Q) (fl' -. -.
8.. 0 d o' ~ g
~ ::J ::J -<
~ ~. 0 0
Cl.Q. 0 0
~ 3 C
(0 3 ::J
_. n
en (fl -.
n. (fl
CD 0
::J ::J
n
CD
(fl
.
~
=
0-
-
.... .
~
~
~
~
f""'Io.
.....
~
.....
~
~
f""'Io.
.....
o
=
.....
=
f""'Io.
=-
~
~
.... .
<
~
I
~
~
~
~
~
~
<
.....
~
~
w
.
I\)
.
-'"
.
o
c:
(1)
en
r+
(")
o
3
3
(J)
r+
C)
I:
-
~
~
~
r:IJ
~
=
t""'t-
~
t""'t-
~.
o
=
>
\1Q
~
=
Q.
~
"
::
,
;:;
~~
~ C1 ~,
~CJO it
:t>>r~
-1-10
rumn1
VI Z
. . . ~ ~
<0 0
- Q) 0 0 -00<0 -
-
:::!': 0 :::J 0 0 -0(0 ....
CO :E Cl.C :E Q) = ~
:::J
Q) Q) -:::J :::J CD loot
- .., Q) - (") ..., ==
o. Cl. :J':.< N ::J"O ~
:J -0 Cl. CD 0 Q) 0 .... 0
:::J r.IJ
..., 0 :J CD :3 ...... =
o :E < :::J :::J-o 0 =
o :J -. CO
:J CD a CO .., loot ......
-0 CD CD ~ ~
CO .., :J ..., Cl. ::J"
CD C/) :3 0 CD ~
Cl.::J" -0 :::J
CD CD 0 C/)
Q) :J C/) <
Cl.ar CD CD rJ:1
a. >
C/)
-
C/)
."-",,,F0'W",,,,,,,",,,,,,,
~
;s
>
9
~
6
,
:)
z
"
~
(J)OC~
~CD :J "0 .-+ .., :J 0
CO<OlCa.o.O
CJl<:Jo.CDCD
a - :J '< ~.., ..,
o g :J. 0" :y G)
O<c<c CD CD 0
Ol "0 <C. <
(') 03 .., :::J 3 ~
.., :::J 0 00 :J
rn<C~1 30
" CDOOOlO..,
"OOO(,)@lJJ
OlO'-+O-c
-CD 00
:J (') Ol CD :::J.::
0''''0")>00
..... ill 0 ..,
.-+03 CD
CD .-+ Ol
Ol <"
CD
(j
o
-
-
....
~
~
=(j
.... 0
~ =
o =
~ ~
~~
~
iJl
>
!
~
~
~
~')~'iT~.t),,,,,,,,.<,..,
~
i
"""""'~~'"-''l':!Y'''
~
z
z~
~~
~~
~
. . . I\) n
0
s: =e 0 (') c Ul ;::0 ;::0 .., () 0 0
.-+ CD
Q) -. ., 0 (") Q) r r (') .-+ I\) -
- Q, :J )> (f) (f) N -
:::::l :::::l'" ^ 0 ....
Q) CD CIl CD )> )> 3 CD ~
- ., -. - ::r :::J ""'l
c.c :::::l'" CIl -. "U 3
CD CD Q) - :J 0 0 () ==
3 :::::l CD Q, a. Q) < CD 0 n
G) Q, :J CIl CD ::J CD ::J .... 0
CD -- :::!.. a. 3 r:IJ
., -. ;;0 .., Ul ~ =
:::::l 0 :::::l =e Ul Q) Ul 3
- =e r- c '< 0 =
(') -. "0 " ""'l
""0 - en .-+ ~
- 0 :::::l'" "0 0 .-+ ~ ~
- :::::l'" )> CD
Q) 3 'T1 0 ::::!. CD
:J "C -. ""0 ;:+ a. ~
)> :::::l - CD Q)
- Q) a.
-. Q) Ul
(') Q) - :J
- ;:j 0- :::n rJl
. '< >
(') ..,
CD Q) Ul
- .-+
-
.__m._'._____~._,~._~___.__".._.~,__"___,._~__~,_~~,_~__,__._mm__" _,__.,___~_._m~.___
{'
~
;:,
,
if
m GJ
'""GJO
:;2)>,
~-lCJ
mmm
'"" Z
.' ~ },' ,
-~' " "
;'
- t: ~)
i~ 'i
~, '"
> >
G ~
~> \;
~~
. . . . II.) . . I\) . . I\)
"T1 ..... W > 0 OJ > 0 ..... () 0
0 0 0 n
< ex> -.....J < ...... c.o < en -.....J 0 .s::.
- CD CD -
CD 0 ex> I 0 - 0
I en ex> ~ I\) () ~ 0 CD -
'< ex> -.....J 0 '< 0 .., -
CD Q) 0 Q) .....
"'0 () ~
Q) (j) (j) ...., co .., :::!. (j)
.., (j) (j) Q) CD Q) (j) 0 ~
.., Ul C
CD > > 0 Ul C > :::J n
< Q) Q) "'0 (j) :J Q) ...... 0
CD a. '<
CD () () :J ...... CD () Q) =
:E .., ...., CD ..,
CD CD Ul :E .., CD "'0 =
a- Ul Ul Q) () Ul "'0 l""'I-
CD "'0 Q) ...., 0 Q) ...., ~
:::J 0
c.o CD "'0 Q. "'0 <
-. Ul Ul ~
:J :::J "'0 ...... "'0 CD
Ul Q. ...., ::r ...., ...., Ul
-. 0 "'0 C 0
:::J < () < ::!'! rJl
c.o CD Q) ...... CD ..,
Q. :J 0 Q. Ul >
......
:::J :J
0 :J ==
C CD
:::J :E .... .
rI1
() :;u l""'I-
CD 0
Q. r
(j) ~
> ~
......
0
:E
:::J
>
<
CD
~
Q)
:::!.
Q)
. . . ~
--i '"0 ""'0 CD --i =
:J ~
(') ::r ~. Q) >< ::r ~
CD CD < ::4- en CD -
:J en Q) -. ...... ~
......(') :J :;0
...... CD -.
-.,< co r ~
< en -'"0
CD .-.. '< Q) Q) (f) =
en CD 0 ...... )> Q..
3 ~ 0 co
~. rIJ
:J :J :J (') en
0 en CD -. C Q) rJ1
.-.. a.CI> f""lo-
.., 0- ...... :J ~
CD Q) < c ~
-0 0
co en Q) - ..,
c CD :J C CD < ~
c. a.:J CD ~
Q) en .-.. Q) ::!. Q..
...... 0 Q) :J Q)
0 :J -< a. rIJ
:J ...... =-
en 0- c 0 ....
en ~
.., CD ......
::r >
CD
~
~
~
\Ii
\0'
l~/
;0
1 ~
j~
i(<
ii,
e
~
~;
s
Si
::0
r-
3:C/I
,.~
~ 0
::l: <
N m
C> ::0
C> r-
.. ~
"<
>~
~ ....
--
. =-
-
=-
-~
=-=-
~ ~
"i'j
S' ~
~~rJ).
ClO>
~ ""l ~
~ Q. ~
- ~ ~
=-~C'
~ = =
~ Q. =
= .... Q.
~ = ~
~ ~ 0
~ 0 =
:3 :3 ~.
~ "0 ;!;
= =: ~
- ~ =
'"C = -
- ~ ~
~ ~ .-:
= ~
=-
.
'-+C CD 0
CD .-+ ::::J
()=()C/l
~~08
-. C/l C C
.!:l ..,
C () 0) ..,
CD"'eo~
C/l CD CD CD
. ~ 0.
-. CD C
< < ..,
CDCDg
0) 0 :::J
:::J -0 C/l
0.3-0
C CD ..,
C/l ::::J 0)
CD .-+ ::E
.-+
-0 :::r 0)
-O):::J
~'-+o.
:::J
:::J
eo
.
.-+m
o 0 ::::J
~ 0 0)
.-+.-+........
-. :::r ~
o CD CD
::::J ..,
C/l C
C/l
CD
C/l
::::J
0)
-0
-0
..,
o
-0
~.
.-+
:::r
CD
()
o
::::J
<
CD
..,
C/l
o
::::J
o
0) -
.-+ ..,
CD C
..,
0)
0)
:::J
0.
.
_0
..,
o ..,
3 CD
()
::E .-+
CD ::::J
.-+()
0) 0
:::J 3
0.-0
C/l 0)
0) !:!:
::::J rr
0. -
CD
C C
-0 C/l
0) CD
:::J C/l
0.0)
:::r::E
0) 0)
0:'<
.-+
0)
.-+
.
C 0) -0 '"U
C/lCD <Q Ci3 a
C/l ()" 3 CD
C 0) ()
.-+ .-+ .-+
C ~ 0)
Ci3CDeo
..,
-()()
0) 0 C
:::J ::::J
0.<.-+
.-+ CD ~
o .., 0)
C/l
::::J 0 0)
o ::::J ::::J
::::J
'00.
0) --0
eo ..,
~. CD
() <
C CD
.-+ :::J
C .-+
.,
0)
~
~ C1
e,.c
>~e,.
~ ~ c
~ = ~
~c..~
O~;
<00>
~ ~
~ ~ 1""\
;-~-
~....- ~ oS
'""-< ~ ....,
c..;t
;.c..
.....
~
)::l:.
I,"!
,-i_
~ ~ ! g
lji!
g " ~ ~
t ~ '" ~
~ ili ~ ~
'coDe 1 ~ i !
~ " ,., >>
n
>
01 0;
~ 2'! ~ 0;; l; "m
~ ~ ;; i;' ~ ~
;; ~ ~ t ~ ~
~ g m <> ~ ~
! ~ ~
" } ~
," ~ ~
~ ~
,
,,''',><. .P;;<' ---
LEE COUNT,'
I
llQ
IS;;,
\t:"o*
;-.:
'(',
\~l
r~
!:s
''''
i'--<
"
i5
~
~
n
o
~
~
;:II
r-
;:: CII
l> ~
~O
:z: <
...m
'" ;:II
"'r-
IDJ:o
'<
m G'l
::::;::;'0
>~!-
n1~g
VI z
>
;0 Q..
I Q
VI
)> "'0
~
0 ~
< Q..
I m ~
,
;:; ;0
c ~
f
rJl
>
z
0
.-+
CD
OJ
OJ
(") (Q en
....
CD ro.J en
(f) '0 )>
OJ 0
.... 0
CD
OJ
-0
-0 .... ~ OJ
a en 01:>- .... 111
~. ""C 0 W i:: (f)
3 0 :J (1)
s:: ..... ;:;:
OJ C" <:) 0 ::::l
.-+ ..... 01:>- en 0 "C (1)
CD _. :;0 CD
() W ... :;0
r w )> C1I cO'
111 0 III
::::l 0 0 ::r
c. - -
(f)
QO
3:
(f)
()
~ ""0 ~ ~ 0 (/J Q (/J
c ::::: ~ c '\:l ~ (/J
.-to cr" ~ .-to (1/ ~ >
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
- _. - - -.
a C l:ll l:ll [;j ~
~ - 't:l 't:l a a ~
~ l:ll e C '"""l '"""l '"l
'"l ~ .-to (1/ (1/ ~
~ 0.. ~ ~ rJl rJl rI1
~ rJl == ==
rIel --- .-to
~ S .-to ...
~ ~
_. -
rJl ~
a '"l
l:ll ~
a rI1
'"1
(1/
rJl
- V,J
\C - 00 ~ ~ ....... \C
VI ~ -...J W W ,v, N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 -..) w c::::, 0
0 0 0 0 0 c::::, 0
0 0 0 0 0 c::::, 0
;::;:
III
Ol Z
(fl 0
(fl .....
C (1)
:3
::l Ol
CO
.......0
0"
02i
cf!.;:+
(fl
< Ol
o ::l
C 0..
;:l0l
Ol ()
-<CD
"0 (1)
Ol (fl
ao:!:
Q. :3
"OOl
Olro
d:(J)
o Ol
::l .,
(1)
Ol
"0
"0
.,
o
~.
:3
Ol
.....
(1)
w
-
Ul
'"
Q
Q
Q
...
W
'"
W
-
N
~
o
-
~
-
'1:l
s:::
CJ-
-
,,'
CJ-
~
~
~
i:l
("")
(;j
'"
(1l
'"
~
S'
0;
~
(1l
i:l
~
"-
co
~
w
~
\0
W
-..l
(/l
~
cr'
.....
o
.....
~
--
W
\0
~
W
-..l
Vl
~
>-i
(D
-<
....
C/)
(D
0-
g.
>-i
....
~
(Jq
~
0-
o
'U
.....
....
o
~
'-'
tI'l
~
>-i
--
'<
tI'l
~
.....
~
t:d
o
~
~
C/)
(J
>-i
(D
0-
....
.....
C/)
~
tI'l
tI'l
t:d
'-'
N
-..l
~
o
o
o
w
~
W
-..l
Vl
~
>-i
(D
-<
....
C/)
(D
0-
g.
>-i
....
~
(Jq
~
0-
o
'U
.....
....
o
~
'-'
?;:l
(D
C/)
.....
o
>-i
~
.....
....
o
~
(J
>-i
(D
0-
....
.....
C/)
......
0\
o
~
o
o
o
N
o
~
o
o
o
~
(D
C/)
.....
~
cr'
--
....
C/)
::r
(D
0-
~
.....
.....
>-i
~
C/)
S
....
.....
.....
~
--
'-'
t:d
~
C/)
(D
(J
>-i
(D
0-
....
.....
C/)
......
N
00
~
o
o
o
......
0\
~
o
o
o
~
Q
'1l
~ ~~
~
~
'1l
... l:l
;::, ~
q ~
~ t:'J
Q
~
~
.....
~
~
Q
~
~
~
>
Q..
o
~
~
~
Q..
~
rJ).
>
n
..,
~
Q..
....
~
*
C
"0
Q.
tll
CD
Q.
.CJ)
~CJl)>S"
tuo<::e
~. 0 CD Q)
tu o~..,
etuwa.
("') ., C/)
::J -. :T
<" CD tu -.
CD en tu"'C
.., -. '"0 .,.,
en ::J "T"< t^I
-" ,.... '-' CD
~ ~I ..,
'< - 0 (")
c CD
a. < -.
-. CD <
::J a. -.
CO :::::l
)> CC
< )>
CD ~
CD
Q)
C/)
......
.,
o
3
.-+
::r
CD
-l
CD
o
::r
::J
o
tll
;::0
CD
"0
o
;:+
CJl-l
CJlO
~ ..-+-
<Otu
CJl-
CJltu
tu en
("') 0
.., -
CD 0
en CD
("')
CD
3
rr
CD
.,
'"
o
o
co
.
~C/)
coC/)
0)>
moo
co~
tu '"
("') -
.., ~
CD eN
en
c
::J
a.
CD
..,
..,
CD
<
CD
:E
.
eNtu
-.....J '"0
~ '"0
CO..,
coo
-.....J<
tu CD
("') a.
..,
CD
en
· CJ)
C/)S"
C/)::e
)>0)
00 ..,
~c.
I C/)
~:T
~ -.
_"'C
~CJ)
~CD
~ :::::l
~c.
CJl -.
::;:,
~cc
m)>
..,
CD
0)
C/)
*
~
!3
"'C
-
~
!3 ~ ~
~ ~ =-
= g. ~
t""I- = ~
a .....
.... ~ """'"
~~~
= ~~
~ -< 0
~ ..... ~
~ t""I-
Ul~
~
~
~
~
\IJ
.hl
II
~
0
-
-
.... .
(C
~
. . . ~
.
. 0
s: "T1 ~
)>)> :2:GJ :::l m 0 =
-
:E 3 -. 0 :::l (") CD () 0 =
:::l < 0 0 ~m 0 ""'"
tu CD :::l CD < :::l ~
.., .., 0 -. ~ "T1
0. -. -. .., tu 0 ~
(") :::l :::l !::!:3 :::l m ~.
0 tu <0 0 o -. ~ :::l CD
-:::l OJ ""1.. :::l (") 1\.)<0 :::l
m-o CD C/) )>0 0-. a. rJl
>< - ~() o:::l C/) >
(") tu :E CD .J::>.~ 0
CD :::l -og tu C15 ~. - .... .
=:::l r;,J
.., :::l .., - :::l "T1
CD -. tu 0.0 ~
:::l :::l (") (") - '"0 <0 0 =
(')<0 .-.. 1\.)3 m :::!.
CD )> (") 0' OCD >< 0. >
I\.)C/) CD .., o:::l (") tu ~
C/) .J::>...... CD -
oC/) - tu OJ ~
og I\.)(j) () CD
CD ~
W -. Oc 0 :::l .-.. Q..
tu OC/) C (") .-..
..... CD
-. w..... :::l CD ~
0 ..,
:::l tu (") )> ()
-. -.
:::l :E .....
"T1 tu 0 0 =
- 0- - tu 3 =
0 ..,
CD () a. 3 .....
~. =
a. 0 C/) c CfQ
tu "T1 - :::J
() 0 CD I .-.. ~
:::!. .., 0 '< ~
:::r a. () :::l )> 0
tu tu 0 0 :E CfQ
'"0 - ..,
.-.. )> C tu tu ~
CD :::l 0- .., ~
.., :E .-.. a. :3
tu '< CD -
.., I\.)
a. 0
I 0
(Jl
~
~ =-
= ~
Q..~
c==
~
~. ~
r:IJ. ~
~
~Q
~ ::1
~I
~ n
Q Q
!3 !3
!3 !3
~ """,.
= ~
Q..~
~ ~
:t.~
Q ~
= Q
r:IJ. ~
~
r:IJ.
r:IJ.
"
o
o
'lJ
o
00
:J
a.
m
)>
o
..,
CD
"'C
o
~
C/)
o m
><
g-1)>"8 ~ ;0 ~ ~ CD
ci"'C ....' CD 2 Q ::!. ~
CD C -< -< c "'\ CD::4: <.
.,0-' CD:J:JCD
00 == 3 5!l,co .......
!::!:(') CDCDa.(')C
g :J. S. a. .., 0 0-
,^ ....... -. 00 3 -
.." '-' :J OO;::::t:! -.
:.: s. CO:J 3 (')
,..., a. c CD -.
:J (') 0 :J :J
a. 0 :J" a. :J "'C
:J CD~CDurs.
C/). < CD ., -. - .
a. CD -. 00 :J
CD -<~:Jg
CD "'C a. 00 a.
a. 0 "'C en CD
a. ==c~o.
c .Q 0- ('). .....
::!. -. 00 ...J
:J 00(').-+0
co :J -. CD
a.:Ja.o
en -g "'C 3
c.-+03
0-00==;::;':
1'-+(')'-+
'< CD
. CD
C/)
o
o
" "
'lJ
:::r
00
C/)
CD
~
--i
CD
(')
:::r
:J
-.
(')
00
;0
CD
<
-.
CD
~
;0
CD
"'C
o
~
"
)>
a.
o
"'C
-
CD
a.
;0
r
(j)
)>
'lJ
..,
o
co
.,
00
3
CD30
~ooo
~ @33
~ CD -
:J (') .-+
CD 0 ~
~ 3 a.
o 3 c
_CD-<t
_:J.-+
:::ra.o
CD 00
- :::
o o. m
< :J <
CD en -.
CD
~ 0- ~
'< -. .-+
::: :J :::r
0-(') CD
~CD;O
CD 00 r
a.~(j)
0.-+)>
?~O
<
CD
::l.
00
'<
00
:J
a.
.
~
~ =-
= ~
Q..~
CO=:
~ ~
..... ~
r.IJ~
~o
~ :4.
~I
~ ~
o 0
:3 :3
:3 :3
~ .....
= =
Q..~
~ ~
~~
o ~
= 0
r.IJ ~
~
r.IJ
r.IJ
. .
. .. m
Z 0 Z ... ><
-4 n. ,... Ql 0 m () 0 · "C
OJ " -0 il ,,~ ;:;. "Ql ,... ~ 0 !l
ii: ful g? '< Q '" 0 0 Cil -4WQ,:J"""-o
-0 en _ ""'0 a: r ~ ::!.:::J 3" CD' "Tl CD 0 "Tl CD'"
'" < '" '" '" .., 0. (") -.., ..,
Q ec "' -< ~ ~ "0 Ql '" 3 :J 0 s: -. '" en
.-+!l) .., .-+ "Tl:::J CD @ ::!. (") g- N CD
~,~ :::J S en. _0. _.., ~ CD-l ^ en ~ ::t> - :::0 :J
_........ OJ __ :::J"" en .., .., .., < ::J 0 -
o c _ "Tl.-+!l) 0 _0 en ",Q)
::J a: enc "Tl !l) ~ 0 CD en CD :::J '< ~ !l) !:!':.
-oQl" :J ec ~ ~- <0 en-'-+- 0
_ . ~. a. CD a: ~ 0 ~ ~ :::0 S. ::t> :J
Ql "0 ;;!- Q. < 0 Ql Ql -. - c '" '" <0 en
::J _ '" < - ....... ..... CD'" .-+ <C ~ ..,
::J .., < .., _. ,)>' -- m CD -. o~ r.'
_. CD < 0. "Tl c !l) (") (") 0"
::J (") !l) < == 0 0. <C 0'-+ 0 - .., C
<c.-+::J =.: CD-...... C CD _::J 0:::J"Tl-
O .'" !l) 0 c.-+
o _.., OJ a. a: 0- 3 - 0
-oCD 0 c O!l) 0 CD OJ 3 "Tl m 0 CD
CD.....; 0 ..... . ooxr.
en -- ::J <C en" "-'-
!l) 0 '" ""T'1 ::J ""'0 en'-+ .-+ a. CD'-+ !l) U1
;::+ = :::;. cD' en ~ 0 0 0 - !l)::J::J 0
3 CD '" 0. CD .-+ (") -. '< 0 :::J en. 0. ::J
CD 0'" S(o CD < ~ CD' ~""Q CD 0. 0 ::t> 0
::J .........,!l) .-+ -. CD CD ::t>::J <C 3
.-+ 0 ,)>' ~ ~. .., '< (") en
c en :;;:; 0 -l .-+ en::J <c::t>::!. en .
..... en 0 ::J CD 0..., <C (") .-+
~ 0:::J '" OJ CD r.' c-
..... r. 0 .., ",..,' , CD ;:::;: C
..... ~~. 0 3 .., en C:::J C
.., en.;:::;: _.-+ .., :::J
CD.-+ 3 r ::J 0 C !l)-'
CD - ......c-<
en 3. ~ (JJ ~ Ql :J. W ~.
~ CD 0 0. < -. .-+
_. ...... S. _ CD CD '<
0- .......- ......::J
::J -- CD . en. (") 0
.-+CD-
'< en
~
~ =-
= ~
Q..~
==
~
~. ~
III ~
~
~o
""l ""l
l"'t-
~I
~ ~
o 0
8 8
8 8
~ .....
= ~
Q..~
~ ~
=:~
o ""l
= 0
III ~
~
III
III
en
. -
. . . Q)
~::;im()~
co Q) :J 0 '"
Q) :J <. 3 ~
-C/)" -
O "0 0 "0 -.
O :J ., (")
CD 3 CD -.
"0;:4. :J'" "C
Q) Q) CD CD Q)
;:4.d~~=
3 :J Q) -. 0
_<:::::l
~ OOCD
_CDCD'"U
-g-gm
;:4.;:4.:J
3 3 :J.
CD CD :J
:J:Jco
..........0
CD
"0
Q)
;:4.
3
CD
:J
.....
~
~ =-
= ~
Q..~
eo=
~
~. ~
rIJ ~
-c
~o
~ :4.
~I
~ n
o 0
:3 :3
:3 :3
~ .....
= ~
Q..~
~ ~
~~
o ~
= 0
rIJ ~
~
rIJ
rIJ
~
=-
~
III
~
~
~
~
~
"'0
Q
---:
~
I
~
~
Q
:3
:3
~
=
Q..
~
~
.....
Q
=
III
r
-.
en
-
CD
Q..
en
'"0
CD
(")
CD
en
3
m
:J
m
(C
CD
3
co
:J
r-+-
'"0
m
:J
en
.
· · · · · · CI)
(")mCf)-o;O:JCf)c
rog;omco(")Cf)[
~:J)>;a.~CD)>-
-. 0 (") ::::r 0 :J CD Q)
g3::::rco"'~ma
m .., ~ co en -.
(") m 8 0 en co ~
Q..(").,:JQ'3
CD< CD ~. Q) .., co ;;0
co ::::toQ.m;a.CD
o ~ en <. (C (") 8
'"0 '"'. ;:::::j: :::!. 0 3
" -. (") :J
300 ~co.3
~~ c=CD
_r-+- a. .., 0 :::::l
CO:JQ,
Q.. m (J) ,,,
-. '"0 '"0-
< '"0 a:::t.
CD _ _ 0
en (") CD ~
~~ ~ C/)
(") -. 0
m 0
=:J :J
o ..,
:J co
m..c
:J C
Q..ro
c5" 3
rrCD
:J
-
en
"'C
=-
~
r;,J
~
~
~
~
~
--0
=
Iool
~
I
~
~
~
=
a
a
~
=
Q..
a
~.
=
=
r;,J
G)
o
- CD C/) -. CO "'C Q) 0) () () - :::J () e!.
~3"C:::J:::Ja~cco03coo-
o "'C @ Q) ~ _ Q) ~. = c 3 ~ - (i3
C-.c-C'oJCD'<OCO:::JO eoo
cc 0:5.-c co 0 s::::: ..,~^cn.., 0
:T'<~ '---;:; Q) 0 3
CJ) O::r "'0 C () -n co - ()
:TOQ)~CD~ "'o~co"'o3
_ .., :::J -. oJ 3 0) c.., co c CD
... CD a. S. ("') c. - Q))> en. :::J :::::l
cO) COO ~0)3. ..,o.~c.
~~oo~(i3~~~~macn~
o CD CD ("') .., C/) Q) _. a. en CD
"""-~ Q) en o:::J ~c.c )>~Q) CD 0)
CDQ)O!::!':.0..,o.CDoc.cc:::J^3
!e. 5. 0 g :::J CD (J) ~C/) Q) :::!. 0. 0. en CD
0) C en o_:T - ("')'<-c -a.:::::l
2:;@ ..,O)~o(J):.O"'ao
-. CD cc - c tT 0. a. c 0 -c Q) 3
~ CDOtJ;::;: ro-tJCCDo.o.~
_"C O)c("')o-:::J::::l-_
... - a. a. - - a. '< CD'" -
a. 0) CD -. Q) -c )> Q)
-. :::::l < CJ) :::J 0 Q) :::J (i3 , ~ 0 en
~o ~. CD 8 0. 0 :::J 8 ~ ~ ~ en
:::::l- ~o. - 0:::J-
CD cc 0 s::::: 0 ~ 3 -. )> _ CO ::r
:::::l "C~ - -c~ 'CD
- - 3 0) '''::r en _ (J)
-. CD cc 0 0 Q) Q) _ en ::r
~(",)CDCDst~O"';:;O)eoCD~O
:~ ::r ~ CD < ;:::+ 'oJ :::::l en ;:::+ :::J
~' :::J. - C .., ;::;: Q) CD c. 3 () ~ c.c
..c_~c'::<--c O:::Jeo,.!....
c-....cn en """CD =_
CO oJ 0) eo _ _ CD 0 :::J -. ::r '
cn~:::::lcnooen..,-~CD3
~
=-
~
r::IJ
~
~
~
~
~
-c
o
"'1
~
I
~
~
~
o
:3
:3
~
=
Q..
~
~
....
o
=
r::IJ
(").......(")'"0
WCO::J"'oo
:J :J
.., (j) a. (") .
CD (j) -: '<
~)>O~
;::+():Ja,
w.
O"..,-~
WCD-o
(") ~CD"2
...... ....... 1 .
'" en -. 0
_ ~ 0 <
Owo.ci
-:JOCD
~o.-en
_. _. (J1
.., _ -0
o -'< ..,
..,::J"'CDO
-. CO W -0
CO. '< en CD
~ w _..z
_..,:J
W CD ::iE 0
CO :J ::J'" ::iE
No -. :J
.......(")CO
OW::J"''''
:J. 0" _ en
:J CO ::J'" ::iE
CO CO-'
. 8"'< st
o..(")W
o ~
en c
o en
CD
.
o ::u
::iE CD
:J <
CD en.
.., -.
en 0
::iE :J
::J"'en
o 0'
< (")
o c
c en
:J 0
-:J
~CO
=.: 1
'< CO
CO~
<. CD
CO ..,
c W
-0 ~
_c
::J"'l
CD W
-. :J
.., (")
-0 CD
..,
o 0.......
-0
CO-o
;::+a
'<-0
:::::!. CO
CO;::+
~'<
en
.
o G')
-h..,
-0
::rC
CD"'C
::0-",
''''0
Wo
>-
. -.
o
-.
CD
C/)
. .
cc
CD
:::s
CD
..,
Q)
-
"'C
s:::::
..,
"'C
o
C/)
CD
Q)
:::s
c.
C/)
-
~
C
o
-
c
~
CD
""=
=-
~
rIJ
~
~
~
~
~
--0
Q
""'C
~
I
~
~
Q
=
=
~
=
Q..
a
....
Q
=
rIJ
OOw""'O
"'C"'C:JO
CD CO 0.. -.
:J:Jen.Q
wwo.",
:J:JCD.
a. a. (J). '"
en(J)c.a"'C
~ 0 ~ a
-. c .-.- <
.-.- r-+- co -.
~ (J). 0.. ~
:Jo..wen
r-+-CDen
:::r -.
co S,)>Q
)> :f c.a W
()CDC/):J
C/))>C/)co
0())>~
C/)() S, Q
"'co
w()o:
:J .., r-+-
o..cow
'" 0: enen
. .-.-
(j) en c.a.
() "'C :J
...., co 3
CO .., CD
o.w
-. (") :J
r-+- r-+-
en ...., -.
"""1-lCOO
0-.....,
.., 0
..,
.
J5Al
.., CO
-. <
(") -.
(J)
c _.
;::::;0
C :J
.., en
w -.
-0
w (")
:J C
0.. en
'-'-0
:::r:J
~en
_. r-+-
en CD
o.:J
CDc.a
en. :f
c.a CO
:J :J
~ :J'
CDc.a
a. _.
w :J
en ~
:: :J
O~
"'C <
CD CD
:J (J)
. - .-.-
- 0
"'C
....,
CD
en
CO
:<
CD
.
Q
~
o
c::
"'C
t\)
"'D
o
-
-.
o
-.
CD
C/)
. .
~
CD
-
CD
:::::l
-
-.
o
;j
o
-
Q)
(Q
..,
-.
o
s:::::
-
-
c::
~
Q)
-
-
Q)
:::::l
C.
C/)
"'d
=-
~
rIJ
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
f""Io.
I
~
~
~
o
:3
:3
~
=
Q..
a
....
o
=
rIJ
:::lO 0' 3 ""'0
(") .., Q) 0
C Q) :::l -.
(")
g- (/) ~ '<
o..;oCD(.r..)
-. )> 3 ~
:::l - CD
.-.-r-+:::l
:::r:::r.-.-
CD Q) I
r-+ I
(/)-0
;00
)>~
o
:::l
o
-
t\.) _0
(") en
, C
CD en
Q) CD
COo..
CD
o 0'
- ,
r-+ .-.-
:::r:::r
CD CD
~~en
;o~'-'-
)>~Q
C/) r-+ 3
:::r'C::::
Q) ~ 05
r-+ r-+
rr3~
CD CD
:::l
r-+
.
(.r..)
(")
t\.)
:::::!.
_=n
Q) CD
C/)
~
;0
)>
.-.-
:::r
CD
C
C/)
CD
o
-
t\.)
~
;0
)>
0'
,
(") CD t\.) "'T'1
o C/) C/) OV
.., .-.- C/)
:::::!. t\.) -. =
0.. rr CO (")
o =:::l '<
, C/) CD (.r..)
:::r a. 0
3r-+~
CD 0
:::l'-'-o.
.-.-:::rCD
OCD=n
_.-.-:::l
() '< CD
.., -0 C/)
CD CD r-+
o.o:::r
;:+_CD
C/) .., C/)
_CD-o
o ~ CD
.., 0 (")
t\.) .., =+i
t\.) _0
:::l r-+ (")
Q 0 :::l
r-+:::lC
:::r - 3
t\.) t\.) rr
:::l :::l CD
0..0.,
C/) -0 0
0"'-
C ~ ()
.-.- -- ..,
:::ro..CD
-0 CD a.
t\.) C/) .-.-
~O'C/)
:::r'"
CD r-+
, :::r
CD
Q
;0 .,
CD 0
< c
_0 "C
en
o to)
:::l "'C
C/) 0
-
-.
(')
-.
CD
C/)
.
000
C -0 '
C/) t\.) CD
CD :::l ~
O r-+ 0
_:::r..,
~~~O'
t\.) (") 0 (")
r-+O:::lC
CD ~ C/)
.., _0 0
-no..
cD Q :::l
r-+C/)
CD -
:::l t\.)
!::!::::l
o 0..
:::l
)>
..,
CD
t\.)
C/)
.
"'C
~
o
-
CD
(')
-
-.
o
:::::l
o
....,
;j
Q)
-
c
.,
Q)
. .
-
~
CD
C/)
o
c
.,
(')
CD
C/)
""=
=-
~
TJl
~
~
~
::c
~
~
o
~
l""t-
I
::c
~
~
o
=
=
~
=
Q..
a
.....
o
=
TJl
;0
o 0 0 CD
<
(") en m .., C/).
CD ~ a. CD -.
mCDo.=nO
.-.- ::J -. ::J ::J
-. CO ~ -. en
O.-.-O::J
::J :J" ::J CO a-
CD m (f) (")
::J - C
-. '"0 ;0 C/)
::J-)>
co m 0
CD ::J () ::J
(") .., :J" ..
o CD m
::J ..c ..,
o C. ~
3 CD .-+
-. 3 CD
(") :::!.
a.CD~
CD ::J -.
< .-+ (")
CD _C/) _C/)
o m
'"0 ::J
3 a.
CD
::J
.-.-
m
:::J
a.
'--.
o
0"
.
:;OO)G)
CD :::::l ..,
o Q, 0
~. Q, s:::::
<CD"C
-. <
::::::J CD ~
cc - "'C
)>00
"C-
CD 3 o'
0) CD -.
C/) ::::::J m
....-.... ..... ..
CJ)~ 0 "'C
:T_
O) 0)
-~....
. 0)-
o ~.
-:::::l
~cc
en' -
_CD
-. 0
o :T
C/) :::::l
0' ii'
.., c:
CJ)CD
_C/)
CD -
:e ~
0) CD
..,..0
Q,C:
C/) -.
:TCD
'6' 3
CD
::::::J
-
C/)
-
"'C
='"
~
rI.J
~
~
~
~
~
"t:l
o
"":
f"'Ioo.
I
~
~
~
o
53
53
~
=
Q..
~
f"'Ioo.
....
o
=
rI.J
I
(') "lJ
o 0
C
::J ()
r-+ '<
O+:>-
:E N
Q) 0
..,
0..:E
en Q)
'-'-en
:::::r
CD CD
(J)<
;::OC/)
)>~
Q) en
() 0
.,
CD r-+
Q) :::::r
(0 m
CD r-+
'"0
C
0-
(')
0-
CD
::J
CD
~
r-+
c
en
CD
Q)
(')
..,
CD
C/)
.
.
()""'O :E ., () Q) "lJ
CD 0 r-+ rn ;::0 Q 0
0........ :::::rO OCD......
;::::+:-< .., C C/) Q) ~J
C/) CD., (0 CD
r-+ +:>- ~ gO_CD en
o -l. Q) C/).-.- +:>-
-l. <D .., Q) :::::r CD ~
0(') g.::Jg3~
() :::::r a.. CD -.-
CD~ CDCDC~+:>-
a.. (0 a. (') C/) r-+ ~
CD COCDCD.
ur C/) ~::J C/) :::::r_'"
r-+ r-+ 0 .-.- Q)
'"0 :::::r o. 3 :::::r 3 ~
CD CD -. Q) - I
., ::J (') r-+ CD ~
(J)-
(J).-.- .-.-~~ urW
~ ~ ~. ~ '"0 ~ ~
m ~ C/) en "8 ::J en
(') ci 3 ;::::+: ;::4. a.. CD
.., C/) '< Q) .., .-.-
CD:::::r oQ)(OCD:::::r
..,..., "::J.., a. CD
'-' CD a.. ('). ~ r-+
() (') Q) C ::J 0
.., ..,..,.-.- CD :E
~ ~CDC.-.-::J
.-.- ~Q) CD:::::rQ)
.., 0 C/) - CD::J
m ::J C/) ::J C a..
.-.- omC/)<
O (')'-'-CD
-. C
~"0Q)
CD Q) -(0
a. CD
-
..,
o
3
ex>
.
+:>-"lJ
CJ10
'0=
0(')
0'<
Q) ~
(') '"
.., CD
CD C/)
~ r-+
Q)
0-
C/)
:::::r
eD
C/)
Q)
3
Q)
x
3
C
3
(J)
;::0
)>
0'
o
r-+
'"0
~.
::J
r-+
.
G)
~
o
C
"'C
,J:l.
"'C
o
-
-.
o
-.
CD
C/)
. .
(J)
~
(')
::r
Q.)
..,
Q)
n
-
CD
~
-.
C/)
-
-.
n
C/)
o
-
"'C
=-
~
rIJ.
~
~
~
~
~
--0
o
~
~
I
~
~
~
o
!3
!3
~
=
Q..
~
~
....
o
=
rIJ.
.
(') "'U
c 0
.-+
C (')
ro'<
~
CO N
(J) N
o Ol
C Q.
a Q.
CD .,
en CD
C/)
:E (J)
.-+CD
:TC/)
::J :f
-CD
:T
CD a.
;0 CD
r3.
(J):::::n
)>(')
Ol
-
o
::J
o
-
:T
en
.-+
o
~.
(')
Ol
::J
a.
3 "'U
Ol 0
::J (')
.-+,<
CD
::J ~
Ol ~
::J ~
(')
CD Ol
Ol Q.
::J Q.
a. co
3 ~
.-+CD
(0 C/)
Ol (J)
'-+;0
g )>
..,
o
Ol
a.
(')
o
::J
::J
CD
(')
-
<
-
'<
~
.
"'C"'U
Ol 0
::J (')
:f'<
Ol ~
.-+ .
(') en
o ::J
::J 0
C/) :E
a...,
CD CD
"L)
C/) c
Ol
- .,
CD
3 C/)
o Ol
o.(J)
CD ;0
C/) )>
o
--
_0
.,
Ol"'C
::J ..,
C/) 0
"'C <
o a.
;:::+CD
Ol Ol
-
o 3
::J 0
0-
-
'<
.
.
G)
..,
o
s:::
"'C
~
"'C
o
-
-.
o
-.
CD
C/)
::J" 3 "'U
mOlo
.., ::J (')
OlOl,<
(')(0
~CD~
o 3 .
::J 01
(J) CD ::J
. ::J 0
';:E
- .,
Ol CD
::JL)
6"c
..,
3 ffi
::J Ol
3 (J)
N ;0
CD )>
:T -
C 0
3"'C
Ol ..,
::J ~ (i3
Ol Q. .c
::J CD s:::::
Q.Ol
:E
. .
en
:::0
)>
)>
"'C
"'C
-
-.
o
tu
-
-.
o
~
-.
Q.
..,
CD
3
CD
:::::l
-
C/)
-
CD'
~
=-
~
rIl
~
~
~
~
~
-c
o
~
~
I
~
~
~
o
a
a
~
=
Q..
~
~
.....
o
=
rIl
(") 0 en
o ~ CD
C ("). <
;:4. CD -.
::J'"en@
g ::... en
en Q) I
~encc
. __ 0
Q) <
::::l CD
~3
=3
en CD
::::l
-
---IO)::::l-o o.m <
::J'"::J'"o.CD-CDo.<
CDCD07~<O-
- -0 <:: -' CD -0 ::J'"
0-0 -0 -0-.....
(') CD.., 0 -. -'
0) m o.^"..,-o g....lo.
-::::lr-mQ)_N
Oen ::J'"
::::l ::J'" CD m ~ (") ::J'" 3
O)<-moCDo
a=CD3::::lC()::::l
-o(")OCDen~O-
CO-CD-o'<C~
o-~(J)ur3.:1:~O
(") -. CD _ m -. '< _
o.<::J'"~o.en
CD -. CD 0 CD ::J'"
.., @ ::::l m
O-lZ
......,CD
-Q).c
:T:::::l<
CDtnO
G') "'C 0
:s:g.3
""CQ)"'C
=:Q)
o 2.
:J 0
m:::::l
Ci)""C
3 2..
CD -.
:J~
- ..
~~
('C =-
~ ~
Q \I.J
a ('C
a ==
('C ~
= ('C
Q..--o
a Q
..... -t
Q ~
=
\I.J
.., .
CD -0
C/l 0
o
C 0
..,,<
o
CD CJ1
C/l CO
C/l
Q)
::J
CD
:E
-0
o
o
'<
.-+
o
Q)
C/l
C/l
CD
C/l
C/l
::T'
C/l
.-+
o
~.
o
Q)
::J
Q.
o
C
.
""'0
o
:::J 0
<0'<
CJ1
-...J
C/l
Q)
:::J
CD
:E
-0
o
o
'<
Q)
Q.
a.
-,
CD
C/l
C/l
::J
<0
o
o
3
-0
Q)
.-+
0-
<0
::T'
.-+
.-+
C
..,
Q)
.-+
'<
Q)
::J
a.
o
C
.-+
Q.
o
o
-,
o 0 ·
Q) 0 -0
C/) 3 0
_ -0 0
OCD'<
"''-+CJ1
3 CD .
oo.CJ1
:::J Q) :::J
'-+0
o~:E
~. 0 -,
:::J 0- CD
~CD-g
.., C ..,
o C/l CD
<0 CD C/l
-'Q..-+
Q)
3.-+::T'
o CD
C/l -0 C
0'(13C/l
.., -0 CD
Q) Q) 0
.., .., -
CD CD .-+
~ 3 ~
<oQ)3
.., :::J 0
CD Q) C/l
Q) <0 .-+
'-+CD
~ 3 g
.-+CD'"
::T':::J'"
Q) .-+ CD
::J -0 ~
.......Q)Q)
O:::J:::J
Q) C/l Q.
o Q)
.., :::J
rn Q.
Q. .
CD -0
< 0
CD o.
0,<
-oCJ1
CD.
Q..j::>.
:E-o
-. ..,
'-+0
::T'
-" <
::J Q.
.......CD
I\:)C/l
3 0'
o ..,
::J Q)
.-+
::T'3
C/l Q)
0-0
-
G)8.
s:-o
-oSl-
Q) CD
o.~
o Q)
-0
!::!:o
o -,
::J 0
C/l
C/l
:::J
<0
000
.
;;:a
CD
o <
C/l
o
::J
C/l
~8C/lo.
.-+3ro~
Q-o Q..-+-
0" Q) C/l -< 0
.-+ -r'< _. 0
-. ..., :::J C
~ 0: CD <0 C/l
a. -" 0
-< CD" :E 0
0- C/l=:::J
~~3o.
co.Q)<D'
.., ::J
Q) Q) 0
<0 ..,
(13 CD ~
~ 3 C/l
~ ~ cE
o .-+ C/l
CD -0-
C/l Q)
::J
C/l
.-+
o
0-
CD
c.G)
o ~
CD 0
t/l c:
:J"C
o (J1
-
c: ""C
_0
-. -
- -.
N' (')
CD CD'
_t/l
:T"C
CD ",
::as.
.CD
cn(')
)>-
:J
"Ccc
",
o :J
CC Q)
", -
Q) s:::::
3 Dl
",
CD
t/l
o
s:::::
",
(')
CD
t/l
o
:::::l
-
Q)
:::::l
C.
""=
=-
~
rLl
~
~
~
~
~
-c
o
~
l""I>-
I
~
~
~
o
:3
:3
~
=
Q..
a
.... .
o
=
rLl
-
:T
Q)
-
r'\ C,
~C)O
>>>r
-t-tCl ~
,..,.,mm N
'^ z
0 ~
U1 ~
0 0
:::0 e
r
l.f) e
)>
~
() =
~ 0 Q..
~
" Z ~
,-',
, () Q..
m ~
-0
-l
-0
};: rJl
>
" ! Z
:~ "'<<'
~S
12
" 0')
"
z
o
.....
CD
ell
ell
()
...,
CD
CIl
ell
...,
CD
ell ..... r"'C
:g~cn~~ s:::
..., OCllQ.C'"
o 00 ::
~. O' ~O
:3
ell
.....
CD
z
CD:;tI
.....-
'".....!C/)
oc/)
0)>
.j::l.)>
OCQ
0(1)
OC/)
0)>
.j::l.C/)
J1I:;t1
g)>
o
~(")"'C
wOtll
O..,::S
..,....
0-,::1"
Q.eD
0..,
..,
>-0 0 \fJ Q >-0 > Z
~ "d ~ ~ (Jq ~
0" (t> C1:l
..... l::l.. ..... (/).
,.... --3 ::i -. P"' (/). \fJ
(") ~ ~ s;- (t>
-- 0 (") ""l > \fJ
~ - (") ""l --3 >
~ ""l (t> n ~
(t> en 0
--3 0- - en 0 (") ~
-
en Q. ~ q ""l (")
0 S (t> ""l
l't> - ,.... en
- < 0- (t>
~ ""0 ~ l't> \fJ 0 en
- en \fJ
~ - ""l
~ (") ""l 0 >
~ ~ l't> "t::l
""l (") '" = ~
l't> ""l ~
~ (t> ~ l't> ""l
creI en ~ = l't>
l't> "t::l - '"
...... ~ ......
\0 .....- .j::l. +:. c::, w +:. \0
Ul 0'\ VI Vl -~ .j;;o. N 0 .....-
~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~
0 0 0 a 0 Vol -.J
0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 c::, 0 0 0 0
,-, - < z
(1) ::J 0 0
x.-(O-O
aO(1)Cro-
CD w~;:t..
en-~OJ
en '" OJ
,-0 ..,.., -
-0 '<-
:-" - ~"-o 0
COCD_m...,
, ~::r~(1)
- iii" -0 ('i' 9:
CO - c: -. ..-
en 0- -0 en
en Cf)=OJ OJ
-;o(')=~
::r)>o-oo.
OJ ::J
::J OJ (1), OJ
~Q~--iQ
O(1)::::!1::r(1)
OCIJ I"""1-CO CD
0' OJ
6')>a(1)~
...., en -.
-g ::J (1) "" 3
~c_en39l.
('i" 3 -0 9l. (1)
-.0"...., Ct> en
-0 (1) 0 en n,
0,) ...., < ~
- -.....,...,
0" g, a. (1) (1)
~"""'hCDC/)Q)
, OJ en C-o
(')....., --0
....... 0 _....,
o .., ::J 0
.., OJ X
U'J ::J (IJ -.
aOJ~3
o _. OJ
c"'C (') .-
--0 -, (1)
0...,(1)",
o ::J ~
Ox_en
~ -, 0 en
en 3 C
(1) .., 3
_ OJ (1)
....... a.-.
:T CD -. ::J
_. CJ1 en to
en 0-
""0 ~ g c;
o<OJo
mQ.).......~
:J::::::!. 0
_OJ
-" ::J
OJ a
(1)
~
C
......
~
-
~
Q
~
~
Q
Q
Q
~
-...J
~
-
N
Q
OJ
Dl
III
(1)
(')
iil
c.
~
."
~
()
cr'
"
::0
"
::n
~
'"
()
...,
"
en
"
en
~
S"
'"
~
"
'"
~
....
o
~
~
~
N
00
w
'"d
Pl
::i
.-+
::r"
~
>-;
n
o
::i
,...-
p..
o
>-;
w
~
~
W
.-+
N
~
w
o
o
~
a
>-;
~
w
'--'
r:/J
g.
....
o
....
p:l
-
VJ
~
~
N
~
00
w
--:J
>-
(JO
>-;
,...-
a
~
2'
>-;
~
n
>-;
~
p..
,...-
.-+
W
~
~
W
.-+
~
o
~
o
o
o
Pl
a
>-;
~
w
'--'
N
w
~
o
o
o
00
\0
~
o
o
o
N
~
w
o
o
00
~
\0
o
o
.--..
C
'0
o
::J
@
.....
-,
..,
(1)
3
(1)
::J
.....
.......
po
::J
N
o
o
1.0
'-'
tr1
Pl
>-;
--
'<
tr1
::i
.-+
~
to
o
::i
~
w
n
>-;
~
p..
,...-
.-+
W
~
tr1
tr1
to
'--'
N
o
~
o
o
o
N
~
Vl
o
o
~
~
W
.-+
o
>-;
~
.-+
,....
o
::i
n
>-;
~
p..
,...-
.-+
W
~
~
8:
~
w
.-+
~
p..
'--'
--
~
~
~
o
o
o
--
Vl
~
N
\0
~
*
to
~
w
~
n
>-;
~
p..
,....
.-+
W
-
N
00
~
o
o
o
-
w
~
00
~
w
*
~~~
~l:l.!;;
~~ Iii
;:: ::
=:-"
;::' '"
tItl l:l
Y.!::!:
~~
'" l:l.
~~
l:l.<:>o
~Q
Q~
~ :::to
~~
~ "
.". ...
" l:l
... "
~ ~ \;o:)~
...~
" ...
~l:l
...::g l:l
;::... ~
,,~ -
'" 1€ ~
l:l. I;'J
Q
~
e.
.....
~
~
Q
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q
S
S
~
=
Q..
~
Q..
~
rJl
>
~
~
~
Q..
....
l""I'-
.
00
~ 0)
::J"O
CD "0
~ ::J
0) CO
C/lO
~ CD
~o.
o .-+
(J C/l
0) 0)
::J C/l
(J 0
0) (J
"0 ...,
.-+CD
0) 0)
.-+
N CD
CD C/l
::tl::J
..., CD
~.o
-" C
::J ;::+:
(J'<
0) 0)
3. 3
_. 0
::J ::J
co co
C/l
.-+
3. ;;0
.-+r
CD (J)
0.)>
(J
CD"Q
0.0
;::+: "0
C/l CD
;::4.
'<
CD -
.00
C ...,
..., CD
CD 0.
0.
.-+
C/l
0)
...,
CD
(J
0)
"0
"0
CD
0.
.
.
.
...,
CD
(J
0)
0-
...,
0)
~
o
::J
o
-
.-+
~
CD
CD
::J
~
...,
CD
o
...,
CD
0.
~Q
:::!. "0
8 "0.
-::J
cco
CD 0
o CD
..., 0.
"0.-+
0) C/l
::J 0)
'-+.-+
~
CD .-+
..., ~
(J CD
o (J
..., C
:::::!.. ...,
0.""
o CD
..., ::J
C/l .-+
~. ~
'-+CD
~
00.
S.o
.-+CD
0) C/l
25":::J
::J 0
CO.-+
0) 0)
~ 0
~ ~
CD ::J
x. ~
C/l
~::J
::J (J
co CD
:::!. ::J
co~
~<
.-+CD
C/l C/l
0'
...,
.-+
o
.-+
;::+:
.-+
C/l .-+
00' ;::+:
~::)>g
~ S. 0"0
~c...,
CD ..., CD C/l
0) CD 0. ::J
::JC'-+O
(J)~o..-+
;;0 - g ~
)>C/lC/lCD
- CD 0.
o = ::Jo CD
""0.-+0.
.-+...,<.-+
~ CD CD 0
3~~"O
-. ~ ...,
::JO).-+o
~::JC/lro
CDCOO(J
.-+CD~'-+
~.-+::JS:
CD~CDCD
(J)CD""
O~"O
(J) -. 0
)> CD s: co
.-+ 0. n, ...,
~ -. .... 0)
0)'-+::J3
.-+ 0' '<
co ..., :::!. =t'
CD (J co 0
::J0~3
~3(j).-+
0)"000
roCD.-+O
0.~~3
S:O)""O)
CD c;: s: ~
::J 0)
::J
C/l
'<
C/l
.-+
CD
3
~.
0-
CD
C/l 0-
.-+CD
C CD
0) ::J
~
o 0)
::J ~
C/l. co.
CD ::J
=CD
3 0.
-. .-+
::J 0
~(J)
CD ;;0
0.)>
C/l
.-+
C/l
~
0)
<
CD
0-
CD
OCD
::J ::J
(J 0)
CD "0
0)"0
...,
00
..., <
CD CD
0._0.
.-+~
g ~
"0 CD
C/l CD
..., C/l
CD C/l
0) .-+
(J ~
~O)
CD ::J
0.
N
s:_co
-. 0
C/l 0
0- 0
CD ~
::J 0)
~<
(J: CD
0)
.
co
.......
o
o
o
+
o
...,
CD
0.
go
(J 0)
0)"0
C "0.
C/l ::J
CD co
o 0
-...,
.-+CD
~o.
CD ;::+:
o-C/l
~ ~.
CD
::J ::J
CD g.
~ 3
::J ;::+:
::J .-+
co~
CD
:::::!. ~
o
.-+
0)
co
~
.-+
C/l
.
~. 0
-0)
o-:g
CD 3'
"0 co
...,
CD 0
C/l ...,
CD CD
< 0.
CD .-+
0. C/l.
o C/l
..., .-+
..., ~
CD CD
~CD
0.0
..., C
CD -.
0.<
. 0)
CD
::J
.-+
0'
o
.-+
"0
:::!.
::J
.-+
o
-
0.
CD
<
CD
o
"0
3
CD
::J
.-+
.
o
-
3
.-+
::J
co
.-+
~
CD
0)
3
o
C
::J
.-+
o
-
0)
::J
0.
.-+
~
0)
.-+
~
00
>
~
~
~
I
>
~
.,
(I:>
rI).
-<
rI).
.
~
.,
(I:>
Q..
....
l""t-
rI).
'-+0)-1
::r co ::r
CD :::::!. CD
(j)(')C)
;:;oC..,
)>CCD
0)"0.
(') CD .-+
.., 0) CI)
CD::J'<
0) 0. CI)
CO "0 CD
CD 0) 3
(') :::J
O).-+::r
"0 ::r 0)
. CD CI)
..,
(') 0"
o CD
.., CD
.., ::J
0.
o
..,
CI)
(')
0)
:::J
0"
CD
0)
(')
(')
o .-+
3 ~
"0 .-+
CI) :::J
::r(')
CD CD
0.:::J
.-+
::E <
.-+CD
::rCl)
:::J 0'
..,
.
.., z
CD CD
~ ::E
Q)(j)
.-+(j)
CD
0")>
0)"0
CI) 0
CD =
=(')
::J'<
CD "0
:::::!. ..,
CO 0
::r<
.-+0.
CI) CD
_CI)
(j)0)
;:;O::J
en )> g-
~ O)::E
(') ::J
0" .., CD
.., CD..,
0) (') CI)
CD 0) 0)
0. "0 :::J
CI) CI) 0
o ..,"0
CD "0
0) 0
(') ;::!.
::rc
CD ::J
0.;::;:
'<
.-+
o
.
.
"OC)
C 0)
0""0
-. "0
(') --
- :::J
-co
0)
:::J (j)
0.;:;0
~ )>
::J 0)
CD (')
.., ..,
CI) CD
- CI)
0)
::J""S;
0.0
0) <
coo.
CD CD
::J CI)
(').co
CD .,
CI) ~
.-+
CD
..,
0)
::J
0.
C
CI)
CD
(')
0)
:::::!.
.-+
'<
0'
..,
.-+
::r
CD
"OC)
0) 0)
:::J"O
:::J"O
::J' :::J'
coco
o (j)
-;:;0
::J )>
-
., 0)
0) (')
CI) ..,
~CD
C CI)
~"O
C ..,
., 0
CD <
0) a.
::J CD
o.CI)
"0 (')
C CD
0"0)
= ..,
(') CD
CI) ..,
CD <.
<: (1).
-. 0
~ ::J
CI) 0'
.,
o
:::J
co
I
..,
0)
::J
co
CD
.
0.C)
CD 0)
<"0
CD "0
o
"0
3
CD
::J
.-+
::J
co
(j)
;:;0
)>
0)
(')
..,
CD
CI)
~(')
CD
0)
:::::!..
'<
CD
CI)
.-+
0)
0"
CI)
::r
CD
CI)
0)
3
0)
><
3
C
3
-
o
o
.-+
"0
:::::!.
.
~
00
>
~
~
~
I
>
~
""'C
~
IIJ
<
IIJ
.
~
""'C
~
Q..
....
~
IIJ
.
o.om
o :::J :::J
-"0 0)
0)..,0-
.., -.
en < CD
0' ~"O
.., CD a
0) 0) .-+
() :::J CD
.c 0. ()
c .-+
en ~ g
.-+
o :::J 0)
:::J co ::J
a.
o ::J ..,
.., () CD
3 CD en
:::J .-+
0) !:!: 0
:::J < ..,
O)CD~
CO en 0"
CD .-+ ::J
3 ~ 0
CD.-+_
~o.()
o ;:
::J ()
o 0)
.-+
.., :::J
CD 0)
.c .-+
C C
..,
.., 0)
CD
"0 ..,
C CD
o-en
o
() c
..,
()
CD
en
0) (f) ::J
() .-+ ()
CD CD ..,
en :lE CD
0) 0)
.., en
a. CD
en
:::r.-+
:::r
"0 CD
(f)'-+
CD S.
::J 0)
0.0)
::J ..,
co CD
)>0)
.., 0
CD -
0)
en
0)
::J
~o.
o en
3 CD
COX
1\.)"0
~ CD
o()
0'-+
o~
0) .-+
() 0
.., 0-
~ CD
0"0
0)
-"()
WCD
~o..
0--
o~
00
.
.
()O)""U
OCO
- ..,
= ().
CD c
..,
()
o
C
::J
.-+
'<
..,
o
<
0.
eCD
.., ::J
CD CD
0:lE
.., 0)
CD :::J
3 0.
0). 3
::J CD
0) 0)
en ::J
O)~
<.2'
0)
o-CD
CD 8
() :::J
o 0
3 3
-g ()
:::J ::J
CD ()
:::J CD
'-+:::J
o .-+
-<
:TCD
CD en
CD 0'
() ..,
o
:::J
o
3
'<
o
-
.
:::r0))>
o :::J ()
~. 0.. :::r
N en CD
o c <
::J en CD
~ or 0)
0)::J0-
.., 0) 0)
0)0--
:::J - 0)
o.CD:::J
() ()
0) 0 CD
::::30
c 3 ;-
C 0)
g-::Je
C .-+ ..,
.-+ '< 0)
0.
~ CD
CD en
-0
o C
"0 ..,
3 ()
CD CD
::J"O
.-+'"
0) S.
.-+CD
.-+()
:::r !:!:
CD 0
"0 _::J
0) 0)
:::JCO
:::J ..,
-. ().
~ C
.-+
C
..,
CD
~
=-
~
rLl
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
I
00-
=
::;
::;
~
~
~
n
o
=
~
-
=
rLl
....
o
=
rLl
'"'d
. . . . . =-
~
::J :t> ... () 0,) 3 :t> Ul ::0::0 Ul 0,) m rIJ
0
CD 0 .., :::J 0,) 0 "0 rCD "0 0 Ul ~
... 0 "0 CD 0. 0 .., 0,) .., ...
:!E 0 0,) :::J 0 0,) en a. 0 CD 0,) ~
0 3 0,) ... ::J :::J 3 :!E :t>C CD Ul 0- ~
.., 0 CD -., CD 0
^ 3 CD ., .., 3 o-CD :!E Ul ~
Ul ::J 0,) 0,) 0,) ... CD ::::T
"0 0 CD Ul 0 Ul ::::T ... Ul ~
a. -., :!E ... ::J 0. CD ::::T 0,) ~
0,) 0 .., a. CD Ul
::J 0,) .., C 0,) :::J. "0 ::J ... 3 0
... CD 0 0 CD ... ::::T
... CD CD CD 0 :::J 0,) ~
::::T 3:g ... :::J 0,)
C ... CD X l"'t-
0,) 0,) .., Ul 0' 0. CD :!E :::J
... "0 0 CD C .., CD :::J 3 I
0 -~ -"
Ul .., CD < ... 0
o C 0,) CD - C rJ1
CD :::J ~ ::J .., 0 CD 0,) 0 ~ 3
=2 eo CD ... 0,) 3 =
CD ... ::::T Ul 0 0' 0
CD .., "0 0,) "0 3 -., en :3
0,) Ul CD ...
Ul .., ... CD 3 .., ...
:::J ... Ul 0 Ul 0. 0 C ::::T ::0 :3
CD eo 0 ... <. C "0 CD 0 :::J CD :t>
0,) CD - 0 0."0 0 ::J :::J ~ r+ a. ~
Ul < ... CD 0
... ::J Ul CD "0 "0 < CD ~
CD ... CD ... o.OC ... CD Ul or < ~
.., CD CD ~- ::::T .., CD
::J .., -. 0,) CD Ul Ul ::00 ~
() 0 :::J ::J :::!: .., 0
0 CD eo 0 CD :::J 0,) r"O 0
0 :::J :!E 0- 0 en3
- :::J "0 :::J '< 0 0 =
- :t>CD
-. 0- Ceo -., 0 ~
CD CD .,
.., 0 C 0-., CD 0 C ::J -
... Ul =:0 0."0 ::J 0 ... =
() CD 0 :!E ... .., 0'
0 0. ::J -., ... C CD CD -" rIJ
CD 0 ::J 0. ....
C ... Ul 0,) ::::T (]10 0
:::J .., 0 :::J -., ...
0,) Ul -. ::J eo 0,) 0 ~"O =
... - o :::::!.
'< :::J CD ... :::J .., rIJ
Ul Ul CD 0,) "0 0. :!E :::J
0 ...
"0 Ul Ul Ul ::::To
0 :::J ...
C CD ... CD -.,
~ "0 Ul Ul ::J 0 :::J ~
0,) ., CD ... :::!: ::J
... 0 =2 0,) 0,) 0 o (]1
0 X ::J "0 ~
::J 0 0,) ::J CD 0
3 :::J 0
CD 0- 0
... Ul
'< CD
tD
III
1II
(I)
(")
..
(I)
Co
;:
;AI
r-
Vl
)>
o
<
rn
;AI
~
N
o
Ul
o
;;U
r-
Vl
)>
(")
o
z
(")
rn
~
-0
~
Z
:;:0
(I)
(")
o
3
3
(I)
_:J
o 0..
(") ~
o ::!:
:J 0
VI :J
-. ..
i""T1
", 0
..,
-5:;:
_(I)
(I) OJ
3 (")
~ (")
- -
ao
-. (I)
o VI
:J _
o ~
....!2:
", -.
(I) VI
(') :J'"
o ~
3 VI
3"0
(I) (I)
:J ~.
o..~
(I)
0..(")
"0'<
o ~
::(D
(") ....
'< 0
(") ..,
:J'"G')
~ :s::
:J "'D
(Q
(I) ~
VI 3
CD
:J
0..
3
(I)
:J
-
VI
~
0')
"'C'O
s::: ca
g:ca
-.
(")
r
III
:J
0.
QO
:s:
iii'
(")
~
, -c- 0')
s::: '0
0" ca/
n' ca
r
III
:J
0.
QO
:s:
-.
III
(")
~C/)
w;:O
~ )>
W
ca
ca
~C/)
91;:0
g)>
ca
COC/)
I'IJC/)
'0)>
o
o
z
CO;:o
I'IJ-
'OC/)
ocn
0)>
_OJ
~~Ill
ws:::1Il
~ C1l
......:J=.
O;:+:J
0-0 C1l
C1l;:o
""'I. __
OICC
III 3:
(") III
-
~)>
OCC
'OC/)
OC/)
0)>
~n"'C
- Olll
W"':J
0..,.....
O-.~
o.C1l
0..,
..,
~ "
5J~~
~m~
::;0
r-
V'I
)>
o
<
rn
::;0
~
N
o
U1
o
::;0
r-
V'I
)>
("')
o
z
("')
rn
~
-0
S;
Z
,0
=
~
rIJ
f""t'.
....
Q
=
rIJ
.~
Executive Summary
Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program
Prepared by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
RLSA OVERLAY
_~r Cmtnty
MARCH 2009
JoEt<<lFN COUNTY
!'
..~ ,
T
UN.
1:10..........
~....""'......
....o'c.'no".,."oo.,...
.;0;:;0'.........
.. ~-:~::~:ou.o...o"C""'..M
c.",.."-'."'......~T'"''
i_::;::_"''''''......
..-...........
__.0.'...'..._.....
_'L.O_.-....OH..AMA~...
_....""'.-.........._..'"1
l2ZJ-"......,,""....""'..
Collier County, Florida Board of County Commissioners
April 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners review at a
special public meeting the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee's revised
March, 2009 "Five-Year Review Report of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program"; the
Collier County Planning Commission's comments and recommendations; the Collier
County Environmental Advisory Council's comments and recommendations; the
Committee's request for Board of County Commissioners authorization for a special
Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle solely for the purpose to review and consider
certain amendments to the Growth Management Plan Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay based on the Committee's revised Five-Year Report; and staff considerations
regarding the Growth Management Plan impact and fiscal impact.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain from the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) the following
direction with respect to:
A. Acceptance of the March, 2009 "Five- Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship
Program Report" (Report) in its entirety as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
Committee's (Committee) approved Report;
B. Direction to staff with respect to the Committee's request for BCC authorization for the
holding of a special Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment cycle related to
proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA Overlay) amendments set forth
in the Committee's Phase II Report, which is a departure from the BCC-adopted policy of
limiting GMP amendments to one cycle per calendar year per BCC Resolution 97-431;
and
C. Assigrunent of priority to this special RLSA/FLUE/GMP A amendment cycle and the
recommended creation of RLSA/FLUE/GMP-related new Policy 3.7 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP,
CONSIDERATIONS:
January 30. 2004 to present: Rural Lands Stewardship Program adoption into the Land
Development Code (LDC) and favorably recognized in Florida and nationally. The Rural Lands
Stewardship Program in Collier County has been recognized in Florida, regionally, and
nationally for visionary methodology to preserve environmentally significant land, to protect
agricultural land and to direct growth to suitable locations. Collier County adopted the RLSA
Overlay in the Land Development Code (LDC) as Section 4,08,00 on January 30, 2004 as the
implementing regulation for the Growth Management Plan amendments known broadly as the
"Rural/Eastern Lands Amendments" which were developed in response to Administration
Commission Final Order No, AC99-002, which required a "Rural and Agricultural Assessment"
and subsequent adoption of the Growth Management Plan amendment based upon that
assessment.
October 24,2007: BCC establishment of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee.
Policy 1.22 of the RLSA Overlay requires a Five- Year Review of the RLSA. Accordingly, the
BCC established the ad hoc Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee (Committee) by
1lPage
Resolution Number 2007-305A on October 24, 2007, and provided the Committee with the
following functions, powers and duties:
I. "Review data concerning the participation and effectiveness in the Overlay meeting
the Goal, Objective, and Policies in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan,
2. Review the RLSA Overlay and make recommendations to increase the effectiveness
of the Overlay.
3, Assist in determining the most effective venues and dates to hold public
presentations; and
4. Assist in promoting public interest in the review process."
Mav 27.2008: BCC approval of the "Phase I-Technical Report" (#1 off unctions, powers, and
duties of the Committee). The "Phase I-Technical Report" is a review of data concerning the
participation and effectiveness in the Overlay meeting the Goal, Objective, and Policies in the
Future Land Use Element of the GMP which is required by Policy 1.22 of the RLSA Overlay.
The "Phase I-Technical Report" was presented and responded to by the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) and the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) prior to presentation to
the BCC. On May 27, 2008, the "Phase I-Technical Report" of the Committee was brought
before the BCC, approved by the BCC, and forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) for its records in accordance with the directive contained in Policy 1.22 of the RLSA. To
date, Staff is unaware of any official DCA written response to the Phase I-Technical Report
although Staff has had verbal confirmation of DCA receipt of this Report.
December 2. 2008: The BCC on December 2, 2008 provided direction to staff to facilitate the
review of the Committee's Report before both the CCPC and the EAC, Accordingly, a combined
total of eleven (II) public meetings were held (6 CCPC public meetings and 5 EAC public
meetings) between January 28 and March 10, 2009 of which a total of 8 were public hearing
dates before the CCPC (January 28 & 30, February 5, 20, & 26) and the EAC (January 29,
February 5 & 27), During these public hearings the public was encouraged to speak concerning
the Report. All meetings of the CCPC and EAC were properly noticed public meetings, recorded
with minutes taken, and most meetings were televised.
January, 2009 Original Report: Committee issuance of the original "Five-Year Review of the
Rural Lands Stewardship Program" Report. On January 6, 2009 the Committee issued its
original 2-volume Report which includes the following:
a. Volume 1 of the Report contains the approved "Phase 1- Technical Report" (to the
BCC on May 27, 2008), as well as the "Phase II-RLSA Overlay" review and
recommendations; and
b. Volume 2 of the Report contains the major appendices and support documentation
which the Committee considered when forming and finalizing its recommendations to
the BCC.
Prior to its issuance of the original January, 2009 Report, the Committee held a total of twenty
three (23) public meetings between November, 2007 and January 6, 2009 and received and
reviewed information provided by experts, heard from representatives of several organizations
and individuals and summary minutes and taped recorded documents were developed and
maintained for public record. Most of the Committee meetings were held in the Community
21Page
Development and Environmental Services building, while several of the meetings were held at
both the new Town of Ave Maria and at the North Collier Regional Park. These meetings led to
the preparation of the Phase I and Phase II Reports, Most meetings were well attended with
audience attendance/participation usually ranging between IS and 30 persons. All persons were
given an opportunity to speak and/or present information,
The primary Committee-recommended enhancements to the Overlay include:
A. Provision for Credit incentives to encourage the permanent preservation of agricultural
lands; (Policy 2,2 of Section 2 of Volume 1);
B. Restore flowway stewardship areas and habitat stewardship areas through a credit
generating system that considers cost, difficulty and benefit value of each restoration type
through a newly adopted tiered system (Policy 3.11 of Section 2 of Volume 1);
C. Provision of incentives to create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections to
encourage the protection of the Florida Panther in the Overlay area (Policy 3.11,
paragraph 2, of Section 2 of Volume 1);
D, Provision of "conditional" Stewardship Sending Areas "(SSAs) in the Overlay which
provides a mechanism for property owners to have the ability of better self-controlling
the number of permanent Credits that are issued (Policies 1.6 and 1,6.1 of Section 2 of
Volume 1);
E. Placement of a limit on the maximum 'footprint" of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs)
which would limit the maximum SRA 'footprint" to 45,000 acres or approximately 23%
of the total lands in the Overlay area and recalibrate the credit system to ensure the
balance essential to the sustainability of a voluntary incentive based program which
generates significant public benefits without incurring public expenditures; (Policies 4.2
and 4.19, respectively of Section 2 of Volume 1);
F. Provisionfor better transportation planning related to the Overlay area and future SRAs
(several Policies in Group 4 Policies); and
G. Provision of proposed new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) as a companion policy to Policy 4.5 of the Overlay (page 166
of Volume 1) in cooperation with Collier County in its creation of a plan for a county
transportation network that meets the adopted Level of Service through build out of the
county and considers the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out
population.
****Committee, CCPC and EAC Reviews of the Original January, 2009 Report****
Attachment A to this Executive Summary contains the March 26, 2009 Committee responses to
the cepc and EAC comments and recommendations with respect to recommended amendments
to the Overlay. During its meetings held on March 3 and March 12 the Committee voted to
accel/t 19 of the 31 policv recommendations contained in the March 5, 2009 CCPC comments
and recommendations document to the BCC. The following are the 19 CCPC recommended
policy language changes acceoted in their entirety by the Committee: Policies 1.6.1,2.4,3,13,
4,5,4,6,4,7.1,4,7,2,4.7.3,4,7.4,4.10,4,14,4.15.1, 4.16, 4.20, 4.21, 4.23, 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4.
These CCPC recommendations are reflected in the revised Committee Report.
31Page
The Committee also voted to provide alternative revised language for the remainine 12 policies
where the Committee differed with the CCPC recommendations and these recommendations are
also reflected in the Report. In most cases the differences may be considered to be minor. The
Committee believes that the maior area of departure between the Committee recommendations
and the CCPC recommendations relate to the Committee-recommended amendments to Policy
4.2 where the Committee has recommended a limit on development of Stewardship Receiving
Area (SRA) "footprint" within the Overlav of 45,000 acres. There currently is not a limit on
total SRA "footprint" acres or Credits. If the BCC accepts the Report and authorizes a RLSA
GMP amendment cycle, then data and analysis will be heavily scrutinized to determine with
absolute certainty the appropriate "footprint" in acres and allowable total acres. This departure
between the Committee and the CCPC is summarized as follows:
· The CCPC has recommended to the BCC that there be a cap on the number of Credits at
315.000; and
· The Committee believes the best way to control the amount of development in the
Overlay area is to cap the total area of the SRA "footprint" at 45,000 acres, The
Committee's rationale for placing a 45,000 acre cap on SRA "footprint" acres (rather
than a 315,000 cap on the number of Credits) is as follows:
1. A SRA "footprint" cap of 45,000 acres would result in a definitive limit of not more
than approximately 23% of the RLSA in SRAs and is very close to that which would
be possible under the current Overlay language (see page 76 in Section 3 of the Phase
2 Report);
2, Credits are the "currency" for public good (e,g. preservation of environmentally
sensitive lands and agricultural lands) and it seems not appropriate to limit public
good by limiting Credits;
3. Credits can also be purchased by public entities (Policy 1.18) such that a public entity
can permanently preserve land for environmental or agricultural purposes without
having to acquire the land through a possibly more expensive fee simple purchase,
while the land remains in private ownership and maintenance and used for uses
permitted under the specific approved Stewardship Sending Area (SSA);
4. Proposed Policy 1.6,1 would provide for "conditional SSAs" which would allow the
property owner to opt out of the SSA and regain underlying permitted base zoning
uses as permitted under the A-Rural Agriculture Zoning District;
5, Conversely, the CCPC recommended limitation on the number of Credits to 315,000
would be a legislative limit and possibly result in unintended negative consequences,
as the RLSA Overlay is a voluntary program and market driven; and
6. This CCPC recommended Credit [imitation would also create an inequality among
RLSA property owners based upon who can capitalize first in claiming Credits.
Attachment B to this Executive Summary is the complete March 5, 2009 CCPC comments and
recommendations to the BCC with respect to recommended amendments to the Overlay. Like the
Committee, both the CCPC and the EAC chose to review the Overlay Policy by Policy [Section
2 of the Phase 2 Report. ....pages 45 through 73]. Accordingly, most of the recommendations
and/or comments of the CCPC relate to certain Policies or other language in the RLSA Overlay
while the EAC comments and recommendations were more issue-based.
4lPage
Attachment C to this Executive Summary is the complete March 10, 2009 EAC comments and
recommendations to the BCC with respect to recommended amendments to the Overlay.
Attachment D to this Executive Summary is the Committee's January 5, 2009 request to the
BCC to prepare proposed amendment to the RLSA Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of
the Growth Management Plan as a "special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA Overlay
amendments.. ," following the recommendations contained in the Committee's Report.
March. 2009 Revised Committee Report (Exhibit 1). The revised Committee Report to the BCC
is attached as Exhibit 1 and includes revisions to the original January, 2009 Committee-issued
Report as outlined in Attachment A to this Executive Summary,
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney's Office will assist staff with the
implementation of the Board's direction. This item is not quasi-judicial and as such, ex-parte
disclosures are not required. A majority vote is necessary for Board action. - HF AC
FISCAL IMPACT: The following are estimated costs related to this GMPA:
a, Legal advertisements: for transmittal and adoption hearings before the CCPC, EAC and
BCC ($1,254 x 6)......................,.....,...........,........,...........,........,...... .$7,524
b. Court reporter: [assumes 2.0 days for EAC; 4.0 days for PC; and 2,0 day for the
BCC],......,...,................... ,.....,..,........,........,....................,........, ..$12,000
c, Cost of minutes for potential administrative hearing: ....,....,...,.,.."..,.......... unknown
d. Cost of printing (labor and materials).,.................,.....,..,.............,......,... ..$6,000
e. Public Services (Housing and Human Services): approximately 50 hours..,........ ,$2,500
f. Public Services (Parks and Recreation): approximately 50 hours...,.... '.......,.,. ,.$2,500
g. Public Utilities: approximately 50 hours...,...,..,...........,...........,... ..........., .$3,500
h. Transportation: approximately 100 hours......,..................,............ ....,... .....$7,000
1. CDES Division staff: 1,000 total staff hours, including the following
Departments: Comprehensive Planning, Engineering and Environmental
Services, Zoning and Land Development Review, Assistant County Attorney,
and Administration..... ............ ,.,.....,.................,........,..,.......,...,.., ....$50,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $91,024
(does not include the costs of administrative hearing)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
A, RLSA Overlav does not fall under State of Florida RLS Statutes. The Collier County Rural
Lands Stewardship program does not fall under the State of Florida RLS Statutes since
Collier County approved its RLS program prior to the State law, The Collier RLS Program
has been found to be in full compliance with all Florida State Statutes and the Florida
Administrative Code.
However, Policy 1.22 of the RLSA Overlay of the Future Land Use Element requires that "A
comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be preparedfor and reviewed by Collier County
and the DCA upon the jive-year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in to
the LDC ", This comprehensive review was accomplished with the submittal of the Phase I
51Page
Technical Report to the BCC on May 27, 2008 and then to DCA with a May 30, 2008
transmittal letter as required by Policy 1.22. To date, Staff is not aware of any DCA formal
written response to the Phase I Technical Report, although Robert Pennock with DCA did
verbally acknowledge its receipt.
B. RLSA Overlay and Department of Communitv Affairs (DCA) Comments and Obiection
Relative to GMP Amendments
One of DCA's Objections, which was received by Collier County related to DCA's review of
the 2006 cycle of GMP amendments, is that the Growth Management Plan (GMP) will need
to be amended concurrent with or prior to the proposed RLSA Overlay amendments to align
the Plan dates throughout the GMP.
Regarding the RLSA Overlay, at this time there appears to be no specific requirement in the
GMP RLSA Goal, Objective and Policies that any amendments to the RLSA Overlay be
made, However, any amendments approved by the BCC during "Transmittal Hearings"
would be forwarded to the DCA which would review the proposed amendments for
consistency with the Collier County GMP, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative
Code, Collier County Comprehensive Planning staff has had two substantive conversations
with Robert Pennock, DCA staff member with RLSA oversight, wherein Mr. Pennock has
emphasized that amendments should be made to the Collier RLSA's Goal, Objective and
Policies wherein compliance or consistency with the requisite GoaL Obiective and Policies
are in Question. The DCA is of the opinion that Collier County is failing to meet the intent of
the RLSA Overlay Goal which requires Collier County to protect agricultural activities and
to prevent premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural activities. The
majority of the land in the RLSA Overlay is zoned Agricultural, which would make the
conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural lands inevitable under the proviso of
creating compact and self-sustaining towns, villages, and hamlets. Regardless, DCA
highlighted this perceived shortcoming in the Collier County RLSA in its "Rural Land
Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature" dated December 31,
2007. Comprehensive Planning Department staff is of the professional opinion that this
assessment by DCA is premature, and an initial comprehensive assessment of the Goal, the
Objective, and the Policies in the RLSA Overlay would be more appropriate in the Collier
County 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the GMP in its entirety. Further, staff is of
the professional opinion that the RLSA Overlay is a Growth Management planning tool
which is in its infancy, wherein the techniques and strategies that will measure the
effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay cannot be measured in terms of its success and failures
until such time that the RLSA Overlay matures during the current 2025 horizon year.
C. Committee-driven Proposed Amendments to the RLSA Overlay.
The proposed amendments to the RLSA Overlay are Committee-driven. At this time proposed
amendments to the RLSA Overlay of the GMP have not been substantively reviewed by
Staff for sufficiency, completeness, supporting data and analvsis, proper "wordsmithing",
and consistency with the GMP, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code. Moreover,
the Committee is aware that not all of the data and analysis to support the amendments has
been completed, For example, the Transportation Planning Department has not approved the
concept transportation maps contained in Section 3 (Support Documentation) of the Phase II
6lPage
Report which need to be refined and integrated with the "County Build Out Vision Plan" as
outlined in the proposed new Policy 3,7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP (see
Section 5 on page 166 of the Phase II Report). Therefore, before any comprehensive and
final substantive review by the EAC or CCPC during "Transmittal Hearings" occurs, it
would be incumbent upon staff to undertake the normal progressive steps associated with
GMP amendments, The Committee would like BCC direction to establish a separate RLSA
Overlay GMP amendment cycle,
D, Timing of Proposed Amendments to the RLSA Overlav and Priortization of Countv Proiects.
On the private side of development, the impact of the economic downturn and its effect on
proposed development, building activity and impacts on agriculture warrants a more timely
assessment rather than an overly reactive major modification to an RLSA Overlay in its
infancy. However, staff is also of the professional opinion that any obvious deficiencies in
the RLSA Overlay that can be corrected or modified can be made in any GMP amendment
cycle. Conversely, any major changes to the RLSA Overlay in its entirety will require either
a separate GMP amendment cycle or an inclusion in a future GMP amendment cycle where
major substantive review of proposed changes and supporting data and analysis will be
required.
Staff is currently operating at only 78% of its staffing capacity as a result of reductions in
staff associated with reduced funding in Fund 131. Due to the attached list of projects
internal to the Comprehensive Planning Department (Attachment E), including the
2007/2008 GMP amendment cycle, proposed amendments to the Immokalee Area Master
Plan, upcoming 2009 GMP Cycle amendments, the Annual Update and Inventory Report,
and many other projects set forth in Attachment E, the Comprehensive Planning Department
staff will need BCC direction as to what priority to assign to the Committee-recommended
RLSA Overlay GMP amendments. It must be pointed out with strong emphasis that the
Comprehensive Planning Department was cut from 14 positions to 12 positions during FY 08
and reduced one other position to 11 positions during FY 09. Reductions in the
Comprehensive Planning Department workforce has occurred even though the workload has
increased. If priority is given to this project, then the production of other products will be
delayed as staff resources have been stressed to the point where the Department's
deliverables set forth in the County's Business Plan cannot be achieved.
If Senate Bill 360 and a House equivalent are passed by the Legislature and signed into law
by the Governor, the proposal to amend the Immokalee Area Master Plan will be delayed.
Furthermore, the Florida Legislature is considering legislation that will limit local
governments to one GMP Amendment Cycle per calendar year (state law now permits two
Cycles per calendar year). More specifically SB 360, which will have its 3'd reading by the
Florida Senate during the second week of April, would limit GMP Amendment Cycles to one
per calendar year. It should be noted that there is no equivalent companion bill in the Florida
House as the House's Growth Management legislation has not yet been passed into separate
proposed Bills.
Finally, all dates for Transmittal Hearings and Adoption Hearings related to the Committee's
request of the BCC for a special Overlay GMP amendment cycle will need to be coordinated
71Page
.~___._._ 'W..'O.mm~...._....,_,~__ ~
with the EAC, the CCPC, and the BCC, both as to meeting room space availability and
availability of hearing bodies for specific dates. The following is the schedule for GMP
amendment cycles for those applications already filed or soon to be filed private petitions or
County initiated GMP amendments:
· GMP amendment cvcle 2007/2008 combined no private lletitions and I public petition):
a. EAC Transmittal Hearing: September, 2009 during regular EAC meeting
b, EAC Adoption Hearing: June, 2010 during regular EAC meeting
c, CCPC Transmittal Hearing: October 19 and 20, 2009 with carryover date of
October 29,2009;
d. CCPC Adoption Hearing: July 19 and July 20,2010 with carryover date of July
23,2010
e. BCC Transmittal Hearing: September 21 with carryover date of September 23,
2010
· Immokalee Area Master Plan (filed in December, 2008)
a, EAC Transmittal Hearing: December 15, 2009
b. EAC Adoption Hearing: September 22, 20 10
c. CCPC Transmittal Hearing: January 29 and February 16, 2010
d, CCPC Adoption Hearing: October 28, 2010 with carryover date of October 29,
2010
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners:
· accept the revised Report (Exhibit 1, Volumes 1 and 2) in its entirety as a planning
document;
· provide direction and prioritization to staff with respect to the Committee's request for
BCC authorization for the holding of a special GMP A cycle, which is a departure from
the BCC-adopted policy of limiting GMP amendments to one cycle per calendar year
(BCC Resolution 97-431); and
. assignment of priority to this Committee requested amendment cycle (includes the
Committee-recommended companion new Transportation Element Policy 3,7) versus the
already filed 2007/2008 combined GMP amendment cycle petitions (currently in
application sufficiency review), the December, 2008-filed lAMP GMP amendment
petition, and the upcoming 2009 GMP amendment cycle petitions due not later than
April 24, 2009.
Prepared by: <-.;)~ #t~ Date: .1-/- 7- CJ7
Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner
com7:}prehe ive Planning Department
, ' U--1 _
Reviewed by: Date: Lr - 7-0/
David Weeks, AICP, Manager
Compr nSiJe Plannin Department
Reviewed by: a...t
Randy Cohen, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning Department
Date:
Q/7-oCf.
8lPage
'-~-~-,._-,.._-~,.
~\O-.C'.el\'"u\t- .pg. 8
with the EAC, the CCPC, and the BCC, both as to meeting room space availability and
availability of hearing bodies for specific dates. The following is the schedule for GMP
amendment cycles for those applications already tiled or soon to be filed private petitions or
County initiated GMP amendments:
· GMP amendment cvcle 2007/2008 combined (10 private petitions and 1 public petition):
a. EAC Transmittal Hearing: September, 2009 during rcgular EAC meeting
b. EAC Adoption Hearing: June, 2010 during regular EAC meeting
c. CCPC Transmittal Hearing: October 19 and 20, 2009 with carryover date of
October 29,2009;
d. CCPC Adoption Hearing: July 19 and July 20, 2010 with carryover date of July
23,2010
e. BCC Transmittal Hearing: January 19, 20 I 0 with a carryover date of February 2,
2010.
f BCC Adoption Hearing: September 21 with carryover date of September 23,2010
· Immokalee Area Master Plan (filed in December, 2008)
a. EAC Transmittal Hearing: Decembcr 15,2009
b. EAC Adoption Hearing: September 22,2010
c. CCPC Transmittal Hearing: January 29 and February] 6,2010
d. CCPC Adoption Hearing: October 28, 2010 with carryover date of October 29,
20]0
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners:
· accept the revised Report (Exhibit 1, Volumes 1 and 2) in its entirety as a planning
document;
· provide direction and prioritization to staff with respect to the Committee's request for
BCC authorization for the holding of a special GMP A cycle, which is a departure from
the BCC-adopted policy of limiting GMP amendments to one cycle per calendar year
(BCC Resolution 97-431); and
· assignment of priority to this Committee requested amendment cycle (includes the
Committec-recommended companion new Transportation Element Policy 3.7) versus the
already filed 2007/2008 combincd GMP amendment cycle petitions (currently in
application sufficiency review), the December, 2008-fiIed lAMP GMP amendment
petition, and the upcoming 2009 GMP amendment cycle petitions due not later than
April 24, 2009,
Prepared by: Date:
Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
Reviewed by:
Date:
David Weeks, AICP, Manager
Comprehensive Planning Department
Reviewed by: Date:
Randy Cohen, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning Department
811' '" "
(, I:;: ~
._......._~,-^'... ..__.."..,-~_.~-,
~~'--'~"-"'-'-".""'.'-'"-'-~",-,~-",~,_._----,--,
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
fl, (~. A Clio Date:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Land Use Section, Chief
L;11/oc;
, .
Date: ~,ti
" ..-~
h K. Schmitt, Administrator
munity Deve]opment and Environmenta] Services Division
EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
91Page
Five Year Review of the Rura] Lands Stewardship Program [Volumes
and 2], March, 2009,
Comparison of Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
recommendations regarding improvements to the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay; comments and recommendations provided by
the Collier County Planning Commission; and comments and
recommendations provided by the Environmental Advisory Council.
Comments and recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission, dated March 5, 2009 regarding CCPC review of the original
January, 2009 Committee-recommended amendments to the RLSA
Overlay.
Comments and recommendations of the Environmenta] Advisory Council,
dated March 10, 2009 and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
Committee responses dated March ]2,2009 regarding EAC review of the
original January, 2009 Committee-recommended amendments to the
RLSA Overlay,
January 5, 2009 letter from the Committee requesting a special GMP
amendment cycle
Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects, 2008-20] ]
ATTACHMENT A
COMPARISON OF RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
("COMMITTEE") RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY WITH COMMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION ("CCPC") AND COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED
BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ("EAC").
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Environmental Advisory Council (EAC)
comments and recommendations were developed during a total of I] public meetings held
before the CCPC and the EAC beginning on January 28 and ending on March ]0. Copies of the
entire comments and recommendation of the CCPC and EAC are included as Attachment B
and Attachment C, respectively. These public meetings were held at the direction of the BCC
provided during its December 2, 2008 regular meeting.
For the ease of review of the varying recommendations of the Committee, the CCPC, and the
EAC, this Attachment A contains the entire Rura] Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay),
of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, including:
· Overlay language not recommended for amendment by the Committee;
· Overlay language recommended for amendment by the Committee where the Committee
agreed with the comments and recommendations of the CCPC (19 of 30 proposed policy
amendments) and which is incorporated into the Exhibit 1, Volume I Report; and
· Overlay language recommended for amendment bv the Committee where the Committee
differed with the CCPC comments and recommendations (11 of 30 proposed policy
amendments).Hence, the Committee's revised language is incorporated into the Exhibit
1, Volume 1 Report.
During the Committee's March 3 and March ]2,2009 public meetings the Committee approved
the maioritv of the CCPC March 5, 2009 recommended Overlay amendments (Attachment B).
However, there are eleven (I]) CCPC-recommended Overlay amendments in which the
Committee differed with the CCPC or felt that the CCPC-recommended Overlay amendment
could be improved. These differences are highlighted within this attachment. Accordingly, on
March ]2, 2009 the Committee voted to revise its original January, 2009 report entitled, "Five-
Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program", to include in Exhibit 1, Volume 1 the
following revisions:
· CCPC proposed language where the Committee was in full agreement with the CCPC-
recommended Overlay revisions; and
· Committee revised language where the Committee differed with the CCPC proposed
language revisions.
All of the Committee approved revisions are included in the Exhibit 1, Volume 1 Report of the
Committee.
11Page
Kev to text which follows
· Language originally recommended in January by the Committee to be deleted is shown
with strike tlrrOllgfl, while language proposed to be added is shown with underline.
· Language shown in red or blue was recommended bv the CCPC in its March 5. 2009
comments and recommendations to the BCC either as a deleti0H 0r addition,
. Language with a double stl'i!i@ tlu8t1gft represent deletions and double underline
represents additions included in the Committee's revised March 12. 2009
recommendations following the Committee's review of the full March 5, 2009 CCPC
recommendations (Attachment B) and the March 10, 2009 EAC recommendations
(Attachment C),
******************************************************************************
D. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
Goal (recommended amendment)
Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners
within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural
Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to proteet retain land for agricultural activities,
to prevent the premature conversion of agrieuIturalland to non agricultural uses, to direct
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat
connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations,
to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utilizes emplovs creative
land use planning techniques. throu2h the use of established incentives.
Objective (recommended amendment)
To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land
use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163 .3177( II),
F.S. The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups
relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group I policies describe the structure and organization of
the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture.
Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection; Bflti, Group 4 policies relate to conversion
of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure
that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the
minimum requirements 0f the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection.
Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Ovcrlay
Policy 1.1 (recommended amendment)
To promote a dynamic balance ofland uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) that collectively contribute~ to a viable agricultural industry, protect~ natural resources,
and enhance~ economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay), The Overlay was created through a
collaborativc community:based planning process involving county residents, area property
owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of
a citizen oversight committee.
21Page
Policy 1.2
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural
mixed-use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a
system of compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in
order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that
can be used to entitle such compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the
principles of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. The Overlay
includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are not dependent on
a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory
programs,
Policy 1.3
This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map)
and applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier
County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration
Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002, The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier
County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the
Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which approximately
182,334 acres is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM).
Policy 1.4
Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of
permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5,
unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is
the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and
protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall
occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition
of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of
land or interest in land through a willing seller program.
Policy 1.5 (recommended amendment)
As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and
other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Management Plan
(GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect
prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final
Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or
receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship
Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that "...."em owner's consent.
Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in
permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship
Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a
SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation
and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which
acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other
compensation to the owner for such designation, Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate
the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not
31Page
require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the
adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A
Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential
densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other
compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the
Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA is
terminated as provided elsewhere herein.
******************************************************************************
Policv 1.6.1 (Committee initial January, 2009 new Policy recommendation)
Notwithstanding anv provision herein to the contrarv, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending Area
("SSA"), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five vears ("Conditional Period") and
shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period mav be extended for one
additional year at the ootion of the owner bv orovidinl!: written notice to the County orior to the expiration of
the initial five vear period. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining
the existing propertv conditions. including all management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be
in full force throughout the Conditional Period. If at anv time during the Conditional Period anv of the
following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall become a Permanent Stewardship
Easement which shall be final. perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with the terms set forth therein:
1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving
Area (HSRA"). and the SRA has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders,
permits. or other discretionary aoorovals necessary to commence construction. includinl! subdivision olat
and site development plan approval. but not building permits, If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have
been assigned to more than one SRA. then the receipt of all necessary governmental final and non-
appealable develooment orders. permits. or other discretionary aporovals necessary to commence
construction of anv SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a
Permanent Stewardship Easement:
2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred anv Stewardship Credits to another person or entitv,
including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policv 1.20, the closing has occurred. and the owner
has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expresslv excluding:
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlving fee
title to the land, or
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned or
deyeloped bv a seoarate or related entitv. and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as re~uired bv
the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval: or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement
Agreement other compensation from local. state. federal or private revenues (collectiyely. the "Events").
The LDC shall specifv how, assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been
recorded, the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automaticallv convert to a Permanent Stewardship
Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) anv of the foregoing Events during the Conditional Period. or
(b) 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period, as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the
event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of the
SSA lands mav within 180 davs after the last dav of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional
Stewardship Easement bv recording a Notice of Termination. In addition. if a challenge and/or appeal of a
necessary development order, permit or other discretionarv approval is filed, the owner of the SSA lands
mav elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challenge or appeal is finally resolved. If the
challenl!.e or apneal is not resolved such that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to
the owner of the SSA lands. the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 davs of the final disposition of
4lPagc
the challen~e or appeal record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recordin~ of such Notice of
Termination. the Stewardship Easement Agreement and correspondin~ Stewardship Sendin~ Area Credit
Agreement shall exvire and terminate. the Stewardshiv Credits ~enerated bv the SSA shall cease to exist.
the ri~hts and obli~ations set forth in the Stewardshiv Easement shall no lon~er constitute an encumbrance
on the vrovertv. and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordin~lv. The owner of the SSA lands
shall vrovide a covv of the Notice of Termination to the Countv,
In the event that the Stewardshiv Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA
avvrovals. but none of the fore~oin~ events has occurred durin~ the Conditional Period. then the Notice of
Termination shall also provide for termination of anv SRAs that have been assi~ned credits from the SSA.
unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient Stewardshiv Credits from another source and such
Stewardshiv Credits have been avvlied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination does
terminate an SRA. the owner of the SRA lands shall ioin in the Notice of Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardshiv Easement is terminated. all benefits. ri~hts. vrivile~es.
restrictions and obli~ations associated with the SSA shall be null and void. and the land shall revert to its
underlvin~ zonin~ classification, free and clear of anv encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardshiv
Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If requested bv the owner of the SSA lands. Collier CounlY and the
other grantees under the Stewardshiv Easement Agreement shall vrovide a written release and termination
of easement and credit a~reements for recordin~ in the vublic records within 15 davs of request from the
owner of the SSA lands. Collier Countv shall uvdate the overlav mav to reflect the termination of anv SSA
or SRA.
This volicv shall be imvlemented in the LDC within 12 months after adovtion hereof.
CCPC Policy 1.6.1 reconunendations: The CCPC reconunended addin~ the following language at the
end of Policy 1.6. I:
For SSAs aDProved Drior to this Policv 1.6.1 bernl! adopted but have not cbanl!ed ownership in
whole or part since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred. sold or utilized Credits
l!enerated from the SSA. the Droperty owner mav withdraw the SSA desil!nation Drovide an
application for such withdrawal is imDlemented within 6 months of the adoption ofthis Policv 1.6.1.
Committee March 3 response to Policy 1.6.1 CCPC recommendations: On March 3 the Committee
voted to accept the CCPC recommendation as provided.
Policy 1.6.1 (Committee revised recommended amendment...acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
Notwithstandin~ anv Drovision herein to the contrary. UDon initial aVDroval of a Stewardship Sendinl!
Area ("SSA"). the Stewardshiv Easement shall be estahlished for a term of five vears ("Conditional
Period") and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period mav be
extended for one additional vear at the oDtion of the owner bv Drovidinl! written notice to the County
Drior to the exviration of the initial five vear period. All conditions and restrictions of the StewardshiD
Easement related to maintaininl! the existinl! proDertv conditions. includinl! all manal!ement oblil!ations
of the owner of the SSA lands. shall be in full force throul!hout the Conditional Period. If at anv time
durin~ the Conditional Period anv of the followinl! events occur. then the Conditional Stewardshiv
Easement shall become a Permanent Stewardshiv Easement which shall be fmal. verpetual and non-
revocable in accordance with the terms set forth therein:
1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assil!ned to entitle an aPDroved StewardshiD Receivin~
Area ("SRA"). and the SRA has received all necessarv fmal and non-avDealable develoDment
orders. Dermits. or other discretionarv aDProvals necessarv to commence construction. includin~
5lPage
subdivision Dlat and site development Dlan aDDroval. but not buildiul! permits. If Stewardship
Credits from the SSA have been assil!ned to more than one SRA. then the receiDt of all necessarv
I!overnmental final and non-appealable develoDment orders. permits. or other discretionary
aDProvals necessarv to commence construction of anv SRA shall automaticallv cause the
Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent StewardshiD Easement:
2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred anv Stewardship Credits to another Derson or
entity. includin!! a StewardshiD Credit Trust as described in Policv 1.20. the c1osinl! has occurred.
and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer. but not expresslv
excludinl!:
a. a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillarv to the sale or transfer of the underlvinl!
fee title to the land. or
b. instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA. whether the SRA is owned
or develoDed bv a seDarate or related entity. and the StewardshiD Credits are transferred as
required bv the Growth Manal!ement Plan or Land Development Code for SRA aDDroval: or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchan!!e for the creation of the Stewardship Easement
Al!reement other compensation from local. state. federal or Drivate revenues (collectivelv. the
"Events").
The LDC shall specifv how. assuminl! a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been
recorded. the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automaticallv convert to a Permanent
Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) anv of the forel!oin!! Events durinl! the
Conditional Period. or (b) 180 davs after the last dav of the Conditional Period. as and to the extent
extended hereunder. In the event that none of the forel!oin!! events has occurred durin!! the
Conditional Period. then the owner of the SSA lands mav within 180 davs after the last dav of the
Conditional Period terminate the Conditional StewardshiD Easement bv recordiul! a Notice of
Termination. In addition. if a challenl!e and/or aDDeal of a necessarv development order. Dermit or
other discretionarv aDDroval is filed. the owner of the SSA lands mav elect to extend the Conditional
Period until the challenl!e or aDDeal is finallv resolved. If the challenl!e or aPDeal is not resolved
such that the construction mav commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands. the
owner of the SSA lands mav within 180 davs of the final disposition of the challenl!e or appeal
record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recordinl! of such Notice of Termination. the Stewardship
Easement Al!reement and corresDondinl! Stewardship Sendinl! Area Credit Al!reement shall eXDire
and terminate. the Stewardship Credits I!enerated bv the SSA shall cease to exist. the ril!hts and
obli!!ations set forth in the StewardshiD Easement shall no lonl!er constitute an encumbrance on the
DrODerty. and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordinl!lv. The owner ofthe SSA lauds shall
provide a cOPV ofthe Notice of Termination to the Countv.
In the event that the StewardshiD Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA
approvals. but none of the forel!oinl! events has occurred durin!! the Conditional Period. then the
Notice of Termination shall also Drovide for termination of anv SRAs that have been assil!ned
credits from the SSA. unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient StewardshiD Credits from
another source and such StewardshiD Credits have been aDDlied to the SRA. In the event that a
Notice of Termination does terminate an SRA. the owner of the SRA lands shall join in the Notice of
Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated. all benefits. ril!hts. privilel!es.
restrictions and obli!!ations associated with the SSA shall be null and void. and the land shall revert
to its underlvinl! zoninl! classification. free and clear of anv encumbrance from the Conditional
StewardshiD Easement and SSA Credit Al!reement. If requested bv the owner of the SSA lands.
Collier County and the other I!rantees under the Stewardship Easement A!!reement shall Drovide a
61Page
written release and termination of easement and credit al!reements for recordinl! in the public
records within 15 davs of reauest from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County shall undate the
overlav map to reflect the termination of anv SSA or SRA.
This Dolicv shall be imDlemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof.
For SSAs annroved "rioT to this Policv 1.ti.1 heinp' adonted hut have not chanoed ownershin in
whole or Dart since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred. sold or ntili7.ed Credih
venera.ted from the SSA. the nronertv owner Olav withdraw the SSA desivnation nrovide an
annlication for such withdrawal is imnlernented within Ii months of the adontion of this Policv
l.6.1.
******************************************************************************
Policy 1.7 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on
the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated_herein as Attachment A, This methodology
and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay
District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but 00 not
be limited to the following: (I) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of
Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run
with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County,-and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission. Department of EllvirenmeHtal Proteetioll, D8j3artmellt of .^.grieliltlire alla COllslimer
Serviees, Solita Flonaa ''vater M6flagemellt Distriet, or a reeogHizea statewide laHa hUGt; and (3) for each
SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management
measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures.
CCPC Policy 1.7 recommendations: The CCPC recommended not to delete: "Department of
Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida
Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust;"
Committee March 3 response Policy 1.7 CCPC recommendations: On March 3 the Committee
voted to accent the CCPC recommendation provided the following words after Florida fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission in the 8th line be added: "and one of the followin~:". The
intent of the Committee is to have the ffWCC as a party to the easement agreements along with
the County and one of the other listed entities (to date the County and the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services have been parties to the easement agreements).
Policy 1.7 (Committee revised recommended amendment...with Committee alternative language
from that contained in the CCPC recommendation)
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set
forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated herein as Attachment A.
This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the
Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such
procedures shall include but Be not be limited to the following: (1) All Credit transfers shall be
recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement
shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier County
and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and one of the follow;n..: Department
of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida
Water Management District, or a recognized statewide land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the
Stewardship Sendinl! Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management measures
that will be undertaken and the party responsible for such measures.
7lPage
******************************************************************************
Policy 1.8
The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource
Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by
objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each
characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used
and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about
the natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from
important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation,
Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surfacc Water, Rcstoration Potential, and Land
Use/Land Cover.
Policy 1.9
A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship
Index value for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon
the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the Characteristics
of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases
any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding adjustment in the
credit value. The Index and the Index Map Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay.
Policy 1.1 0
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated trom the property, and the higher the natural resource
value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated
from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System
and protect the natural resources of the land
Policy 1.11
The Land Use Matrix, Attaclunent B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural
Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are b'rouped together in one of eight separate layers in the
Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented
in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer
eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available.
Each layer is assigned a percentage of a base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each
layer to be removed is added together and then multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive
at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA.
Policy 1.12
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteria and
standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or
SRAs.
Policy 1.13
The procedures for the establislunent and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and
will also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the District
will be adopted within one (I) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment.
81Page
Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA
on a per acre basis, as described in Policy 44& 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter
differ from the Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP
Amendment.
Policy 1.15
Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation.
Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located
within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits
assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be
increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System,
the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the
FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Policy 1.16
Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning
techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible
development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S, and 9J-5.006(5)(I).
Policy 1.17
Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to
compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within
the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering
shall not be permitted.
Policy 1.18
A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever,
Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private
conservation organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can
augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or
land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not
limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress
Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC).
Policy 1.19
All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA
Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier
County to use eminent domain acquisition within this system,
Policy 1.20
The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources
identified in Policy 1.1 8. Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship
Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise
used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas,
9lPage
Policy 1.21(recommended amendment)
The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as
the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water
retention areas. The County recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for
Credits in the early years of implementation, and also recognizes that a public benefit would be
realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the protection of
natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to
encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the
form of an additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located
outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA
located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall bc available for five years from the
effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early
designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas
does not require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and
Credits generated under the early entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus
period. The maximum number of Credits that can be generated under the bonus is 27,000
Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within the ACSC.
Policy 1.22 (recommended amendment)
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year
of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative,
incentive based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of
the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of
Community Affairs HIlOR tHe five year a1miversary of tHe adolltillR of tHe StewardsHill District iR
tHe LDC. as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. The purpose of the review shall
be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the
Goal, Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as
follows:
I. The amount and location ofland designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs,
2. The amount and location ofland designated as SRAs,
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use,
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a
Study and time ofreview.
5. The amount, location and type ofland converted to non-agricultural use with and without
participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption,
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and othcr sources Local, State,
Federal and private revenues described in Policy I,IS.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
S, The potential for use of Credits in urban areas,
10 I P a g c
Group 2 - Policies to prated agt'ieultuFllI lands from premature eOB-version to other uses
lIftfI retain land for al!:ricultural activities throul!:h the use of established incentives in order
12 continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. (Recommended amendment)
Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment)
Agricultureal landowners will be provided with lanas will be proteetea ffom prematllre
eonversioH to othcr Hses by erelltiHg incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the
property owner's right to convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for
compensation as described in Policies 1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs, as the fOfffi
of compaet rural aevelopmcHt iH the RLS!. Oyerlay, .'\nalysis has shown that SR.!.s will allow
the pre-jeetea pOflHlatioH of the RLS.'\ in the HorizoH year of 2025 to be aeeommsalltea OH
llflflrOllimately I o~(, of t.ae aereage stllerwise reEJuirea if SHeil compact rural ae',elopmeHt wcre
net allowea aHe to tile fleldbility afforaea to SHeil ae'lelopment. The esmbiHatioH of stcwar.aship
inecllli'les aHa laBa efiieieBt csmpact rural aevelopmeBt will miBimize two sf the primary
market factors tllat eause prematllre conversioH of agrieHltHre.
******************************************************************************
Policy 2.2 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in
Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17, In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA. HSA.
and WRA. as further described in Policies 3.1. 3.2 and 3.3, additional incentives are desired to retain
agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as
described in Policv 1.5. Open Lands are those lands not designated SSA. SRA. WRA. HSA. FSA. or
public lands on the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlav Map. Open Lands are those lands described
in Policv 4.2. Therefore. in lieu of using the Natural Resource Index on land designated Open, these lands
shall be assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern
(ACSC). as established bv F.S, 380.055 as of March 3. 2009. and two and sixth tenths (2,6) Credits per
acre within the ACSC. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to
agriculture Land Use Levels 5. 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver is discreet and shall be
removed sequentially and cumulativelv in the order presented in the Matrix. If a laver is removed. all
uses and activities in that laver are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an
Agricultural SSA. Collier Countv shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlav District Map to delineate the
boundaries of the Agricultural SSA.
CCPC Policy 2.2 recommendations:
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6, The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in
Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10. and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA. HSA.
and WRA. as further described in Policies 3.1. 3.2 and 3.3, additional incentives are desired to retain
agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as
described in Policv 1.5. Open Lands are those lands not designated SSA. SRA. WRA. HSA. FSA. or
public lands on the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlav Map, ODeR LaRds are those laRds
described iR Policy 1.2. Therefore. in lieu of using the Natural Resource Index on land designated Open.
these lands shall be assigned two (2,0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State
Concern (ACSC). and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC or ODen Lands
determined to be primary Danther habitat. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and the
remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5. 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver
is discreet and shall be removed sequentiallv and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a
laver is removed, all uses and activities in that laver are eliminated and no longer available, Following
lllPage
approval of an Alrricultural SSA. Collier Countv shall uvdate the RLSA Zoning Overlav District Map to
delineate the boundaries of the Alrricultural SSA.
Committee March 3 response to Policy 2.2 recommendation of the CCPC:
On March 3 the Committee voted not to accevt the CCPC recommendations and to keep the
proposed Committee recommended amendments, with the exception that the words, "as
established bv F.S. 380.055 as of March 3, 2009" be added after "ACSC".
EAC Policy 2.2 comments:
The EAC agrees with the inclusion of agricultural credits. It is stated that the purpose of this plan is to
preserve agriculture, The County should preserve its agricultural capacity in any way possible. (see
Attachment C)
Policy 2.2 (Committee revised recommended amendment...with alternative language from
that contained in the CCPC recommendation)
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as
Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs
are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to Drotectin!! a!!ricultore activities in
SSAs within FSA. USA. and WRA. as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. additional
incentives are desired to retain a!!riculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of
such lands nsin!! Baseline Standards as described in Policy 1.5. ODen Lands are those lands not
desi!!nated SSA. SRA. WRA. USA. FSA. or Dublic lands on the Rural Lands Stewards hiD Area
Overlav MaD. ODen LaDds are those lands described in Policv 4.2. Therefore. in lieu of usin!! the
Natural Resonrce Index on land desi!!nated ODen. these lands shall be assi!!ned two (2.01
StewardshiD Credits Der acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA). and two and
sixth tenths (2.6) Credits Der acre within the ACSC as edahlished hv F S. 380.055 as of March 3
2009. All non-a!!riculture uses shall be removed and the remainin!! uses are limited to a!!ricuIture
Land Use Levels 5. 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver is discreet and shall be removed
sequentiallv and cumulativelv in the order Dresented in the Matrix. If a laver is removed. all uses
and activities in that laver are eliminated and no lon!!er available. Followin!! aDDroval of an
A!!ricultural SSA, Collier County shall uDdate the RLSA Zonin!! Overlav District MaD to delineate
the boundaries of the A!!ricultural SSA.
******************************************************************************
Poliey 2.3 (Committee January, 2009 initiallv recommended deletion)
WitHin one (1) year from the effeetiye date of tHese am,mdmentG, Collier COllHty ,,:ill !!!!!y
establish an i\grictIitare Advisory Coancil compriscd of not less than H'ie ner mere tHaH nine
appointed rel3resentiHiveG of tHe agricliltare indliGtry, te atlvise tHe BCC on mattem relating to
f.gricaltare. The f.gricliltare f.dyisory CotlHcil U\f.C) will work to identify ol3l3ertlinitieG and
prepare strategies to enHBRce and promote tHe centinliBRee, eJlJlansien and diyersiHcatien of
agriealture in Collier Coanty. THe /\f.C will also identify Barriers to tHe continuance, eXJlansien
BRd diyersification of tHe agricultaral indliGtry and '...-ill preJlare recommendationG to eliminate or
minimize slicH Barriers in Collier COlinty. The :\f.C will also aGseGS wHetHer exceptions from
standards for Blisiness IiGes related to agriclllture SHollld be allowed lInaer an administrati'ie
Jlermit Jlracess BRa malce recommendations to tHe BCC.
CCPC Policy 2.3 recommendations: The CCPC recommendation is to retain Policy 2.3 as
currently written directly below.
12IPage
Within one (1) vear from the effective date of these amendments. Collier County will
establish an Al!riculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than
nine appointed representatives of the al!riculture industrv. to advise the BCC on matters
relatinl! to Al!riculture. The Al!riculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identiCv
opportunities and prepare stratel!ies to enhance and promote the continuance. expansion
and diversification of al!riculture in Collier County. The AAC will also identify barriers to
the continuance. expansion and diversification of the al!ricultural industry and will prepare
recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The AAC will
also assess whether exceptions from standards for business uses related to al!riculture
should be allowed under an administrative permit process and make recommendations to
the BCC.
Committee March 3 response to Policy 2.3 CCPC recommendation:
On March 3 the Committee voted to accept this CCPC recommendation, but to change "will" to
"mav" in the first sentence and delete the last sentence as these amendments will allow the BCC
an option of creating this Agricultural Advisory Council and will remove from its powers the
possibility of becoming advisory to the BCC relative to granting of exceptions from standards for
business uses related to agriculture,
EAC Policy 2.3 recommendation:
The EAC voted to retain the sections calling for formation of an Agricultural Advisory Council. See
Attachment C.
Policy 2.3 (Committee revised recommended amendment....with alternative language from
that contained in the CCPC recommendation)
Within one (1) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will ~
establish an Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than
nine appointed representatives of the agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters
relating to Agriculture. The Agriculture Advisory Council (AAC) will work to identify
opportunities and prepare strategies to enhance and promote the continuance, expansion
and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The AAC will also identify barriers to
the continuance, expansion and diversification of the agricultural industry and will prepare
recommendations to eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County. The ALe ',dll
al08 aaStHHI -!. ketlu~r ~neeJJti8Ba frOM ataRtlal th f.ol hUBmlHHJ UB8EJ relat@d to agriEu.Uure
ah.ould he aDo it etlllBdsl 8ft adm.ia.iBtlati-;e tH!lllut In 8@@flB aDd Mall! retHJBlmeRdatioRB to
the BCC.
******************************************************************************
Poliey 2.4 (Committee in January, 2009 initiaUv recommended deletion)
The BCC will eellsiaer the reeommellaatiells of the A!,C alia fueilitate the illlfllemelltatiea ef
strategies ma reeemmeaaatieas ideatifiea by the ACC that are aeteRHiaea te be appreflriate.
The BCC may adept amellameats te the LDC thut illlfllemell! pelieies that supper! agflooltare
aetivities.
CCPC recommendation regarding Policy 2.4: CCPC recommendation was to retain Policy 2.4
as it currently exists.
13IPage
Committee March 3 response to Policy 2.4 CCPC recommendations: The Committee voted to
accept the CCPC recommendation to retain Policy 2.4.
Policy 2.4 (Committee revised recommendation is to retain Policy 2.4 and agreed with
CCPC recommendation)
The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation
of strategies and recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be
appropriate. The BCC may adopt amendments to the LDC that implement policies that
support agriculture activities.
******************************************************************************
Policy 2.5
Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being.
Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida
Right-to-Farm Act.
Policy 2.6
Notwithstanding the special provIsIOns of Policies 3.9 and 3,10, nothing herein or in the
implementing LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that
have not been placed into the Stewardship program.
Group 3 - Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water
regime, as well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of
Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas,
where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 3.1
Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall
occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the
RLSA Overlay, FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100
acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais
Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough, These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in
the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and
transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures
described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms
of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value
from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation, Analysis of the Index Map
Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96% score greater
than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8.
Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment)
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of
Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on
the Overlay Map and contain approximately 10,000 45,782 acres, HSAs are privately owned
agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable
habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included
14 I P age
because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can
augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the
creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the
establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies, Not all lands within the
delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall be used
to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation.
Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There
are approximately 13,800 IS.IS6 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The
average Index score of HM HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of
the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is I.S.
Policy 3.3
Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of
Water Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay, WRAs are delineated on
the Overlay Map and contain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that
have been permitted by the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural
water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland
vegetation; in other cases they are excavated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The
Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of
Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in
Group I Policies, Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their
natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower
value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows
that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2
while 26% score 1.2 or less, The average Index score ofWRA land is I,S,
Policy 3.4
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources.
Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,SOO acres.
Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score
of I.S. Because these existing public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already
protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve
an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA.
Policy 3.5
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational
Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for
compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Conditional use essential
services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses
or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index
value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared
or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize
impacts to native habitats, Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property
owner in exchange for compensation, The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not
preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a
restoration or mitigation program within a FSA.
15lPage
Policy 3.6
Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending
Areas in exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3,8. Other
layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for
compensation.
Policy 3.7 (recommended amendment)
General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be
allowcd only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less.
Conditional use essential services and governmental esscntial services, other than those
necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a
Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less, Asphaltic and concrete batch making
plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or
previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order
to minimize impacts to native habitats, In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for
approval of a Conditional Use. such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an ms
Environmentallmoact Statement lEIS) which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has
been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their
habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers, As an alternative to the
foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved
restoration or mitigation program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA
shall comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards
shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact:
· Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the
parcel.
. Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas.
. Buffering to Conservation Land shail comply with Policy 4.13.
Policy 3.8
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following
mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation
easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or
interest in land through a willing seller program.
Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment)
I, Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue
to be permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture
Group classifications described in the Matrix, The Ag I group includes row crops, citrus,
specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching,
aquaculture [limited to Open Land designation onlvl and similar activities, including
related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag I areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such
activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to
another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship
Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no
16 I P age
further expansion of Ag I will be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted
limits within property subject to a credit transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth
in Paragraph 2 below.
2. In order to encourage viable Ag I activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert
from one Ag I use to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag I areas,
square up existing farm fields, or provide access to or from other Ag I areas, provided that
the Ag I Land Use Layer has been retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the
Natural Resource Index Value score has been adjusted to reflect the proposed change in
land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above criteria and is
limited to I % of the area of the SSA. In the event said incidental clearing impacts lands
having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall be
provided,
Policy 3.10
Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities,
including related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such
activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and
expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is
utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag
2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag I will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted
limits within property subject to a credit transfer.
******************************************************************************
Policy 3.11 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
L In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration.
Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or
otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife
corridors. Priority shall be gi'ien to restoration 'i.ithin the Caffip Kellis Stl'llfld PSt. or
eontigHous HS.\s. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration
activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Keais Strand PSt. or eontiglioas HS.\s, roar two
additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated, An
additional t'i.O Stewar.aship ereditG shall be assigned for eaeh acre of land dedieated fur
restoratioH activities within other PSt.s HIld HSAs. The actual implementation of restoration
improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration
shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration,
Should an owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with feH!'
additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met
applicable success criteria as determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration.
The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre.
or for exotic controllburning at 4 Credits per acre. or for flow wav restoration at 4 Credits per
acre. or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre, Within the area proposed for
restoration. Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of
additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations. as generallv illustrated in the RLSA Overlav Map. there mav be
opportunities to create. restore. and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a
southern panther corridor connection. Should a propertv owner be willing to dedicate land for
171Page
the purpose of establishing and mamtammg the northern or southern panther corridor, 2
additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre ofland so dedicated. Should an
owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, this shall be rewarded with 8
additional Credits per acre,
3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal. shallow wetland wading
bird foraging habitat. restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO.
Dedication of anv area inside an FSA. HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration
shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits ver acre, Should the landowner successfully
complete the restoration, an additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded.
Only one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for
restoration.
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be
addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution
agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved, Also not precluded are
various private and publicly funded restoration programs such as the federal Farm Bill
conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits
shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
CCPC Policy 3.11 recommendations are limited to paragraph 2 shown directly below:
2. In certain locations. as generally illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Map, there may be
ovportunities to create. restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a
southern panther corridor connection, Should a propertv owner be willing to dedicate land for
the purpose of establishing and maintaining the northern or southern panther corridor, 2
additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre ofland so dedicated. Should an
owner also effeetivet-. eORlplete the eorridor restoration. this shaU be rewarded with 8
additional Credib per aere. Once an entire corridor meetinl! minimum criteria
established for such corridor. is dedicated as SSA's and restoration of the entire
corridor is comuleted by the land Owner(s). this shaD be rewarded with 8 additional
credits uer acre.
Committec March 12 responsc to Policy 3.11 CCPC recommendations: On March 12 the
Committee voted to replace thc originally proposed Committee language for the last two
sentences of paragraph 2 with the following: "Should a property owner in a federally approved
corridor designate the required property for such corridor, 2 Stewardship Credits shall be
assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credits
may be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal
permit. The procedures shall be set forth in the LDC."
EAC Policy 3.11 comments: See Attachment C.
Committee response to Policy 3.11 EAC comments: See Attachment C.
Policy 3.11 (Committee revised recommended amendment...with alternative language
from that contained in the CCPC recommendation)
1.In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration.
Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted
or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance
18 I P age
wildlife corridors. Priority shaD be gi':cB to restoratioB witkin the Camp Keais StraBd
FSf. or eOBtigllolls HSAs. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for
restoration activities within a FSA or HSA the Camp Kilais StraBd FSA or COlltigllOllS
HS/.s, four two additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so
dedicated. 1.1l additiollal two Stev:ard~hill credits shaD be Bssiglled fer CBch acre of lalld
dedieatcd for re~tllrBtioll acti',ities v:ithill othcr FSAs aDd HSf.s. The actual
implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such
credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private
entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration
improvements, this shall be rewarded with ffitw additional Credits for each acre of
restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as
determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits
shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2 Credits Der acre. or for exotic
controVburnin2 at 4 Credits Der acres. or for flow way restoration at 4 Credits Der acre.
or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits Der acre. Within the area DroDosed for
restoration. Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The sDecific Drocess for assi2nment
of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the StewardshiD District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations. as 2enerallv illustrated in the RLSA Overlay MaD. there may be
oDDortunities to create. restore. and enhance a northern Danther corridor connection
and a southern Danther corridor connection. Should a orooertv owner in a federallv
ann roved corridor desig-nate the reouired oronertv for such corridor. 2 Steward shin
Credits shall be assilmed for each acre of land so dedicated. Issuance of the 8 restoration
imnlementation credits mav he ohased to coincide with a ohased imnlementation nrocess
in accordance with the federal oermit. The orocedures shall be set forth in the I,DC
3. In order to address a sitznificant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal. shallow wetland
wadin2 bird fora2in2 habitat. restoration of these uniaue habitats will be incentivized in
the RLSAO. Dedication of any area inside an FSA. HSA. or WRA for such seasonal
wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits Der acre. Should the
landowner successfullv comDlete the restoration. an additional 6 Credits Der acre shall
be awarded.
Onlv one tyDe of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre
desitznated for restoration and in no case shall 2reater than 10 Credits be awarded Der
~
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be
addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer
contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not
Drecluded are various Drivate and Dubliclv funded restoration Dr02rams such as the
federal Farm Bill conservation Dr02rams. The specific process for assignment of
additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
Staff comments: Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to further substantive
review for sufficiency and consistency with all elements of the GMP, the Final Order, and data
and analysis sufficient to justify and support this GMP amendment. [Comprehensive Planning]
19 I P age
1. Any level of restoration or maintenance receives the same amount of credits. The credit value
should be tied to the functional lift and there should be levels of credit that could be earned,
[Engineering and Environmental Services]
2. The management plan should include more than the 1 exotic plants listed by County Code
(FLEPPC Category 1). Various other exotics have been observed. [Engineering and
Environmental Services]
3. The LDC should define more specific requirements on what management plans entail.
[Engineering and Environmental Services]
4, Restoration should be to a native habitat. [Engineering and Environmental Services]
(page 129 of Volume 1)
******************************************************************************
Policy 3.12
Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and eXlstmg public/private
conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural
resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the
protection, enhancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land
within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included
in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is
designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the
matrix.
******************************************************************************
Policy 3.13 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment):
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been pennitted for this
purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance,
in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each
WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the
Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for
properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However. if
the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusivelv for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA shall be
included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in
accordance with SFWMD permitting.
CCPC Policy 3.13 reconmlended amendment:
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this
purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance,
in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each
WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the
Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for
properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However. if
the WRA provides water treatment and retention e)(elllsi'lelv for a SRA. the acreage of the WRA used as
primarv treatment for water management for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are
understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Committee response to CCPC recommcndation: The Committee voted to accept the recommendation of
the CCPe.
20 I P age
Policy 3.13 (Committee revised recommended amendment...accept CCPC recommendation)
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been pennitted for this
purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance,
in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) pennits applicable to each
WRA. WRAs can also be pennitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the
Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for
properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if
the WRA orovides water treatment and retention for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA used as nrimary
treatment for water mana~ement for the ~shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are
understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD pennitting.
*******************************************************************************
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired,
including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment,
grading, excavation or filL Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and
approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and
modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the
WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will
provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA
contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to
that Strand or Slough.
*************************************************************************************
Policv 3.15 (CCPC-initially proposed recommended new policy}
Anv development shall be compatible with surroundinl!: land uses. Within l-vear of the effective
date of this policv LDC rel!:lllations shall be implemented for outdoor lil!:htinl!: usinl!: standards
modeled from the Dark Skv (www.darkskV.orl!:) prol!:t'am to protect the nighttime environment,
conserve enerl!:V. and enhance safety and securitv.
Committee March 3 response to Policy 3.15 CCPC recommendation: On March 3 the
Committee voted to accept the CCPC proposed new policy, but with the following reolacement
wordinl!::
Policv 3.15 (Committee revised recommended amendment...a revision from CCPC
recommendation)
Anv develonment on lands narticinatinl! in the RI,S Prol!ram shall he comnatihle with
surroundinp land uses. Within one vear of the effective date of this Policv I,DC repulations
shall be imnlemented for outdoor Iil!htinp to nrotect the nil!httime environment. conserve
enert!V. and enhance safetv and securitv.
******************************************************************************
Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate
locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes
creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving
Areas.
21 I P age
Policy 4.1
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and
diversification of the economic base of the RLSA, Collier County will also encourage
development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of
development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving
Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and support the diversification and vitality of the rural
economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted
capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District.
************************************************************************************
Policy 4.2 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a
Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and
other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay,
extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter
163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be
predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs
generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have
been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA
designation include approximately ~ 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximatelv ~
15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45.000 acres.
AI'I'Te"imately 2~~ of tHese lallas aeHieve aR lIlae" score greater tbaR 1.2. Because the Overlay requires
SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and
infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine development suitability are
not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the I'rilleil'les ef
tHe Ruml Lallas Ste\yarashil' f.et as furtHer aeseribea procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA
Zoning Overlav District.
CCPC Policy 4.2 recommcndations:
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a
Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and
other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay,
extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter
163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be
predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs
generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have
been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA
designation include approximately ~ 72.000 acres outside of the ACSC and approximately ~
15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum creation of 315.000
stewardship credits. ef Hi.OIlIl aeres. /\pprOJlimately 2% of tHese lallas aehieve aR Inae" scere greater
tball 1.2. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the
provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional loeational standards normally applied to
determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for
designating a SRA follows the I'rilleil'les of tHe Rafal LaRas StewarasHil' ,'.ct as furtHer aescribed
procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlay District.
22 I P age
Committee March 3 response to Policy 4.2 CCPC recommendations:
On March 3 the Committee voted not to accept the CCPC recommendation and to keep the originally
recommended Committee language. The Committee discussion included the following in support of
retaining the Committee recommendations as originally recommended:
· The Committee-proposed SRA "footprint" cap of 45,000 acres would provide a definite and
measurable limit on the amount of compact urban development which may occur in the RLSA;
. The Committee-proposed SRA "footprint" cap of 45,000 acres also would place an indirect cap on
the number of credits;
. Proposed new Policy 1.6.1" if approved, would pennit "conditional SSAs" (Credits) at the option of
the applicant providing for a 5 year + I year extension where the applicant may opt out of the
permanent loss of land use rights while, at the same time lose the Credits;
. The use of Credits is how the public benefit is provided by property owners voluntarily restricting the
land uses on their lands to protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive land. A cap on Credits
would place a limit on the amount of public benefit possible;
. The proposed cap on Credits is legislation which is contrary to the voluntary nature of the RLSA
program;
. The existing Credit-based RLSA program would allow an estimated maximum of 43,312 acres of
SRA "footprint" (see page 76 of Volume I) while the proposed Credit system would allow a
maximum of 45,000 acres of SRA "footprint" but would also incentivize agriculture preservation and
Florida Panther preservation,
. The Committee points out that existing Policy 1.18 allows public entities to use Credits to protect
property from development (in lieu of the normally more fee simple purchase) while the property
remains in private ownership and maintenance and that this Policy also provides a practical end use
for the employ of Credits.
EAC Policy 4.2 comments: see Attachment C
Com.nittee response to Policy 4.2 EAC comments: See Attachment C
Policy 4.2 (Committee recommended no revision to its originally recommended amendment and
non acceptance of CCPC recommendation)
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been
designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the
suitability criteria and other standards described in Gronp 4 Policies. Dne to the long-term vision of
the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines
established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA
cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to
be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of
agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this pnrpose. Lands shown on
the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately ~ 72.000 acres outside
of the ACSC and aPDroximatelv l3,3OO 15.000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA desilmation shall
be a maximum of 45.000 acres. Approximately 2%. of these lands aehicYe an Index seore greater
than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the
provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditionallocational standards normally applied
to determine development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process
for designating a SRA follows the prineiples of the RHFal Lands Ste"NllI'dship Aet as further
deseribed Drocedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoninll Overlav District.
23lPage
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment)
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such
designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall
include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of
consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein,
compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will
acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Within ORe year from tfie eff...etive
date of tfiis amendment, Collier COIIRty shall aElopt LDC ameRElments to establish the proeeBllre3 aRd
submittal re'llliremefllS fDr E1esigRation as a SR.'., to incllldc provisioR3 f.ar con3ideration of iffifJaetG,
iaclllaiRg eR','iroftffiental and publie iRfrastrncture impacts, aRd provisioRs for pHblie notiee of ana the
Ol'l'oflllmty for public paflicil'alion in all) consideration by' tHe BeC of sueh a de3igflatioR.
Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. Such
updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively
incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it
periodically occurs.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.5 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that
the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is
designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as
FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the extent practicable. the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent
with the Countv's then-adopted Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Countv Build Out Vision
Plan in Policv 3.7 of the Transportation Element. and Access Management procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human
and wildlife interactions. Low intensitv land uses (e.g. parks. passive recreation areas. golf
courses) and vegetation preservation requirements. including agriculture. shall be used to
establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated bv human activities.
Consideration shaH be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to
reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shaH also require the dissemination of
information to local residents. businesses and governmental services about the presence of
wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while minimizing
opportunites for negative interaction. such as appropriate waste disposal practices,
CCPC Policy 4.5 recommendations:
To address the specifics of each SRA. a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that
the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is
designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as
FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the exteRt practicable, tThe SRA Master Plan shall be
cORsistCRt comDlv with the Countv's then-adopted Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). the Countv
Build Out Vision Plan as mav be amended and referenced in Policv 3.7 of the Transportation Element.
and Access Management procedures.
241Page
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human
and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. PRrks. passiye recreation areas. golf
courses) and vegetation preservation requirements. including agriculture. shall be used to
establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities,
Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to
reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of
information to local residents. businesses and governmental services about the presence of
wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while minimizing
opportunites for negative interaction. such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
Committee March 12 response to CCPC Policy 4.5 recommendations: The Committee voted to
accept the CCPC recommendations.
Policy 4.5 (Committee revised recommended amendment...acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that
the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is
designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as
FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The SRA Master Plan shall c~ with the Countv's then-adopted
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). the Countv Build Out Vision Plan as mav be amended and
referenced in Policv 3.7 of the Transportation Element. and Access Management procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human
and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. I'llIf'ks. passive recreation areas. golf
courses) and vegetation preservation requirements. including agriculture. shall be used to
establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities,
Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to
reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of
information to local residents. businesses and governmental services about the presence of
wildlife and practices that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while minimizing
opportunites for negative interaction. such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.6 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in
Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I). These planning strategies and techniques include urban
villages, new towns. satellite communities, area-based allocations. clustering and open space provisions,
and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while
protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other
predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and
services. The SRA shall also include a mobilitv plan that includes consideration of vehicular.
bicvcle/pedestrian. public transit. internal circulators. and other modes of travel/movement within and
between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses, The mobilitv plan shall provide mobilitv
strategies such as bus subsidies. route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass
transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the Countv Build
Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture. and
reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of
251Page
discouraging urban sprawl, .encouraging alternative modes of transportation. increasing internal capture
and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
CCPC Policy 4.6 recommendations:
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in
Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S. and 9J-5,006(5)(I). These planning strategies and techniques include urban
villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions,
and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while
protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other
predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and
services. The SRA shall also include a mobilitv plan that includes eenaiEieretien of vehicular.
bicvcle/pedestrian. public transit, internal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and
between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses. The mobilitv plan shall provide mobility
strategies such as bus subsidies. route sponsorship or other incentives which encourage the use of mass
transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the Countv Build
Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture, and
reduce trip length and long distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as methods of
discouraging urban sprawl, ,encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal capture
and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Committee March 12 response to CCPC Policy 4.6 recommcndations: The Committee voted to
accept the CCPC recommendations.
Policy 4.6 (Committee revised recommended amendment...acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced
in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I). These planning strategies and techniques include
urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space
provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to
other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of
agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery
of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobilitv plan that includes vehicular.
bicvcle/pedestrian. public transit. internal circulators. and other modes of travel/movement within
and between SRAs and areas of outside develoDment and land uses. The mobilitv plan shall provide
mobilitv stratel!ies such as bus subsidies. route sponsorship or other incentives which encoural!e the
use of mass transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the
County Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase
internal caDture. and reduce trip lemrth and lonl! distance travel. Such development strategies are
recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl, .encoural!inl! alternative modes of
transportation. increasinl! internal caDture and reducinl! vehicle miles traveled.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment)
There are futlf three specific forms of SRA pennitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages,
Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD), The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and
CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 aOO
4+.4. Cellier Cmmty SHall establiSH mere s ~pecific regulations, guidelines and standards within the
LDC Stewardship District Ie guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning
and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). The size and
base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The
maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density
26 I P age
blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan or through the affordable-workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating
System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total
number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not
restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will
be detennined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.7.1 (initial Committee January, 2009 recommended amendment)
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.
Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use,
human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability.
Towns shall be not less than 1,000 1.500 acres or more than--4;\lOO 5.000 acres and are comprised of
several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a
mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services.
Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected
sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal
mobility plan. which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriately located
within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall
have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also haye parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both
community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, iH a ratio as pro'iidea described in Policy 4+S
4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research. development companies.
and light industrial uses such as those pennitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park
Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those included in Policy 4,7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for
the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other
to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design
criteria for Towns are shall 8e included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located
within the ACSC.
CCPC Policy 4.7.1 recommendations:
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses.
Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use,
human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability.
Towns shall be greater Bet less than MOO 1.500 acres and UP to er !flere iliaft 1,000 5.000 acres and are
comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns
shall haye a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support
services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include
an internal mobilitv plan. which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriatelv
located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation.
Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit
in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both
community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, iH a rotie as pre'lidea described in Policy 4+S
4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research, development companies,
and light industrial uses such as those pennitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park
Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those included in Policy 4.7.4, Towns shall be the preferred location for
the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other
to allow for the sharing ofrecreational facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design
27 I P age
criteria for Towns are shall ee included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located
within the ACSC.
Committee March 12 response to CCPC Policy 4.7.1 recommendations: The Committee voted to
accept the CCPC recommendations,
Policy 4.7.1 (Committee revised recommended amendment....acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of
uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact,
mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and
increase livability. Towns shall be Rot hHi~ than 1,fHU} p'reater than 1 500 acres and 110 to 81" molt~
than 1,QQQ ~ acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have
individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a
focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system
serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobilitv Dlan. which shall
include a transfer station or Dark and ride area that is aPDroDriatelv located within the town to
serve the connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least
one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include
both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, iR a ratio as pro...i"e" described in
Policy 4AS 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office. research.
develoDment companies. and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and
Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those included in Policv 4.7.4.
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as Drovided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns ill shall be
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.7.2 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character ofthe particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or
more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and not more than 1.500 acres outside
the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include
a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities.
Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected
sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public
green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in
a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policv 4.7.4 shall also be
permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent
possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
CCPC Policy 4.7.2 recommendations:
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be I!reater Rot leGS than 100
acres and UP to Elr mere thaR 1.000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to Rot more
tIttHt 1.500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of residential
neighborhoods and shall includc a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the
28 I P age
community's support services and facilities, Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall
include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15, Aoorooriatelv
scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages are an appropriate
location for a full range of schools, To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to
each other to allow for the sharing ofrecreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included
in the LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan
which shall include a transfer station or park and ride area that is aooropriatelv located within the village
to serve the connection ooint for internal and external oublic transoortation.
Committee March 12 response to Policy 4.7.2 CCPC recommendations: The Committee yoted to
accept the CCPC recommendation,
Policy 4.7.2 (Committee revised recommended amendment....acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall he !!reater Bot less
than 100 acres and uo to or Mal @ thaR 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and UP
to Rat Man thaR 1.500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are comprised of
residential neighhorhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for
the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian
and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods.
Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy
4.15. ApDroDriatelv scaled uses described in Policv 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villa!!es. Villages
are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design
criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. ViIla!!es greater than 500
acres shall include an internal mobilitv plan which shall include a transfer station or park and ride
area that is aDoropriatelv located within the villa!!e to serve the connection Doint for internal and
external public transDortation.
******************************************************************************
Paliey 1.7.3 (recommended deletion)
IImn/ets are small mrol resiaetilial areas with primarily siagle family ho..siag ami limited I'llRge of
eowlellieaee orietiled sen"ees, Hamlets shall Be HOt less thaa 10 or more tl1aa 100 aeres. Hamlets will
serve as a more eompaet altemative to traditional five aere lot fliffll mmaivisioas eurrently allowed ia the
Baseliae standards. Hamlets shall ha'le a puelie green spaee fer aeigl1Bomoods. Hamlets ioolude
eoavenienee retail ..ses, ia a ratio as provided ia f.-ltachfRetil C. Hamlets Hlft). Be aa 8Jlprapriete loeatien
fur pre K thr8llgh clemetilary sehaols. Design eriteria far Hamlels shall Be included ia the LDC
Stewardship Distriet. To maiataia a proportiaa of lIamlels to Villages and Towas, Hot more tl1aa 5
Hamlets, ia eom13iaatian with CRns of 100 aeres or less, may Be approved as SPv^.s priar to tho 8Jlproval
of a Village or To.....a, aRd thereafter Rot more thaa 5 adaitioRal lIamlets, ia com13iaatieR with CRns ef
100 acres ar less, fflft)'Be 8Jlproved for eaeh SliBSeEjuent Village or To.....n,
******************************************************************************
Policy 4rlA 4.7.3 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will proviae flexiBility with respeet to the
mix of uses afld design standards, But shall otherwise eOlfljJly with the standards of a lIamlet or Village.
shall suoport and further Collier County's valued attributes of agriculture. natural resources and economic
29 I P age
diversitv, CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services necessarY to further these
attributes within the RLSA. PrimarY CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support
research. education. convenience retail. tourism or recreation, Appropriatelv scaled compatible uses
described in Policv 4,7.4 mav also be pennitted in CRDs. A CRD may include, but is not required to have
permanent residential housing, aAa the ser/iees aHa faeititie, Ihat StIppoFl pemiBAeat resiaems. The
number of residential units shall be eQuivalent with the demand l!enerated bv the primarY CRD use. but
shall not exceed the maximum of two units per lIToss acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres.
.'.n e"ample ef a CRn is an eeete..rism ';ilIage that w,ltIla have a liHi(jlie set of ..ses aAa sllj3peFl s~rvi~e'
aiffereHl frem a traaitieAal resia~Hlial village. It wo..la eeHlaiA trami""t leagiAg faeilities ana serviee,
Bflprellriate to ~~e leHrists, Imt ma)' AOt llr0'/iae fer !he range of sef'/iees that ~ Aee~sslli)' to sHflllert
flefffiaHeHt resiaents. El(eellt as aoseribea above, a CRn will ~eAform te the charaeteristies ef a Village or
Haml~t as set forth en .^.ttaehrnoHl C basea en the size efthe CRD. ."'s resiaeHlial llRits are net a requirea
lise, these geeas ana serviee, that s"flflert rosiaents s"eh as retail, emee, eivie. gO'/emmeAtal ana
institHtieAal Hses shall alse Hot be reqllired, , Hhe'lie'/or, for any CRn that aee, inelHae fl_Hent
residential hOHsiAg, the flropertienate sllj3pert serviees listed ""eve shall Be provid~d in aeeeraaAee with
,'.ttaohment C. Te maintaiH a flreflertioA ef CRns ef 100 aeres er Ie" te Villages aAd Towns, Aet mere
than 5 CRDs ef 100 aefes er Ie", in eembinatien with Hamlets. ffitly be appre'/ed as SR.'.s flnor te the
BflflfO'/al of a Village er TewH, and thereafter ner more thaA 5 aaaitienal CRns ef 1Q0 aeres or le'8, iH
eembinatieA with Hamlets, may be lIflflftlYed ofr eaeh sllbse,!..""t Village er Town. There shall be no
more than 5 CRns of more thaA 100 affi'es in size. The aflllrollriatoAess of this limitatioA shall be
r~...ie'.v~d iA 5 years pHrSllant 10 Petiey 1.22.
CCPC Policy 4.7.3 recommendations:
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will flrovide !1e"ibility v/ith resfleet to the
mil( ef lIses aAa desigH standards, bllt shall etherwise eeHlflly with the standards of a Hamlet er Village,
shall support and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of agriculture. natural resources and economic
diversitv. CRDs shall demonstrate a uniQue set of uses and support services necessarY to further these
attributes within the RLSA. Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support
research. education. convenience retail. tourism or recreation. .'.lIl1rellnatclv sealed eelBllaHble uses
deseribed ift Pelle', 1.1.1ma"\' als8 be lIermitted ift CRDs. A CRD may include, but is not required to
have permanent residential housing, 8Aa Ihe serviees and faeilities that s"Pflott flermanoHl resideHls. and
the services that support permanent residents. The number of residential units shall be eQuivalent with
the demand l!enerated bv the primary CRD use, but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per gross
acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. .'.A el(aHlflle of a CRn is an eceteHnsm villago that
weula have a lIniquo set ef lIses and sHfllleFl serviees different frem a traditieool rosid~Hlial village. It
"/eula eeHtaiH Iran,ieHlledging faeilities and serviees appropriate te eee tOllri'ts, bllt ma)' net flrevide fer
the ffiflge ef s~rviees that ~ neeessary te s"fl\3ert flefffianent r~sidems. Bxeept as deseribed abeve, a CRD
';/ill eenform te the eharaeteristies ef a Village er Hamlet as set f.erth eR ,"'tlaellment C basea en the size
ef the CRD. ,A,S resid~Hliall",its are net a relJ'lir~d lise, these geea' and services that sllpflert resiaeRts
saeh as rotail, effice, eivie, govemmentalaAa iAslilHtional ases shall alse net be r~'llfirea, , llhewever,
fer aRY CRD that dees inelaae \3ermaneHl rcsideHlial heasing, the flfOfl8rtieflate sllflflert serviees listed
abe\"e shall be flreviaed in acoerdanee "lith ."'{taehmeRt C. Te ffitlintaifl a \3r8\3ortieH ef CRDs of 100
aeres er loss to Villages aOO T o'.\'ns, Rot mere thaR 5 CRDs of 100 aeres er less, in eombinatieR with
Hamlets, ffitly be a\3\3re'led as SR."'s flrior to the Bflflreval ef a Village er TOV/fl, ana thereafter ner mere
thaR 5 additienal CRns of 100 acres er less, in eombilllllieA with Illllfllets, may Be Bfl\3revea efr eaoh
subse,!..ent Village er Town. Thcre shall be no mere than 5 CRns ef mere t-han 100 aer~s in size, To
maintain a proportion of CRDs of 100 acres or less to VilIal!es and Towns. not more than 5 CRDs of
100 acres or less mav be approved as SRAs prior to the aDDroval of a VilIal!e or Town. and
thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or less mav be aDDroved prior to each
subseauent Villal!e or Town. The Bfl\3reflriateness of this limitalien shall be reviewed in 5 years
plll'SHant to Poliey 1.22.
30lPage
Committee response to CCPC Policy 4.7.3 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept
the CCPC recommendations.
Policy 4.+.4 4.7.3 (Committee revised recommended amendment...acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that v:illpl'ovide i1exihili~' with respeet ta
the mix af uses aBddesigB staBdBFds, hut shall atherwise eamply with the staBdards af a Hamlet ar
Village. sball support and further Collier County's valued attributes of al!riculture. natural
resources and economic diversity. CRDs sball demonstrate a unique set of uses and support services
necessarv to further tbese attributes witbin tbe RLSA. Primarv CRD uses shall be those associated
with and needed to SUDPort researcb. education. convenience retail. tourism or recreation. A CRD
may include, but is not required to bave permanent residential bousing, aDd the scniees aBd
faeilities that !i1t1llllort fJermftaent resideBts. and the ~ervice!il and r Militil1R that !liillnnort nermanent
residents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent witb tbe demand l!enerated bv the
Drimarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per l!ross acre. A CRD shall be a
maximum size of 100 acres. AB example af a CRD is aB ecataurism '/illage that would ha'/e a uBique
set of uses aBd support services differeBt from a traditioBal rcsideB8al village. It would cOBtaiB
traBsieDt 10dgiDg faeilitieo aBd senices appropriate te eeo taurists, hut may Bot provide for the
raBge of senices that ~ Deeessary to support permaBcBt rcsideBts. Exeept as descrihed aho'/e, a
CRn will eeBf~l'm to the charaeteristies of R Village or Hamlet as set forth OB .'\ttaehmeBt C hascd
OB the size af the CRD. As rcsidential uBits are Bot a required use, those goods a&d services that
support reoidcBts such as retail, offiee, chic, goveromeotal aod iostit08aDal uses shall also oot he
requil'ed, : ,Hho'l/cyer, for aoy CRD that does ioelude permaoeot resideotial housiBg, the
prOpOl'tioBate support services Iistcd ahove shall he pravided io aecordaBee with Attaehme&t C. To
maiotaio apl'oportio& of CRDs of 199 acres or less to Villages aod TowBs, Rat more thaB S CRDs of
199 aeres or lcss, i& comhioa800 with Hamlcts, may he appl'oved as SilAs prior to the approyal of
a Village or Towo, a&d thcreafter 001' mare thao S addi800al CRDs of 199 aCl'es or less, io
eomhioa800 v:ith Hamlets, may he approyed ofr eaeh suhsequeot Village or Tow&. To maintain a
nronortion "feRns of 100 acre!lil or le!lii!il to VilJsP'e!lil and Town!lii. not more than 5: CRDs of 100 acre!lil
or le!lil!lil mav he annroved 3!1il SRAs "rior to the annroval of a Villspe or Town and thereafter not
more than 5 additional CRD!Iil of 100 ftcre!lil or le!iils may he annroved "rior to each suhseouent VilJape
or Town. Thcre shall he DO more thao S CRDs of mal'e thao 199 acres iB size. The
appropriateBess of this Iimita800 shall he reyie'lI ed io S years pUTSuaBt to Policy 1.22.
******************************************************************************
Policv 4.7.4 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended new policy)
Existing urban areas. Towns and Villa~es shall be the preferred location for business and industrv within
the RLSA. to further promote economic sustainabilitv and development. diversification and iob creation.
Permitted uses shall include. but not be limited to environmental research. al!l'icultural research. aviation
and aerospace. health and life sciences. corporate headquarters. computer hardware. software and
services. information technolol!Y. manufacturinl!. research and development. wholesale trade and
distribution, technolol!Y commercialization and development initiatives. trade clusters. and similar uses.
CCPC Policy 4.7.4 recommendations:
Existinl! urban areas. Towns and ViUal!es shall be the preferred location for business and industry
within the RLSA. to further promote economic sustainability and development. diversification and
iob creation. Permitted uses shall iBelude. hut Bot he limited ta emiFoBme8tal rese8Fek
82:rieultural researek. a.,iaoo8 aDd aeFOSBaee. health aad life seieaees. eomerate headQuarters.
eomauler hardware. software aBd ser..iees. iafermaooa teehBolon. maBufaeftlFi82"-. f'esearek aad
311 P age
deyelopmeat. wholeaale trade aad distributioa. teekaololff eOlBlBcreiBlHatioa aad de-:eloPlBeat
iBitiati"les. tr- de dusters. aRd similar uses.
Committee resDOnse to CCPC Policv 4.7.4 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the CCPC
recommendations.
Policv 4.7.4 (Committee revised recommended new policy.. .acceptance of CCPC recommendation)
F.xidinp urhan area~ Townfiil and Villspe!il ~hall he the "referred location for hn~ines!ii and indudrv
within the RI,SA. to further nrornote economic ~mdainahilitv and develonment. diversification and
job creation.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.8
An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer
such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without
requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13.
Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment)
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an
environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from
wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, ana WI0'\s.
To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial,
manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and
community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource
Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental
essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public
safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction. provided
that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas. The Index value of greater
than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to
Policy 1,8, Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1,2.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.10 (Committee original January, 2009 recommended amendment)
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and
management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use, Therefore,
open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To
ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also
comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or
Village, , or those CRDs cJeceeaing 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with
Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space, except for the allowance of uses
described in Policy 4.9, As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA,
locatea oHtsiae of the AC8C, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to
consume Stewardship Credits.
32 I P age
CCPC Policy 4.10 recommendations:
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and
management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore,
open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided, To
ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also
comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or
Village. , or those CRDs eJleeelliag 100 lleres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with
Index values of greater than 1.2 shaIl be retained as open space, except for the aIlowance of uses
described in Policv 4,9, As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA,
loeated oatsille of the ,^.CSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to
consume Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as part of the SRA acreal!:e.
Committee response to ccpe Policv 4.10 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the CCPC
recommendations.
Policy 4.10 (revised Committee recommended amendment...acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by defmition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention
and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use.
Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA
is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open
space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an
individual SRA Town, !!! Village. , or those CRDs exeeediBg 100 aeres. Lands within a SRA
greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open spac~
except for the allowance of uses described in Policv 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open
space, such uses within a SRA, loeated outside of the ,4.CSC, exceeding the required thirty-
five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits but shall he counted as
Dart of the SRA acreal!e.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.11
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and
intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The
edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of
adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and
recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural
activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to aIlow for the
continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and
SRA uses,
Policy 4.12
Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land
delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shaIl be applied to
minimize adverse impacts to such lands, SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table
draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation
33 I P age
land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be
consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables.
Policy 4.13
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA
and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the
Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or
existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses
provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational
areas and parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space.
Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area
south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf
course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.14 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in
accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA approval. an SRA
proposed to adioin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Ooen shall orovide for the
opportunitv to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the Countv's
arteriaVcollector roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel
time and travel exoenses, improve interconnectivitv, increase internal capture. and keep the use of countv
arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA.
Public and orivate roads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the primarv town or communitv it serves.
Signalized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained bv the
primarv town or communitv it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector
or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County
Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact
assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be
prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent required to
mitigate an SRA's traffic imoacts. actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited to. provisions
for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings, environmental mitigation credits. right ofwav
dedication(s), water management and/or till material which mav be needed to expand the existing or
orooosed roadwav network. Anv such actions to offset traftic impacts shall be memorialized in a
develooer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of signiticant
influence of the proiect traffic on existing or proposed roadwavs that are anticioated to be expanded or
constructed.
CCPC Policy 4.14 recommendations:
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in
accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA aooroval. an SRA
proposed to adioin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Ooen shall provide for the
opportunitv to orovide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said areas to the Countv's
arteriaVcollector roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel
time and travel expenses. imorove interconnectivitv, increase internal capture, and keep the use of countv
arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSA.
341Page
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the UnBlBFY leWD or eOBlBlHDitv SRA it
serves. Sil!11alized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by
the UriBlBrv leWD er eOBlBlHDitv SRA it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of
County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with
the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A
transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor
regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the
extent required to mitigate an SRA's traffic impacts. actions may be taken to include. but shall not be
limited to. provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings. environmental
mitigation credits. right of wav dedication(s), water management and/or fill material which mav be
needed to expand the existing or proposed roadway network. Anv such actions to offset traffic impacts
shall be memorialized in a developer contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the
area of sil!11ificant influence of the proiect traffic on existing or proposed roadwavs, thllt llre llBoeiBllted
ta he eXBRoded Of' tOBstrueted.
Committee response 10 CCPC Policy 4.14 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the CCPC
recommendations,
Policy 4.14 (Committee revised recommended amendment...acceptance ofCCPC recommendation)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via
a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA
aDProval. an SRA DroDosed to adioin land desi!!nated as an SRA or lands desi!!nated as Open shall
provide for the opportunitv to Drovide direct vehicular and Dedestrian connections from said areas
to the Countv's arterial/collector roadwav network as shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan
so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses. imDrove interconnectivity. increase internal
capture. and keeD the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when travelin!! between
developments in the RLSA.
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the SRA it serves. Silmalized
intersections within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained bv the SRA it
serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving
the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency
Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment
meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared
for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent required to
miti!!ate an SRA's traffic impacts, actions mav be taken to include. but shall not be limited to.
provisions for the construction and/or permittin!! of wildlife crossin!!s. environmental miti!!ation
credits. ri!!ht of wav dedication(s). water mana!!ement and/or fill material which mav be needed to
eXDand the existin!! or proposed roadwav network. Anv such actions to offset traffic imDacts shall
be memorialized in a developer contribution a!!reement. These actions shall be considered within
the area of si!!nificant influence of the Droiect traffic on existin!! or DroDosed roadwavs.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.15.1 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4,7,4.7.1,4.7,2, and 4.7.3,-4+.4 and Attachment C,
An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be
available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs ofresidents of the RLSA. Depending on the
size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within
other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or Town shall
provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and
35 I P age
institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlet3 may be required to
support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of
non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the
Stewardship LDC District.
CCPC Policy 4.15.1 recommendations:
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3,.-4+.4 and Attachment C
An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be
available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA, Depending on the
size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within
other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area provided the capacity of those adioininl!
area's facilities as described in Attachment C to be utilized bv the newlv created SRA can
demonstrate sufficient caDacity exists for their desired uses Der the standards of Attachment C. By
example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as
well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, howevcr, the combined population of several Villages aM
Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or otlice uses in a nearby Town. Standards
for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall
be also included in the Stewardship LDC District.
Committee response to CCPC Policy 4.15.1 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the CCPC
recommendations.
Policy 4.15.1 (Committee revised recommended amendments.....acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
SRAs are intended to be mixed nse and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the
Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3,.--4oM and
Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and
institutional uses will be available to serve tbe daily needs and community wide needs of residents
of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided
either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban
Area nroviderl the canacitv of those adioininp' area '!Iii facilities as descrihed in Attachment C to he
utilbed hv the newlv created SRA can demonstrate sufficient canacitv exists for their desired lI!i1es
ner the standards of Attachment C By example, each Village or Town shall provide for
neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional
uses, however, the combined population of several Villages aDd I1amlet~ may be required to
support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum
amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also
included in the Stewardship LDC District.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.15.2
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA
development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside,
improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more
public facilities, the set aside shall be subj ect to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to
public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
36 I P age
Policy 4.15.3
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow
planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA, As a part of
the SRA application, the following information shall be provided:
1. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school
impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA,
and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available
for a public educational facility.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.16 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements.
The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the
SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water,
wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is
discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are
required in Towns and,Villages, and tflBGe CRDs mleeeaillg BRe ImllGred (100) aeres ill size, and may be
required in CRDs depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or
decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and
maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee
Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other govemmental entity. Innovative alternative water
and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be
prohibited by this policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable
water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of !()O acres of any Town, Village or CRD
of !()O acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community
system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are J'leRnitted in Hamlets
and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size,
CCPC Policy 4.16 recommendations:
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand, The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements,
The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be
demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes, but not
limited to, transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid
waste, Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4. I 4, Centralized or decentralized community
water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and,Villages, alla these CRDs e)(ceeaing Bne
fflmared (100) acres in size, and may be required in CRDs that are eBe hUBdrea (100) aeres er les~ in
~ depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized
community water and wastewater utilities shall he constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a
private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer
Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and
wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited
by this policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply
37 I P age
wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres
are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are
available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are p~uu;ttea ifl Hamlets aH<l may be
permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size.
Committee responsc to CCPC Policy 4.16 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the CCPC
recommendations.
Policy 4.16 (Committee revised recommended amendment....acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure
provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and
LDC requirements. The capacity of essential services and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA
at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be
analyzed includes. but not limited to transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water,
stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14.
Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and;
Villages, aoll these CRDs exeeellio!; eoe huollrell (100) Reres io size, and may be required in CRDs
that &1 e DDS kUBlh ul (1QQ) 8€1 eo 01 hrill in sme, depending upon the permitted uses approved within
the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be
constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a
Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or
other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as
decentralized commnnity treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy provided that
they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic
systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are
permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are
available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems Rre permittell io HRmlets Roll
may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.17 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation was for no change to Policy
4.17)
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of
Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local
development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the
Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development
order approval.
CCPC Policy 4.17 recommendations:
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of
Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and oublic facilities pursuant to Policv 1.1
in addition to the following: iails. law enforcement. emergencv medical services. fire service.
government building:s and libraries for Calegery :\ puelie faeilitieG, Final local development orders will be
approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System
of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approval.
Committcc March 12 response to CCPC Policy 4.17 recommendations: On March 12 the Committee
voted to acceot the language proposed by the Planning Commission with the words "of the Capital
Improvement Element" following the words "Policy 1.1" in line 3 of the cepc recommendation.
38 I P age
Policy 4.17 (Committee revised recommendation...with alternative language from that in
the CCPC recommendation)
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions
of Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and nublic facilities nnrsnant to
Polil'v 1.1 of the Canital Trnnrovement Rlemen. in addition to the followinp: iaih:. Jaw enforcement.
emerpencv medical ~ervices fire service. puvernment hnildinps and lihraries fer f'ahgol J ...._ pllhlh
flleiliBeD. Final local development orders will be approved within a 8RA designated by the BCC in
accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time
of tinallocal development order approval.
*****************************************************************************
Policy 4.18 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate
affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal
neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be
encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management,
solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions
and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts
to adopted levels of service standards.
lt is reco~ized that SRA development in the RLSA mav generates surplus revenues to Collier
Countv. and Collier Countv mav choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure
that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countv to respond expeditiouslv to
economic opportunities and to compete effectivelv for hig:h-value research, development and
commercialization. innovation. and alternative and renewable energv business proiects,
CCPC Policy 4.18 recommendations:
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County, The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate
affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate, Techniques that may promote fiscal
neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be
encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management,
solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions
and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts
to adopted levels of service standards,
It is ree8l!:&izedIn the event that a SRA development ill tile RLSA . including any related
impacts to Collier County outside of those directly generated by the SRA._ generates
surplus revenues to Collier Countv:-MKI Collier Countv mav choose to allocate a portion of such
surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countv to
respond expeditiouslv to economic opportunities and to compete effectivelv for high-value
research. development and commercialization. innovation. and alternative and renewable energv
business proiects.
39 I P age
Committee response to Policy 4.18 CCPC recommendations: On March 12 the Committee voted
to accept the CCPC recommendation with the exception that the words, "including any related
impact to Collier County outside of those directly generated by the SRA may", be stricken,
Policy 4.18 (Committee revised recommended amendment...with language different from
that contained in the CCPC recommendations)
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at
the horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as
may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to
accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may
promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special
districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following
public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water,
stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development
phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships
shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
It iu I uOl!:Biilell In the event that II SRA development l!enerates surDlus revenues to Collier
County. lltMI Collier County may choose to allocate a Dortion of such surDlus revenues to
ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to resDond
eXDeditiously to economic oDDortunities and to comDete effectively for hil!h-value research.
develoDment and commercialization. innovation. and alternative and renewable enerl!V
business projects,
****************************************************************************
Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment)
Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created
from a Stewardship Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio. Ten Credits per acre shall
be required for each acre of land included in a SRA. where such Credits were created from any other
Stewardship Sending Area, exeept for 0 Qpen space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as
described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy +.-1-9
4.20 do not require use of Credits. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the
necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full
range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to
the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, ~ 4.15.1 and Attachment C. Such
uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.20 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
The acreage of a public benefit use shall flet count toward the maximum acreage limits described
in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits, For the purpose
of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post
secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum
acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental
facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall
be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement
163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses
40 I P age
shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, and Villages, Iffia Hamlets subject to
applicable zoning and permitting requirements,
CCPC Policy 4.20 recommendations:
The acreage of open space exceedinl! thirty five percent and ft public benefit use shall f!et
count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4,7 but shall not count toward the
consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include:
public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary institutions, including ancillary
uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C,
municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities exeludiBg esseBtial ser-;iees
as defined in the LDC, The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier
County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner
consistent with 235.193 F,S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in
or proximate to Towns, and Villages, Iffia Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting
requirements.
Committee response to CCPC recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the
recommendations of the CCPC.
Policy 4.20 (Committee revised recommended amendment....acceptance of CCPC
recommendation)
The acreage of ODen snace exceedin~ thirty five Dercent and It public benefit use shall B6t
count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count
toward the consumption of Stewardship Credits. For the purpose of this policy, public
benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post secondary
institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage
requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental
facilities enhuliRg esseRtial sel . iees as defmed in the LDC. The location of public schools
shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal
agreement 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related
ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, and Villages,--ltlld
Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements.
******************************************************************************
Policy 4.21(Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a
SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of
SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets BHa CRDs of 100 acres or
less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs
and Villages aaa CRD, of not more than 300 acres lUla Hamlet,. Provided, however, that CRDs or two
Villages or CRDs of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effoeti...e
aate ef this amoflameat June 30. 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have
a frontage on State Road 29 and that, a, sf the effeeti...e aate of these ameaameflt" had been
predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is
intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the
ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the
Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take
precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply.
411 P age
CCPC Policy 4.21 recommendations:
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a
SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of
SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets and CRDs of 100 acres or
less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs
and Villages and CRDs of not more than 300 acres and HamletG. Provided, not more than 1000 aces of
SRA develoDment in the form of Villal!es or CRDs hewever, that twe Villages or CRI)s of Bot !Bore
thaD SO(laeres eaeh, exclusive of any lakes created prior to tile effeetive date afthis amendment June 30,
2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and
that, as af the effeetive date sf these amendments, had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag
Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is
not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more
compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the
ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations
and all regulations therein shall apply.
Committee response to CCPC Policy 4.21 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept
the CCPC recommendations.
Policy 4.21 (Revised Committee recommended amendment...acceptance of CCPC
recommendations)
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to
entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs witWn the ACSC. Further,
the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets aDd
CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the
Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages aDd CRI)s of not more than 300 acres 8Dd
Hamlets. Provided. not more tban 1000 aces of SRA develonment in tbe form of Villa pes or CRns
haw,"er that CRns ar DOS more thaR ';011 aere. eaeh. exclusive of any lakes created prior to the
effeeo\'e date of this ameDdmeRt June 30. 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in
areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the effect[-.'e date of these ameDdmeDts,
had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses.
This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development
potential within the ACSC but instead is used to promote a more compact form of development as
an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA
Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations tberein
shall apply.
******************************************************************************
Policv 4.22 (recommended new policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA throul!h the SRA designation
process. the applicant in conjunction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources
will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness
opportunities regarding significant resources.
******************************************************************************
Policv 4.23 (CCPC-proposed recommended new policy)
Any development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with
surrounding land uses, Within I-year of the effectiye date of this policy LDC regulations shall
be implemented for outdoor lil!hting using standards modeled from the Dark Sky
42 I P age
(www.darkskv.org) program to protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance
safetvand securitv.
Committee response to Policy 4.23 CCPC recommendations:
On March 12 the Committee yoted to replace the proposed CCPC proposed language with that
used for proposed Policy 3.15 as follows:
Policy 4.23 (Committee revised recommended new policy language...altemative language
from CCPC recommendations)
Anv develooment on lands in the RI.S PrOl~ram shall he comnatihle with surroundinl!" land
uses. Within one vear of the effective date of this Policv LDC rel!"ulations shall be
imnlemented for outdoor litlhting to nrotect the nighttime environment. conserve enerR"v.
and enhance safety and security.
******************************************************************************
Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the
natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land
that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
******************************************************************************
Policy 5.1 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment)
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas
mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that
they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program 0, Residential Uses, General
Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as
listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated, in fS.'.s. Conditional use essential services and
governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public
safety, shall 6ftly not be allowed in FSAs, with a Natural Resollfee Ste'.vanlshiflladeJ( value Elf
1.2 Elr less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or
disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to
native habitats, Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped
as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well
as the right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute
compensation for the loss of these rights.
CCPC Policy 5.1 recommendations:
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas
mapped as FSAs and designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that
they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program 0, Residential Uses, General
Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as
listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated, in FS.^.s. Conditional use essential services and
governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public
safety, shall 6ftly not be allowed in FSAs. Infrastructure necessarv to serve permited uses
may be exempt from this restriction. provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of
impacts to any such areas. with a Natllral Resouree Ste.,yardshifl Index yalue Elf 1.2 or less.
Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas
shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats.
Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The
43JPage
opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to
sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation
for the loss of these rights.
Committee response to CCPC recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the CCPC
recommendations,
Policy 5.1 (Revised Committee recommended amendment....acceptance of the CCPC
recommendation)
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in
areas mapped as FSAs and desienated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the
time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program . .
Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and
Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated, in FSAs.
Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those
necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall 6RIy not be allowed in FSAs.
Infrastructure necessarv to serve nermited uses mav he exemnt from this restriction.
orovided that desifms seek to minimize the extent of imoacts to anv such areas. .....ith s
NstuFsl Resouree Stewsrdship Index "slue of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-
drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or
gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and
concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as HSAs. The
opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the
right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute
compensation for the loss of these rights.
******************************************************************************
Policy 5.2
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 that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including
those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing.
******************************************************************************
Policy 5.3 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommended amendment..no amendment)
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 that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land
for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not
elect to use the Overlay, the following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the
LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise
apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use ofland prior to its inclusion in
the Overlay system.
CCPC Policy 5.3 recommendations:
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
441Pagc
the Overlay Map that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land
for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not
elect to use the Overlay, these Group 5 policies feHoVliBg regulations are applieable, shall be
incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that
would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior
to its inclusion in the Overlay system.
Committee response to CCPC Policy 5.3 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the
CCPC recommendations.
Policy 5.3 (Committee revised recommended amendment....acceptance of the CCPC
recommendations)
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 that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner
proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards
referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, these Craun 5 nolicies
folio.. illg ugHllltiollB llU ll"lieahle, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall
supercede any comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These
regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the
Overlay system.
******************************************************************************
Policy 5.4 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the
provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate, A map of these
potential crossing locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the
Growth Management Plan Amendment and used in evaluating communi tv. cultural and
historical. and transportation planning for the RLSA. including all SRAs described in Group 4
Policies.
CCPC Policy 5.4 recommendations:
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the
provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these
potential crossing locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the
Growth Management Plan Amendment and shall be incorporated into used in evaluatinl!:
communitv. cultural and historical. and transportation planning for the RLSA. including all
SRAs described in Group 4 Policies,
Committee response to CCPC Policy 5.4 recommendations: The Committee voted to accept the
CCPC recommendations.
Policy 5.4 (Committee revised recommendation....acceptance of the CCPC
recommendation)
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the
provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these
potential crossin!!: locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the
Growth Mana!!:ement Plan Amendment and shall be incornorated into Hoell ill e .lllHlltilll!
45lPage
community. cultural and historical. and transportation plannin2 for the RLSA. includin2
all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
******************************************************************************
Policy 5.5 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away
from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and
standards:
I. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known
to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed
species are or protected species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall
be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of
any listed species or protected species that may be discovered.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey
indicated listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting
wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall
describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species
or protected species and their habitats,
a.Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed
species or listed species and their habitats from the negative impacts of
proposed development. The most current and completed data and local.
state. and federal guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the
required management plans. OileR sllaee aRa '/egetatioR preservatioR
re<1l1irements shall Be used to estaBliSH Buffer areas betweefl .....ilalif~
habitat areas afIa areas domiflatea by humaR aetivities, Provisions such as
fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize
development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings,
underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife
corridors, Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be
considered in the management plans. as appropriate.
i. The follO'....iRg refereRces shall Be IIsea, as llflprOJlriate, to prepare the
requirea maflagement plaRs:
I. South Florida MlIlti 8peeies Recovery PlaR, USFWS, 1999.
2, Habitat MaRagemeRt GlIiaelines for the Bala Eagle in the
SOlltheast RegioR, USFWS, 1987.
3. Eeology !lfla Habitat ProteetioR Needs of Gopher Tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemlls) POfltdatioRs fOllfld OR Lallds Slated for
Large Seale Developmeflt iR Florida, Teelmieal Rejlort No, 1,
Florida Game aRa Fresh Water Fish CommissioR, 1987,
461Pagc
4, Eeelegy aile Develellmellt Relatee Habitat ReEjlliremeflts of tHe
FleFiea Serull Jay (/"Ileleeoma eeeruleseells), Teelmieal Rtlflort
}lo. 8, Fleriea Game lIfle FresH Water FiSH Commissiell, 1991.
5, Eeelegy aile Habitat Preleetiell Neees of tHe 8eutHeastem
f.meriean Kestrel (Falee Sllalyerills Pa\lltls) Oil Large seale
Develepmellt Sites ill Flariea, }laagame Teelmieal ReJ3ert No. 13,
Fleriea Game aile FreSH Water PisH Cemmissioll, 1993.
1. tr. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this
policy.
!b tfr When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by
evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum
of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the
exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also
consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the
provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy.
b,Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and
wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks. passive
recreation areas. golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements,
including agriculture. shall be used to establish buffer areas between
wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities,
Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and
regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The
management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to
local residents. businesses and governmental services about the presence
of wildlife and practices (such as appropriate waster disposal methods)
that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while minimizing:
opportunites for negative ineraction. such as appropriate waste disposal
practices,
c,The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for
developments greater than ten acres,
b. For pareels eelltaiHiag gellHer torteises (GoIlH8rus pOIYflHemlls),
prierity SHall be given to pr~teetiHg the largest mast eeatigHolls gepHer
tortoise Habitat wit.fi tHe greatest Humber of aetive burrews, BIIa fer
proviaiag a emmeetiea to err site aajaeeat gopHlJr torteise preserves.
e.Habitat preservatiell fer the Fleriaa .ernb jay (f.flheleeema eeemleseeen) shall
eellfBllR te the guideliHes eelltaiHed iH Teeh:1ieal Repert Ne. 8, Flerida Came
aHd Fresh Water Fish CemrnissieH, 1991, The re'luifCd managemeHt plall shall
alse previae fer a Hlf\iHteHaHCe pregmm aHa .peei!)' aH llflPfflpriate fire er
meehaeieal pfeleeels te maiHtarn the ootural semb eemmuHily. The plaH shall
also millille a pablie awareaess pre gram te edHeate re.ideats abeHt the ell site
preserve aHd tHe Heed Ie maiHtaiH tHe SeruB vegetatieH. THene re,!uiremeffis
SHall be eeHnisteHt '::ith the UfWS Seuth Fleriela Multi Speeies Reee'lel)' Plan,
May 1999, mH~jeet te the pfflvisieHs af paragFllflh (3) ef this peliey,
a,Faf tHe bald eagle (HaliaeetHs leHeaeepHaIHs), the relfllired Habitat ffillflagemeHt
plans shall entablisH proteetive WHes areuHd tHe eagle Hest rentrietiHg eertaill
47 I P age
48 I P age
aotivities, Tae ]'llalls saall alsa aadress reatTi"tillg e"rtaill tYJ'les af aetivities
aHrillg tae Ilest Sellsell. These reqtliTemellls saall Be eallsiatelll wita tae UFVlS
SaHla Fleriaa MHlti S]'leeies ReeeveT PlaIl, May 1999, sUBj eet ta tae ]'lf8visiells
af]'laragfllJ'la (3) efthis ]'laliey,
e.Far tae red eaokaaea weaElpe"keT !]3ieeiaes BaTealis), tae re!juirea aaBitat
]'lreleeliall ]'lIaR shall aatliRe meaaHres ta avaia aaverse ilRjlaets ta aetive
elHslers aRd ta miRimize ilRjlaets ta faragiR!; aabitat. 'Haere aa':erse eff"ets
eaR Ret Be avaiaea, meaSHres saall Be takeR ta minimize aR site aistHrBanee
aRd ealRjleHaale ar mitigale far iHlf'aets taat remaiR. Taese re'lHiremeRls shall
Be oaHsislelll wita tae UFWS SaHta Flariaa Multi S]'leeios Reoa'/ory Plan, May
1999, sHBject ta the ]'lravisiaR of]'laragra]'lh 3) aftais ]'lalioy.
f. Ia areas where the Plerida blaele bear (Ursus amerieaRus floridaaus) may
be ]'lreseffi, the managemeHt ]'llaas shall re'luire that garflage be plaeed ia
bear ]'lroof cOlltaia8rs, al one or more caRtral loeatieRs, The
m!lllagemellt ]'lIaR shall alse ideatify methods to iRform loeal residents of
the cOlleems related te interaetieR betweell blaele bears alla humaas.
Mitigatiell for impaeting habitat sliitable f{)r black bear shall be
eoasidered in the managemeRt plall,
g,Por ]'lrojects leeated ill Priority I or Priority II PlHIther Habitat areas, the
managemellt plan shall aiseourage the aeslruetioa of ulldisturflea, aative
habitats that are preferrea by the Ploriaa ]'l!llltller (Pelis oOlleolor eoryi)
by aireetillg inlimsive land uses to clirreRdy disturbea areas. Preterred
habitats illelliae pille flatwoeds alld hardwood hammoeks. III turn, these
areas shall be buffered from the most iRtellse 11HIa uses of the projeet by
lisiag low illtensity land lises (e,g" parks, passive reereatiollal areas, golf
eOlirses). Gold eOllfses withiR the Rural Lanas ,"'rea shall be deQigRed
aRd mallaged lising stafldards foulld within this Overlay, The
mallagemeat plalls shall idelltify a]'lpropriate lightillg eOlltrols for these
]'lermitted lises afld shall also aadress the o]'l]'lortlinity to litilize
]'lresoribed bliming to mailltain fire adapted preserved vegetatien
eommllllities aRd pmviae browse for "/hite tailed aeer. These
requiremellts shall be eOllsistellt with the UPWS South Plorida Multi
Species Reeover Plan, May 1999, mwjeet to the provisiolls of paragra]'lh
(3) of this poliey, The Mlilti Saeeies Reeevery PlaR (1999) shall
eoastitlite miaimlim wilalifu areteetioa standards fur the RU:f.O.
h.The Managemeat Plaas shall eeataia a moaitorillg flmgram for
deve10pmeats greater thRa 10 aei'es.
3.The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and
utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property eeataiaiag utilized bv
listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case
basis, may chaflge strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife
protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth
Management Plan, However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of
Policv 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife
protection,
CCPC Policy 5.5 recommendations
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away
from the listed species and species of special local concern (SSLC) (SSLC's to be defined in the
LDC within I-vear of adoption of this policv) and their habitats by complying with the following
guidelines and standards:
1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species-or SSLC's
are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or
where listed species or SSLC's or Ilreteeted 91leeies are utilizing direetly ellselyed
8ft-the site, The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U,S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and
USFWS of the existence of any listed species or SSLC'S awteeted saeeies that may
be discovered.
2, Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC'S shall be submitted
for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife
survey indicated listed species or SSLC'S are utilizing the site, or the site is capable
of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species~
SSLC'S. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses
away from listed species or SSLC'Sl'lroteeted saeeies and their habitats.
a.Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed
species or SSLC'S listed saeeies and their habitats from the negative
impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data
and local. state, and federa g:uidelines and reg:ulations shall be utilized to
prepare the reQuired management plans. OjleR Bjlaee ood vegetatioR
jlreservatioR relJ.HiremeRts shall be Hsed to estaalish buffer Meas lletweeH
wildlife haaitat areas LlfId Meas domiRated by hHfHllH aetivities. Provisions
such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to minimize
development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors, Appropriate roadway crossings,
underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife
corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat shall be
considered in the management plans, as appropriate.
i. The folhl'NiRg rerereRees shall be usea, as lIpflf6jlriate, to jlrerMe the
relJ.Hirea maaagemeRt jllllHs;
I. South Floriea Mlllti Sjledes Reeovery Film, USF'HS, 1999.
2. Habitat ManagemeRt GllideliRes for the Bald Eagle iR the
SOHtfleast RegioR, USFWS, 19&7.
3, Eeology llHa Haaitat FreteetieR Needs of Gajlher ToFlaise
(Goflhenw jlol)'jlftemlls) POjlHlatioRs fOllRa aR LaRds Slated for
Large Seale De'ielojlmeRt iR Flariaa, Teelmieal Rerart Na. ~,
Flariea Game aRa Fresh Water Fish CammissiaR, 19&7,
49 I P age
1. Eeolegy ana DevelepmeHt Related Habitat ReljuiremeHts ef the
Florida Sernb Jay (f.peloeoma eoernleseeas), Teelrnieal ROj'lort
No.8, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish CommissieH, 1991.
5, Ecology aHd Habitat ProteetioH Needs ef the Seutheastem
i\merieaH Kestrel (Falee Spar.erius Paalas) OH Large seale
Developmeat Sites iH Flenda, NOHgame Teehnical Report No, 13,
Flerida Game alld Fresh Water Fish CommissieH, 1993,
1. it, The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this
policy.
!!, ifu When listed species or SSLC'S are utilizing a dir~etly observea eH
site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other
indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be
retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The
County shall also consider the recommendation of other agencies,
subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy.
b.Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and
wildlife interactions. Low intensitv land uses (e.g. &llfler. passive
recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements,
including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between
wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated bv human activities.
Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and
regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The
management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to
local residents. businesses and governmental services about the presence
of wildlife and practices (such as a\lpropriate waster disposal methods)
that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while minimizing
opportunites for negative ineraction. such as appro\lriate waste disposal
practices.
c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for
developments greater than ten acres.
b, Fer pareels cOHtaiHiHg gepher terteises (Gepherns peIYflhemlls),
priority shall be gi',"clI to protectiHg the largest most eOHtigtlous gepher
tortoise habitat with the greatest Humber of actiye barrows, and for
providing a eenHeetien to off site adjaeellt gopher tertoise preser.'es,
e.Haeitat preservatioll fur the Florida serue jay V4lheloeema eoeruleseeHs) shall
eoafoffil te the b'llidelineG eentaiaed ill TechHical Repert No. 8, Flerida Came
and FreGh ''vater Fish CemmissieH, 1991. The refluired maHagemeHt plan shall
abe previde fer a maintcHanee pre gram aHa speeify an appfepriate tire er
mechanieal pretocels te maiHtain the natural scrne community. The plaH shall
abe outline a puelic awarelless pregfllm te eaucate resiaeHts aeeut the eH site
preserve aHa the Heea te maiataiH the senle ',egetatioH. These reflHirements
Ghall ee consiGteat Vlith the UFVlS South Florida Multi Speeies Reeeyery Plan,
May 1999, sueject te the pr.e',iGieas efparagraph (3) efthis policy.
50 I P age
511 P age
a.Fer Ihe bala eagle (Haliaeetlls leueeeephallls), the re'lllirea habilal maoogemeRt
plaas shall estallliah pretective zefles afOlIfla tae eagle flest featFieliflg eertaifl
aetivilies. The pl!lfls shall alse aaaress reatrictiflg eCHaifl I)"pes ef aeti'lilies
auriflg Ihe flesl seaaefl. These re'lllircmeals shall be caasistefll ',:ita lae UFWS
Sallth F1ariaa MlIlti Spceies Reeaver PIM, Ma)" 1999, stibjeel ta lae pravisieas
afpamgmph (3) aftaia palie)",
e.Fer the rca ceelcaaea weeapecker Ipieeiaes barcalis), Ihe re'lllirea habital
preteetiaa plaa shall alltline measllres la w.'aia alP/crse impacts la aetive
e!listers ana ta minimize impaets la faragfflg hallitat. 'Nhcre adverse effecls
caa flel be avaiaed, measllfOS shall be tal[ea la miaimize aa sile aislarbaaee
aaa eompcasale ar miligale far impaets Ihal rcmaia. These requiromeals shall
be eaesislonl wilh the DFWS SOlllh FIeriaa MlIlli Species Recevs\)' Plae, Ma)"
1999, subjeclla Ihe pfOvisiefl ef paril!;faph 3) eflhis palie)",
f. In armiS where the Florida blaele bear (DrsHs amerielffius fleridaHHs) may
be present, the maHagement plans shall reljHire that garbage be plaeed in
bear pfOef eOfltain8rs, at ane or mere eentral loeatiens, The
maHagemeflt plaH shall also idefltify methods to inferm leeal residents ef
the ceneems related to interactien between blaek beam aHd hllmana.
Mitigation fer impaeting habitat sllitallle for blaek bear shall be
considered in the m8flagemeftt plafl,
g.For projeets leeated ift Priority I or Prierity II P8flther Hallitat areas, the
ffi8flagement plan shall diseeHrage the destruetioft of llf1distllfbed, ftative
hallitats that are preferred by the Flerida p8flther (Felis e[Jfteeler eeryi)
by direetiftg iflteftsive lafld Hses to CHrrefttly distHrbed areas, Preferred
hallitats ifle1Hde pifte flat?/eeds 8fld hard.....ood hamrneelm, In tllffi, these
areas shall be bllffered fram the mast imeftse laRd HSeS ef the proj eet by
lIsiftg IEr.... intensity land uses (e.g., parks, passive reei'eational areas, gelf
e[lHrses). Geld eOHFses withifl the RlIffil Latlds ,'.rea shall be desigHed
and managed Hsing staRdards fo!'!nd withift this Overlay. The
managemeftt plans shall idefttify appF8priate lightiflg eeHkols fer these
permitted uses and shall alse aadress the eppertHftity te Htilize
preseribed lmmiftg to maimain fire adapted preserved vegetation
eommllnities 8fld provide bri'lwse for ?/hite tailed deer. These
reljHirements shall be eonsistent with the DFWS Selllfl Flerida ]l,hliti
Speeies Reeo'/er Plan, May 1999, subjeet to the previsions of paragraph
(3) ef this peliey. The Mlilti Saeeies Reeovery PI8fl (1999) shaU
eenstitHte minimllffl wildlife eri'ltectien statlaards fer the RLSf.O,
hThe Matlagemeflt Platls shall centain a manitering pregraIR for
develepmcnts greater than 10 acres,
3.The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and
utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property centaining utilized bv
listed species or SSLC's, It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a
case by case basis, may efl8flge strengthen the requirements contained within these
wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the
Growth Management Plan. However. no reduction of the wildlife protection policies
of Policv 5.5wilJ be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for
wildlife 9rotection.
Committee response to Policy 5.5 CCPC recommendations:
On March 12 the Committee voted to accept the language proposed by the CCPC, but to add the
definition of "species of special local concern (SSLC)" in paragraph 1 of Po lie v 5.5 as follows: "species
that have been delisted but for which there remain federal. state and/or local protections and/or
management plans specifying guidelines for their protection" and that the Committee's original language
proposed for subparagraph 3 f iv be retained.
EAC Policy 5.5 comments: see Attachment C
Committee response to Policy 5.5 EAC comments: see Attachment C
Policy 5.5 (Committee revised recommended amendment...with language in addition to
the CCPC recommended language)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program
non- agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be
directed away from the listed species and snecies of snecial local concern (SSLC). A
suedes of soeciallocal concern is defined as suedes that have heen delisted hilt for which there
remain federal date and/or local nrotections and/or manap'ement nlans snecifvinp p'lIidelines: for
their orotection" and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and
standards:
1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC
are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site
or where listed species or SSLC Illotedeil sJJe@ies are utilizing lib utly
ollser,'ell OR the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County
shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species ill:
SSI.C JJloteetell sJJe@ies that may be discovered.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC shall be
submitted for County approval. A plan shall be required for all projects
where the wildlife survey indicated listed species or SSLC are utilizing the site,
or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be
occupied by listed species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the project
directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or SSLC or Ilrotedell
slleeies and their habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect
listed species or SSLC or listell slluies and their habitats from the
negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and
completed data and local. state. and feders I!uidelines and
rel!ulations shall be utilized to prepare the required manal!ement
plans. OlleR Sllllee llRd vegetlltioR llresen'lItioR relluiremeRts Shllll be
used to estllblish buffer IIrells betweeR wildlife hllbitllt IIrellS llRd
IIrellS domJ.Rllted by humllR lleti'.'ities. Provisions such as fencing,
52 I P age
walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to mmlDllze
development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings,
underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross
wildlife corridors. Mitil!ation for impactinl! listed or SSLC species
habitat shall be considered in the manal!ement plans. as appropriate.
i. The fellowiBg refereBees shaH be used, liS IIppropriate, to prep lire
the required mllBlIgemeBt pIIlBS:
1 South Floridll Multi Speeies Reeover)' PIIlB, USFWS, 1999.
2 HlIbitllt l\'IIIBagemeBt Cuidelines for the BlIld ElIgle iB the
Southellst RegioB, USFWS, 1987.
3. Eeolo~' IIBd HlIbitllt ProteetioB Needs of Copher Tortoise
(Copherus pol)'phemu9) POPUllltiOBS f6uBd on LlInds Slllted
fer LlIrge Seale DeYelopmeBt in Florida, Teehnieal Report No.
~, Floridll Clime IIBd Fresh WlIter Fish Commission, 1987.
4 Eeology IInd DevelopmeBt Relllted HlIbitat RequiremeBts of the
Floridll Serub JIIY (Apeloeomll eoeruleseens), TeehBiell1 Report
No.8, Floridll Clime IIBd Fresh "'ateI' Fish CommissioB, 1991.
S. Eeology IIBd HlIbitllt Proteetion Needs of the Southellstern
}.merieIlB Kestrel (FlIleo Spllr"/erius PlIulus) OB LlIrge sellle
Development Sites iB Florida, NOBgllme Teehnielll Report No.
13, Floridll Came IInd Fresh WlIter Fish CommissioB, 1993.
I. Ho The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by
the USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3
of this policy.
ii. iih When listed species or SSLC are utilizinl! a direetl) otwel". ell 6ft
site or indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other
indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall
be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural
purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of
other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this
policy.
b.Manal!ement plans shall include provisions for minimizinl! human
and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.l!. parks. passive
recreation areas. I!olf courses) and vel!etation preservation
requirements. includinl! al!riculture. shall be used to establish buffer
areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated bv human
activities. Consideration shall be \!iven to the most current
I!uidelines and rel!ulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife
conflict. The manal!ement plans shall also require the dissemination
of information to local residents. businesses and I!overnmental
services about the presence of wildlife and practices (such as
appropriate waster disposal methods) that enable responsible
coexistence with wildlife. while minimizinl! opportunites for nel!ative
ineraction. such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
531Page
c.The Manal!.ement Plans shall contain a monitorinl! prOl!ram for
developments I!reater than ten acres.
b. For poreels eontoiDing gopher tortoises (Copherus polyphemus),
priority sholl be giwm to proteeting the lorgest most eontiguous
gopher tortoise hobitot with the greotest Dumber of oetive bUrFows,
ODd fer providiBg 0 conneetion to off site odjocent gopher tortoisc
preserves.
c.lIobitot f1reservotioo for the Florido serob joy (;'.f1heloeomo eoeruleseeos)
sholl eooform to the guidelioes eootoioed io Teehoieol Reflort No.8,
Florido Come ood Fresh Woter Fish Commissioo, 1991. The re"luired
mooogcmcot f1100 sholl olso f1rovide for 0 moioteoooee f1rogrom ood
sflceify 00 oflflroflriote fire or mechooicol f1rotoeols to moiotoio the
ootunl serub eommuoit;\.. The f1100 sholl oIso outlioe 0 f1ublie O'll'oreoess
f1rogrom to edueote resideots obout the 00 site f1reserve ood the Deed to
moiBtoio the serub vegetotioo. These re"luiremcots sholl be eoosisteot with
the UFWS South Florido Multi Sflecies Reeovery Ploo, Moy 1999, subject
to the f1rovisioos of f10ngnflh (3) oethis f1olicy.
d.For the bolll eogle (Holioeetus leucoeeflholus), the require II hobitot
mooogemeot f1loos shall estoblish f1roteeth'e zooes Braund the eogle Best
restrictiog certaio oethities. The f1loos sholl olso address restrictiog
eertoio tYfles of octiYities lIuriog the Best seasoo. The.e re"luiremeots sholl
be coosisteot with the UFWS South Florido Multi Sfleeies Reeover Ploo,
Moy 1999, subjeet to the f1rovisioos of f10ragroflh (3) of this f1oliey.
e.For the red eoel,oded woodfleel,er Iflieoilles boreolis), the re"luirell hobitot
f1rotectioo ploo sholl outlioe meosurcs to o\'oid odver.e imflocts to oeth'e
clusters ood to mioimize imfloets to fongiog hobitot. 'AThere ollverse
effects coo oot be ovoilled, meosures sholl be tol,eo to mioimize 00 site
disturbooee ood comfleosote or mitigote for imflocts thot remoio. Thcse
rC"luircmeots sholl be coosisteot with the UFWS South F1orido Multi
Sfleeies Recovef1' Ploo, 1\1oy 1999, subject to the f1rovisioo of porogroflh 3)
of tJHs f1olicy.
f. In ore os where the F1orido bloel, beor (Ursus omerieonus
fioridoous) moy be prcscot, the management plaos shall re"luire
that gorboge be plaeed in beor proof eootaioers, at ooe or more
eentralloeations. The maDagement plan shall olso identify methods
to inferm loeal residents of the coneerns related to interaetion
between blael, bears and humans. Mitigation fer impaeting habitat
suitable for blael, bear sholl be considered in the manogemeDt plan.
g.For projeets loeoted in Priority I or Priority II Ponther Hobitot
areos, the mODagement plan shall discouragc the destructioD of
undisturbed, natb'e habitats that are preferred by the Florida
panther (Felis eoneolor eoryi) by directing intensive lond u.cs to
currently disturbed areas. Prefcrred hobitats in elude pine tlatwoods
ond hardwood hammoel<s. In turD, these orcos shall be buffered
from the most intense lond uses of the projeet by using low inteDsity
land uses (e.g., f1orl.s, pOSSYle recreational oreas, golf eourses). Cold
courscs within the Rurol Lands Arco sholl be designed and manoged
541Page
usiBg staBdards fouBd withiB tIlis Overlay. The managemeBt plaBs
shaH ideBtify appropriate lightiBg eontrob fer tIlese permitted uses
and shaH also address tile opportunity to utilillie preserilled Iluning
to RlSint8m fiFe adapted. presfr1'ed vegetati8B eamBlHBities aDd
provide Ilrowse fer ",..hite tailed deer. These relluiremeBts shaH lie
eOBsistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi Species Reeover
PlaB, May 1999, sulljeet to tile proviaioBs of paragraph (3) of this
policy. The Multi Slleeies Rectlyery Plan (999) shall constitute
miBimum wildlife IlFoteetioB standards f9r tile RLSAO.
h.The l'IfaBagemeBt Plans shaH eOBtaiB a mOBitoriBg program far
deYelopmeBts greater than 19 aeres.
3.The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider
and utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on
property cOBtaiBing utilized hv listed species or SSI.C. It is recognized that
these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may chaBge stremrthen
the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any
such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
However. no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of Policv 5.5will be
considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection.
******************************************************************************
Policy 5.6 (Committee initial January, 2009 recommendation)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier
County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting
direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a
wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented
as follows:
1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand
and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are
designated as FSA's, Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus
preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems,
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy
3.3,These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area,
3, FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent
site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and
requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions
within the wetlands in those areas. 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 the South Florida Water Management District.
a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site
preservation requirements specified within this Overlay to preserve an
55lPage
56 I P age
appropriate amount of native vegetation on site, Wetlands shall be preserved
as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteria:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores,
Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in
paragraph b of this policy, The vegetative preservation requirements
imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation
of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a
Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or
greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the
County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to
determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment
Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the
preservation required by Policy 5.3.
11. Wetlands and contiguous unland buffers that are utilized by listed species, or
serving as corridors for the movement of listed species, shall be preserved on
site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall be maintained.
111. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or
diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on
or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding
wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and proj ect control elevations
and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be
designed in accordancc with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis
of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to
meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this
Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65,
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project
review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida
Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP),
as described in Technical Publication Reg-OOI, dated September 1997, and
updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment
Method, identified as F,A.C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to
County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands
Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality
assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to
direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands
according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above,
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of
paragraph (t) of this policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within
Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with
appropriate buffering requirements, The County shall require a minimum 50-
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other
wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland, A
structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that
57 I P age
would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%, A structural buffer shall be
required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allowsed. Wetland
buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional
line.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing
soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted,
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant CounciL
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland
functions and are allowed within the buffer:
(I) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3 ) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge
with suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in
no net loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
I. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional
score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional
score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within
FSA's and HSA's,
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland
vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation
easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant
removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan
Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate
ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient
funding for perpetual management activities.
iv, Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceptable mitigation
for the loss of wetlands or listed species habitat if those lands are placed
under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual maintenance
requirements.
-w y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site
alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f)
i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards, If agency permits have
not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will
require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies.
g, Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or
platted as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD),
these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan, These areas shall
be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic
plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed
in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not
include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control,
water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation
and preservation,
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in anv programs that
provide incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat
restoration on private lands including, but not limited to. federal farm bill
agricultural conservation programs, private or public grants, tax incentives,
easements. and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs,
CCPC Policy 5.6 recommendations:
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier
County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting
direct impacts within wetlands, A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a
wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented
as follows:
1, There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand
and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are
designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus
preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy
3,3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent
site clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and
requirements addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions
within the wetlands in those areas. 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 the South Florida Water Management District.
a. 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:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores,
Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described in
paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements
imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation
of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a
Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or
58lPage
59lPage
greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the
County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to
determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality
assessment score of 0,65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment
Method score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the
preservation required by Policy 5.3,
11. Wetlands and contiguous unland buffers that are utilized by listed species..QI
SSLC's, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC's,
shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the project shall
be maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or
diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on
or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding
wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations
and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be
designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 ofSFWMD's Basis
of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to
meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this
Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project
review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida
Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP),
as described in Technical Publication Reg-DOl, dated September 1997, and
updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment
Method, identified as F,A,C. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to
County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands
Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall review this functionality
assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to
direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning wetlands
according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of
paragraph (f) of this policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within
Policy 6.2,7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with
appropriate buffering requirements, The County shall require a minimum 50-
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other
wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A
structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that
would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be
required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed, Wetland
buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional
line.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing
soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
60lPage
iii, The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland
functions and are allowed within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which
is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses,
v, A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge
with suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in
no net loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
i. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional
score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional
score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within
FSA's and HSA's.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland
vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation
easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant
removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan
Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate
ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient
funding for perpetual management activities.
iv. Exotics removal or maintenance mav also be considered acceptable
mitigation. for tHe lass ofwetlwuls af 1i3ted slleeies HaBitat ifthase laads if
those lands are Illaeed lIIlaer a llellletHlll eallser\'atiaa eas_eat with
lleFflemalmaiateaanee feqllir~meats.
-tv y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site
alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (t)
i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have
not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will
require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies.
g, Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or
platted as separate tracts, In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD),
these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan, These areas shall
be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic
plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed
in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3 .e.iv.) and shall not
include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control,
water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation
and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in anv programs that
provide incentives. funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat
restoration on private lands including. but not limited to. federal farm bill
agricultural conservation programs. private or public grants. tax incentives.
easements. and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs.
Committee response to Policy 5.6 CCPC recommendations:
On May 12 the Committee voted to accept the CCPC recommendations with the exception that
the Committee originally proposed language for paragraph 3 f iv be retained,
Policy 5.6 (Committee revised recommended amendment....acceptance of CCPC
recommendations but to retain language originally recommended for paragraph 3 f iv)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program,
Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands
by limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the
dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This
policy shall be implemented as follows:
1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais,
Strand and the Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been
mapped and are designated as FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within
the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within
those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in
Policy 3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits
for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have
stringent site clearing and alteration limitations, non permeable surface
limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect
wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. 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 fmal permitting requirements of the South Florida Water
Management District.
a. 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:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met
by preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality
scores. Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those
described in paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation
requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met
through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment
score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of
61 I P age
62 I P age
this Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the
LDC to be used to determine those instances in which wetlands with
a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform
Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or greater
must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by Policy
5.3.
ii. Wetlands and contil!uous uDland buffers that are utilized by listed species
or SSLC, or serving as corridors for the movement of listed species 1I[
SSLC, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through the
project shall be maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table
drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of
preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be
set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding
land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet
these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections
4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland
vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space
and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland
functional assessment score is less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of
project review, applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the
South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment
Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-001, dated
September 1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland
Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C. Chapter 62-345. The
applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores, or
Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall
review this functionality assessment as part of the County's ElS
provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away
from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements
found in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of
paragraph (I) of this policy.
d. Single family residenccs shall follow the requirements contained within
Policy 6.2.7 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with
appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a
minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body,
and for other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer
abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction
with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by
50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where
direct impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the
following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved
jurisdictional line.
63lPage
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where
native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the
existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic
plants, as dermed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland
functions and are allowed within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use
which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative
hedge with suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to
result in no net loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
i. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland
functional score of the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the
wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be
given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to
wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage
or conveyance capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or
upland vegetative communities offered as mitigation by placing a
conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for
initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by
the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic plant
maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or
federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual
management activities.
iv.Exotics removal or maintenance may be considered acceDtable
mitil!:ation for the loss of wetlands or listed sDecies habitat if those
lands if those lands are Dlaced under a DerDetual conservation
easement with DerDetual maintenance requirements.
-w y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site
alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
paragraphs (1) i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards. If
agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this
policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the
jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be
identified or platted as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD
Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris
and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be
limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other
activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water
conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation
and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encoural!ed to consider participatinl! in any prOl!rams
that provide incentives. fundinl! or other assistance in facilitatinl! wetland and
habitat restoration on private lands includinl!. but not limited to. federal farm
bill al!ricuItural conservation prOl!l'ams. private or public I!rants. tax
incentives. easements. and fee or less than fee sale to conservation prOl!rams.
******************************************************************************
CCPC Policy 5.7 recommendations for a new policy)
Anv development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with
surrounding land uses. Within I-vear of the effective date of this l'olicv. LDC regulations shall
be implemented for outdoor lighting using standards modeled from the Dark Sky
(www.darkskv.org) program Olitdeer lightiHl: shall be rellB8Hllbly ffi!IHlll:ea to protect the
nighttime environment. conserve energy. and enhance safety and securitv.
Committee response to Policy 5.7 CCPC recommendations:
On March 12 the Committee voted to utilize the language used in Policy 3.15 as modified to fit
Group 5.
EAC Policy 5.7 comments: see Attachment C
Committee response to Policy 5.7 EAC comments: see Attachment C
Policv 5.7 (Committee revised recommended new Policy...with language different from
that recommended by the CCPC)
Anv development not participating in the RLS Program shall be comoatible with surroundin{!
land uses. Within one year of the effective date of this Policy LDC rel!Ulations shall be
implemented for outdoor li{!htin{! to protect the nighttime environment conserve enemy. and
enhance safety and securitv,
******************************************************************************
END
64lPage
Attachment
B
: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
GENERAL COMMENTS
&
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATIONS TO RLSA REVIEW
This report of the CCPC consists of TWO separate
A Committee's
"review" format
This first document is in two parts in
report. The first area of discussi
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE recommend
The second document att
GMP recommendation
represented by specifi
strike throul!h. These
recommend the
proposed
ENTS
1} At the beginning
of the GMP
the RlSA, insert an acronym list specifically for that section
2} One of the most controversial suggestions by the CCPC was the concept of "capping" (maximizing)
credits in lieu of capping acreage. Should the Board of County Commissioners accept the concept of
capping the Stewardship Credits at 315,000 maximum credits in lieu of capping acreage, we suggest
that an opportunity be provided for the RlSA Committee to reconvene with the purpose of
recalibrating the methodology of credit distribution within that credit cap, including re-
considerations to strengthen Agricultural incentives. Since the RlSA will be reviewed in the future
at regular EAR time periods, any reconsideration of the maximum credits allowed could be
considered during those intervals as circumstances mayor may not justify.
3) Reinsert the Existing Overlay Map as currently found in the GMP and update that map to as-built
conditions. The Overlay Map proposed on page 68 with the Phase II report has been acknowledged
as "distorted". Acreage calculations used in the Phase I report were based upon the Existing Overlay
Map,
4) Correct attachment titled: STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET as follows:
S) Determine who is pay
a. Correct STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET to reinstate the Recreational Uses layer with its
original value of 0.1.
b. Correct STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET to rei
layer with its original value of 0.1
c. Correct the proposed STEWARDSHIP CREDI
Restoration and Natural Resources Uses wit
te the Agricultural- Support Uses
KSHEET to remove the new line for
alue of 0.0.
rrect land use layer values to those
.2 not 0.4; Earth Mining and Processing
hould be 0.2 not O.
RDSHIP CREDI
RKSHEET into
d.
matching original program.
Uses should be 0.1 not 0.2;
e. Review methodology to i
the text of the GMP to avoi
in #3, #4, #5, #6
r, as described
6)
a,
Iy to the added language.
1) Policy 1.6.1:
a) Add reverter option for onths after adoption for existing SSA's that have not been used,
sold, transferred or in any way modified from original acceptance to opt out. Suggested
additional paragraph be added at end of Policy 1.6,1:
"For SSA's approved prior to this Policy 1.6.1 being adopted but have not changed ownership in
whole or part since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold or utilized credits
generated from the SSA, the property owner may withdraw the SSA designation provided an
application for such withdrawal is implemented within 6 months of the adoption of this Policy
1.6.1."
b) Remove sections of 1.6.1 after introductory paragraph and move to LDC.
2) Policy 1.7:
a) Retain multiple agency references in number (2)
3) Policy 2.2:
a) Remove from the middle of the paragraph the sentence "Open lands are those lands described
in Policy 4.2." Open lands are actually described in the sentence immediately prior to this one.
b) Consider variable Ag land base credits to reflect primary panther areas. Suggest adding
language to the end of the sentence referring to (2,6) Credits per acre within the ACSC: "...or
Open lands determined to be primary panther habitat."
4) Policy 2.3:
a) Reinstate policy.
S) Policy 2.4:
a) Reinstate policy.
6) Policy 3.11:
a) (2): Clarify last sentence requireme
of all of the land needed for a vi
changing last sentence to rea
established for such corridor, is
completed by the la s), t
b) (3) Add to the end
restoration..,") of
awarded per acre.
c) (3): re st se
7) Policy 3
a) Re
nal credits are contingent on acquisition
oration of individua ieces. Suggest
rite ria
orridor is
'nto self standing paragraph.
"
e. A fter second reference to WRA:
t for the SRA...".
8)
"Any
effective
standards m
compatib e surrounding land uses. Within 1-year of the
gulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting using
Sky (www.darksky.org) program to protect the nighttime
enhance safety and security,"
9) Policy 4.2:
a) Use maximum credits of existing program as reported in Phase I as basis for maximum
development in lieu of establishing maximum development acreage. Review the recalculation
of credits and possibly reprioritization of credits but require the total credits generated to
remain within the 315,000 credits established as the maximum from the original program. This
provides for the maximum protection of existing and accepted property rights as established by
the initial program. Suggest changing new added sentence concerning SRA designation to:
"Total SRA designation shall be a maximum creation of 315,000 stewardship credits."
10) Policy 4,5:
a) Remove "To the extent practical".
b) Replace "be consistent" with "comply".
c) Insert after County Build Out Vision Plan: "as may be amended".
d) In the second paragraph, second line inside the parenthetical, remove the word "parks".
11) Policy 4.6
a) In 4th line remove the words "...not less..." and replace with "greater".
b) In 4th and beginning of 5th line remove the words "...or more than..." and replace with "and up
to".
12) Policy 4.7.1:
a) After new language "Towns" add "and villages greate
13) Policy 4.7,2
a) In 20' line remove the words "...not less..." and r
b) In 3" line remove the words "...or more than..."
c) In 4th line remove the words "...not more than...'
d) Add the following sentence to the e
include an internal mobility pia
is appropriately located withi
public transportation."
14) Policy 4.7.3:
a) Remove new sent
b) Add language to
c) Retain language t
d) Establis
be
To
e with "greater".
replace with "and up to"
replace with "up to"
"Villages greater than 500 acres shall
sfer station or par nd ride area that
tion point for in al and external
n residential uses are included.
CRD's allowed, Suggest the following to
of 100 acres or less to Villages and
ay pproved as 5RAs prior to the
re than 5 additional CRDs of 100 acres or
age or Town. "
15) Policy 4,7.
a) Add the
b) Remove b
16) Policy 4.10:
a) Add to end of last
acreage: "...but shall be co
17) Policy 4.14:
a) In first sentence of second paragraph, replace "primary town or community" with "SRA" in both
places where this occurs.
b) Remove from last line of last paragraph: "that are anticipated to be expanded or constructed".
18) Policy 4.15.1:
a) Add new language at end of 3" sentence to clarify that SRA's cannot be dependent upon
facilities in other SRA's unless capacity is proven to exist in the other 5RA. Suggested: "...,
provided the capacity of those adjoining area's facilities as described in Attachment C to be
"sustainabilityand"
he first sentence.
that all open space is included within SRA maximum
ed as part of the 5RA acreage."
utilized by the newly created SRA can demonstrate sufficient capacity exists for their desired
uses per the standards of Attachment c."
19) Policy 4.16:
a) Add at the end of third line after "The capacity of': "essential services and"
b) Add language in 5th line after the word "includes": ",but not limited to,"
c) Remove language in middle of paragraph after CRDs: "that are one hundred (100) acres or less
in size". (redundant language)
20) Policy 4.17:
a) Remove references in second line: "... for Category A public facilities..." and replace with the
following: "and public facilities pursuant to Policy 1. ddition to the following: jails, law
enforcement, emergency medical services, fire s nment buildings and libraries,"
21) Policy 4,18:
a) Replace beginning words in second paragraph"
remove "in the RLSA".
b) Remove "and" in first sentence of s
c)
Modify language in second para
included in the analysis to de
event that the SRA developmen
those directly gener e SR
22) Policy 4.20:
a) Change the first s
and public benefit
b) Remove' th line:
23) Policy 4
a) Cia
th
of open space exceeding thirty five percent
Sc. Modify sentence beginning with
than 1000 acres of SRA development in the
"Any dev
effective dat
standards mode
tible with surrounding land uses. Within 1-year of the
gulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting using
Sky (www.darksky.org) program to protect the nighttime
nd enhance safety and security."
25) Policy 5.1:
a) After the reference to FSA's at the end of the third sentence, sixth line, add language from policy
4.9 that reads: "Infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses may be exempt from this
restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas,"
26) Policy 5.3:
a) Replace the words in the fourth line "..., the following regulations are applicable,..." with the
following: "these Group 5 Policies shall apply and"
27) Policy 5.4:
a) Modify the added language in the third line that states "used in evaluating" and replace with:
"shall be incorporated into".
28) Policy 5.5:
a) (1) Replace added language "protected species "with specific species of special local concern
(SSLC) (SSLC's to be defined in the LDC within I-year of adoption of this policy)". This occurs
many times within this policy. 8egin the introduction language of this policy with a definition of
the species of special local concern (SSLC) and use that acronym throughout the policy.
b) (1) Replace in third line the word "observed" with the word "utilizing".
c) (2) (a) (ii) Replace the words "directly observed on" with "utilizing a".
d) (2) (a) (ii) (a) remove the reference to "parks" in the thetical.
29) Policy 5.6:
a) (3)(f)(iv) End sentence after the word "mitigatio
remaining sentence after the word "...may..." a .
30) Policy 5.7:
a) Strengthen outdoor lighting langua
date of this policy, LDC regulati
modeled from the Dark Sky (
"Outdoor lighting shall be reaso
ence: "Within I-year of the effective
or outdoor lighting sing standards
d remove the f ing:
fWm
Section 2 of this Report includes the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated. The Review
Committee detenuined that most of the policies in the RLSA Overlay did not require an
amendment so often took action to "leave policy unchanged." Those policies that were amended,
including those set forth in Section 1, and those with minor language corrections, are shown
below with stFiIle tm-sugh and underlines.
In addition to all RLSA text, the following are attach
);. Stewardship Overlay Map
);. Attachment A - Stewardship Credit Worksheet
);. Attachment B - Land Use Layers
~
Goal (recommended
Collier County
owners within
and Agrlcultu
for agricultura
omp uses away from wetlands and
itat connectivity, to enable the conversion
ocations, to discourage urban sprawl, and
emDlovs creative land use planning
shed incentives.
eodmeot)
ve, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land
ferred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
es of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11),
plement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups
e Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the
Collier County Rural lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture.
Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection; ftftd~ Group 4 policies relate to conversion
of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure
that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the
minimum requirements of the Final Order pertaining to natural resource protection.
Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay
Policy 1.1
To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) that collectively contribute.s. to a viable agricultural industry, protect.s. natural resources,
1lPage
and enhance~ economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (Overlay). The Overlay was created through a
collaborative community::based plarming process involving county residents, area property
owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the direction of
a citizen oversight committee.
Policy 1.2
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural
mixed-use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a
system of compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in
order to protect natural resources and viable agriculture' nge for transferable credits that
can be used to entitle such compact development. T ein are based in part on the
principles of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship A apter I .3177(11) F.S. The Overlay
includes innovative and incentive based tools, techo s and strategies that are not dependent on
a regulatory approach, but will complement existin cal, regional, state and federal regulatory
programs.
Policy 1.3
Map (Overlay
dy boundary of
State of Florida
002. The RLSA generally includes rural
of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida
ss National Preserve, south of the Lee County
Line, and includes a total of approximately
is privately owned. The Overlay Map is an
all be no change to the underlying density and
LSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as
rty owner elects to utilize the provisions of the
of the Overlay that a property owner will be
ry stewar s ip and protection of important agricultural and natural
the property owner shall occur through one of the following
fer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements,
rest in the land, or through other acquisition ofland or interest in
gram.
Policy 1.5 (recommended amendment)
As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the pennitted uses, density,
intensity and other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP
Growth Manal!ement Plan (GMP), Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier
County Zoning Regulations in effect prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim
Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will
remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as
provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed
upon a property owner without that ewflefS owner's consent.
2lPage
Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in
permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as
Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate
for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner
seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation
and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier
County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA.
Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth
Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporate e adopted Overlay Map during
the EAR based amendment process when it periodi Stewardship SendinQ" Area
Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies t Bowab residential densities and other
land uses which remain. Once land is designated a SA and Credits or other compensation is
granted to the owner, no increase in density or ad nal uses unspecified in the Stewardship
Sendinl! Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed 0 h property unless t A is terminated
as orovided elsewhere herein.
assi ed to entitle an a roved Stewardshio
received all necess final and non- ealable
'scretion a rovals necess to commence
ubdi d 'te develo m t Ian a rov but not b 'Idin
'15 from the SSA ve been assi ed to more than one S then e
emmental final and noo- ealable develo ment orders ennits or
necess to conunence construction of an SRA shall automaticall
shi Easement to become a Permanent Stewardshio Easement'
2. ds has sold r tr ferred an Stewa dshi Credi to another on or
entity. includinl! ewardshio Credit Trust as describoo in Policy 1,20. the closinl! has occurred.
and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer. but not exoresslv
excludinl!:
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardshio Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer Dfthe underlyinl!
fee title to the land or
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a sDocific SRA whether the SRA is
owned or develoDed bv a seoarate or related entity and the Stewardshio Credits are
transferred as reauired by the Growth Manal!ement Plan or Land Develooment Code for SRA
aODroval: or
31Page
3. The owner of the SSA lands has receiyed in excham:e for the creation of the Stewardshin
Easement AiITeement other comnensation from local. state. federal or novate revenues
(collectivelv the "Events").
The LDC shall soecifv how assumine a Notice of Termination (as hereafter descnbed) has not
been recorded. the Conditional Stewardshio Easement shall automatically conyert to a Permanent
Stewardshin Easement UDon the earliest to occur of (a) anv of the fore!!oin!! Events durin!! the
Conditional Period or (b) 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period. as and to the
extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the fore!!:oin!!: eyent.. has occurred durin!!: the
Conditional Period. then the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days after the last day of the
Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardshi Easement b recordin a Notice of
Termination. In addition if a challen e and/or a . a develo ment order ermit
or other discretion a val is filed the own s ma elect to extend the
Conditional Period until the challen e or a eal i resolved. If the challen e or a eal is
not resolved such that the construction ma co und tenns acc tabl to the owner of the
SSA lands. the owner of the SSA lands ma 180 da s of the final di osition of the
challen e or a eal record a Notice of Termina U the recordi such Notice of
Termination the Stewardshi Easem ent 0 din S Sendin Area
Credit A reement s all ex ire an te edits the SSA shall
cease to exist the ri ts and 0 rd hi hall 0 Ion er
constitute an encumbrance all be revised.
accordinl!lv. The owner ofth ennination to the
County.
ement is terminated all benefits ri h15 rivile es
e SSA shall be ull and void the land shall
. on free and clear an encu ce from the
asement an SSA Credit A reement. If r uested b the owner of the
and the other rantees under the Stewardshi Easement A eement
e and termination of easement and credit a ents for recordin in
da s 0 uest from the owner of the SSA I ds. Collier C un
to reflect the termination of any SSA or SRA
lemented in the LDC within 12 months after ado tion hereof.
For SSA's aODroyed Drior to this Policy 1.6.1 beina adoDted but have not chanced.
owners hiD in whole or Dart since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred. sold
or utilized credits aenerated from the SSA. the orooertv owner may withdraw the SSA
desicnation oroYided an aDolication for such withdrawal is imDlemented within 6 months
of the adootion of this Policy 1.6.1.
41 Page
( Formatted: Indent: left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment)
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set
forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated_herein as Attachment A.
This methodology and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the
Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such
procedures shall include but fie not be limited to the fall . (1) All Credit transfers shall be
recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) erpetual restrictive easement
shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run wi land a shall be in favor of Collier
County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife ervation Commission, DeJlaFtmeat ef
Protec 'on D artment of A
Oi r i t wi
Area Credit Agreement will ide
undertaken and the party respon .
Policy 1.8
f Bovi omental
Mana ement
hip Sendin~
that will be
Formatted: Font: (Default) limes New
Roman, Not Strikethrough
is measured by the Stewardship Natural
The Index established the relative natural
erent characteristics of land and assigning an
of these six factors is the index value for the
ed thereto were established after review
urce attributes of land within the RLSA
frOJ portant natural resources. The six
y Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed
Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
S
Any
of as
factor val
Series are ado
Map ndex Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource
all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as
atural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation.
ics of land due to alteration of the land prior to the establishment
or decreases any Index Factor will result in an adjustment of the
ing adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map
of the RLSA Overlay.
Policy 1.10
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural
resource value of the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits
that are generated from such lands, and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the
Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resources of the land.
Policy 1.11
The Land Use Matrix, Attachment D, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural
Agricultural Zoning District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight
separate layers in the Matrix. Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and
5lPage
cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting with the residential layer (layer one)
and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all uses and activities
in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a
base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added
together and then multiplied by the lndex value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship
Credit Value of the land being designated as a SSA.
Policy 1.12
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteria
and standards set forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving
Areas or SRAs.
Policy 1.13
The procedures for the establishme
herein and will also be adopted a
creating the District will be a
amendment.
are set forth
strict). LDRs
e of this Plan
Policy 1.14 (recommen
Stewardship Credi
a SRA on a per a
will thereafter di
shall not require
adoption of a resolution by the Collier County
ing the petition by the property owner seeking
density or non-residential intensity of land use on
be specified in the resolution reflecting the total
its asslg 0 the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the
not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the
Credit System, the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus
ting System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending
ea Master Plan.
Policy 1.16
Stewardship Recelvmg Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning
techniques and Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible
development strategies described in Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I).
Policy 1.17
Stewardsltip Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel,
subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall
only occur within the RLSA through the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms
of residential clustering shall not be penmtted.
Policy 1.18
6lPage
A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever,
Federal and State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation
organizations, local option taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the
Stewardship program tm-ough the acquisition of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is
identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection, including, but is not limited to,
areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship
Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical
State Concern (ACSC).
Policy 1.19
All local land or easement acquisition programs that
Overlay shall be based upon a willing participant/se
County to use eminent domain acquisition within thi
Policy 1.20
The County may elect to acquire
identified in Policy LI8. Should
Credit Trust to receive and hol
used to implement uses within
using sources
Stewardship
or otherwise
es on the projected demand for Credits A-s ~
tural lands flowways, habitats and water
y be a lack of significant demand for Credits
es that a public benefit would be realized
od to promote the protection of natural
an early entry bonus to encourage the
Policy 1.22 (recommended amendment)
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-tenn strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of
2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive
based, and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the
Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and the Department of Community
Affairs \:IllSR the five )ear aMi ersRF) sftlle aEtelltisR sftlle Ste'"ardship Dismat in the LDe..ill!
Dart of the Evaluation and ADcraisal ReDort Drocess. The purpose of the review shall be to assess
the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal,
Objective and Policies set forth herein. The speCific measures of review shall be as follows:
I. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRA.s and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
7lPage
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
ofa Study and time ofreview.
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local,
State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
Group 2 - Policies to
ItBfI retain land for a ricultural activities throu
12 continue the viability of agricultural producti
Stewardship Area Overlay. (Recommended ame
Policy 2.1 (recommended amendm
Agricultural landowners will be
property owner's right to con
compensation as described in Poli
f Stewardship Credits shall be designated as
in Policy 1.6. The protection measures for SSAs
. In addition to Drotectine aericulture activities in
her described in Policies 3.1 3.2 and 3.3 additional
.culture within 0 en Lands as an alternative to co version of
d s as described in Polic 1.5. Doen Lands are those lands not
SA FSA or ublic lands on the Rural Lands Stewardshio Area
. . Therefore in lieu of usin the
land desi nated en these lands shall be assill11ed two (2.01
Stewardshi Cr re outside of the Area of Critical State Concern ( ACSC), and two and
sixth tenths (2.6) Credits ner acre within the ACSC or Onen Lands determined to be orimarv
nanther habitat. All non-a~riculture uses shall be removed and the remainin~ uses are limited to
alITiculture Land Use Levels 5 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver is discreet and shall
be removed seauentially and cumulatiyely in the order Dresented in the Matrix. If a layer is
removed all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and no lonller available. Followin~
anoroval of an AlITicultural SSA Collier County shall update the RLSAZonin2 Overlav District
Man to delineate the boundaries of the Alrricultural SSA.
polit) 1.3 (fe.f:8R1....e~ded ddeti~~)Policv 2.3
81 Page
( Formatted: Not Strikethrough
WithiR eRe (I) )eaf frem the effeethe date sf these ameRsmeRts, Callier CSl:lRt) \',ill
8stal:Jlish Qfl AgFisl:tltUfe .~~s. isal1 CSl;l.8eil eefBJ3RSeS sf Ast less Hum fi. e Rer mere thaR HiRe
8flpeiflted Fepreseatati. es sf the agFieulhue iflEl1:lstF), t8 alh is! the BeC 8A mattefS relatiRg ts
;\gFiel:lIWFe. The .\giettlture .l.d. isaf} CSl:lReil V./.C) .. ill .. eFl1 ts ieeatiPJ eppSRtlnities afld
pref1are strategies ta enftaaee aae fJfsmste the eeatia1:laaee, enpBasisR aRd di'. efsifieatisfl sf
agiel:lltllre iR Cellier Cellat}-o The :\.;\C '..ill alse idefltif). 19amu3 ta the eS8tia1:lBRee, eltfJaflsi8fl
aru! di. 8FSifieatis8 sf the agFiEulmral ifld1:lstrJ llfle .. ill flF!fJare reesmffl8RsBtisRS ts elimiRate Sf
miRimii!e 5l:l.sh haFriers iF! Callier CSUfN). The :\AC .ill al58 asseS5 ..hether 8nesptisR5 frsfL
staRaards fur husiness uses relatee te agFieultlJre sheuld lle allev.sd llflder a8 administrati\e
peffilit flFseess aoo malls ressmmefldatisns ta the Bee.
W' on I
esta lish an A
in r n iv
A I A
are strate . es to enha
a 'c lture in Collier 0
and diversification of the a I
minimize uch barriers in Collie
nd rds for business u e r
ermit rocess and make re
r I in t
ni'
. teation of
ceex in
liminate or
ins from
'strative
aeti.ities.
C and f ilitate the im
-A-CC th8t-are detemlined t a
t im lement olicie th t su
elT!en tion <?f
ro ri t . The
rt . culture
mendment)
ect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being.
protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida
ed amendment)
Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the
implementing LORs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that
have not been placed into the Stewardship program.
Group 3 - Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintaiu the natural water
regime, as well as listed animal and plant species aud their habitats by directing
incompatible uses away from wedands and upland habitat through tbe establishment of
Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas,
where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
91Page
(F;~bd~~t-StriWh~--_. .'-l
{ Formatted: Not Strikethrough
Policy 3.1
Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall
occur through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the
RLSA Overlay. FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100
acres_ FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais
Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in
the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and
transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures
described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms
of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from
lower value lands for the pmpose of Overlay implement nalysis of the Index Map Series
shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to tely 96% score greater than
1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index sc is 1.8.
Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment)
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats sh
Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as
the Overlay Map and contain appro
agricultural areas, which include
habitat for listed species and
because they are located contig
augment habitat values. The Overl
creation and transfer
establishment of p:
delineated HSAs
to differentiate hi
Analysis of the In
are approximately
aver x scor
tate
F water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of
Wa ), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the
Over ximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have
been pe orida Water Management District to function as agricultural water
retention ar nces, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in
other cases they avated water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay
provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits,
elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of protection measures described in Group I
Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural
resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value
lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that
WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while
26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score ofWRA land is 1.5.
Policy 3.4
10 I P age
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources.
Corkscrew Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres.
Analysis shows that they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of
1.5. Because these existing public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already
protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve an
important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA.
Policy 3.5
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational
Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for
compensation to the property owner as described in Polic onditional use essential services
and governmental essential services, other than thos serve permitted uses or for
public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a I Resou e Stewardship Index value of
1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-drilli echniques andlor previously cleared or
disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extra in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to
native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminat the election of th perty owner in
exchange for compensation. The elimi f the Mining layer sha t preclude the
excavation of lakes or other water n integral part restoration or
mitigation program within a FSA.
ded amendment)
Uses, Earth Mining and P 'ng Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be
lands with a Nat eso tewardship Index value of 1.2 or less.
services and gove ntal es tial services, other than those necessary
r for public safe haJI only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural
value of 1.2 or Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are
ractic irectional-drilling teclutiques and/or previously
or oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to
dition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for
se, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an BlS
nt EIS which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has
not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their
'ficantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the
demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved
restoration or rogram. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA
shall comply with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Compliance with the following standards
shaH be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for minimization of impact:
. Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on
the parcel.
. Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas.
. Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13.
Policy 3.8
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following
mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements,
111Page
acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in
land through a willing seller program.
Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment)
I. Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue
to be permitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture
Group classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag I group includes row crops, citrus,
specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching,
aquaculture rJimited to Ooen Land desill:nation onlvl and similar activities, including
related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag I areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such
activities are pennitted to continue, and may c om one type of Agriculture to
another and expand to the limits allowed by its. Once the Stewardship
Credit System is utilized and an owner recei mpensa n as previously described, no
further expansion of Ag 1 will be allow n FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or
permitted limits within property subject to dit transfer, except for incidental clearing
as set forth in Paragraph 2 below.
eodment)
ay be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration. Examples
d to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise
impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors.
PFieFitJ shall Be gi. eft t6 resteretisH "itmH the Camp Keeis EtFaft.Et FS,~. ar 8sntigll.eli3 lISA3.
Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or
HSA the Camfl Keais Stfaft.Et F8.\ sr esatigli81B HS.'\s, [-.stir two additional Stewardship Credits
shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. .\f1 aE!ditisftBI t\' e Ste BfE!shif' ereeiits .shall
Be assigfteE! fer eash aers snaRE! E!eE!ilOateEl fer rsstaratisn aetivities ..iduH ether FS.~.s aHa IIS.~.s.
The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive
such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private
entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoratIOn improvements, this
shall be rewarded with .fettf additional Credits for each acre of restored land upon demonstration
that the restoration met applicable success criteria as detennined by the permit agency authorizing
2.
and ranching, forestry and similar activities,
isting Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such
vert from one type of Agriculture to another and
ennits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is
es com n as previously described, no further expansion of Ag
1 will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or permitted
a credit transfer.
12lPage
said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration at 2
Credits oer acre or for exotic controlibuminli!: at 4 Credits oer acre. or for flow wav restoration at
4 Credits oer acre. or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits ner acre. Within the area orooosed
for restoration. Land Use Lavers 1-6 must be removed. The specific orocess for assiQ'Oment of
additional restoration Credits shall be included in the Stewardshio District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations as llenerallv illustrated in the RLSA Overlay Man. there mav be
oooortunities to create. restore and enhance a northern oanther corridor connection and a
southern oanther corridor connection. Should a orooertv owner be willin\! to dedicate land for the
Durnose of establishing: and maintaining: the northern or southern Danther corridor. 2 additional
Stewardshi Credits shall be assi ed for each acre of I edicated.
&efe; Once an entire rri r m
d icated SSA's an r r i n
Owne his shall be rewarded wi h
rriOOr is
the I nd
3. In order to address a si . ficant loss i
bird fora in habitat restoration of
Dedication of an area inside an F
be rewarded with 2 additional C
etland wadin
the RLSAO.
storation shall
Onl one t
restorati n
its for each acre desi ated for
sation for restoration which may be
agree ot such as a developer contribution
parties involved. Also not orecluded are various
s such as the federal Farm Bill conservation
f additional restoration credits shall be included
's of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private
od appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to
further direct other uses away from and to provide additional
ancement and restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp
Keais Strand, a n 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand
that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6)
that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural,
recreational andlor conservation layers within the matrix.
Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment)
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted
for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment
andlor conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new
uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to
provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be
13 I P age
[ Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75"
designated as a SRA in such instances. However if the WRA orovides water treatment and
retention ellelusi\ el. for a SRA the acrealle of the WRA used as Drimarv treatment for water
manallement for the SRA shall be included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be
approximate and are subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or
desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water
pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed
subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices.
Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be desi nsure that there is no net loss of
habitat function within the WRAs unless there is co ation or restoration in other
areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable functlo . Compensating mitigation or
restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous t Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee
Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to tha d or Slough.
Policv 3.15 (new Dolicv)
n v I
elf iv f hi
Group 4 - Policies to e
while discouragio
use planoing tee
at enable economic prosperity and
RLS Collier County will also encourage
ing techniques and facilitates a compact form of
by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving
port the diversification and vitality of the rural
ations, expedited permitting review, and targeted
IOta the LDC Stewardship District.
in the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible
cept land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been
designated as a p Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the
suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision
of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines
established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA
camwt and need not be predetermined 10 the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible
to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately
of agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this pW"pose. Lands shown
on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately ~ 72.000 acres
outside of the ACSC and aODfoximatelv .J...&.;JOO 15000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA
desiQ11ation shall be a maximum creation of 315.000 stewardshio credits ef 15 009 aeFes.
''\19Pf8ltiffi8tel) 2~~ sf tHese IllRSS aerne.s aA IAsen 5ean~ greater tHan 1.2. Because the Overlay
requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities
14 I P age
and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to detennine development
suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA
follows the ~Fifleil3les ef the R1:lFal LaneJa ~te "Qfelship :\st 85 fiuther eleseFi"'eel Drocedures set
forth herein and the adonted RLSA ZoninV Overlay District.
Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment)
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking
such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The
petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall
be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria
set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship and assurance that the applicant
has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship C ent the SRA uses. wttffitt
Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the
Such updates shall not requir
retroactively incorporated into
process when it periodi
of each SRA will be prepared and submitted
ation as a SRA. The master plan will
policies of the Overlay and the LDC
incorn Ie land uses are directed away from
and HSAs on the Overlay Map. Te the eltteFlt
om I with the County's then-adonted
untv Build Out Vision Plan as may be amended
rans onation Element and Access Manallement
elude a Mana ernent Plan with rovisions for minimizin human
intensit land uses e. . assive recreation areas olf
servation re uirements inc1udin a . culture shall be used to
een wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated b human activities.
Consideration shall be lliven to the most current l1uidelines and re2Ulations on techniaues to
reduce human wildlife conflict The manallement plans shall also reauire the dissemination of
information to local residents businesses and l10venunental services about the nresence of
wildlife and oractices(such as aooronriate waste disnosal methods) that enable resoonsible
coexistence with wildlife. while minimizimz oooortunities for nellatiye interaction.
Policy 4.6
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies
referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (l I), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I). These planning strategies and
techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations,
15lPage
clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of
rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas,
maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and
providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also
include a mobilitv nlan that includes SBRSil'l!!f8ti8H sf vehicular bicvcle/oedestrian public transit
internal circulators and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of
outside develooment and land uses. The mobility olan shall orovide mobility stratelries such as
bus subsidies route soonsorshio or other incentives which encouraQ:e the use of mass transit
services. The develooment of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the County Build
Out Vision Plan and olan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal caoture
and reduce trio lemrth and 100ll distance travel. Such d ent strategies are recognized as
methods of discouraging urban sprawb en our od s of transoortation
increasin internal ca ture and reducin vehicle mil
ese are Towns,
ics of Towns,
described in
~pecific
the design and
s as set forth in
e and base each fonn shall be
C. The maximum base residential density
(t through the density blending process as set
of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through
referenced in the Density Rating System of
ensity is calculated by dividing the total
erein. The base residential density does
in a . The location, size and density of each
wing the SRA designation review and approval
of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mIx
evel services and infrastructure that support development that is
ale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips
shall be ~ft6l-Ies5 than .J..,GOO I 500 acres and un to 6f-fft6fe
e comprised of several villages andlor neighborhoods that have
ter. Towns shall have a mixed-use towo center that will serve as a
focal point for acilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system
serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobility nlan which shall
include a transfer station or nark and ride area that is appronriatelv located within the town to
serve the connection ooint for internal and external oubhc transoortation. Towns shall have at
least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include
both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, iA a FB.tie as ~ described
in Policy 4,..J.4 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office. research
deve100ment comoanies and light industrial uses such as those pennitted in the Business Park
and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE and those included in Policv 4.7.4.
16lPage
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as orovided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are 5flaI.I-..ee
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment)
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be ~ftM-les5
than 100 acres and un to aT mere thlHl 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and
un to Rat mere thBR 1.500 acres outside the Area of Critical State Concern. Villages are
comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall includ d-use village center to serve as
the focal point for the community's support services illages shall be designed to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by ing an nterconnected sidewalk and
pathway system serving all residential neighborho illages shall have parks or public green
spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include borhood scaled retail and office uses, in
a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. A co riatel sc uses described in P 4.7.4 shall also
be oermitted in Villal!es. Villages are a riate ion for a full rang chools. To the
extent possible, schools and parks sh dja each other to all or the sharing
of recreational facilities. Design c . sh cluded in the Stewardship
District. V' w
Volle) 1.7.3
.\ith re5J:le.et
Hamlet sr Village. shall SUDnort and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of alUiculture
natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate a unioue set of uses and
suonort services necessarv to further these attributes within the RLSA. PrimatV CRD uses shall
be those associated with and needed to suooort research education convenience retail. tourism or
recreation. .\BBfBBFi8tel sealetl eSHHl8tillle Hge!i l'IeseFihed iR Pelie. 1 ; 1mB 81gB he BefH'litted
~. A CRD may include, but is not required to have pennanent residential housinK ftflEI--tfle
seniees aRa flleilities that s~l3sFt l3efftlaneftt resiseflts. and the service~ ~d facil!q~ tbtl! s~nnort
nennanent residents. The number of residential units shall be eauivalent with the demand
l!enerated bv the vrimarv CRD use but shall not exceed the maximum of two units ver l!fOSS acre.
A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. Aft enamJlle sf 8. CRD is 8.8 eest8\:J.Rsm .ilIage that
. sl:I.ll:I ha\ e a \:J.Ri~l:I.e set af uses aAd s~paFt serl iess diff-ereRt frem a tral:litiBHal resi~eHtial
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not
Strikethrough
17IPage
iIlag-e. It \\ eula eSRtaiR traHsieHt leag-iag [aeilities and seT', iees ElpflrsJ:lAate t6 eee tauAsts, sut
Ria) Het pre'iae fer the Faage Bf seciees that are neeessaF) te sl:tJlJ:lsFt peRRaRent resiaents.
El~el!flt as aeseFibea abs'.I!, a eRD . ill eSRfefffi te the ehaf8eteAsties Bfa Village sr Hamlet as
set fafth ef! ,'\ttaelHReRt C bB.sea ef! the si:z:e sf the CW. As reBiaential u8its are Ret a reEjuirea
use, these geeds aRd ser. iees that SI:lflJ:lBFt reside8ts sush as retail, aiMee, ei ,ie, ga, f!ffifReFltal aHa
iHstimtisHal uses shall alst! FlSt 1ge reEjuirea, ~ IIh8..e.er~ far an) CRD that dees i8ehtde
j'lefffiB.H8nt resideatial heNsing, the flFepaFtienB.te sl:iJ3peFt seF\iees listed abs. e shall be flfe, idea
in aeeeTaanse . ita .~.ttaebtne8t Co Ta RlaiRtaiR a flf6f1aFtisH sf CRDs sf 199 aeres aT les5 ts
Villages afui Te..ns, Bet mBre theft.5 CRDs sf 199 aeres €If less, iR 8sml'JiHatisR . ita lIamlets,
ma) be Elpflre. ad as SP~ ~.s pFisr t6 the 8f!J:lrs. al sf a Village Br Ts.. ft, aRd thereafter Rat fRers
ffi--ske.o: To m inta'n a r
than f r
Twnnthftr
to ,each subsea~entVi!I~li{e _0'[ Town.
S ) ears J:ll:l.rsuB.ftt ta Palie) 1.22.
PoIicv 4.7.4 (recommended new p
Existin urban eas Towns
within the RLSA to further
and .ob creation.
Towns n
I f Y'
tmore
r
es
v
and indust
diversification
Policy 4.8
ut shall not encroach into such areas, and shall
A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a
ted as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and
ndment)
t suitable land to accommodate the planned development to an
anner. The primary means of directing development away from
wetlands and is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, aHa 'NR. \5.
To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial,
manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and
community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource
Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental
essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve pennitted uses and for public
safety, shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2.
Infrastructure necessary to serve nermitted uses mav be exemot from this restriction. orovided
that desillOs seek to minimize the extent of imoacts to anv such areas. The Index value of greater
than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to
Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2.
18lPage
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not
Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not
Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not
Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Not
Strikethrough
Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment)
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and
management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open
space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure
that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a
minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, QI Village. ,--6f
tHese CRDs enseeaiag 189 aeres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with lndex values of
greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open spaceo excent for the allowance of uses described in
Policv 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, leeatea 8utsiae sf
the .~~CgC, exceeding the required thirty-five perce not be required to consume
Stewardship Credits but shall be counted as f
Policy 4.11
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to
intensity uses within the SRA to lower density an
edges of SRAs shall be well defined signe
adjoining property. Techniques suc lim
recreation/open space placement this
activity adjoins a SRA, the desi this
continuation of the agricultura ze any
SRA uses.
existing public or private conservation land
and planning practices shall be applied to
shall demonstrate that ground water table
cent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation
estab ed to protect such natural areas and be
rol elevations and water tables.
be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and
Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access
via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA
anoTOval an SRA nrooosed to adioin land desillnated as an SRA or lands desilrnated as Onen
shall orovide for the opportunity to orovide direct vehicular and oedestrian connections from said
areas to the Countv's arterial/collector TOadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out
Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel excenses imorove interconnectivitv increase
191 Page
internal caoture. and keeo the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling: between
develooments in the RLSA.
Public and nrivate roads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the eRmaI'"I te.ffl er
eSlfllflllnit> 'SRA it serves. Simalized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA that serves the
SRA shall be maintained bv the eRlflaf'l. ta R SF eeRlfRlIRiR SRA it serves. No SRA shall be
approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is
demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management
System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the
requirements of Section 2.7.3 ofthe LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each
proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. To the extent required to miti2"ate an
SRA's traffic im acts actions ma be taken to include t be limited to rovisions for
the construction and/or ermittin of wildlife crossin al mitj ation credits Ii ht of
wa dedication s water mana ement and/or fill al which ma be needed to exnand the
existin or ro osed roadwa network. An suc tions to 0 set traffic imnacts shall be
memorialized in a develo er contribution a eement ese actions shall be c idered within the
area of si ificant influe e of the ro' t istin ro os dwa s
Policy 4.15.1 (recommended
the full ran s permitted by the
cies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3,...4:-+4 and
Ice, recreational, civic, governmental, and
e daily needs and community wide needs of
e, and character of a SRA, such uses may be
s in the RLSA or within the Immokalee
area's facilities as described in
cr RA can dem strate sufficient
standards of Attachment C. By example, each
retail/office uses to serve its population as well
ver, the combined population of several Villages
unity scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town.
amoun on-residential uses in each category are set forth in
o included in the Stewardship LDC District.
sioners (BCe) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an
t suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set
aside, improve dicated for public use. When the BCe requires such a set aside for one
or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are
applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning.
Policy 4.15.3
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow
planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As a
part of the SRA application, the following infonnation shall be provided:
I. Number of residential units by type;
2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school
20lPage
impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and
3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA,
and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available
for a public educational facility.
ignation applications in accordance with the
ement Element of the GMP and nublic facilities
wi 'Is law enfl ment em medic I
ent n and Ii . Final
be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance
ment System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final
al.
Policy 4.18 (r amendment)
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a costlbenefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-
workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such
as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stonnwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and
other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of
service standards.
21 I P age
It is Feeamize.flln the event that a SRA develooment in the R:L8A includina any related
imoacts to Collier County outside of those directlv aenerated bv the SRA.fft6Y g:enerates
surnlus revenues to Collier Countv'-8fNI Collier Countv may choose to allocate a Dortion of such
surolus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County to
resoond exneditiouslv to economic oDDortunities and to compete effectivelv for hig:h-value
research. develooment and commercialization innovation and alternative and renewable enerey
business oroiects.
n 8 public benefit_ use shall Ret. count
in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the
e of this policy, public benefit uses include:
econdal)' institutions, including ancillary
age requirements of Attaclunent C,
rnmen facilities enell:ldiRg essential sey'iess as
ols shall be coordinated with the Collier County
163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with
shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to
plicable zoning and permitting requirements.
endment)
eet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to
t be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further,
in the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hafflleffi
ss and the only fonn of SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the
Okaloacoochee II be CRUs and VilJages anti CRDs of not more than 300 acres flfttI
Hamlets. Provided, not more than 1000 acres of SRA develooment in the form of VilIal!es
or CRDs he..e.sr, that CR:D3 aT F.-a 'Tillage::! af CRDs sf FIst mSTe th8R 599 seres eseh.
exclusive of any lakes created prior to the effeeti. e Elate ef this amefl<lmeflt June 30 2002 as a
result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and
that, as ef the effeeti. e <late sf these 8meflclmefHs, had been predominantly cleared as a result of
Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to assure that the RLSA
Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to
promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already
allowed within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big
Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therem shall apply.
22lPage
I Formatted: Not Highlight
J
Policv 4.22 (recommended Dew policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA throullh the SRA desij;;mation
orocess the aoolicant in eoniunetion with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources
will assess the historic or cultural simificance and exolore the educational and Dubhe awareness
opportunities rel!ardimr sienificant resources.
PoIlev 4.23 (recommended new oollev) . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Anv develonment shall be comDatible with SurroundiOll land uses. Within 1-vear of the
effective date of this oolicv LOC reoulations shall be imolemented for outdoor Iiohtino
usina standards modeled from the Dark Sky lW\V'N.darkskv.ora) orooram to Drotect the
ni httime nvironment eon erve e .
Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality
natural water regime and protect listed aoimal a
that is not voluntarily included in the RnraI Land
ime in areas
time that they
Uses, General
h om n
Where practicable,
disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil
act Dative habitats. Asphaltic and concrete
apped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily
well as the right to sell conservation easements
tute compensation for the loss of these rights.
uantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect
and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on
the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including
cultural clearing.
Policy 5.3
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 that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land
for a non-agricultural purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not
elect to use the Overlay, these Grouo 500licies relle.MRg ngulatieRs Bfe lIIlfllieahle, shall be
incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable existing County regulations that
would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural use of land prior to
its inclusion in the Overlay system.
Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment)
23lPage
I Formatted: Font: Bold
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the
provision of wildlife crossings at locations detennined to be appropriate. A mao of these
notential crossine locations will be develoned within 12 months of the effective date of the
Growth Manaeement Plan Amendment and shall be incomorated into Hnl'l if! e AIMRliRR:
community cultural and historical and transDortation planninQ" for the RLSA includinl! all SRAs
described in GrouD 4 Policies.
Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single famil residences, shall be directed away
from the listed species and s ecie of iallocal S L '5 t be defined in the
LDC within l-vear of adontion of this oolicv) and th omplying with the following
guidelines and standards:
] . A wildlife survey shall be required for all pare
to inhabit biological communities similar to t
SSLC's Be flFeteeted 9Beeies are Yli.lWni.. .
conducted in accordance wit
Conservation Commission
guidelines. The County sh
species or S LC'
2. Wildlife habitat manage
County approval. A plan
indicated Iiste
wildlife and
shall descri
S
er techniques to protect listed species Qf
rom the negative impacts of proposed
uch as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be
evelopment impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and
dlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings,
d signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors.
'm acfn listed s ecies habitat shall be considered in the
lans as co riate,
Sa1;l.th flsriea rf1;l.lti Sfleeies Rees' eF) Plan., USf'I'S, I (}C)S".
Habitat MaRagement CliieeliRes f~r the Bale l2agle in the SS1;l.tk8ast
P,egisft, VSfWS, 19!.::.
3. Eeslsg) aRe Habitat PreteetisR ~reeils af CS)3ker TeFteise (Cs)3kerus
fJslYJlkemus) PSflulatisFl5 ro1;l.Flcl eft LaFltis Slatea fer Large Seale
De\eleflmeRt 1ft flsAaa, Teehnieal RE!flsFl: ~rs. 1, FleFiea Came aHa
fresA. 'Vater Fisk CsmHlissiaft, 198:.
1. Eeeleg) aRa De elsflR.ellt Related HaBitat Reflliiremcmts sftke Flerida
SeRle 18) (.\J;leleesfna eseruleseeRs), TeekHieal Rej'lSR ~re. 8, Flefleli
Came aHa Fre3ft.\Fater fisk CsmmiasisR, ] nn}.
24lPage
5. Bealsg) aad Habitat Prateetisa Neea:3 sf the 8sutheastem American
Kestrsl (Fales gp8l. eAHIS Pal:J1us) eft Large seale De" elsJ:lmeat Sites iR
FleAda, ~rsRgEHRe TeeMieal ReJ:lsFt ~Js. 13, FleAda Came aad Fresh
').Tater Fish CsmmissisR, 1993.
h it:- The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
iL i.fi.:. When listed species or SSLC'S are utilizing- a Elireetl) e~!leF. ei 8R site or
indicated by evidence, such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a
minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the
exception of clearing for agricultural purposes. The County shall also
consider the recommendation of oth ies, subject to the provisions of
paragraph 3 of this policy.
b.Mana ement lans shall include
interactions. Low si land
course a d ve etation reservat
be used to establish buffer area
dominated b huma
current ideJines
conflict. The
information t
resence of
methods that e
fo
fO am for develo ments
&fI 8J:1J:1fsJ:lAate fire ar
Me) 1<,'9<;', sl;l.bjeet tEl the J:lfB :isisfts efJ:l8regI8flh (J) efthis pelie;.
a.Fsr the 138M eagle (IIali8eetHs leHeeeephah:l.s), the re.qttired haBitat management
!Slans shall establish. I3rateeti. e ZSfl85 ar8Had die eagle Rest restFietiftg eeftaift
aeti..ities. The plans shall 81s8 aiJdfess restfietiftg seRaiR 'tyJ:163 sf asti.ities
a1:lfing the Rest seaSSR. These rSllliiFetReRts shall1ge eSRsisteBt \\ith the LTFWS
South Florida Multi SJ:leeies Reee, er PlaH, May 1<,'9<,', sUB:;eet to the flFS .isiens
sf )98f8gt'8:flR (3) afthis J3slis).
s.far the red BeBh:adeel .. sedpeel:er Ipieaieiss borealis), the reEj,uired habitat
!SfsteetisR )9laft shall sutliHe mellS\iFeS to a aiel ad":efSe imflaeffi to asb. e
Blusters BRd ts minimize impaets to fSfagiftg haeitat. "lIere ad. erse effesta
eaR Ret ~e a.si~e.fl, meaSlifes shaIll3e t8la~fl te minimize 8ft site distlifflBnee
25 I P age
aAa eSffiJ3eASate E1r mitigate feT i~aets that remaiR. These reqHiremeflts shall
Be eeflsisteRt.. ith the UPWE ESH1fl FleFida }flilti Speeies Rees. Sf) PlaR, r1&)
1999, slihjeet ta the J3ffi. isisfl efpaFagmph J) afthis palis).
f. IR areas .here the Flefiaa etael. seaT (Uf5\:lS afReAellRli5 HSRSaRl:ls) may ee
pTeseRt, the m8RagemeRt plaRs shall reflliire that garloJage 13e I"'laeed iH bear
)STeef eSHtaiRef5, at aRe ST mare eeBtf8llaeatieH3. The fFI8AagemeHt plan SHall
815s iaentif) fRetheas te iRfsFIfl lasal resiaeftts sf tHe eSReefRS related fa
iRteraetieR 13et..eeR slael. 13eEl:f5 aHa hlimaH5. HitigatisR feT iffiJ:'laeting haBitat
sl:litaale fur alaek aear shall ae eElHsidered if!. the ftUlHagemef!.t J3lan.
g.fer j3rajeets Iseatea if!. PFieFit) I ST PFisFity II Panther Habitat areas, the
ble po es of this Overlay, consider and utilize
assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
tions from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in
utilized bv listed species or SSLC's. It is
dations, on a case by case basis, may eIHmge
within these wildlife protection policies and any such
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However no
rotection olicies of Polic 5.5will be considered as these shall
rds for wildlife rotectioh.
amendmeot)
For those lands are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program,
Collier County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by
limiting direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or
filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be
implemented as follows:
l. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the
Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as
FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting
the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
26lpage
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy
3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site
clearing and alteration limitations, nonpenneable surface limitations, and requirements
addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in
those areas. 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 the South Florida Water Management
District.
a. The County shall apply the vegetation retention, open space and site preservation
requirements specified within this Overlay erve an appropriate amount of
native vegetation on site. Wetlands sh as part of this vegetation
requirement according to the following
i. The acreage requirements spec'
preserving wetlands with the hi scores. Wetland
functionality assessment scores sh agraph b of this
policy. The vegetative vation olicies 5.3 and
5.5 shall first be functionality
ment Method
date of this
DC to be used
h wetlands RAP functionality
Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
eserved in excess of the preservation required
ti
Pr monstrate that ground water table drawdowns or
dive hange the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on
or otfsi 01 elevations shall be set to protect surrounding
wetlands an ith surrounding land and project control elevations
and table. der to meet these requirements, projects shall be
design accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis
of Revi anuary 200 I. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to
meet th etative, open space and site preservation requirements of this
Overla n the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65.
the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review,
app I rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water
Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described
in Technical Publication Reg-DOl, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999,
or the Uniform Wetlaod Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C.
Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP
scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall
review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall
use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning
wetlands accordiog to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f)
of this policy.
buffers that are utilized by listed species....Qf
he movement of listed species or SSLC's,
way functions through the project shall
27lPage
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate
buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated
upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in
conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by
50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are
allows.ru. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line.
II. The buffer zone shall consist of pres tive vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native veget e with the existing soils and
expected hydrologic conditions shall
iil. The buffer shall be maintained fr exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest PI
IV. The following land uses are conside etland functions
and are allowed within th
(1) Passive recreatio
(2) Pervious nature
(3) Water manag
(4) Mitigation
(5) Any other co
co
v.
s
f. Miti
loss
Mitig
I. "No " sha ean that the wetland functional score of
e p or exceeds the wetland functional score of the
mpact be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's.
ii. Loss of s olume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be comp oviding an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity site an or abutting the impacted wetland.
Protectio I be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative
commun:it ffered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the
land in pe ity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive
exotic pI efined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic
ance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal
og with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities.
iv. Exotics, removal or maintenance mav also be considered acceotable mitiQ"ation.
fer the less ef ., etJanl'la Sf IistM I!lpeeies hBhitei if ~hsBe laMS if IMse It'H. BFe
e18!M HRlIer a 8ef11ekiBI S8R!lel"1lltiaH eBR!R ent .. ilk 8I"uh:1.1l1 MBiRUfHUI.8e
fe8HifflMeHm
--tv~. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (0 i, Ii, and iii of this
policy a.nd SFWMD standards. If agency pennits have not provided mitigation
consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that
of the jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted
as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas
28JPage
shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free
from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited
to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are
detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish
and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encoural!ed to consider oarticioatinl! in anv nrolrrams that nrovide
incentives. [undine or other assistance in facilitatine wetland and habitat restoration on
nrivate lands includinl!:. but not limited to. federal fann bill al!Tieultural conservation
nrOl1f3ms. nrivate or Dubhe Irrants tax incentives easements. and fee or less than fee sale to
conservation orOl!rams.
Policv 5.7 (recommended new Policy)
An develo ment on lands not artici atin
surroundin land uses.
h II n I r
www. rksk r
ni httime environment
be om atible with
k
rotect the
si
resources.
29lPage
30lPage
---'.c!i!:.!:~
----
I 1.\ OR I' COC....TJ:'
(I, 0'
..... {,h..
';q. f':,.,) '"I}
(-.t:' ", \h~\})
__ ~);("I;"'J")
~,r-\I. '~'A",
~,'~ \1
~:;~-hi--
.... ' . D
~
c:'~ '-t.,
I
mtf~
I
WUl[~'~jnJL"J1
~ : g . " l>
311 p,
o........~....~.......~
_ot~_Gcn:om
_Ml-f'o<>l__
------
--~-
~n___
PwI...;lIollW___
...\
N
f-L._I
,
_.
RLSA OVERLAY: MAP 1
COLLIER RL5A FIVE YEAR REVIEW
Rl:1!lrrINC An'J.OIMINT A...SI'lYt'AllDsm OtRIII1"WOlkSHJJrJ
c-.eo.r.Jt.....una.....~
---
-.
--
-~
__ III::J
r=':~~
,..
.--- ~~
--
--
~-' ...-'--L-_
-tiiiyl!l
I
I
I
I
--
:s..S::.._~~_:=--"'-=::':",:::,-"'----""
32lPage
ArrAOMDfTa.....MOU.ELAft". ".'lld ~1 ..........~
"'mI""...<<.rutlO~_"'l"'_'" "~CUOo~u..1
1 Oanl E... __ (~ ~~ ~~.. 118
~ c::.-- ,....:: l_--.u 0...' ~..... 10;.;;-1 ":"...::...
:.;...=~:=.~ _~..:;'.. _~:.=-J.....:"'-,C?~ ~~~
- ........ ::,"='~~'
::r __J_.!:......_ -=~J
U- .....1'P1 ~-...
~ ..,
---
..
-..
7: .......;'" A__,
=-=T--n~' _.,~~===-:
I ; __w -...
_.
.--
-
E==
........L =:
--II -It~
---
+
"
~"'""'"'.~...............
;""..... ..............
'0...,;......
i__
-
-
.-
-
'L_
-
-
=-
.--
-
....~
-
-
-..
>>
33lPage
n....
--
..,
--,
r~
,
=-
--..
-..-
-,.
----1--
~~
f
-
~
t-
5=:='--
-
. ---...<
=---i
..,
-..
-...
..... ....... (Ii
-'.
0l__'Iold
_'N
-...
,,_..
AfTM..... B;
no...........
a...d:.....,.,..
,.....
--
C_
_.no
ail.perltl;N
......
i
J
Attu;;hrrnmt C.SIew.ardahip R~lvln9 At'-. Ch.ar;icterlittlca
Ifinal.l'ld approved]
-_.~
C_rao-r........."'-
---""-'-"""-"
"....-.::...-...'.. .._~_..- - ---.--.-.....,:..--.-"1-"
"---
---1-':";;0-';""
---
----~-
-...--".
:.:::-;::".: 1-::=:-- -'- - _.~.~'=.'::":;."".. --,..:"
---=-- ---'"'"~- I ____.__~......I
'. ----.:-~~;~.::::..,; ~--- ~-t-_._. ...;..,:::---1 "-_ --.._... ~;
------, _~-:.-..:- ~+:._:_::::::-,~;-~..-- ,.,~-~--~'-.--. I _~:.:::-_=:.:..~
1____.- .-. -..--.--. ---._~--_.-:::r=. .
-...:..:.--_-l -=-=--:'-i ___ I __ ! :":=-::-':'~I
,~._- ' .~- I ~ l-- ,I ,..::;,.. ,
-,,>-.,'-- '. __'__ I
~..~--,.~-_....__.=--::.:,~_.:.__..,= =. =----= - = "= .
- '._--'<-'....,,--..~..-__._..._--_.,...- - -...
::._~::.:.:~_-:::::"':.:-_~.:.=-:.::;;":."'.:;;:-=:.....:::.:..~...~~ .. -, ..,- _.
--_.-
".-
34lPage
Allac'menl: C-1iWw.-dlhJp Recehtng At.. C....ctMfMlcs
1---1IlOtllJ
--
----- 1 - ~ -;=t='--..::::::::;r
~.~~~., ~ .-.-- "'....' ._.~
_...._.rllJ<<_,.........._ 1...r....._,.....~~ ...._.._..__ _~-l~P.___
-'-- 'A.~=~...:=....... _l_,,~_
- '-..... - .-...-. --l
~ .1/>.... .6 _
_1"1I07__"'_ . ....~~4li ~~...-:.....
~......._-
-......-
-.
c.--..._____
~-
-.-....-
---
r-.=--~_
----.-.
-,-,,-...-
--
~-..:..--=-
--""-'-.,I-,
--....-
'"11I_......__00
----..,;.,.*"*.
~.--
~
-.....-..-
_....~-
""'-__"""""'Wll
-.---- --................-..-
_~~t...._ ~...4__1
--"--
_t__,-.._
-
..........._-~
-
"""#-
-
~--...,,-
,..
___;lft;_
"-..-..-.--
--......_--...liOF
--...._,.........
-
--
~~
---.-...-
--..--..-.
-
-......
...-..~n.._~_
c.~__
-.--..
-.....---.
-.-
------
-
--
--
---.,,-
-
.-.-.....--
--
-.-
. '-___...4I3i:~_."......_.~'""'_
-.--"-----....~n_..______.lr___._""_=__....,.,""'"
-"O..,._..______..._-.-__..~__'____.,'
-"'-~--_...__._---_....-
,...-..-......--
"",.,
35 I P age
U~"lll\i~Il A.MS'U\U"I'N1 TOA:nAaIMRNf A.. Sn:wAlll.t5Ull' CREbrr WO~QIIIT
----........'-.._~---~--
~ "-'. ---- R-i -I =-1
~-_.. -~ .tl1
=- -.. ~:'L-.l =;
~-~,-
~~- ___1 -'.
.~~~~
'-'
36lPage
~--.......-
-......---.-----
-------..----
-.....-----.-
--
_1___.___
-.-..------
--
-.....-.-
.. --..-
--"-!!l!'Al RIIII.
I~~.:.~":::',,-,_....~
'......-.-..hllIr........._..-... -C1ioiii--:;
-.......,,--....--
'-~
......~.__..._-_..__.
---......-.-----
-...----..-..---
~ ... ~.J
__J
u
C
~
&:
"
l!!
<(
i;'
"t:
~
o
<(
CIl
...
0::
~
"
o
u
,.
'g
U
,~
;;
'I:
~
..
~
..
&:
U
..
!
<(
'"
I:
's
'3
..
0::
a.
:c
..
"E
i
in
...
..
en
o
...
e
!!:.
I
..
~
c
~
,
~
i
~
o
"
.
~
.!!
;:
Oi
~
,~
.
'.
~
~
"
..
o
'~
~
'~
"
5
~
.,
"
"
,
~
.
"
"
~-
~
j
"
J
.
.
o
.
"
"
"
,,;
j
"
~-
J
.
.
~
.
~
~
.
N
~
I
.
o
.
.
~
~
.
o
~
C
~
S
I
~
.
.
.
o
0,
.
o
.
~
c
!
~
.
~
~
~
c
.
~
'"
c
.
~
~
]l
~
.
o
0,
.
o
.
~
9-
.
E
~
.
"
~
~
"
I
'"
~
~
E
~
"
~
~
~
&
~
~
E
~~
'3.t::!
E .
-g"9
. "
~.
~~
:;gf
g'~
.~
'O.s
"'~
-~ ~
~
"
~
~
~ ~
E -",
~~
~:fl
~~
" ~
:?~
.-
-~
o c
. .
~,
c 0
.~
'3
~
~
>-
"
~
c
3
o
I
.
"
.
~
.
.
"
w
. .
,.t ~
': t ~ ~
~,~p I:
i~ ~ ~
<I ~
w
c
o
<O~
~~
lElii
0"
~ ~
. E
&! ~
"
"
5
(j
~
.
~ 0
~ ,
Ij
w ~
~ .
c c
Q '" '"
<0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0. <"l
H~i- ~
~~~O~
a: $ ij (5 ~
d~
u ~
I
c
.
:s
5
g
8'
.
.
<
5
o
u:
E
~
,
.
~
0'
'i,j -~
~~i5
~ , -
n:: ~ ~
oO,>!",
~ ~ ~
~ U) ~
o ~ C
f-.lijj2
,g-tl]
~ 8 :;:
,,, 0
iil~5,
"5',~ ~
_ c"
..~
. >
. c
&8
~ ,
8.E:::J
t'J_~o
~~ -
8 ~ ~
-E (II <II
.2c~
"5.3 ~
'iiiGl.5i
~~~
""5..0
~ _c ::J
~~~
8 .~~
8,~~
~"O
:> ~
~
:ii 'O~
~H~
>>c~~
iU~i~
OUl~~-g
E ~ E '" -
~ -tl:~ 0
~ g~...
<11(')"'0
';;-g2~
~~8'2
t--2Q)~
-a,~:ll
~5~
Ii
<
.
~
~
.
'8
"
~
._ e
E'
. E
&~
Ul
J!~-
,; i .
:ii "E
1i~
~ -
_0_
~~
"O,N
~~
c-
_ c
u
'"
c
,
E
E
8
~ .
. E
N.
~"@.
" .
g~
~ E
- .
o .
~ -
.~ ~
~
.
u
'"
E
~
E
8
~~
~~
8<:
-8~
- .
o.
~b
.
"
~
.
u
l;
~
.
~
~
c
.
-
.
~
1
I
.
'8
t.
o .
D-
~ 0
~.
~~
o a,
~~
..
o~
~E
c ,
$,
(55;:
o E
~
~
.
.
-E e
''''
~~
:l:'-
~ E
c '
:R _E "
.....cQ
<; f~
:5-tj
, 0
~ 0
"'t
. 0
~;g
&:.$'
z
5
c
"
~
"
"
'"
~
.
~
'"
E
~
E
o
u
c
..
.
~
.
~~
~-E
"E
u~
,-=0>
~~
~
.
~
.
~
.
.
~
"
\1
o
~
.
I
"
~
.,
.
~
.
~
.
M
o
~
c
.
o
o
~
c
.
c
o
,
~
.
"
;?
~
'0
~
~
M
E
,
E
E
;;
.
~
o
~
c
.
o
C
. ;?
. ~
l ~
~ E
<: <I> E
g -'" c
~ j ~
8
~
~
c
.
o
C
ci
~
.,
I
~
f
.
~
.
'8
,
"
E
.
[i]
~
,
~
.
e
~
~
'0
E
.
~
~
~
c
c
8
~
iii
o
3
<
00 ~
~ g ~
3u ~
-. 0
:1~~h~i~l~
cX!~~~E~<l:
]!g~~~-=~
c: <.....- 0 5l ~ <II ~
Ct: ~ ~ ~ -g
3ee81:w~
LI.. ~ 1] g U
-.9 ~
o~ __~
~~
E
~
E
E
.
~
~::i
~e
-~
o~
.
:?
.
"
.
ro
.
~
~
c
"
~
~
E
,
E
E
E
.
o
~
.
~
'0
~
.
"
~
;<
I
~ 5
00
- .
~8
8.2
o g
E~
2 ~
~g:jg
-0 u ~
~ _~ ro
c ,
c~
o .
~ .....
. .
-~
c .
~~
_m
, 0
< 0
.
~
~
~
~
I
E
~
c
.
~
.
E
c
~
o
"
U
5
(j
.
~
~
]
"
o
l'
.
~
-"
,
~
.
u
~
.
c
c
8
*
.
.
~
.,
.
c
.
~
~
E
,3
c
~
t
o
5}
"
~
u
<
~,
,,;~
~~
~ ,0
C'lo
.0
Ci.iii
.0
~ '
uc
.9 -~
-5
g e
ECl-
,~
. c
~~
-g:o
.'"
~ .
~ c
~ .
u
1;'.
=.t::.
0-
c...c:.,;
~ g,~
",.,s ~
~5~
",",0
~:Ja.
ECa.
=Si'i:
~-~-~f;l
o . C
~~~-~
,,<: '" '5
coca.
": ~ -~ e
:g goo.
> -::c Q)
'fi.Ej.}-g
CIl~..co
g~E~
'" iil~~
2~-:;~
Cl m -5 ~
<I\U..c ::>
:::13 g>~
0<( e E
.....al.<:Q)
ii 1.1
::-E:l?~
~~:s~
u Cl-~ E
"'.9_.... .
~~~~~
o.>C!>.Ol:l
5E]-~"5l
!: :l"'C (1)=
€ a:: ~ -g &
:;:: u 1Il 13 Q)
"O<lJ~c:,=
Q) Cl- '-' -- 0
"'E_~<iic:
~8i:~~
6. -g ffi!i ~
~: ~0!g
~ ~-~ ~ ~
:;::..<.:E 1Il.c--
~5~f-~
.'t'j 1:5
ATTACHMENT C
COMMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
AND
RLSA REVIEW COMMITTEE RESPONSES
COMMENTS BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) OF
COLLIER COUNTY
RELATED TO THEIR REVIEW OF THE
JANUARY, 2009 REPORT OF THE RLSA ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT ENTITLED
"FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM"
FINAL March 10,2009 AS APPROVED REPORT OF THE EAC
The Rural Lands Stewardship Program Review Committee has done a fine job of addressing many areas
where the program can be improved. It is evident from their work that the issue of how to properly use
the credits generated by sending areas while preserving the rural and natural features of the remaining
lands has been considered; however, we do not believe that an adequate answer to this problem has been
arrived at yet. The EAC at their February 27,2009 meeting was not able to reach a consensus on the best
way to manage growth in the RLSA. The general opinion was that there is no need to move so quickly
that we carmot wait for the results of several ongoing studies that would greatly improve the ability to
make decisions, including the Florida Panther Protection Program Technical Review Team panther study
established jointly by the wildlife organizations and landowners to evaluate the conceptual plan and make
recommendations; the USFWS Habitat Conservation Plan; the Future Transportation Plan; and the Build-
out Vision Plan. These are the comments we have been able to agree on to as of March 2009.
1. Preservation of Agricultural Lands
(I) General comment: Based upon data presented, the revised program will result in a 56.5%
reduction of cultivated farm lands within RLSA. This is contradictory to the stated purpose of the
1
program.
(2) Policy 2.2 Inclusion of agricultural credits: The EAC agrees with the inclusion of agricultural
credits. It is stated that the purpose of this plan is to preserve agriculture. The County should
preserve its agricultural capacity in any way possible.
(3) Policies 2.3 and 2.4 The EAC voted to retain the sections calling for formation of an Agricultural
Advisory Council.
2. Program Caps
The EAC discussed whether acres or credits should be capped and could not reach a consensus. What
they did want to convey were the following concerns:
I According to the RLSA Phase I Technical Review, in 2007, there were 64,469 acres under cultivation consisting of citrus, row
crops and specialty (See RLSA Phase I Technical Review Table 4-A (p.ll)). In a Johnson Engineering report dated February 15,
2008 to Mr. Torn Jones of the Barron Collier Companies (and a member of the RLSA Review Committee), the introductory
paragraph makes the following statement: "... using assumptions provided by the Barron Collier Companies... .(there will be)
approximately 28,000 acres of agricultural land under cultivation (at build out)." This represents a loss of36,469 acres or 56.5%
of presently cultivated acreage.
1lPage
(1) There are too many credits floating around in the revised Overlay - this could devalue existing
credits. 2
(2) There is a potential to generate more credits than would be used to entitle 45,000 acres of
development.'
(3) There was a general consensus that to avoid an overload of development credits, changes to the
GMP and LDC should be explored that would allow use of credits generated in the RLSA to be
used in other unincorporated areas of the County or be applied to increase the density within
developments beyond the currently approved base level.
3. Direction of Development A way from Primary Panther Habitat
Policy 3.11 It is the obligation of the County to protect primary panther habitat and to direct
development away from this area' We are currently lacking the Panther Technical Review Team
and the USFWS Habitat Conservation Plan for the RLSA that are directly applicable to this
decision. Without these studies in hand, it seems prudent to direct development away from these
areas. The following are areas where the EAC was able to reach consensus and make
recommendations:
(1) The panther corridors as shown on the Wilson Miller Transportation map do not appear to
meet the currently recommended guidelines.'
(2) The more appropriately sized pathways will generate far more than the 2300 credits
mentioned in the Wilson Miller supporting documentation, therefore meaning many more
panther corridor credits will be generated.
(3) The Environmental Advisory Council recommends that lands within a Panther Corridor as
designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service be awarded 2 bonus credits
2 Six years ago the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Review Committee told the Collier County Commissioners (CCBC)
and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that the GMP Amendments proposed for the RLSA would result in a
potential development of 9-1 0 percent of the encompassed land area or about 16,800 acres, plus additional acreage required for
services. Since that time, largely due to the addition of restoration credits and the way they were valued, the estimated number of
credits has risen to 315,000 and developable acreage, based on those credits, has grown to 43,312 acres. (Wilson Miller, Inc.,
Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Five Year Review Supporting documentation, pp 74-76.) Now, six years later we are
being asked to consider a proposal that allows for potentially far more than 315,000 credits.
3 Additional credits are envisioned through the introduction of agricultural credits (Policy 2.2), increased restoration credits
(Policy 3.11(1)), and most importantly panther corridor credits (Policy 3.11 (2)). If insufficient credits arc generated under the
system, the 45,000 acre cap could be regarded as a commitment binding Collier County to allow development up to that level.
There is the possibility that a landowner not part of the RLSA credit system could come to the county with an SRA application
and, if denied, would then make a claim that the proposed SRA falls within the 45,000 acre entitlement.
4 There has been much debate about Florida panther habitat. The Florida panther Recovery Plan of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (3rd revision) states; "The Primary Zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of
population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, quality and spatial
extent of habitat within the Primary Zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial
extent pos serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. Therefore, conserving lands within the Primary Zone
and securing biological corridors are necessary to help alleviate these threats." (p. 89). The only current scientifically peer-
reviewed designation of habitat is Randy Kautz, et a1: How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida
panther. Biological Conservation 130 (2006), pp. 118-133.
5 The current Florida Panther Recovery Plan recommends a panther corridor of a minimum I mile in width for a pathway of this
proposed length (USFWS, Florida Panther Recovery Plan, 3rd revision, p. 30, 2008.) As to the location of the pathways, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Commission's Technical Report, authored by Kathleen Swanson, Darrel Land, Randy Kautz and Robert
Kawula in 2008 in Figure 12 (p. 14) and Appendix 4a (p. 42) clearly map out the least cost pathways for the northern and the OK
Slough pathways. These do not correspond to the pathways shown on the attachments to the RLSA Review Committee's report.
2lPage
when they are placed in a Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) and an additional 8 bonus
credits once all lands within the Corridor have been restored and placed in SSA's.
4. Golf Courses Should be Excluded from HSAs
Policies 3.7 and 4.13: Golf courses should not be considered passive recreation areas and should
not be allowed in HSAs.
(I) Throughout the RLSA report, golf courses are considered "low intensity land uses" and are
lumped in with "parks and passive recreation areas," yet in Attachments Band C are listed as
"active recreation areas." This appears to be contradictory.
5. Transportation Infrastructure to Serve Future SRAs
Not enough attention has been paid to the secondary impacts (roads, other infrastructure) required to
support this expanded development footprint. The Build-out Vision Plan and the Transportation Plan
are essential elements to this RLSA Process and will not be available for at least a year.
6. Water for Future SRAs
(1) Comment on Policies 4.2,5.1, 5.2, 5.3: The RLSA has not focused enough effort on determining
future water quality and availability. The EAC has concerns that the potential exists for adverse
effects on water quality and availability for current users and that there will be a significant
increase in County expense to provide potable water in the future. 6
6 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Executive Director Carol Wehle, at an Everglades Conference in
January 2009 said this: counties and municipalities are overly dependent on the SFWMD to preserve and protect their
water supplies. You must be more proactive in creating explicit elements within your comprehensive and growth
management plans. We can only use what you give us to make decisions. You must take control of your own fUtures. In
repeated and duplicative comments, counsel for the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) defers to SFWMD
permitting. This is not an adequate response, given Ms. Wehle's comments above. The revisions to the RLSA program
need to proactively protect the water supplies for our citizens. ECPO counsel repeatedly makes the following statement:
"In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a
significant percentage." This assertion cannot go unexamined: water consumption estimates are based upon a Johnson
Engineering study dated which uses the Town of Ave Maria as the data base. The study estimates 110 gallon per capita
usage. The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in a study entitled "Public supplied population, water use,
withdrawals, and transfers in Florida by county 2005, " indicates water consumption in Collier County was 246 gallons
per capita. This serious contradiction needs to be resolved. Underlying assumptions in the Johnson study need to be
revealed and tested, primarily the question of whether, in the case of the Ave Maria water system, are we dealing with
projected usage or actual usage? In discussion at the February 10, 2009 Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) meeting,
Mr. Jones stated that drinking water was "not a problem" in the RLSA. It is available by withdrawal from the Lower
Hawthorn aquifer. However, in a January 16, 2009 review of the Development of Regional Impact proposal (DRJ) for
Town of Big Cypress (within the RLSA), the SFWMD made this comment: "...the response did not address the potential
impacts to the water resource availability of the Lower Hawthorn aquifer. District staff is aware that this aquifer is under
increased use." The report continues: ".. .chloride levels in public wellfields in this aquifer have increased more
substantially than anticipated. These increases could degrade the resource and may require modifications to reverse
osmosis treatment plants to handle increased salinity .Please orovide additional information to demonstrate withdrawals
from the Lower Hawthorn aQuifer for the Town of Bill Cvoress will have no imoact UDon other users (underlinin~ mine)."
The RLSA Review Committee has not adequately addressed this issue to the fullest extent. The Johnson Engineering
study asserts: "(t)here are few competing users of the Floridian aquifer in eastern Collier County since traditional supplies
are abundant and meet existing demands." (p. 5) The Floridian aquifer is geologically below the Lower Hawthorn and
separated by a confining layer (although some sources regard the Lower Hawthorn as the uppennost layer of the
Floridan). Why then, is the SFWMD concerned that ".. .chloride levels .. .have increased more substantially than
anticipated" when reviewing Big Cypress? Aren't we looking at an enormous public works project, at taxpayers' expense,
if the Lower Hawthorn is compromised? Or is there consideration of attempting to withdraw from below the Intermediate
aquifer system (of which the Lower Hawthorn is a part)? None of this is covered in the RLSA proposals.
3lPage
(2) Comment on Policies 3.13 and 4.8: The use of preserves and preserve-type areas for storm water
treatment has been a concern of the Environmental Advisory Council for years. This policy
explicitly allows that practice but does not always count the affected acreage against the SRA
entitlement.
(a) A primary objective of the revised RLSA Overlay should be to avoid the use of WRAs as
part of storm water management systems for SRAs. This should be clearly stated in the
document.
(b) If absolutely no other option is available for storm water treatment of an SRA, WRAs
designated to receive storm water need to be carefully evaluated for their functionality as
part of both flow ways and aquifer recharge. If any part of a WRA is incorporated into the
storm water management system of an SRA, it should be counted against the acreage
entitlement of the SRA.
(c) The conversion of water storage locations from agricultural uses to development should be
counted against SRA entitlement. There is no provision to analyze the effects of such
conversion on water quality.
7. CRDs and Development in the ACSC
Policy 4.7.3 Hamlets should be eliminated as non-viable.
Policy 4.7.2. Development should be directed away from the ACSC. CRDs should be the only type of
SRA considered there and the number of CRDs should be limited to five. Guidance should be included
regarding how closely they can be located to one another.
8. Other Comments
Policy 1.6.1 The EAC is in favor of allowing landowners to retract SSA designations within 5 years.
However, the detail in this policy retiring SSAs should be included in the LDC, not the GMP. It there are
changes required in the future, they will be harder to make.
Policy 3.9 The references to aquaculture are inconsistent. It was eliminated in Attachment B and should
probably be removed here.
Policy 5.5 Throughout this policy, it should read "listed and protected species" and a definition should be
added.
Policy 5.7 There needs to be a more effective reference to lighting standards compatible with rural
development in this policy as well as in Group 4 policies on SRAs. The LDC will need to define
appropriate luminosity as well as down-shielding guidance.
General comment: SSA and SRA approvals should go through the normal recommendation process of
EAC and CCPC review, before final BCC approval.
General comment: The EAC would like to see some focus on encouraging "green construction"
concepts and LEED certified buildings in the RLSA' s SRAs as well as more attention to encouraging
compliance with "smart growth" goals in community development within the RLSA.
After years of effort, the latest RLSA concept plan has it "almost right". Take the time now to reach
consensus through consideration of all stakeholders (including those who speak for the children who will
inherit this system in the future) so that those environmental elements so valued in the past, and which
4lPage
contributed greatly to the desirability of this region, shall not be relegated to a history book! This can be
done with fair return to the investors in these lands as well as for the many who rely upon the proper
husbanding of these lands in benefit to future generations.
END
Rural Lands Stewardship March 12, 2009 Responses
to the
EAC March 10, 2009 Comments and Recommendations
1. Preservation of Agricultural Lands. Mitch Hutchcraft stated that he needed to rebut the
footnote #1. Tom Jones stated that the 28,000 acres of ag land in the footnote should only
refer to ag land west of the ACSC, and does not include ag lands in the ACSC. Mr. Jones
produced the March II, 2009 revision of the "Eastern Collier County Water Resource
Availability" study, which is an update of the February 15, 2008 study produced by Johnson
Engineering (Attachment E to the minutes). He stated that if there is not sufficient water
SFWMD will not issue a permit. Mr. Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the
Committee go on record that it has already adequately addressed agriculture land and ag
land preservation within the report. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
2. Program Caps. Judith Hushon stated that there was not a consensus on Credit caps by the
EAC and would like to see the Committee recommend the use of Credits outside of the
RLSA. Allen Reynolds stated that footnote #2 is misleading as it does not give the genesis
of the 16,800 acres of SRA footprint and was the SRA footprint projected using just the
baseline credits which were the only credit source at the time the Overlay went through
transmittal hearings in 2002 and that DCA subsequently advised to add restoration and early
entry bonus credits, which then increased the potential credit total. Mitch Hutchcraft stated
that the wording in footnote #2 gives the impression that the "greedy landowners" were
pushing for the credits from restoration and early entry bonus. Brad Cornell stated that the
#2 footnote also does not take into consideration the SRA recalibration from 8 credits to 10
credits to enable an acre of SRA footprint. Tom Jones moved and Gary Eidson seconded
for the Committee to go on record that the Committee has adequately addressed the issue of
Credits and SRA footprint within the Report. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
3. Direction of Development Away from Primary Panther Habitat. Tom Jones stated that
the original map addressed panther corridors conceptually and that the map should likely
just show arrows. Bill McDaniel stated that he would like to see a map which just shows
arrows. Anita Jenkins stated that the arrows should be shown on the Overlay Map and the
Overlay map should also show public lands. Mitch Hutchcraft agreed that showing arrows
on the map would be preferable to showing lines and stated that the #5 footnote leads one to
believe that the alignment shown is "the alignment" when the alignment has not yet been
5lPage
determined. Bill McDaniel moved and Tom Jones seconded that the Committee go on
record that it has adequately addressed this item in its Report. Upon motion, the motion
carried unanimously.
4. Golf Courses Should be Excluded from HSAs. Judith Hushon stated that the EAC
agreed on this item. Bill McDaniel stated that he disagrees with the EAC. Tom Jones stated
that when HSAs were designated in the RLSA there were row crops in much of the HSA
and the feeling that golf courses would be reasonable substitute for this use. Bill McDaniel
moved and Tom Tones seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately
addressed this subject in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously.
5. Transportation Infrastructure to Serve Future SRAs. George Varnadoe reminded those
present that there will be both transmittal and adoption hearings and the transportation
planning issues will be addressed at that time. Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel
seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this item in its
Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously.
6. Water for Future SRAs. Tom Jones stated that the Johnson Engineering reports of
February IS, 2008 and March II, 2009 address water needs for the RLSA and show that
there will be plenty of water although SFWMD is directing that the lower Hawthorne
aquifer be used which will require reverse osmosis to allow the water to be potable. He
stated if there is no showing to SFWMD that water is available, no permits will be issued.
He questioned footnote #6 reference to Ms. Wehle's comments and wondered whether these
were a quote and in what context the statement was made as he did not attend this seminar.
He stated that the FLUM has to be supported by documentation of adequate public facilities
to meet the level of service standards. He stated that the Johnson Engineering report uses
110 gallons per day per person as potable and does not include irrigation water. He stated
that some of the assertions made in footnotes are not correct. He stated that water in the
RLSA is not going to be a problem. David Farmer stated the county uses 185 gallons per
day per person as a level of service standard for water but his experience is that this figure is
overstated based upon actual usage. Al Reynolds raised the question in footnote #6 as to
why the Town of Big Cypress water consumption comment is there because the TOBC is
only in a DRI sufficiency status and that one cannot conclude a problem with water based
upon this level of review, but the footnote seems to draw conclusions of water inadequacy.
Bill McDaniel moved and Tom Jones seconded that the Committee go on record that it has
adequately addressed this item in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously.
7. CRDs and Development in the ACSC. Bill McDaniel moved and Tom Jones seconded
that the Committee go on record that it has adequately addressed this item in its Report.
Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously.
8. Other Comments
Policy 1.6.1: Bill McDaniel moved and Gary Eidson seconded that the Committee go on
record that it has adequately addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the motion
carried unanimously.
61Page
Policy 3.9: Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to correct Policy 3.9 by
striking the word "aquaculture". Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 5.5: Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go on
record that it has adequately addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the motion
carried unanimously.
Policy 5.7: Tammie Nemecek moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go
on record that it has adequately addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the
motion carried unanimously.
General Comment about SSA and SRA reviews by the EAC and CCPe. Tom Jones
moved and Bill McDaniel seconded that the Committee go on record that it has adequately
addressed this policy in its Report. Upon motion, the motion carried unanimously.
END
71Page
Attachment
D : COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL GMPA CYCLE
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Dear Chairman Henning and Commissioners:
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee gratefully acknowledges the
direction received from the Board of County Commissioners to transmit our Phase II Report to
the Collier County Enviromnental Advisory Council and the Collier County Planning
Commission as part of an expedited review of the Committee's work.
Given that the Phase II Report takes the form of specific recommended policy
amendments to improve the RLSA program, and in keeping with the Board's vote to expedite the
review process, the RLSA Committee recommends and respectfully requests that the Board of
County Commissioners initiate a special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA Overlay
Amendments to consider the proposed policy amendments contained in the Phase II Report.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Board of County Commissioners and stand
ready to proceed in whatever way you believe best serves the people of Collier County.
cc: County Manager James V. Mudd
Attachment E
Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects 2008~2011
COUNTY PROJECTS
Attachment E-I
H2007/2008 combined GMP 1-Dec-OB December-2010 annual Weeks & 6 staff
amendment petitions - 10 (9 Private)" members
-SUFFICIENCY PROCESS '-Dec-OB 01-Aug-09
-EAC HEARING (TRANSMITTAL} 1-Sep-09 01-0ct-09
-cepe HEARINGS #1&2 '-Det-09 01-Nov-09
(TRANSMITTAL)
-cepe CONSENT (TRANSMITTAL) 1-Nov-09 Q1-Dec-09
-Bee HEARING (TRANSMITTAL) '-Dec-09 19-Jan-10
-DCA PROPOSED REVIEW 20-Jan-' 0 20-Apr-10
-ADDRESS ORC REPORT 20-Apr-' 0 20-May.1O
-EAC HEARING (ADOPTION) '-Jun-1Q 01-Jul-1Q
-cepe HEARING (ADOPTION) 1-Jul-1Q 01-Aug-10
-cepe CONSENT (ADOPTION) 1.Aug-10 01-Sep-10
-Bee HEARING (ADOPTION) 1-Sep-l0 Q1-0ct-10
-DCA: ADOPTED PHASE & 2-0ct-10 December-2010
CHALLENGE PERIOD
.'IAMPVC-based GMP Amendments" l-Apr-09 March-2011 once Weeks & 3 staff
members
-SUFFICIENCY PROCESS 1-Apr-09 01-Dec-09
-EAC HEARING (TRANSMITTAL) 1.Dec-09 01 "Jan-1Q
-CCPC HEARINGS #1 &2, CONSENT 1-Jan-10 01-Mar-l0
(TRANSMITTAL)
-BCC HEARING (TRANSMITTAL) 1.Mar-1Q 30-Mar-1Q
-DCA PROPOSED REVIEW 31 "Mar-1 0 30-Jun-10
-ADDRESS ORC REPORT 30-Jun-1O 30-Aug-10
-EAC HEARING (ADOPTION) 31-Aug-10 30-Sep-l0
-CCPC HEARING (ADOPTION) 1-0ct-10 01-Nov-10
-CCPC CONSENT (ADOPTION) 1-Nov-10 01-Dec-10
-BCC HEARING (ADOPTION) 1-0ec-l0 16-Dec-10
-DCA: ADOPTED PHASE & 17-Dec-10 March-2011
CHALLENGE PERIOD
..ALSA 5-Year Review based GMP 1-Feb-10 December-2011 every 5 years Cohen & 2 staff
Amendments" members
-SUFFICIENCY PROCESS l-Feb-10 01-0ct.10
-EAC HEARING (TRANSMITTAL) 1-0ct-l0 01-Nov-10
-CCPC HEARINGS #1 &2, CONSENT 1-Nov-10 01-Jan-l1
(TRANSMITTAL)
-BCC HEARING (TRANSMITTAL) 1-Jan-11 01-Feb-l1
.DCA PROPOSED REV!EW 1-Feb-11 01-Apr-11
-ADDRESS ORC REPORT 1.Apr-11 01-Jun-11
-EAC HEARING (ADOPTION) 1.Jun-11 01-Jul-11
02/19/09
Pagel
Attachment E-l
Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects 2008-2011
COUNTY PROJECTS
(continued)
-cepe HEARING (ADOPTION) 1-Jul-11 01-Aug-11
-cepe CONSENT (ADOPTION) 1-Aug-11 01"Sep-11
-Bee HEARING (ADOPTION) 1-Sep-l1 16-Sep-11
-DCA: ADOPTED PHASE & 17-Sep-l1 December-2011
CHALLENGE PERIOD
2009/2010 Combined cycle of GMP 1-Feb-10 01.Feb-12 annual typical 12 - 14 Weeks & 6 staff
amendment petitions months members
2011 annual cycle of GMP amendment 1-May'11 01-Aug-12 annual typical 12 -14 Weeks & 6 staff
petitions. months members
Annual Update and Inventory Aeport l-Apr-09 01-Dec-09 Annual 8 months Basi/Cohen & 2 staff
members
Interactive Growth Model 1.Apr-09 01-Jun.09 annual 2 months Cohen & 2 staff
members
Review ot proposed Growth Mgt 1-Feb-09 01-Jul-09 annual June Cohen
legislation
Review of F AC proposed legislative 1-0c1-09 01-Feb-10 annual January Cohen
policy
EDC Zones and Amendments 1-Feb-1O 01-Feb-12 once 18-24 months Cohen
Programmed review 011he Golden Gate 1-Jul-09 01-Jul-11 every 7-10 years' With EAR - Cohen & 2 staff
Master Plan January 2011 members
Ave Maria ORIS year review of FlAM 1-Jun-l0 01-Dec-10 Once 6 months Cohen & 1 staff member
IAMPVC-GMP based, LDC 1-Apr-l1 01-Jul-12 once TSO Weeks & 3 staff
Amendments members
Horizon Study Oversight Committee 1-Apr-08 01-Apr.11 once (multi year) On-going Bosi & 1 staff member
RLSA 5-year Review Committee 1-Nov-07 01.Mar-l1 once (multi year) On-going Cohen & 2 staff
members
Update of countywide Build-out Study. 1-Dec-08 01-Feb-11 periodiC 6monlhs Weeks/Cohen & 2 Staff
members
Revise & update GMPA peti1ion 1-0ec-OB 01-Feb-l1 periodic TSO Weeks & 1 staff
member
Amend GMPA procedural Resolution t -Dec-OB 01.Feb-11 periodic TSO Weeks & 1 staff
member
Edit/review all Major/Minor Proj. Exec 1-Dec-08 Ot-Jan-12 On-going Cohen
Sum, Staff Rpts
GMP interpertations l-Dec-OB 01-Feb-12 periodic 4-B months Weeks & 1 staff
member
Affordable Housing Commission 1-Dec-OB 01-Feb-12 on-gOing On-going Cohen & 1 staff member
Consistency reviews of ZLDR petitions 1 -Oec-08 01-Feb-12 on-gomg 4 weeks Weeks & 7 staff
member
Floodplain Management Committee 1-Dec.08 01-Feb-12 on-going On-going Cohen & 1 s1aff member
Naples Airport Noise Compatibility l-Dec-OB 01-Feb-12 an-gomg On.going Cohen & 1 stafl member
Committee
Process/Review SSAs as submitted. 1-Dec-OB 01-Feb-12 on-going TSO Basi/Cohen & 2 staff
members
Staff Working Group of Schools 1-0ec-08 01-Feb-12 on-going On-going Cohen & 1 staff member
Interlacal Agreement
TOR Program Administration 1-Dec-OB 01-Feb-12 On-going On-going Basi & 1 s1aff member
02/19/09
Page 2
o
N
--
I-'
'"
--
o
'"
.
.
8
~
-
N
8
rot i g
~ ~ 'V .... 3
III .c:. a::::. IT
~ ~ 'i1 ~~ A': R ~.
~ ~ f 3 =G'6 ~ e!i2 ;st 6 ~
!!: ~ III S = !:;I~ :z: "'~ =.!;! ~
~ ~ = Z. :II!:. ::J ~ .. s: ~ .. !Ij:.. "0
~!: ~ c: > == s.'! ii~~ !! Ill~ !!:~ ;, ~
... .. Ii III. ~ ~.< ,,:I >-Q.o z"'o z -0 n i6
g~]g~a l~ I ;:"Oiiii' 19. ;~~"O ~;'~ el ~"Il ;S:::J
"Oo~ -. ....Ii III 5:;!\:r' !.-a Cil"~ ,. ,m ":9;;1 .L% ~
2.:;z.g.~~ 1&.::aO::DSchlll9. ...a !!..oii"o ,loO, 20 ,...., nO ,ns:, ii
~~a!~j~' ~~~i~~~i~'"~~ i;!~.6A ~n~ *~'AA ~~~ b~,6A, ~~!!~ a
;:afi~~==~ ;i~~~'~i~~aiil~i~~~~~ ,:r:Q: ;~~~~~ '%8% ;~~~~~ '%8~% 1
~~_Olll<_ 0 ~1<Ill-o~1~1I11"O"O nn '~S:JS:' ~ nn n, as:zS:' Q.mnn 'as:z~~' ~
~i!~!fi~;lll~iJif~ia~ill~~i~~~"O~~I~~~~~~~~"OI~;~~~~i~~~"O;~~;II
3~fg:"o5i"lll~Z.:"!1;1~!::"Ill-li5'i::J>!!X:!!!!::D~cn~cn;r:;"O)Io!!X:!!;:>>i!G'l"'ln?i"l:ll>!!:C:i!!!~!J1O'I-I""'G'l;:;,
~~.J~;I.~~"'~r~.~i!~il:"'~~~~!i~!i!ie~I~~~i.~!i~!i",e~I~I~r~~~!i!i~~Iill~~
3>:n~~G'!~;e~n~i~~~i~aga!~~~.>i~z~~~ ~>>>ii~z~z~~~>>>>i~zzzzQ~
~~~~~~3,~,:~o~i'!~~~~<!;mgg8g~~~~~~ mgggo~~~~~J~~gggg"~~~~~J~
~.i33~~i=~~~~i'~~~ ~il:f~~;~~~~m~ ~~6~~~~~~m~~_~o~;~~~~~~ --~O!
~~;==~io~~i5=~~.~~l~a~go5oooo~ffi~~~~!~OOOO~ffi~~~~a66ooo~ffi~~~~~~
g~~::a~a;~~~::~~!~<~~~~a5~~3~~~ccc~ :o~333~~ccc~ :o~~33~~cccc~:
I i:1 i
I II' I
I I'
I : II '
I 'I" Ii,
I '
,
, II:
I~I
I I: '
, I ~ '
I, ,
I 'I
1
r
I
j j
II
. 1,1' ·
;11
, '
1 I
I I
I I
I' .
i :
: I i
I '
I I
I,
I '
I ,
I
I
, I
I
.--- ~~.";:~,
, I
, I
'I'
~ -~-I-I--
1:1
I Ii '
,I :;1
I I I ,
i Iii: .
, I
I I
I I
i i
I '
I I i In
! ! !
! !
i
I
II
I'
I I-
i
I '
~::.:
,I
, ,
I
!
I '
, ,
De,...
Jan-D9
Feb-ll9
Mar..Q9
Apr-09
M'Y-ll9
Jun-09
Jul.09
AUI-D9
Sep..Q9
Oct..Q9
De,-09
Jan-10
Fllb-10
j
I
I
I
I
!
Mar-IO
Apr-10
May-IO
Jun-IO
Jul-IO
Au,-IO
Sep-IO
Nov.10
OIIc-IO
Jan-ll
Fllb-ll
Mar-ll
Apr-ll
May-ll
Jun.ll
Jul-ll
Au,-ll
Sep-ll
Nov-l1
OIIc-ll
n
o
3
'g
...
tD
:::r
n tD
o :J
3 '"
'a <'
~ 11)
~ ~
~. ii"
.. :J
"1 2.
~ In ::J
~ 0 Clll
n:;' C 0
g~ Z It)
~ ~ I:;! -g
.., ~ I~ ::l.
:Ill 3 '::0 3
0" I
;;; ~ Ie ~
!:l ~ m ...
"'.. n
o' i-l s:
; !'" IU
a o'
-;" ...
"
Iri,
N
8
00
N
Q
....
....
~
...
o
_.
tD
n
...
'"
N
o
o
co
,
N
o
...
...
>
....
....
~
n
='
3
~
=
....
f'r1
I
N
Attachment E-3
Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects 2008-2011
DATA-ANALYSIS/MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS
Update Demographic & 01-Jul-Q9 1-Sep-09 annual 2 months Bosi/Weeks & 2 staff
Economic Profile members
Update Demographic & 01-Jul-10 1-Sep-10 annual 2monlhs BosilWeeks & 2 staff
Economic Profile members
Update Demographic & Q1-Jul-11 1-Sep-11 annual 2 months BosilWeeks & 2 slaff
Economic Profile members
Update Industrial inventory 01-0ct-09 1-Dec-09 annual 2 months BosilWeeks & 2 staff
members
Update Industrial inventory 01-0ct-10 1.Dec-10 annual 2monlhs Bcsi/Weeks & 2 staff
members
Update Industrial inventory. Q1-0c\-11 1-Dec-11 annual 2 months BosilWeeks & 2 staff
members
Update Commercial inventory. 01-Aug-09 1.Qct-09 annual 2 months Bosi/Weeks 2 staff members
Update Commercial inventory_ 01-Aug-10 1-0ct-10 annual 2 months BosilWeeks 2 staff members
Update Commercial inventory. 01-Aug-11 1-0ct-11 annual 2 months BosilWeeks 2 staff members
Update FlAM Model. 01-Apr-09 1-Jun-09 annual 2 month Cohen & 1 staff member
Update FlAM Model. 01-Apr-10 1-Jun-10 annual 2 month Cohen & 1 staff member
Update FlAM Model. 01-Apr-11 1.Jun-11 annual 2 month Cohen & 1 staff member
Update Interactive Growth 01-Apr-09 1-Jun-09 annual 2 months Bosi & 2 staff members
Model.
Update Interactive Growth 01-Apr-10 1-Jun.1O annual 2 months Basi & 2 staff members
Model.
Update Interactive Growth 01-Apr-11 1-Jun-11 annual 2 months Bosi & 2 staff members
Model.
GIS Mapping of Inventories 01-Dec-OB 1-Feb-12 On-Going TBO Basi & 2 staff members
and Models
Exploration of adoption of Generated by MPO
Mass Transit Element to GMP 01-Jan-09 1-Feb-12 once (multi year) On-going Cohen
per CCPC
02/19/09
0
N ",
-- "
I-' "
'" 0-
-- il
0
'" 0'
~
0
-
"
'"
0
~
0'
~
a c: c: c:
~ '" X " "
" u; '" '"
~ ~ i!l " "
~ c: c: c: ~ ~
.. .. ..
~ " " " "
" '" '" '" 0 0 0
" " i!l " c: c: c: .. .. ..
~ S' ~ ~ 3 3 3
~ .. .. .. " " X
;:;: GO S' S' S' '" '" c: c: c: Ii 0 Ii
", 0 i!l " ~ " GO
~ ~ ~ ~ " " il ~ il
iD - .. .. .. .. .. '" '" '" "
3 S' il il il n n n " " i!l " " "
~ Ii ~ ~ ~
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ c: c: c: 0 0 0 .. .. ;r ;;' ;;.
~ ;a c' ~. c' X " X 3 3 3 S' S' S'
~ '" 3 3 3 IlO IlO IlO
~ 0 .. .. i!l i!l i!l '" '" '"
0 ~ '" '" '" .. .. .. c: c: c: ", ", ",
ii' .. .. .. ;l ;l ;l ill ill ill ... ... ...
'" a 1 ~ 0 0 0
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ i i: i ~
~ i ::I, ::I, ~ ~ ~
GO ! ! :;; :;; :;; !!. !!. 0 0 0
... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~' ~' ~' 3 3 3
" '" ~ ~ ~ ~' 5'
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ .. c ;;' ;;. ;;'
~ ~ ~ .. .. ... ... ...
n 0 &. &. &. 0 0 &. ~ ~ g ~ ;a ~ a g, ~
n '" '" '" 0 0 ~ ~ 0
.. ~ ~ ~ !!. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 '" '"
... ~
n .. -< -< iD iD iD
11!-IT-T-n'~-rT+'
1-1..~t..t.'T. .....I.l i..... 1'1" .. ..~
Ir+ '-:+"ru,'"ljll
. ..I. I . l' .
-I.J '1+ I
II I! i[ '1"! 111[, I I
+'j.t., +'1 .. ..t " + "j']
.f. ....., ill! r
.1. ..Ii ! .111 !
, I '
I
~I ,),.1 I
II ' j
[j1 r.J++.
.1./llt.lil....!
f Ilu!-' II-
I i I I I
~ r 1]1=1
..j I'l"j
t:" ruri
i I i I I
,t'
,
I
tt
+.f
I .
't
J..~ I
~.....t"'lj;
j. f"l i.1
! ,
'j -- i +.
[I '
1 I I I r I
l___._~.__.________..___.~_~__
I
Dec-08
lan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09 n
n 0
May-09 0 3
3 'C
'C ...
... ID
lun-09 ID ~
~ 0 ID
C ~ ;:,
lul-09 ~ II>
~ !!!. <'
)Ii < ID
, III ,
Aug-Q9 )Ii 'l:l )> "l:l
ZQi Z Qi
)> :l )> ;:,
Sep-09 < :. .... :l
< -.
III :l III :l
-OQ -OQ
Oct-09 .!C.c ~c
3: III 3: ID
Dec-09 -"Cl _'C
III III III III
n~ n;:l.
lan-10 ~ 3 \!! 3
> III > ID
z;a ;:,
Z ....
Feb-10 '"3: m 3:
o III 0
c: _. III
Mar-10 III 0 c: _.
'l:l .. III 5l
:Ja 'l:l 'l:l "l:l
Apr-10 00 :Ja ...
-_. 0.2.
m ID
n n - ID
May-10 -llil' m n
n....
IIlN .... II>
:5 III N
lun-10 C
00 C
, 00
N ,
lul-10 0 N
... C
... ...
Aug-10 ...
Sep-10
NoY-10
Dec-10
lan-11
Feb-11
Mar-11
Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects 2008-2011
STATE PROJECTS
Attachment E-5
CP-2006-11, Toll-Rattlesnake DRI- Weeks/Cohen & 1 staff
related amendment; GMP cycle 1-Jul-09 l-Jan-12 once On-going member
exemption
CIE Annual Update to GMP 1-Nov-08 1.Apr-09 annual 5 months Cohenfllv'eeks & 1 staff
member
CIE Annual Update to GMP l-Nov-09 1-Apr-l0 annual 5 months CohenfWeeks & 1 staff
member
CIE Annual Update to GMP l-Nov.l0 1-Apr-11 annual 5 months CohenfWeeks & 1 staff
member
CIE Annual Update to GMP l-Nov-l1 1-Apr-12 annual 5 months CohenfWeeks & 1 staff
member
Respond to Public Records Requests l-Dee-08 1.Jan.12 periodic 1 to 30 days Weeks & 1 staff member
and Requests for Public Information
Review/assist with Bert Harris Claims 1-0ee-08 1-Jul-11 once lt03 years CohenlWeeks & 2 stafl
members
Review/assist with compliance issues 1-0ec.08 1.Jul-10 once 1103 years CohenfWeeks
for Section 24 (settlement agreement)
02/19/09
0
N
--
I-'
'"
--
0 n
'" il' ...
So " ,:.
~ ~ 8
.!.. ~
... '7'
. 0 ...
~ , t"
~ ...
~ ~ g
i, 0
... ..
g. c
!!: .
n a
~ ;;-
" ~
~
"2- ~ ,
n .
;r 0 1:'
, a.
n ~ <>
~ " ~
~' ~
~ ... "
c c !l.
~ ~ .
~
0' " ~ z.
" ~ . .
'" s, , 3
~ ~ ...
~ ~ " ~
,
0' - ~ ...
, . ... 3
~, c
... ~ n n n n ~
.. III III ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Gl
;; , , , , ;r:
f ~ c c c c
.. ~ !!. !!. !!. !!. ...
~ !!: c: c: c: i
~ ::I c:
, n' ... ... '1 ...
~ % 3' ... ... ... ~
. . . . a a ~
.. ~ 0' ~ :; x
; ~' ~ ~ ~ ~
" ; ; ;
~ n 3 ; 3
3 ;; a Gl Gl Gl Gl 'll
~ 3' 0' ;r: ;r: ;r: ;r: 0'
A ~ , ... ... ... ... ,
i
I
~- 1
,
i
I I
,
1
I
I
~l
I
-t
-t--
t- I'"
~-I--j-
. - - I
I i
--1----,------1-
,-+---1
--I-
I
----+-. -"
! ]
, '
, '
-ii
1+-1 t--,
-+-, II
-II
, I
,J. -1'-' 1--- 't-
.: iFTj
!
-~+
I
L
-+
- J'"
Dec-OB
Jan-09
Feb-D9
Mar-09
Apr..Q9
May-D9
Jun~09
Jul-D9
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-Q9
Dec..()9
JaM-IO
Feb~10
Mar-IO
Apr-10
May-10
-t Jun-l0
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Nav-I0
Dee-l0
Jan-11
Feb-ll
-! Mar-ll
-I Apr-ll
I
-I May-ll
Jun-ll
Jul-ll
AUI.ll
Sep-ll
Nov-ll
,
_.~ Dec-ll
-,
n
o
3
~
..
~
::r
~
::I
II>
c'
~
~
iU
::I
::I
::I
IIlClQ
;0
""'t ~
m~
~ III
;lll:+
03
....~
m ::I
q"
Ill:!:
III
.....
o
..
~
a
.....
~
~
II>
N
Cl
Cl
00
,
N
Cl
...
...
n
o
3
~
..
~
::r
~
::I
II>
;C'
~
~
iU
::I
:.
::I
IIIClQ
~ 0
-I ~
mll
~ :+
;lll 3
e ~
m ::I
q"
11I3:
III
o'
..
'1:1
..
o
.....
~
~
II>
N
o
o
00
,
N
o
...
...
>
~
~
~
r:.
:r
8
~
=
~
~
I
Q\
Attachment E-7
Comprehensive Planning Department Major Projects 2008-2011
FEDERAL PROJECTS
Census 2010 PSAP (changes to tracts, 1-Dec-08 1-Apr-09 every 10 years 4 months Weeks & 2 staff
block groups, CDPs, eCDs) members
Census 2010 Group Quarters Review 1-May-09 1-Aug-09 every 10 years 2-3 months Weeks & 1 staff
(nursing homes, ALFs, etc.) member
Bee Re-districling 1-Mar-11 1-Nov-11 every 5 and/or 10 7-8 months Weeks & 2 slalf
years members
Conversion of Census 2010 population 1-Mar-11 1-Apr-11 every 10 years 1 month Weeks & Yang
data into useable format
02/19/09
o
N
--
I-'
'"
--
o
'"
~
ID
;;l
g'
!l.
n
ID
a
c
~
N
C>
...
C>
..,
o
..,
c
ii>
~
0"
"
c>.
!!l
..
5"
~
o
c
IG
..
...
ii"
0'
3
!!l
'"
n
n
..
:t
la"
""
$:I
5"
..
r----
I
em -J --i
~
"
~
C
~
:::
...
C>
G'l
a
c
..,
t:)
c
..
ii
;;l
f
i'
"S
c
;;l
5"
..
6
3
ID
l"
)>
!;;
l"
ill
.:.
._.n.1
I
,
!
r-
,
I
.--1'
I
i
-.,-...--+
------t-~
---t--
-,
,
,
,
!
.----___J
.1-
m j
-I
--- -+
!
I
-1-
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
-r
I
I
---!.
"
:r
..
Ii!
ID
~
~
o
~
~
...
~
...
..
a
c
Ji
n
o
~
~
o
::.
-
~
"
~
c
~
N
C>
::;
~
..,
Dee-OS
Jan.Q9
Feb-09
Mar-Q9
Apr-Q9
May.Q9
Jun-Q9
Jul.Q9
Aug.Q9
Sep-Q9
- j Oct-09
f Dee-Q9
_m_--r Jan-10
Feb-10
,
I
-r
,
r--
i
j
I
Mar-10
-f Apr-10
!
-j May-10
I
T Jun-10
I
Jul-10
t AuC-10
,
I
---_out Sep-10
--
-,
n
o
3
...
;
:r
..
"
In
C!.
.. '
"l:l
iii
"
"
... -.
","
COO
",C
s:~
,.... AI
"l:l~
:II 3
0"
- "
",..
a~
_.
o
..
"l:l
a
_.
..
"
..
In
N
8
co
,
N
Q
..
..
n
o
3
"a
..
/D
J
/D
~
III
<'
/D
~
iii
~
~
... -,
m ~
cllQ
m C
:III /D
)>"a
.... III
~ ;:l.
:III 3
o /D
.... ~
m ...
!:l3:
III III
_.
o
..
~
..
.2.
/D
"
...
III
N
8
00
.
N
o
...
...
e Feb-ll
Mar-ll
Apr-ll
May-ll
Jun-ll
Jul-ll >
AuC-ll ~
rl
:r
Sep-ll 3
~
+ Nov-ll =
....
-- ~ Dec-l! t'!'j
I
QC)
t-m_---
ul!
I -r I
13---1 I
1~-1
_ - -i i -
__~ I
__~__,.J
c
c
:oun~y
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
[VOLUME 1]
PHASE I REPORT-TECHNICAL REVIEW
[Five-Year review of activities under the Rural Lands Stewardship Program]
AND
PHASE II REPORT-REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY
[Five-Year review and recommendations to increase the effectiveness ofthe RLSA Overlay)
COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY
OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prevared by:
Date:
The Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
March, 2009
<:::;.o"J!f:r <:;:Ou.n~y
April 21, 2009
The Honorable Donna Fiala, Chairman
and Members of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Dear Chairman Fiala and Commissioners:
In February 2008, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee (the "RLSA
Committee"), of which I am privileged to serve as Chairman, transmitted out the Phase I
Technical Review (the "Phase I Report") to the Board of County Commissioners. The Phase I
Report contained a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area (the "RLSA Overlay") in meeting its prescribed goal of protecting natural resources,
retaining valuable agriculture and promoting compact rural mixed use development through an
incentive based land use system on approximately 195,000 acres in eastern Collier County.
The Phase I Report concluded that significant progress had been made in achieving the
RLSA Overlay goal and validated the extraordinary recognition the program has received in
garnering awards from the following organizations during the first years of its existence:
. 1000 Friends of Florida, Better Community Award, 2005
. FICE, Engineering Excellence Awards, Honorable Mention, 2004
. Economic Development Council of Collier County, Innovation Awards, 2003
. Sustainable Florida Council, Award-Winning Best Practices, 2003
. American Planning Association, Florida Chapter, Awards of Excellence, 2003
The Phase I Report also provided the foundation for the RLSA Committee's Phase II
qualitative evaluation of ways in which the RLSA Overlay Growth Management Plan Policies
could be improved to more effectively implement the program's overriding Goals and Objectives
and achieve the RLSA Committee's Project Management Plan mandate to consider "potential
opportunities and amendments to the Growth Management Plan". As a result of exhaustive
public input and expert testimony, the RLSA Committee unanimously approved the following
proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay:
"Collier County's goal is to retain land for agricultural actIVItIes, to direct
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore
habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in
appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development
that employs creative land use techniques through the use of established
incentives. "
As the RLSA Committee considered this reconstituted Goal in the context of existing
Growth Management Plan ("GMP") Policies, the Committee developed strategies to create
liP age
The Honorable Donna Fiala, Chairman
and Members of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners
incentives to encourage rural landowners to voluntarily agree to:
. eliminate their right to convert agricultural land to non agricultural uses III
exchange for compensation;
. retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands
using Baseline Standards (and thereby reduce the size of the "development
footprint" and the threat of urban sprawl in the RLSA Overlay);
create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections;
. restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers
cost, difficulty and benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted
tiered system;
. impose a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and recalibrate the credit
system to ensure the balance essential to the sustainability of a voluntary incentive
based program which generates significant public benefits without incurring
public expenditures; and
. cooperate with Collier County in its creation of a plan for a county transportation
network that meets the adopted Level of Service through build out of the county
and considers the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out
population.
The RLSA Committee also engaged the public and various interest groups in a rigorous
assessment of each and every RLSA Overlay policy to ensure internal consistency, thoughtful
precision and careful scrutiny of the data, analysis and justification for each of the proposed
Policy amendments. The work product of the RLSA Committee for its Phase II Report therefore
actually consists of proposed GMP Policy amendments. Further, after intensive discussion, we
concluded that the public proceedings embodied twenty three [23] public meetings and thousands
of man hours of work expended by scores of interested parties should be appropriately
recognized.
The RLSA Committee's Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program
incorporates two volumes. Volume I incorporates both the earlier Phase I Report and the Phase II
Report. Volume I of the Report is organized and respectfully submitted in the following sections:
. Phase I Report previously delivered to you as the basis for our qualitative
evaluation of ways to more effectively implement the RLSA Goal and Objectives.
Phase 2 Report, Section 1 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended
substantive policy amendments.
The Honorable Donna Fiala, Chairman
and Members of the CoIlier County
Board of County Commissioners
. Phase 2 Report, Section 2 contains all of the RLSA Committee's recommended
policy amendments, whether substantive or insubstantial.
. Phase 2 Report, Section 3 contains the supporting documentation for the
amendments.
Phase 2 Report, Section 4 provides an account of public participation and
comments, committee deliberations, and committee action.
. Phase 2 Report, Section 5 contains the RLSA Committee's recommended new
Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP based on a proposal for a
county transportation network initiated by CoIlier County Transportation Planning
Director Nick Casalanguida.
In summary, based upon the adopted RLSA Overlay and the RLSA Committee's
recommended policies as contained in Volume I of the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Program, the RLSA wiIl:
1. Achieve a balance of natural resource protection, agriculture and sustainable community
development at the planning horizon year and at build-out.
2. Provide new and meaningful economic incentives for agriculture to remain as a viable
component of the economy ofColIier County.
3. Increase the total area of lands expected to be placed into Stewardship Sending Areas
from 92,000 acres to 134,300 acres.
4. Enable protection and restoration of critical natural resources on private land using
incentives that do not require public doIlars for acquisition or management.
5. Align the RLSA program with the Florida Panther Protection Program's objectives.
6. Establish a maximum SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres-less than 1/4 of the
total RLSA; or 15% when open space within new communities is accounted for.
7. Reduce the potential for conversion of open lands to non-RLSA baseline development,
thereby reducing urban sprawl.
8. Accommodate forecasted population growth in a sustainable manner and ensure that
supporting public facilities, services, and infrastructure are provided.
9. Create new opportunities to site economic development driven new businesses in
proximity to places for employees to live.
10. Accommodate a long range interconnected transportation network plan that serves
Eastern CoIlier County.
Volume II of the Five Year Review ofthe Rural Lands Stewardship Program includes all
support information including major documents, presentations, minutes, etc. considered by the
Committee during the course of its twenty three [23] public meetings.
FinaIly, immediately foIl owing this transmittal letter is an overview of the RLSA
Supporting Documentation [see Phase 2 Report, Section 3] which was presented to the
The Honorable Donna Fiala, Chairman
and Members of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners
Committee.
Given that the RLSA Committee's work effort has resulted in specific recommended
policy amendments to improve the RLSA program, and in keeping with the Board's vote to
expedite the review process, the RLSA Committee recommends and respectfully requests that the
Board of County Commissioners initiate a special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA
Overlay amendments to consider the recommendations found within the Phase II Report.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Board of County Commissioners and stand
ready to proceed in whatever way you believe best serves the people of Collier County.
)
RonH
Chairman, Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee
cc: County Manager James V. Mudd
...
ca
~
ca S
.c .~
== ..
~ 0
:J: .
C " C
.!!!Q).!!!
c..c Q.
C.) .~ -
's, j5 5i
Q) ca E
- -
ca U) Q)
';Q)O)
U) Q) ca
E.c C
_ ca
;&6:E
"i'N.c
0)0 -
C N ~
o .... 0
-0'"
ca...C)
U) ca >..
.- (1) .....
>..>"C
ca C :J
i: 0 0
~.~ u
O ... ...
o Q)
.c=
<C 0)0
UJCU
..J ._
O:::CQ)
!;=
--C
I- c.._
>..
C.)
= Q)
O.c
Q.I-
- .
...0
calt')
~~
C C
o .-
N 0
-- .-
... ...
o ca
:J: C
It') Q)
N C.)
o _U)
N..
Q) :J
.c 0
- I
.c:E
- .-
o :J
.o.!J
U):'
Q) ca
- C.)
ca ._
:J-
- Q)
ca ...
> 2 ..
Q) .... Q)
U)="
.- :J
U)ca-
>...... C.)
-wc
ca C .-
C ca U)
ca_C.)
Q) N .-
I-.c ~ g.
""" -
E
Q)
-
U)
>..
UJ
-
.-
"
e
u
<C
UJ
..J
0:::
Q)
.c
I-
o
c.
ca
C.)
~
UJ
Q)
...
C.)
ca
o
o
o
-
It')
"I:t
<C
o
U)
c.
ca
:E
-
c.
Q)
C.)
C
o
U
o
It')
o
N
"
C
ca
It')
N
o
N
o
U)
.-
U)
>..
-
ca
C
<C
C
o
.-
-
ca
~
o
c.
U)
C
ca
...
I-
<C
UJ
..J
0:::
o
~
" Q)
Q) ...
rn ::::s
o~
Q.~
o ._
... ...
Q.tn
" CO
C ~
CO ~
- Q)
c ...
Q) CO
... Q)
... u
::::s ...
u ::::s
rn 0 .
Q) rn c
... Q) 0
CO ... ._
Q.-rtj
E CO ...
050
U_t;
rn co Q)
._ s::: ...
~E"
- 0 c
co ... co
c _ ~
co " rn
- Q) ...
.- _ 0
"co"
CD ... ._
... Q) t::
U c 0
<(Q)u
en tn ...
...JrnQ)
D::::!::;
Q) " c
.c~co
l-uQ.
"
Q) rn
" c
c tn ...
Q) .- Q)
E ia.c
EQ)cc
o .c Q) co
u-.cc..
Q)o__
... - .c .w
Q)Cu:E
S .2 :c 0
--:>-
.- co :> LL.
EGi ~Q)
EcQ..c
oQ)co_
U tnU_
-:;0
Q) .- 0 rn
.c"...._
- Q) ... co
~ti::o
o ::::s tn
.cS.QQ)
rn~~;
O~ :e en .c
- -
.c ~ ~'i .
rn_u E
rn::coEco
.-:> co'"
rn:>o...tn
~rno tno
coQ)C!,o...
c tn an ... c..
coc~c..c
:!::!"<(o
"-Q)en:;
Q)urn...Ju
"'u ~ 0 .... Q)
U Q. 101. _
Q)::oQ)e
.c oQ. ....c c..
I- Q. _
III
:!::
'tl
al
...
U
0000
0000
0.0.0 o~
OOOl'--ln
N<ON....
...-...- C")
en
~
-c
Q)
'-
III en 0
... ~(/J
:s "'O::J
al Q) C
... .... 0
UenOl!l1ll
'tl'65 =6
S~:;:;c2!
1ll0~WU
EQ).2
.- '^ ,^ - III
.... V,I VI L.. ....
III III Q) III 0
Wl!lO::::W~
en en III
Q) Q) al
'- '- ...
~~.:i.
I.{)I'--N
I'--('t)....
('t)0)C")
. .
0)('t)C")
('t) 'o:t
<f2.
o
...-
.....
Q) III
....-C
al2
'- III
Q) E
c.. -_
.....
III en en
al~Q)
... -C en
u ~ Q)
1ll0l3111
~~~<(~
Cl)1ll'Q;
'tlenC<(
al~Q)o::
n;ol!lCl)
E <( .2 -
;<(..clll
1II0:::::l (5
WOOll..1-'-
en en III '-
Q) Q) al 0
'-'-t)-o
~~<( ~
0000
000-
o. I'-- 1'--. ~
I.{)OOC")Q)
"'-N'o:t-C
Q)
..c
-c
::l
o
o
-c
c
iii III
; OJ
c en c
.!!<( c
Ooo 2
oo OJ
'- C
al 0 's;,
E .:( Q5
o O::::oo 'tl -g
- C ::l
alc III
> ._ en
al-c ...J~
'tl Q) -c C en
A'~ calC
C::; III C.'1ii
'-U-c-lOQ)~
~ .~ c c Cl '- en
Ill"" III Q) C-C<(
mO-l.-COO
C CO.!: III oo
c-g~o~~.2
'c III 0 ~ al c...~
.- -l \J... 0 -c
IllcO<(-enQ)
E Q) oo C Ill._ 0
~8"~~~~~
>.
.c
"C
Q)-
"C .-
c"C
Q) Q)
EU
E C-
o .-
u.c
Q) In
.."C
..
>OCI':I
.!! ~
.. Q)
Q)-
>00
o Q)
<(;
00 Q)
...10)
0::: c
Q) CI':I
.c.c
- u
O"C
--
In ;:,
Q) 0
O)~
C Q)
CI':I Q)
.c_
U:!:
"CEin
Q) E Q)
1n01a
8.u E
o Q)
I:t;
.-
-
In
Q)
@
U
III
L-
W
ID 0..
t5 tl Ul
ctl:.:e:!::
L-W"tl
ID L- Gl
o..U'"
UloU
..... . Gl
:.:eN...
~ro.a
003
<0 (I) .2
NO:;'
.....<(<
ctl W
o..ciij
..... -
-(I) - 0
C'!oo_
N<(WO
>- ID :2 00
U ..c (/l
.- +-' .... CD
Oc::Joo
a.. .- 0 .....
--0 -0 ...
Ul C c Gl
:!::ctlctl1lj
"tl-o-oE
Gl... ID W '_-
..... .....
Uctlctl..n
Gl c c
... .2>.2>
::J Ul (/l
-IDW
3-0-0
U C c
.;: ID W
0.. 0..
<00
..c
.....
::J
o
Ul
-0
C
ctl
..c
1::
o
c
ID
..c
.....
c Ul
-o~:!::
cu"tl
ctl ctl Gl
...
<(Q3U
a::: 0.. ...
S Ul 0
:::"tl
~ "'C "t:
o ID ...
Ul .... 0
IDOU
t5 0 ...
ctl ..- Gl
oro:5
o c
U 0 Ul lI:l
=...:~a..
o-ouo
a..cctlo
UlctlOO
- ~M
:s -g '~ N
GlctlN"tl
uco~
... ID ctl lI:l
o 0....... E
.....00.-
... .....-
.- - Ul
t:Octlw
o Ul ....
u~.E
... u Ul
Gl ctl ....
..co.g
- 0'-
C C') l:::
lI:l _ 0
a....-u
o
o
o
g<o~
o ~"-
- ..- "tl
co .. Gl
N2-
.- U
-0
~ C
..-uO
a....-c"
- 0 lI:l
Ulq>:+::S
Gl..-ctl_
- ....Ul
lI:l Ul 0
E<(1il&!
.- (I) ID
-(1)....0
Ul_IDo
WUlL-O
... +-':J ...
:s:.:e:;~
e~-"'"
Uu-o"tl
c c Gl
C 0 ctl_
o :+:: O)lI:l
.- ctl c E
R;'-::c;..
....BcUl
OUlWW
Ui~o..
Gl-o-o
0::: ID ID
.....
"tl>ctl
Gl e E
to..:+::
._ c.. (J)
I-<(W
Ul,s
Gl Gl
... ...
U U
lI:l lI:l
0...
o Gl
o
In Ul
"llt_
O:g
- ...
.- U
E
:::00
C E
.2 ~
-....
:g 0
..
.- lI:l
:go:::
"a:!::
~~
cnu
000000
000000
000000
cx:iO..,foiM.,f
NN'<tOONO
..-..- ~
-
-
:J
o 00
00 Ol ~
<(00 U
CI)~ CIl
CI) 0..__0
"'C c"'C 000
OlOOl~M
00 0.. (jj U "I
CIl :J :J CIl 00
..c - --. 0 Q)
2aloEUl
0::: .- _ 0 :J _
Z~ 000;;
- '<t 00 Q)
U _CIl...
UlCll 0000 U
~E!!l::;:;:!:oo
"OCQ)"'C"""
l!!':::0"" Ol-8.!
(Q U U"" .C III
U2 oE
"'6~5~U'_-
S~"E~2L.Cf)
IllUUJ....-OlW
.E_ Ol >..9 13..c -
... (j)"'i:: (J) "C C S
UlCllCllOlOJCIlO
W(QUJO:::<(a...~
~
U
CIl
~
CI)
....
~~
" 00
Q):!:
"'"'C
U ~
'OU
00
-
CIl
:J"'C
Ul2
c( ~
rJ) >
rJ)2
" .-
Q)"'C
- ~
Uu
.GI <(
2(1)
Q.CI)
00
:!:
"'C
Ol
....
U
00
00
'<t
I"-
OJ
00
:!:
"'C
Ol
....
U
"I
..-
L()
<0
o
M
Ol
....
U
CIl
<(
0:::
CI)
....
Ol
0..
00
:!:
"'C
~
U
o
..-
-
CIl
00
<(
CI)
CI)
OJ
C
C
CIl
E
Ol
0:::
00 00 Ul 00 Ul
~ ~ l!! ~ l!!
U U U U U
CIl CIl III CIl III
<O..-.....MO
OOL()('I')OON
..-<0 CIO "I....
NON'<t"':
..-M~ ~
"
Q)
Ul
:J
Q)
...
III
Ul
~
"
Q) ~
... ~ U
UUCIl cf2.
_CIl.... 0
CUL...Q) 'r"
C~oo~ro N
oo:!:O::"'C '<t
~:g~rJ)2 ~
Ul~U-gEUl=
UlUO;:;::l!!~
III .- 00 U
CO~~Q) "-
Ul___ IllOl
l!! CIl CIl Q) 00 c( 00..
(.)"'O"C::Q)~
IllOlOl"""rJ)O
--Q)U 0
~ ~ ~ U ~ .! LO-
rJ)OlOl....~C::
"ooooOCQ)CIl
Q)~~'jijOlO"'C
'UUU_.cQ,Ol
Q)CIlCllOU a.
'0 <( <( 1i :c ]j ~
...O:::O::::J:JOU
Q.CI)CI)rJ)a...~_
Ul
Q)
...
U
III
o
'jij
~~
GlrJ)
-rJ)
o
...
_ 0
~~
0rJ)
- c
Q) .-
>"
Q) Q)
""
Q) :J
c-
._ U
Gi .=
Ul_
III 0
lJJ c
"
c c
.- III
.= -I
III C
E Q)
Q) Q,
0::0
~ ~ ~ ~
;;; 0 0 0 0
<:I .., CD <:I
~ ,...: ~ <Xi c::i
.., <:I
~
...
0
~
0
- - -
V) 0 <:I 0 0 <:I CD <C
..,
CIl 0 <:I 0 0 <:I .., ""
... 0 <:I I'- C") <:I CO .n
~ N N C") C") ,..: rD
en 01 <t <t "" ~ 01
~
- - -
~
'"
-
.c
Ol
.;:
Q)
.~
~ Q)
'"
ell
III .n
E 0 -
E - c
c 0;:
::J 0 Co '"
11l .en '0 :J
... 0
Gl Q) 0 Ql
III > U. c
::l c - .!!!
0 c Q)
'0 u CIl U
C ~ E '"
III ~
...J C Co
'" Q) 0 u
c( <t: 0 a; c
11l (/) ;;; c. > ell
...J (/) - ~ Gl u <(
0:: 0 u C c
u - Ul
Ql ..c c ;;; ell
... ell ..J ..J
C '" ::I ..J :;: It:
e ell Ul c .5d!
.n c '" .! ;;;
... i:r: <( Q) ~ :0
::J -
Ul c. 0 :J 0
0 Z Ul 0 (/) a.. 0- I-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;;; 0 0 0 . 0 0
C! <t ~ Il'l <:I Il'l <:I
- I'- 0 ~ cO ..; <Xi c::i
0
I- <t N <C N <:I
~
'0
~
0
- - f-
V) 0 0 0 <:I <:I ~ CQ
<:I ;;g
e 0 0 0 M <:I
0 0 C") <:I "<
(.) 6 ..; '4 iii
<( N N M CD 01
(j) <t ~ ~ ....
- - -
~
III
E
E
::J
11l
Gl
III
::l
'0
C
III
..J
c(
11l
...J -
0:: ~ '"
:J
'0 0
Gl Ul Q)
... C
III ~ .!!!
... - Qi
..c c
Gl u
;;; E '"
u '" Co ~
e '" '" ... 0 u
<t: <t: 0 ~ c
'0 (/) (/) u ;;; III
C (/) (/) .;:
... '0 u <(
III ~ 0 C c
u () .1:i ;;; ell Ul
'0 Q) .2 ..J ..J
Gl '" ... ::I :;: It:
III ell :; Q) Ul
0> .n u .c c .5d! ~
- <( CIl .n
i:r: .;: c '0
Gl Ol ell Ul :J
0:: z <t: 0- Ul a.. 0- I-
0 <(
+-' (J)
<( .....J
0::: ~ 0:::
(J)
..c (J) ctl
+-'
U E 0
ctl "0 +-'
CD ::J C CD
- E ctl ..c
0 +-'
X "0 -
~ ctl 0
0 E CD
L.() c.. ~
(Y') - 0 0
L.()
- CD CD T"""
0 >
E u CD 0
ctl "0 +-'
::J c..
E en CD ctl
c ..c ::J
c 0-
CD CD
E c.. "3: en
0
ctl CD en +-'
en ..c CD c
..... 'C
CD U c..
..... "3: ctl
+-'
::J 0 0
0- ~ .E
CD L.()
..... "0 C'\l "0
0 (J) CD 0) CD
T""" _..c C'\l c..
~ CD o u - 0
u ctl 0 CD
en CD
>- ctl CD ..... E >
u c.. ..... en CD
en u ::J
0 ctl E "0
a.. c CD +-'
CD 0 0') 'x CD
<( c.. L.() ctl ctl C
(J) 0 I'-- CD E CD
.....
.....J CD L.() u ..c
0::: ..c T""" ctl <( I-
-
o
(/)
""0 C
0> 0
...... ......
::l ctl
.0 U
.;:: 0
...... (/)
(/)0>......
""0.055
~(/)E
>-~o.
ctl 0. 0
Et5~
(/) .- 0>
0> arO
(/)
::l ""0 ctl
..... 0 ....
..........::l
ffi(/)o::
-0......
~ E ~
~ >- 0.
0> (/) E
N 0) 0
=cU
ctl .-
::l(/)""O
(/) ::l C
.- ~ ctl
> <( (/)
(/) C/) 0>
0. -I 0)
ctl 0:: ctl
~ 0> >.
......~
0.......
0> C (/)
U ._ C
C ~ s:
8i~
0)
C
""0
C
0>
C/)
0. . ctl
.- ......
~ C
(/) 0>
""0......
.... 0
ctl 0.
s:""O
0> C
...... ctl
C/)
0> (/) (/)
U ""0 ctl
.... C 0>
::l ctl <(....
0-
(/) C 0)
0> 0> C
.... 0.._
ctlO""O
.... 0> C
::l .... 0>
1UctlC/)
C(/)o.
O>~:c
.... .... (/)
ctlctl""O
....
(/) C ctl
ctl 0> s:
~ 0> 0>
ctl 0, U5
C......O>
0> ~ ....
~ .0) ::l
- ......
<.9(/)"'5
-X:ctlu
.... 0> ....
ctl .... 0)
0<(<(
(/)
0>
.;::
ctl
>
o
0::.8
U E
.... >-
o (/)
0> 0>
0)0)
ctl ctl
--
--
>-
""0 0> .;:: Q.
::l-Sctl ~
~'Oc_<.9
(/)c.2o""O
""0 0 ~ ""0 0>
C ...... .... ......0.
ctl u 0> ctl
.0..0 ~ .g
OO>......LUctl
.Co ""0 ~ ~ 0>
cO>Ec~
0>> ::l......
u:=:o>o~
(/)c(/)U:=:
0> '+= 0> .... s:
.0 ~ -S .0> 0>
(/)....(/)=u
(/) 0 ctl 0 c
o ~U ctl
0.0)(/)0>"E
0> .c <( ~ 0
c""OC/)......u
o .c C/) >- ~
.......0.....0
~ ctl 0 ~ .~
(/) (/) > (/)
cctl<(o....
0> 0::.... 0> (/)
(/) ""0 C/) 0. C !1>
0> ~ 0. .0 :;
5...::. '0 ctl ~ ""0
0> (/) 0> ~.- 0>
.... c .~ - E u
(/) 8 (/) ~ E e
~(/)0....:200.
\u._ > U
~ E c.- ()
o ""0 >- 0
0> 0> ._ c......c I
(/) .0 ...... .- ......
O>......ctl""o::l""o
~OuOc()Oc
I-c_ctl ctl
>>
- ....
coo>
s: C .N
~s:(/)
>-~ 0>
c~.o
ctl u ~
.... ctl >
-E0>0
~1Uctl
(/) -S E
_ 0> ::l
2 E .E
c ::l ><
0> (/) ctl
-(/)E
& ~ 0>
-o~
oc-
0>02
0)""0 c
c 0>
ctl ~(/)
.... >- 0>
0> 0> ....
""0 0.
~ .- 0>
I- s: ....
>-
co
1::
Q)
>
o
<(
C/)
.....J
0::
"0
Q)
......
0..
o
"0
CO
Q)
..c
......
-
o
0>
C
oc
Q)
"0
C
Q)
....
-
'0 0> 0
_ c .c oo
OOc 0 .> ~
o +:; Q) ::J
._ ::J U ......
"""..0 Q) CO
CO ._ tV Q)
"O~u.._
C oo 0.. ....
Q) 0- "_ Q)
E"O..c..c
Q)oo......
E "0 0
..c ....
0""" CO "0
U .... ;;: C
Q) .E Q) CO
.... ......
oo . 0 C/) oo
-.... Q)
Q) CO -
Q) c oo ~
......Q)COo..
:':UQ)
Eoo~C/)
EQ)o>a3
o ..0 C 0..
U 'oo ~ 0
;;: oo c
Q)oQ)en
"S 0.. C/) co
Q) co 0.. ~
O::;;::.c<(
C/)Ooo-
.....J..c"O~
0:: oo ro ::J
Q)U;;:;
..c"02u
...... c C/) "C
C co_ 0><(
o t:O .co <( ~
~ooC~o::
oo 0.. Q) w
cocoo~Q)
t:O ~ 0.. <( ~
"0
Q)
~
0..
E
oo
CO
oo
<(
0.. 0..
CO CO
~~
o
'C
CO
C
Q)
U
oo
....
CO
~
C
o
N
'C
o
I
LO
N
o
N
Q)
..0
oo
oo
o
0..
Q)
C
o
~
o
..c
oo
t:O
0..
CO
~
o
'C
CO
C
Q)
U
oo
+...
::J
o
"0
::J
..0
o
LO
o
N
Q)
.0
oo
oo
o
0..
Q)
C
o
oo
;;:
o
..c
oo
U
0..
CO
~
LO
C'l '
o..c:
C'l~
'+--CO
o (]) ....
fJ) _ 0>
<( fJ) (])
,." CO ....
L.L.. U ::J
C/)(])-
.... ::J
coQ::
C(])Q
(]) ~ (])
Q(])-C
0. CO >
O-Ce
...--00.
fJ) E 0
t5 E fJ)
0.0 CO
(])U-C
-C~C
0. -C CO
CO _ c
~5~
0..3: CO
(]) _ ::J
ucoo.
c ..c: 0
o - 0.
U(])-c
N C
~fJ)CO
o g fJ)
C'l ._ (])
(]) ~ E
..c: CO 0
I->..c:
-C
(]) ....
0.0
o fJ)
(]) ....
> CO
(]) ~ (])
-C ........c
>, LO -C
=~::J
::J 0 0
:::"'--3:
o fJ) (])
C(])o>
-C..::,t,CO
C CO
CO-=
>,>
fJ) C ....
<(00
O::Ec
C/) E 3:
-co~
(]) U
>:<.:-C
e fJ) ~
0. CO 0
0. ~o..
COfJ)o.
fJ) ~ CO
t5COc
'0.. = CO
(]) > (])
-C-CC;-C
0. C '+- (])
CO CO (]) -
E fJ) ..c (])
c (]) 0.
(]) 3: .... E
~~~8
o
0>,
0_
~ - I
'<::t ::J C
C'l'+-o
>,(])c
Q)..c-c
--C(])
Eco ::J 10
o .-
'X 3: g
e (]) fJ)
0.0>fJ)
0. CO CO
CO(])-C
(]) U c
.... CO CO
CO _ fJ)
c CO (])
3: ~ E
o '+- 0
..c:o..c:
fJ)C'l-C
fJ) _ (])
(]) ...-- ,-
0>>,0.
CO (]) a
=-u
> CO 0
-c .E ..c: ~
cX:<':fJ)
CO e 3: ::J
fJ) o.-c
~ ~ ~~
.Q . 0 55
r-fJ)(])-C
(]) ~ > ,-
..c: U (]) fJ)
I-co-c~
fJ)0
o
fJ)C")
(])<.O
ELO
o fJ)
..c:
'+- c
o 0
'-:.;:::::#
(]) CO
..c ::J
E 0.
::J 0
C 0.
-c -c
(]) (])
- -
fJ) fJ)
CO CO
U U
(]) (])
.... ....
Q-E
_fJ) 0
.z.a...
c~
::J
o (])
u..c:
-
(])-c
~ c
- CO
LOO
C'lo
0"""
C'l _
c~
O>l/)
C 0)
0) -g E
..c: 0) ::J
....... a. l/)
C 0) ~
..c:"'C
~coO)
;>C")"'C
N 0
~NE
E C") C
0...... 0
..c:"'C.......
_CCO
o COt:::
..... C") 0
0) 0> a.
..c",,"~
E <0 CO
::J 0 .....
C ...... t:..
"'CcO)
20)u
l/) 0) .....
~ ~ 5
0) 0) l/)
o..cCi)
- l/) co
0) 0) u
..c: 0> 0)
....... c..... .
- co 0 ~
0.....-......
I.C)<(O)C")
o (j) ..c: <O_
N .......C")
C~5;:
- 0)
O..c:
....... .
l/) 0) C
<(.......0
0::: CO.......
(j)"'CCO
O)~~
..cEO
l/)oo.
l/)u"'C
o U C
a. CO CO
<O"'Cl/)
......-0)
::J
l/) 0 E
t) ~ 0
. - ..c:
a. >-_
0) 0) 0
"'C>.....
a.; 0)
coU..c
;2O)E
....... 0 ::J
o.uc
0).......0
ucol.C)
c..c:o
0.......
()O)N
o .N "'C
1.C)l/)2
o 0> l/)
N .!: ~
0) ~ 0)
..c: co .....
I->.E
0)
..c: l/)
....... l/)
l/) 0
co .....
"'CO>
~ ~
o co 0)
a...........
o 0) u
..... > co
o.co.....
l/) C 0)
co a.
.......
co ..c: l/)
..c:.......:!::
....... .~ c
l/) ::J
0).......0
..... ::J
UOC")
co"'C"'C
o::Jc
g..cco
- ....... I.C)
I.C)CON
"""<(
.......(j)c
ffi -l 0)
l/) 0::: ~
~O)""'"
o...c: 0)
O).........c
..... ..... >-
l/).E~
~ a. c
(j) co 0)
U"'C
"'C
C
co
0) 0 l/)
~::~
;~(j)
u ..... 0)
.....o..c:
O>c.......
<( .- 0)
- l/) :!::
~~~
S(j)o
- "'C .......
<( 0) l/)
(j)>:!::
IO"'C
..... 0)
_a......
<( a. ()
(j)co>.
LL C L"
l/)..c: co
co ....... l/)
.- l/)
"'C ~ 0)
0) 0) u
t) ..... 0)
__ co C
0.0)0)
O)u..c:
"'Cco.......
l/) a. 0)
CO(j).......
0) C ~
ro 0) 0)
= a. ffi
<( 0 0>
@) en
-
.... c
en m Q)
en ~ E
"0
en c c c
>,- Q) 0 Q)
- c ~ N
m Q) .C E
C E - 0 <(
<( Q) Q) I <(
-- ..0
O-W >, 0- C/)
I- Q) L{) I- .....J l:j::
0:: u C'I 0:: 0:: m
en C -
.....J::> Q)W 0 .....J t:: C/)
- ii5::> C'I 0
c"O C >,
.- .....J @) 0 a. ..0
m C ~LL :.;::; a.
- m
O-.....J 006 .... m ::l "0
m N C/) Q)
C Q) U_ ~ -
C en
o .... -W m 0 Q)
.- ::l ml- -
- - C Ol "0 ::l
m ::l E- O .... 0-
t::LL Q)- N 0 Q) Q)
&m ....
- C .C ::l 0::
E Q) 0 Ol
en t:: - E I C 0- en
coW Q) C Q)
.... Q) 0:: en
~ a.::> .- - W C >,
I- a......J ::lW ?- m en m
Q)::lLL 0-
Q) C >, 0- en C
Ol C/) ::- 0:: .0 - >, <(
C C
C 0 C - ::l m m -
m - Q) en m C ::l
O::"OE Q)t:: 0 ~ <( 0
Ol~"O ::l 0 U 0 I
- a. a. L{) "0
m ....
C .- C - en Q) eo C'I
o ::l Q) C/) C 0 ::l
.....J g E m -C'f) C'I CD
.....J .... 0 Q)o
<(0::<( LLI- U ~C'I <( <(
0 0 0 0 0 0
+-'
C
CD
E
0.
o
CD
>
CD
o
ll..
~
0::
....J
C
CD
U
:;:;
U
CO
L-
ll..
"'C
L-
CO
"'C
C
CO
+-'
CI)
o
"'C
CD
L-
CO
0.
CD
L-
ll..
If)
If)
>.
CO
c
<(
+-'
:J
o
I
"'C
:J
CD
o
If)
If)
>.
co
c
<(
l.()
C\l
o
C\l
>.
..0
"'C
CD
3:
o
o
u..
o
CD
c
o
N
If)
If)
>.
CO
c
<(
u
It::
CO
L-
~
CD
:J
0-
C
::J
c
CO
CD
L-
<(-
+-'0
C Q)
CD ....
E :::s
0..0>
oU:
CD CD
> CD
CD If)
0.........
-
..eN
~~
w.........
o
co
CD
L-
<(
C
CO
..0
L-
::J
CD
CD
CO
~
o
E
E
CD
"'C
If)
C
"'C
C
CO
<(>.
CI)+-'
....J C
0:: 5
CD()
:0>.
If)..o
+-'
:J"'C
o~
If) .-
N 6
~C:
o
-
If)
<(
CI)
CI)
.........
If)
+-'
If)
CO
U
CD
L-
o
u..
CO
C
0)
.C
o
......
o
"'C
CD
0.
0.
.C
+-'
CI)
If)
N
~
0)
C
+-'
If)
.x
W
o
C
'"0
Q)
'"0
Q)
-- Q)
'<::( z
....... Q)
"-
:0 .....
- ctl
-- '"0 ..c:
- Qj l/)
- Q)
- Q)
~ l/) Ol
:::> Q) -- c
.Q Q) co ctl
~ Q) l/) ....... ..c
'"0 "-
- :0 ()
Q) 0 '"0 $' -
Q) ~ Q) - ..c: >.
l/) Cl. ~ Qj C
- '"0 0 ctl
c .Q -
0 ctl Q) ~ '"0 ~
"C E > Q)
ctl Q) - .....
c Q) 0 Cl. ctl
0 0 ..c
Q) 0 "C ~
U ..::tt:. Q) .....
(/) ..... ctl > C
Q) 0 c Q) l/) Q)
..... > Z Q) Q) E
:::J ctl U 0 C
0 ..... Q) (/) Q)
I- ..::tt:. E
I Z ..... UJ
'"0 Q) L() ~ .....
'"0 C\J Q) C
l/) .....
:::J "~ '"0 0 ..... Q) 0
1Il C\J Q) 0 .....
I Q) Z ctl
..... Q)
ctl U ctl l/) 1:::
..... "C Z ..... l/) l/) 0
c ..... = C '"0 >. Cl.
Q) l/) ..... Q) Q) l/)
..... 0 :::J ..... Q) ctl C
0 0 0 Z c ctl
a.. l- I a.. <( .....
Q) 0 '"0 Q) L() l/) I-
C\J
c 0 :::J C 0 ..c Q)
0 LL 1Il 0 C\J I- ..c
.....
0 0 0 0 0 0
~
Q)
.:;
Q)
0:::.:.:
-
~ 'i
O:::<t
Q)U)
.c..J
-0:::
"C Q)
C.c
ctI_
~ -
ctI t/)
- Q)
... .-
~~
o 0
<to.
U)"C
..J Q)
o:::-g
"C Q)
Q) E
'Q.E
o 0
"C (J
ctI Q)
...
Q) t/)
.c-
- Q)
cS
o~
"C E
Q) E
= 0
!:Ou
"'C .....
c co
co ~
~ C
::J 0
~ N
::J 'C
U 0
.......c:
Olo>
CO C
- c
25 c
:;::; CO
U 0..
.$ 0)
e-E
o..+-,
0) CO
~e
::J 0)
o E
(fl 0..
~ 0
0)
~ >
::J 0)
+-' "'C
CO
c~
-- '-
o C
::J
0) E
g E
coo"S
CO U 0
.00)"0
CO :0 ::J
O)CO.o
> .!: +-'
0) CO CO
.- +-'
..c:(fl"O
U ::J C
<( (fl CO
o
+-'
0) >,
..... +-'
::J C
:!: ::J
13 0
.- 0
.....
0>.....
CO .0)
.....-
o 0
-0
(fl__
0) 0
.~ >-
e E
0) 0
U C
.!: 0
U ~
E 0)
o..c:
C+-'
80
O)e
-0)
.2 C
010
.!: 0..
C E
CO 0
0) U
E 0)
"0.0
C CO
CO .-
>
~ CO
0) (fl
C CO
0) C
"'C ._
.- CO
~ E
..... 0)
a.. .....
(fl
~
U
CO
00
+-'0
C("')
"'C..,f
0)("')
U..-
CO 0
c.. +-'
0) (fl
.0 0)
.....
o U
+-' CO
"'Co
0)0
uo
0) -
0.."1
x 0'>
0) E
(fl 0
"'C .....
c--
CO (fl
CO
o ~
co<(
0) 0>
..... C
CO .-
_"'C
CO C
+-' 0)
.8Cf)
0) c..
..r::. .-
_..c:
0) (fl
(fl"E
CO CO
0) ~
..... 0)
U+-,
ECf)
C .....
0..E
(fl ~
0) CO
u-
.....-
::J 0
0"0
(fl U
0)=
......0
CO ::J
..... 0..
::J 0)
+-' .....
CO
C
::J
0-
CO 0)
U .....
:;::; ....
'C 0
U C
- 0
0"0
C+-'
o CO
:;::; ..c:
co+-'
..... (fl
o 0)
+-' >
:3:;:;
..... C
0)
U
C
C
o
:;::;
U
0)
+-'
e
a..
~
(1)
'>
(1)
~.:.:
-
~ 'i
0::<(
(1)UJ
"c..J
-0::
"0 (1)
C"c
ca_
~ -
ca tn
_ (1)
a.. .-
~~
08-
<("0
UJ (1)
..J"O
0:: C
-g E
'Q.E
o 0
"0 CJ
ca ~
(1) tn
"c_
- (1)
C (1)
-
0::
"0 E
~ E
ca 0
mo
3:
Q)
C/) c
Q) C
...
c..>.c
ctl-
o "3:
o Q)
o c..>
LO ctl
-.::to.
'+- C/)
o C
- Q)
c a.
.;:: 0
.8-c
o Q)
.E.c
_ 3:
c 0
Q)e;::.
ELO
0.T"""
o 0
Q)
> "-
Q) <( ...:
~CI)o
'-'....J'+-
e::(
o::o::~
(1)ctl-
_ C
E.9:J
:J Q) 8
E.c c..>
"- - ctl
x.....
ctl 0 C/)
E -.::t C/)
ctl ;:: Q)
;+=
..ecc
C/) ctl :J
.o:5E
ctl C/) E
- C/)
tf1 Q) 8
e::(
CI)
....J
0::
a 3:
c ctl
...
o a.
- C/)
C/)
"0 ctl
C:.;:::;
ctl c
- Q)
c-
Q) 0
0.0.
00>
..... C
o "0
C :J
.0 ~
C/) ...
...
Q) >.
>.0
c Q)
o ...
c..> Q)
..e
... -
.E
-
c
ctl Q)
1: E
Q) a.
- 0
&Q)
>
Q) Q)
.c "0
-
Q) ~
c..> "_
:J-
"0 Q)
Q) C/)
o::~
...
Q)
c
c
ctl
E
Q)
.0
ctl
c-g
ctl ctl
-
C/) C/)
:J Q)
C/) c..>
ctl "-
C ~
"- Q)
.c C/)
3: C/)
o .Q)
... -
0>:=
c c..>
0,E
:.;:::; c..>
ctl=
:J.o
o.:J
00.
0.0>.
"oc"o
Q) "- Q)
_t"O
C/) 0 "-
ctl a. >
c..> 0. e
Q) :J a.
o C/) Q)
..... _...
Q) ctl ctl
ro:5~
"oQ):J
0"'-
E ~ g
EC,;,
o Q) C/)
c..> ~ ctl
c..>'-'~
<(~c
3:
Q)
c
c
Q)
>
.;::
"0
-
C
Q) ~
E=
0.0
0-
Q) C/)
> Q)
Q) Q)
"0>-
c..> 0
"- a.
E E
o Q)
c ...
8.E
Q) C/)
Q) Q)
:!: c..>
C/) ctl
o a.
-
C/).9
Q)
"- >.
~~
C E
:J 0_
t x
o e
0.0.
o.c
o ._
3: C/)
Q) Q)
c C/)
C/)
Q) Q)
- c
ctl ._
Q) C/)
... :J
0.0
~
...
~
Q)
c
c
o
:.;:::;
ctl
t
o
a.
C/).c
ctl
...
-
"0
Q)
-
c..> :>.
Q)-
c C
C :J
o 0
20
Q) ...
- Q)
.!: =
Q) 0
0>0
C
ctl C
... ...
0>2
C C/)
o m
ctl C/)
2 ~
ctl Q)
-g C/)
Ero
E:5
o C
c..> ctl
c..>_
<(a.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[Volume 1]
PHASE I REPORT [review of activities within the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area during its first years of existence.. . completed in February, 2008]
PHASE II REPORT [review and recommendations to improve the
effectiveness ofthe Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay]
Section 1: Major Committee-recommended revisions to improve the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
. Preface to Committee Recommendations
. Group I Policies
. Group 2 Policies
. Group 3 Policies
. Group 4 Policies
. Group 5 Policies
PAGE
1-29
30
30
30
30-33
33-34
34-35
35-40
40-44
Section 2: All Committee-recommended revisions to the improve the 45-67
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
. Stewardship Area Overlay Map 68
· Attachment A-Existing Credit Worksheet 69
· Recommended amendment to Attachment A- Credit Worksheet 70
· Recommended amendment to Attachment B-Land Use Layers 71
· Attachment C-SRA Characteristics [final approved] 72
· Attachment C-SRA Characteristics [proposed amendment] 73
Section 3: Supporting Documentation
. Preface and Introduction to Section 3
. Collier County Rural Stewardship Five Year Review
Supporting Documentation for Amendments
Section 4: Public Participation and Comments, Committee Deliberations
and Committee actions
. Preface to Section 4
. Group I Policies
. Group 2 Policies
. Group 3 Policies
. Group 4 Policies
. Group 5 Policies
74
74
74-92
93
93-94
94-112
112-119
119-133
133-156
156-165
Section 5: Committee-recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation 166
Element of the GMP [related to proposed amended Policy 4.5 of the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[Volume 1]
PHASE I REPORT [review of activities within the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area during its first years of existence.. . completed in February, 2008]
PHASE II REPORT [review and recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay]
Section 1: Major Committee-recommended revisions to improve the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
. Preface to Committee Recommendations
. Group I Policies
. Group 2 Policies
. Group 3 Policies
. Group 4 Policies
. Group 5 Policies
Section 2: All Committee-recommended revisions to the improve the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
. Stewardship Area Overlay Map
. Attachment A-Existing Credit Worksheet
· Recommended amendment to Attachment A- Credit Worksheet
· Recommended amendment to Attachment B-Land Use Layers
· Attachment C-SRA Characteristics [proposed amendment]
. Blank page
Section 3: Supporting Documentation
· Preface and Introduction to Section 3
· Collier County Rural Stewardship Five Year Review
Supporting Documentation for Amendments
. Blank page
Section 4: Public Participation and Comments, Committee Deliberations
and Committee actions
. Preface to Section 4
. Group I Policies
. Group 2 Policies
. Group 3 Policies
. Group 4 Policies
. Group 5 Policies
. Blank page
PAGE
1-29
30
30
30
30-33
33-34
34-35
35-40
40-44
45-67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
74
74-92
93
94
94-95
95-113
113-119
119-131
131-156
156-164
165
Section 5: Committee-recommended new Policy 3.7 ofthe Transportation 166
Element of the GMP [related to proposed amended Policy 4.5 of the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay]
NOTE: THIS IS THE PHASE I-TECHNICAL REPORT COMPLETED BY THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE DATED FEBRUARY, 2008.
Q
In 2002 the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) was adopted into the
County's growth management initiatives. Nowhere in Florida or the nation had this type of
landmark planning initiative taken place, and the implementation and outcome were uncertain.
Over the past three months, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee has had the
opportunity to assess the achievements of the program during its first five years in operation.
The learning curve was steep, and a great deal of committee time and energy was spent on
becoming reacquainted with the complex mechanics of the program. I am glad to say the
committee was successful in absorbing the details of the program and evaluating the status to
date.
The report before you, provides a quantitative synopsis of how far along the program has come
in protecting environmentally valuable lands and establishing communities in the far eastern
lands of the county. This Phase I Technical Review is the first step in a comprehensive review
of the program. It lays the foundation to evaluate how the objectives and policies have resulted
in reaching the goals of the RLSA.
The Committee has worked very well together, and on Feb 5th, voted unanimously to forward
the Phase I Technical Review to the Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County
Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, and the Department of Community
Affairs.
Ron Hamel, Chairman
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
1lPage
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA FIvE- YEAR REVIEW
PHASE I - TECHNICAL REVIEW
This Phase I - Technical Review is a requirement of the Collier County Growth Management
Plan (GMP FLUE RLSA 1.22). The review is intended to provide an assessment of activity that
has occurred within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) over the past five years. 2003-
2008. It is the role of the committee to assist in determining whether the activity presented in the
review supports or does not support the goals of the Collier County RLSA, which is to:
protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses
direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat
enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations
discourage urban sprawl and to encourage development that utilizes creative land
use planning techniques
The Phase I review is intended to focus on the specific items detailed in POlicy 1.22 (see below.)
An evaluation of the RLSA Group 1-5 policies will occur during the Phase II of the review
process.
The information presented in this report represents the current status of the RLSA program. The
intention of the program is to encourage the designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA)
that private landowners voluntarily limit land-uses on through a Stewardship Easement in
exchange for Stewardship Credits that can be used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas
(SRA).
GMP FLUE 1.22: The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a
planning horizon Year of 2025. Many of the tools. techniques and strategies of the Overlay are
new. innovative. incentive based. and have yet to be tested in actual implementation. A
comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier County and
the Department of Community Affairs upon the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the
Stewardship District in the LDC. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the participation
in and effectiveness of the RLSA program in meeting the Goal. Objective and Policies set forth
herein.
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs. HSAs. WRAs and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated. assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of a Study and time of review.
5. The amount. location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources
Local. State. Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount. location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
2lPage
Definitions (LDC 4.08.01):
ACSC. Area of Critical State Concern
Agricultural Group 1 Uses (4.08.0684). Generally higher intensity agricultural uses including:
row crops, citrus, nurseries, and related support uses.
Agricultural Group 2 Uses (4.08.06 84). Generally lower intensity agricultural uses including:
pasture, forestry, hunting cabins, cultural and recreational facilities, and related support uses.
Early Entry 80nus Credits (FLUE RlSA Policy 1.21). The bonus shall be in the form of an
additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the
ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the
ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the effective date of the
adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC.
Fallow. Farmland that is not currently being farmed but has been in the past and could be in the
future.
FSA . Flow way Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay
Map, which primarily include privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais
Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. FSAs form the primary wetland flow way systems in the
RLSA District.
Future land Use Map (FLUE). Two maps of Collier County are provided as exhibit 1 (2007
GMP FLUE RLSA submap) and exhibit 5 (2002 FLUE).
HSA. Habitat Stewardship Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed
species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they
are located contiguous to habitat with natural characteristics, thus forming a continuum of
landscape that can augment habitat values.
land Use layer. Permitted and conditional land uses within the Baseline Standards that are of
a similar type or intensity and that are grouped together in the same column on the Land Use
Matrix. Layers are removed in order from higher to lower intensity and include: Residential
Land Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, Recreational Uses,
Agriculture - Group 1, Agriculture - Support Uses, Agriculture - Group 2.
land Use Matrix (Matrix). The tabulation of the permitted and conditional land uses within the
Baseline Standards set forth in Section 4.08.06 B.4., with each Land Use Layer displayed as a
single column.
Natural Resource Index (Index). A measurement system that establishes the relative natural
resource value of each acre of land by objectively measuring six different characteristics of land
and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the
Index value for the land. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay
Delineation, Proximity to Sending Area (HSA, FSA, WRA), Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface
Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
Open lands. Areas outside the ACSC or HSA, FSA, or WRA with Natural Resource Index
values less than 1.2.
3lPage
Restoration Zone. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map that are located
within 500 feet of an FSA, but are not otherwise included in an HSA or WRA.
R1. (GMP RLSA Policy 3.1). Lands are designated by the property owner for restoration
activities. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner
to receive credits.
R2. Lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for restoration activities. Credits
are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration activities have met applicable
success criteria.
SRA - Stewardship Receiving Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for the development of a Hamlet, Village, Town or CRD and that requires the
consumption of Stewardship Credits.
SSA - Stewardship Sending Area. A designated area within the RLSA District that has been
approved for the generation of Stewardship Credits in exchange for the elimination of one or
more Land Use Layers.
Stewardship Credit (Credit). A transferable unit of measure generated by an SSA and
consumed by an SRA. Eight credits are transferred to an SRA in exchange for the development
of one acre of land as provided in Section 4.08.06 B.
Stewardship Credit System. A system that creates incentives to protect and preserve natural
resources and agricultural areas in exchange for the generating and use of credits to entitle
compact forms of rural development. The greater the value of the natural resources being
preserved and the higher the degree of preservation, the greater the number of credits that can
be generated. Credits are generated through the designation of SSAs and consumed through
the designation of SRAs.
WRA - Water Retention Area. Privately owned lands delineated on the RLSA Overlay Map,
that have been permitted by the SFWMD to function as agricultural water retention areas and
that provide surface water quality and other natural resource value.
1. Identify the amount of land designated as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSA), Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSA), Water Retention Areas (WRA), and other* Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSA).
*Other SSA lands include Open designated lands
Attached Map 1 shows an overview of the entire Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) with
lands designated as FSA, HSA, WRA and Open. Table 1-A provides a summary of the acreage
of each designation and the acres that have been protected through Stewardship Sending
Areas since the RLSA program inception (5-yrs). The 5-yr percentage column shows that of all
lands within the RLSA designations, a total of thirteen percent have been protected to date
within a SSA. Thirty percent of all FSA and HSA designated land has been protected to date.
The acreages in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1 D where
exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre.
4lPage
Table 1-A
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved
RLSA Total RLSA SSA Acres Approved S-yr Percentage
Designation Acres
FSA 31,100 9,206 30%
HSA 40,000 12,283 31%
WRA 18,200 44 0.2%
Open 93,100 2,593 3%
Total 182,400 24,126 13%
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
Note- Acreages listed in this report have been rounded to the nearest acre, except in Table 1 D
where exact acreages are reported to the one-hundredth of an acre. Margin of error may
be+/-1%.
Table 1-8
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Pending
RLSA Total Acres SSA Acres Pending 5-yr Percentage
Designation
FSA 31,100 10,619 34%
HSA 40,000 17,703 44%
WRA 18,200 3,034 17%
Open 93,100 474 < 1%
Total 182,400 31,830 17%
Source: SSAs under review and property owners
Table 1-C
Summary of RLSA Designations within Sending Areas Approved & Pending
RLSA Total Acres SSA Acres Approved & 5-yr Percentage
Designation Pendina
FSA 31,100 19,825 64%
-
HSA 40,000 29,986 75%
WRA 18,200 3,078 17%
Open 93,100 3,067 3%
Total 182,400 55,956 31%
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, SSAs under review, and property owners
A series of maps have been prepared to illustrate the location of the protected lands and their
designations.
. Map 1A illustrates the 19,825 acres of FSA within SSAs approved and pending;
. Map 18 illustrates the 29,986 acres of HSA within SSAs approved and pending;
. Map 1 C illustrates the 3,078 acres of WRA within SSAs approved and pending;
51 Page
. Map 1 D illustrates the 3,067 acres of Open, including 500-foot restoration buffer zones,
within SSAs approved and pending; and
. Map 1E illustrates all 55,956 acres of all lands within SSAs approved and pending.
Note- all map acreages are rounded to the nearest acre, margin of error +/-1 %.
To provide further information on the approved and pending Stewardship Sending Areas,
Table1-D provides detailed information for each SSA including acreage designation type and
land uses remaining as set forth in each recorded SSA easement agreement that has been
approved by the county.
Each SSA is subject to a perpetual restrictive easement (Stewardship Easement) that runs with
the land. The Stewardship Easements are required to be in favor of Collier County and one of
the following: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, SFWMD, or a recognized statewide land trust. The
Stewardship Easement sets forth the land uses that have been eliminated and which the SSA
property is prohibited from utilizing. The Stewardship Easement also sets forth the land uses
that remain on the SSA property, the specific land management measures that must be
undertaken, and the party responsible for implementing those measures.
Table 1-D shows Ag-1, which includes agricultural uses remain, including: row crops, citrus,
specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing, and similar
activities, including agricultural support uses. Ag-2 includes these agricultural activities remain,
including: unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry, and similar uses and related
support uses. In summary, the SSAs approved have protected 23,422.4 acres of agriculture
use. All other more intensive uses not otherwise indicated have been removed from the land.
Table 1-0
Each SSA Approved & Pending Acreage Type and land Use levels Remaining
SSA# Acreage Acres Ag-I Ag-2 Other Total Acre.
Type
SSA 1 FSA 146.58 146.58 146.58
FSA 653.65
SSA2 704.14 704.14
HSA 50.49
FSA 509
SSA3 HSA 2,686 1,078.64 2,116.91 3,195.54
SSA 3a HSA 248.9 220.6 nla'
FSA 198.18
SSA4 654.01 585.91 1.239.92
HSA 1,04174
FSA 196.0
SSA5 HSA 1,629.8 1,852.3 1,852.3
Open 26.5
FSA 17 651.3
SSA Sa Conservation nla'
HSA 649.6
FSA 4,926.2
SSA6 HSA 4,984.9 2,712.7 7,198.4 9,911.1
FSA 399.6
SSA 7 985.4 985.4
HSA 486.5
6lPage
SSA# Acreage Acres Ag-I Ag-2 Other Total Acres
TVDe
OpeD 99.3
FSA 1,619.9
SSA8 HSA 1,247.9 815.0 4,484.5 5,299.5
Open 2,432.0
Open 34.2
FSA 556.5 50.1
SSA9 739.3 Earth Mining 789.4
WRA 43.5
HSA 155.2
Tntal Approved 24.123.88 5.260.35 19,034.04 701.40 24,123.88
FSA 0
SSA 10** HSA 5,854
Application WRA 1 5,861
Submitted
Open 6
FSA 1,191
SSA II ** HSA 2,212
Application WRA 198 3,700
Submitted
Open 99
FSA 1.788
SSA 12** HSA 2,933 4,791
Pre-app meeting held WRA 0
Open 70
FSA 4,232
SSA 13** HSA 1,313 7,430
Pre-app meeting held WRA 1,616
Open 269
FSA 1,048
SSA 14** HSA 663
Application WRA 1 1,713
Submitted Open 0
FSA 2,196
SSA 15** HSA 1,827 5,259
Pre-app meeting held WRA 1,209
Open 27
FSA 164
SSA 16** HSA 2,901 3,077
Pre-app meeting held WRA 9
Open 3
Total Pending 31,830 nla*. nla** o/a** 31.830
Total 55,953.88 55.953.88
Approved + Pending
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements, Collier County SSA Land Characteristics Summary,
SSAs under review, and property owners
. SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to include restoration areas. Acreage is already
included in 3 & 5.
.. SSAs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 have yello be approved by the county and data is included
where available as informational oniy.
The FSA and HSA overlays were designed to incentivize protection of the major regional
f10wways within the RLSA and the large landscape-scale mosaic of native habitats and
7lPage
agricultural lands adjacent to the FSAs. These lands provide major hydrological and ecological
linkages within the region.
As depicted on Map 1 E, of the 31,100 acres designated as FSA, 19,825 acres of FSA (64% of
total FSA) are protected via approved and pending SSA designations. Approved and pending
SSAs also account for 29,986 acres of HSA overlay areas (75% of total HSA).
Map 1 F illustrates the existing and pending SSA lands protect from intensive development a
large extent of lands targeted for public acquisition by Florida Forever and its predecessor
programs. SSAs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 15 protect the vast majority of Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands within the RLSA, which were first delineated in the
1970's. SSAs 8 and 11 protect lands within the Collier County portion of the Devit's Garden
Florida Forever project.
Additionally, SSAs 3, 4, and 5 were designated specifically to protect an important landscape
linkage for the Florida panther across CR 846, which has a high incidence of panther-vehicle
interactions. These designated SSAs will allow for the eventual establishment of fenced wildlife
crossings. SSAs 6, 10, and 12 comprise 20,000 acres along the southern portion of the RLSA,
protecting high-quality panther habitats that are directly adjacent to the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) and Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP).
2. The amount and location of land designated as Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA).
As shown in Table 2-A, the Town of Ave Marie 8RA approved by the county in 2002 contains
5,027 acres. Over 1,000 of the total acres are public benefit uses, including Ave Maria
University.
The proposed Town of Big Cypress is anticipated to be the second 8RA proposed in the Collier
RLSA. The pre-application and DRI information list the town as 2,798 acres. The SRA
application is expected to be filed in the summer of 2008.
Table 2-A
SRA Acreage
4,000
2,798
6,798
8RA Designation
Town of Ave Maria SRA
Town of Bi Cress SRA'
Total
'proposed
Acres
The attached Map 2 shows the location of the existing Town of Ave Maria SRA and the
proposed location of the Town of Big Cypress.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA District from which
one or more Land Use Layers are removed and are designated as an SSA. All privately owned
lands within the RL8A are a candidate for designation as a SSA, however, lands having high
ecological vale, such as lands within an FSA or HSA, generate more credits per acre than the
"Open" designated lands. Stewardship Credits can only be generated through the approval of
8lPage
Stewardship Sending Areas using the methodology for the calculation of Credits. The
methodology includes:
1) The Natural Resource Index Value of the land being designated as a SSA; and
2) The number of land use layers being eliminated.
There are also additional incentive Credits to encourage the voluntary designation of SSAs
within the RLSA District; such as early entry bonus Credits, slough/strand index upgrade (buffer
area Credits), and restoration (R1 and R-2) Credits.
Eight Credits are required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in
excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is
designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19.
A. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED
As of December, 2007, there have been a total of 9 SSAs that have been approved;
totaling 24,126 acres. As shown in Table 3-A these 9 SSAs have been assigned a
total of 59,451.49 Stewardship Credits including Early Entry, R-1 and R-2 Credits.
However, the R-2 Credits that have been assigned are not available for utilization
and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully completed.
Table 3-A
Stewardship Credit Summary
SSA# Acres Total Credits Assigned R-2 Credits
1 146.58 263.6 0
2 704.14 1,268.1 0
3 3,195.54 4,675.3 0
3A" 0 606.6 0
4 1,239.92 1,676.7 0
5 1,852.3 2,938.3 0
5A" 0 1,504.9 0
6 9,911.1 25,525.1 4,286.4
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9
8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6
9 789.4 7,246.6 2,765.5
TOTAL 24,123.88 59,451.49 9,187.4
Source: Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
" SSAs 3A & 5A are amended applications to designate restoration areas.
Acreage is already included in SSAs 3 & 5.
B. STEWARDSHIP CREDITS ASSIGNED OR HELD FOR FUTURE USE
As of December 11, 2007, the Town of Ave Maria (4,000 ac) is the only approved
Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) within the RLSA. The Town of Ave Maria utilized
28,658.4 Stewardship Credits generated from SSAs 1 through 6 (See Table 3-B).
9lPage
Table 3-B
Summary of Credits Transferred and Utilized for the Town of Ave Maria
Credits Credits Held for
Total Credits Transferred and
SSA# Acres Assigned Utilized for Town Future Use (includes
of Ave Maria R-2)
1 146.58 263.6 263.6 0
2 704.14 1,268.1 1,268.1 0
3. 3,195.54 4,675.2 4,675.3 0
4 1,239.92 1,676.7 1,676.7 0
5. 1,852.3 2,938.3 2,938.3 0
6 9,911.1 25,525.1 17,836.5 7,688.6
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements.
.SSAs 3A and 5A post dated the approval of Ave Maria SRA, therefore no Credits were
transferred and utilized for Ave Maria.
SSAs 6, 7, 8, and 9 have been approved and contain a total of 16,985.4 acres (See Table 3-C).
The total Credits assigned to these SSAs are 46,517.9. Of this total, 9,187.4 are R-2 Credits
and are not available for utilization and transfer until the restoration work has been successfully
completed. There are 28,681.4 total assigned Credits held for future use, including unused and
R-2 Credits.
Table 3-C
Summary of Approved Credits Held for Future Use
SSA# Acres Total Credits R-2 Credits Credits Currently
Assigned and Assigned Available for
not Utilized Utilization
--.- .
3A 0 606.6 0 606.6
5A 0 1,504.9 0 1,504.9
6 9,911.1 7,688.6 4,286.4 3,402.2
7 985.4 5,870.1 1,835.9 4,034.2
8 5,299.5 7,876.1 299.6 7,576.5
9 789.1~ ----- 7,246.6 2,765.5 4,481.1
TOTAL 16,985.4 30,792.9 9,187.4 21,605.5
Source: Collier County data included in the Rural Land Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) Land
Characteristics Summary and Recorded SSA Easement Agreements
Map 3 shows the location of each SSA and the associated Credits assigned to each.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time
of study and time of review.
Maps 4, 4A and 48 illustrate a comparison between the type of Agriculture that existed in 2002,
and the agriculture uses that exist in 2007. As shown on the maps there has been some
change in the agricultural land cover and Ave Maria now exists in place of the agriculture land
cover that existed there in 2002 (Map 4C).
Table 4-A below summarizes the type of agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the type of
agriculture uses in 2007. Additionally, conversions in agricultural land use within and without
10 I P age
the RLSA program are shown. The agricultural land cover categories include all FLUCCS 200-
level codes, and the FLUCCS 310, 329, and 330 rangeland codes. Free-range cattle grazing
within naturally vegetated communities accounts for approximately 65,000 acres, but are not
included in the 2002 or 2007 data. It should be noted that of the 65,000 free-range cattle
grazing acres, the approved SSAs have protected 15,690 acres of this agriculture use.
Table 4-A below summarizes agricultural uses in 2002 compared to the uses 2007 and shows
the relative percentage change of each.
Table 4-A
2002/2007 Agricultural Type Comparison
2002 With Without New 2007 %
Agricultural Type ACRES RLSA RLSA Ag ACRES CHANGE
Citrus 39,468 38,233 -3.13%
Fallow 7,974 8,799 10.35%
Pasture/Ranoeland 17,863 16,129 -9.71%
Row Crop 27,542 25,035 -9.10%
Specialty 1,651 , 1,201 -27.26%
TOTAL 94,498 -5,058 -480 +427 89,397:t.01% -5.40%
Sources: 2002 and 2007 RLSA land cover/land use GIS data, RLSA Property
Owners, and aerial photo interpretation.
Table 4-8
2002 Ave Maria Agricultural Uses
2002
Agricultural Tvpe ACRES
Citrus 839
Fallow 177
Natural Wetlands and Uplands INon Ag) 572
Pasture/Ranoeland 429
Row CroD 2,562
Specialtv 449
TOTAL 5,027:t
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with, and
without participation in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
Conversion of Agricultural lands using the RLSA program-
Approximately 5,058 acres of land has been converted from agriculture to non-agriculture uses
since 2002. As shown on Table 5-A, Ave Maria accounts for 4,455 acres, conservation uses
within an SSA accounts for 553 acres, and 50 acres was converted to mining. Map 4 illustrates
the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions.
Conversion of Agricultural lands without using the RLSA program-
A total of 480 acres of land within the RLSA have been approved for conversion from
agricultural usage without using the RLSA program. Two areas totaling 233 acres received
11lPage
Conditional Use approval from Collier County to convert from agricultural use to earth mining
and recreational activities. Land was purchased by Collier County and converted to
conservation containing 237 acres of agriculture. Two conditional use excavations are pending
and total 1,126.65 acres. In addition, there is 427 acres of new agriculture.
Table 5-A
2007 Land Converted to Non-agricultural Use
Without With
RLSA RLSA
Aa Land Conversion Proaram Proaram
Conditional Use for earth minina -210
Conditional Use for recreation -33
Starnes Property Conservation (not entirely zoned
ag) -237
Ave Maria -4,455
SSA Conservation -553
SSA mining -50
TOTAL ACRES -480 -5,058
New Agriculture +427
Sources: Conditional Use Approvals CU-02-AR-3537. CU-01-AR1225, Ave Maria
Stewardship Receiving Area Resolution, SSA 3A and 5A, SSA 9 and Collier County
Property Appraiser
Map 4 illustrates the location of all Ag to Non-Ag land use conversions.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of Local,
State, Federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18.
A total of 15 acres have been purchased in the RLSA by the South Florida Water Management
District (unknown amount). Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 acres. The total purchase
price of the property was $5.3 million, with a $300,000 contribution from the Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship
Credit System since its adoption.
Table 7-A documents the amount, location, and type of proposed restoration activities within
approved SSAs. To date, restoration activities have been initiated on SSAs 6, 8, and 9.
Two types of restoration credits are available within the RLSA program. Restoration 1 (R1)
lands are designated by the property owner for restoration activities. The actual implementation
of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive (R1) credits (GMP RLSA
Policy 3.11). Restoration 2 (R2) lands are designated and undertaken by the landowner for
restoration activities. Credits are assigned but not available for transfer until the restoration
activities have met applicable success criteria.
To the extent restoration is designated and is to be undertaken by the landowner, a Restoration
Program is attached to the Stewardship Easement as an exhibit. The Restoration Program
details the required restoration improvements, success criteria, and the additional land
management measures required after restoration occurs.
121 P age
The proposed restoration activities often require lengthy timeframes for the detailed restoration
design, data collection (e.g., water table data), obtaining of state and federal permits for
restoration, and/or multiple years of actual restoration work to achieve success criteria.
The types of restoration listed in Table7-A are described below:
Flowway: Restoration in areas that have been impeded or constricted by past activities
resulting in a functional increase in the Camp Keais or Okaloacochee f1owways. May also
include areas where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors.
Wading birds: Includes hydrologic restoration, and or exotic removal within drained areas or
excavation of shallow marsh in farm fields planted with native aquatic plants within foraging
distance of a rookery.
Other Listed species: Restoration, exotic removal, and or management of pasture areas to
support prairie species such as caracara, burrowing owls, and sand hill cranes. Could include
restoration or creation of habitat for any listed species documented to occur within the RLSA.
Large mammal corridor: Restoration or creation of "preferred" habitat adjacent to or
connecting with existing occupied habitat.
See Map 3A for the location of all areas designated for restoration.
Table 7-A
Amount and Types of Restoration in SSAs
Location Restoration Type Acres
SSA 3A Wadinq Bird (R1) 248.9
SSA SA Wadinq Bird (R1) 651.3
Flow way (R1, R2) 575.0
SSA6 Other Listed Species iR1, R2) 619.2
Wadinq Bird (R1, R2\ 24.8
Larqe Mammal CorridorTR1, R2) 331.9
SSA7 Other Listed SpecieslR1, R2) 75.7
Wadinq Bird (R1, R2) 51.4
SSA8 Wadinq Bird (R1, R2) 74.9
Flow way (R1, R2) 571.5
SSA9 Larqe Mammal CorridorlR1, R2) 61.0
Wadinq Bird (R1, R2) 58.9
TOTAL 3344.5
Total R1 acres = 900:1:
Total R2 acres = 2444.5:!
Source: SSA applications
13lPage
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
The RLSA Program as adopted does not allow for the use of Credits outside of the RLSA
Overlay Area, nor is there any existing method to use such Credits in the Urban designation of
the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Such a change would require thorough
analysis and an amendment to the GMP and RLSA Overlay Area Goals, Objectives and
Policies.
14 I P age
~ <?n<"~
RLSA OVERLAY
MARCH 2009
I-Et-DRY COUNTY
>
~
Z
:J
o
U
..
..
~
cc~"'c~ew fro
~ B~(i>
.~ -X~'Y:
o
1
1
1IIf
o
,
~ I':l .
o
LEGEND
~RLSA80UN~AAY
~,<ij'PRO\fEPSSA
AAEAOFCRITlCAlSTATECONCERN
^CRE\J\I~[>
, NATRUA~RESOURC~PROTeCTIONAREA
_PUBUCLA~DS
c:JRURI\LFRINGEMUDISTRICT
i_'"'TO\I\INOFNEMARIA
ste_dllhipAleall
_!l:lJ-FOOTRESTORATIONAAEA
_ fLOWWAY 5TEWAAOS~IP AAeA(FS~
_HAllITATSTEWARDSHIPAREA(HEiA)
~IlI/lTERRETENTIONAAEA(WR,,"
15 I P age
~
~
~
G
~
.
I
GOLDE GATE BLVD
S/!f82
''------'' J
----------
-------------
I
~,
'.
I OKALEE
~
~
~
~
OIL Wf"LL RD
I llGt'l>
I
~@ SSA-Approved WIth Flmn.way I
I SSA-PendingWrthFlowway I
o Rural Land StewardShip Area Boundary
_FlowwaySlewarl!Sh,pArea
I
1_-
j
N
.....
/.-----....-
:1
Approved 8SA
SSA1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA 7
SSA8
SSA9
Subtotal
Pending SSA
SSA 10
SSA 11
SSA 12
SSA13
SSA 14
SSA15
SSA 16
Subtotal
Total Acres
Flowway Acres
147
654
509
198
196
4,926
400
1,620
557
9,206
o
1,191
1,788
4,232
1,048
2,196
164
10,619
19,825
Margin of error +/-1% dUB to rounding
~ FLOWWAY OVERVIEW: MAP lA
,
",,~ COLLlEIl IlLSA , FIVE YEAIl IlEVIEW
16 I P age
~
~
3
i
~...
t~~~ ~
( I',"~~
~ .--..( ,.
-.:. /-'--
j ......
t...,:'~JI' '1
.\
~
i!
~
S
~
GOLDE GATE BLVD
IT5
lE<;f'[)
I
I
,
!@ SSA-Approved With H<lbJtat I
SSA-Pe'lding Wilh Habitat :
o Rural Land SlewardshiPAreaBoundary;
!_Habi\alstewardshiPArea I
j
N
~
o , ,
Mple~
17 I P age
S.t8Z
---------
"'
~~-
-.
I
I~OKALEE
....
,
\
'. '.
"4 \.-
<V1fOKA\:d~
r~1} ~
~ ~
~ ~-~
r'~
_JII" ~
,r"
f/
\.( ,
Approved SSA
SSA 1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA 7
SSA8
SSA9
- Subtotal
Pending SSA
SSA 10
SSA 11
SSA 12
SSA 13
SSA 14
SSA 15
SSA 16
Subtotal
Total Acre.
Habitat Acres
o
51
2,686
1.042
1,630
4,985
487
1,248
155
12,283
5.854
2,212
2,933
1,313
663
1,827
2,901
17,703
29,986
HABITAT OVERVIEW
MAP 1 B
Margin of emx +/-1% due 10 rounding
COLI.IEIl IlLSA , FIVE YEAIl REVIEW
----..
. Pfr\tc ""..-:.
';] ~"
I' jJ
J'Y
~
~
o
~
~~___"" 1[1-", \ ;~~-
).::' .......
'~-~~ ':->-...
~:
o
~~L
.....
"'~~~_RD
r-'
~
~-'I ~
~8-
r!:o..'
\.
~'
~
G
~
~
~
~I
I
r-,S~,
...
, I
;.J. I
Got.DE GATEBlVO
\"' -
!
ITS -+-
,
ll(;E...D
I
jr;~ SSA-ApprO\led With WalerReteotioo
i SSA-Pending With Water Retention ,
1(~RuraJlandStewardshiPAraaBOUndaryi
=- Waler Relention Stewardship Area
I,
j
N
.....
.....
-
J~OMLEE _ ~
I
-
CR"
--
'''f,
o
)?
\c;
----=.<;-::.'
-',,-<,
~
.
'--'- ---~
-.
-"-'"
~
~
~
~
~
,
I
eel'
~//
-:-.-
OIL WELL
,
i::.
/-1
I
.....
...r-"-
'''r~
:l-eJ- '1_~~'
~
.....
--
:1
Approved SSA
SSA1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA7
SSA8
SSA9
Subtotal
Pending SSA
SSA 10 1
SSA 11 198
SSA 12 0
SSA 13 1616
SSA 14 1
SSA 15 1209
SSA 16 9
Subtot.' 3,034
Total Acre. 3,078
Margin ofs"", +/-1% due !orounding
Water Retention Acres
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
44
44
M"e;;
WATER RETENTION OVERVIEW: MAP Ie
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
~
o ,
18 I P age
,-
~
~
G
--~
~
~
~
~/
i....~
~~
GOlDE GATE BLVD
".
"''<
~
,-'
"'01
IMMOKALEE RO
[3
~
I
I@ SSA-Approved With Open Land I
, SSA-Pendlng W"h Open land I
10 Rural Land StBwa,dshipArea Boundary!
SClO-FootReslorationZone
Open Land Designation
j
N
~
o ,
Mi~
19 I P age
ll(;f"n
I
I~OKALEE
~~
OIL WELL RD
r
-~J
~l
~
~I
~I
I
....,
.....
..
..
."1
Ii
I
- -~
~,
1
-~,/
Approved SSA
SSA1
SSA2
SSA3
SSA4
SSA5
SSA6
SSA 7
SSA8
SSA9
Subtotal
Ptlndlng SSA
8SA 10
SSA 11
SSA 12
SSA 13
SSA 14
SSA Hi
SSA 16
Subrom'
Total Acres
Margin of error ./-1% duBIo rounding
eR8"
~
3
.....
Open Land and 500 FI Restoration Zona Acres
o
o
o
o
27
o
99
2,432
34
2,593
i
___I
OPEN LAND OVERVIEW: MAP 10
COLLIER RLSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
6
99
70
269
o
27
3
.,.
3,087
~
!
~~-
/ ----~
, ~l
/
/
,
7i!i\
~
"
.
;
GOLDE GATE BLVD
I7S
j
N
OIL WELL RDI
-- I
I
~j/
~1
.,
~i
le!
~,
~i
~.
_\
___/-1
-_.~
~
il'
I
ApptOYedSSA
'SA ,
'SA'
'SA'
'SA'
'SA.
'SA.
'SA ,
'SA.
'SA.
........
~SSA
SSA10 0 5B.5f 1 '~H1
SSA11 1,Ii1 2212 ,gs Il9 am
SSA 12 1,7" 2SI3J 0 70 ....7111
SSJII13 4.232 1313 Illlll 2tI11 1,4JO
SSA 14 1,(U' 641 j 1 1.1/4
SSA 1~ 2,1ie 1127 1209 27 5,2551
SSA 11 lGot 2fI01 II 3 3.016
S~ fo,U' f7,703 ),034 n... .f1,"
TcQI AerM 11,125 21.'" 3,orl 3,017 55,1"
Not.: Acrninthitl~h.-..beenrounded to . whole 1CrII. Mllp!oflffOrlT\llybl"'. 1%
FIoww.y~. HlbitalAcra
1.7 0
65<4 51
509 2,6&6
IN 1.042
196 1.630
4.&26 4.985
"" '"
1,62<1 1,246
557 155
.,JOt 12,213
Wlle'Relen1ianA....s OPlJrll.ndAcrn TotaIActes
o 0 1.7
o 0 704
o 0 3.196
o 0 1,2040
o 27 1,652
o 0 9,911
o .. '"
o 2.<432 5,300
... 34 789
44 Z,5n 24,121
~ LAND DESIGNATION OVERVIEW: MAP IE
o ,
",'~ COI.L1ER RI.SA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
20 I P age
-~
~ ,I J
- ,
.
~
.
I
GOLDE GA TE BLVD
175
I,G"P
J MOKALEE
~
~
~
~
~
,
OILwm..l
'I
/~
-----_//
.....
[(:0SSA-Approved
SSA-Pending
o Rural Land Stewardship Are" BoundaIYj
. Exisling Public Lands
_FloridaForeverTargetedLands
j
N
n.....r--l
() 08 16
Miles
21 I P a 9 p
CONSERVATION LANDS OVERVIEW: MAP IF
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
.....
-
~
-
~
ENDRJ' COU^'T!'
C fLIER COUNT!'
'L-
~
_4.''fl~--F --------... _
~ - ~-~
~-
L
~,
~'
I OKALEE
-~--
"I
,
OILWELLRD
fMMOKALEElID
,
,
~
~
~
,
o
,
~
~
,
\
I
I
I
Jt--
~
GQLOENGATEBLVD
C=>SRA-ApproVl!<l
@SRA_P,opo..d
C=>Ru....ILarldSl.w.rd.hiPAreaBoundary
_Ex..I;ogPubIlcLaoos
j
N
~
o 1 2
Mles
SRA LOCATIONS
MAP 2
COLLIER RlSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
22lPage
23 I P age
I
I
,
I
=- I~.l.t:',ll I
I I
IOAPProVedSSA I
, c) Rural Land SlewardshlpAma BOl.lndary l
1_ Flowway SlewardshipArea !
_ HabilatStewerdstJipArea :
i(~opeIlStewardShipArea II
I Permlned Waler Retention Area J
SSA CREDIT ASSIGNMENTS: MAP 3
COLLIER RlSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
ENDRrCOUNTJ'
C eLlER 0 \ }'
/~ i
/~~/ ~~~
.'.. I
I
;::
~S
~. c
-:::(...
v'"
:...:
'-',
:..:.,l"":
--"
e
I OKALEE
t""",
I
~
.
SA?
f.l(MOAALEEIW
1,2681 e....'.". J
,
I
OlLWULIW
"
I
IQ
SSA1 i~
263,6 e'.di~
SSA9
7,246.6 drdits
SSA!6
~~,52~t Credits
GOLDENGATE6LVD
j
N
~
o ,
Miles
SSA8
7,87.6.1 Credits
~-- SSA3
~ 5,281.9 Credits
~
~
,
I'""""
--.-./-"
r EA'DRY COUNTJ'
CULLlloR 0
I
I--r~
I
SSA3
8.9 Restoration Acres
/ ~----~---_ I
-----1
.~
\--
-" ;~'.:, ,
,'1'01''';-
I MOKALEE
,
,
"
.
~
.
~
.
~
,.",,,,"',, --'1
t ...... ;J-SS::2, !~
't:l
I~
'~
~
~\
I
!
I
SSA~
691.4 Restor~ion Acres
QJLWELLRl>
I 011. WELLRD /'
'~I--~~
GoLJ)ENGATEBL~l>
LEG END
P Approved SSA
I Pending SSA
.~ SSA Restoration I
(=) Rural land Stewardship Area Boundary ,I
, .
I~ Flowway Stewardship Area ~
... Habitat Stewardship Area I
'(~; Open Stewardship Area I
I Pennitled Water Retention Area I
j
N
~
SSA RESTORATION ACRES: MAP 3A
Mil,,,
COLLIER HLSA : F1V!' YEAH REVaW
24lPage
land Use Change
_AgtoConservation,Approved
_lntensify,Approved
C:> Rural Land Stewardship Area Boundary
eExistingPubli<;Lands
Ag Type Change
No Change
COLLIER RlSA , FIVE YEAR REVIEW
25 I P age
.
.
1 f G END
~ Rural land Stewardship Area Boundary
_ExistlngPubtlcLands
Citrus
Fallow
Nat Uplands & Wetlands
!ePasture
j
N
~
o ,
2002 LANDUSE
MAP 4A
MilCh
COllIER RlSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
26lPage
'"
, .....
~
oil -..~;
,:'1
Ie'!'. "":'
./' " iF. 0': ,
t~
y ,~
I. [G I. N IJ
) Rural Land SIBwardshipArea Boundary
("-~'ExislingPublicLands
Citrus
Fallow
Nat. Upland: Wetlands
'.Paslure;Rangeland
Row Crop
i.. Specially
: Agto NonAg
ieConservation,Approved
_lntensify,Approved
j
N
~
o , ,
Miles
2007 LANDUSE
MAP 4B
COLLIER RLSA ; FIVE YEAR REVIEW
27lPage
Acres
839
177
572
429
2,562
449
5,027
Ave Maria DRI
Citrus
Fallow
Nat. Uplands & Wetlands
... Pasture
Row Crops
. ~ Specialty
COLLIER RLSA : FIVE YEAR REVIEW
28 I P age
" "
i ~'
~ i ~ 2 ~
~ ~; ~~~~~:c~
; L '" ~~! ~: i.. ~ ~ ~ z
". ~ ~ Il' ~~ .::> ~ ~ i jl '" 2
; , " ! ,'l': : 'i: i'" I " <I
~ ~ r~ :.:;8 ~ ~! ..l :?: :;; ::l it<
~ ~ ~ l''', o~ ~U! H ~ :!! ~1O j ... ~
~ ~ <" ~~~" ~~ ii "'~;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I "
! ~ ~ ~~ ~~ g h1 e ~~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ i [1, 8~
~~i! ilhi~!~~ ~ ~l~ ~~D~ t' ",
i~.' ~~~U ~~~~ .
I T_~S
I'
. ,
! ~
~:;: ~
:~I .
."
~ :'3:!! ~
.-. ~~
""10'"
, ,
i 'Ii
~ ;; ~
I "I! I
~ j 5
~ .. t '1l j
~ ~ ~ i ~
~i I
~
~
~,
....,
N
:1
I
I
!
T 41 S
t
"
di
. '" l'o
~ ~ ;lll:
D..
ha ~ "
i i ~ ~, ~ ~ <t
! '!ll', ",
-" ~~~~- .ill "U~ "
r ! ~ I ; iPIUl~iHhi
;\\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~~It:~.I!'
~ ~ ~ ~ 8 H I ~ ~!f ~ tl~! i~
";j i' P l'Ull.."
~~~ ~! ~ ~J~.lI...
~i~O ~~~il.
::;
~
~
,
I
~
N
~
;;;
a-
ce
:IE
~
N
....
en
:::I
CI
Z
ce
....
:G
....
a:
:::I
I-
:::I
...
~
Sat 1
29lPage
"
f\,~V
~;
.
e
~
"
"
,
o
~
"
(5
/
//
/
l~
/ ~.~,
.' " ._' _'. ',,~ l't\,~ .', '. .''', /, ~.,'
- , . '-, ""'1 "I'i
,-' . --', de: :!'I!~i'~I,'~':!-~ii~ii~~
,r:; " ":..:L'I '\;.. , ~I,. l' i,~-' ~ ~ ~I~ _ _", i ~ m,~ ~,~ ~
'.. Me' , , ! , !! i ;!, , ; :':, "
../. Ill, --._~1"" 'Ie"" I Il'
...)~,m""'l' Gui r --': 111111~111111I!1!,-
,,;; l! , !J!j! ''''
ill! "" "" I
' S 05 1
T 48 S
T 49 S
T 50 S
~ ~ ~
; ~ ~
. - > ~
~ ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~
I! i
~ ~ i' !
!!!! j 1
~~q ~
~i~~q l
~qll~~~i
~~~~~~~~
~;~~~:~i
o.~~~.~c~
~~;~e~p
~~~~;~~~~
, ''''''',l
g i'! ~~ ~~"
.q;~~~~u
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~
I < 'Il""~
,~ ~~ . ~
P!diW~';
, q~~~~~
'l'"h~~~~
ihWi'!!
15;3
~g
~ '"
<
"
~~
..
.
S tv 1
S 8t 1
S 6t 1
T 51 S
T 52 S
T 53 S
,'--
"
~~.'
___f-
rn
I
":'
"
~ ~?
a
~
::;
::;
::;
{ .....
~
/
~
~
=
N
~
;;;
~
~ :e
~~ II:
~"".
~~~
~~;
~~c
~u
g~~ ...
~~~ ~
~h a:
"
,,:.;~
~, ~
IIp
h~
, ...
PHASE II REPORT
"REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY"
PREPARED BY
THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
CREATED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH
RESOLUTION 2007-30SA
Preface
This Section of the Report summarizes the Committee's recommended RLSA Overlay amendments recognized as
substantive in improving the RLSA program, These substantive amendments provide for greater incentives to
protect agriculture land, refine the Stewardship Credits assigned to restoration activities with greater emphasis on
new panther corridors, will set a cap on the amount of Stewardship Receiving Area development, and revises
some of the Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics, Following this Section, Section 2 provides the full
RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated and recommended,
The RLSA Overlav Recommended Substantive Amendments
Group lpolicies set forth the general purpose and structure of the RLSA Overlay. The Committee evaluated
the incentive based purpose of the RLSA and the structure of SSAs, SRAs and the Stewardship Credit system.
Evaluating all policies under Group and hearing from stakeholders the Committee recommends a new policy
to further refine the structure and process of designating a SSA, and added emphasizes on the Stewardship
Credit system as the primary basis for permanent protection of agricultural lands.
The Committee recommends a refinement to the Goal to further clarify the intent of the RLSA in using
incentives to retain land for agriculture actives and protect and restore habitat connectivity,
Goal (recommended amendment)
Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area
Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to jlffi!<!e!
retain land for agricultural activities, te prevefll the prcmatlH'e eenversien ef agriellltnflll lana te nen agrienltural
IlSes, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat
cormectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban
sprawl, and to encourage development that ntilizes emDlovs creative land use planning techniques, and through
the use of established incentives,
Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent
agriculture, open space or conservation uses, These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or
SSAs, All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes
designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a
resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCe), which acknowledges the property
owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for
30 I P age
such designation, Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA.
Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Manageme'
Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendmt
process when it periodically occurs, A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that
identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain, Once land is designated as a
SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses
unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA
is tenninated as provided elsewhere herein.
Policy 1.6,} (recommended new policy)
Notwithstanding anv provision herein to the contrary, upon initial apvroval of a Stewardship Sending Area
("SSA"), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five years ("Conditional Period") and shall
be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be extended for one additional year
at the option of the owner bv providing written notice to the Countv prior to the expiration of the initial five vear
period, All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining the existing propertv
conditions. including all management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout
the Conditional Period, If at anv time during the Conditional Period anv of the following events occur, then the
Conditional Stewardship Easement shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final.
perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with the terms set forth therein:
I, Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving Area
("SM"), and the SM has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders, pennits, or
other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, including subdivision plat and site
development vlan approval. but not building vennits, If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned
to more than one SM, then the receipt of all necessary govemmental final and non-appealable development
orders, pennits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction of anv SM shr'
automaticallv cause the Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement:
2, The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred anv Stewardship Credits to another person or entity,
including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policv 1.20, the closing has occurred. and the owner has
received the consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expresslv excluding:
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to the
land, or
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SM, whether the SM is owned or developed bv
a separate or related entitv, and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required bv the Growth Management
Plan or Land Development Code for SM approval: or
3, The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement
other compensation from local. state, federal or private revenues (collectivelv, the "Events"),
The LDC shall specifv how, assuming a Notice of Tennination (as hereafter described) has not been recorded,
the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automaticallv convert to a Permanent Stewardship Easement upon
the earliest to occur o[(a) anv of the foregoing Events during the Conditional Period, or (b) 180 davs after the
last dav of the Conditional Period, as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the
foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA lands mav within 180
davs after the last day of the Conditional Period tenninate the Conditional Stewardship Easement bv recording a
Notice of Tennination, In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, Permit or
other discretionary approval is filed. the owner of the SSA lands mav elect to extend the Conditional Perioe'
until the challenge or appeal is finallv resolved, If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such that thL
construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands
mav within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of Tennination, Upon
31 I P age
the recording of such Notice of Tennination, the Stewardship Easement Alrreement and correspondin2
Stewardship Sendin2 Area Credit Alrreement shall expire and tenninate, the Stewardship Credits 2enerated bv
the SSA shall cease to exist. the rights and obli2ations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no lon2er
constitute an encumbrance on the property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordinglv, The owner
of the SSA lands shall provide a copy ofthe Notice of Termination to the County,
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA approvals,
but none of the fore20ing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the Notice of Tennination
shall also provide for termination of any SRAs that have been assil!Jled credits from the SSA unless the SRA
owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have been
applied to the SRA, In the event that a Notice of Tennination does tenninate an SRA, the owner of the SRA
lands shall ioin in the Notice of Tennination,
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is tenninated, all benefits, rights, privileges, restrictions
and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to its underlying zoning
classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit
Alrreement. If reauested bv the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other Irrantees under the
Stewardship Easement Alrreement shall provide a written release and tennination of easement and credit
agreements for recording in the public records within 15 days of reauest from the owner of the SSA lands,
Collier County shall update the overlay map to reflect the tennination of any SSA or SRA,
This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof
For SSAs approved prior to this Policv 1.6.1 being adopted but have not changed ownership in whole or part
since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold or utilized Credits generated from the SSA the
property owner may withdraw the SSA desi2nation provide an application for such withdrawal is implemented
within 6 months of the adoption of this Policy 1.6,1.
Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment)
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the
Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated_herein as Attachment A This methodology and related
procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC), Such procedures shall include but He not be limited to the following: (I)
All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual
restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier
County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and one of the following: , Department of
Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management
District, or a recognized statewide land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sendin2 Area Credit
Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible
for such measures,
Policy l,21(recommended amendment)
The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the primary basis
for permanent protection of alrricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas, The County
recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and
also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs, To address this issue
and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry
bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA The bonus shall be in the form of an
additional one Stewardship Credit per acre ofland designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half
Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be
available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The
early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not
require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the
32 I P age
early entry bonus may be used after the termination of the bonus period, The maximum number of Credits that
can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used withi~
the ACSC.
Group 2 policies are intended to provide for the continued viability of agriculture. The Committee evaluated
the policies in meeting the goal to protect agriculture land and heard from industry experts and agriculture
interests. The Committee determined that a few of the policies were no longer necessary, such as the
establishment of an Agriculture Advisory Committee. However, the Committee felt strongly that greater
attention should be placed on incentives for agriculture through the Credit system. To improve the ability to
protect agriculture lands within the RLSA, the Committee recommends the following amendments to Group 2
policies.
Group 2 - Policies to pratect agrieultural lauds fram premature cau\'eraiau ta ather uses lHKl retaiu land
for al!ricultural activities throul!h the use of established incentives in order to continue the viability of
agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay.
(recommended amendment)
Policy 2.1 (recommended amendment)
Agricultureallandowners will be provided with laRas will Be preteclea fwm promat>lre caRversisR ta sllier >lses
BY creatiRg incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert
agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policvies I A and 2.2 and
by the establishment of SRAs. as tae farm of campact ruml aevelapment iR tae RLS.^. Overlay, loflalysis aas
saawn lliat SR/.s will allew tRe pf8jeeted pap>llatiaR af tRe RLS.'\ iR tRe lIerizaR year af 2025 ta Be
aecammaaatea an BflpreJlimately 10% af tRe aereage ataerwise reE]>lirea if sueli ealRflaet rural ae',elaflment were
not allowea aile la tae fJeJliBility aff-enled 10 s>lea aevelopment Tae esmBiRalian af stewardship iReeR!ives aRa
laRa emeioR! ealRflaet rural aevelopmcnt will minimize twa of tae primary market faetars taat cause prematllfe
eanversiaR af agriculture.
Policy 2.2 (recommended amendment)
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship Sending
Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6, The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10,
and 1.1 7. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA HSA and WRA, as further
described in Policies 3, I, 3,2 and 3.3, additional incentives are desired to retain agriculture within Open Lands as
an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as described in Policv I S Open Lands are
those lands not designated SSA SRA WRA, HSA FSA or public lands on the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlav Map, Open Lands are those lands described in Policv 4.2, Therefore, in lieu of using the Natural
Resource Index on land designated Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2,0) Stewardship Credits per acre
outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSA) as established bv F.S. 380,055 as of March 3, 2009, and two
and sixth tenths (2,6) Credits per acre within said ACSC. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and the
remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix, Each laver is
discreet and shall be removed seQuentiallv and cumulativelv in the order presented in the Matrix. If a laver is
removed, all uses and activities in that laver are eliminated and no longer available, Following approval of an
Agricultural SSA Collier Countv shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlav District Map to delineate the boundaries
of the Agricultural SSA.
Policy 2.3 (recommended amendment)
Within one (I) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will mav establish an
Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed representatives of the
agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The Agriculture Advisory Council
(AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to enhance and promote the continuance,
expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County. The AAC will also identify barriers to tht
continuance, expansion and diversification of the agricultural industry and will prepare recommendations to
eliminate or minimize such barriers in Collier County, Tae fj,C ,..,ill alsa assess ','ilietaor eJle"l'tieRs frem
33 I P age
stlll"laras for Business ases relatea to agriealture slioula Be allowea linael' an administmive peffflit preeeas ana
make reeommeaantions to the BCe.
Group 3 policies address the protection of the natural water regime as well as listed species and their habitat,
Following the evaluation of all the policies and input received from county environmental staff and wildlife
interests and others, the Committee's major revision under this Group of policies focused on the further
definition and credit assignment to restoration activates, and the clarification of the use of the Water Retention
Areasfor the support of water management.
Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment)
L In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration, Examples include, but
are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or
where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors, Priority shall Be gi'lea to restoration wit-ffiR the
Caffijl Kenis StfBna FS.^. or contiguoas HSf.s, Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration
activities within a FSA or HSA the Caffijl Kenis Strana FS,\ or contiguous HSAG, four two additional
Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated, .^oR adaitional twe Ste,..,araship eredits
shall be assigned for eaeft aere of land deaieated for restomion aetiyitieG within other FS.^.s ana lIS.^.s, The actual
implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of
restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration, Should an
owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with fuIif additional Credits for each acre
of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as detetmined by the
petmit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration
at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic controllbuming at 4 Credits per acre. or for flow wav restoration at 4 Credits
per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre, Within the area proposed for restoration, Land Use
Lavers I -6 must be removed, The specific process for assilffi11lent of additional restoration Credits shall be
included in the Stewardship District of the LDe.
2, In certain locations. as generallv illustrated in the RLSA Overlav Map. there mav be opportunities to create,
restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor cOJUlection and a southern panther corridor connection, Should a
propertv owner in a federallv approved corridor designate the required propertv for such corridor, 2 Stewardship
Credits shall be assigned fo each acre of land soc dedicated, Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credits
mav be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal petmit The
procedures shall be set forth in the LDe.
3, In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonaL shallow wetland wading bird foraging
habitat, restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO. Dedication of anv area inside an
FSA. HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre.
Should the landowner successfullv complete the restoration, and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded,
Onlv one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration,
Onlv one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration and in
no case shall greater than 10 Credits be awarded per acre,
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed through
public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement
between the parties involved, Also not precluded are various private and publiclv funded restoration programs
such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration
credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDe.
Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment)
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been petmitted for this purpose
and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment andlor conveyance, in accordance
with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) petmits applicable to each WRA, WRAs can also
34lPage
be perntitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay, WRAs may be
incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, b'
are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances, However, if the WRA provides water treatment aL
retention for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA used as primarv treatment for water management for the SRA shall
be included in the SRA, WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in
accordance with SFWMD perntitting,
Policv 3.15 (new Policv)
Within one vear of the effective date of this Policv LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to
protect the nighttime environment. conserve energy, and enhance safetv and security.
Group 4 policies set forth the planning techniques and development characteristics to be utilized for
Stewardship Receiving Areas, The Committee reviewed each technique and notably recommends a maximum
total SRA development footprint of 45,000 acres, Other recommended amendments include the elimination of
Hamlets, and revisions to emphasize transportation mobility plans and economic development. Group 4
recommended policy amendments are:
Policy 4,2 (recommended amendment)
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as
a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending
Area, Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in
Group 4 Policies, Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in
accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and
composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predeterntined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that
are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of
agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose, Lands shown on the Overlav
Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately ~ 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC af.
approximatelv i-&ilOO 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000
acres. ApPT€Jlimately 2% of these lanas aehieve an Inaell seare greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires
SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure,
traditional locational standards normally applied to deterntine development suitability are not relevant or
applicable to SRAs, Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the prineiples ef the Rllfal Lanas
Stewaraship f,et as further aeserisea procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlav District.
Policy 4,3 (recommended amendment)
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation
and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation, The petition shall include a SRA master
plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the
Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District,
and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA
uses. Within ane year fT8ffi the eff"etive aate of this amenameffi, Collier COHIlly shall aaopt LDC amenaments to
estaelisfl the proeeaures ana sasmittal refjuirements for desigaation as a S~^., to iaelade provisions for
eansiaeration of iffij'laets, ineluaing envircmmental aaa Emslie infrastrueture iffij'laets, and provisions for paslie
notiee of ana the opportanit). f-or pllblie partieipation in an)' eonsidemtion By the BCC of sHeh a aesigaation,
Policy 4,5 (recommended amendment)
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier
County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies
with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible
land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map,
The SRA Master Plan shall complv with the Countv's then-adopted Long Ran~e Transportation Plan (LRTP), th-
Countv Build Out Vision Plan as mav be amended and referenced in Policv 3.7 of the Future Transportation
Element, and Access Management procedures.
35lPage
Each SRA master olan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife
interactions, Low intensitv land uses (e,g, oassive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation oreservation
requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas
dominated bv human activities, Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on
techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict The management plans shall also require the dissemination of
information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the oresence of wildlife and oractices
that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing oooortunites for negative interaction, such as
aooropriate waste disoosal oractices.
Policy 4.6
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter
163.3177 (II), F,S, and 9J-5,006(5)(I), These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new
towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use
development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural
land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services, The SRA shall also
include a mobilitv olan that includes vehicular, bicvcle/oedestrian, public transit. internal circulators, and other
modes of traveVmovement within and between SRAs and areas of outside develooment and land uses, The
mobilitv olan shall orovide mobilitv strategies such as bus subsidies, route soonsorshio or other incentives which
encourage the use of mass transit services, The develooment of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in
the Countv Build Out Vision Plan and olan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal
caoture, and reduce trip length and long distance traveL Such development strategies are recognized as methods of
discouraging urban sprawl, ,encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal caoture and
reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment)
There are ffiHr three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay, These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets,
and Compact Rural Development (CRD), The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth
in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4,7.1,4.7.2, and 4,7,3 llfld +.+.4, Cellier Couftty saall
estaIJlioa more s .Specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District te guide the
design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in
Chapter 163,3177 (II), F.S. and 9J-5,006(5)(I), The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with
the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may
only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of
the lmmokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable-workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the
Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element The base residential density is calculated by dividing the
total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict
net residential density of parcels within a SRA, The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on
an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process,
Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment)
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses, Towns
have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale,
and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability, Towns shall be flet less
thaR 1,000 greater than 1.500 acres and uo to or mere ta"" 1,000 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages
and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that
will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services, Towns shall be designed to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobilitv plan, which shall include a transfer station or
oark and ride area that is aoorooriatelv located within the town to serve the connection ooint for internal and
36lpage
external public transportation, Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square
feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods, Towns shall include both communil)
and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, ia a fOtie as pro'lided described in Policy +.H 4,15,1. Towns may
also include those compatible corporate office, research, development comoanies, and light industrial uses such
as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE, and those
included in Policv 4.7.4, Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent
possible, schools and parks shal! be located abutting each other to al!ow for the sharing of recreational facilities
and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3, Design criteria for Towns are sllallae included in the LDC
Stewardship District. Towns shal! not be located within the ACSC.
Policy 4.7.2 (recommended amendment)
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the
scale and character of the particular village, Villages shall be greater Rot leGs than 100 acres and uo to er mere
than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and uo to aet more tffirn 1.500 acres outside the Area
of Critical State Concern, Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed,use
village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities, Villages shall be
designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway
system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within
neighborhoods, Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy
4.15, Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policv 4,7.4 shall also be oermitted in Villages. Villages are an
appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent
to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the
LDC Stewardship District. Villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal movilitv olan which shall
include a transfer station or park and ride area that is aooropriatelv located within the village to serve the
connection point for internal and external public transportation.
Policy 1.7.3 (recommended deletion)
Hamlets are small rural reGideetial areas witll primarily giHgle family llollsiag aad limited flmge of ooa'lenieaee
orieated serviees. Hamlets gllallae aot less tllaa 40 or more Illaa J(JO aeres. Hamlets will serve aG a more eompact
alternative Ie traditisHal five aere let rural sllBdi'lisieas eurreatly aile wed ia tlle aaseliae staaaaras. HamletG shall
ha'ie a Pllalie gFeea spaee f-ar aoigllaerheods. lIamlels iaelllde eeaveaioHee retailllses, ia a ratie as pre'lided ia
f.ttaehmeat C. HamlelG may ae aa a!'!'re!'riate leeatiea for pre K tllieagll elemeatary selleels, DeGiga eFileria for
Hamlets sllallae iaelllded in the LDC Stewardshi!, Dislrict. Te maiataia a !,repertien ef Hamlets te Villages aad
TewaG, net more thaa 5 Hamlets, in cemeiaatiea willi CRDs ef 100 acres or leGS, may ae a!'!'wyed as SIL'\s prier
10 the llJl!,reval ef a Village er Tewa, afld tllereafter aet mere tllaa 5 additieaal Hamlets, ia eemeiaaliea witll
CRns ef 100 acr.,s or legs, may ae a!'!'Feved fer eaell sMase"Meat Village or Tewn.
Policy 4.+.4 4,7,3 (recommended amendment)
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will previde flexiaility witll res!,ect te tlle mix efases
aRd dcsiga "taadards, aat sllall etacrwise eelH]3ly with tlle slandards ef a Hamlet er Village, shall support and
further Collier Countv's valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversitv, CRDs shall
demonstrate a unique set of uses and suPport services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA
Primarv CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to supoort research, education, convenience retaiL
tourism or recreation, A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing, aad the
sery;ees aad faeilities that gllflpert pe_aaefll resideals. and the services that support oermanent residents, The
number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand generated bv the orimary CRD use, but shall not
exceed the maximum of two units per grOSS acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. ,'\n exalH]3le ef a
CRn is an eeetellrism 'iillage that 'NeliId haole a llfii"ue set ef uses and sllflpert gerviees differeat frem a
tradilie"al regidefllial village. It wmdd eeHlai" tFaesieelledgiag faeililies aed services llJlprepriate te eee tellrists,
aMt may not pre'lide for tlle Faege of serviees tllat are neeessary te gllfl!,ert permaaeet reGideflls. Exe"!'t a
deGeriaed aeeve, a CRD ...lill eeeferm 10 tlle ellaraeteristies ef a Village er lIamlet as set fartll ea AltaeimleRt C.
BaGed eR the size ef tlle eRn. "'\s resideRtialllflit" are ast a re"Hired use, tllese geeds aad services taat GUflpert
re,ideflls such as relail, office, eivie, gO'iemmeRlal and ia,titlltieaal uses sllall also Ret ae reqHired, . IIlley. ever,
37 I P age
fur aft)' CRn that aoes inelHae flelmaneat resiaeftlial heHsing, the l"r-0l"ol'lionate sHl"l"el'l serviees Iistea aaeve
shall be l"reviaea in aeeomanee Yiithf.ttaehmeat C. To maiatain a flrOl"ol'lion of CRns of 100 aeres er less to
Villages lffia Towns, not mere than 5 CRns of 100 aeres or less, in eembination 'gith Hamlets, Bill)' be aflflrevoa
as SR."s l"nor to the llfll"roval of a Village or Town, ana thereafter nor more than 5 aaaitiofitll CRns of 100 aores
or less, in eembinatien with Hamlets, may be llfll"l'6vea efr eaeh suBSeEjHeftl Village ar Town, To maintain a
proportion of CRDs of 100 acres or less to Villages and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less may
be approved as SRAs prior to the approveal of a Village or Town, and thereafter nor more than 5 additional CRDs
of 100 acres or less may be al'proved prior to each subsequent Village or Town, There s"'1Ilbe na mare tflan 5
CRns of mere thlffi ]QO aeres in si~e, The al"prel"riateness of this limitatien shall be re'iiewea in 5 years l"IH'SHan(
to Faliey 1.22,
Policv 4.7.4 (recommended new policy)
Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industrv within the
RLSA to further promote economic sustainabilitv and development, diversification and iob creation,
Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment)
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally
acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the
prohibition oflocating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, and WRAs, To further direct development away from wetlands
and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing,
institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural
Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental
essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be
sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, Infrastructure necessarv to serve
permitted uses may be exempt from this restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts
to any such areas, The Index value of greater than 1,2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource
value as measured pursuant to Policy 1,8, Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater
than 1.2,
Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance
with accepted transportation planning standards, At the time of SRA appro va!. an SRA proposed to adioin land
designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open shall provide for the opportunity to provide direct vehicular
and pedestrian connections from said areas to the Countv's arteriaVcollector roadway network as shown on the
County Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivitv, increase
internal capture, and keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in
the RLSA
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the SRA it serves, Signalized intersections within
or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained by the SRA it serves, No SRA shall be approved
unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in
accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation, A
transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2,7.3 of the LDC, or its successor
regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis, To the extent
required to mitigate an SRA' s traffic impacts, actions may be taken to include, but shall not be limited to,
provisions for the construction and/or permitting of wildlife crossings, environmental mitigation credits, right of
way dedication!s), water management and/or fill material which may be needed to expand the existing or
proposed roadway network. Anv such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer
contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of significant influence of the proi ect
traffic on existing or proposed roadways.
38 I P age
Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment)
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon ye'
based on a costlbenefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County, The Bl
may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate,
Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special
districts, shall be encouraged, At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks,
law enforcement, and schools, Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other
public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards,
In the event that a SRA develooment generates surplus revenues to Collier Countv, Collier Countv mav choose to
allocate a portion of such sumlus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier County
to respond exoeditiouslv to economic ooportunities and to comoete effectivelv for high-value research,
development and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable energy business proiects.
Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment)
Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a
Stewardshio Sending Area deemed vested under the eight Credit ratio, Ten Credits oer acre shall be required for
each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from anv other Stewardship Sending Area,
eRe"!"t for 0 Qpen space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is
designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4-+9 4.20 do not require use of Credits, In order to promote
compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural
areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of
services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4,B 4.15.1
and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan,
Policy 4,20 (recommended amendment)
The acreage of aDen soace exceeding thirtv five percent and a public benefit use shall Bet count toward the
maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4,7 but shall not count toward the consumotion of Stewardship
Credits, For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private
post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage
requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities eRehuling
ossential serviees as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier
County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement 163.3177 F,S, and in a manner consistent with 235.193
F,S, Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, and Villages,and
Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and pennitting requirements,
Policy 4.21(recommended amendment)
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA in
the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in
the ACSC east ofthe Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets and CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of
SRA allowed in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages aoo CRDs of not more
than 300 acres aRd Hamlets, Provided, not more than 1000 aces of SRA develooment in the form of Villages or
CRDs Iw'.yeye!', that two Villages or CRns of not mere than 509 aeres eaeh, exclusive of any lakes created prior
to the effcetiye date of this amendmcnt June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas
that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the effeeti'ie date of these amendments, had been
predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to
assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is
used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowe<'
within the ACSC. No policy ofthc RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regulation,
and all regulations therein shall apply.
39 I P age
Policy 4.22 (recommended new policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process, the
applicant in coni unction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or
cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant
resources.
Policv 4.23 (recommended new policy)
Within one year of the effective date of this Policv LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to
protect the nighttime environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security,
Group 5 policies are intended to protect the natural water regime and protect listed species on land that is not
voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program. Hearing from wildlife experts and county
environmental staff, the Commiuee evaluated all Group 5 policies and recommends the following amendments.
Policy 5,} (recommended amendment)
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and
designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the
Stewardship Credit Program ~ . Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses,
and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated" iR PSI.s, Conditional use essential
services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve pennitted uses or for public safety,
shall enIy not be allowed in FSAs, Infrastructure necessarv to serve pennited uses may be exempt from this
restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to any such areas, ,,:ita a NalliFal
Resellfce Stewaffishi]3 Index vallie ef 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or
previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize
impacts to native habitats, Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as
HSAs, The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell
conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these
rights.
Policy 5.4 (recommended amendment)
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife
crossings at locations detennined to be appropriate, A maD of these potential crossing locations will be developed
within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and shall be incorporated
into communitv, cultural and historicaL and transportation planning for the RLSA. including all SRAs described
in Group 4 Policies.
Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural
development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and
species of sDecial local concern (SSLC) and their habitats by complying with the following gnidelines and
standards, A SSLC are species that have been delisted but for which there remain federaL state and/or local
protections and/or management plans specifying guidelines for their protection,
I, A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known to inhabit
biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or SSLC are utilizing
directly eeserved OR the site, The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) guidelines, The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed
species or SSLC that may be discovered.
2, Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC shall be submitted for County approvaL A
plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species or SSLC are
utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by listed
40lPage
species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed
species or SSLC and their habitats,
a, Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or SSLC and their habit"
from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and comoleted data and local. state,
and federa guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to orepare the required management olans. Gj'lefl
s!,ace aRa vegetatieR !'reservatieR reEjairemeats shall Be usea to estaBlish Baffer areas Bet7/e"" '.yilalife
haBitat areas alla areas aeHHllatea B)' hamaR aetivities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other
obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and
encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors, Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage
shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for imoacting listed species or SSLC
habitat shall be considered in the management olans, as aporooriate,
i, The fallawiRg refereRees shall Be asea, as llf3!,ra!,riate, te prepare the re'll1irea mallagemellt plaRs:
I, Soath Flariaa Ml1lti Speeies Reeayery PlaR, USF'.l/S, 1999.
2, Haeitllt Management GuidoliRes [-or the Bala Eagle iR the Southeast RegiaR, USFWS,
+9&+.-
3, Eeology aRa Habitat ProteetioR Needs of Gopher Torteise (Gopherus polyphem,w) Pe!,ulatieRs
fOlllla eR Lallas Slatea ftlr Large Seale Developmeat iH Floriaa, Teelmieal Report No, 1, Fleriaa
Game aHa Fresh 'Hater Fish CelHIHissioll, 19&7.
1, Eeology aHa Developmeat Relatea Habitat Reql1iremeHts of the Floriaa SernlJ Jll'l V.peleeoma
eoeruleseeHs), Toeh.-.ieal Repert No, g, Floriaa Game aHa Fresh Wator Fish Cemmissioll, 1991,
5. Eeelogy aHa Habitat ProteetioR Neees of the SOHtheastem f.rnerie!IH Kestrel (Faleo Spai".erias
Paulus) Oil Large seale De':elopmeat Sites ill Floriaa, NeRgame Teeh.-.ieal Report No, 13, Flerida
Game aRe Fresh Water Fish Commissiell, 1993.
L tr. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject
to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
J!, HhWhen listed species or SSLC are utilizing a direell)' eBservea OH site or indicated by evidence, suer
as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site sha.
be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes, The County shall also
consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this
policy,
b,Management olans shall include orovisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions, Low intensity
land uses (e,g, oassive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation oreservation requirements, including
agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated bv human
activities, Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce
human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local
residents, businesses and governmental services about the oresence of wildlife and oractices (such as
aporooriate waster disoosal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing
opportunites for negative ineraction, such as approoriate waste disoosal oractices,
c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring orogram for develooments greater than ten acres,
B. Fer pareels eoataillillg gopher tortoises (Gephems pelypheffilis), !,riority shall Be gh'3/l to proteetiag the
largest mast eeRtigaaus go!,her tortaise haBitat with the greatest RamBer of aeti"e BUffav:s, alla far proviaiRg a
cOlUlectioR ta aff site adjacent gaPher tortoise preserves.
e,HaBitat preser,'atioH for the Florida serulJ jay V.!,heloeolna eoefHlesc""s) shall eeRfefffi te the gaiaeliRes
eoataiRea iR Teeh.-.ieal Repart No. g, Flariaa Game alla Fresh Water Fish CalHIHissiall, 1991. The reEjl1irea
maRagemellt plaR shall also provide far a maiRleRallee pregfllm ElHa speeify all ap!,rapriate fire or meehaRieal
protoeols ta maiRtaiH the Ratuml seruB eamffilillity, The plaR shall alse aRlIiRe a pUB lie awareRess pragram to
edl1eate resiaeRls aVoat the OR site preserve aHe the neea to mailltaiR the semB yegetatioll, These fCE[liiremeRls
shall be eORsisteRl with the UF'HS SaHth Floriaa Malti S!,eeies Reeavery Plan, May 1999, sl1bjeet to the
proyisioRs ef !,aragraph (3) of tms pohey.
41 I P age
d,Per !he bald eagle (HaliaeetaD leaeee"l3luHus), the required habitat management !,lans shall eotalllish !,feteetive
zenes amUHd !he eagle HOSt restrieting eMain asti...itieo, The !,laHs ehall aloe ad""e"s resmeting eeTtain tYl'e" ef
aetivities fffiring the nest sea"en, The"e requiremeft!" ehall be een"isteft! wit-h the UFWS Seath Plerida Malti
S!,eeies Reee'/er Plan, May 1999, suSjest te the flrevisien" ef!,Elffigffil'h (3) efthis !,aliey,
e,Par the red eaekaded weedfleeker lflieeides barealis), the required h8bitat !,rateetien !,lan shall eatline
measmes te "'/Gid adyerse im!,aet" ta aetiye elustem and te minimize ilHflaet" to foraging hallitat. Where a,herse
effects eaR net be aveided, measure" shall be taken ta minimize aB site distllFl3ElHee aHd eeml'ensate er mitigate
fer ilHflaets that remaiB, The"e requiremeHlS shall be eeBsiDteHl with !he UFWS Salith Plarida Multi S!,eeies
Reeavery PlaB, May 1999, eHl3jeet ta the flravisieB ef!,lIfagFllflh 3) efthi" !,aliey,
f Ia lIfea" 'I.-here the Flerida black bear (Uraus amerieElHu" flaridElflU") may be !,re"eft!, the H1llHagemeft! I'laH"
shall require that garBage be !,laeed in bear I'reef eentaiHers, at ene er mere eeHlralleeatieB", The maBagemeHl
!,lan shall alee ideHlify methed" te infeTffi leeal residents ef the eOBeerns related ta iateraetien between blaek
8ellfs and hHmafls, Mitigatien fer ilHflaeting hallitat "aitallle fer blaek bear shall be eellsidered in the marlagemeHt
~
g,Per I'rejeet" leeated in Prierit)' I er Prierity II PaHther HaIlitat area", the maHtlgemeHt !,laB shall diseearage the
destruetien of aBdisturBed, native habitats that life flrefeffed by the Plerida !,anther (Pelis eeHeeler eeryi) by
direetiHg iHtensive land ases te elHTeHlly distarBed areas, Prefeffed habitats iBelade fliHe flat';;eeds and hardweod
haHllBeeks, Ia !lim, these areas shall be baffered from the mest iHtense land ases ef the !,rejeet by asiHg low
intensity laBd IWe" (e,g., !,arks, !'aosi'.-e reereatienal lIfea", gelf eelifseo), Gela eeliT5es within the Rlffill Lanas
Area shall be aesigaed and H1llBagea aoing stElHallffis felma within this Overlay, The managemeHt !,lans shall
iaeHtify !lj3l'rel'riate lighting eoHtrel" fer theDe !,elHlilted lises aBa Dhall alse aaareDS the eflfleR.mity te litilize
!,reDeri8ea burning te meintaiB fire aa!lj3tea !,reserved vegetatieR eeffiBllffiitieD ana !,reviae bmY/se fer white
tailea aeer. TheDe requiremeft!s shall be eOBsiDteHt with the UFWS Selith Pler,aa Mlilti S!,eeies Raee'/eT PIElH,
Maj' 1999, sllbjeet te the !,fevisieR" of !,aragral'h (3) ef this !,eliey. The Malti Seeeies Reeeverv Plan (1999)
shall eenstitlite miniffilHR .,.-ilalif-e ereteetieH stanallfds fer the RLS:\O,
h, The M!lI1flgemeflt Plan" sh811 eeft!aiR a menitering flregraffi for ae,.-elel'meHls greater than I Q acres,
3, The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize recommendations and
letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property eeHtaining utilized bv listed
species or SSLC. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may ooange
strenlrthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be
deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan, However, no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of
Policv 5,5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife protection,
Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall
direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within wetlands, A
direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a
wetland, This policy shall be implemented as follows:
I, There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee
Slough, These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's, Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within
the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems,
2, The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3.These areas are
protected by existing SFWMD wetlands pennits for each area,
3, FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5,3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration
limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which protect
wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas, 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 pennitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District
a, 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:
42 I P age
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with tbp
highest wetland functionality scores, Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those described
paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5,3 and 5.5 shall
first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality assessment score of 0,65 or a Uniform
Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0,7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of
this Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used to detennine those
instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality assessment score of 0,65 or a Uniform Wetland
Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0,7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation
required by Policy 5,3,
ii, Wetlands and contillUous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species or SSLC, or serving as corridors
for the movement of listed species or SSLC, shall be preserved on site, Wetland flowway functions through
the project shall be maintained,
iii, Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table drawdowns or diversions will not
adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall
be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations
and water tables, In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections
4.2.2.4,6.11 and 6,12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be
utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the
wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate
functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment
Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-OOI, dated September 1997, and updated
August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as Eke. Chapter 62-345.
The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation
Assessment scores, County staff shall review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS
provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functionir
wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above,
c, All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (1) of this policy,
d, Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2,7 of the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element.
e, The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements.
The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for
other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland, A structural buffer may be
used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%, A
structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows ed, Wetland buffers shall
conform to the following standards:
i, The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line,
ii, The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation, Where native vegetation does not exist, native
vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted,
iii, The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic
Pest Plant CounciL
ivThe following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the
buffer:
(I) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing uses.
v,A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
43lPage
i, "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed mitigation
equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation
within FSA's and HSA's,
ii, Loss of storage or conveyance volwne resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by
providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted
wetland,
iii, Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities offered as
mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant
removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defmed by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic plant
maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal agency along with sufficient funding for
perpetual management activities.
iv, Exotics removal or maintenance mav be considered acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetlands or listed
species habitat if those lands if those lands are placed under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual
maintenance requirements.
w y, Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD standards, If agency
pennits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation
exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies,
g, Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as separate tracts, In the
case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD Master Plan, These
areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant CounciL Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3 .e-iv,)
and shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation,
erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation,
4, All landowners shall be encoura!!ed to consider participatin!! in anv prol!fams that provide incentives, fundin!! or
other assistance in facilitatin!! wetland and habitat restoration on private lands includin!!, but not limited to, federal
farm bill al!ficultural conservation prol!fams, private or public !!rants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than
fee sale to conservation prol!fams,
Policv 5.7 (recommended new Policy)
Anv development not participating in the RLSA program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses,
Within one vear of the effective date of this Policv LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to
protect the nighttime environment. conserve energy, and enhance safetv and securitv,
Policy 5.8 (recommended new Policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA the applicant in coniunction with the Florida
Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational
and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources,
44IPage
Preface
Section 2 of this Report includes the full RLSA Overlay Program as evaluated, The Review Committee
determined that most of the policies in the RLSA Overlay did not require an amendment so often took action to
"leave policy unchanged," Those policies that were amended, including those set forth in Section I, and those
with minor language corrections, are shown below with strike t1mmgh and underlines,
In addition to all RLSA text, the following are attached with recommend amendments,
:>> Stewardship Overlay Map
:>> Attachment A - Stewardship Credit Worksheet
:>> Attachment B - Land Use Layers Matrix
:>> Attachment C - Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics Table
The RLSA Overlav Recommended Amendments
Goal (recommended amendment)
Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the
Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment.
Collier County's goal is to proteet retain land for agricultural activities, to preyent the premature
eonvcrsion of agricultural land to BOB agrieukuFal u~cs, to direct incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion
of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage
development that utilizes emplovs creative land use planning techniques. throul!h the use of
established incentives.
Objective (recommended amendment)
To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land use overlay
system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, based on the principles of
rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163,3177(11), F,S, The Policies that will implement this Goal and
Objective are set forth below in groups relating to each aspect of the GoaL Group I policies describe the structure
and organization of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, Group 2 policies relate to
agriculture, Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, aR<I~ Group 4 policies relate to conversion of
land to other uses and economic diversification, Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not
voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum requirements of the Final
Order pertaining to natural resource protection,
Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
Policy 1.1 (recommended amendment)
To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) that
collectively contribute~ to a viable agricultural industry, protect~ natural resources, and enhance~ economic
prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(Overlay), The Overlay was created through a collaborative community:based planning process involving county
residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and governmental organizations under the
direction of a citizen oversight committee.
Policy 1.2
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-use
development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of compensation to
45lpage
private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural resources and viable
agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle such compact development n'
strategies herein are based in part on the principles of Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship Act, Chapt
163.3177(11) F,S, The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools, techniques and strategies that are
not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory
programs,
Policy 1.3
This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map) and
applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural
and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration Commission Final Order No,
AC-99-002, The RLSA generally includes rural lands in northeast Collier County lying north and east of Golden
Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of
the Lee County Line, and south and west of the Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately
195,846 acres, of which approximately 182,334 acres is privately owned, The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay
to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
Policy 1.4
Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of
permitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy 1.5, unless
and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is the intent of the
Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of important
agricultural and natural resources, Compensation to the property owner shall occur through one of the following
mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of
less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller
program.
Policy 1.5 (recommended amendment)
As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the permitted uses, density, intensity and other
land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Management Plan (GMP),
Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect prior to the
adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final Order AC-99-002, The
Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or receipt of Stewardship Credits,
except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship Credit System shall be imposed upon a
property owner without that OWBers owner's consent
Policy 1.6 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent
agriculture, open space or conservation uses, These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or
SSAs, All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes
designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a
resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property
owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for
such designation, Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SSA.
Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management
Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment
process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that
identifies those allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain, Once land is designated as a
SSA and Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses
unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property unless the SSA
is terminated as provided elsewhere herein.
46lPage
Policv 1.6.1 (recommended new policy)
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending Area ("SSA"),
the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five vears ("Conditional Period") and shall be deemed a
Conditional Stewardship Easement The Conditional Period mav be extended for one additional vear at the option of
the owner bv providing written notice to the County prior to the expiration of the initial five vear period, All conditions
and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining the existing propertv conditions. including all
management obligations of the owner of the SSA lands. shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period, If at
anv time during the Conditional Period anv of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement
shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final. perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with
the terms set forth therein:
1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assilmed to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving Area
("SRA"), and the SRA has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders. permits, or other
discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, including subdivision plat and site development plan
approval. but not building permits, If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to more than one
SRA, then the receipt of all necessary governmental final and non-appealable development orders, permits, or other
discretionarv approvals necessary to commence construction of anv SRA shall automaticallv cause the Conditional
Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement;
2, The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred anv Stewardship Credits to another person or entity, including a
Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policv 1.20, the closing has occurred, and the owner has received the
consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not expresslv excluding:
(a) sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillarv to the sale or transfer of the underlving fee title to the
land. or
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA, whether the SRA is owned or
developed bv a separate or related entitv, and the Stewardship Credits are transferred as required bv the
Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA approval: or
3, The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchanae for the creation of the Stewardship Easement
Aareement other compensation from local. state, federal or private revenues (collectivelv, the "Events"),
The LDC shall specify how. assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not been recorded, the
Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automaticallv convert to a Permanent Stewardship Easement upon the
earliest to occur oHa) anv of the foregoing Events during the Conditional Period, or (b) 180 davs after the last dav
of the Conditional Period, as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the foregoing events
has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA lands mav within 180 davs after the last dav
of the Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardship Easement bv recording a Notice of Termination,
In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary approval is
filed, the owner of the SSA lands mav elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challenge or appeal is finallv
resolved, If the challenge or appeal is not resolved such that the construction mav commence under terms
acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands mav within 180 davs of the final disposition
of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of Termination, Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination, the
Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall expire
and terminate, the Stewardship Credits generated bv the SSA shall cease to exist. the rights and obligations set
forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the propertv, and the SSA
Memorandum shall be revised accordinglv, The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a copv of the Notice of
Termination to the Countv,
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA approvals, but
none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period. then the Notice of Termination shall also
provide for termination of anv SRAs that have been assigned credits from the SSA, unless the SRA owner has
obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the
SRA. In the event that a Notice of Termination does terminate an SRA, the owner of the SRA lands shall ioin in
the Notice of Termination.
47 I P age
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges, restrictions and
obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to its underlving zonin~
classification, free and clear of anv encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Cre,
Agreement If requested bv the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other grantees under the
Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and termination of easement and credit
agreements for recording in the public records within 15 davs of request from the owner of the SSA lands, Collier
Countv shall update the overlav map to reflect the termination of anv SSA or SRA.
This policv shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof
For SSAs approved prior to this Policv 1.6. I being adopted but have not changed ownership in whole or part
since the creation of the SSA and have not transferred, sold or utilized Credits generated from the SSA the
propertv owner mav withdraw the SSA designation provide an application for such withdrawal is
implemented within 6 months of the ado{ltion of this Policv 1,6,1,
Policy 1.7 (recommended amendment)
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on the
Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated_herein as Attachment A, This methodology and related
procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC), Such procedures shall include but Be not be limited to the following: (I)
All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual
restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier
County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and one of the following: Department of
Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management
District, or a recognized statewide land trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party responsible
for such measures,
Policy 1.8
The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource Index
(Index) set forth on the Worksheet The Index established the relative natural resource value by objectively
measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The
sum of these six factors is the index value for the land, Both the characteristics used and the factors assigned
thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of
land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from important natural resources, The six
characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat,
Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
Policy 1.9
A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship Index
value for all land within the RLSA Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the Natural
Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation, Any change in the Characteristics of land due to
alteration of the land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor will
result in an adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the
Index Map Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay.
Policy 1.10
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value of
the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated from such lands,
and therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural
resources of the land
48lPage
Policy 1.11
The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural Zoning
District within the Overlay, These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the Matrix, Each
layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting
with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight), If a layer is removed, all
uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and are no longer available, Each layer is assigned a percentage of a
base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then
multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being
designated as a SSA,
Policy 1.12
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteria and standards
set forth in Group 4 Policies, Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs.
Policy 1.13
The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will
also be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District), LDRs creating the District will be
adopted within one (1) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment.
Policy 1.14 (recommended amendment)
Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per
acre basis, as described in Policy 4+& 4,19, Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the
Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP Amendment.
Policy 1.15
Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation, Any change in the
residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be
specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land,
Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards
except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable-workforce Housing Density
Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision
of the Immokalee Area Master Plan,
Policy 1.16
Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning techniques and
Credits shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described
in Chapter 163.3177 (II), F.S, and 9J-5,006(5)(I),
Policy 1.17
Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subj ect to compliance
with all applicable provisions of these policies, Residential clustering shall only occur within the RLSA through
the use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering shall not be permitted.
Policy 1.18
A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal and
State conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, local option
taxes, general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition
of conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection,
including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs),
Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of
Critical State Concern (ACSC),
49lPage
Policy 1.19
All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall re
based upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent doma
acquisition within this system.
Policy 1.20
The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy
1.18, Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive and hold
Credits until such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship
Receiving Areas.
Policy 1.21(recommended amendment)
The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the primary basis
for permanent protection of agricultural lands, flowways, habitats and water retention areas, The County
recognizes that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and
also recognizes that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue
and to promote the protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry
bonus to encourage the voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shall be in the form of an
additional one Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half
Stewardship Credit per acre of land designated as HSA located inside the ACSC The early entry bonus shall be
available for five years from the effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC The
early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not
require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the
early entry bonus may be used after the tennination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that
can be generated under the bonus is 27,000 Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within
the ACSC
Policy 1,22 (recommended amendment)
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon Year of 2025, Many of
the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested
in actual implementation, A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier
County and the Department of Community Affairs "raft the five year an.:1iveroary sf the aasrtisft af the
Stewaraslrir District ift the LDC as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process, The purpose of the
review shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal,
Objective and Policies set forth herein, The specific measures of review shall be as follows:
I. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs,
2. The amount and location of land designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use,
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and
time ofreview,
5, The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation
in the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6, The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and
private revenues described in Policy] .18,
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System
since its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas,
Group 2 - Policies to proteet aJ;:rieultural lands from premature conversion to other uses ftBd retain land
for al!ricultural activities throul!h the use of established incentives in order to continue the viability of
agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(Recommended amendment)
50lPage
Policy 2,1 (recommended amendment)
Agriculture!!! landowners will be provided with lands will Be !,rcteeted Hcm !,rematlue ecft"/emicn te ether IoIses
BY ercatmg incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to convert
agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policies I A and 2.2 and by
the establishment of SRAs. as the ferm ef eeHl]9aet rural deve/e!,ment in the RLSf. Overlay, <,\nalysis has shewn
that SRi\s '::ill allew the !,rejeeted !,e!,loIlation ef the RLS.^. in the HCRzen year ef 2025 te Be aeeemmeaated en
al'l'r8)(imatel)' I O~/O ef Ihe aereage otherwise re'l'lirea if sHeh eeHl]9aet Rlml acvele!,ment were Hat allewed due to
the flexibility aff-ordea Ie sHeh ae'/ele!'m8ftt. The eembinatien ef stewarashil' ineenk:es ana lana efHei8flt
eeHl]9aet rural ae'"elel'ment will minimize t"ye cf the !,rimar)' market faeters that ealise prematlUe een'lemien cf
agrieHltlUe,
Policy 2,2 (recommended amendment)
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship Sending
Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1,6, The protection measures for SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10,
and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA HSA and WRA, as further
described in Policies 3,1. 3.2 and 3,3, additional incentives are desired to retain agriculture within Open Lands as
an alternative to conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as described in Policv 1.5. Open Lands are
those lands not designated SSA SRA, WRA, HSA FSA or public lands on the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlav Mal', Open Lands are those lands described in Policv 4.2. Therefore, in lieu of using the Natural
Resource Index on land designated Open, these lands shall be assigned two (2,0) Stewardship Credits per acre
outside of the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), as established bv F,S, 380,055 as of March 3, 2009, and
two and sixth tenths (2,6) Credits l'er acre within the ACSe. All non-agriculture uses shall be removed and the
remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each laver is
discreet and shall be removed sequentiallv and cumulativelv in the order presented in the Matrix, If a laver is
removed, all uses and activities in that laver are eliminated and no longer available, Following approval of an
Agricultural SSA Collier Countv shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlav District Map to delineate the boundaries
of the Agricultural SSA
Policy 2.3 (recommended amendment)
Within one (I) year from the effective date of these amendments, Collier County will mav establish an
Agriculture Advisory Council comprised of not less than five nor more than nine appointed representatives of the
agriculture industry, to advise the BCC on matters relating to Agriculture. The Agriculture Advisory Council
(AAC) will work to identify opportunities and prepare strategies to enhance and promote the continuance,
expansion and diversification of agriculture in Collier County, The AAC will also identify barriers to the
continuance, expansion and diversification of the agricultural industry and will prepare recommendations to
eliminate or minimize such baniers in Collier County, The ,^~^.c will alsc assess whether exceptiens frem
standar-es for Imsiness uses rclatea te agrieHIllire saeHlaBe allewca HHaer an a6mtnistrati':e !,8flnit !,feeess ana
make reecmmenaatiens tc the BCe.
Policy 2.4
The BCC will consider the recommendations of the AAC and facilitate the implementation of strategies and
recommendations identified by the ACC that are determined to be appropriate, The BCC may adopt amendments
to the LDC that implement policies that support agriculture activities.
Policy 2,5
Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being, Agricultural
activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right-to-Farm Act.
Policy 2,6
Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3,9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the implementing LDRs,
shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into the
Stewardship program,
51 I P age
Group 3 - Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as well as
listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from wetlands a.. .
upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, RI.
Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
program,
Policy 3.1
Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur through the
establislunent of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. FSAs are delineated
on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 acres. FSAs are primarily privately owned wetlands that
are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough. These lands form the primary wetland
flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect FSAs by the creation
and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establislunent of protection measures described in
Group I Policies, Not all lands within the delineated FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource
value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of
Overlay implementation, Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to
2.4; approximately 96% score greater than 1,2 while 4% score 1.2 or less, The average Index score of FSA land is
1.8,
Policy 3.2 (recommended amendment)
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establislunent of Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay, HSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and
contain approximately 4G,{lOO 45,782 acres, HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas, which include both
areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these
characteristics, These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a
continuum of landscape that can augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently
protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and thp
establislunent of protection measures described in Group I Policies, Not all lands within the delineated HSAs a,
comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from
lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation, Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA
lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are approximately 13,8(J(J 15,156 acres of cleared agricultural
fields located in HSAs. The average Index score of HAS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index
score of the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1,5.
Policy 3.3
Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establislunent of Water Retention
Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay, WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain
approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by the South Florida
Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many instances, these WRAs
consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases they are excavated water bodies or may contain
exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect WRAs by the creation and transfer
of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establislunent of protection measures described in Group I
Policies, Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value;
therefore the index shall be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay
implementation, Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0,6 to 2.4;
approximately 74% score greater than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less, The average Index score of WRA land is
IS
Policy 3.4
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew Marsh
and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that they score
within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of I S Because these existing public areas, an<
any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs and are not eligible to
generate Credits, but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal of the RLSA.
52 I P age
Policy 3.5
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4)
as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the property owner as
described in Policy 3.8, Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, other than those
necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource
Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less, Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously
cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to
native habitats, Other layers may also be eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for
compensation, The elimination of the Earth Mining layer shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water
bodies if such use is an integral part of a restoration or mitigation program within a FSA.
Policy 3.6
Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in exchange
for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3,8, Other layers may also be eliminated at the
election of the property owner in exchange for compensation,
Policy 3.7 (recommended amendment)
General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on
HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use essential services and
governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only
be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch
making plants are prohibited in all HSAs, Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously
cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize impacts to
native habitats, In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses
will only be approved upon submittal of an BlS Environmental Impact Statement lEIS) which demonstrates that
clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed
species and their habitats and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers, As an alternative to the
foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation
program, Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the best management
practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier County as meeting the requirement for
minimization of impact:
. Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on the parceL
. Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas,
. Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13.
Policy 3.8
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms: creation and
transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the
land, or through other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller program,
Policy 3.9 (recommended amendment)
I, Agriculture will continue to be a permitted use and its supporting activities will continue to be permitted
as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group classifications described in
the Matrix, The Ag I group includes row crops, citrus, specialty farms, horticulture, plant nurseries,
improved pastures for grazing and ranching, a'lllaeHltllre rlimited to Open Land designation onlv 1 and
similar activities, including related agricultural support uses, In existing Ag I areas within FSAs and
HSAs, all such activities are permitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to
another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable permits, Once the Stewardship Credit System is
utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag I will
be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond existing or permitted limits within property subject to a credit
transfer, except for incidental clearing as set forth in Paragraph 2 below,
53 I P age
2. In order to encourage viable Ag I activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert from one Ag I use
to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag I areas, square up existing farm fields, C"
provide access to or from other Ag I areas, provided that the Ag I Land Use Layer has been retained l
the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value score has been adjusted to
reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that meets the above
criteria and is limited to I % of the area of the SSA In the event said incidental clearing impacts lands
having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation shall be provided.
Policy 3.10
Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including related
agricultural support uses, In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are permitted to continue,
and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable pennits,
Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as previously described, no
further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag I will be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or
permitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer.
Policy 3.11 (recommended amendment)
L In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration. Examples include, but are
not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where
additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors, Prierity shall Be gi'/en to fCsteratian within the CalHfl
Keais gtrand PS.^. or eaRlig>ioHs lISAs. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration
activities within a FSA or HSA the CalHfl Keais Strend PSi\. or eeRlig>ieHs IIS!.s, feur two additional
Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated, :\.n additional twe Ste"l/!lfdsl1il' eredits
5hall Be assigFled fer eaeh acre ef land dedieated for restaratien activities within ether PS,'\s and IIS!.s, The actual
implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive such credits and the costs of
restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or private entity undertaking the restoration, Should aD
owner also complete restoration improvements, this shall be rewarded with fffiIf additional Credits for each aCI
of restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as detennined by the
pennit agency authorizing said restoration, The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either caracara restoration
at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acre, or for flow wav restoration at 4 Credits
per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for restoration, Land Use
Lavers 1-6 must be removed, The specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be
included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
2, In certain locations, as generallv illustrated in the RLSA Overlav Map, there mav be opportunities to create,
restore, and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection, Should a
propertv owner in a federallv approved corridor designate the required propertv for such corridor, 2 Stewardship
Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated, Issuance of the 8 restoration implementation credits
mav be phased to coincide with a phased implementation process in accordance with the federal penniL The
procedures shaIl be set forth in the LDC.
3, In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonaL shallow wetland wading bird foraging
habitat. restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO, Dedication of anv area inside an
FSA HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shaIl be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre.
Should the landowner successfully complete the restoration, an additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded.
Onlv one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for restoration and in
no case shaIl greater than 10 Credits be awarded per acre,
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be addressed througl
public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution agreement or stewardship agreement
between the parties involved. Also not precluded are various private and publiclv funded restoration programs
54lPage
such as the federal Farm Bill conservation programs, The specific process for assignment of additional restoration
credits shall be included in the Stewardship District ofthe LDC.
Policy 3.12
Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and existing public/private conservation land
include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural resource protection, To
further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the protection, enhancement and
restoration of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs
that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural
index score (0,6) that a HSA receives if such property is designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural,
recreational and/or conservation layers within the matrix,
Policy 3.13 (recommended amendment)
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose
and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance
with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA, WRAs can also
be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay, WRAs may be
incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but
are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances, However, if the WRA provides water treatment and
retention for a SRA, the acreage of the WRA used as Primarv treatment for water management for the SRA shall
be included in the SRA, WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subj ect to refinement in
accordance with SFWMD permitting,
Policy 3,14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including
but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or
filL Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in
accordance with best management practices, Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to
ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or
restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function, Compensating mitigation
or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be
provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough,
Policv 3.15 (new Policv)
Anv development on lands within the RLS Program shall be compatible with surrounding land uses, Within one
vear of the effective date of this Policv LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor lighting to protect the
nighttime environment. conserve energy. and enhance safetv and securitv,
Group 4 - Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while
disconraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning
techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Policy 4.1
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the
economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use
planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the
establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), Incentives to encourage and support the diversification
and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and
targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District.
55lPage
Policy 4,2 (recommended amendment)
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation
a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending
Area, Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in
Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in
accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and
composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetennined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that
are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of
agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay
Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately +4;-300 72,000 acres outside of the ACSC and
approximately ~ 15,000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45,000
acres, '^4"J'lro"imately 2~/" of the,e laRS' aehieve aR Inse" seere greater thaR 1,2. Because the Overlay requires
SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure,
traditional locational standards normally applied to detennine development suitability are not relevant or
applicable to SRAs, Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the priReiJ'lles ef the RHral LaRdG
StewarsDhiJ'l f.et as further seseribed procedures set forth herein and the adopted RLSA Zoning Overlav District.
Policy 4.3 (recommended amendment)
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation
and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master
plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the
Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC Stewardship District,
and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA
uses. Within ORe year frem the effective date of thi, amensment, Collier Coullty shall asoflt LDC amendments t8
eDtablish the flfBeesllre' aRS submittal re'lllirements for sesignation as a S;R, \, to incllise provisions for
cORsiser-ation of iffijlacts, iRelHsing environmelltal and flliblie infrastruetllre imJ'laet" anspfB'/isions f-or J'lub!'
Rotice of aus the 8pportunity for J'lliblie partieiJ'latioR in aRY cOR,ideratioR by the BCC of slieh a designatioR,
Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA, Such updates
shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the
adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs,
Policy 4,5 (recommended amendment)
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier
County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA, The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies
with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible
land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identitled as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map,
The SRA Master Plan shall complv with the Countv's then-adopted Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). the
Countv Build Out Vision Plan as mav be amended referenced in Policv 3,7 of the Transportation Element. and
Access Management procedures,
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing human and wildlife
interactions, Low intensitv land uses (e.g, passive recreation areas. golf courses) and vegetation preservation
requirements, including agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas
dominated bv human activities, Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on
techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of
information to local residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and Practices
that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing opportunites for negative interaction, such as
aopropriate waste disposal practices.
56 I P age
Policy 4.6
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies referenced in Chapter
163,3177 (II), F,S, and 9J-5,006(5)(1), These planning strategies and techniques include urban villages, new
towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use
development that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural
land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services, The SRA shall also
include a mobilitv plan that includes vehicular, bicvcle/pedestrian, public transit. internal circulators, and other
modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses, The
mobility plan shall provide mobility strategies such as bus subsidies, route sl'onsorship or other incentives which
encourage the use of mass transit services, The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in
the Countv Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal
capture, and reduce trip length and long distance traveL Such development strategies are recognized as methods of
discouraging urban sprawl, ,encouraging alternative modes of transportation, increasing internal capture and
reducing vehicle miles traveled,
Policy 4.7 (recommended amendment)
There are futif three specific forms of SRA pennitted within the Overlay, These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets,
and Compact Rural Development (CRD), The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth
in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4,7.\, 4.7.2, and 4,7.3 llfl<I4+.4, Callier Calffily shall
establiah mare s ~pecific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District Ie guide the
design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in
Chapter 163,3177 (I I), F,S. and 9J-5,006(5)(1), The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with
the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may
only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of
the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable-workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the
Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the
total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein, The base residential density does not restrict
net residential density of parcels within a SRA, The location, size and density of each SRA will be detennined on
an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process,
Policy 4.7.1 (recommended amendment)
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses, Towns
have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale,
and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability, Towns shall be aat less
thaa 1,990 greater than 1.500 acres and up to er mere thatl 4,009 5,000 acres and are comprised of several villages
and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that
will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services, Towns shall be designed to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods, Towns shall include an internal mobility plan, which shall include a transfer station or
park and ride area that is appropriately located within the town to serve the connection point for internal and
external public transportation, Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square
feet per dwelling unit in the Town,
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods, Towns shall include both community
and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, ia a Fatie as fll'0yieed described in Policy +.-g 4,15,1, Towns may
also include those compatible corporate office, research. development companies, and light industrial uses such
as those pennitted in the Business Park and Research and Teclmology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those
included in Policy 4,7.4. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent
possible, schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities
and as provided in Policies 4,15.2 and 4,15,3, Design criteria for Towns are "hall be included in the LDC
Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
57 I P age
Policy 4.7,2 (recommended amendment)
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to t'
scale and character of the particular village, Villages shall be greater Het less than 100 acres and up to or mar~
thaft 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical State Concern and up to Hat mere trum 1.500 acres outside the Area
of Critical State Concern, Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use
village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities, Villages shall be
designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway
system serving all residential neighborhoods, Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within
neighborhoods, Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy
4,15, Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policv 4,7,4 shall also be permitted in Villa!!es, Villages are an
appropriate location for a full range of schools, To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent
to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the
LDC Stewardship District V illa!!es greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobilitv plan which shall
include a transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriatelv located within the villa!!e to serve the
connection point for internal and external public transportation.
Poliey 1.7.3 (recommended deletion)
Hamlets are small rural reaiaeHtial areas 'llith primarily siHgle family hellaiHg llfla limitea rllflge af eeHyeHieHee
ori""tea ser,'iees, Hamlets shall be Rot less thaR 40 er mare thaH 100 aeres, Hamlets 'Kill serve as a mare oa",!,act
altemative ta tmaitiaHal five aere lot rural su13aivisioHs curreHtly allawea iH the baseliRe stal'll:lams, Hamlet" shall
have a I'l<lblie greeR a]'laee fnr Heighbarflaaas, Hamlets iHelllae eOR'leRi""e. retailllses, i" a ratie as ]'lro-/iaea in
,^.ttaebmem C. Hamlets may be aH appre]'lriate laeatieH for pre K tm-allgh el_eHtary s.heals, DesigR eriteria fur
Hamlets shall be iRcluaea in the LDC Ste'saffisbip Distriet. Ta maiHtai" a prepartiaR ef Hamlets ta Villages aRa
Tewna, Hat mere thaR 5 Hamlets, in eombiHatiaR with CRDs ef 100 aeres er less, may be appravea as SPv^.s ]'lriar
to the ap]'lreval af a Village or To's", aaa tllerealter Hot mare tllan 5 adaitia""l Hamlet", iH eambiaatiaR wit'
CRns of lOa aeres er less, may be ap]'lfOVea fer eaeh sueseqlleRt Village er TawR,
Policy 4.+.4 4.7.3 (recommended amendment)
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that willpftJ'iiae tlexibility with res]'leet ta the mil[ afllses
aRa aesigR staHdards, bat shall otherwise eomply with the slanaams af a Hamlot or Village, shall support and
further Collier Countv's valued attributes of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversitv, CRDs shall
demonstrate a unique set of uses and suPport services necessary to further these attributes within the RLSA
Primary CRD uses shall be those associated with and needed to support research, education, convenience retail.
tourism or recreation, A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing, aHa Ihe
serviees and faeilitie" that Sll]'l]'lort ]'leFffillRem resiaent", and the services that support permanent residents, The
number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand !!enerated bv the primarv CRD use, but shall not
exceed the maximum of two units per !!ross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres, /\n e)ta"'!'le af a
CRn is aR eeatourism ':illage that ',voula ha','e a aRiqae set af uses aRa sa]'l]'lert serviees aiffer""t frem a
tmaitie",,1 resiaemial village, It waalEl eomain traRsiem ledgiRg faeilities aRd serviees "I'pre]'lriate to eee teurisls,
but may not pro':ide far Ihe raHge af ser,'ices that are ReeessOf)' Ie sllppert ]'le_aHem resiElems, ]Z"eC]'lt as
aeseribed aba'le, a CRn will eanfafffi to the eharaeteristies ef a Village ar Hamlet as set ferth ea AttaehmeRt C
basea eR the size of the CRn. i\S resiaemial nnits are Ret a requirea Ilae, those gaaas aRd serviees Ihat Slil"port
resiEleRts "Ileh as retail, emee, ei"ie, governmental anEl iHstitntiaaalllses shall alsa Ret be requirea, ~ !lhewever,
far any CRn that does incluae ]'lermaneRt reaidemial hallaiRg, the ]'lfe]'lartiaHale SHI']'lort serliees li"leEl abe'..e
shall be ]'lw,..ided in aeeor<iaHee with /.ttaehrnent C. Te maintain a pre]'lertioH af CRns af 100 aeres er less to
Villages aHa Tev....s, Rat mere thaR 5 CRns af lOa aeres sr less, iR eombiRatiaR "",'ith Hamlets, may be al']'lra':eEl
as SRf.s ]'lriar ta the a]'l]'lfeval ofa Village ar TawR, aRd thereafler nar mere than 5 aaElitienal CRns af lOa aeres
ar less, iR eambiHatiaR witll Hamlets, ma)' be a]'ll"reveEl efr each sllbsequem Village aT TowH, To maintain,
proportion ofCRDs of lOa acres or less to Villa!!es and Towns, not more than 5 CRDs of 100 acres or less mav
be approved as SRAs prior to the approval of a Villa!!e or Town, and thereafter not more than 5 additional CRDs
of 100 acres or less mav be approved prior to each subsequent Villa!!e or Town, There "hall be R8 mere than 5
58 I P age
CRDs of more than 100 aeres in size. The aj'lprol'riateness of this limitation shall Be reviewed in 5 year" pursliBat
to Poliey 1.22,
Policy 4.7,4 (recommended new policy)
Existing urban areas, Towns and Villages shall be the oreferred location for business and industrv within the
RLSA. to further oromote economic sustainabilitv and develooment. diversification and iob creation,
Policy 4.8
An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas
as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to
be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3,13.
Policy 4.9 (recommended amendment)
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the plalllled development in an environmentally
acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the
prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, and HSAs, and WPv^.s, To further direct development away from wetlands
and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing,
institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural
Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental
essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve pennitted uses and for public safety, shall not be
sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, Infrastructure necessary to serve
oennitted uses mav be exemot from this restriction, orovided that designs seek to minimize the extent of imoacts
to anv such areas, The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource
value as measured pursuant to Policy 1,8, Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater
than 1.2,
Policy 4.10 (recommended amendment)
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands,
underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses,
will continue to be the dominant land use, Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and
uses within the SRA is provided, To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to their homes, open
space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, or
Village. , or those CRDa m,eeedillg 100 !loros, Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of
greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open spaco, exceot for the allowance of uses described in Policv 4,9, As an
incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, looated olltside of the ".CSC, exceeding the required
thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits but shall not be counted as oart of the
SRA acreage,
Policy 4.11
The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within
the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property, The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and
designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property, Techniques such as, but not limited to
setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose, Where existing
agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the
continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses,
Policy 4.12
Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the
Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such
lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact
the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land, Detention and control elevations shall be established to
protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables,
591Page
Policy 4.13
Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoini'
FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open spa,
contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land
may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the
first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-
made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the
area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course
fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet.
Policy 4.14 (recommended amendment)
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance
with accepted transportation planning standards, At the time of SRA approvaL an SRA proposed to adioin land
desil!l1ated as an SRA or lands desil!l1ated as Open shall provide for the opportunitv to provide direct vehicular
and pedestrian connections from said areas to the Countv's arterial/collector roadwav network as shown on the
Countv Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses, improve interconnectivitv, increase
internal capture, and keep the use of countv arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between developments in
the RLSA.
Public and private roads within an SRA shall be maintained bv the SRA it serves, Sil!l1alized intersections within
or adiacent to an SRA that serves the SRA shall be maintained bv the SRA it serves, No SRA shall be approved
unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road( s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in
accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A
transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2,7.3 of the LDC, or its successor
regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis, To the exter'
required to mitigate an SRA' s traffic impacts, actions mav be taken to include, but shall not be limited t
provisions for the construction and/or pennitting of wildlife crossings, environmental mitigation credits, right of
wav dedication!s), water management and/or fill material which mav be needed to expand the existing or
proposed roadwav network. Anv such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer
contribution agreement. These actions shall be considered within the area of sil!l1ificant influence of the proiect
traffic on existing or proposed roadwavs.
Policy 4,15.1 (recommended amendment)
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses pennitted by the Urban
Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4,7, 4,7.1, 4.7.2, and 4,7,3,--4.+.4 and Attachment C. An
appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, govemmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve
the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA Depending on the size, scale, and character
of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within
the Immokalee Urban Area provided the capacitv of those adioining area's facilities as described in Attachment C
to be utilized bv the newlv created SRA can demonstrate sufficient caoacitv exists for their desired uses oer the
standards of Attachment C. By example, each Village or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to
serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of
several Villages ana IImnlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby Town,
Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in Attachment C, and
shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District.
Policy 4.15.2
The Board of County Commissioners (BCe) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA
development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside, improved,
and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the Sf
aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as
a condition for PUD rezoning,
60 I P age
Policy 4.15.3
Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to
occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA, As a part of the SRA application,
the following information shall be provided:
I. Number of residential units by type;
2, An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school
impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and
3, The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA,
and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available
for a public educational facility.
Policy 4.16 (recommended amendment)
A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure
must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of
SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements, The capacity of essential services
and infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation
process, Infrastructure to be analyzed includes, but not limited to, transportation, potable water, wastewater,
irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste, Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy
4.14, Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns and, Villages,
alla those CRDs e)[ceeaillg olle mmarea (100) acres ill size, and may be required in CRDs that are olle hilllarea
(100) acres or less ill size, depending upon the pennitted uses approved within the CRD, Centralized or
decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by
a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service
District, Collier County, or other governmental entity, hmovative alternative water and wastewater treatment
systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy provided that
they meet all applicable regulatory criteria, Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a
maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services
from a centralized/decentralized community system are available, Individual potable water supply wells and
septic systems life pem>ittea ill IIamlets alla may be pennitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size.
Policy 4.17 (recommended amendment)
The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2
of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP and public facilities pursuant to Policv I, I of the Capital
Improvement Element in addition to the following: iails, law enforcement, emerl!encv medical services, fire
service, I!overnment buildinl!s and libraries ,for Category f. Pllblie facilities, Final local development orders will
be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of
the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of final local development order approvaL
Policy 4.18 (recommended amendment)
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year
based on a costlbenefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County, The BCC
may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate,
Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special
districts, shall be encouraged, At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and
services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks,
law enforcement, and schools, Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other
public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.
In the event that a SRA development I!enerates sumlus revenues to Collier Countv, Collier Countv mav choose to
allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countv
61 I P age
to resoond exoeditiouslv to economic oooortunities and to comoete effectivelv for hi!?:h-value research,
develooment and commercialization, innovation, and alternative and renewable enerllY business oroiects,
Policy 4.19 (recommended amendment)
Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from a
Stewardship Sendin!?: Area deemed vested under the ei!?:ht Credit ratio, Ten Credits oer acre shall be required for
each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits were created from anv other Stewardship Sending Area,
elleellt for 0 Qpen space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is
designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4A9 4.20 do not require use of Credits, In order to promote
compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural
areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of
services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4,7, ~ 4,15.1
and Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan,
Policy 4.20 (recommended amendment)
The acreage of ooen space exceedin!?: thirtv five percent and a public benefit use shall aet count toward the
maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7 but shall not count toward the consumotion of Stewardship
Credits, For the purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private
post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage
requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities e)[ehuling
essemial services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier
County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement 163,3177 F.S, and in a manner consistent with 235.193
F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, and Villages,-aHtl
Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements,
Policy 4.21(recommended amendment)
Lands within the ACSC that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits used to entitle a SRA i
the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in
the ACSC east of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be Hamlets ana CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of
SRA allowed in the ACSC west ofthe Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs and Villages ana CRDs of not more
than 300 acres ana Hamlets, Provided, not more than 1000 aces of SRA develooment in the form of Villa!?:es or
CRDs fio',v.','er, tfiat two Villages or CRDs of not more tfian 5QO aeres eaefi, exclusive of any lakes created prior
to tfie effeeti','e aate oftms amendment June 30, 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be allowed in areas
that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of tfie effcetive aate of tfiese amcmlments, had been
predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth Mining or Processing Uses. This policy is intended to
assure that the RLSA Overlay is not used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is
used to promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards already allowed
within the ACSC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence over the Big Cypress ACSC regnlations
and all regulations therein shall apply.
Policv 4,22 (recommended new policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA throu!?:h the SRA desil!llation orocess, the
aoolicant in coni unction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or
cultural silffiificance and exolore the educational and oublic awareness oooortunities re!?:ardin!?: sil!nificant
resources.
Policv 4.23 (new policv)
Anv develooment on lands in the RLS Pro cram shall be comoatible with surroundin!?: land uses, Within one vear
of the effective date of this Policv LDC regulations shall be imolemented for outdoor li!?:htin!?: to protect the
ni!?:httime environment, conserve ener!?:v, and enhance safetv and securitv.
62 I P age
Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water regime
and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area program,
Policy 5.1 (recommended amendment)
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natura] water regime in areas mapped as FSAs and
designated Restoration Zones on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the
Stewardship Credit Program, . Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses,
and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated, ill FS.'.s, Conditional use essential
services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to serve pennitted uses or for public safety,
shall "'*" not be allowed in FSAs, Infrastructure necessarv to serve oennited uses mav be exemot from this
restriction, provided that designs seek to minimize the extent of impacts to anv such areas, with a Natural
ReGollft)e Stewardship mdel( vallie of 1.2 ar less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or
previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to minimize
impacts to native habitats, Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in areas mapped as
HSAs, The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as well as the right to sell
conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute compensation for the loss of these
rights.
Policy 5.2
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 that are within
the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly limit non-agricultural clearing.
Policy 5.3 (recommended amendment)
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime and to protect listed anima] and
plant species and their habitats in areas mapped as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs on the Overlay Map that are not
within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural purpose under the
Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, these Group 5 oolicies
fellmv;ftg regulatiafts Me IlflJllieable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any comparable
existing County regulations that would otherwise apply, These regulations shall only apply to non-agricultural
use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system.
Policy 5,4 (recommended amendment)
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of wildlife
crossings at locations detennined to be appropriate, A map of these ootential crossing locations will be develooed
within ]2 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment and shall be incoroorated
into communitv, cultural and historicaL and transoortation o]anning for the RLSA including all SRAs described
in Group 4 Policies,
Policy 5.5 (recommended amendment)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-agricultural
development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the listed species and
soecies of soecial local concern (SSLC) and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and
standards, A SSLC are species that have been delisted but for which there remain federaL state and/or local
orotections and/or management olans soecifying guidelines for their orotection,
I, A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species or SSLC are known to inhabit
biologica] communities similar to those existing on site or where listed species or SSLC are utilizing
directly observed ell the site, The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Conunission (FFWCC) and US, Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) guidelines, The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed
species or SSLC that may be discovered,
63lPage
2, Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species or SSLC shall be submitted for County approvaL A
plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated listed species or SSLC are
utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be occupied by list
species or SSLC. These plans shall describe how the proj ect directs incompatible land uses away from listeo
species or SSLC and their habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species or SSLC and their habitats
from the negative impacts of proposed development. The most current and completed data and local. state,
and federa guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the reouired management plans. Gpea
spaee ami vegetatioa preoefvatiea re'luifemeHls SHall Be usea to estaBliSH Buffer areas Bet',veea wilalife
Habitat areas aaa areao aomiaatea BY Humaa aetivities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other
obstructions shall be provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and
encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses and signage shall
be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors. Mitigation for impacting listed species or SSLC habitat
shall be considered in the management plans, as appropriate,
i, THe follewing refere!lees SHall Be HOea, as apl"Fel"riate, to prepare the requirea manageffieHll"laas:
I, Seuth Floriaa MHlti Sl"eeies Reeevery Plan, USFWS, 1999.
2. HaBitat Manageffieat Guiaeliaes for the Bala Eagle ia the SO>ltheast Regioa, USFWS, 19S7,
3, Eeolegy aaa HaBitat Pretectioa ~!eeas of Gopher Tertoise (Gol"heruo I"elyphemlio) POl"lilatiens
fouaa oa LaHaS Slatea for Large Scale Develel"ment iH Fleriaa, Teehnieal Rel"ert No. 1, Fleriaa
Game aHa Fresh "Vater Fish CommisoieH, 19S7.
1. Eeelogy aHd De':e!Ol"ffieHt Related HaBitat Re'lllireffie!lts of the Fleriaa SemB Jay (:\'I"eleeoffill
eeemleseens), Teeh;,;eal Report No, S, Floriaa Gaffie ana Fresh Water Fish ColfllRission, 1991,
5, Eeology ana HaBitat PreteetioH Neeas of the Southeastern .A_eriean Kestrel (Falco Sl"arverius
PalilHs) on Large seale Develol"ment Sites in Floriaa, Nongame Teeh;,;eal Rel"ert No, 13, Flerida
Game ana Fresh Viater Fioh Cemmission, 1993,
L fr The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS and FFWCC, subject
to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy,
il. tihWhen listed species or SSLC are utilizing a aireetly oBservea en site or indicated by evidence,
such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native vegetation on site
shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for agricultural purposes, The County shall also
consider the recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this
policy.
b,Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions, Low intensitv
land uses (e.g, passive recreation areas, golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements, including
agriculture, shall be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated bv human
activities, Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce
human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of information to local
residents, businesses and governmental services about the presence of wildlife and practices (such as
appropriate waster disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife, while minimizing
opportunites for negative ineraction, such as appropriate waste disposal practices.
c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments greater than ten acres,
B, For I"areels eeHlaiHing gopHer teftoises (Gol"herus 1"0IYI"HeHllls), priority SHall be gi'/e:, to prateetiag the
largest most eentigHolls gopher tortoise habitat witH the greatest numBer of aeti'le Burrows, and for I"rayiaing a
eo""ectioa to off site adjaeent gOl"her tofteioe I"r-eoerveo,
e.HaBitat I"reservatiaH fur tHe Flariaa semll jay (f.pheloeoma eoemlesceas) SHall eenfoffil te tHe guiaelines
eaBtainea in Teehnieal Report No, S, Florida Game afla FreoH ',Vater Fish CemmissieR, 1991. The re'luirea
maoogemeHl plaa shall alse I"reyiae for a maiRte",,,,"e program ana sl"eeify aR apl"repriate fire or meehanieal
proto eo Is to maintain the Hatural seruB eOfflffillnity, The I"lan shall alse outliRe a l"uBlie awareR8SS pfOgram te
edueate rasiaeBts aaout the 8R site I"reserve aRa the neea to maintaiR the serna vegetatioR, These re'lllirementc
SHall ae eensioteHl with the UFWS South Florida MHlti Sl"eeieo Raem'ery PlaR, May 1999, subject 10 the
provisien" ef paragal"H (3) ef this poliey,
64lPage
a,Far the Bala eagle (Haliaeetus lelieaeephallis), the reElliiTea habitat m!lflagemeat fllaas shall establish flreteeti'/e
"aaes afElliaa the eagle aest reDtrieting eertain activities, The !'llans SRall alsa aaaress reDtrieting eertaiR t)'fles af
aetivities ElHriRg !he aeDt seaDaa, These reElliiremeRtD SRall Be eaRsistent with the UF',VS Salith Floriaa Mlilti
S!'leeies Reeaver PlaR, May 1999, slliljeet ta the !'lravisiaRs afjlar-agrllJlh (3) afthis flaliey,
e,Far the rea eaekaaea waaE!fleeker lJlieaiaes Barealis), the reEjllirea habitat jlreteetiaR fllaR shall alltline
meaDlifes ta avoia alkerse iffiJlaets to aetive elllDters aRa ta minimi"e iffiJlaets to feragiRg habitat Where aayerse
effeets eaR nat Be !>"aiaea, measllfes shall Be tal,eR te miRimi"e aR site aistllfBlIflee aRa eeffiJleasate er mitigate
for iffiJlaets that reffilliR, These reEjllireffieals shall Be eeRsisteal with the UFWS Sallth Fleriaa Mlilti Sfleeies
Reea"ery PlaR, May 1999, sllbjeet to the flrevisioR af!'laragFBflh 3) afthis !'lahey,
f In areas ','o'here the Flariaa Blaek Bear (Ursus amerieaR"D lIariaafllls) may Be flresent, the mllflagemeal fl1llflD
shall reEjllire tRat garbage be fllaeea iR Bear !'lraaf eaalaiaerD, at aae ar mere eealrallaeatiaRs, The maRagemeat
fllaa shall a1sa iaentify methaas ta iafefffi laeal reDiaeats af the eaReefflS relatea ta iateraetiaR BetweeR Blaek
Bears aaa l'lIImllfls, MitigaliaR far iffiJlaetiRg haBitat suitaBle fer Blaek Bear shall Be eaRDiderea iR the maRagemeat
pia&.
g,F ar flrElj eets laeatea iR Priarity I ar Priarity II PaRther HaBitat areas, the maRagemeat fllBfl shall aisealffilge the
aestRletiaR af lIaaisrnrbea, aati'/e habitats that are flrefeffea BY the Flariaa jleather (Felis e<lflcalar earyi) by
aireeting iateasive IlIflalises ta ellffefltly aiDturBea areaD, Prefeffea habitats iReluae jline flatv:aaas Blla harEly/aaa
hammaekD, In turn, theDe areas shall be Bufferea frem the mast iatease IlUlaliDes af the jlrajeet by "siRg la'll
iateasity laRa uses (e,g" jl8rks, flassive reereatiaaal areaD, galf eallfses). Gala eaurses v:ithiR the R-IIr-a1 Lanas
,'\rea shall Be designed Blla m8llagea usiRg stlUlaards fOlil1a ''vithiR this Overlay, The maaagemelit jllaRs shall
iaeatify BflProjlriate lighting eaatrals far these jlermittea IIses Bfld shall alsa aaaress the ajljlartuffity ta utilize
jlreseribea Bllmiag ta maialaiR fire aaapted jlreD8f\'ea vegetatioR eommuaities aRa jlro'/iae Bro'NDe far white
tailea aeer. These reEjUireffieRtD shall Be eaRsisteat .,'o'ith the UFWS SEllith Flariaa Mlilti Sjleeies Reeaver Plan,
May 1999, s"Bjeet ta the jlfByisiaRs af jl8fl1grllJlh (3) af this jloliey, The M"lti Slleeies Reea'/er)' PlaR (1999)
shall eoastitute miRiHlllm wilalife llwteetioR staaaaras far the RLSf,O,
h, The Managemeat PlaRs shall eaRtaiR a ffiaaitariRg jlragram f-er aevelajlments greater than I Q aeres.
3, The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize recommendations and
letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property eaalaiRiRg utilized bv listed
species or SSLC. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may eRange
strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any such change shall be
deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan, However. no reduction of the wildlife protection Dolicies of
Policv 5,5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for wildlife Drotection.
Policy 5.6 (recommended amendment)
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County shall
direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts within
wetlands, A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the
hydroperiod of a wetland, This policy shall be implemented as follows:
I, There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the Okaloacoochee
Slough, These two systems have been mapped and are designated as FSA's, Policy 5.1 prohibits certain
uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting the wetlands functions within those wetland systems,
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy 3.3These areas are
protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area.
3, FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site clearing and alteration
limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements addressing surface water flows which
protect wetland functions within the wetlands in those areas. 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 the South Florida Water Management District
65lPage
66lPage
a, 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 sitp
Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this vegetation requirement according to the following criteri.
I. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by preserving wetlands with
the highest wetland functionality scores, Wetland functionality assessment scores shall be those
described in paragraph b of this policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by
Policies 5.3 and 5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality
assessment score of 0,65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of 0.7, or
greater. Within one year from the effective date of this Amendment, the County shall develop
specific criteria in the LDC to be used to detennine those instances in which wetlands with a
WRAP functionality assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment
Method score of 0,7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required by
Policy 5.3.
II. Wetlands and contiguous upland buffers that are utilized by listed species or SSLC, or serving as
corridors for the movement of listed species or SSLC , shall be preserved on site, Wetland
flowway functions through the project shall be maintained,
111. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table draw downs or diversions will
not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control
elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land
and project control elevations and water tables, In order to meet these requirements, projects
shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4,6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of
Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to meet the vegetative,
open space and site preservation requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional
assessment score is less than 0,65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall
rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid
Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg-OOI, dated Septemb,
1997, and updated August 1999, or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified
as F.AC. Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP scores,
or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores, County staff shall review this functionality
assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall use the results to direct incompatible land
uses away from the highest functioning wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3
above,
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (I) of this policy,
d, Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6,2,7 of the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering
requirements, The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting a natural
water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland,
A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the
vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct
impacts are allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i, The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line,
ii, The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not
exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall
be planted,
iii, The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida
Exotic Pest Plant CounciL
a. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed
within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3 ) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature
with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stern-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net loss of wetland
functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
1. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of the proposed
mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the impacted wetlands. Priority shall
be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be
compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and
within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities
offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity, providing
for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan
Council) and continuing exotic plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state
or federal agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities.
IV. Exotics removal or maintenance mav be considered acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetlands
or listed species habitat if those lands if those lands are placed under a perpetual conservation
easement with perpetual maintenance requirements.
-iv y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant
shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (I) i, ii, and iii of this policy and SFWMD
standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier
County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as separate
tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the
PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris and from Category I
invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in
these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that
are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife
habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in anv programs that provide incentives.
funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on private lands including. but not
limited to. federal farm bill agricultural conservation programs. private or public grants. tax incentives.
easements. and fee or less than fee sale to conservation programs.
Policy 5.7 (recommended new Policy)
Any development not participating in the RLSA program shall be compatible with surrounding land
uses. Within one vear of the effective date of this Policy LDC regulations shall be implemented for outdoor
licl1ting to protect the nighttime environment. conserve energy. and enhance safetv and security.
Policy 5.8 (recommended new Policy)
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA. the applicant in coni unction with the Florida
Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the
educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant resources.
67lPage
Stewardship Oyerlay Map
~~>l~
RLSA OVERLAY
MARCH 2009
H:r-.DRY COUNTY
~
~
z
"
o
u
w
w
~
=R",~("'~"""C>
;; '/';:
, ,><~;/
';t"""
Y<, ~'"
co ~<" ":/,,'
o
;
.~
.
,
UGEND
I:!RL.SA9OUNOAAY
~""F!lOVEDSSA
AAEAOFCRITICAL5TATfCONCERN
..?-JCREWI..o'lHD
NATRUALRE50URI;.PROTECTIONARE1A
_PU~UClANns
CRU.......fRINGE MU DISTRICT
, jm_OF",~w..RIA
5tn.....dshipAI6as
_!'III-FOOTR~S'ORATIONAAEA
_Fl.O>WIIMSTEWAAOSHIPAAEA(FSA',J
_H!\EJITATSTEWAROSHIPAAEA(Hs,o,)
~_TERRErENTlONAAEA(WRA;I
_F'OTENTI.....PA"TH~RCORRIOORS
68lPage
69lPage
EXISTING ATTACHMENT A... STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET
i
i
.
! I
.
~tf!lh I
Hfh~ j"
Buh~ !
j
!
~
,.. ~
..
I
0
0.
:;: il
..
"!! .::
i ~ <(
...
~ z
.. [oj
.. '" :;
"
c: i ::
.:J <.> u
e 0. <(
...
::J :;: ...
a: .. <(
i:' "!!
c: J
::J
8
~
!
"0
<.>
.
"
J
t
u
f ,J i
~ wrJ
I
i
I 00 .'
:' J !l
[( Ii
I
.T----.
" 1 f J I'
I! I ,.' I . i -
. , . , 1 J 1,
~ of I ",
II!dH
.
i
~I
,
'1
I.
II
.11
hi
II,
I
.1
I'
III
II
I
I
!
!
I
i
I
II Ii
I ! I I
III 1'-"
f I I .
I IJ' JIHI
!ll ~m
,
i
,
.
J
,
I
!
j
,
,
,
~ ..
! ~
~ .g.
j I
, .
II ~
o !
"I
l}Ej
'Ii
f~ l
it;
I. '
-.0
m
~p
Oil
! .
'll
'. -
~z 8-
'Ii
~.9 ~
II!
~1! ~
llE~
E ~ E
m
~~!
'"''
1-
!!
,j.
If,; l
."
ir~
Ell!
liB
I ~'N N
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO ATTACHMENT A...STEWARDSHIP CREDIT WORKSHEET
70 I P age
1i
.c
.
of
~
~
'6
.
U
0-
:.c
.
"E
.
~
ili
"
'"
..J
'"
i:'
c
,
o
u
"
.
I~~~~ N ~ . I
..0. 00=;..
>
j
I
,
~
~
w
~
i
1
u
~
~
. 0 . "
~ -:11 . ~ .
" "
~ <ii g ~ ~ ~
1.1 Ego: "' ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~
I ~ ..J 8 <ii
~ (ij..,._ r::. . . .
~ 0 0 .a .a .a
l6 <ii ~ ""
~ ~ ~ d Iflr I
~ w ~ < < <
~
:!
"0
u
"
1:
.
E
.c
u
.
~
2
c
o
.;
"
.
'"
."
~
C
.
E
E
o
u
.
'"
~
!
!
!
w
>
........
... iii.. ci
IT
w
i' ~..: ~
~. '; g i ~
jfi~ m~
g -E ~ ~ ~
a ~ ,g.ri <\I
c! Ci) * 8.:5
J J i H
~
i
.
*
i ~ .~
is :: is
<(~,!!
~ ff "[
5~~"Qj
J.mj.
f.cg8:5
i M "'-
:g ~ .Ie ~
e 11 ~ :-5 g
a..W'505:z
I
.,.,"!'=!
0000
x
.
o~
- 0
.. ~i
1i , 2
0 . i:
" 0
'l5 .2 [l
.8 1i 11",
0 . "..
[l ~ " . ~
'l5 ~ -= B lI'i
~ 0 -c t'Il.i!
.8 ~ OZ~
' ~ " ~ . "
~E E ] " OO~
, .m....._<(
<Ii E ~ 0 ~
" u ~ .~ ~
~:=IQj 0 'l5 .~
m~6 H .. oil",
'0- ] 1 ~ ~QQl
~C\l..!!! in: E :;! gf .g.~
Ejg " ~ ::I-;;.!.1
c.9 0 " ~ '> ~_ ~l
~ _~.E " . ~ "
o . "
-g~i ~"5 c ~ -< .~~
.. E ~ 0
c: "E .. "' E 0-
. " . . . ~ 1l"'~
0 .91l~ Jils z .
~ ~ ~ ~ " Wj
4l:!::: "-1;
1ll==:c: ~~ 9 " . if. ell "'5 01
1LJ.. 3 <II ] ~ <; u 0
- x"'"E _EO . ~ " .!!~~
. "O>15l'l1 "5 il 0
:I" 0 E
..5 i~5j ;:! .Q >E " a ~ >~
~"1; :!::: 0 ~ ~ 1;;>::
c: ,- .. ) 'g ~ ~::I
0 . ~ ~~ l~~ c ._ ......
'" "'H1i . -< '" 9 ,,11
.. :!::Ql;:)e ,,~ l~p :; " " 0
:; ';;'l;i ~ ~ :t:"5il: E ~ E il 0-
~ . I- .
u I ~ . " -~~ lh~ 0 -< " ~ "
ii -'", i3 " c: ui E
::.<<i-01li c:.9'ai ... ~ if. .$ -'= ai
(.) j :
j':::O ~ " ,.!J~O - ~ " ~h
.. .!i!.!.1 .....~a::ti l ~ . ~
~ ~~:l! ~o, .. 0 ~ Ql . i3 .- (,) E
'" f" '" (.) . ~ -< i .9-.9-
~- l' ~ " . " .. " -;;~-;;
(.) ~ ~
I1lL H~ "'j<; g, ~ .w::"E"O
g, jl;l :c . " ~ III Is
:c ~:S . ~ ~ . ~~j
.. lI:J)~.q I~~ "2 0 Ii: "
"2 ~ . 0 .!!!lfJrn
.. ~ ~
iii! NN """ . " ~ * ~
I " i
11 HI s " " .!!a~
rtl . .
.... z -< ~ 0-.
rtl "" z ~"
I
.
!
r-
i I
"
.
"l!"!'Il;C!
0...
oli......o
ai .. ci .. ..
., ~ l'! G:
00000
.. ... " 0
cicioci
"
i
j '~:3
I
~
~
t
u
1010000
'I "........
> >
~
~
o
~
"
~
n
; ;
Jlll
~~~
iiiill,
. . .
j..d
19i~
I~H
Iii ]l ~
-- i.8
H~i
Inn
....I1l.ll..~~
!
~
l\ll!
~,g '"
~I ~ ~
j ~!, ~ ~ . ~
Sj 0 ~ ~
~I ~ ~ .Sl
I 01 i ,5 ~
~ '" ,;:; ill
8~~'~~
jLnN~
. ".s 15 --=
E:rl ~ '0
HU
.
~
u
~
u<
w~
!~
, ,. ~
=~
e 0
l~!
p
"~
'~ ,~
~<.d
.~
Ijl! " ~
.~.=
Ilqg~
~ as ~ ~
~!E~
!!H i
I
~ - '" M '<t
. .
U 0 0 0 i
1~~~~
'P888
:5~B!3i:3
~ u u U
::l ::l::l::l
..... ...............
....I 11..... l1..LL
o
,g .c:
~ E
i .~~_~
~ ~ 52:g.ll!"E
1:S'ILd328
~ ~ ~ l'l,~ Ql!
i uSH~
ATTACHMENT B-LAND USE LAYERS [strike lhrellllh is proposed deletion]
4.08.06 B.4.b Land Use Matrix (P:::::Permitted; A=Accessory; CU= Conditional Use)
ILaver 1) (Laver 2) (Laver 3) 'Laver 4) (Laver 5) (Laver 6) Laver 7) Laver B)
Residential Geneml Earth Mining Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Conservation,
Land Uses Conditional and Recreational Group 1 ~ Support Uses Group 2 Restoration and
Uses Processing Uses Uses Natural Resources
Single-family Family care Excavation, Golf courses Crop raising; Farm labor housing Unimproved Wildlife management,
dwelling, incl. facilities(P) extraction or andlor golf horticulture; (AI asture plant and wildlife
mobile home earthmlning and driving ruit and grazing, conservancies, refuges
(P) related anges and out orestry and sanctuaries (P)
rocessing (CUI production; (P)
and production groves;
(CU) ursenes;
Improved
".ture 'PI
Mobile homes Collection and Asphaltic and Sports Animal breeding Retail sale of fresh, Ranching; livestock Water management,
liP) In MH transfer sites for concrete batch Instructional (other than Unprocessed raising (P) groundwater recharge
Overlay; (A) as resource making plants schools and livestock), agricultural (PI
temporary use] ecovery CUI camps (CUI ising roducts;
(CU) training, grown primarily on
tabling or the
kenneling(P) property (A)
Private Veterinary clinic Sporting and Dairying, Retail plant Hunting cabins Restoration, mitigation
boathouses (CU) Recreational beekeeping; urseries CUI (P)
nd camps (CU) poultry and egg (CUI
docks on lake, production; milk
canal or production (P)
waterway lots
'AI
Recreational Child care centers I'.quaeultuFefer Packinghouse or Cultural, Water supply, well
facilities and adult day care ~- similar agricultural ducational, lelds
integral centers processing of fann or recreational (P); oil and gas
to residential - products produced facUities and their exploration (P)
development, ) on related modes of
e.g.,gol' the property (A) transportlng
course, participants,
clubhouse, fewers
community or patrons; tour
center building operations, such
and tennis a,
facilities, but not limited to
parks, airboats, swamp
playgrounds buggies, horses
and nd
playfields (A) similar modes of
transDOrtatlon ICU
Guesthouses Zoo, aquarium, The commercial Sawmills (CU) Excavation and Boardwalks, nature
(A) aviary, botanical production, raising related processing trails
garden, or other r incidental to Ag(A) (P)
similar uses (CU) breeding or exotic
anlmala-ICU)
Churches and Wholesale reptile Natural resources not
other places of breeding and otherwise listed (P)
worship (CU) aising
non-venomous (P)
and venomousjCU)
ommunlcations Essential services (P
towera(PIICU) and CUI
Social and Oil and gas field
Fraternal development and
organizations (C) production (CU)
Private landing
strips for general
aviation (CU)
Cemeteries (CU)
I Schools (eU)
roup care
acilities, ALF ICUI
71 I P age
Note to
Attachment B:
The removal of
land nse layers
yields
Stewardship
Credits
measured
on a per acre
basis.
Attachment C-Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics
[Recommended Amendment]
! .
I I I III
i I t I 1 I ~ I
f
.
~
~
. , .
, . i
. , ." . ,
,
'i , . " ,
, ; i ..
. I. E' "
i . i' ^ < , <; f II
0 .I , ,0 l ~ ~. i ~ ,
~l. z S i
, ~ . : ~ i .2~ ! ~
! .. ., .0 . .
. ~!
0 U " ~
~ , ~ <; f ^, ,
~ 0 n i .
," , - :!l.5 .
.! ~] ~,5
- fS
L~ ~] ~
"^ .
80 <
~
. . . .;
u I ~
i I
.. ^ ~ I !~
.! ~ j
~ u ~ I ~ Of
~ f ~
.
. " . .
> 0 H
0
.. . Ii
'" f
.... .. ; ,~
'" '" i~
~ .
.,
5 ii 3~
.3 .
0 . '" , l~~ ". , H . if
1! :! .. " ~ m l~ ffi 1 - , I
~ "0 :c , ~, ; l!l~Q P , '"
. i~8. I 0 , I <; , "~
" u "E ~ , ," ^ . .! , ,! t. j ~~
~ . , 0' - -8i~ .
. . ~$ Ii ^ , , '0
li . I . ~ l';~ !I, , ~:':i i-~ i-=oi
in f i '?; ~ 1 .0 ,p
, ' 0 ~_,W~ ~I~ , ^- . . . i
. l. H . . 'OtJi " , iiO' .Ii
> j5"'" o.
. ~i 2i ~~'&
~ ~ ,'I [ 0 "
J 0 q ~ ,. .. . 1, , "
~ ~- tli ~2 ^ . ~] ! .., g ~
.. . ~ 7.!l .11Il'"
~Jl~ ~-~ < 0 . 00 'j .
. 0
, ;:-"E z ~ ~ (ij hii
0 > - l)..2!~
" ~ . I ~i.r !
, .~ ii , , ~ ^ j !
~ il . ; ~;~ , " , ^ ^ Ii { ill:
8 I . , . , ~ , 0 0 t;.:I~
,. . . . B I
o. j -g :2, ^ " . 3 ~ E h " I ^ ~~ ~ , g;..,~
. ~ Jl ~ ~ "
. [ -. ~ ] J N H "' , " oi~~i
! >. ~ 8~!:; .. -
i "!~ 0 ~ " . 1 , "' ~~<(i
o ., "~ ~. , 8. l u
" ~ l. ";:fi . !H~ 11 . ~ . ~ ~ - '-'!1i
~Z: =.1<' 1=;::1
~ ~l!l~! ~~ . ~~ 0 . <
~ " . " g ., 01 go:!
I 0 tI . ~ 8~,;~" .- 1 . ..... !':!"E
~ ^ " ,
, , ~ " i- , " ;~;:2
I-n , 8 . . i ~
1-2;:;:;g i . 0 " , "J"
i"E.5 .
~ u " , .0 1 ~f
zo . " E U
"1. ..
~~ ]~
j ~~~~
<(g:"'0
. j ~ i [~
. <: ~J ,S;
. l jo"'i
" , ",~!.:
l l. , . .. Ii ~ ,~
~ " ~r
0 , i . .g 1::5
, ., "- ! ! a Ii&
"e: \ 0 ; -iei
~ " "j ,
" 0 ~ ^ . ih!
! ~ I , , 1 ~~~~
" p M
:2'" ~
! .' , .. II
^ d " .
72IPage
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
73 I P age
SJt~3
~...".. ','''' " ~'B~fmiJJ.,-lIS
" ~".. ~ ... - ;. ., ",-':. - :','" , . '. . ,'" ,-, -.;.; :
'" - ~ _'. . _f.,' J, _," . - .~ . _ . .. .. _.: ":_' ,.... _
Preface
The Committee's recommended RLSA Overlay amendments are supported by a substantive analysis of seyeral
subject areas that have been discussed by the RLSA Review Committee. The full analysis is provided for in
Section 3. These subject areas include:
· The RLSA Credit System analysis which compares current and proposed Credit projections derived from
natural resource areas, agriculture, panther corridors, and restoration.
. The analysis shows how the recommended policy changes relate to the proposed 45,000 acre SRA cap, which
aligns the RLSA Program with the goals of the Florida Panther Protection Program and provides a basis to
evaluate long term transportation infrastructure plans.
· The population analysis compares different County study results and shows how the RLSA is consistent with
adopted projections.
. The Concept Maps help to visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and graphically
illustrate one possible scenario for the distribution of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship
Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas. Open Spaces, and other features of the RLSA that could occur at the
2025 Horizon Year and 2050 based on implementation of the recommended policies.
· The RLSA Transportation Analysis describes the development and evaluation of a set of long-range
transportation plan improvements that support the land development potential at 2025 and at Build-Out as
depicted in the 2025 and 2050 Concept Maps.
Introduction
The Committee on September 23, September 30, and December 18, 2008 reviewed and voted to accept the
following analysis to support its recommendations regarding revisions to several of the RLSA Overlay and its
related Credit System.
Collier County Rural Land Stewardship
Five Year Review
Supporting Documentation
[a working draft]
I. Introduction
The RLSA Overlay is a long-term strategic plan with a planning horizon year of 2025, the established
Horizon Y ear in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This analysis was performed for both the 2025
Horizon Year and for a theoretical "build-out" scenario in 2050 in order to evaluate the potential long-range
implications of implementing the recommendations to amend certain RLSA policies set forth within this Phase II
Report.
The RLSA Review Committee's (Committee) Phase II work focused in part on policy changes to strengthen the
incentive to protect agriculture land and new panther corridors, to focus restoration activities, and to cap the total
potential Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) footprint within the RLSA program at 45,000 acres. Consistent
74 I P age
with the framework of the RLSA and the Stewardship Credit system, the Committee incentivized the
preservation of agriculture lands by awarding new Stewardship Credits for agriculture land preservation an"
panther corridors, and changed the Credits associated with restoration to more specifically defined activities. Tt
recommended changes required a reanalysis of the Stewardship Credit system and rebalancing of the Credits to
align with the Committees recommended maximum SRA footplint and projected demands.
Further analysis was completed to determine if the recommended 45.000 SRA footprint could accommodate the
acreage necessary for the projected population. and the goods and services required in towns and villages within
the RLSA Overlay. Along with population. a transportation analysis was completed in order to evaluate a
potential transportation network to support a maximum 45,000 acre SRA scenario.
II. Stewardship Credit System Analysis
The Stewardship Credit System analysis begins with consideration of the generation of Credits under the currently
adopted RLSA Overlay. The Committee's recommended Credit system changes are then evaluated and compared
to the existing program.
I. CREDIT GENERA nON UNDER CURRENTLY ADOPTED RLSA OVERLA Y
Base Credits
Base Credits are the Credits generated by use of the Natural Resource Index and the Land Use Layer System.
They are created from FSAs. HSAs. WRAs and Open lands that are designated as SSAs by the property owners.
To estimate the total potential Base Credits, a model run of the NRI values was performed using current mapping
of AGI and AG 2 land uses as recently adjusted during the Stage I process. It is assumed that all FSAs, HSAs
and WRAs become SSAs with land use layers removed down to current AG I or AG2 use. This model was
applied to all of the FSAs. HSAs and WRAs lands regardless of whether they are in approved SSAs or not
Modeled credits were compared to actual SSA Base Credits generated from SSAs 1-13, and this analysis shov.
that actual Base Credits in these approved and pending SSAs are approximately 15% greater than the model due
to the inclusion of more site specific data, such as listed species surveys which have enabled a greater level of
accuracy in calculating NRI values. However. this variance will be less going forward based on the composition
of future SSAs being more heavily weighted toward WRAs. Therefore an adjustment factor of + I 0% is applied to
the model derived Base Credits (116.329). The rounded total estimate is 128,000 Base Credits.
Restoration Credits
Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.11. Because these Credits are dependent on site
specific conditions that require detailed evaluations and restoration planning and permitting by each property
owner, as well as successful implementation. it was not possible to estimate these Credits at the inception of the
RLSA Overlay. With 5 years of actual data from 13 approved and pending SSAs one can estimate the use of the
restoration program. Notwithstanding, the same variables of site specific conditions, owner decisions, and
permitting requirements will still apply to future restoration. For this estimate, the following approach has been
used:
Total acres of FSA, HSA. and Restoration Zone within RLSA:
Acres of planned restoration, SSAs 1-13:
Acres deemed not suitable for restoration. SSAs 1-13
Maximum eligible acreage for future restoration:
73,000
12.000
21,000
40,000
For SSAs 1-13, approximately 29% of the total acreage is proposed for restoration. Assuming that the same
percentage applies to the 40,000 acres that are eligible for future restoration. 11.600 additional acres would be
restored (40.000 x 0.29 = 1] ,600). The projected additional restoration credits generated under the current system
would be approximately 78,000 credits, as shown in the table below:
75 I P age
The total estimate for restoration credits under the current system is:
Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11): 28,000
Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, 12, 13): 54,000
Estimated future restoration credits (rounded): 78.000
Total restoration credit estimate for cnrrent system: 160,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits
RLSA Policy 1.21 provides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus Credits. These Credits are available
until January 31. 2009, at which time they are no longer available.
Potential Credits and SRA acres under currentlv adopted RLSA Program
Base Credits: 128,000
Restoration Credits: 160,000
Earlv Entrv Bonus Credits: 27 .000
Total Credits: 315,000 Credits
SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre:
Public Benefit Acres estimated at 10%:
Total SRA Acres:
39,375 Acres
3,937 Acres
43,312 Acres
Remaining Baseline development potential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
ACSC Open Land
Non ACSC Open Land
Total remaining Open Land
15,000 Acres
28,700 Acres
43,700 Acres
2. CREDIT GENERA TraN UNDER THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED RSLA OVERLAY
MODIFICA TraNS
Three proposed changes to the RLSA Overlay recommended by the Committee would change the Stewardship
Credit estimates described previously. Two are new credit categories that resulted from the Florida Panther
Protection Program, and the third is a proposed modification to the Restoration Credit system.
Agriculture Credits (Policy 2.2)
These Credits result from a property owner agreeing to eliminate non- agricultural uses from Open designated
land and an alternative to development under baseline zoning rights. Estimates are calculated based on the acreage
of privately owned Open designated land in the ACSC not already included in approved SSAs
(approximatelyI5,000 acres) at 2.6 Credits per acre yielding 39,000 Credits, and privately owned Open
designated land outside of the ACSC (approximately 72,000 acres), less the amount of potential SRA acres
proposed under the Florida Panther Protection Program (45,000) and less the acreage of a potential Panther
Corridors on such Open Lands (approximately 1,300 acres) and miscellaneous land (700 acres). This results in an
estimated 25,000 acres of Agriculture outside of the ACSC at 2.0 credits per acre, or 50,000 Credits. Therefore,
the rounded total estimate is 89,000 total Agricnlture Credits.
76 I P age
Panther Conidor Credits (Policy 3.11)
Panther Conidor Credits result from a property owners agreeing to designate land and construct improvements to
implement the north and south Panther Conidors referenced in the Florida Panther Protection Program. Thes
conidors will require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. We currently estimate approximately 1,300 acres ot
Open land and 1000 acres of WRA land in the north and south conidors would be required for a total of 2,300
acres at 10 Credits per acre. or 23,000 Panther Corridor Credits. It is possible for these acreages to be more or
less, and the viability of these conidors is currently under review by the Florida Panther Protection Program
Scientific Technical Review Committee.
Tiered Restoration Credit Estimates (Policy 3.11)
The proposed tiered restoration system is a modification to the current program to better define the type and
relative value of different restoration types. For this estimate. we assume that 11,600 acres within future SSAs are
suitable for restoration activities as previously described, with 600 acres dedicated for panther habitat restoration,
and the remaining 11.000 acres split equally between the four other restoration types (caracara, exotic removal!
burning. flow way. and native habitat restoration). For this analysis. we also assume that approved and pending
SSAs will be considered as vested under the current program, and that future SSAs will use the tiered system. The
calculations are as follows:
1,,../ " , ...~~~~ 1</\. '-'- ::::)\"- !-'.,,~~
A.;l'"~)'" ",'. 1;-
, l1ltiOIJ.'1'ype , 'Ites.t6~!"liiCl'~ts
Panther Habitat 600 to 6.000
Caracara 2.750 4 I I ,000
Exotic
ControlJBurning 2,750 6 1 6.500
Flow Wav 2,750 6 16,500
Native Habitat Rest. 2,750 8 22.000
Total 11 ,600 N/A 72,000
The total estimated restoration credits with implementation of the tiered system for future SSAs are shown below:
Approved restoration credits (SSAs ]-9. II): 28,000
Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, ] 2, 13): 54.000
Estimated future restoration credits: 72,000
Tiered Restoration Credits: 154,000
These restoration estimates are subject to substantial variation based on site specific analysis for restoration
suitability, decisions made by the property owner as to appropriate restoration, approval by the County and
permitting agencies and successful restoration implementation.
Potential Credits and SRA acres under a revised RLSA Overlav
Should the three modifications described above be adopted without further changes, there would be the
following resulting Credits and SRA acres:
Base Credits:
Restoration Credits:
Early Entry Bonus Credits:
Agriculture Credits
Panther Conidor Credits
Total Credits:
SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre:
Public Benefit Acres at 10%:
Total SRA Acres:
Remaining Baseline developmcnt potential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
128,000
154,000
27 .000
89.000
23,000
421,000 Credits
52,625 Acrcs
5.263 Acrcs
57.888 Acres
o Acres
77IPage
3. ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET 45.000 ACRE SRA CAP
In Policy 4.2, the Committee recommends a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA and, as a result, certain
adjustment will be necessary so that the RLSA Overlay Credit System will produce sufficient Credits to entitle
45,000 acres, without leaving a substantial number of excess Credits. The following items are recommended by
the Committee:
I. The cap of 45,000 SRA acres should include public benefit acres. (Policy 4.2 and 4.20)
2. The proposed Tiered Restoration System should be used for all future SSAs (Policy 3.11).
3. No extension of the Early Entry Bonus Program beyond January 31, 2009. Approximately 7,000 EEBs
not included in approved or pending SSAs will be eliminated (Policy 1.21) .
4. A change in the SRA Credit Ratio from 8 Credits per SRA acre to 10 Credits per SRA acre for Credits
generated from any future, non-vested SSAs (Policy 4.19).
5. SSA vesting will be applied as follows:
a. All approved SSAs would be vested at the 8 Credit per SRA acre ratio and in accordance with the
restoration programs set forth therein. This represents a total of 73,488 credits. Any SRA acres
entitled with these Credits will be computed at the current 8 Credit per acre ratio. This includes
Credits and SRA acres already approved for and applied to the Town of Ave Maria.
b. Proposed SSAs 14, 15, and 16 would be vested at the current 8 Credit per SRA acre ratio to the
extent required to entitle the proposed Town of Big Cypress DRI/SRA. These SSAs will include
restoration designation credits at the current rate of 4 per acre in the Camp Keais Strand. Total
restoration credits per acre will not exceed the level provided under the new tiered system as
approved. This represents an estimated total of 24,000 Credits and 3,000 SRA acres.
c. Proposed SSAs 10, 12. and 13 will continue to be processed and approved under current adopted
standards (8 Credits per SRA acre and non-tiered restoration). Should all of the proposed
modifications be approved. the owners of these SSAs will agree to subsequently amend these
SSAs to adjust to the 10 Credit per SRA acre ratio and tiered restoration system following
approval and adoption of these new standards. This would reduce the estimated restoration credits
by 10,000. Should the proposed modifications not be adopted, these SSAs will not be amended.
6. All new SSAs will conform to the new adopted standards.
With these adjustments, the following table shows the resulting number of Credits and potential SRA acres:
Estimated Credits (assuming full prooerty owner participation):
Base Credits from all NRI based SSAs
Early Entry Bonus Credits (upon phase out)
Restoration Credits
Agriculture Credits (40,000 acres)
Panther Corridors (assumes 2,300 acres)
Total Estimated Credits
128,000
20,000
144,000
89,000
23.000
404,000 Credits
Proiected SSA supolv of Credits
SSAs 1-9, II Vested Credits (approved)
SSAs 14-16 Vested Credits (estimated)
SSA Credits vested at 8 Credits per SRA acre
Remaining SSAs at 10 Credits per SRA acre
73,488 credits
24.000 credits
97,488 credits
306.512 credits
78 I P age
Proiected SRA acres assuming all Credits are used:
SRA acres entitled at 8 Credits per acre
SRA acres entitled at 10 Credits per acre
Subtotal of Credit entitled SRAs
Public benefit acres estimated at 10%
Total potential SRA acres
12.186 acres
30.651 acres
42.837 acres
4.283 acres
47.120 acres
Remaining Baseline development potential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
o acres
Credit estimates and excess Credits
The total supply of Credits entitles less than 45.000 acres of SRAs, but estimated public benefit acres must also be
considered. Because the RLSA is a voluntary. market based system and these estimates assume 100% property
owner participation in the RLSA Program. and each category of estimate has a range of assumptions built in to
the estimated number, it is advisable to allow for some variance. The above estimates result in sufficient Credits
that, together with public benefit acres. provides for an approximate 5% variance in total potential SRA acres.
There are a number of factors that could offset this potential "excess" including but not limited to: less than 100%
participation by all property owners in the RLSA, less than 10% public benefit acres, purchase of land and/or
Credits by a publicly funded conservation program. less than 100% success rate in restoration implementation,
and lack of market demand for all of the potential Credits.
4. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE CREDIT SYSTEMS
The following three tables illustrate the land use summ3lies at full utilization using the cmTent and revised and
recalibrated programs. With the proposed revisions. the acreage of potential SRAs increases nominally from
43.300 acres (Tables 4.1 and 4.2) to 45.000 acres (Table 4.3). However the potential development footprint of
Open Land converted to baseline development could be reduced dramatically, depending on the use of the ne\
Agriculture Credit. Table 4.1 shows 100% of Open Lands converted to baseline uses under the current program
and Table 4.3 shows] 00% of Open Lands placed in Agriculture SSAs under the revised program.
It is unrealistic to expect that all of the Open land outside of SRAs would be converted to baseline development
under the current program. Market incentives that favor well planned. compact, mixed use communities with a
wide range of housing options served by high quality infrastructure and services would satisfy most of the
demand for new homes in the RLSA. In addition. Golden Gate Estates already offers a significant supply of 2.25
to 5 acre lots without such services for those that prefer this alternative.
Table 4.2 shows a more realistic scenario for comparison. where 10% of ACSC Open lands are converted (based
on ACSC regulations limiting site alterations to 10% of any site) and 25% of non ACSC Open Lands are
convelted. Comparing Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 still demonstrates that the potential development footprint is
reduced by approximately 7,000 acres using the revised RLSA system.
Table 4.1: Current RLSA Land Use Summary at full utilization with
100% baseline conversion
Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000
SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0%
m___._______.__
Open Land conversion to baseline rights 43.700
SRAs 43.300
Potential Deyelonment Footorint 87,000 44.4%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6%
--
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
79lPage
Table 4.2: Current RLSA Land Use Summary with
nartial baseline conversion
Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000
SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0%
ACSC Open Land conversion at 10% ],500
Non ACSC Open Land conversion at 25% 7.175
SRAs 43,300
Potential Development Footprint 51,975 26.5%
Open Land remaining in Agriculture 35,025 17.9%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
Table 4.3: Reyised and recalibrated RLSA Land Use Summary
at fnll utilization
Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000 47.0%
Agriculture SSAs 40,000 20.4%
Panther Corridors 2,300 1.1%
SSA Subtotal 134300 68.5%
Potential Development (SRAs) 45,000 23.0%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,546 8.5%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
Under the revised and recalibrated RLSA system, in addition to agricultural uses retained on the majority of
92,000 acres of NRI based SSAs, 40,000 additional acres of agricultural land are protected as Agriculture SSAs.
Two important Panther corridors are also incentivised.
It should also be noted that current RLSA Overlay Policy 4.10 requires a minimum of 35% of each SRA to be
open space. As a result, a minimum of 15,750 acres of the total 45,000 acres of SRA will be open space, and a
maximum of 29,250 acres will be developed land. This resnlts in a net deyeloped footprint eqnal to 15 % of
the total RLSA acreage.
III. Popnlation Analysis
This analysis is based on the projected population within the RLSA and does not include or accommodate
projected urban populations in areas beyond the RLSA.
Population projections for the horizon year of 2025 were reviewed from multiple sources as shown in Tahle 11-1.
First, the Collier County Build-Out Study is an analysis done by County Comprehensive Planning staff in 2005 to
evaluate a potential population of the RLSA at that time. That study estimated a RLSA population projection of
71,600 by 2025. The more recent Collier County East of CR 951 Interactive Growth Model (2008) analyzed a
projected population for the county east of CR 951 area, and included a discrete projection for the RLSA. This
study projected an RLSA population of 45,000. The Collier County MPO 2025 land use forecast uses the
county's accepted projections of a population of 56,300. Using the data derived from the transportation analysis
and SRA requirements contained in the RLSA Overlay, a projected population of 51.303 is obtained, slightly
below the County's accepted MPO projections.
80lPage
Table 11-12 25 orlzon Year Pro' ections within the A
SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL Total
Dwelling
Units Population Units Population Units Population
Collier County 17.100 43,400 14.800 28.200 31,900 71 ,600
Build-out Studv
Collier County
Interactive nla nla nla nla 24,663 45,400
Growth Model
Collier MPO 13.900 34,200 11.800 22.100 25,700 56,300
2025 Forecast
RLSA Overlay 12.656 28,476 13.044 22.827 25,700 51.303
Forecast
o H .
RLS
There is no requirement for Collier County to "accept" population projections beyond the established horizon year
of 2025 and therefore an MPO population figure is not included in
Table 11-2. However several other sources have included "build-out" projections including the 2005 Collier
County Build-out Study. and the Collier County Interactive Growth Model, both illustrated in Table II-2. For the
purposes of this analytical comparison we used the maximum SRA 45.000 acres and extrapolated a population
based on the SRA requirements for towns and villages and the adopted Collier County persons per households.
ableI - nil - ut rOlecbons WIt III t e
SF Dwelling SF MF Dwelling MF TOTAL Total
Dwelling
Units Population Units Population Units Population
Collier County 66.403 220,722 65.879 t68,421 132.238 389,193
Build-out Study
Collier County
Interactive nla nla nla n/a 106,493 210,632
Growth Model
RLSA Overlay 72,700 163.602 40.5]4 70.970 ] 13.214 234.572
Forecast
T
I2B dO P .
'h' h RLSA
Nole: Table 11 - RLSA Overlay Forecast totals include SRA development and Baseline development existing in 2000.
How the projected population might be accommodated wi thin SRAs is addressed in the following RLSA Concept
Maps.
RLSA Concept Maps
To help visualize how land uses may be distributed within the RLSA, and to graphically illustrate the Comparison
of altematives previously described three Maps have been prepared the clUTently adopted RLSA Overlay Map
(Figure A); the 2025 RLSA Concept Map (Figure B); and the 2050 RLSA Concept Map (Figure C). Map A is a
rendering of the Overlay Map and Maps B and C each present one possible scenario for the distribution of
potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas. Agricultural Areas, Open Spaces, and other
features of the RLSA that could occur at the 2025 Horizon Year and 2050 based on implementation of the
recommended policies, The Maps also depict the primary transportation network and the possible location 0'
Panther Corridors. The Concept Maps use symbols to depict possible locations of Towns. Villages and Compact
Rural Developments. The range or potential size for any Town, Village or CRD varies widely. and one should not
assume that each Town or Village symbol represents the maximum allowable size, as this would result in a total
81 I P age
SRA development footprint well in excess of what is possible under the proposed cap. For example, a Town will
fall within a range of 1,500 acres - 5.000 acres under the proposed policies.
In 2025, the forecasted number of dwelling units is 25,700 and the MPO forecasted population is 56,300. The
2025 Concept Map depicts 10 potential SRAs of varying size that collectively would accommodate the forecasted
2025 population and also provide for future growth. Please note that these maps depict "approved" SRAs and not
fully developed Towns and Villages, as it commonly takes 10-25 years before an approved Town or Village
would be completed. To accommodate this fact, the total acreage of approved SRA Towns and Villages shown is
approximately 24,000 acres and it is estimated that collectively approximately 1/2 of the SRA acreage would be
fully developed at this time with occupied homes and associated non- residential uses.
In 2050, the forecasted number of dwelling units within the RLSA ranges between 106,493 and 132,238
depending on the forecast source. The 2050 Concept Map depicts 16 possible SRAs of varying size that
collectively would accommodate the forecasted 2050 population and, if fully developed at this time. represent the
45.000 acres of SRA that is proposed as the cap for the RLSA at buildout, with an average gross density between
2.5 and 3.0 units per acre. It should also be noted that, with the RLSA Review Committee's recommended
changes to the RLSA Overlay Credit System, essentially all of the areas depicted as FSA, HSA, WRA,
Agriculture and Open Space would be within approved SSAs in order to generate the necessary Credits to entitle
the SRAs.
As noted on each Map, these Maps represent but one possible scenario. and should not be misconstrued as a
binding or definitive depiction of the location or size of SRAs or SSAs, as these must be voluntarily and
individually approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted
GMP and LDC procedures.
[this intentionally left blank]
82lPage
RLSA OVERLAY
",........t<C-'!'
"..".,'-\:..~~
-~ '~~!l
~ '\~
.
. -- :;.-;--,'"
l<"
- -j,i.... "f-
Ii
~
..<J~ -Y~;;i""",:"Ll
IMMOKALEE
l'"''''
.),
~
j
1
~
II; <<
~,
,
~
,.~ '"" "'~d!V'.,~'
GOLDEN
GATE
ESTATES
~A~c'''-" =!'.J~I.
BIG tYPRl~~
NATIOt>;ALPR~SERVt
;','.'>>'Tll'';L\!VAI'I
[.:=::::J Rl>AllOUNDARY
[----1 AC,CBOVli[,ARY
1l000DA?ANTHER
NATIONAL W1lOlift REf'UGt
[-==:J POl;;NTlAl v[VElONJ[NT
ID~~ WATE~RUl:h'l(jNAAlA
t:m HAlli1ATSTEWMDSI-IIPAREA
~ FlI)WWAVSn;WAilD:.HIPA'lU.
Il,;cR"l,o,roiO'>'lll,-,"I(lf''''Lcf'
This RlSA Overlay plan was prBpared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, potential
development areas, and other features based on the adopted RlSA Overlay. The RlSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific features
shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be construed to be a
binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and Land Development Code. Areas shown as potential development may become $RAs, SSAs, or be developed in accordance with the
underlying RuraVAgricultural zoning classification.
--.....,.."...
831P,ge
"G'igure B - 2025 RLSA Concept Plan.
2025 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN
I<"
,""
J..
.-,1<
.,." h'" "
-"," y.+-, .. "". ~..~, ..
;.;,.,,,,\,,j,~.t;ii..f""'~""'...4t'\,,_\.'
~ ~.\.(v
. "
.'\\
! '.,,:....
C"Wlu.F>OJID
,-~L-,
~.':~tf:;'
J<<i rfWH),~",,,,,::
IMMOKALEE
.
'P,~..}'
,d":
a.~l!~"
__ ,,'l
'i,
~
::;
I
,
!
I
MI,:'''4 ~O'.JI.!V~'"
GOLDEN
GATE
ESTATES
"OJiO!"il>U EX'[~~IO~'
(,oIDt~""T! .,.1JI1VAAO
~IG c.YPllE,S
r,!\TIONALPRESERVE
i=:::J RLSA aOUNDAFlY
~A(5lBOliNDARY
FLORIDAPAA11-1tR
NArIONAl\ho1LDlIFl=RHU("
tOWN
; j f'()1[NT1ALDMLOPMENT
C==:J AGRIWLIIj~~ ANDOP,r, WAC;:
I~-~ WATIR RnENlIO!\ AflEA
~ HABnATffiWAADSfilPAREA
11II flOW WA~ STEWAADSI1IP ARtA
C--l ;UJRJCl4 ?ANTHER CORRIOO~
'<!UN.>!:
"HrHSTAH-7~ ..ltIG:<,rop. "'-l~F"
841 P '(1 c:
This RLSA 2025 Horizon Year Concept Plan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of one possibl~ scenario for the location
of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, and other features of the RLSA at the 2025 horizon year. The
RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific number, size, location, and relationship of Stewardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or
other features shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the future land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor shall it be
construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, which are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code
--"."'..
'igure C - 2050 Build-Out RLSA Concept Plan.
2050 RLSA CONCEPT PLAN
"......."-~
,
-','
II'
'\ '>,r:'~'~l~:""~'-i,~,~,;.j~j;;
t.: ""'
.:l"~tf.l(~./r.'
tf 0l:L
P. "';'-v~
( "~
~
ie;.,:t: \,f(
'~'
.
~
~~
,-W.JM/"''''''JOil
IMMOKA~EE
"':""
';-~
:~-:J~:?..:,
"':1',:::
j
j
I
,
,
!
It;;
'.o:<n"".')..,>..EVAA['
GOLDE N
GATE
ESTATES
'''~Ci'Ol' t>1""'C';
(.,.llP!.N(;A-;U'C,.<P<A%
3:<; t'fl'RES~
i,jATIO!l;!\J.PRESf~VE
~ RGA 1l0UND<l.RY
i AGL~OU"tlAR~-
~,
C]PC1HlTlALDlVELOf'MENT
LJ /J.G~Wlnj~tANOOPl:";PAa
k~w WAil~ RmN'1ION A~[A,
\I!I!ID r1ABITAr~TtWAAD5HI~AAEA
I'll 'LOW WA' ffiWAl'.DSIlW AREA
!' 1 "LORIDA PANTlfE~ CORJIIDQR
fLORIDAPANTHEII.
N...nONAlWHDl.lfElIHlJGio
VIl.LAGl
It'I<~.S1.Allc7~ "'-L-!\;iAl0RAUJ.>
This RlSA 2050 Horizon Year Concept Plan was prepared solely for the purpose of presenting a general depiction of one possible scenario for the location
of potential Stewardship Sending Areas, Stewardship Receiving Areas, Agricultural Areas, and other features of the RLSA at the 2050 horizon year. The
RLSA is a voluntary, incentive based program, and the specific number, size, location, and relationship of Ste:wardship Sending and Receiving Areas, or
other features shown on this plan are not to be construed as part of the Future Land Use Map, shall not be used in a regulatory manner, nor ,hall it be
construed to be a binding or definitive depiction of future SRAs or SSAs, whidl are subject to the designation and approval procedures set forth in the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code
"""...-..,...
851rage
IV. Transportation
A long-range transportation analysis was performed for two separate timeframes; 2025, the established Horizon
Year in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and a theoretical RLSA "Build-Out" in 2050, in order to
evaluate the long-range transportation implications of development within the RLSA Overlay. The fIrst analysis
performed was for 100% build-out .of Collier County with specific emphasis placed on the roadway network
needs with the RLSA Overlay "study area". It should be emphasized that these are conceptual in nature and
depict one theoretical scenario for potential development in the RLSA at the horizon year and at build-out. Both
analyses were conducted using the FDOT District One District-wide 2030 Model as a base. Since the Study Area
has a significant amount of potential to interact with both Lee and Hendry County in addition to western Collier
County, the District-wide model was seen as a better tool for this exercise than the MPO's Lee/Collier Bi-County
model that does not interact with Hendry County.
Build-Out Analysis
Starting with the District-wide 2030 Financially Feasible Model, the Collier County traffic analysis zones (T AZs)
were "populated" with land use socioeconomic (SE) data developed by Collier County as part of the Collier
County Build-Out Study. For the TAZs outside of Collier County. a growth rate derived from an estimate of the
build-out year for Collier County was developed, and land use data in surrounding counties was extrapolated at
that resulting growth rate in order to "grow" adjacent counties for the same period as Collier County.
With the exception of the TAZs wholly or partially within the RLSA Overlay boundary, all of the TAZ SE data
used was provided by Collier County. For T AZs split by the RLSA Overlay boundary, an estimate for RLSA and
non-RLSA lands was made, and the T AZ contents distributed accordingly.
For the RLSA Overlay T AZs the SE data was developed to illustrate one possible scenario of SRAs. Land use
variable were developed to establish the amounts of dwelling units and non-residential floor area, as well as hotel
units and school enrollment. all variables used by the travel models. Lastly, the RLSA Overlay totals were
divided into T AZs that generally represent one possible scenmio of how development may occur. It should be
understood, that the RLSA program allows for certain level of flexibility to develop with Open lands, and until
such time as agricultural and environmental lands are placed into SSAs and like wise Open lands are designated
as SRAs, there will be a lack of specificity as to where development will actually occur. The land m'eas (TAZs)
identified in the analyses, are one of a number of potential scenarios. Further, it should be noted that the number
of T AZs does not necessarily equate to the number of potential future SRAs. since in the travel model structure a
single SRA may be comprised of more than one T AZ and thus have multiple centroids in the model.
The potential development for the Build-Out Scenario examined for purposes of this amendment is shown in
Table III. The potential development areas were generally located as illustrated in Fignre D.
[left blank intentionally]
86lpage
Table III - Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at Build-Ont
41 5.886 5.114 1.885 628 __ 3.311 500
------
4141 6,650 2.850 1.604 535 3.126 430
4142 6,650 2,850 1.425 475 3.126 380
4143 3,500 1.500 750 250 1,645 200
4144 5.190 3.460 1.021 340 2,699 270
4145 1.225 525 263 88 576
4146 6.650 2.850 1.425 475 3.126 380
4147 2.538 1.088 544 181 1.193 150
4148 4,988 2,13fj _ 1.069_ 356 n~4<l, 290
---~-
4149 1,663 713 356 119 781
4150 3.500 1.500 750 250 1,645 200
4151 2.407 6.561 987 664 2.292 280
4152 2.450 1.050 525 175 1.152 140
4153 2,450 _1.050 525 175 1.152 140
-
4154 3,213 1.377 689 230 1.510 180
4155 5.775 2.475 1,238 413 2,714 330
4156 788 338 169 56 370
--~-- ----------- ----..--
4157 422
4158 5,250 2,250 1.125 375 2.468 300
4159 38 13 200
Various 1,929 827 413 138 906 110
73,122 40,514 16,799 5,935 36,134 4,480
General Assnmptions:
Residential Density: 2.525 DUs per Gross Acre
Retail Shopping: .38 K Sq. Ft. per Gross Acre
Office/Service: .13 K Sq. Ft. per Gross Acre
Stndent Popnlation: .38 per SF DU and .21 per MF DU
Hotel: .10 rooms per Gross Acre
[left blank intentionally]
871Page
Fi~ure D - New District-Wide Model TAZs within the RLSA
I
During the course of the Build-Out Analysis, various roadway network options were examined, including options
to expand along existing alignments as well as new roads that would help to form a grid network. The iterative
process of developing a build-out network involved running the computer models, examining the results, updating
the network with improvements (adding/deleting), re-running the model. etc. This exercise was repeated several
times in order to achieve a long-range transportation network that can sustain the travel demand of the RLSA
Overlay at build-out. The resulting network from the Build-Out Analysis is attached as Exhibit A.
Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with
the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP [see Section 5), and the Committee endorses
the proviSion of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit.
881[1age
2025 Analvsis
Following completion of the Build-Out Analysis, attention was turned to the interim horizon year of 2025 which
corresponds to the adopted Transportation Element of the County's Growth Management Plan. A Naples MPO
2025 Lee/Collier land use T AZ dataset was used to populate the Lee and Collier County T AZs within the 2030
Districtwide model. 2025 SE data for all other T AZs in the District-wide Model counties were deyeloped by
interpolating between the District-wide validation year (2000) dataset and the 2030 dataset, and when combined
with the Lee/Collier 2025 T AZ contents. effectively created a 2025 District-wide model.
With the exception of the TAZs wholly or partially within the RLSA Overlay boundary, all of the TAZ SE data
was used as provided by Collier County. For TAZs split by the RLSA Overlay boundary, a proportional estimate
for RLSA and non-RLSA lands was made, and the TAZ contents distributed accordingly.
Within the RLSA Overlay T AZs, an assessment of what amount of the build-out total for each T AZ would be
actually constructed by 2025 was made. Additionally, for purposes of context, the amount of SRA acreage that
would need to be entitled in order to accommodate a lesser degree of actual developed acreage was estimated (see
previous discussion regarding the Concept Maps). This calculation, although not relevant to the analysis, places
the developed acreage into proper perspective, as a part of the estimated entitled SRA acreage in the year 2025.
This assessment recognizes the reality that there will always be some level of un-built inventory of SRA acreage
available at any given time.
The estimates shown below in Table IV for the 2025 horizon year have been translated into land use variables
that essentially match the totals that were attributed to the RLSA T AZs in the 2025 MPO model. While the
dwelling unit totals match to the original estimates, no attempt was made to match the single family/multi-family
mix shown in the original estimates. Additionally. because the nature of the proposed development patterns and
the associated mix of unit types is expected to be different than that proposed in the original County dataset, the
net result is a slightly lower overall persons per household rate within the RLSA Overlay, resulting in a slightly
lower total population.
[left blank intentionally blank]
89lPage
Table IV - Traffic Analysis Zones with the RLSA at 2025
fJ1ult' I HJ,llv
:'lllql( 1 <in)II', (/(,rHI(1 11 \I<1i1 SI Orm,rlCl ()hll t Stlidl"lt
TAZ Dl.:;!c!(l1ed :m\flllll~l' IKSq It) IKS\lltl I\)pulatl(,r! 1101(1 111CJOIll)
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
Various
1,629
698
393
131
766
110
753
-
502 ;
148
49
391
1.466
628
314
105,
689
263
158
113
68 I
56
_M__
34
19
11
- ,--~-- ,--
123
74
2,164
5,898,
I
- I
887
597
2,061
250
- I
- I
- I - -_
-, - -
236' 101' ~
~J= :-
-- ;88 ~~_ ~-=-=--i69 I
- I
17 '
111
--
---
56 r
- I
370
12,752
12,948
3,748
1,5511
7,565
810
24,600 Estimated SRA Acreage Entitled
10,200 Estimated Acreage Developed
41 % Percentage of Entitled Actual Developed
22% Percentage of Build-out Acreage Actual Developed
25,700 Revised RLSA DU Distribution
25,700 Original DU Control Total in Collier County Model
o Difference
During the modeling analysis of 2025. the build-out network developed previously was used as a starting point,
realizing that a substantially lower development program in 2025 would require less roadway capacity than the
build-out scenmio. As in the Build-Out Analysis. multiple iterations were needed to "prune" the build-out
network of excess capacity that would not be necessary by 2025, resulting in the roadway network depicted in
attached Exhibit B. As in the case of the build-out scenario, the 2025 represents one of many scenarios of where
development may exist by the year 2025.
With respect to both the build-out and 2025 scenarios, because they represent one of many possible outcomes, it
will be important for the County to monitor in-corning SRA applications, and their associated transportation
impact assessments for consistency with the analyzed scenarios, and where necessary, update the build-out and
2025 networks as needed to reflect changed conditions. This is consistent with the current practice of periodically
re-analyzing the growth pattenlS for changes in trends and conditions, and making any necessary modifications to
adopted roadway plans.
(Continued Next Page)
901Page
Exhibit A - Conceptual Build-Out Roadway Network.
911 p
Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with
the implementation of proposed POlicy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP (see Section 5], and the Committee endorses
the provision of necessary lands for other forms of transportation, including rail and transit.
Exhibit B - ConceDtual2025 Roadway Network
921 p
'"'
Note: This map is preliminary and has not been approved by Collier County, will be updated and refined as part of the process involved with
the implementation of proposed Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP (see Section 51, and the Committee endorses
the provision of necessary lands tor other forms of transportation, including rail and transit.
Preface to Section 4
Committee Phase II Report recommendations include revisions and updates to the Rural Land Stewardship Area
Overlay (RLSAO). These recommendations are being advanced to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) in accordance with BCC Resolution 2007-305A for further direction and a request for a special Growth
Management Plan Amendment cycle to consider the proposed amendments to the RLSAO as provided within the
Phase II Report.
During the preparation of the Phase I Report and Phase II Report the Committee focused on whether the RLSA
Overlay, during its 2003-2008 history, supported the goals of the Collier County RLSA Overlay, which are:
1. To protect agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural
uses;
2. To direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat;
3. To enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations;
4. To discourage urban sprawl; and
5. To encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques.
The Committee has determined that the RLSAO supports all of the above goals, but feels strongly that these goals can
be further attained by implementation of the Committee-recommended amendments contained within this Phase II
Report. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the BCC authorize a special Growth Management Plan
Amendment cycle exclusively for the purpose of considering the recommended amendments to the RLSAO as
contained within this Phase II Report. Pursuant to F.S. 163.3187(1), the BCC is authorized two amendment cycles
per calendar year. However, the BCC policy provides for one statutory GMP cycle per calendar year.
The Phase II Report is based upon public presentations, discussions and documents received and reviewed during
the Committee's 23 public meetings held beginning on March 4, 2008 and continuing through January 6, 2009.
Meetings were held in accordance with the Public Open Meeting Laws of the State of Florida and complied with
Resolution 2007-305A of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners which approved the creation of the
Committee and provided for its functions, powers and duties. Committee meetings were well attended; open dialogue
was encouraged; and minutes were taken and maintained as part of the public record by staff of the Collier County
Comprehensive Planning Department. These meetings were held in the Ave Maria University Academic Building, in
the Community Development and Environmental Services Building and at the North Collier Regional Park.
Committee-recommended amendments to the RLSAO were based, in part, upon the following:
I. Expert speakers who spoke during Committee meetings;
2. Independent research reports, statements, and issues expressed relative to the Rural Lands Stewardship program;
3. Public participation;
4. Data and analysis/justification; and
5. Staff input
The Committee extends special thanks to all individuals and organizations involved in the deliberate participation
during Committee meetings who were of great assistance to the Committee in the preparation of the Phase II Report.
Organizations which have actively participated and disseminated information affecting the Committee's
recommendations include, but are not limited to:
1. Audubon Society
2. Collier Citizen
3. Collier County Planning Commission
941Page
4. Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division
5. Collier County Environmental Advisory Council
6. Collier County Transportation Division
7. Conservancy of Southwest Florida
8. Defenders of Wildlife
9. "East Collier Property Owners"
10. Florida Gulf Coast University
II. Florida Department of Community Affairs
12. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
13. Florida Wildlife Federation
14. Fort Mvers News-Press
15. Naples Daily News
16. One Thousand Friends of Florida
17. Sierra Club
18. South Florida Water Management District
19. University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences
20. Cheffy Passidomo Wilson and Johnson
21. Wilson Miller
Preface to Group 1 Policies
Group I Policies set the framework for the RLSA Overlay. Major Committee-recommended revisions to Group I
Policies include:
Policy 1.6.1 (new Policy)
The recommended new Policy 1.6.1 pennits a five year "Conditional Period" for a Conditional Stewardship Easemell'
with a possible extension for one additional year.
Policy 1.7 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to Policy 1.7 provides that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
would be a grantee (along with Collier County) to future "perpetual restrictive easements" (Stewardship Easements)
rather than the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which has been the grantee in past BCC-
approved RLSA Stewardship Easements.
Policy 1.22 (amendment)
Currently, Policy 1.22 language provides for RLSAO review, "upon the five year anniversary of the adoption of the
Stewardship District in the Land Development Code (LDC)". The amendment proposes to have the review completed
as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process as required by Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes.
Public Comments:
The Governor's order was aimed at creating a balance between Agriculture, development and environmentally sensitive
land. What ended up is a plan that can create an imbalance as the program is geared to produce more environmentally set
aside land and development and greatly reduces agriculture. This will result in Agriculture being pushed further out and
95 I P age
destroying more pristine systems under the auspices ofthe Right to Farm Act. [Mark Strain written comments dated 4-2-
2005].
Staff Comments: This is considered a major amendment. The elimination of the word "premature" from the goal may
seem like an innocuous change. However, the proposed deletion of "premature" raises a flag because the existing phrase
has its genesis in the Final Order No. AC-99-002 of the Administrative Commission and is the basis for the current RLSA
Overlay which was initiated prior to the enactment of the State RLSA Program. Any step perceived as undoing the Final
Order-based GMPAs (established in the RLSA and RFMUD) might cause issue at the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA), especially if DCA is leaning towards trying to make Collier County's RLSA subject to compliance with statutory
RLSA provisions. [Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee Deliberations: The above proposed draft amendments are based upon an email received from Review
Committee member Torn Jones on March 28, 2008, distributed to Committee members on March 28, and preliminarily
approved during the April I, 2008 Committee meeting. The Committee position is that the word "premature" cannot be
defined for use in the RLSA Overlay and should be stricken. Additionally, there was one grammatical correction to the
Policy. The Committee, on June 17, 2008, revisited the staff s comments and stated that the proposed amendments would
strengthen rather than weaken the RLSAO.
June 17. 2008 Committee Action: The Committee voted to recommend the amendments to the Goal as shown.
_ (recommended amendment)
Public Comments: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown. [Jndith Hnshon]
Staff Comments: proposed grammatical changes are acceptable to staff
Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that the grammatical corrections should be made.
Committee June 17. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the Objective as annotated.
Group 1 - General pnrpose and strnctnre of the Collier County Rnral Lands Stewardship Area Oyerlay
recommended amendment
Pnblic Comments: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown [Judith Hnshon]. Eastern Collier Property
Owners [ECPO] agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes (other than grammatical changes as
shown) as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008.
--. Committee Deliherations: The Committee agreed that the grammatical corrections should be made.
:taff Comments: proposed grammatical changes are acceptable to staff
Committee June 17.2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend this Policy as annotated above.
96 I P age
Public Comments:
The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, "techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will
complement existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs." The compatibility of the RLSA to
regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, must be assessed during the five-year review
and changes made where necessary to ensure compatibility. In addition, if new agency data is obtained or new regulations
are enacted, the RLSA should be reassessed and amended at that time, not waiting for another five-year review process.
[Conservancy].
I. Clarify how RLS interacts with state and federal permitting agencies [FWF}.
ECPO comments [also refer to Appendix J}. The RLSA will always need to comply with State and Federal regulatory
programs such as the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts. Those requirements need not be written directly into the
RLSA. The regional approach used in the RLSA to secure permits ensures that all interests are party to the process.
[ECPO comments of July 1]. Eastern Collier Property Owners agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no
changes as decided during the meeting June 17, 2008.
Staff Comments: Laura Roys stated that the most recent available data is required and usually is less than one (I) year
old and Environmental Services checks for this as well as all required federal and state permits. The Committee was
informed that all permits must be obtained regardless of whether or not a project is in the RLSAO.
Committee Deliberations: The Committee, after discussion, agreed that there is no warrant for an amendment of this
Policy at this time.
Committee June 17.2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to retain the existing language.
-
Pnblic Comments: ECPO agrees with the Conuruttec's recommendation of no changes as decided during the meeting
June 17,2008.
Staff Comments: No comments.
Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that there is no need to amend this Policy.
Committee Jnne 17.2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended no change to this policy.
-
97 I P age
-~
Pnblic Comments:
I. What happens to baseline density. should disappear as in Rural Fringe TDR program [FWF] Note: Also related
to policy 1.5. ECPO Comments [Appendix J): The RLSA program is incentive-based; should a property owner
elect not to participate in the program, the Group 5 policies provide for use of the property under the baseline
provisions. Eastern Collier Property Owners agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes as
decided during the meeting June 17,2008.
Staff Comments: No comments.
Committee Deliberations: The Committee position is that property owners must have the ability to use their properties
and that the baseline density should not disappear but that the Committee would study providing incentives for retaining
agricultural uses and it voted not to change Policy 1.4.
Committee June 17. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend a change to this Policy.
_ (recommended amendment)
Public Comments: ECPO [Appendix J) agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes to this policy as
decided during the meeting June 17,2008 (other than minor correction and clarification).
Staff Comments: Minor correction and amendments for clarification purposes only.
---Committee Deliberations: The Committee approved the staff's correction and agreed to study agricultural incentives
vhen the Committee reviews Group 2 policies regarding agriculture.
Committee June 17. 2008 Action: The Committee voted to amend this Policy as outlined above.
98 I P age
99/Page
Pnblic Comments:
I. SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring no functionality of wetland land
mass. Even though to date that has not been the case, we should consider language that encourages contiguous
SSA's. [Mark Strain written comments of 4-2-05]
2. No emphasis is put on trying to avoid fragmentation of natural areas and the maintenance of corridors. [Jndith
Hnshon)
ECPO Comments [Appendix Jj: While it is true that individual SSAs can be non-contiguous, the ultimate
implementation of the RLSA creates two large interconnected environmental systems. It is understood that this will take
many years and the voluntary participation of many landowners to realize. Map "IE" of the RLSA Five-Year Review,
Phase I Technical Report clearly demonstrates that the approved and pending SSAs are forming large contiguous blocks
of protected lands that have been targeted for public acquisition since the 1970s. The RLSA program design has resulted
in a predictable pattern of environmental protection, and eventually, all or nearly all of the FSA and HSA areas are likely
to be designated SSA lands.
A review of the RLSA Overlay Map (Phase I - Technical Review, Map 1) clearly illustrates that the FSA, HSA, WRA,
and Restoration Zone overlays collectively comprise a vast, interconnected system of flow ways and associated native
habitats. These overlays were created for the expressed purpose of preventing wetland and habitat fragmentation, and
maintaining existing wildlife corridors. Map IE of the Phase I Technical Review reveals that the approved and pending
SSAs form a contiguous block of protected lands that already incorporate a majority ofFSA and HSA lands.
3. Maintain habitat connectivity/prevent habitat fragmentation with large linkages on a landscape scale and in
association with land uses in the open area to maintain functioning systems and preserve the wetland to upland
interface. Of particular note, are further protection of Camp Keais Strand and maintaining the habitat linkage in
the vicinity of SR 29 and Oil Well Road. [Defenders of Wildlife]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do
not pre-determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In
2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected
between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry
points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas
utilized by the Florida panther.
The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to
accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being
reviewed as part ofthe RLSA five-year review.
4. SSA approval is not subject to EAC or CCPC review only BCC. SRA approval occurs via EAC, CCPC and BCC
process, as should have been provided for SSA approval. [Judith Hushon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner
relinquishes private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their property, and provides a public benefit by
permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and
requirements for establishing an SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and
stipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in implementing the program.
lultiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of the public, including advisory board members, are
dot precluded from commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing.
100 I Page
The SRA approval process is more involved, as it deals with the establishment of design guidelines, assessment of
infrastructure impacts, and other matters, that warrant the review and recommendations of the CCPC.
ECPO's experience in implementing the RLSA within the process that now exists has resulted in a successful progran.,
and does not believe changes are needed to the process. ECPO does not have recommended revisions at this time.
However, this policy may need further review with additional discussion of SSAs. Also per policy, the RLSA Overlay
Map should be updated to reflect SSAs and Ave Maria SRA.
John Passidomo stated that what you see [Appendix L] embodies the consensus of ECPO and the assistant county
attorney.
Staff Comments: With respect to July 15 Committee action, the amendments recommended are minor to
correct the title of each of the SSA Credit Agreements. [Comprehensiye Planning] Tom Greenwood stated that
the Assistant County Attorney would prefer that the language be brief in the RLSA Overlay and more detailed in the
LDC. He stated that, should the Committee wish to include the specificity in the RLSA Overlay that is included in John
Passidomo's language, then the language as submitted to the Committee is acceptable. Jeff Wright, Assistant County
Attorney, corroborated Mr. Passidomo's statement and the content of the language before the Committee.
Committee July 15. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously approved the proposed minor text amendments to Policy
1.6 as outlined with no other changes.
Committee Deliberations: John Passidomo presented and discussed with the Committee proposed new language for a
new Policy [1.6.1] and an amendment to existing Policy 1.6, [refer to Appendix LJ. Mr. Jones stated that the two
attorneys have agreed to the language,
Committee October 28. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended the additional amendment to Policy
1.6 [reference to new Policy 1.6.1] and the new Policy language for Policy 1.6.1.
Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the additional language proposed by
the Planning Commission as contained in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC.
_ (recommended amendment)
Pnblic Comments:
I. Indices are determined using a grid pattern that averages uses within each grid. This can have the effect of
reducing the value of viable wetlands when the grid is split between activities. A proportional area of the land
types within each grid could be applied to determine a more balanced index value. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The indices are not determined by a grid pattern, nor are attributes averaged. Rather,
the natural resource data layers (e.g. FLUCCS) are mapped in a conventional manner and entered into a GIS. The
individual polygons within a data layer are then scored according to the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values. After the
scoring occurs, each data layer is then converted to a grid of one-acre grid cells, The gridding process was necessary to
arithmetically add the data layer values in GIS.
The gridding process does create minor discrepancies along the boundaries between polygons with different NRI values.
However, the individual errors are less than 0.5 acres and are essentially random errors that will generally cancel out
across a given property. When the value in any specific grid cell is questionable, it is easily rectified by reviewing aerial
imagery and individual data layers that are coincident with the grid cell. The grid system is used solely for the Credi'
calculation process and has no effect on how environmental regulations are applied to the land during the permitting
process.
101 I P age
2. Clarification should be made in the GMP that while SSAs do remove land use layers from sensItIve
environmental lands, they are not conservation easements and should not be allowed to substitute or double as
conservation easements by regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process. Separate conservation
easements should still be entered into with the necessary agencies for state and federal permitting mitigation
requirements. [Conseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: No data and analysis, or clear rationale supports the contention that stewardship
easements "should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by regulatory agencies during the
agency permitting process." The relevant question is whether or not a given stewardship easement is consistent with the
mitigation requirements for impacts to wetlands and/or wildlife, as determined by agency protocols. It is the purview of
the regulatory agencies to determine, on a specific case-by-case basis, whether the stipulations contained within a
stewardship easement are compatible with project-specific mitigation requirements.
3. SSA Credit Agreements reference specifically the policies within the GMP that remove land uses per the RLSA
program. These agreements are the mechanism for removal of land uses. As such, the Conservancy believes these
agreements should include the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the State's land planning oversight
agency, as a signatory. Also, the idea of requiring a national, state or local environmental organization signatory
should be assessed. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Collier RLS program is specifically designed for implementation at the local
level, and to our knowledge, the formation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has successfully been achieved
without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should
not be required as a signatory. SSA Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier
County, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South
Florida Water Management District, or a statewide land trust.
4. No development south of Oil Well Road [FWF]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do
not pre-determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In
2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected
between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry
points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas
utilized by the Florida panther.
The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to
accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being
reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review.
The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of panther conservation
planning at a regional scale, and also site-specific analyses at the local scale. Both papers incorporate implicit and explicit
assumptions regarding panther habitat utilization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that mayor
may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current overlays,
beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses.
The comment to preclude development south of Oil Well Road is not supported by any data and analysis. While large
areas of panther habitat do exist south of Oil Well Road, there are also large areas of agricultural lands that lack evidence
of panther utilization. These land use patterns are reflected by the current stewardship overlays.
5. No panther credits from sending lands that will be surrounded or significantly diminished III value by
development (FWF]
ECPO Comments (Appendix J]: The suggestion to preclude assignment of an "occupied panther habitat" score (per the
Stewardship Credit Worksheet NRI scoring) is valid where SSA lands are entirely surrounded by development.
102 I P age
Precluding the assignment of panther habitat scores is not applicable where connections to offsite panther habitat are
maintained, because these areas may provide habitat support functions.
6. Review easement language and who holds the easements - possibly FWC should hold, but no stewardship
easements to be held by private entities. [FWF]
7. Signatory to easements should include the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [Defenders of
Wildlife]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Collier RLS program is specifically designed for implementation at the local
level, and to our knowledge, the fonnation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has successfully been achieved
without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should
not be required as a signatory. SSA Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier
County, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South
Florida Water Management District, or a statewide land trust.
8. A concept is being discussed that would create a mechanism to ensure that when a landowner within the
Collier RLSA establishes a SSA, a "conditional easement" is placed on the subject property until sucli
time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from the SSA will be applied and
providing no action is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which
point the easement becomes perrnanent.[submitted as part of the July I, 2008 suhmittal to the
Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
July 15, 2008 Pnblic Discnssion: Nicole Ryan stated that she would like to see the DCA as a signatory to the perpetual
restrictive easement since the DCA is involved with land uses. Nicole Ryan stated that all issues listed in the Phase 2
Working Paper should be dealt with and not ignored. Additionally, any further discussion during the Committee meetin!,
will be summarized in the minutes and also recorded verbatim.
Staff Comments:
Minor amendments are needed to correct the title of each of the SSA Credit Agreements. Previously approved
Stewardship Easement Agreements [considered the same as "perpetual restrictive easement"] are in the name of Collier
County and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, as grantees. The language proposed to be
deleted is found in Section 163.3177 (ll)(d)(6)k, F.S. However, the Collier County RLSAO does not corne under the
Florida Statutes which would then give Collier County discretion to amend this language. Staff, in checking with the
Legal Department of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in September, 2008, confirmed through Mr.
Tim Breault, Director of Habitat and Species ,Conservation, that FWC is willing to be listed on future easements. Torn
Greenwood stated that the summary minutes are intended to capture all the major points and discussions and all meetings
are recorded. [Comprebensiye Planning witb additional analysis completed following July 15 action of tbe
Committee]
Committee Deliberations: Tom Jones stated that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is a regulatory
agency and the RLSA program is mostly about preservation of natural resources and agricultural lands and the DCA is
involved in actions which are the basis for the RLSA program and not involved in regulatory aspects of the program. Bill
McDaniel stated that the Committee's "read ahead" receipt of the Phase 2 Working Paper should be an indication that the
Committee members have read the documentation. Brad Cornell stated that all discussion should be considered, both
verbal and written, Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not want to see rebuttal statements within the Phase 2 Working Paper,
but it is OK to have them in the Committee minutes. Mr. Farmer stated that he would like to see Mark Strain updated on
an on-going basis as to the responses to his issues and comments to which other members stated that they did not agree
with this and pointed out that the Phase 2 Working Paper is on the web site for review by all.The Committee consensus
was that this Policy should be amended to allow the FFWCC to be the grantee on future perpetual easements [Stewardship
Easements]
Committee Jnly 15. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously approved the annotated amendments as shown above anl
Torn Jones and/or ECPO may corne back to the Committee at a later date with suggested language to amend Policy 1.7
which would provide for the possibility of a conditional easement which would be placed on the subject property until
103 I P age
such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from the SSA will be applied and providing no action
_ is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which point the easement becomes
?ermanent.
Committee March 3. 2009 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the additional language proposed
by the Planning Commission as contained in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC provided the following is inserted
directly following "the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission": "and one of the following:"
-
Public Comments:
I. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality those are the areas least
likely to ever be used for development based on various agency regulations. The SSA credit system does not
consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off-setting indices
should have been considered for this. [Mark Strain written comments dated 4-2-05]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in direct
response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year collaborative effort among land owners, citizen
-, .takeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA
.ramework.
Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental plauning and protection. In the
incentive-based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection
of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only
after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs.
The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First, environmental assets do
have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of
sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of
acquiring Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a full year's budget of Florida Forever.
These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7
acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a
$300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land
protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than
$325,000,000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier.
2. The Conservancy strongly supports the habitat stewardship crediting system be revised to use current best
available science with regard to the preservation of Florida panther habitat. The panther habitat assessment
methodology that the habitat stewardship crediting valuation system is predicated on has been substantially
revised since by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for application by the agency based on more recent scientific
literature on the value of certain land cover types as Florida panther habitat. The Conservancy believes that in
updating and revising the habitat stewardship crediting element of the RLSA program based on the best available
Florida panther science will provide important incentives for preserving critical Florida panther habitat areas and
more accurately guide receiving areas to areas that are less impactive to the subsistence and recovery of the
Florida panther species. [Conseryancy]
1041 P age
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The most current and accepted methodology should be used to evaluate Hoc
stewardship credit system. Habitat preservation and provision of buffered corridors in a Regional Plan and an all inclusi
panther preservation strategy could also address this concern.
3. Revisit sending and receiving designations - telemetry & GPS, FWC's Least Cost Analysis, Eastern Collier Study
(Smith, Ross & Main), FWC's SR 29 Dispute Resolution Letter, and Kautz, et al (all have been submitted to the
county for data and analysis) [FWF]
4. Comer of Oil Well Road and 29 - particularly the northwest comer - change to sending to protect important
panther travel corridors - panther 131 found dead 041]6/081 [FWF)
ECPO Comments [Appendix J): The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and Open) do
not pre-determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In
2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected
between 1981 and 2000. A recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry
points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the habitat areas
utilized by the Florida panther.
The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in selected areas to
accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential landscape connections are currently being
reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review.
The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of panther conservation
planning at a regional scale, and also site-specific analyses at the local scale. Both papers incorporate implicit and explicit
assumptions regarding panther habitat utilization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that mayor
may not be valid. Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current overlay
beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses.
5. Revisit wildlife values on farm fields - caracara, sand hill crane, burrowing owl, gopher tortoise [FWF)
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The wildlife value of agricultural land is highly dependent upon cropping systems,
tillage, water management, fallow periods, surrounding land uses, and many other variables. The dynamic nature of
agriculture precludes a general statement about habitat value within these areas. For example, a slight change in
vegetation structure (e.g., maturing row crops, unmowed pastures) or water management can easily render agricultural
fields unusable for all of the species mentioned above. For these reasons, agricultural areas were not necessarily assigned
wildlife values.
However, the potential habitat value of RLSA agricultural fields is already recognized in two important ways. One,
agricultural fields that occurred within a landscape matrix of natural vegetation communities were incorporated into HSA
overlays. Of the 40,000 acres ofHSA overlay, approximately 13,000 acres are existing or former agricultural fields. Many
of these areas have already been designated as SSAs. Secondly, over 3,000 acres of these farm fields and pastures have
been designated for habitat restoration, serving all of the species mentioned,
In summary, due to the dynamic nature of agriculture and landscape context, the most appropriate means for recognizing
wildlife value of farm fields is through incentives for restoration within existing FSA and HSA overlays.
6. I don't believe that the NRI, as originally developed, can be taken as gospel-it needs to be tested and re-
evaluated as part of this process. Policy 1.9 states that the score will be based on... "the Natural Resource Index
values in effect at the time of designation," implying a need to update it regularly. The NRI was developed five
years ago by Wilson Miller, but since that time new data have become available that could well lead to differen
answers. Nowhere is the NRI actually explained-it is presented as a black box with fixed weightings. At least it
should be handled in detail in another companion document or as an appendix. There is no explanatory document
posted on the RLSA web site. There is also the need to re-examine the data upon which the NRI scores are
105 I P age
based-for example, there are new panther data and new primary and secondary panther maps. There is also new
scrub jay management guidance from FWS. Additionally, it might be a good idea to include a panther map
overlay with your maps that appear at the end of the Phase I report. [Judith Hushon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The Natural Resource Index (NRI) factors were developed as part of a public process
from 2000-2002, with repeated input from Collier County staff and the general public. The intent of the NRI scoring was
essentially to discriminate between areas of high environmental value and low environmental value. The NRI scores also
provide a rational basis for determining how many acres of SSA lands are required to entitle a SRA. The NRI model was
calibrated with input from Collier County staff and the general public, and the NRI maps closely correlated with lands that
were deemed as environmentally sensitive.
While listed species occurrence data, panther telemetry, land cover, and other data may change over time, the basis for the
NRI scoring remains sound. The NRI scoring system and the stewardship overlays are consistent with the new data for
panther telemetry and panther habitat selection. The primary and secondary panther maps are not primary data; they are
derivative map products that are specifically designed to assist the USFWS with the panther regulatory program in south
Florida. They are not designed to discriminate between lands that panthers occupy or avoid.
Similarly, the scrub jay management guidelines may be useful if scrub areas can be restored, but there are few (if any)
viable scrub jay areas within the RLSA (known scrub jay areas do occur within the Imrnokalee Urban Boundary).
7. Why are credits awarded in the ACSC, when there are already restrictions to development? [CCPC]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The underlying philosophy ofthe RLS program is that environmentally sensitive areas
are valuable, and this value should be reflected in incentives for protection. The state of Florida recently paid $350 million
for Babcock Ranch, which one could also argue was also under significant development restrictions. Within the RLSA,
_, this protection comes at no cost to Collier County, and the property remains on the local tax rolls.
Restrictions on development within the ACSC do not eliminate all development. As one example, the Florida panther
utilizes many areas within the ACSC. Highly dispersed, low density development that is allowable under existing ACSC
regulations can adversely affect panther movement within the ACSC. By providing incentives for protecting large blocks
of interconnected panther habitat, and by eliminating development rights in those areas, the ACSC remains viable as an
area for panther utilization and movement
8. Incorporate wording in each policy group that reflects best available science will be used in conducting and
analyzing the program (e.g., Group I Policy 1.22). The SSAs and SRAs should be reassessed in light of
current scientific findings. [Defenders of Wildlife]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J): There is often disagreement about what constitutes "best available science" for any
given environmental issue, even among experts. A more workable approach may be to document the scientific references
that were used for policy development in a data and analysis report that accompanies each review of the RLSA program.
Staff Comments: Environmental Services Department had comments but subsequently withdrew them during the
August 5 meeting.
Committee Deliberations dnring the Jnly 15. 2008 Committee meetinl!: Brad Cornell stated that the RLSA program is
doing what it is intended to do.. ,protect the environmentally sensitive lands and agricultural lands by using an incentive
based system rather than a regulatory system._Mr. Farmer stated that he somewhat agrees with Mr. Cornell's statement but
has some reservations about providing incentives [credits] on lands, because of their nature, are not likely to be developed
anyway. Kirsten Wilkie stated that she would like to have item #16 on page 74 [Environmental comments] placed under
Policy 1.8. The Committee agreed and asked Environmental Services to provide some analysis of their suggestions
during the August 5 regular meeting. Laura Roys stated that the staff suggestions would result in a change to the NRI
scores. Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy would like to have the Natural Resource Index mapping updated. Torn
- '~nes stated that Darrell Land of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [spoke to the Committee on
June 3] stated that the NRI used for Collier County is about 95% accurate and closely matches that in his use. Judy
Hushon stated that the NRI needs to be updated. Torn Jones stated that each SSA and SRA application is accompanied by
the most current FLUCCS maps and listed species and prepared by licensed professionals and are site specific. Tim
1061 P age
Durham stated that the Committee needs to focus on the big picture. Darrell Land stated that Collier County mapping and
NRI is 95% consistent with his information. The GPS study of collared Panthers indicates where the cats are travelir
day and night and there is little difference between their travel habits from day and night. David Farmer questioned w,
an NRI of 1.2 was used rather than 1.1 or 1.3 and whether there were ever any maps developed which showed the
differences in "Open" lands using these two alternatives. Tim Durham stated that there were many computer/GIS runs on
these and other alternative NRI cut-off scenarios and the 1.2 seemed to be the most appropriate score to use. Brad Cornell
made a motion and seconded by Fred Thomas to refer Policies 1.8 and 1.9 to the Technical Committee as well as the
Environmental and Transportation issues, After further discussion by the Committee, and a reminder by Torn Jones and
Neno Spagna that these items have not corne to the Committee and they felt uncomfortable about having the Technical
Committee make recommendations before the Committee has thoroughly vetted it, the motion failed/withdrawn.
Committee July 15 and AUl!ust 5. 2008 Actions: The Committee voted unanimously on July 15 to leave Policy 1.8
unchanged, but to have the Engineering and Environmental Services Department Staff provide at the August 5 meeting a
detail and analysis of the changes suggested directly above and possible impacts on the RLSA Overlay with the
understanding that the Committee may change its recommendation regarding Policy 1.8 during the course of its review of
the entire RLSA Overlay.
Committee deliberations on August 5, 2008: After hearing from Laura Roys and the public, the consensus of the
Committee is that the existing language of this Policy is adequate.
Committee August 5. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.8 unchanged.
-
Pnblic Comments: During the August 5, 2008 meeting Nicole Ryan stated that she is concerned that the map is outdated
and needs to be updated.
Staff Comments: There should be an update of the initial mapping. Not all land use/land cover codes are included and
there could be more areas like Lake Trafford Ranch and Half Circle Ranch that were improperly designated.
[Engineering and Environmental Services Department]
Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that all SSAs submitted must present the most current information on
each specific SSA area at time of submittal and that Darrell Land stated that the county RLSA mapping appears to be
about 95% accurate. Mr. Cornell stated that the natural resource index map NRIs in SSA is a good balance between
science, preservation policy and private property owner rights.
Committee Angust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend not to amend Policy 1.9.
-
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Angnst 5. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to leave Policy 1.10 unchanged.
1071Page
'^,",-
Pnblic Comments:
I. What is fate of remaining uses on designated sending lands and suggestion of removing those remaining uses to
meet mitigation obligations? [FWF)
2. Remove all layers at one time - concern that several layers are contrary to conservation and/or agriculture
preservation goals. [FWFJ
3. Clarify what is included in Ag 2 and Ag I - concerns about aquaculture [FWF)
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: When lands are designated as a SSA, the land owner voluntarily relinquishes specified
land use rights, and retains other specified property rights. Depending upon which land use rights are retained, it may be
appropriate to relinquish these "remaining uses" to meet mitigation obligations. For example, a land owner who retained
Ag-l land use rights to a farm field could relinquish their agricultural land use rights and restore the farm field as a native
wetland to address mitigation obligations. The specific characteristics of the SSA will determine if removing additional
land uses can potentially satisfy specific mitigation requirements, and is ultimately under the purview of regulatory
agencies.
The ability to remove individual land use rights in layers motivates property owners to put larger areas into SSAs because
~'hey can manage operations and unique resources that may be a smaller portion of the whole. Changing the policy to force
removal of all layers at one time will likely have a negative effect on protection goals by creating uncertainty among the
landowners and slowing the process of creating SSAs.
The uses included in Ag 2 and Ag I are set forth on the Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, of the GOPs. The uses are the
landowners' existing rights as pennitted under the Rural Agricultural Zoning District.
ECPO [Appendix J] supports the land use matrix as it currently exists.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee August 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended, by a vote of 9 to 2, that Policy 1.11 remain
unchanged.
-
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Angnst 5. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 1.12 remain unchanged.
-
1081 P age
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee August 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.13 remain unchanged.
_ (recommended amendment)
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: Minor amendment to provide for the accurate Policy reference.
Committee Deliberations: The Committee supported the Staff recommendation to correct this Policy.
Committee August 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.14 remain unchanged,
with the exception of the correction shown above with strikethrough and underline.
-
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Augnst 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.15 remain unchanged.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Angnst 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.16 remain unchanged.
-
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Anl!nst 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.17 remain unchanged.
109 I P age
Pnblic Comments:
I. Indices are weighted heavier towards enyironmentally sensitive lands when in actuality those are the areas least
likely to ever be used for development based on various agency regulations. The SSA credit system does not
consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off-setting indices
should have been considered for this. [Mark Strain)
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in direct
response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year collaborative effort among land owners, citizen
stakeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA
framework.
Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning and protection. In the
incentive-based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection
of natural systems. The CREW lands, for example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only
after the RLSA was established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs.
The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First, environmental assets do
have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of
sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of
lcquiring Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a full year's budget of Florida Forever.
These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation Collier purchased 367.7
acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary. The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a
$300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land
protected to date as SSA's at no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than
$325,000,000 to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!Ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.18 remain unchanged.
Pnhlic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee August 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.19 remain unchanged.
Public Comments: none received
110lPage
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee AUl!ust 5. 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.20 remain unchanged.
Public Comments:
I. The incentive program to jump start the RLSA program was too generous and only increased the magnitude of
development and the speed in which it will occur in the rural areas. Because of this, a need to look at longer range
studies in lieu of the typical 5-years associated with concurrency issues should be considered. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The Early Entry Bonus Credit was specifically designed to jump start the protection of
natural resources, not the speed of development. Policy 1.21 states that:
"The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of jlowways, habitats, and water retention areas does not
require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the early use of Credits ",
During the review process of the RLSA, the Department of Community Affairs supported the EEB program as a way to
jump start the program through designation of SSAs in advance of market demand for Credits. This objective has been
realized, as approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending compared to approximately 8,000 acres of
approved and pending SRAs. At full utilization, 27,000 Early Entry Bonus (EEB) Credits are allowed, which translates
into 3,375 acres of Receiving Areas. To date, approximately 7,719 EEB Credits have been approved and approximately
9,195 EEB Credits have been applied for in pending SSA applications. By any measure, the EEB program has been a
success, and has not resulted in an increase in either the magnitude or speed of development in the rural areas.
Staff Comments:
I. The amendment in the first line is a simple correction and the second line adds "agricultural lands" as a land to be
permanently protected. [Comprehensiye Planning]
2. For information purposes, the Early Entry Bonns is scheduled to expire on January 30, 2009 per the existing
Land Development Code. A total of7,7l9 Early Entry Bonus Credits were approved for SSAs 1-9 with a total of
approximately 15,500 estimated to be approved if all 16 existing and proposed SSAs are approved prior to
January 30, 2009, or approximately 57% of the authorized limit of27,000. The Committee should decide whether
it wishes to recommend the continuation ofthe Early Entry Bonus to protect HSA. [Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was to make the minor correction and addition to this Policy as
annotated.
Committee Angust 5, 2008 Action: The Committee recommended unanimously that Policy 1.21 remain unchanged,
with the exception of the minor corrections and addition as annotated.
1111Page
5.
6.
7.
8.
Pnblic Comments:
I. The Conservancy believes the five year review for the Collier RLSA should be
each five years, not just at the first five year anniversary. [Conservancy]
2. Review should reoccur at least every five years. Establish interim process for modifications if new, sound and
defensible information becomes available. [Defenders of Wildlife)
3. Monitoring: The program should include presentation of a written annual report to the Board of County
Commissioners at a BCC meeting, with adequate public notice of the item and notice to interested parties. At a
minimum the report should include the number of acres in SSAs and SRAs, proposed SSAs and SRAs,
available credits that could entitle development, infrastructure (roads, utilities) constructed and
proposed, a status assessment of listed species and their habitat, and acres and activities involved in
restoration. [Defenders of Wildlife]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: Policy 1.22 requires a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-year
anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LDC. The initial 5-year review period was put in place
because RLS was adopted as an innovative, break-through program that incorporated many interests. Specific criteria are
to be addressed, and this task is currently being conducted by the Review Committee. The County currently has
procedures for review and appraisal ofthe entire GMP (the EAR process) and the RLS program should not be subject to a
more rigorous schedule than already in place. Consideration should also be given to the staffing of County personnel to
perform evaluation of specific GMP policies as opposed to review of the entire GMP. If it is determined that review is on
a 5-year cycle, it will be important to restrict this review to local agencies that are responsible for implementation and
oversight of the program.
Providing for a requirement to provide annual reports is onerous and unnecessary. Since approval of the RLS program,
one new town has been approved and is under construction. All documentation relative to this approved SRA and all
approved SSA's is public record and available for review by any interested party. County staff already has numerous
monitoring and reporting requirements for various local and state initiatives and directives, and the costs associated with
such a requirement (staff time, legal advertisement, etc.) would be an unnecessary burden on County taxpayers.
ECPO [Appendix J] supports 5-7 year reviews.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: The Committee agreed that, with the completion of the first 5 years of the RLS Program, it
should now be reviewed as part of the EAR process. The Committee discussed the possible need to have a special
Committee involved in the EAR review process.
Committee August 5. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 1.22 remain unchanged,
with the exception of the annotated changes shown.
-':omments receiyed wbich are not clearly associated with existing policies and wonld, therefore, require drafting
new Group 1 policies.
112lPage
I. Collier County should re-evaluate how other Growth Management Plan (GMP)
policies may be appropriate for applicability to the RLSA. For example, the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) now has additional
provision for stormwater treatment that require 150% treatment. Certain GMP
policies may be appropriate for application to the RLSA and should be considered
for inclusion in the RLSA. At a minimum, exempting the RLSA from other
provisions within the GMP should be re-evaluated. [Conseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix J]: The adopted GMP goals and polices and associated LDC provisions for the RLSA are
extensive and clearly detailed, and were a result of approximately three years of meetings and public input. Keeping these
provisions together in one place in both the FLUE and LDC provide for a comprehensive, single source guide. Weare not
aware of any data that supports the need to require other provisions of the Growth Management Plan be incorporated into
the provisions of the RLSA. Existing permitting procedures address specific and detailed requirements. Adding
permitting related regulations to the Growth Management Plan is not necessary and could also be a disincentive to
potential participants.
2. Because there are only a few large landowners in eastern Collier County, they are generally using their own
agricultural land to offset development on other land that they own (i.e., using their own credits). There is
essentially no market for the credits accrued by several small landowners. [Create a County Credit Bank] (Jndith
HnshonJ
ECPO Comments [Appendix J): Further discussion with Mrs. Hushon related this item to the establishment of a Credit
Bank to track the availability of Credits. A "Stewardship Credit Trust is currently provided for in Policy 1.20
Preface to Group 2 Policies
Group 2 Policies provide specific guidance for the preservation of agricultural lands. Major Committee-recommended
revisions to Group 2 Policies include:
Gronp 2 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to the Group 2 language eliminates the language related to protection of agricultural
lands from premature conversion to other uses, and replaces this language with new language related to the retention
ofland for agricultural production.
Policy 2.1 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 2.1 eliminate the language related to protection of agricultural lands from
premature conversion to other uses. Also included is the elimination of the language comparing acreage needed to
accommodate the proj ected population of the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 with the acreage required to
accommodate such projected population if the RLSAO were not utilized.
Policy 2.2 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 2.2 provide for additional Stewardship Credits to retain agriculture lands
within the RLSA.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: This is a major amendment to the RLSA Overlay. The elimination of the word "premature" may seem
like an innocuous change. However, it raises a flag because the existing phrase has its genesis in the Final Order No. AC-
99-002 of the Administrative Commission. Any step perceived as undoing the Final Order-based GMPAs (established ir
the RLSA and RFMUD) might cause issue at the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), especially if DCA is leaning
towards trying to make Collier County's RLSA subject to compliance with statutory RLSA provisions. In view of the
preceding, staff recommends that the language of the goal remain unchanged. [Comprehensive Planning Department].
1131Page
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus is that it is impossible to determine what is or is not premature
-, conversion of agricultural lands and wished to provide additional incentives to retain land for agricultural activities.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language amendment as
provided above.
Public Comments:
1. Policy 2.1 states that, "Analysis has shown that [Stewardship Receiving Areas]SRAs will allow the projected
population from the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% of the
acreage otherwise required if such compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to
such development." How this policy will be met needs to be assessed during the five-year review. Based on the
figures from Policy 1.3, there are 182,334 acres of privately-owned land. These lands, prior to the RLSA, were
allowed a density of one unit per five acres. Thus, 36,467 units would have been allowed. Assuming development
would have occurred in the worst-case scenario of the allowed one unit per five acres, all 182,334 acres could
have been impacted by development (though this is highly unlikely, as permits could not likely be obtained for
development within the sloughs and other extremely sensitive areas). Thus, to comply with the policy goal of the
future population being contained on 10% of this land, development should be contained to 18,233 acres of the
RLSA. This would be a ratio of development to non-development of 9: I. Currently, the SRA to SSA ratio for
Ave Maria, the only approved RLSA town to date, is approximately 3: 1. Collier County must assess how the
ultimate 9: I ratio, or development on 10% of the land, will be achievable in the future, if all new SRAs corne in at
Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) to SRA ratios ofless than 9: 1. The Conservancy believes the manner in which
this policy will be met should be further clarified. [Conseryancy]
ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: ECPO agrees with the April I, 2008 minutes of the Review Committee where Alan
Reynolds clarified the relevance and purpose of the 10% figure.
Discnssion dnring September 2. 2008 meetinl!: Mr. Greenwood stated that the language proposed to be eliminated by
the Committee simply states that a typical compact urban development in the RLSA Overlay would have a density
approximately 10 times that of the underlying zoning which is I dwelling unit per 5 acres of land and this was eXplained
by Al Reynolds during the April I meeting. Nicole Ryan stated that the 10% footprint for SRA should be recalculated. Do
not eliminate this language, but simply update it. Al Reynolds stated that the language needs to be removed from Policy
2.1 and deal with the SRAs in Group 4 policies. The RLSA Overlay is voluntary, an option, and the language really just
points out the difference is development density between the underlying zoning and the RLSA Overlay.
Staff Comments: This is a major amendment. Staff detailed comments were outlined previously under the RLSAO Goal
and under Group 2-Policy introduction statement above with respect to eliminating the words "premature conversion".
[Comprehensiye Planning]
Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not want to see rebuttal statements within the Phase 2 Working Paper, but it is OK to
have them in the Committee minutes. Mr. Farmer stated that he would like to see Mark Strain updated on an on-going
basis as to the responses to his issues and comments to which other members stated that they did not agree with this and
_"' pointed out that the Phase 2 Working Paper is on the web site for review by all.
:ommittee Deliberations: Mr. McDaniel stated the credits and the SRA footprint needs to be quantified during the
Group 3 and 4 discussions and that he favors the removal of this language as it misleads the reader as to what the intent of
the language means. Brad Cornell stated that we need to get our arms around the projections of credits and SRAs under
1141Page
the existing RLSA Overlay versus the proposed RLSA Overlay. Mr. Farmer stated that approximately 85,000 acres of
open lands could all be developed either under the underlying AG zoning or the RLSA as SRAs. There was gener"
discussion, in particular by David Wolfley, about the number of credits increasing too much where the credit value WOL
be diluted, as discussed by Torn Jones and Gary Eidson and that a proper balance would have to be achieved. DCA also
pointed this out in the ORC letter relative to the Half Circle Ranch GMP amendment proposal which has been withdrawn.
Mr. Farmer pointed out that all 85,000 acres of Open land is available for development, either under the underlying
zoning or through the RLSA Oyerlay. Tammie Nemecek referred to the cap of 45,000 credits proposed under the
summary of July I, 2008 of the Florida Panther Protection Program. Gary Eidson questioned how we incentivize the
Open Land owners to reserve their lands in perpetuity for agricultural uses. Mr. Jones stated that Policy 2.2 is proposing to
incentivize Open Areas and provide a disincentive to underlying zoning development at I dwelling unit per 5 acres.
Committee SeDtember 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted, 8-2, to recommend the amendments to Policy 1.2 as
outlined above.
Public Comments:
I. More lands east of29 into sending or protective status - this is ACSC land. (FWF]
ECPO Comment (Appendix J]: The RLSA Review Committee is already considering new agricultural policies that will
incentivize the protection of agricultural land uses. The Agriculture Preservation program, if adopted, will result in the
designation of many "Open" agricultural lands as SSAs. The proposed program provides extra incentives for protection of
agricultural lands within the ACSC. The proposed program may work in concert with other regional conservation
programs to provide vast areas of agricultural and native landscapes.
2. Agriculture preservation in receiving areas - incentives? What is left after towns/villages are built? (FWF]
ECPO Comment (Appendix J]: The agriculture incentives within the Group 2 policies proposed by the Committee
provide greater opportunity for landowners to continue agriculture operations while removing land rights on lands
designated as "Open." This incentive is directly related to the desire for agriculture preservation. Provided landowners
maintain the ability to create new towns and villages, with the addition of the new agriculture incentive full
implementation of the RLSA should result in three land categories - natural resource SSAs, agriculture SSAs and towns
and villages.
3. If the Committee genuinely wishes to adopt policies to encourage the preservation of meaningful Agricultural
Lands for the future, these policies and incentives must reward the preservation of lands with substantive
Agricultural value. The preservation of higher quality lands with the potential to produce citrus, row crops, or
other high value horticultural crops in the future obviously should carry a higher incentive in development credits
than minimally valuable grazing lands or pasture. Agricultural value alone should be the criteria. The location of
many of these lands in Collier County is well established. In response to Mr. Jones' proposal, I do not believe that
anv credits should be granted for the preservation of Agricultural lands in the Area of Critical State Concern.
These lands are in environmentally sensitive areas and are under little development pressure. Most should neve:
be intensively used and hold limited Agricultural value for the future.
In my opinion, a separate category of Agricultural Stewardship Sending Lands (ASSA) should be created.
This could identify thc difference between the Ag preservation effort and current SSA's which in practice are
115lPage
strictly environmental. Criteria for credits and goals should be separate. This need not be excessively complex,
but should give the most reward to landowners who preserve the land with the most current and potential value to
Agricultural uses, not natural resource value or conservation. This should be very acceptable and desirable to
landowners as this rewards them the most for keeping the lands currently generating the most income.
Agriculture is currently very well defined and highly regulated by a myriad of state and federal agencies. Any
RLSA Agricultural policies should not be crippled by additional environmental restrictions. In any RLSA Ag.
program there should be no additional restrictions of any kind to any legitimate agricultural uses. Landowners
should be able to capitalize on future technology. Intensity of use should not be restricted or frozen at current
levels. Any RLSA must function within laws including best management practices. Regulation and restriction
should be left to the law makers and regulatory agencies, not the environmental advocacy interests. The
committee has serious work to do in the details of a viable Ag preservation incentive policy. I hope that all
committee members will read, in detail the 2007 RLSA Program Annual Report to the legislature from DCA.
This review outlines their concerns with the Collier County RLSA program and policies and defines issues and
shortcomings that the committee surely must address. To develop an Ag policy that will be acceptable to DCA
will no doubt be challenging simply because it will generate an additional inventory of development credits. It is
most likely that DCA will be reluctant to endorse any policy that exacerbates their current stated concerns include
the following:
· The maximum number of stewardship credits in the RLSA is not known and therefore the maximum
development footprint cannot be determined.
· The Collier RLSA Plan has not established how many new towns and villages can be created.
· Spatial arrangement and extent of various land uses has not been addressed. Fragmentation of both
Environmental and Agricultural lands could make both unsustainable. The distribution pattern of Development as
well as necessary buffers, greenbelts, or other provisions to preserve rural character have not been adequately
addressed, putting it at risk.
The committee will ultimately have to address these issues, and most will have to be addressed en route to any
functional and DCA-acceptable Agricultural incentive policy. All of this must be accomplished in light of the
elephant in the middle of the room, and that is the underlving land use in Collier Countv of I dwelling unit for
five acres of land. This density, although low, is the reason why only agricultural land with a high natural
resource value has been preserved to date. All RLSA credits to date have been structured in a highly rewarded
environmental context. A separate and well defined Ag policy, with similar incentives, is needed. To be
acceptable, I am afraid this will require that the entire RLSA, at build out, be considered and better defined.
Is the committee willing and prepared to do this?
I look forward to discussing Group 2,3, and 5 Policies, however, in my opinion, the present Collier RLSA
shortcomings and criticisms must be addressed before additional or new Agriculture policy (or for that matter, any
other new policy) can be created. I therefore propose to the Committee that a structured review and discussion of
DCA stated concerns be undertaken at this time. This should be done before any complex new policy is
considered, or any new specific policy language is adopted. [Tim Nance]
4. Will there be a continuation of loss of agricultural acreage in the RLSA in the future? Agricultural Productive
areas need to be preserved. [CCPC]
5. Establish new category of agriculture preserves; however, assure that the process does not set up a competition
between conservation and agriculture preservation that would result in failure to protect natural resources. [We
note that while conservation benefits have certainly accrued from the acres currently designated as Ag I and Ag 2,
very few (-650 acres) have actually been categorized as Conservation.] [Defenders of Wildlife]
ECPO Comment [Appendix J]: The Review Committee has proposed new policies to provide incentives for
landowners to preserve agriculture land within the Open designation.
Note: The following Appendices were snhmitted to the Committee on Jnly 1, 2008 as part of the "Florida Panther
Protection Program Snmmary" dated Jnne 30, 2008:
A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary
as presented initially to the Review Committee on July I, 2008
B July I, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker ofthe Conservancy
of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife
Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan
C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of
116lPage
Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review
Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program
and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
D June 29,2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel
and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed
Panther Protection Program
E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of
the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible
changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
F Undated July I, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine,
President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
Puhlic Comments during September 2, 2008 meeting: Nancy Payton spoke in support of the language proposed under
Policy 2.2 as it encourages keeping agriculture land in agriculture or similar uses. Nicole Ryan stated that the Committee
should provide an incentive in the ACSC land for panther habitat protection; that the NRI values need to be updated; and
passed out a color map showing [in yellow] areas where panthers habitat could be in conflict with Open lands where
SRAs might be allowed. Mr. McElwaine, representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, encouraged the Committee
to vote against the proposed amendments to Policy 2.2 and raised questions about DCA's caution of not using the existing
RLSA Overlay authorization, adequate infrastructure, justification and whether there is a need based upon shortage of
existing development.
Staff Comments: Staff can confirm that the average number of Stewardship Credits per acre assigned in SSAs 1-9 is
approximately 2.65 credits per acre for lands classified as HSA, FSA, or WRA and 0.85 credits per acre for lands
classified as Open Lands. The assigned credits include both R-I and R-2 credits although. The development of additional
stewardship credit values within the Stewardship Credit Worksheet to support the voluntary retention of Agricultun
Group I lands for permanent open or agricultural uses will be required to support definitive language amendments to
Policy 2.2. [Comprehensive Planning]
Committee Deliberations: David Wolfley suggested putting all credit reference in Group 3 policies. Torn Jones stated
that the proposal is intended to create a new incentive for agricultural preservation and he felt the credit reference should
be in Group 2 policies and this was discussed initially by the Committee in April and is attempting to address the criticism
of DCA about not doing enough to protect agricultural lands. He stated that the 2,0 credits per acre outside of the ACSA
is an incentive to the property owners to retain agricultural lands, as the current average NRI in Open lands would
generate approximately just 0.2 credits per acre, He stated that the 2.6 credits per acre is an added incentive to maintain
agricultural lands in the ACSC and is close to the 2.65 average credits per acre generated by lands classified as HSA,
WRA or FSA in SSA 1-9. He stated that the Group 2 and Group 3 credit generation will need to be balance with SRA
entitlement potential to be addressed in Group 4 policies. Mr. Wolfley stated that all credits should be discussed and
reviewed in one area and not in several Groups of policies. Mr. Jones stated that if there are too many credits, then we will
have to pull back on the number of credits being generated and too many acres of SRA. He stated that a potential
maximum 45,000 acres of development footprint under SRAs was proposed in the summary of the Panther Protection
Program presented on July I, 2008 to the Committee. Brad Cornell stated that agricultural stewardship credits will need to
be calculated and still wants an incentive for the preservation of agricultural lands. He suggested adding to the last
sentence the words, "Agriculture" before SSA in the two locations in that sentence and that there be language placed that
would disallow returning to the AG-l land use layer after the land has been voluntarily taken down to AG-2. Mr.
McDaniel stated that he could support the first part, but not the second part. Mr. Farmer asked about the acreage classified
as Open in the ACSC. Mr. Jones stated that the 15,000+ acres of Open land within the ACSC can become SSAs but there
is also a limit of 10% of clearing limitation in the ACSC. Dave Wolfley stated he agrees with the added language but not
with the numbers.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted 9-1 to recommend that the word "Agricultural" be inserted
before "SSA" in the two locations found in the last sentence of Policy 2.2.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee, by a vote of 7-3, to recommend that the following language be
added just prior to the last sentence of Policy 2.2: "Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and
117IPage
cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in that layer are eliminated
and no longer available."
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to add the shown additional
language to Policy 2.2 to better define Open Lands.
Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to not accept the Planning Commission
recommendations as contained in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC and to add directly following the (ACSC) the
following works: "as established by F.S. 380.055 as of March 3, 2009".
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed the fact that the Agriculture Advisory Council was never created;
that there was no overt interest to date to establish the AAC; and that there are many agricultural interest groups and
organizations already established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal agencies and
elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 2.3 be deleted from the
RLSA Overlay.
_ Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the Planning Commission
'ecommendations as contained in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC and to change the word "will" to "may" in the first
sentence and delete the last sentence.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed the fact that the Agriculture Advisory Council was never created;
that there was no overt interest to date to establish the AAC; and that there are many agricultural interest groups and
organizations already established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal agencies and
elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended that Policy 2.4 language be
stricken.
Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the Planning Commission
recommendations as contained in its March 5, 2009 report to keep this policy language as it currently exist.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: IF Policies 2.3 and 2.4 are recommended for deletion by the Committee, then current Policy 2.5 would
become Policy 2.3.[Comprehensiye Planning]
~'":ommittee Deliberations: none
"::ommittee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended to renumber Policy 2.5 to 2.3.
1181Page
Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the Planning Commission
recommendations as contained in its March 5, 2009 report to keep this policy language as it currently exist.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: The deletion of Policies 2.3 and 2.4 would require that current Policy 2.6 become Policy
2.4. [Comprehensive Planning]
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Sentember 2. 2008 Action: The Committee unanimously recommended the renumbering of Policy 2.6 to
2.4.
Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the Planning Commission
recommendations as contained in its March 5, 2009 report to keep this policy language as it currently exist
Preface to Group 3 Policies
Group 3 Policies set the framework for environmental preservation. including "perpetual conservation easements"
[Stewardship Easements] through Stewardship Sending Areas. Major Committee-recommended revisions to Group 3
Policies include:
Policy 3.11 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 3.11:
. eliminate the restoration priority language related to restoration work within the Camp Keais Strand Flowway
Stewardship Area (FSA) or contiguous Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs); provide language allowing for two
additional Stewardship Credits (rather than the 4 Credits now permitted) for restoration activities within a FSA or
HSA, regardless of location in the RLSA; elimination of the additional two Stewardship Credits for each acre (
land dedicated for restoration activities within other FSAs and HSAs; and provide additional Credits for either
caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre, or for exotic control/burning at 4 Credits per acres, or for flow way
restoration at 4 Credits per acre, or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per acre. Within the area proposed for
restoration, Land Use Layers 1-6 must be removed. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration
Credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC;
. provide for Stewardship Credits to incentivize the creation, restoration, and enhancement of a northern panther
corridor connection and a southern panther corridor connection by providing for 2 additional Stewardship Credits
for each acre of land so dedicated and, should the owner also effectively complete the corridor restoration, an
additional 8 Credits per acre would be awarded;
. provide for Stewardship Credit incentives for restoration of shallow wetland wading bird foraging habitat located
in FSA, HSA, or Water Retention Area (WRA) at the rate of 2 additional Credits per acre and, upon successful
completion of the restoration, an additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded; and
. limit Credit incentives to only one type of restoration for each acre so designated for restoration
Policy 3.13 (amendment)
The recommended amendment to Policy 3.13 requires the acreage of a WRA, if such acreage provides for water
treatment and retention exclusively for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), to be included in the SRA acreage and
would require the use of Stewardship Credits to enable the use of such an area for this purpose in a SRA.
Public Comments: no comments received regarding the Group 3 objective above.
119lPage
The following documents received by the Committee on July I, 2008, due to their length and relationship to the proposed
.""" Florida Panther Protection Program addressed in Policy 3 .11, were placed in the Appendices section as Appendices A-F
md are described below:
Appendix A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary
as presented initially to the Review Committee on July I, 2008
Appendix B July I, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife
Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan
Appendix C July 1,2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review
Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program
and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Appendix D June 29,2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel
and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed
Panther Protection Program
Appendix E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of
the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible
changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Appendix F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine,
President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
Staff comments: Mr. Greenwood suggested that all of the documents received by the Committee at its July I meeting
related to the Florida Panther Protection Program be placed in the Appendices section at the back of the report in their
entirety due to their combined 20+ pages.
':ommittee Deliberations: The Committee discussed, at the suggestion of Brad Cornell, adding reference to restoration
activities to the Group 3 statement above. The Committee consensus was that this would be covered later in the Group 3
policies and need not be placed here.
Committee September 2. 2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to leave the existing language for Group 3
unchanged.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the existing language for Policy 3.1
unchanged.
120 I P age
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments:
I. The total HSA acreage should be changed from 40,000 acres to 45,782 acres as the 40,000 acres figure was an estimate,
while the 45,782 acres is based upon current GIS data. The 13,800 acreages for HSAs should be changed to 15,156 acres
upon recalculation by the Environmental staff using the SFWMD Land cover data form 2004/2005 for improved pasture,
un-improved pasture, row crops, field crops, and orchards to get a value for "cleared agriculture" of 15,156 acres, not
including woodland pasture, tree nursery. or upland shrub and brush. [Environmental staff)
2. "HAS" [resulted from a "spell check"] error and needs to be changed to "HSA". [Comprehensiye Planning staff)
3. Protection of listed species and wildlife habitat from intense land uses is one of the requirements in the Growth
Management statutes. The HSAs were delineated to protect listed species and their habitat. During the first 5 years of
the RLSA program there have been several instances of listed species in Open areas. The HSAs alone do not provide
adequate protection to listed species. Additionally the 2002 definition of panther habitat is very limited compared to the
habitat valuation matrix utilized by USFWS now. [Environmental staff)
ECPO Comments [Appendix K): The HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs collectively comprise over 89,000 acres and provide
large, interconnected blocks of high-quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife. These overlay areas contain the
vast majority of the native vegetation communities that occur within privately held RLSA lands, and also include ov,
13,000 acres of agricultural lands. The native vegetation that does occur within the Open overlay is highly fragmented,
often impacted by surrounding land uses, and generally of much lower habitat quality that native vegetation communities
with the FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs.
Staff does not provide any data and analysis to support the statement that HSAs (and presumably FSAs and WRAs) "do
not provide adequate protection to listed species." Collier County and DCA did conclude that listed species protection was
adequate when the plan was approved in 2002.
We dispute that the 2002 definition of panther habitat is "very limited" compared to the current USFWS habitat valuation
matrix. In fact, the latest published panther research (Land, Shindle, et. aI., 2008) and a current USFWS review of
multiple published studies indicates that the 2002 defmition of panther habitat closely approximates the current
understanding of panther habitat utilization. In fact, the RLSA Habitat, Flow way, and Water Retention Stewardship
Areas as designed in 2002 incorporated ninety-one percent of the panther telemetry. Currently, the panther telemetry
within these same areas has increased to ninety-four percent. This concludes that the habitat is protected.
Committee Deliberations: The Committee was informed of the more updated source of the acreage numbers and
concurred that the numbers should be amended as shown.
Seotember 2. 2008 Committee Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the text of Policy 3.2 as annotated
above to more closely reflect the most current information in the RLSA Overlay.
121 I P age
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.3.
Puhlic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.4.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.5
Pnblic Comments:
I. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway
Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should
include restrictions of some pennitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their
participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes
use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are
appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of
the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the
only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should
be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7
122 I P age
specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses,
and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K): Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on mark
conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not
participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim
action or violation of the Right to Farm Act. FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified
mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet the specific
criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Septemher 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to not recommend any change to Policy 3.6.
Pnblic Comments:
I. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway
Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should
include restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their
participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes
use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are
appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of
the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the
only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should
be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7
specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses,
and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on market
conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping additional uses off lands not
participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim
action or violation of the Right to Farm Act. FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified
mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet the specific
criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity.
Public Discussion during tbe September 2. 2008 meeting. Lauri McDonald stated that mining should be kept out of the
layers and dealt with separately as mines have a greater negative impact on habitat than most types of land uses. Nancy
Payton agreed with Ms. McDonald. Al Reynolds stated that the RLSA Overlay is a voluntary program and that the eartl
mining is a permitted use in the underlying AG zoning and that it would be better to process an earth mining operation
under the RLSA Overlay rather than under AG zoning.
123 I P age
Staff Comments: This is a clarification for the reader who may not know what "EIS" stands for as "EIS" is used
extensively throughout this portion of the RLSA Overlay. [Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee Deliberations: Bill McDaniel stated that he does mining for a living and that mines provide a site for new
habitat once they are finished off and full of water. Mr. Wolfley stated that he felt that mines do not have the negative
impact on habitat as many other uses which are permanently intensive land uses. Brad Cornell stated that it may be well
to require HSAs to remove land use Layers 1-4. Mr. Jones stated that Layers 1-4 have been removed in the first 9 SSAs
since the property owners felt it was the environmentally sensible act to take in HSAs.
Committee September 2. 2008 Action: The Committee voted 9-1 to not recommend any change to Policy 3.7 other than
to make the clarification recommended by staff.
Public Comments on Seotember 16, 2008. Mr. Dane Scofield stated that he would like to broaden the language to allow
other avenues to use credits.
Staff Comments: Staff suggested adding the words, "such as, but not limited to Conservation Collier" to the end of
Policy 3.8 [Environmental Services]
Committee Deliberations: The Committee saw no reason to single out any agency.
Committee Seotember 16. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously not to make any to change Policy 3.8.
2.
Public Comments:
I. Review of the SSAs currently designated indicates that out of the approximately 23,000 acres that are in SSA
easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to their conservation land use. The Conservancy believes that
Collier County should be more actiye in securing lands that will be maintained for conservation purposes. While
grazing may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses, more active agricultural activities may not,
especially if the environmental value of the land would benefit from restoration activities. Collier County should
revisit the SSA Group 3 policies to require more SSAs be taken down to conservation through incentives or
regulations. A better understanding of the uses removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was
required to go through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval. [Conseryancy]
Note: Also related to policy 3.10
--SCPO Comments [Appendix K]: The Conservancy's statement does not acknowledge that of the 24,124 acres within
.pproved SSAs, 19,034 acres (79%) are designated as Ag-2Iands. Of the 19,034 acres under Ag-2land uses, 16,334 acres
exist under native vegetation, and an additional 1,781 acres are comprised of pastures. These Ag-2 land uses retain only
grazing rights and other low-intensity agricultural uses that are entirely compatible with listed species conservation. Lands
1241 P age
within approved SSAs "maintained for conservation purposes" are therefore more accurately quantified as the sum of Ag-
2 and Conservation land uses (19,684 acres), or 82% of all approved SSA lands.
The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes private property rights,
reduces the residual land use value of their property, and provides a public benefit by permanently protecting natural
resources and agriculture, without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an
SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and stipulations. RLSA incentives are
designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in implementing the program. Multiple public hearings are costly and
time consuming, Members of the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an
SSA at the BCC hearing.
2. Provide incentive for organic farming for ag remaining in FSAs and HSAs [FWF]
3. Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, at a
rmrumum.
Discussion during September 16' 2008 Meetinl!. Laura Roys stated staff suggested the BMP because SSAs should have
higher standards and that the BMP language could be added to the Stewardship Credit Agreements. Dane Scofield stated
that all his uses of land generate BMPs. Who will decide which BMP to use and how. He stated that he is opposed to the
proposed BMP language. Nicole Ryan stated that her organization would support BMPS in that the property owners are
receiving SSAs. Russ Priddy stated that he takes special care of his lands over the years and is opposed to BMPs being
placed in the RLSA Overlay and that such is a huge disincentive to participate in the RLSAO.
Staff Comments: Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, at
a minimum. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The RLSA agricultural areas have been farmed for decades, utilizing standard
agricultural operations that are covered by existing state agricultural regulations. Additional restrictions could potentially
render these agricultural operations unprofitable, counter to the goals of the RLSA. The prescription of BMPs could als
create disincentives for land owners to include agricultural areas within SSAs, thereby fragmenting landscape mosaics
that would otherwise be protected as large, interconnected blocks of land.
Committee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that he was not in favor of the Best Management Practices language because
it will lead to more confusion as to who will verify it is being done, which BMP to use and for what use. . Brad Cornell
stated that we should find a way to incentivize BMPs. Mr. Farmer stated that the incentives are already in place such that
the property owner is not found in violation [SFWMD requires BMPs for developments of 10+ acres and DEP requires as
well]. Mr. Eidson stated that we do not need more laws as we are short of staff to enforce the ones we have. Mr.
Standridge stated that the BMPs are not regulatory. Mr. Farmer disagreed stating that property owners must use BMPs for
10+ acre developments approved by SFWMD and DEP. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to see aquaculture
addressed in the LDC.
Committee September 16. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to not amend Policy 3.9. By separate
motion, the Committee voted unanimously have the language "limited to Open Land designation only", added after the
word "aquaculture" in line fourth line of Policy 3.9.
Public Comments: The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are proffered as such in
subsequent development analysis. This then supports arguments to completely remove wetlands within the areas where
development was to take place when in reality the ratios of natural set aside preservation lands were much smaller in
comparison to the wetlands being destroyed if the Ag2 lands were excluded. While some A2 lands are in more natural
states, the fact they are not truly conservation lands is misleading. [Mark Strain]
125 I P age
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The maJonty of SSA lands designated as Ag-2 consist of native vegetation
communities and unimproved pastures and rangelands that contain both wetland and upland land cover. Once an SSA
easement is placed on such property, the residential, earth mining, recreation, and intensive agriculture land use rights are
removed and no further intensification of these natural areas is allowed. As a result, there is little difference between
"preservation or conservation lands", and Stewardship Sending Area lands at the Ag 2 level, other than the fact that the
land owner is obligated to continue to manage the land in accordance with the Stewardship Easement Agreement, rather
than the public incurring this obligation and cost for public preservation land. One critical land use that is retained by the
Ag-2 designation is the right to graze cattle, which is an important land management tool. In natural forest communities
within the RLSA, grazing of cattle enhances forest function by suppressing exotic vegetation and controlling overgrowth
in the understory. Ultimately, these Ag-2 lands do provide conservation benefits similar to those provided by public lands
within and adjacent to the RLSA.
With respect to wetland impacts in SRAs, the RLSA is a planning tool that works in a complimentary fashion to wetland
and wildlife regulatory programs, not as a replacement. Any proposed wetland impacts and mitigation requirements are
assessed and approved by the regulatory agencies for each SRA independently of RLSA process, using standard
methodologies such as the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). The RLSA program addresses the
issue on a major system basis, which regulatory programs do not, and protects vast acreages of regional flow ways and
larger high-quality wetland systems that greatly exceed the wetland mitigation ratios typically required by SFWMD and
the US Army Corps of Engineers. This is one reason why the Collier County RLSA is held in high regard by the
SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee September 16. 2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to not amend Policy 3.10.
1261 P age
Pnblic Comments:
I. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a variety of activities that have the potential
to cause soil and water contamination. These uses include cattle dipping, petroleum spillage from wells and even solid
waste disposal areas from hunting or remote camps. Since the SSA's are given credit for their environmental value a
requirement for a clean environmental audit prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all property within the SSA should
be mandatory. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: Cattle grazing (and its related uses), is a permitted use throughout the RLSA, and may
be allowed to continue when property is voluntarily placed within an SSA by its owners depending upon the land use
layers removed. Land within an SSA that has been cleared or altered for agricultural support activities will be scored
accordingly. SSA lands normally remain in private ownership and the property owner retains the obligation for land
management, including compliance with regulatory requirements associated with agricultural practices. Environmental
Audits are typically required only in conjunction with a change in ownership. Requiring an environmental audit to be
performed on thousands of acres of land would be an extraordinary expense and is therefore a disincentive for property
owners to consider placing their property within an SSA.
Cattle dipping vats were constructed throughout the State of Florida as a result of local, state, and federal programs
conducted from 1906 through 1961, for the prevention, suppression, control, or eradication of the disease commonly
known as tick fever by eradicating the cattle fever tick. Most vats were constructed with public funds and operated und,
local, state, and Federal Government supervision and control, and participation in the eradication program was mandateu
by state law and not voluntary. Chapter 376.306(2), Florida Statutes states:
Any private owner of property in this state upon which cattle-dipping vats are located shall not be liable
to the state under any state law, or to any other person seeking to enforce state law, for any costs,
damages, or penalties associated with the discharge, evaluation, contamination, assessment, or
remediation of any substances or derivatives thereof that were used in the vat for the eradication of the
cattle fever tick. This provision shall be broadly construed to the benefit of said private owner.
Any potential oil spills are closely scrutinized by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and should there
be an occurrence, immediate action is required. DNR maintains records of all petroleum spills and the action taken to
address said spills. When wells are abandoned, oil companies and property owners are required to plug the wells and
clean up the site under the direction ofDNR,
Hunting camps are handled via written leascs with the property owner. The stipulations of these legal leases include the
requirement for any lessee to properly dispose of all solid waste and also include annual inspection by the property owner
to insure the terms of the lease are being met. Private property owners take great care in the protection of their land when
allowing others to use their property for hunting or camping purposes.
2. The Conservancy believes that retention of AGl or AG2 uses on lands where credits are generated for
restoration activities creates the potential for incompatibility. Even lower-impact agricultural uses, such
as unimproved pasture, may present conflicts to replanting and management for lands based on the
restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that on lands where stewardship credits are generated for
restoration plans and actual restoration activities, all land use layers should be removed down to the
conservation use. In addition, appropriate fencing should be required to provide a sufficient separation
between agricultural uses and restoration areas. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The process for restoration credits requires the removal of AG 1 uses, so there is no
potential for incompatibility between restoration and AG 1 uses under the RLSA program. Cattle grazing is a proven land
127 I P age
management tool. When properly managed, cattle grazing limits under brush from becoming an extensive fire hazard,
-". keeps exotics from more rapid proliferation, and requires more continuous oversight of the land. Removing all agricultural
lses from the land would be a disincentive to restoration because there is a cost associated with land management. There
must be a mechanism available to ensure that restoration and conservation remain viable options in the market.
3. The Conservancy believes Policy 3.11 should be reexamined as to the ability for additional Stewardship Credits to
be obtained for dedication of land for restoration. The Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands
dedicated for restoration, where restoration has been implemented. (Conservancy]
ECPO Comments (Appendix K]: In the RLSA, restoration is a two step process. First land is dedicated for restoration,
and then the restoration is completed. The RLS program assigns credits for each step. By assigning credits for the first
step, dedication, the program sets aside and protects lands for a future restoration activity. When viewed in a regional
context this dedication process is useful to other entities, such as Conservation Collier, when prioritizing which lands to
protect and restore. To eliminate the dedication step from the credit system would be a disincentive to property owners to
dedicate any restoration land until the restoration is to be completed, thereby depriving those other entities of knowing
what the true regional restoration plan is.
4. Incentives for restoring farm fields in receiving [Open] areas [FWF]
ECPO Comments (Appendix K]: This comment is apparently referring to the potential for restoring farm fields within
the "Open" overlay designation. The RLSA program was designed to achieve a balance between agricultural
sustainability, environmental protection, and economic development. As noted in the previous response, ample
opportunities for farm field restoration already exist within the FSA and HSA overlays. While restoration within the FSA
and HSA overlays can occur within a landscape matrix of native vegetation communities, restoration within the Open
overlay lacks a landscape-scale context, and should not be a priority.
5. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits that can be generated - too many credits. [FWF]
ECPO Comments (Appendix K]: Both Collier County staff and ECPO are preparing more accurate estimation of total
potential stewardship credit generation, including restoration credits.
6. Why have credits been established to be awarded just for preparing a restoration plan that does not have to be
implemented? [CCPC]
,CPO Comments (Appendix K]: (See response to 3 above).
7. Restoration credits: credit should be generated only for actual restoration work, this could be a two step scale
involving the start of restoration and meeting specified success criteria. [Defenders of Wildlife]
ECPO Comments (Appendix K]: The purpose of providing restoration designation credits is two-fold. One, the
restoration designation credits can provide a source of capital necessary to initiate the restoration work, including the costs
of pennitting, detailed restoration plauning, etc. Secondly, there are situations where a land owner may be amenable to
allowing a local (such as Conservation Collier), state or federal agency to perform restoration work on their land. The
restoration designation credits provide an incentive for land owners to cooperate with agencies where they otherwise may
have declined to participate, and the agencies can implement the restoration program.
Staff Comments: Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to further substantive review for sufficiency
and consistency with all elements of the GMP, the Final Order, and data and analysis sufficient to justify and support this
GMP amendment. [Comprehensiye Planning]
I. Any level of restoration or maintenance receives the same amount of credits. The credit value should be tied to the
functional lift and there should be levels of credit that could be earned. [Engineering and Environmental
Seryices]
2. The management plan should include more than the I exotic plants listed by County Code (FLEPPC Category I).
Various other exotics have been observed. [Engineering and Enyironmental Services]
3. The LDC should define more specific requirements on what management plans entail. [Engineering and
Enyironmental Services]
4. Restoration should be to a native habitat. [Engineering and Enyironmental Seryices]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: ECPO agrees that a tiered system of restoration credits, tied to the restoration
functional lift, the difficulty of restoration, and the cost of restoration would be beneficial. An approach will be provided
to the RLSA Review Committee in the near future.
Ilanagement plans are currently incorporated into Stewardship Credit and Easement Agreements, so enforceability is
already present in the system. We agree that it is appropriate to include the 12 Category I exotic plant species identified
by FLEPPC in future management plans. The SSA restoration management plans submitted to date have included
128 I P age
sufficient specificity to ensure the achievement of restoration goals, but we will work with the RLSA Review Committee
and staff if a standardized checklist will provide clarity for all parties while preserving flexibility in restoratio~
implementation.
We disagree that restoration should be limited to native habitats. Emphasis on pasture-dependent species highlights the
need for inclusion of pastures as potential restoration habitat. Caracaras, for instance, prefer properly managed pastures
over any other habitat, including native dry prairie. Restricting restoration to native habitats could potentially compromise
recovery efforts for these species.
Pnblic Discnssion on September 16. 2008. Mr. Greenwood stated that there was a proposal submitted on September 2
to provide for amendments to Policy 3.11 prepared by Wilson Miller and intended to the provide language to
accommodate the Panther Protection Program. Mr. Cornell prepared and distributed at the beginning of the September
16th meeting a revised Policy 3.11 which was then aired by those present as follows: Mr. Farmer stated that he was
concerned about unintended consequences. Mr. Jones stated that he thinks the breakdown is covered well and covered
under the habitat language. Mr. Farmer stated that he will vote in favor of the amendment, but wants to know how we are
going to spend all the extra credits. Tim Durham stated that Brad Cornell has the right idea. Judy Hushon stated that
caracara restoration is easy to do and that there may be too many credits being proposed for this restoration. Mr. Jones
stated that this language would go into the management plan for R-l and R-2 credits, Russ Priddy stated that this language
would go into the management plan for R-I and R-2 credits. Laurie McDonald stated that she supports elimination of oil
wells as permitted uses in certain land use categories of the Land Use Matrix and that the words, "restore, and enhance"
should follow "create" in the second line of paragraph 2 and that the words "and maintain" should be inserted directly
after "establishing" in the fourth line of paragraph 2. Laura Roys stated that it should be made clear that the credits will
not be cumulative. Russ Priddy stated that he has an oil well with a location that is in some of the best habitat for bear,
etc. and that there is no science that shows that oil wells are degrade the habitat. Nancy Payton stated that there is a map
which has been circulated which shows the panther corridors. Noah Standridge asked if there had been consideration
given to bonding out panther credits for up front dollars,
Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph.
Committee September 16. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 3.11 as shown abo,
which includes the recommendations of Laurie McDonald and Luara Roys above.
Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the Planning Commission
recommendations as contained in its March 5, 2009 report but to provide a rewrite of the last two sentences of paragraph 2
as shown above.
Public Comments:
I . The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year assessment
[Conservancy]
2. More upland buffers for Camp Keais Strand & OK Slough [FWFJ
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The need for more upland buffers adjacent to existing FSA and HSA areas has not
been demonstrated or supported by any data and analysis. Aside from that fact, Restoration Zone overlays were already
designated in 2002 along key portions of both regional flow ways, and comprise over 2,000 acres of potential buffers.
These 500-feet wide Restoration Zones create incentives for restoration of buffers, and can work in conjunction with SRA
buffers as well.
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: limited
Committee September 16. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to not amend Policy 3.
129 I P age
_ (recommended amendment)
Public Inpnt:
I. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water management system for a SRA.
The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be
reevaluated, especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would benefit from
restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for stormwater treatment and are incorporated as
part ofthe development's stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be
included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like to see this changed in Policy 3.13
and other applicable policies. [Conseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix K]: The comment refers to Water Retention Areas or WRAs, which are one of three types
of SSA classification. Two Policies are relevant to the comment:
Policy 3.13
Water Retention Areas (WRA;J as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this purpose
and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention. treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance
with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA, WRAs can also be
permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated
into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not
required to be designated as a SRA in such instances, WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are
subject to refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired, including
but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates. storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation
or ,fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in
accordance with best management practices, Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to
ensure that there is no net loss of habitat junction within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or
restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation
or restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be
provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.
The SFWMD will encourage or require that storm water continue to be directed into these reservoirs, even after
converting adjoining land uses from farm to development. This is anticipated by RLS Policy 3.13 and 3.14. There will be
many cases where on-going agricultural operations continue to use the WRA simultaneously with the developed land. In
these cases, there is no purpose served by trying to distinguish how much of the WRA is serving the farm, and how much
is serving the development, as the overall acreage of the WRA will not change.
Continuing to use these systems for water retention is efficient and beneficial to the environment, and results in land use
patterns that are more compact and cost effective. Eliminating water flows would negatively impact hydrology and
hydroperiod and would cause detrimental changes to the habitat values of these reservoirs. These reservoirs are typically
large (over 100 acres), and often are located between the developable land and ultimate outfalls to flowway systems.
In instances where a WRA is pennitted to function solely for SRA water quality treatment and detention, it may be
appropriate to include this acreage in the SRA acreage calculation.
- 'itaff Comments: no comments
':::ommittee Deliberations: Mr. Jones stated that he supports the proposed change as outlined above because the water
treatment has to be done on-site and gives the developer the ability to use the remaining lands in the SRA. He stated that
they were criticized with the Town of Ave Maria SRA because they were not counting the WRA as part of its SRA.
130 I Page
Committee September 16. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to add the additional language to Policy
3.13.
Committee March 3. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the Planning Commissi,
recommendations regarding the proposed wording change in the second to the last sentence.
-
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee Se tember 16 2008 action: The Committee unanimously voted to not amend Policy 3.14.
Committee March 3. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the above language for a new policy
which differs from the language advanced in the CCPC's March 5, 2009 report to the BCC.
Preface to Group 4 Policies
Group 4 Policies set the framework for conversion of rural lands to other uses in the form of Stewardship Receiving
Areas. Written documents submitted, reviewed, and commented upon by the Committee relating to Group 4 Policies
include Appendices G, H, M, N, 0, Q, and R. Major Committee-recommended revisions to Group 4 Policies include:
Policy 4.2 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.2 corrects/updates acreage calculations within the RLSAO which are both
outside of and inside the Area of Critical State Concern and limits the amount of lands that can be designated as SRAs
to 45,000 acres. The separate Comprehensive Planning Department Staff SRA build-out projection and Wilson
Miller build-out projection of the maximum SRA acreage allowable under the existing RLSAO [if 100% of property
owners participate using the existing Credit system] is 41,040 SRA acres and 43,312 SRA acres, respectively. This
SRA acreage does not include any development which may occur under the underlying zoning of Rural Agricultural-
A District and which would not be participating in the RLSAO.
Policy 4.5 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.5 provides for the SRA Master Plan to be consistent with the County's
Long Range Transportation Plan, the County Build Out Vision Plan referenced in recommended new Policy 3.7 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP, and Access Management procedures. The recommended amend to Policy 4.5
also includes a requirement for the provision of a Management Plan as part of the SRA Master Plan which include:
provisions for minimizing human and wildlife interactions between the SRA and surrounding undeveloped properties.
Policy 4.6 (amendment)
1311Page
.-
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.6 requires an SRA to include a mobility plan that includes consideration of
vehicular, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, intemal circulators, and other modes of travel/movement within and
between SRAs and areas of outside development and land uses.
Policy 4.7 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7 eliminates Hamlets as a specific forms of SRA and reduces the number
of specific forms of SRAs from four to three in conjunction with the recommended deletion of Policy 4.7.3 language
related to Hamlets.
Policy 4.7.1 (amendment....Towns)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.1 increases the minimum size of a Town from 1,000 acres to 1,500
acres, increases the maximum size from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres, and provides for the requirement of an internal
mobility plan.
Policy 4.7.3 (deletion...Hamlets)
Policy 4.7.3 is recommended for deletion.
Policy 4.7.4 [now renumbered Policy 4.7.3 (amendment...Compact Rnral Deyelopment)]
The recommended amendment to Policy 4.7.4 keeps the maximum size of a Compact Rural Development (CRD) at
100 acres while providing language supporting the location of research, education, tourism, recreation, and housing
within CRDs.
Policy 4.7.4 (new)
This new Policy 4.7.4 stresses that Towns and Villages are the preferred locations for business and industry in the
RLSA to further promote economic development, diversification, and job creation with a list of examples of permitted
uses such as environmental research, agricultural research, aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences, corporate
headquarters, computer hardware, software and services, etc.
Policy 4.14 (amendment)
The recommended amendments to Policy 4.14 provide:
· language requiring a proposed new SRA, at the time of SRA approval, to provide for the opportunity to provide
direct vehicular and pedestrian connections to an adjoining SRA or adjoining lands designated as Open;
. new language requiring that public or private roads and connecting signalized intersections within or adjacent to
an SRA be maintained by the primary town or community it serves; and
. new language providing for a variety of mitigation credits and offsets.
Policy 4.19 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 4.19 provides for:
. 8 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from a Stewardship
Credit Sending Area deemed vested under the 8 Credit ratio; and
. 10 Credits required for each acre of land included in a SRA where such Credits were created from any other
Stewardship Sending Area
Policy 4.22 (new)
This new Policy 4.22 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the
RLSA through the SRA designation process, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural
significance and the exploration of educational and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant
resources.
Group 4 - Policies to enable conyersion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, wbile discouraging
urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creatiye land use planning techniques hy the
establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: none
,- --:ommittee September 23. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to this objective unchanged.
-
132 I P age
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: no comments
Committee Deliberations: none
Committee SeDtember 23. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.1 unchanged.
_ (recommended amendmeDt)
Pnblic Comments:
1. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural pumpage and not permitted volumes
when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use
is not consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals over different periods of
time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to
landscaping there is a reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when analyzing water
resources for new SRA's. [Mark Strain)
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD standards during
water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to development uses will not cause
adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the
conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage.
Climate conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. The fact
that a farm operation may not pump its maximum rate in any given year, depending on climate cycles, does not limit their
legal right to do so when the demand dictates,
Regarding seasonal agricultural consumption, there is a large acreage of perennial crops (e.g. citrus) in the area whose
temporal irrigation demand matches that of lawn and landscape. Seasonal row crops are generally grown in the dry
season and use substantial quantities of water when impacts to the aquifer are most critical. Typical landscape demanL
associated with future development should ameliorate rather than further impact the groundwater resource,
1331Page
2. The Conservancy strongly supports further delineation of potential areas appropriate for SRAs within the plan.
While the mapping of the FSAs and HSAs are prohibited from being allowed designation as SRAs, there is a
large area (almost 100,000 acres) that could potentially be used as SRAs. Further refinement of areas where
development should be directed, based on infrastructure and environmental compatibility, should be reviewed.
For example, additional provisions should be included that further directs development and other incompatible
uses away from the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). A maximum number of towns, villages, hamlets and
CROs within the RLSA should also be explored.[Conseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0] : RLS Policy 4.16 requires that an SRA have adequate infrastructure available to serve
the proposed development. Infrastructure includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater
management, and solid waste. SRA applications are required to include several components including a natural resource
index assessment, an impact assessment report (relative to infrastructure), and an economic assessment report. These
components are thoroughly considered during the review process, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the
size, location, and land use components of a particular SRA. One town has been approved since adoption of the RLS
program and it does not appear that the existing regulations have caused a proliferation of development in the area. The
timing and location of future SRAs will be guided by existing market conditions and the ability of an applicant to prove
that the necessary infrastructure can be provided and that the project is fiscally neutral or positive.
3. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance separations between SRAs. If
SRAs are allowed to be located back-to-back, without any true separation, mega-towns could result in areas where
rural character should be maintained. [Conservancy)
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in
appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use
plarrning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition
_from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The
dges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also,
Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s)
serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000-acre town has been
approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending.
4. Establish distances between villages and towns; and distance from Irnmokalee. [FWF]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in
appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use
planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition
from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The
edges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also,
Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s)
serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000-acre town has been
approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or pending.
Tom Taylor, a General Partner of Lake Trafford Ranch, LLLP, by email to Tom Greenwood dated September 24,
2008 stated:
"We have an approved and adopted SSA Agreement that removed certain use rights from portions of our Ranch. Although
we have not submitted an application for an SRA, the SSA Agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners
",l(enerated Stewardship Credits that may be utilized on the remaining portions of our Ranch within the RLSA. In addition,
Ie Immokalee Overlay and RLSA have provisions that allow for transfer of development rights within our Ranch from
our Immokalee Urban Area Lands to our Ranch RLSA lands as part of a density/intensity blending provision. Considering
the fact that we have taken a significant step toward development our Ranch via the SSA Agreement, we request that no
134 I P age
change be made that would inhibit our opportunity to utilize within our Ranch all SAA credits that exist or can be
developed from our Ranch. The proposed comment should be revised so that it does not prevent utilization of SSA credit"
developed from lands that are near Imrnokalee within those lands."
5. There should be more guidance on where towns and villages can be located. As it is written now, it is possible to
locate towns near each other with only a small buffer between which encourages sprall. Without planning, all the
density will be located on the western portion of the RLSA. Ideally the towns should be spread out, with large
agricultural areas between them. Maybe a maximum number of towns needs to be agreed upon and the general
areas where these can be located indicated on a map. At a minimum, there needs to be more guidance provided as
to where towns can be located and their buffering requirements. This will facilitate all types of future
infrastructure planning by the County. [Juditb Hnsbon]
ECPO Comments (Appendix 0]: Areas suitable for development are currently mapped as "Open" on the RLSA Overlay
Map. The RLSA policies and implementing Land Development Code provide locational and suitability criteria as well as
design standards to guide development.
6. Provide maps of build out scenarios. Further, just as natural resources are mapped, so should the
areas most suitable for development. [Defenders of Wildlife]
WilsonMiller Comments: (Appendix H]
Staff Comments: Staff pointed out that the proposed additions and deletions were presented by ECPO via a
communication dated September 18, 2008. [Comprebensiye Planning)
Committee Deliberations: Brad Cornell stated that he would like to have the 45,000 acre cap proposed in the RLSA be
reduced by an acreage amount each time a property is developed under the base zoning of Agriculture. Mr. Jones stated
that he likes the 45,000 cap and that we need to keep away from baseline zoning as such a mechanism will hurt the cred;'
system. Russ Priddy stated that one must understand that there are about 240 smaller property owners in the RLSA aI,
that about 175-180 of these property owners own 5 to 10 acre properties. He stated that most of these properties have
homes on them and, if there is 0% participation in the RLSA program by such owners, then there will be maybe 8,000
acres at a density of I unit/5 acres. He stated the proposal of Mr. Cornell is not warranted and could cause more harm
than good to the RLSA Overlay.
Committee September 23. 2008 and September 30lh Action: The Committee, by a vote of 6-1, accepted the proposed
amendments as shown. On September 30th the Committee voted to accept the Wilson Miller documentation regarding
Credits and SRA authorizations under the existing the revised RLSA Overlay. [Appendix H]
Committee September 23. 2008 action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave not accept the recommendations
contained in the March 5, 2009 CCPC report to the BCC and maintain the Committee recommended language.
_ (recommended amendment)
Public Comments:
WilsonMiIler Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: The language proposed was submitted on behalf of ECPO for deletion as it is no longer needed
[Comprebensiye Planning]
Committee Deliberations: The Committee stated that the proposed language to be deleted is obsolete and no longer
needed. Mr. McDaniel referred back to Policy 4.2 and stated that he is not comfortable with the 45,000 cap on SRA acres
1351Page
in Policy 4.2. Mr. Eidson and Mr. Russ Priddy stated that there has to be some certainty as to what is going to happen in
the RLSA Overlay area.
':ommittee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.3 as shown.
-
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee was advised that ECPO did not agree with Transportation Planning
Department proposals for Policy 4.4 and several other Group 4 Policies.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the
Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning
with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. The
Committee referred this Policy to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Public comments on Noyember 10.2008: None.
Staff Comments on Noyember 10. 2008: the language shown above was agreed upon by the Transportation Division
and John Passidomo to remain unchanged and the Committee should vote on this policy [Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously not to amend Policy 4.4.
_ (recommended amendment)
Pnblic Comments:
I. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric light sources, the impacts of
which should be considered on nearby conservation lands, such as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: Lighting is a design standard that is considered during the Receiving Area (SRA)
application review.
Public Discnssion on September 30, 2008. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with
Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Brad Cornell stated
',at he would like to have Nancy Payton's proposal on outdoor lighting considered today as it is separate from the
. ransportation language. Nancy Payton stated that the outdoor lighting language should go into the RLSA Overlay in
1361 P age
general and more specifics would be worked out for LDC language. Nicole Ryan stated that she supports the language and
the lighting standards should be developed for the connecting roads between the SRAs.
Staff comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation Division and John
Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on Seotember 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John Passidomo and the
Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee Deliberations on September 30, 2008: Refer to discussions in earlier paragraphs.
Committee Seotember 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to put the word "reasonably" in front of the
word "managed" and that the wording in the last 3 sentences related to transportation be tabled.
Pnblic Comment on Noyember 10,2008: Judy Hushon suggested a few changes or word smithing to the new paragraph
2 language which changes are shown above in paragraph 2 of Policy 4,5. Thomas Greenwood stated that the same
language should be amended in Policy 5.5 which was approved by the Committee on October 28th
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee unanimously voted to approve the amended language for
both Policy 4.5 and for the portion relating to the Management Plan contained in Policy 5,5 as approved by the Committee
on October 28"' and to amend the language in Policy 4.5 as shown above which is acceptable to the Transportation
Division.
Committee March 3. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
_ (recommended amendment)
Pnblic Comments:
Public discussion on Seotember 30. 2008 Mr. AI Reynolds stated that the transit language will likely be placed in
Policy 4.14 but that Policy language has yet to be worked out. He stated that the language does not have to be in two
policies. Brad Cornell asked about trip capture rates in SRAs. Mr. Jones stated that Ave Maria is "over the top". AI
Reynolds stated that the projected trip capture rate was 60% although it is now about 90%. He stated that the trip capture
rate will likely get to the 60% range when the town develops further.
Public Comment on Noyember 10. 2008: Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy has some concerns about the use
such words as "consideration", "encourage", etc. and that the language should be more definitive. David Wolfley stated
that he agrees with Ms. Ryan. Russ Priddy stated that the RLSAO is a voluntary program and the property owners do not
need more regulations or the program will be less likely to work and suggested leaving the language the way it is.
Tammie Nemecek stated that the program does need to be flexible. Judy Hushon stated that sustainability of communities
is key to making the RLSA Overlay program work. Gary Eidson stated that the language needs to be wide enough and
broad enough to cover everything. Mr. Casalanguida suggested the following change in the second new proposed sentence
the words "consider the applicability of' to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence.
Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Priddy if he was OK with that change to which Mr, Priddy stated that he was.
137 I P age
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation Division and JOM
Passidomo to be changed as shown above. [Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee action on September 30. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the Policy 4.6 language
unchanged.
Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraphs.
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the proposed language change
so as to amend the language of Policy 4.6 as shown above by also changing in the second new proposed sentence the
words "consider the applicability of" to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or" in the same sentence.
Committee March 3. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
_ (recommended amendment)
?ublic Comments:
I. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development nodes, such as 40-100 acre
hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to the extent that they are compatible with the overall goals of
the program. If these small development nodes do not contain adequate levels of self containment or
self sufficiency, then their allowance under the RLSA should be reconsidered. [Conservancy]
2. No hamlets or "compact rural developments" compact rural development could be a "Coconut Point," - no cap on
size of some types of CRDs. [FWF]
Note: Also related to policies 4.7.3, 4.7.4
The following documents received by the Committee on July I. 2008, due to their length and relationship to the proposed
Florida Panther Protection Program addressed in Policy 3.11 and the various proposals advanced to amend several of the
Group 4 Policies, were placed in the Appendices section as Appendices A-F and are described below:
Appendix A Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program Summary
as presented initially to the Review Committee on July I, 2008
Appendix B July I, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife
Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan
Appendix C July 1,2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review
Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program
and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Appendix D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel
and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed
Panther Protection Program
'ppendix E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of
the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible
changes to the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
1381 P age
Overlay
Appendix F Undated July I, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine,
President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
ECPO Comments [Attacbment 0]: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and
characteristics of SRAs:
. Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA [proposed to be deleted]
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increased from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres]
. Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of
Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages [1,000 acres].
· Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern.
. Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or
recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
WilsonMiUer Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: Mr. Cornell stated that hamlets are too small to be self sustaining and could be seen as
"controlled sprawl".
Committee September 30. 200S Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to Policy
4.7 as shown.
_ (recommended amendment)
Public Comments:
Towns shall not exceed 5,000 acres. [snbmitted as part of tbe Jnly 1, 200S submittal to tbe Committee entitled,
"Florida Pantber Protection Program" dated June 30, 200S]
WilsonMiUer Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: Policy 4.]5 was previously deleted and replaced with new Policies 4.15.], 4.15.2, and 4.]5.3. The
above amendments would harmonize Policy 4.7.1 with these three new policies. [Comprebensiye Planning)
Committee September 30. 200S Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the TransportatiOl
Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he
stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks.
139 I P age
Committee Deliberations and Pnblic discussion on Noyember 10, 200S: Nick Casalanguida stated that the word,
"may", should be changed to "shall" in the proposed new sentence included in the first paragraph. Torn Jones stated that
~"e is comfortable with that change. Tammie Nemecek explained the minor changes to paragraph 2. Brian Gogen
suggested adding "development companies" as a uses which may be permitted in Towns. Tammie Nemecek stated that
she felt that would be a good addition.
Committee action taken on Noyember 10. 200S: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendments to
Policy 4.7.1 as shown above.
Committee March 3. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
_ (recommended amendment)
.'nblic Comments:
Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not exceed 1,500 acres. Inside the Area of Critical Concern, the
current Collier County RLSA Overlay standards shall apply to Villages. [submitted as part of the July 1, 200S
snbmittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 200S]
WilsonMilIer Comments: [Appendix N]
September 30. 200S discnssion Nicole Ryan stated that, rather than increase to size of a village, the density should be
consiereed for an increase. Mr. Eidson asked what the problem would be in increasing the maximum size of a village.
Christian Spilker stated that the is related to the elimination of hamlets because it is difficult to develop hamlets from an
economic standpoint because there is a substantial commercial requirement if over 1000 acres in size. He stated that
villages with a larger footprint are easier to develop. Mr. Jones restated what Mr. Spilker stated. Mr. Priddy stated that
he concurs with the 1,500 maximum allowable acre amendment. Anita Jenkins state that she also agreed with this
amendment, stating that open space requirements on a 1,000 acre SRA would limit development on 650 acres which is not
enough land to justifY proceeding economically with a village. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not disagree with Ms.
Ryan about raising densities, but stated that doing such may not be feasible.
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: see previous paragraph.
Committee September 30. 200S Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.7.2 as shown in the
second and third lines of said Policy.
Committee Deliberations on November 10, 200S: Tammie Nemecek stated that the addition of the 4th sentence from
the bottom of this Policy is needed to refer to a new proposed Policy 4.7.4.
Staff comments: none
Committee action on Noyember 10. 200S: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the additional sentence,
- "Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages"
':ommittee March 3. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
140 I P age
Pnblic Comments:
Hamlets will be eliminated as a form of SRA [snbmitted as part of the July 1, 200S snbmittal to the Committee
entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated Jnne 30, 200SJ
ECPO Comments (Appendix 0]: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and
characteristics of SRAs:
. Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA [proposed to be deleted]
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increase from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres]
. Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of
Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages [1,000 acres]
. Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern.
· Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or
recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
WilsonMiIler Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee felt that Hamlets are too small to be self-sustaining communities and are more
a form of planned urban sprawl [see Committee deliberations related to Policy 4.7]
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to delete Policy 4.7.3 as it relates to hamlets
which are proposed for deletion.
(recommended amendment)
141 I P age
Public Comments:
I. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) seem to be too loosely designated and could provide a loophole for
increased development in areas that are already built up. A CRD of 100 acres or less seems to be a meaningless
designation and it is my belief that this type of development could be dropped. [Jndith Hushon]
2. Compact Rural Development ("CRD") shall include, as a permitted use, eco tourism lodging, recreational hunting
and fishing enterprises, and family homesteads for the Rural Landowners. [snbmitted as part of the Jnly 1, 2008
snbmittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and
characteristics of SRA's:
. Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA [propose to eliminate]
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres [increase from 4,000 acres to 5,000 acres]
. Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres. Within the Area of
Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall apply to Villages [1,000 acres]
. Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern.
. Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research, education, tourism or
recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
._ WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N]
,taff Comments: The language amendments were provided by ECPO vIa Wilson Miller [Appendix N].
[Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed the character, role and the need for CRDs in the RLSAO. [Also see
the public discussion on November 10 which follows.]
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.7.4 as shown and
renumber it to Policy 4.7.3.
Pnblic discnssion on Noyember 10, 2008 [Appendix R]: Tammie Nemecek stated that the only additional sentence
being added is the fourth sentence and that she would like to change the word "shall" to "may". Gary Eidson stated that
the word "compatible" could be added after the word "scaled". Judy Hushon stated that she does not like industry in
CRDs and felt that it should be limited to Towns and Villages. Nancy Payton stated that she felt the same but there are
nature and agricultural based uses that would be appropriate and that the compatibility issue can be addressed in the LDC.
Torn Jones agreed with Nancy Payton. Gary Eidson asked if CRDs, as proposed, are not morphing into Hamlets. Anita
Jenkins pointed out that the first two sentences point out that the uses must be in support of agriculture, natural resources
and economic diversity and that the CRDs must demonstrate a set of uses to further these attributes within the RLSA. Mr.
Farmer stated that the CRDs must be very small in size. Mr. Wolfley stated that he is concerned about an intense use
being placed on a 100-acre site. Russ Priddy stated that he might do two or three CRDs and asked what if someone
wanted to do agricultural research, etc. He stated that the door needs to be left open for these uses. Mr. Jones stated that a
use might be a fishing lodge. Anita Jenkins stated that the Committee needs to address the intent of the CRD as it is now
written. Judy Hushon stated that CRDs should be limited to environmental and agricultural uses. Brad Cornell stated that
the word "shall" may be too strong and that it should be changed to "may" as uses are not permitted by right and that there
will be a need for strong LDC language. After further discussion both Gary Eidson and Torn Jones agreed to amend the
motion by substituting "may" for "shall" and inserting the word "compatible" after the word "scaled".
Staff comment: none
--Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to add the fourth sentence with the two
hanges of changing "shall" to "may" and adding the word "compatible" following the word "scaled".
142 I P age
Committee March 3. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
Public discussion on Noyember 10. 2008 [Appendix R]: Tammie Nemecek stated that she would like to add
environmental research and agricultural research to the use of pennitted uses. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to
see the words, "existing urban areas" added at the beginning of the Policy as this is a preferred location of business as the
infrastructure is already in place. Nancy Payton asked to have CRDs eliminated as preferred locations for business and
industry although such would not necessarily prohibit such uses and that "environmental research" and "agricultural
research" be listed as examples of pennitted uses. Tammie Nemecek stated that she is comfortable with the changes
promoted by Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton.
WilsonMilIer Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff comments:
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee voted, 7-1, to recommend the creation of new Policy 4.7.4 as
outlined above, including all changes discussed.
Committee March 12. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
-
Pnblic Comments:
I. Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances that did not adequately
address hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacts of agricultural uses are far
different than the uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood
to assure no impacts to surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations
should be compared for compatibility with changes brought on by development. [Mark Strain] Note: Also
relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: We are not aware of any data that supports the opinion that buffers are inadequate.
Buffers were included within the RLSA program as a land use planning technique to provide a transition between
receiving areas and natural areas, primarily for the benefit of water quality and wildlife. The state and federal wetland
pennitting procedures meticulously review existing wetland hydroperiod data, proposed surface water management
designs, outfall control elevations, etc., with the expressed purpose of preventing hydrologic impacts to surrounding
wetlands. The SFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Pennits details these procedures. Pennits are not
issued until the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed activity does not hydrologically impact these wetlands,
regardless of the buffer location or distance, As part of the Environmental Resource pennitting process, control elevations
are detennined based on average wet season water table elevation as typically detennined by hydro-biological indicators,
soil types, ground water well monitoring data, and surrounding pennitted control elevations.
2. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the
five-year assessment. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13IConseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix OJ: The most current peer-reviewed research on panther habitat utilization concluded,
"[Our] results indicated that forests are the habitats selected by panthers and generally support the current United States
143 I P age
Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat ranking system." (Land, Shindle et. aI., 2008). This research employed GPS
-_ collars to characterize panther habitat selection during nocturnal and diurnal periods, and compared GPS data to standard
jiurnal VHF radiotelemetry data. As such, this research does represent "the best available Florida panther science" and
does not support the Conservancy's contention that the RLSA panther habitat methodology needs to be revised.
3. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water
management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs as part of
stormwater management should be reevaluated,
especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would
benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for
stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's
stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be
included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like
to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13
[Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on September 16,
2008 to Policy 3.13.
Staff Comments: Buffer requirements for FSAs and HSAs for adjacent SRAs allow open space uses such as
required yards and lakes immediately adjacent to them. There should be a minimum buffer with no area of
impact. [Engineering and Environmental Services Department] Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13.
Committee SeDtember 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.8 unchanged.
.- (recommended amendment)
Pnblic Input: WilsonMiUer Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: Listed species that utilize uplands are not adequately protected by the NRI score. !At is thought that
this need is limited. However, the designation of the Ave Maria SRA did identify a caracara nest and habitat areas that did
not score greater than 1.2. There were numerous listed species in farm ditches, fallow fields, and marshy areas within
pastures. The only native habitat with protected species was some small remnant marshes within the pastures, The SSAs
created to enable this SRA removed the development rights (except for agriculture and essential services) from
approximately 13,352 acres of a mixture of pasture and row crop fields. Staff is uncertain whether the increase in NRI
score would result in more on-site preservation of habitat. [CDES Environmental Services]
Pnblic discussion on September 30, 2008. Mr. McDaniel stated that the environmental provisions being advanced could
be put into the NRI and/or LDC. Mr. Cornell stated that the language seems focused so that one does not have to use
,.credits and is persuaded that it is something that should be considered. Mac Hatcher stated that the NRI scores will not
rotect these nests as the bald eagle is no longer a listed species. Mr. McDaniel asked if there could not be and adjustment
,0 the NRI. Mac Hatcher stated that adjustment to the NRI score would be very complicated and difficult to do. Mr. Jones
stated that he opposed to the language proposed because we might be looking at protecting nests in ditches and because
144 I P age
the RLSA program is not set up to address all listed species and that he is not comfortable with the language proposed.
He further stated that Policy 4.9 is not broken. Mr. Eidson asked if there is enough protection.. .Mr. Jones says yes and tp~
county says no. He stated that he feels the DCA looks at agricultural protection first and environmental projection seem
and, because of that, he would not favor adding the environmental language. Tim Durham stated that the environmental
protections are already in place and that he could not see where the added language would add value or solve a problem.
Mr. Jones stated that he would like to keep in the sentence which provided exemptions for infrastructure necessary to
serve pennitted uses. Nancy Payton asked why one would construct a road through a critical habitat area. Mr. Jones
stated that the language referring to critical habitat area should be stricken as it has not been defined.
Committee Deliberations: See previous paragraph.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Conunittee voted 7-1 to keep the language amendment in the second
sentence and the additional sentence exempting infrastructure necessary to serve pennitted uses from the restriction and
that all the other language provided by Environmental Services not be included in the amended Policy 4.9.
Public Comments: WilsonMiller Comments: (Appendix N]
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Conunitted consensus is that these amendments are needed in order to harmonize tl
Policies within Group 4 of the RLSA Overlay and incorporate the Wilson Miller and ECPO comments.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Conunittee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.10 as outlined by Wilson
Miller and ECPO.
Committee March 12. 2009 action taken: The Conunittee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Conunittee consensus was that Policy 4.11 is acceptable in its current language,
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.11 unchanged.
Pnblic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Conunittee consensus was that Policy 4.12 is acceptable in its current language.
145 I P age
Committee September 30. 200S Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.12 unchanged.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.13 is acceptable in its current language.
Committee September 30. 200S Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.13 unchanged.
_ (recommended amendment)
Public Comments:
I. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result separate developer contribution
agreements are being created that provide excessive development rights beyond those contemplated in the original
SRA.DCA's should not be allowed until an SRA is approved in order to better understand the impacts from the
SRA. [Mark Straip]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: Policy 4.14 of the RLSA Overlay subjects all SRAs to the County's adopted
Concurrency Management System. Developer Contribution Agreements are used throughout Collier County as a
mechanism to address concurrency issues through public-private partnerships to improve the transportation network. All
such agreements are subject to Board of County Commissioner approval and must be found consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and Land Development Code. In order to assure the impacts of an SRA (or any development) are
addressed and mitigated, Developer Contribution Agreements are approved either prior to or concurrent with approval of
the development. DRI's, such as Ave Maria, are thoroughly analyzed because of the Regional Plauning Council staff and
other reviewing entities analyses and the transportation and other impacts are well understood prior to approval of the
'RA.
146 I P age
2. An analysis is needed to determine how is the long range transportation plan is coordinated with the transportation
needs plan and the transportation financially feasible plan for this area. Using the 5-year modeling of the GMP ;
inadequate for an area the size of the RLSA and we should be analyzing the SRA's on their impact to the 30-ye
build out study. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0] : The coordination of long range transportation planning with future land use planning
is a continuous process. Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning horizon timeframe has been 20
years. Given that the future population projections of a full-build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur
for 50 or more years, and absent a planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that tirneframe, it is
clear that, in the past, neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation
planning. To address this need, three separate efforts are underway today that will provide a better understanding of the
future transportation needs of the RLSA. The County is beginning to develop a County-wide Interactive Growth Model
and an updated Long-Range Transportation Model. In addition to the two County studies, the Eastern Collier Property
Owners (ECPO) have undertaken the task of developing a long-range conceptual plan for the RLSA that depicts one
possible scenario of how environmental and agricultural lands, and lands suitable for development can fit within the
program. While the areas with the highest environmental value were clearly defined in the current RLSA Program, lands
that would be most suitable for long-term agriculture and likewise those lands most suitable for long-range development
potential were not clearly understood. ECPO has identified one potential development concept plan that quantifies and
locates the amount of development envisioned at a build-out horizon. While it is only one possible configuration, it does
allow for a conceptual roadway needs analysis to be performed, and allows for a basis of establishing viable corridors that
can be further explored through regular County and State transportation planning channels. ECPO is working closely with
the County in an effort to bring all three of these studies into alignment. All of these tools should help in the long term
evaluation of the transportation needs of the County. Now, five years after inception, we have a better understanding of
how the RLSA will "grow up" and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more appropriately identify
and evaluate the transportation system of the future.
Staff Comments: Provide for direct connections between traffic-generating developments so as to reduce travel tim.
travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, and to keep the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when traveling
between developments in the RLSA [Transportation DiYision]
Committee Seotember 30. 2008 Action: The Committee tabled action pending a report back from the Transportation
Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he
stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to two weeks.
Pnblic discussion on Noyember 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the language proposed is now in two
paragraphs rather than the existing one paragraph and has been developed in working with ECPO. Gary Eidson asked
about the Open Lands and if no development occurs in such lands. Laurie McDonald stated that "DCA" should be spelled
out because of possible confusion with the Department of Community Affairs. Nancy Payton stated that the language on
mitigation needs to be clarified as to whether it is environmental or transportation impact. Nick Casalanguida stated that
the intent is transportation mitigation. Dave Wolfley stated that the word "Credits" should be capitalized and not to use
the DCA abbreviation. After further discussion concerning language in the new second paragraph the Committee asked
Nick Casalanguida, Nancy Payton, and ECPO to resolve and clear up ambiguities and report back to the Committee
when resolved. Later in the meeting, Nick Casalanguida read the proposed new language for the second paragraph and
stated that this language was agreed to by those meeting this morning.
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committed voted unanimously to approve the above language
amendments to Policy 4.14.
Committee action on December 18. 2008: The Committee heard from Nick Casalanguida of the need to amend the
November lO-approved first sentence of the second paragraph of this policy so that it reads as shown and voted
unanimously to make this amendment. No person from the public spoke.
Committee March 12.2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
(recommended amendment)
147 I P age
Public Input:
WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: none
Committee September 30.2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.15.1 as shown to
harmonize with the elimination of hamlets as an SRA.
Committee March 12. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
-
Pnblic Comments: none received
,taff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.15.2 is acceptable in its current language.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.15.2 unchanged.
-
1.
2.
3.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
.. Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.15.3 is acceptable in its current language.
'ommittee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.15.3 unchanged.
_ (recommended amendment)
1481 P age
Pnblic Comments:
I. Impacts on certain elements ofregional infrastructure were not given adequate analysis. Hurricane evacuation and
shelters space, health care facilities and affordable housing as example, were not adequately addressed and
minimum standards should be considered as guidelines for SRA approval. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: Infrastructure is defined by Collier County as drainage (water management), roads,
potable water and sanitary sewer facilities pursuant to the Code of Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Section 106-
32. RLSA Policy 4.16 requires that infrastructure be analyzed with each Stewardship Receiving Area application, and
also includes irrigation water and solid waste. It states:
"A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such
infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will
depend on the type of development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The
capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process in
accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA
designation. Infrastructure to be analvzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation
water, stormwater management, and solid waste. !!
While hurricane shelter space, health care facilities and affordable housing are each important types of facilities, they are
not defined as infrastructure and not subject to concurrency management. However, every Town or Village in excess of
2000 units will be required to undergo DRI review, where regional issues such as hurricane evacuation, health care, and
affordable housing are addressed in accordance with State Law.
With respect to hurricane evacuation, the RLSA is the least vulnerable part of Collier County as demonstrated by the fact
that no part of the RLS falls within a Landfalling Storm Category 1-4 map zone. Accordingly, it is the area least likely to
require evacuation. In implementation, Ave Maria provided hurricane shelter for coastal residents within the university
buildings, and in cooperation with Emergency Services, provided storage space for emergency supplies that can be used
throughout the county.
Planning for health care can only be properly addressed once specific SRAs are proposed. Hospitals must go through a
separate state needs analysis before any new hospital can be built. These items are addressed by SRA and DRI review
procedures.
The need for affordable housing was contemplated during the formation of the RLSA. The GMP policies, Stewardshir
Receiving Area Characteristics chart, and associated LDC standards state that the densities associated with a town,
village, hamlet or CRD can be increased beyond the base density through the affordable housing density bonus. Section
149 I P age
2.06.01.C of the LDC specifically addresses the affordable housing density bonus within the RLS. Specific affordable
.'- housing conditions for a particular project are determined during the review and approval process for an SRA (similar to
he PUD and/or DR! review/approval process). Affordable housing was provided at Ave Maria in a ratio well in excess of
any other large scale community in Collier County. All infrastructure is carefully analyzed and consider throughout the
public hearing process.
2. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural pumpage and not permitted volumes
when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use
is not consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals over different periods of
time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to
landscaping there is a reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when analyzing water
resources for new SRA's. [Mark Strain]
3. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages and hamlets, a comparison of
water consumption proposed for the new development versus actual agricultural pumpage (not just a comparison
of new consumption to permitted volumes) when reviewing consumptive use impacts. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD standards during
water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to development uses will not cause
adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the
conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage.
Climate conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly.
4. As it is universally recognized that the wide-scale use of septic systems as a long term solution to wastewater
treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAS should be required to have a plan for conversion to a private or
public sewer system. While development may initially be on septic systems, the plan, with timelines, for
conversion to sewer should be in place at the time of development approval. [Conseryancy)
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: RLS Policy 4.16 indicates that interim septic systems are permitted within towns,
villages and CRD' s greater than 100 acres, and individual septic systems are permitted within hamlets and CRD' siess
than 100 acres. The conversion of septic systems to centralized or decentralized community wastewater utilities is
managed through the permitting process and additional provisions in the GMP are not necessary.
5. New roads and road improvements including potential 1-75 interchange must be included [FWF]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: Proper planning for new roads and road improvements including a potential 1-75
interchange is the product of coordination between long-range transportation planning and future land use planning.
Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Future population
projections of a full-build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a
plauning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that neither the urban areas nor
the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation planning. The County is beginning to develop a
County-wide Interactive Growth Model and an updated Long-Range Transportation Model. The Eastern Collier Property
Owners have prepared a Concept Plan that demonstrates one (of many) possible land use scenarios, Additionally, ECPO
has prepared a preliminary transportation network analysis that supports that Concept Plan, and will be working closely
with the County planners to achieve a consistent and comprehensive analysis of the future potential of the RLSA.
Together these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of the County. Today, there is a
better understanding of how the RLSA is likely to mature over time and with the new tools currently being developed,
planners can more appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system improvements of the future.
6. Each new development should have to identify traffic contributions, water usage and other resource requirements
at the time they are being planned. You may want to consider the changes in these variables from agriculture to
increased density. [Judith Hnshon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: See response to number I above.
150lPage
WilsonMiller Comments: [Appendix N]
Staff Comments: Interconnectivity between traffic generating developments in SRAs is consistent with Policy 7.3 oftJ-.-
Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan which states: "All new existing developments shall ,
encouraged to connect their streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type. [Transportation]
Committee Seutember 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to Policy
4.16 as shown by leaving in the ECPO proposed addition and strikethroughs to harmonize the language with language
related to hamlets and CRDs previously approved and not to include any of the staff-recommended language.
Committee March 12. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee consensus was that Policy 4.17 is acceptable in its current language.
Committee Seutember 30, 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 4.17 unchanged.
Committee March 12. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy but also voted to add "of the Capital Improvements Element"
directly following "Policy 1.1".
Public Comments:
I. fiscal impact analysis model (FlAM) minimum standards should be no less than minimum county wide standards
as a conservative approach until historic data is acquired. This will provide the maximum protection to the
taxpayers. The analysis needs to be re-visited and the development provided corrections made every year and
include accurate absorption rates, traffic capture rates and sales demographics, all of which have significant
effects on the outcome of the FlAM. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Commeuts [Appendix 0]: FlAM was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 24,2007, as
the official model for review of DRI's, and projects within the RLSA. Since the County has adopted FlAM, it is
advisable for the County to keep the calibrated items up to date with the most current data available and meeting County-
wide standards, such as current budgets, persons per household, millage rates, etc. Similarly, when an applicant prepares a
FlAM for a specific project, the FlAM will be populated with the initial data projected for the project and subsequently
1511 P age
with the most current data available at the five year interval or phasing dates to reflect adjusted development plans
including sales prices, absorption rates, etc.
Policy 4.18 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District ("RLSAO") and Section 4.08.07.L of the Collier
County LDC both require an SRA applicant to submit a FlAM as a part of the application for SRA approval, and each 5
years after approval. An annual fiscal analysis and review would not be appropriate as it would not account for the
dynamics of the land development process, the cyclical nature of the economy, nor would it account for the period of time
necessary for a community to reach a point in its growth where a stabilized balance of population, facilities and services
are reached. The LDC specifically requires that the project demonstrate fiscal neutrality every five years as noted below:
" Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier
County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (5) years until the SRA is ninety (90) percent
built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology
outlined above, "
The five year or phase measurement was determined to be an appropriate timeframe by all parties participating in the
creation of the RLSA program due to the above mentioned reasons and the fact that there are significant fiscal variations
from year to year. This timeframe allowed for the project to stabilize and to account for economic cycles.
In cases where a project does not meet its estimated absorption schedule, then it may not generate the projected revenues,
however, there will also be a corresponding reduction in the cost of public services. Therefore, any measurement must be
in terms of net fiscal impact, not just revenue shortfall.
2. Water storage areas that SFWMD allowed for Ag are allowed to be used for development storm water as well, yet
these areas were not required to be included in development acreages nor analysis provided to determine effects
ofthis additional use. This occurs for many uses within the developmental areas, thus making it appear as though
development is using less acreage when in fact the impacts from development may cause changes to the water
quality and quantity in land that is not part of the SRA. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on September 16,
2008 to Policy 3.13.
Pnblic discussion on SeDtember 30. 2008 Mr. Greenwood stated that the staff-proposed language is intended to follow
the annual fiscal budgeting which the county does, both for operating and capital expenditures and revenues and proposes
a fiscal neutrality check every year rather than every five years. This would be consistent with the AUIR and the Capital
Improvements Element done each year and the CIE must show committed revenues for projects during the first 3 years of
the CIE, stating that showing impact fees as a major source of committed revenues may be misleading as impact fees are
very difficult to predict lately due to the decline in construction in recent years. Mr. Farmer stated that 5 years may be too
long, but that one year may be too short. Russ Weyer stated that Fishkind and Associates developed the FIAM used by the
County and that the 5 years review was chosen because it allows the SRA to get established and stabilize. He stated that
50% for transportation purposes were paid up front for the Town of Ave Maria. He referred to the Developer
Contribution Agreement as providing for other sources of private contribution. Mr. Eidson stated that he feels the
language in this policy should be reflective of the language in the LDC. He wondered who makes up the financial gap and
what happens if revenues are not available. Mr. Greenwood stated that some projects may be delayed or scaled back to
fall within available revenues. Mr. Weyer stated that the revenues fall into two categories. ..operating and capital. He
stated that when a project is not developing as fast as planned the operating costs of the county are not as high as they
would be if development were occurring faster. Mr. Jones stated that he has an issue with a FIAM on an annual basis. He
stated that the first few years is not a good measure for fiscal neutrality. He stated that he prefers the existing Policy 4.18
language. Mr. AI Reynolds stated that he feels the existing language is appropriate.
Aaff Comments: This Policy language should be modified to reflect the language which is already included in LDC
Section, 4.08.07 K.L.2 and LDC Section 4.08.07 K.L.3 as copied below from the LDC. [Comprehensiye Planning]
152 I P age
. LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 2. - "Monitoring requirement, To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA
shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (5) years until the SRA ;0
ninety percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with t.
methodology outlined above."
. LDC Section, 4.08.07 K. L. 3. - "Imposition of Special Assessments. If the Report identifies a negative fiscal
impact of the project to a unit of local government referenced above, the landowner will accede to a special
assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the alternative make a lump sum payment to the unit of
local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfall for a period covering the previous phase (or
five year interval). The BCC may grant a waiver to accommodate affordable housing."
Committee September 30,2008 Action: The Committee voted 7-1 to leave Policy 4.18 unchanged. .
Pnblic discussion on Noyember 10, 2008 [Appendix R): Tammie Nemecek explained the rationale for this language.
Judy Hushon stated that a CRD might provide such surplus revenues. Laurie McDonald asked if such surplus revenues
could be used for environmental purposes, Tammie Nemecek stated that the purpose of the revenues is to further
economic development. Brian Goguen stated, as chair elect of the EDC. that he supported this language.
Staff comments: none
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the additional language to
Policy 4.18.
Committee March 12. 2009 action taken: The Committee unanimously accepted the CCPC recommendations contained
in its March 5, 2009 report to the BCC regarding this policy with the exception that the words, "including any related
impact to Collier County outside of those directly generated by the SRA may" be stricken,
_ (recommended amendment)
Pnblic Comments:
I. The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been reviewed and applied in a model as the
maximum scenario for development. The averages that were used understated the growth potential. Future
adjustments should be based on a maximum impact analysis to assure a conservative approach for taxpayers.
[Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: See the memo to Tom Greenwood from WilsonMiller dated September 18, 2008 [Appendix H).
Staff Comments: In the third line of Policy 4.19 the reference to Policy 4.19 needs to be corrected to reference Policy
4.20. Policy 4.15 was deleted and Policy 4.15.1 is now the correct reference. [Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee Deliberations: The Committee discussed each of the changes and the information included in Appendix H.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 4.19 as shown which is
consistent with previous actions taken by the Committee.
153 I P age
.-
Pnblic Comments:
I. In order to ensure that the maximum size of a town is limited to 4,000 acres, the
Conservancy believes that all town uses, including schools and universities,
should be incorporated into the maximum 4,000 acre footprint. [Conseryancy]
2. Why is acreage for "Public Benefit" not included within the overall acreage calculation for any SRA [CCPC)
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: ECPO recommends a revision to Policy 4.20 to include the acreage of a public benefit
use towards the maximum acreage limits of a SRA.
Staff Comments: none
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the amendment to Policy 4.20 as
shown.
Committee March 12. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the March 5, 2009 CCPC
recommendations.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the amendment to Policy 4.21 as
shown.
Committee March 12. 2009 action: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the March 5, 2009 CCPC
recommendations.
Pnblic discussion on Noyember 10, 2008 [Appendix Q): Noah Standridge presented the proposed Policy 4.22. Torn
Jones asked if the Policy was intended just to promote. Gary Eidson asked who is going to detennine historic or cultural
resources to which Noah Standridge stated the County and the Florida Department of State Division of Historical
Resources detennine such at time of a development review. Gary Eidson questioned whether this Policy is superfluous.
Noah Standridge stated that the Policy is intended to promote, once such is identified. Gary Eidson suggested moving the
,- 'irst clause to the back of the Policy. Christian Spilker stated that the State often keeps its responses to development
~views as quiet as possible because of the possibility of someone destroying or removing such if that information gets
into the news media. Gary Eidson asked Noah Standridge to re-craft the language for each Policy and report back to the
1541 P age
Committee. This item and Policy 5.8 were temporarily tabled. Noah Standridge reappeared during the meeting and
presented revised language for Policies 4.22 and 5.8 which was re-crafted with input from Christian Spilker and ECPO.
Staff comments: Torn Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural resource, then such ml
be preserved per the LDC. Final language for this GMP amendment will be subject to further substantive review tv.
sufficiency and consistency with all elements of the GMP, the Final Order, and data and analysis sufficient to justify and
support this GMP amendment. [Comprehensiye Planning]
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as re-crafted
above.
Committee action on Noyember 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to approve the language as re-crafted
above.
Committee action on March 12. 2009: The Committee voted to approve the language above which is the same as
proposed Policy 3.15.
Comments receiyed that are not clearly associated with existing policies so therefore would require drafting new
Gronp 4 policies.
I. Tie transportation planning to conservation goals
ECPO Comments [Appendix 0]: Agreed.
Preface to Group 5 Policies
Group 5 Policies set the framework for protection of water quality and quantity and maintaining the natural water regime
and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Program Appendices P and Q are referred to by reference. Major Committee-recommended revisions
to Group 5 Policies include:
Policy 5.4 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 5.4 provides language to establish a map of potential wildlife crossing
within 12 months of the effective date of the GMP amendments to be used in evaluating community, cultural and
historical, and transportation planning for the RLSA, including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
Policy 5.5 (amendment)
This recommended amendment to Policy 5.5:
1551 P age
. deletes certain outdated references relative to the preparation of management plans;
. provides requirement for preparation of a management plan for the purpose of minimizing human and wildlife
interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural lands uses; and
. provides for a monitoring program for developments greater than 10 acres.
Policy 5.7 (new)
This new Policy 5.7 requires that any development on lands not participating in the RLS program to be compatible
with surrounding land uses and that outdoor lighting shall be reasonably managed to protect the nighttime
environment, conserve energy, and enhance safety and security.
Policy 5.8 (new)
This new Policy 5.8 provides that assessment of historic or cultural resources be done when such are identified in the
RLSA, including the assessment of such resource's historic or cultural significance and the exploration of educational
and public awareness opportunities regarding such significant resources.
Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natnral water regime and
protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not yoluntarily inclnded in the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area program.
Pnhlic Comments:
I. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway
Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should
include restrictions of some pennitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their
participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes
use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities are
appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection of
the quality, quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the
only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should
be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7
specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses,
and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conseryancy]
ECPO Comments [Appendix Q): FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of
habitat required for species and adequate land uses. The mix of land use activities within FSAs and HSAs are necessary
to enable the delineation of the large interconnected systems.
-The Group 5 policies collectively provide a set of minimum land development standards that apply only when a land
wner does not participate in the RLS program. In the case of Policy 5.1, the FSA provision addresses a narrow issue of
water quality within regional flow ways, where the more intensive land uses could impact offsite areas. Of the 31,1 00
acres of FSA, only 800 acres are active agriculture. Within the HSAs it has been confirmed by many biological experts,
156lPage
including Darrel Land who spoke with the RLS Committee, that species are very adept at utilizing and traversing
agriculture lands.
Committee deliberations on Octoher 7. 2008 Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to accept Mr. Cornell's
rewording of Policy 5.1 as provided to the Committee by Mr. Cornell this morning. Mr. Jones stated that he is opposed to
the language proposed as Policy 5.1 is not broken and does not need fixing. Mr. Cornell stated that this is a way to ensure
that development does not occur on the edge of the OK Slough and the Camp Keais Strand. Mr. Jones stated that the
County may be subjected itself to a taking of a property owner's rights and subject to litigation. Mr. Cornell stated that the
owner would receive compensation if he chose to participate in the RLSAO. The Committed discussed that would entail
a property owner losing rights to use that land and that setbacks in the LDC may be the way to handle this. Also, if a
land owner loses rights to use his land through a government action a Bert Harris violation would likely occur and the
County could be subject to a lawsuit.
Staff Comments: none
Committee Action taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee unanimously voted to amend Policy 5.1 by changing the
period to a comma after the word "program" in the third line by adding the words, "and designated Flowway buffers"
after "FSAs" in the second line and to change "only" to "not" in the second sentence.
Committee action taken on March 12. 2009: The Committee unanimously accepted the language proposed by the
CCPC as contained in its March 10, 2009 Report to the BCC.
Public Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee could not determine a reason to amend this Policy.
Committee Action taken on October 7, 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave this Policy unchanged.
Pnhlic Comments: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: The Committee could not determine a reason to amend this Policy.
Committee Action taken on October 7. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave this Policy unchanged.
Committee action taken on March 12. 2009: The Committee unanimously accepted the language proposed by the
CCPC as contained in its March 10, 2009 Report to the BCC.
Public Input:
1. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and a map oflocations [FWF]
157 I P age
ECPO Comments [Appendix PI: The RLSA program provides a tremendous framework for facilitating the
- establishment of wildlife underpasses, by protecting large expanses of habitat with SSA lands. The actual need
!ssessments, locating, design, and construction of wildlife underpasses occurs through the efforts of state and/or federal
wildlife and transportation agencies, either as part of public works projects or as part of the regulatory process for
development projects. As one example, FWC researchers continually evaluate the need for panther crossings, and have
maps of existing and proposed panther underpasses.
2. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which are many. [Jnditb Hnsbon]
ECPO Comments [Appendix PI: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are incidents on SR
29 south of the Sunniland mines. The panther-yehicle collisions on CR 846 east of Irnmokalee were considered when
designating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were later designated along that
segment of CR 846 specifically to provide opportunities for future panther crossings.
Committee deliberations on October 7, 2008. Mr. Thomas stated that he would to have the word "cultural" added to
the new sentence proposed by Mr. Cornell. Mr. McDaniel suggested eliminating the deadline of January, 2010 for the
creation of the wildlife crossings map as that could be problematic. Mr. Eidson suggested making the date January, 2011.
Laura Roys asked who is going to prepare the map and which study is it based upon. Mr. Cornell stated that the map to be
used is that prepared for the Eastern Collier County Panther Study as the basis for crossing needs and for future used for
site development plans, stewardship receiving areas, the MPO, etc. He stated that the map is essentially done. Elizabeth
Fleming stated that the word "identified" would be better because the study has already identified such crossings. Nancy
Payton gave a brief history of the development of the Panther Study.
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: see preceding discussions
Committee Action taken on October 7. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to amend Policy 5.4 as outlined
above.
":ommittee deliberations on October 14, 2008. Brad Cornell stated that he would like the Committee to consider
adding additional language to Policy 5.4 which was acted upon during the October 7 meeting. He asked the Committee to
add the following language at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4
Policies. "
Committee action taken on October 14: The Committee voted unanimously to add the words at the end of the last
sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies" so that Policy 5.4 now reads as shown above.
Committee action taken on March 12, 2009: The Committee unanimously accepted the language proposed by the
CCPC as contained in its March 10, 2009 Report to the BCC.
I.
2.
1581Page
159 I P age
Pnblic Comments:
Committee deliherations on October 14, 2008: Tom Jones stated that he has a problem with inclusion of the additional
language in Policy 5.5. paragraph I but would hold his vote for later. Brad Cornell stated that he is OK with deleting that
language. Brad Cornell stated that all the studies need to be updated. Bill McDaniel stated that the Committee should
consider reference language to the most current studies and not cite each plan. Brad Comell stated that he does not object
to a universal species clause rather than list specific studies. Torn Jones suggested that draft language be prepared for
Policy 5.5f. Bill McDaniel suggested drafting language and sending it out to the Committee. Torn Jones stated that he is
trying to forego a list of 68 species. Elizabeth Fleming stated that the language is a forward looking policy on people
interaction. It would require provision of information about wildlife to people. Gary Eidson stated that this discussion
would be a lot easier if there were specific motion language to vote on and not just ideas.
Public Input: Lauri McDonald stated that she felt the use of the word "utilizing" rather than "containing" in the first
sentence of Policy 5.5. paragraph 3 would be more appropriate.
Staff Comments: none
Committee Deliberations: see discussion above.
Committee Action on Octoher 14. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to have staff develop language for Policy
5.5.2. f and report back to the Committee on October 21.
Committee Action of October 14. 2008: The Committee voted, 7-1, to amend Policy 5.5, paragraph 3 to include the
changes proposed in the last two sentences.
Committee Action of October 14. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to amend the word "containing" to
"utilized by".
Pnblic Discnssion on October 28, 2008: Mr. Wolfley stated that he did not feel that bald eagles should be called out
'Jecifically, but that other listed species should be included as well in paragraph I of Policy 5.5. Elizabeth Fleming agreed
.hat other listed species should be cited so that the wording is more inclusive. Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton both agreed
with Mr. Wolfley and Ms. Fleming.
160 I P age
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on oaral!raoh 1 of Policy 5.5: The Committee voted unanimously to accept the
language amendments for paragraph I of Policy 5.5 as shown above.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on oaral!raoh 2 of Policy 5.5. snbsection a: The Committee vot
unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 through paragraph a as shown above.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on oaral!raoh 2 of Policy 5.5. snbsection b: The Committee voted
unanimously to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy 5.5 through paragraph b as shown above.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on oaral!raoh 2 of Policy 5.5. snbsection h: The Committee voted
unanimously to move the last sentence regarding mitigation to the last sentence of paragraph 2.2a of Policy 5.5.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on oaral!raoh 2 of Policy 5.5. snbsection c: The Committee voted
unanimously to approve the language as shown in subsection C of Policy 5.5.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on deletion of existing oaragraohs 2b thronl!h 2h of Policy 5.5: The
Committee voted unanimously to delete this existing language.
Committee Action on Octo her 28. 2008 on amendinl! the langual!e of oaral!raoh 30f Policy 5.5: The Committee
voted unanimously to delete this existing language.
Committee Action on March 12.2009: The Committee voted, 5-3, to accept the language proposed in the CCPC March
10, 2009 report to the BCC but add the "species of special local concern" (SSLA) as outlined in the CCPC report and to
add the wording shown above as developed by Elizabeth Fleming of Defenders of Wildlife.
161lPage
162 I P age
Public Comments:
I. The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not include an analysis of what amount
of non-jurisdictional lands could actually be permitted. This produced a false sense of urgency to protect
environmentally sensitive land that in reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even as 5 or 10 acre
home sites, the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments [Appendix PI: An analysis of the specific jurisdictional wetland permitting conditions of the entire
300 square mile RLS was not within the scope of the Rural Land Study, nor is such an analysis required for
comprehensive planning. Further, as the RLSA is an optional oyerlay, it is an alternative to development under the
existing zoning, not a replacement.
The standard zoning of the entire RLSA is Agriculture. Under this zoning, a wide range of land uses are permitted by rig.
or conditional use that can have impacts to jurisdictional areas, including the full range of agricultural activities,
farmworker housing, commercial excavations, and residential development. Under the standard zoning, land ownership
can be subdivided and fragmented in ways that compromise wetland and habitat connectivity. Once this occurs, it is very
expensive and difficult to reassemble land into manageable systems (Southern Golden Gate Estates). The RLSA creates
incentives for more sustainable and environmentally sound patterns of protection and development on a landscape basis.
In addition, many environmentally sensitive lands within the RLSA are not jurisdictional wetlands, yet provide important
habitat for Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, and other listed species. Large areas of non-
jurisdictional land are included in Habitat Stewardship Areas, particularly where these occur in proximity to native
vegetated areas or flowways.
The "sense of urgency" for protecting environmentally sensitive lands pre-dates the RLSA, and in fact was a key catalyst
that led to the establishment of the Final Order, the Rural Lands Study, and the resulting RLSA program. The Florida
Forever program (and its predecessors) targeted the CREW lands (Camp Keais Strand) and the Okaloacoochee Slough
long before the creation of the RLSA. Various state and federal analyses projected strong development pressures on
wetlands within the RLSA before the RLSA program was created. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program
predicates much of its land acquisition strategy on potential wetland losses and landscape-scale fragmentation.
Staff Comments: minor corrections [Comprehensiye Planning) Currently there are no buffer requirements to FSAs,
HSAs or WRAs if the project is going through base-line standards, besides the standard 25' for wetlands. Recommend
some type of buffer-commercial excavation has no minimum setback to an FSA/HSA. Policy 5.6 [Environmental Staff]
Committee Action on October 28, 2008: The Committee voted, 8-1, to accept the proposed new language in Policy 5.6,
section 3, subsection f iv.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to leave the language in existing subsection
3fiv of Policy 5.6 unchanged but to renumber to subsection 3fiv to 3fv.
163 I P age
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: The Conunittee voted unanimously to leave the language in existing subsection
3g of Policy 5.6 unchanged.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: The Conunittee voted unanimously to add Section 4 to Policy 5.6. .
Committee Action on December 18. 2008: The Conunittee following input from Brad Cornell, other members of the
Conunittee, and the public voted unanimously to modify the first line of Policy 5.6, paragraph 3, subparagraph a,
subparagraph ii to read as follows: "ii. Wetlands and contiguous uoland buffers that are.. .".
Committee Action on March 12. 2009: The Conunittee voted unanimously to accept the language contained in the
March 10, 2009 CCPC report to the BCC, but to retain the language originally proposed by the Conunittee for
subparagraph f.iv.
Public Comments: none
Public Discussion on October 28, 2008: The proposed new language was advanced by Nancy Payton. Dane Scofield
asked for someone to define a smoke easement. Christian Spilker stated that he is concerned about smoke easements and
it gives him pause. Nancy Payton suggested eliminating the last sentence and that can be addressed in the LDC. Brad
Cornell stated that he had no opposition to eliminating the last sentence. Russ Priddy stated that he would like to see the
entire Policy deleted. David Wolfley stated that lighting is almost always an issue when land use intensity is proposed to
increase.
Staff comments: none
Committee Deliberations: see October 28 public discussion
:ommittee Action taken on October 28. 2008: The Committee by a vote of 8-1 voted to add new Policy 5.7 as outlined
above.
Committee Action taken on March 12. 2009: The Committee voted unanimously to use the same language in this
policy as was used for Policy 3.15.
Public comment on November 10, 2008: Refer to Public discussion above under Policy 4.22 and Appendix R. Noah
Standridge stated that the re-crafted language has been developed and approved by Naples Cultural Landscape.
Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural resource, then such must
be preserved per the LDC. [Comprehensive Planning]
Committee action on November 10. 2008: The Conunittee voted unanimously to approve the language as re-crafted
above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
1641 P age
THIS SPACE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
165 I P age
r'
G~~~~'
-..... ..~...... ..jJJf6._...._~...
mo.....,., . . ." '."'" .
~~~1(__o_,,'_,_,:..~,_: .'_,.~L'_',.
'w Pt>bIeY'J;'
. ,-," .,-".... -.. .~. _.'. '. '_d_,
Preface
While the Committee discussed revISIons to Group 4 RLSA Overlay Policies with the Transportation Planning
Department of the Transportation Division of Collier County and, in particular Policy 4.5 of the RLSA Overlay, it became
apparent that a new companion Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan would be
required.
Below is the Committee-recommended new Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
This recommended Policy was crafted by the Transportation Division due to proposed language amendments to Policy 4.5
of the RLSAO. New Policy 3.7 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) requires County
adoption of a plan for a transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service through the
build out of the County (County Build Out Vision Plan"). This Policy 3.7 was deemed appropriate because of other
recommended amendments to certain Group 4 Policies.
Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida, Director of the Transportation Planning Department,
stated that this proposed new Policy is intended to apply county-wide and not be limited to the RLSA Overlay.
Stafr Comments: The language shown above is proposed new Policy 3.7 to be located in the Transportation Element of
the GRP and is outside of the RLSAO, but should be considered for recommendation by the Committee as it would
harmonize the new language being proposed in the RLSAO with the Transportation Element. The above language
represents a consensus by those Transportation Division staff personnel participating in its creation with representatives of
Eastern Collier Property Owners [ECPO].
Committee Deliberations on September 23, 2008: Mr. Farmer asked what is considered "long distance travel" to which
Nick Casalanguida replied that it is subjective, but generally a trip in excess of 30 minutes in length.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred certain Group 4 Policies to John Passidomo and the
Transportation Division to resolve and this new policy outside of the RLSAO was found to be needed.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of new Policy
3.7 as outlined above.
1661page
c
c :Oun~y
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
VOLUME 2
[APPENDICES AND SUPPORT DOCUMENTS]
COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY
OF TilE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COlINTY, FLORIIlA GROWTH M\N \GFMENT PLAN
-- ----
1'(1 '\TJ
-'~'
______.f',-.
Ii
.1
I'
I'
I
'j
I
,
""..,,,.1..,,,," .._
r-'
I ......,..._..~.-
....ofoeoo_c.-.
-- -..-.....
1___.....m
I!!'......-....
, """_."'K
\
,,-
In S A 0 \' 1- J{ lAY : .\f A P 1
((lllltRRLS_\ FI\[)E\KR[llt\\
Prepared by: The Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
Date: January, 2009
. --."
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[Volume 2)
Appendices/Supporting Documents
Preface
A Summary of Proposed Florida Panther Protection Program
[as presented initially to the Review Committee on July 1, 2008]
B July 1, 2008 letter from Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida to Paul Souza of US Fish and Wildlife
Service related to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan
C July 1, 2008 letter from Nicole Ryan of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida to Ron Hamel and the RLSA Review
Committee regarding the proposed Panther Protection Program
and other possible changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
D June 29, 2008 letter from 1000 Friends of Florida to Ron Hamel
and the RLSA Review Committee regarding the proposed
Panther Protection Program
E June 16, 2008 letter to Thomas Reese from Charles Gauthier of
the Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to possible
changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
F Undated July 1, 2008 presentation from Andrew McElwaine,
President and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
G Rural Lands Stewardship Area "Maturity" under the Current
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay [Comprehensive
Planning Department]
H Rural Lands Stewardship Area "Maturity" under the Current and
Revised Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay [Wilson Miller]
I Naples Daily News general news articles concerning the Rural
Land Stewardship Area
J Letter from George L. Varnadoe dated July 1, 2008 in reference
to Collier County RLSA Phase II Group 1 and Group 2 Policies
K Letter from John M. Passidomo dated August 26, 2008 in reference
to Group 3 Policies
L Letter from John M. Passidomo dated September 19,2008 related to
proposed SSA reverter policy
M Letter from John M. Passidomo dated September 23,2008 related to
Group 4 Policies-transportation issues
PAGE
168
169-171
172-177
178-182
183-184
185-186
187
189
190-198
199-218
219--237
238-247
248-251
252-253
N Letter from Wilson Miller dated September 18, 2008 related to Group 4
Policy amendments
o Letter from John M. Passidomo dated September 22, 2008 related to
Group 4 Policies
P Letter from John M. Passidomo dated October 6, 2008 related to
Group 5 Policies
Q Memo from Naples Cultural Landscape dated October 7 related to
proposed policy amendments in the RLSA Overlay
PAGE
254-259
260- 269
270-272
273-279
R Letter from Tammie Nemecek of the EDC dated November 5, 2008 related 280-283
to Economic Development Policy Changes
S Review Committee-received comments related to possible Land Develop- 284-285
ment Code amendments [compilation from individuals and organizations]
T Map of Natural Resources within Collier County, Florida [Conservancy 286
of Southwest Florida]
U Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Plan Awards, 2003-2005 287
V "Ag Business in Southwest Florida Present and Future" dated June 6, 2007; 288-364
Source: FGCU
W "Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and
VHF Telemetry Data"; Source: Journal of Wildlife Conservation.
X "Working to Sustain Florida's Rural and Natural lands and a Call to
Action"; Source: 1000 Friends of Florida, October, 2007
Y "The Immokalee Area Study Stage II Technical Memorandum-
Groundwater Issues" [updated September 22,2002] in response to
DCA ORC Report; Source: CDM Missner
365-371
372-387
388-411
Z "Rural Lands Stewardship-An Opportunity for Enhancing Florida Panther 412-434
Conservation"; Source: Darrel Land, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
AA "Economic Benefits Provided by the Conservation of Natural and
Agricultural Lands: Southwest Florida Case Study"; Source Timm
Kroeger, Conservation Economics Program-Defenders of Wildlife
435-464
PAGE
BB Rural Land Stewardship 2007 Annual Report from DCA
465-492
CC Letter dated February 12, 2008 from James Mudd to Tom Pelham transmitting
the Phase I Technical Report 493-494
DD Letter dated March 24,2008 from James Mudd to Tom Pelham in response
to DCA's Rural Land Stewardship (RLS) 2007 Annual Report to the 495-497
Legislator
EE Letter dated May 8, 2008 from Tom Pelham of DCA to James Mudd in 498-504
response to James Mudd's March 24, 2008 letter with respect to the 2007
Annual Report to the Legislature
FF Letter dated May 14, 2008 from Tom Pelham to Jim Coletta in response to 505-507
Commissioner Coletta's February 8, 2008 letter of February 8, 2008
GG Staff memo dated August 5, 2008 to Committee regarding Florida Panther 508-510
Protection Program
HH Memo dated 2/27/08 from Judith Huchon, EAC Vice Chair, to Tom
Greenwood with comments on RLSA Phases 1 and 2
511-512
II Nancy Payton/FWF list of issues and concerns about the RLSA
as of November 5, 2007
513
JJ Conservancy ofSW Florida November 14, 2007 memo regarding RLSA
KK Mark Strain RLSA Discussion Items compiled from December, 2005 and 519-521
Updated April 2, 2008.
LL Naples Cultural Landscape..." Feasibility Study for the Restoration of 522-664
Historical Sites in Collier County and Guidelines to Establish a Proposed
Cultural Heritage Trail"[presented to the Committee]
MM Full copies ofRLSA Review Committee meeting minutes of 665-974
December 11, 2008, November 10, October 28, October 14, October 7,
September 30, September 23, September 16, September 2, August 5,
July 15, July 1, June 17, June 3, May 6, April 1, March 4, February 5,
January 22,2008; December 4, 2007; and November 20, 2007]
NN "Eastern Collier County Water Resources Availability"; Revised
March II, 2009; prepared by Johnson Engineering, Fort Meyers, Florida. 975-981
APPENDICES AND SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
Preface
Included in Volume 2 of the Five-Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Program are most major presentations and
documents received and considered by the Conunittee during the course of its meetings and deliberations. In summary,
the following is included in Volume 2:
· Copies of major presentations to the Committee and participants;
· Letters and reports from various organizations and individuals;
· Analysis of the stewardship credit system under both the existing adopted Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay and the proposed revisions;
· Copies of newspaper articles regarding the five-year review of the RLS Program; and
· Minutes of the 23 publicly held meetings of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
The Conunittee held 23 public meetings between November 20, 2007 and January 6, 2009 and encouraged all
comments, reports, documentation and recommendations from all persons and organizations participating in the five-year
reVIew.
[this space intentionally left blank]
168 I P age
APPENDIX A
Florida Panther Protection Program Summary
June 30, 2008
Overview
A collaborative effort between leading conservation organizations and Eastern Collier landowners to
better protect and manage the Florida Panther in Southwest Florida and assist recovery of this
endangered species.
An environmentally and economically balanced program.
Includes both suggested adjustments to the innovative Collier RLSA Program and additional
components.
Through an incentive-based land use program, the Florida Panther Protection Program would secure a
contiguous range of panther habitat connecting the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big
Cypress National Preserve through Camp Keais Strand and the Okalaocoochee Slough with Corkscrew
Marsh and adjacent lands in the region.
The program involves approximately 195,000 acres of private land in Collier County.
The participants acknowledge that they individually or collectively do not have the authority to amend the Collier
County RLSA nor do they have the authority to effect policies, agreements, or regulations concerning how protection
and management of the Florida Panther \vill be implemented. The authority to amenu the Collin County RLSA and
Florida Panther protection and management measures lies solely within the local government and various State and
Federal agenCIes.
The program can be complementary to, but does not take the place of, non-panther planning an<..
permitting programs.
Participants
Conservation Organizations: Audubon of Florida, Collier County Audubon Society, Defenders of
Wildlife, Florida Wildlife Federation.
Landowners: Alico Land Development Corporation, Barron Collier Partnership, Collier Enterprises,
Consolidated Citrus LP, English Brothers, Half Circle L Ranch Partnership, Pacific Tomato Growers
Ltd., Sunniland Family Limited Partnership.
Scientific Technical Review
Area under review: the Rural Land Stewardship Area within Collier County.
Committee: comprised of 6 respected biologists and scientists with expertise in the Florida
panther.
Purpose: to evaluate whether the Panther Protection Program contributes to the overall
protection, management and recovery of the Florida Panther.
Expected completion: less than 6 months, but additional time may be requested if deemed
necessary.
Landowners and conservation organizations to cooperatively and collaboratively facilitate and
support the work of the Scientific Technical Review Committee.
Next Steps
At end of the Scientific Technical Review, if consensus is reached to move forward, rura'
landowners and conservation organizations will enter into a binding agreement
Landowners will undergo a federal consultation process with the United States Department of
the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a Conservation Agreement or its equivalent.
169lPage
RLSA 5 Year Review Committee, EAC, Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners and
FWC will review and consider adoption of portions of the Florida Panther Protection Program into the
RLSA GMP and LDC.
The public will have opportunities to review and comment through all entities and procedures listed
above.
Proposed Program Components:
I. Funding
Creation of the Paul J. Marinelli Florida Panther Prolection Fund.
Rural landowners will contribute to the Fund according to a pre-agreed formula that is generally tied to
the generation and utilization of "Panther Habitat Units" (PH Us) from a Stewardship Sending Area
(SSA) within the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
Fund expected to generate in excess of $150 million in contributions through 2050.
Fund to be administered by an independent nonprofil tax exempt entity, the Wildlife Foundation of
Florida, and governed by a Board of Directors comprised of representatives of Audubon of Florida,
Collier County Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Wildlife Federation, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and a representative of the rural
landowners.
Fund Board to utilize the Fund for protective measures such as panther habitat restoration, buffering
against human-panther interaction, locating and conslruction of panther crossings, and acquisition of
habitat demonstrated to be important to panther protection and management
AddifionalMifigafion
Requirement for additional mitigation and appropriate restoration for development impacts to primary
panther habitat within the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
North and South Panther Corridors
Proposed creation of a North Corridor and the proposed maintenance and enhancement of the South
Corridor for the panther through lhe Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
Rural Landowners to be incentivized through the generation of restoration credits to create, enhance
and restore such corridors.
Agricultural Preservation
Proposed creation of an agriculture preservation credit within the Rural Land Stewardship Area,
consistent with direction of the Rural Land Stewardship review Committee.
Goals: to assure agricultural lands can be protected for future generations and to reduce development
pressures within the Big Cypress Area of Critical Stale Concern (ACSC).
A landowner shall be eligible to receive 2.0 Stewardship Credits for each acre of Open Land that is
designated as a SSA outside the ACSC, and 2.6 Stewardship Credits for each acre of Open Land that
is designated as a SSA within the ACSC, where all non agricultural uses are removed and the
remaining uses are limited to agriculture and uses that support agriculture, including farm worker
housing. There shall be no intensification from Ag2 to Ag1 after SSA designation.
The agricultural preservation component reduces the potential build out footprint within the RLSA
because it creates an incentive to discourage the one unit per five acre development pattern allowed
under the baseline zoning and promotes compact, sustainable communities surrounded by viable
agriculture.
Other Proposed RLSA Components
Hamlets will be eliminated as a form of SRA.
Towns shall not exceed 5,000 acres.
Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not exceed 1,500 acres. Within the Area of
Critical State Concern, the current Collier RLSA Overlay Program standards shall apply to Villages.
170 I P age
Compact Rural Development ("CRD") shall include as a permitted use eco tourism lodging, recreational
hunting and fishing enterprises, and family homesteads for the Rural Landowners.
A concept is being discussed that would create a mechanism to ensure that when a landowner wit~.
the Collier RLSA establishes a SSA, a "conditional easement" is placed on the subject property until
such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from the SSA will be applied and
providing no action is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which
point the easement becomes permanent.
RLSA Buildout
It is the group's preliminary estimate that the changes proposed to the current RLSA credit system as a result
of the new panther corridors and the agriculture preservation components will enable a maximum SRA
development foot print of 45,000 acres within the 195,000 acre RLSA. This estimate will be refined in
conjunction with any other proposed changes to the credit system through the RLSA Committee's work
171 I P age
APPENDIX B
~
CONSERVANCY
Of Southwest Florida
1450 Merrihue Drive-Naples, FL 34102
- -
- .
-
July 1, 2008
239.262-0304.Fax 239.262.5872
Paul Souza
South Florida Ecological Services Office
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE: Proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan
Dear Mr. Souza:
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida would like to offer the following comments on the proposed "panther
protection plan". Our organization supports the concept of an incentive-based plan to provide greater
protection for the Florida panther, maintaining agriculture and allowing sustainable development to occur in
~ appropriate locations. That said, we believe the following issues should be addressed prior to any US Fish and
rNildlife Service (USFWS) policy changes with regard the Florida panther. In particular, we ask that the
Service ensure that any policy changes will provide a net benefit to the protection and recovery of the
endangered Florida panther.
The plan allows a 50% increase in the amount of potential development in Eastern Collier (which
includes within the primary zone, the core critical habitat area for the endangered Florida panther)
without specifying how many acres of the critical habitat area will be impacted - nor how many acres of
wetlands or what other natural resources will be impacted as a result.
It is not possible for the USFWS, the Scientific Review team, or any other entity or stakeholder, to accurately
assess whether this plan will provide a net benefit to the protection of the Florida panther, as well as whether
this plan will adequately protect other exceptional natural resources (ex. wetlands, other listed species
populations and habitats, wellfields I groundwater recharge areas, etc.) and promote sustainable development,
without knowing where the development is occurring and what will be impacted as a result. Indeed, the plan
potentially allows thousands of acres of primary panther habitat for the Florida panther to be developed, and
without provisions assuring appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetlands and other essential natural
resource areas.
Apparently, protection of the Area of Critical State Concern and the existing main panther movement corridors
are not assured in the proposal. While it aims to provide additional incentives to prevent further land use
intensification within the path of critical panther corridors in Eastern Collier, there does not appear to be
assurances that the corridor preservation boundaries will be designed such as to maintain their functionality,
and appropriately avoid and minimize impacts from the additional development that this plan would allow,
within these existing corridor. Nor does there seem to be assurances that the incentives will be used to result
n the actual preservation of these corridors in perpetuity.
172lPage
Current best practices for growth management and natural resource protection require identifying and
quantifying impacts as well as assessing necessary avoidance, minimization, and mitigation necessary ,.
offset those impacts. Without knowing the exact location, extent, and level of developmenl proposed, t,
Service is unable to make a determination as to whether impacts will be appropriately avoided and mitigated.
Additionally, the added impact needs to be carefully assessed and the extent of collective development
quantitatively analyzed against proposed mitigation (including only mitigation that is assured to be protected in
perpetuity) in order to determine whether this proposal will provide an net benefit to the protection of the
Florida panther and its habitat as well as aid in its recovery according to the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act.
Maximum avoidance and minimization should be assured prior to mitigation and the proposed Panther
Protection Fund should not be used in lieu of ensuring proper avoidance through proper siting of
development and transportation projects.
The proposal apparently does not ensure that the additional development and transportation projects that it will
result in, will be sited such as to avoid and minimize impacts to the Florida panther's habitat as well as other
critical natural resources such as wetlands.
While the proposed additional funds would allow for additional panther mitigation, such mitigation is not a
suitable substitute for avoiding and minimizing impact to the Florida panther's essential habitat. Indeed, the
additional funds, and additional mitigation that will be provided as a result of those funds, cannot be assured to
provide a net benefit if they pay for mitigation measures that would have been unnecessary if there was proper
siting such as to not produce such impacts.
The Conservancy conducted a GIS mapping and analysis exercise (see Attachment 2) to determine if there
was enough land currently designated outside the ACSC and the primary panther zone to accommodate thp
currently allowed projected development of 30,000. The results were that there are approximately 34,382 acrt
available that are currently designated Open (meaning that Receiving Areas of development are allowed within
these areas) which are outside both the ACSC and the primary panther zone. Therefore, it is possible to avoid
all impacts to the ACSC and primary panther zone under the current program limits. However, with the
additional 15,000 acres of development that would result from this proposal, for a total of 45,000 acres of
development, it would result into impacting al the very minimum, approximately 10,618 acres of either the
ACSC and/or primary panther habitat. Because there is no defined footprint and no requirements limiting the
level of impact to primary panther habitat in this proposal, lhe final result of impacts could be even higher.
The Conservancy supports maximum avoidance and minimization of impacts through appropriate siting of
development and transportation outside of essential natural resource areas such as primary panther habitat,
which would be within the yellow Open areas on the Attachment 2 map with no other crosshatching or shading.
These are the areas of least natural resource value and therefore, the most suitable for development.
The north, south Summerland Swamp, and Camp Keais corridors must be preserved and protected,
with corridor preservation criteria set based on best available science in order to ensure that the
functionality of these corridors is maintained.
This proposal does not appear to provide adequate assurances that these three corridors will be protected. It
instead only apparently offers the potential to create additional incentives, which mayor may not ultimately be
used to preserve these existing panther corridors. Additionally, the proposal does not seem to specify corridor
criteria (such as widths, etc.), which is necessary to ensure that the corridor preservation areas will protect the
functionality of these current corridors. The designation of the corridor boundaries should be assured as well
as be based on science and what is needed in order to ensure functionality of these existing corridors is
preserved. Scientific analysis and recommendations should be the basis of the plan, rather than for verification
after the fact.
Scientific / Technical Review team (1) should focus on reviewing the proposal to ascertain if it would
achieve greater protection of panther than status quo if they get the necessary information to do such,
173 I P age
(2) should not reexamine points previously agreed upon and for which there is scientific consensus
-- (ex. what is primary panther habitat), and (3) should include representatives from the National Park
Service and the Florida Panther National Wildlife as well as other affected and instrumental
stakeholders in panther protection.
Issues such as whether primary panther habitat is essential and warrants additional mitigation should not be
under the purview and contingent upon the scientific technical review committee, as these are already
established by science. The primary zone has been identified by the scientific and agency communities as
lands essential to maintaining the existing panther population - essentially the minimum critical habitat.
Therefore, it is undoubtedly warranted to incentivize its preservation. However, rather than the proposal
providing the assurance to do so by it requiring additional mitigation for impacting primary habitat, it apparently
leaves it to the review team to consider whether additional mitigation is justified. Though we believe that the
scientific technical team most likely would agree with the best available science currently available, these
protection provisions (ex. development in primary habitat should be avoided, additional mitigation should be
required for development in the primary panther habitat) should not be contingent upon the findings of this
review team, as those issues are not in scientific dispute and having them revisited prevents us from attaining
those provisions as commitments within the context of the agreement and plan.
Additionally, in order to ensure appropriate representation on the Review Committee, representatives from the
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and the National Parks Service, as well as other critical stakeholders
in panther protection and recovery, should be included and allowed to provide substantive input into the
formulation of this plan, not just review it after the fact.
Implementation of this proposal should be through a Habitat Conservation Plan or other appropriate
mechanism or instrument as approved by the USFWS, not through a Conservation Agreement.
The assurances for no further mitigation requirements. that are enumerated in this agreement are consistent
with the No Surprises Clause in Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) under Section 10 of the ESA. What is
apparently being proposed as the vehicle to implement this plan is not an HCP but rather a Conservation
Agreement, an instrument reserved for non-listed species. A review of this issue and associated case law by
two separate legal counsel has resulted in a determination that the there is no legal basis or precedent for a
"Conservation Agreement" that applies to an already-listed species. The USFWS has three different types of
agreements: Candidate Conservation Agreements (for candidate species not yet listed); Habitat Conservation
Plans (HCP); and Safe Harbor Agreements.
The proper mechanism for such an agreement and plan as this should be an HCP, which is a process which
guarantees more public involvement and assurances. To support pursuing a Conservation Agreement would
be inconsistent with existing federal regulatory requirements and would set a negative precedent that would
weaken the federal regulatory process in ensuring protection of endangered species. Therefore, we would
request that if this proposal proceeds to implementation, it be through an HCP for the Florida panther that
would result in the maximum avoidance, minimization and appropriate level of mitigation to achieve sufficient
protection of habitat in Eastern Collier to assist in the recovery of the Florida panther species.
Acceptance of generating PHUs off SSA lands should be contingent on assurance that there will be an
added net benefit provided through restoration and/or on-going management commitment and the
process of awarding PHUs in such instances should be well defined.
The Conservancy commends and supports the USFWS's policies to prevent awarding panther mitigation credit
on lands already going under easement for other purposes unless there is an added net benefit through
restoration and/or on-going management commitments over what would occur otherwise (such as SSA lands
- 'hat go under easement after their development rights have been stripped off and which will actively be used
for continued agriculture without any additional restoration or management to increase value as panther
habitat).
1741 P age
This proposal would apparently undermine the intent of the USFWS's current policy relating to the awarding of
PHU's. It appears to support changing the USFWS policy to allow PH Us to come off SSA lands regardless
whether there is an assurance of a net benefit resulting from it. The Conservancy would instead propose tha.
any PH Us are to be awarded to lands going under easement anyhow, they should be contingent on providing a
net benefit above and beyond what would be otherwise provided and awarded only if the PHU credits and SSA
credits are removed entirely simultaneously, the PHU credits are then banked, and released only upon
success criteria for restoration or on-going management commitment being met. To do otherwise would
undermine the USFWS's protective policy to ensure the appropriate degree of habitat preservation and would
weaken the regulatory framework for panther habitat mitigation.
Proposed Panther Buffer at the Town of Big Cypress needs to be scrutinized and reassessed,
This proposal appears to support the diminishment of the value and funclion of the lands within the proposed
Town of Big Cypress area through its apparent support for the building of a water "buffer". The "buffer", which
entails the digging of a moat or ditch as a water feature to provide a barrier between future residents and the
panther, will diminish the value and function of these lands that are currently being actively used as the home
ranges of several panther individuals and which are almost entirely designated primary panther habitat (see
Attachment 1). We do not support this proposed action of building a moat "buffer" adjacent to the Camp Keais
Slough. If this activity is allowed to occur prior to development, it must be assessed and accounted for, such
that the full appropriate amount of impact is required. This proposed water moat will also likely cause
detrimental effects to the adjacent natural wetland slough area and to groundwater levels; therefore, is not
appropriate to pursue until extensive surface and groundwater modeling and analysis has been conducted as
well. Finally, additional impacts from the Town of Big Cypress development such as deliberately sizing of
crossings such as to exclude large mammals (including the panther) and actively reducing panther prey within
their internal preserves should also be scrutinized and evaluated concurrent with the proposed plan.
No Stewardship Receiving Areas should be allowed within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSe..
which is in the immediate vicinity of the Okaloacoochee Slough panther corridor and habitat area.
Also, villages should not be enlarged in the RLSA program over their current 1,000 acre threshold.
The proposal would apparently allow stewardship receiving areas within the ACSC, therefore, not entirely
preserving it in its current land uses. This area has been identified for its importance for the host of exceptional
natural resource values it offers, not the least of which its function as primary critical habit and essential
movement corridors for the endangered Florida panther. The Conservancy believes based on the exceptional
natural resource value of the ACSC, that stewardship receiving areas are not appropriate within it.
Additionally, the size of villages in the RLSA program area should not be increased to 1,500 acres (a 50%
increase over the current allowable limit of 1,000 acres), but instead remain at or below the current 1,000 acre
threshold. Developments over 1,000 acre should continue to be handled as towns, which have additional
requirements for infrastructure and amenities. Villages do not provide the same extent of infrastructure and
services that are required of a town - in other words, they are not as self-sufficient as a town so will result in
additional transportation impacts, which in turn would have an adverse impact on panthers who are routinely
being killed on Collier roads by cars. Therefore, the Conservancy believes that developments over 1,000
acres should continue to be classified as towns, with all of the associated infrastructure, goods and services
and other amenity requirements, until such time as a thorough assessment of all forms of SRAs and proposed
changes to the SRA acreages are substantiated by data.
Additional agricultural preservation credit outside of the ACSC should be awarded only to high natural
resource areas such as designated panther habitat (primary, secondary and dispersal) based on
natural resource value in order to further incentive the protection of panther primary habitat areas that
are currently vulnerable to development, not with no tie to natural resource values as this pia.
proposes.
175 I P age
Not only would the additional stewardship credits that would be generated as a result of this increase the
.~ overall allowable development footprint by approximately 15,000 additional acres over what is currently
allowed, but it would not incentivize focusing development such that it would be outside of the high natural
resource lands and habitat that are currently designated Open. Any additional incentives must ensure that the
additional development that would result would be outside of Open areas which are sensitive andlor include
designated panther habitat.
The proposal would allow for 2.6 credits to be given in the ACSC for lands placed into SSAs under the
proposed Agricultural Preservation designation. However, outside the ACSC on all Open Lands, 2.0 credits
are proposed to be given for lands placed into SSA designation regardless of their natural resource value. This
is internally inconsistent within the proposal because the additional 0.6 credit being given to the ago preserve in
the ACSC is due to its natural resource value. It is also inconsistent with the current RLSA program which
gives credits for maintaining ago in areas based on their natural resource values. The Conservancy would
support additional development rights for maintaining agriculture only if those credits were contingent on them
being tied to natural resource value such as primary panther habital designation, so that there would be
incentives to protect areas currently designated Open which should not be developed due to their underlying
natural resource value. This would not translate necessarily to 15,000 acres of development. It depends on
how much new stewardship credits are going to be awarded per acre, and the density which they are used in
the receiving area. The 2.0 and 2.6 proposed in this plan are arbitrary and exceed current RLSA scale.
Because they are not tied at all to natural resource value, they provide no incentive - in fact, they lessen the
incentive for the current program credits which are tied to natural resource value because they now allow the
landowner to get credits without having to put those original RLSA stewardship areas under easement.
Additional preservalion credits should be tied 10 the underlying natural resource value of such agricultural
lands, in order to further incentivize protection of primary panther habitat and other lands with higher natural
.- resource value and it would not be advantageous to panther habitat protection to change the RLSA program
;uch as to decouple the stewardship credits from natural resource value of the land. Therefore, the credit
generation from ago preserve areas proposed both inside and outside the ACSC should be revised using a
graduated scale based on their commensurate natural resource value.
This plan apparently includes an expectation that new roads and transportation infrastructure will be
built, including within extremely environmentally sensitive areas, to serve these additional new
developments. As secondary impacts of the development proposed in this plan, the transportation
impacts need to be quantitatively assessed and accounted for as well.
This plan apparently includes an expectation that new roads and transportation projects such as the proposed
Interstate 75 interchange and a SR29 bypass which are proposed to be in extremely environmentally sensitive
areas, will be needed to serve the additional development in the area. New roads should be aligned to avoid
impacting environmentally sensitive areas, including areas determined to be important panther corridors or
habitat areas. In order to assess the appropriate amount of avoidance and mitigation that should be required,
and to determine whether this proposal will provide a net benefit in lhe protection of panthers and other listed
species, these impacts from these additional roads and road improvement need to be assessed and accounted
for concurrently with this proposed plan as well as any subsequent regulatory instrument such as an HCP that
is developed from it.
Conclusion
In order for the USFWS to fulfill its responsibility to ensure this plan complies with federal laws and guidelines
relating to the protection and recovery of the Florida panther as well as the other listed species that may be
impacted as a result, we would request the USFWS:
1. Require a development footprint identifying where the 40,000 acres of additional development will
occur, the associated roads and road improvements that would be necessitated as a result, as well as
the exact configuration of any preserved corridor or habitat areas to be submitted for evaluation. This
information is absolutely necessary to quantitatively assess the degree of impact from the added
176 I P age
development and roads and determine the appropriate level of avoidance, minimization and mitigation
needed to offset that. It is also necessary to determine the value of the mitigation that would result
which should only be included in the analysis if there is an absolule assurance that it ultimately willi
provided.
2. Use the "Joe Clark tool" in conducting an assessment of this proposal, and provide an analysis based
on it, as well as other current best available scientific information to determine whether the plan would
result in the maximum avoidance and minimization of impact as well as aid and assist in the recovery of
the Florida panther as a species. Additionally, assess whether the proposal would result in the
maximum avoidance and minimization of impact to other federally listed species and their habitat within
the area encompassed by this proposal.
3. Conduct a substantive assessmenl of the proposed water "buffer" and other associated impacts with
the Town of Big Cypress development to determine the total cumulative direct and secondary impact to
the Florida panther from the diminishment of the functionality and use of the affected habitat area and
determine whether there should be avoidance of such impacts through alternative actions. Additionally,
conduct a comprehensive assessment of the impacts to other federally listed species.
We appreciate lhe USFWS's consideration of our comments and requests, and would like to offer that we
would be available to personally meet to discuss this further. Piease feel free to contact me at (239) 262-0304
x250 if you would like to schedule such a meeting or have any questions regarding this. Thank you for your
time and attention to this matler.
Sincerely,
2f~U'-ieAfl~/1~.~
Jennifer Hecker
Natural Resource Policy Manager
c.c. Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary, US Department of Interior
Layne Hamilton, Refuge Manager, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
177 I P age
APPENDIX C
~
CONSERVANCY
Of Southwest Florida
~ -
1450 Menihue DriveeNaples, FL 34102
-
239.262-0304.Fax 239.262.5872
www.conservancy.org
July 1, 2008
Mr. Ron Hamel
Chair, Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
C/O Tom Greenwood
Comprehensive Planning
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Suite 400
Naples, FL 34104
Dear Chairman Hamel and RLSA Review Committee Members:
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida appreciates the ongoing efforts of the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA) review committee to comprehensively assess the current RLSA program. We also
appreciate your effort to work with all interested stakeholders to propose modifications and improve the
program in the future.
At your July 1 meeting, you will be presented with a proposal to increase protection for the Florida panther.
Part of the implementation of this proposal will include significant modifications to the RLSA. This proposal
would be implemented by both inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan and through a formalized agreement with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Conservancy looks forward to working with the RLSA committee and
all interested stakeholders to evaluate how these new recommendations, along with recommendations already
submitted by other parties, would further the intent of the RLSA.
Changes to the RLSA program must ensure the balance between protection of natural resources, retention of
agriculture and the ability to develop in appropriate areas. The Conservancy has previously submitted our 20-
point memo in November, to be included in your review of the program.
The Crist Administration, through the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has expressed concern
regarding any increased development over what is currently allowed. They also raised questions about the
location of additional development and the impact on infrastructure. As DCA must find any amendment to the
RLSA portion of the Comprehensive Plan in compliance, we believe it is essential for Collier County to be
cognizant of these concerns. In their June 16, 2008 letter, Charles Gauthier states,
You indicated that an independent biological review of the concepts will be conducted to better
understand the impact on wildlife including the Florida Panther. The biological review should
take into account the type, location and extent of development that is available through the
Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Program and the impact of public facilities necessary to
serve the development. The transportation network is of particular concern.
The Conservancy shares DCA's perspective.
1781 P age
As the RLSA review committee assesses the merits of this new proposal, the Conservancy believes that tt'-
following should be part of your review process:
1. The recommendations from this proposal pertaining to policy changes in the Comprehensive Plan
should be considered along with those policy changes already submitted and all need to be reviewed
on individual merit.
2. Any proposal for an increase in the potential Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) development footprint
should be thoroughly assessed as to compatibility with transportation and infrastructure needs and that
assurances for natural resources protection are written into the Comprehensive Plan, along with the
mechanisms to provide implementation of these policies.
3. Any proposed change that is subject to the review of the proposal's scientific review committee not be
finalized until its analysis and review has been presented for a full assessment as to the consistency
between the science and policy recommendations.
4. Developments over 1,000 acres should continue to be classified as towns, with all associated
infrastructure, goods and services and other amenity requirements, until such time as a thorough
assessment of all forms of SRAs can be completed.
5. Any recommended changes to the RLSA crediting system must tie additional credits on agricultural
lands to the underlying natural resource values of the property.
6. As part of the RLSA five-year review, the review commillee should recommend additional specificity as
to where future SRAs will be located and provide some of the assurance needed to determine how
much additional development would be appropriate for the RLSA.
7. Any proposed roadways must be based upon the principle that good land use planning must guide
transportation planning, to avoid an undue burden on the taxpayers.
Attached is a detailed technical document supporting our issues and concerns.
We appreciate your consideration of our comments and we look forward to working with the RLSA review
commillee and all interested stakeholders in creating mechanisms that will provide positive benefits to the
Collier RLSA. If you have any questions, or would like to meet with the Conservancy to learn more about our
position on the RLSA, please do not hesitate to contact me at (239) 402-4220.
Sincerely,
t/) It':/,)LiL V~(~_::>
Nicole Ryan
Governmental Relations Manager
CC: Secretary Thomas Pelham, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Charles Gauthier, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Attachment [found directly below]
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Technical Document for Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Commillee
July 1, 2008
An open, public process is extremely important. How will this new proposal be publicly vetted and
become part of the overall review of the RLSA?
It is unclear at this time how this new proposal will be incorporated into the RLSA review. The
recommendations from this proposal requiring specific policy changes to the Comprehensive Plan should be
179lPage
considered alongside the policy changes already submitted and all must be reviewed on each policy's
individual merit.
Achieving an equitable balance between environmental protection, agricultural uses and development
is a hallmark of the RlSA and any proposal must provide specific assurances that it does so, While
this plan proposes to give landowners an entitlement for a 50% increase in the potential development
footprint in the RlSA, the specific mechanisms for protection of resources need to be defined, along
with a thorough assessment of how much additional development could be appropriate,
Balancing the needs of conservation, agriculture and sustainable development has been, and should be, the
intent of any proposal or recommendation to modify the RLSA. The crux of this proposal will allow for an
increased amount of development in return for potential further incentives to protect the Fiorida panther. Under
this proposal an additional 15,000 acres wouid be added to the maximum development footprint within the
RLSA. Collier County staff has determined that under the existing RLSA program, there is the potential for
approximately 30,000 acres of development in the form of SRAs, based on the existing system of 8 credits
required for one acre of SRA development. This new proposal would increase the maximum footprint by 50%,
according to the proposal's authors, by allowing for a new maximum footprint of 45,000 acres of SRAs.
While the mechanism for allowing this increase in development would be incorporated into Ihe Comprehensive
Plan, there needs to also be specific assurances of additional protection for panther habitat in exchange for an
increased envelope of development. Without specific mechanisms for assuring the further protection of the
panther and its habitat, as well as other critical naturai resources such as wetlands, and water quantity, an
equitable balance that protects natural resources has not been achieved. In addition, the increase in an
already substantial development footprint by any amount will have impacts on transportation, water resources
and other infrastructure and must be thoroughly assessed.
The panther habitat assessment methodology that the current indexing system is predicated upon has been
substantially revised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since adoption of the RLSA. The update is based
upon more recent scientific literature on the value of certain land cover types as Florida panther habitat. One
of the issues that the Conservancy believes should be addressed during this review is updating and revising
the RLSA indexing system to incorporate updated best available Florida panther science. Since this would
expand the RLSA lands now deemed necessary for the survival of the Florida panther, additional areas would
be recognized for their natural resource value and would generate higher base credits. Such increase in base
credits would allow for additional acres to be converted from Open Lands to SRAs. However, as this increase
in potential development would be directly tied to the protection of Florida panther habitat, such increases
could be acceptable.
The Conservancy requests that any increase in the potential SRA development footprint be thoroughly
assessed for compatibility with transportation and infrastructure needs. In addition, solid assurances for
natural resources protection should be written into the RLSA and Comprehensive Plan, along with the
mechanisms to provide a framework for implementation of these policies.
The proposal supports the creation of an Agricultural Preservation category, where currently
designated Open lands within the ACSC would be given 2,6 base credits and Open lands outside the
ACSC would be given 2.0 base credits,
In order to create sufficient credits to allow for 15,000 acres of additional development, the baseline
stewardship credits attached to Open Lands would need to be increased. The basis for the current RLSA
program is to strip land uses off of those lands with high natural resource value, leaving only agricultural uses
on these lands. To date, this has been extremely successful, with 24,126 acres already in approved
.- Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) easements, and another 31,830 acres in pending SSAs. It is also important
,0 note that while these lands are within SSAs, they are also still being utilized for continued agricultural
activities. Out of the approved SSAs, 5,260 acres are being utilized for Ag 1 uses, and 19,034 remain in Ag 2
use. The remaining SSA acreage has 651 acres in conservation and 50 acres in earth mining. Thus, the
180 I P age
RLSA and the SSA system have supported the RLSA intent to preserve and protect agriculture from premature
conversion to other uses.
While this plan does recognize the importance of the ACSC by elevating the base credits within these lands to
2.6, the areas outside the ACSC are treated the same at 2.0 credits, with no distinction between those lands
with higher natural resource value and those without. The Conservancy asks that any recommended changes
to the RLSA crediting system tie additional credits on agricultural lands to the underlying natural resource
values of the property.
Any RLSA modifications relating to the protection of the Florida panther and other natural resources
should not be recommended as pOlicy changes until the proposed scientific review is complete.
While the proposal provides for a Scientific Technicai Review Committee to review and provide
recommendations on a variety of issues, it does so after the fact and without additional key stakeholders and
technical experts, such as the National Parks Service and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. The
Conservancy believes that scientific recommendations should come first and from a team that includes key
stakeholders.
The Conservancy is also concerned about the timing of the Scientific Technical Review Committee's
completion of their review of the proposal. This Committee is tasked with determining if the policies within this
proposal are feasible for the protection of the Florida panther. The committee will be required to support
specific policy recommendations prior to the completion of the scientific review. This scientific review will occur
over the next three months, with the potential to extend the timeframe if the parties agree. However, the RLSA
review committee must proceed with specific policy changes to the RLSA during this same timeframe. A
complete package of recommended changes in the form of Comprehensive Plan amendments will begin thp
review by other committees starting with the Environmental Advisory Council in November (unless the RLS.
review committee deems that more time is necessary and all or a portion of the six month extension is utilized).
It is unclear how the RLSA committee will be able to evaluate the merits of the proposed changes in advance
of the outcome of the scientific committee's assessment. The Conservancy requests that any proposed
change that is subject to the review of this scientific committee not be finalized until lhe scientific committee
has completed their review and it has been presented to all stakeholders and government agencies for a full
assessment. Such a position would be consistent with the current RLSA Policy 1.2, which is to create,
"techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local,
regional, state and federal regulatory programs." Any changes to the RLSA must be compatible with state and
federal regulations.
The Conservancy believes that no changes in the maximum or minimum acreages of SRAs should be
allowed prior to an assessment of all components of SRAs,
As the premise of the RLSA is to create self-sustaining communities, it is important to ensure that sufficient
infrastructure and services are required for SRAs. Towns (1,000 to 4,000 acres) are meant to have a full range
of housing types, urban level services and infrastructure, including a balance of land uses that reduce
automobile trips - the essence of sustainability. Villages (100 to 1,000 acres) are primarily residential
communities, with a mixed-use village center and services for the various internal neighborhoods. However,
villages do not provide the same extent of infrastructure and services that are required of a town - in other
words, they are not as self-sufficient as a town.
We believe that developments over 1,000 acres should conlinue to be classified as towns, with all of the
associated infrastructure, goods and services and other amenity requirements, until such time as a thorougl
assessment of all forms of SRAs can be completed.
181 I P age
Any proposed change to the SRA acreages should be substantiated by data. We ask that you require such
data prior to recommending any changes, and include as part of the assessment:
· Removal of hamlets as a form of SRA,
· The exploration of increasing the allowable size of towns to 5,000 acres, providing that modifications be
justified based on sound planning, transportation considerations, infrastruclure and sustainability.
Greater specificity is needed regarding the location of future SRAs, including those proposed as part
of the 50% increase in the development footprint.
The proposed numbers assigned to the base credits within the proposed new Agricultural Preservation
category will be sufficient to entitle 15,000 acres of additional development. What is unclear is whether this
amount of additional development is consistent with the desired build-out of the RLSA. Consideration of
transportation, essential services, and other infrastructure must be factored into any assessment of increased
entitlement for development
The Conservancy recommends that additional specificity be provided as to where future SRAs will be located.
Such specificity would provide some of the assurance needed to determine how much additional development
would be appropriate for the RLSA, keeping in mind the need to balance uses and ensure future sustainability.
By increasing the development footprint of the RLSA, the proposal apparently includes an expectation
that new roads and transportation infrastructure will be built in environmentally sensitive lands to
serve the anticipated additional new development. As secondary impacts of the development proposed
in this plan, they need to be assessed and accounted for,
-. New roads should be aligned to avoid impacting environmentally sensitive areas, including areas determined
.0 be important panther corridors or habitat areas. In order to assess the appropriate amount of avoidance and
mitigation that will be required, and to determine whether this proposal will provide a net benefit in the
protection of panthers and other listed species, these impacts from additional roads and road improvements
need to be assessed and accounted for concurrently with this proposed plan.
The Conservancy believes that any proposed transportation plan should be based upon the principle that good
land use planning must guide transportation planning. Road networks that are created simply to accommodate
new development should not be part of the RLSA. Instead, development must be sited in the most compatible
locations, taking into account existing roads, distance to goods, services, employment and other destinations.
Such planning will not only be beneficial to protection of natural resources, but cost County taxpayers less
money in the future.
182 I P age
APPENDIX D
[1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA]
June 29, 2008
Mr. Ron Hamel, Chairman
Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee
c/o Collier Counly Government
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
RE: July 1 Meeting
Dear Chairman Hamel:
We understand lhat the Committee will hear on Tuesday about a nonprofiUprivate document that seeks Collier
County's approval to expand the development rights and protected corridor areas associated with the existing
RLSA. While such consideration is particularly appropriate given your charge in carrying out the required five
year review of this program, we believe several issues need to be considered in evaluating such a document.
As this program has served as the prototype for RLSAs in Florida, 1000 Friends of Florida is especially
interested in following and understanding how it can serve as a successful model for other communities.
Please share this correspondence with your Committee members.
As the details of this proposal become public, we will gladly follow up our general comments with more
specifics. Based on our discussion with representatives of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Defenders of
Wildlife, there appears to be significant potential for improving and preserving panther habitat corridors in thi'
area in exchange for additional development rights. However, we would suggest that the following questior
and issues be addressed before any consideration of the transmittal or adoption of the necessary plan
amendment(s):
1. How will additional corridor easements (by acreage and location) be linked to developmenl approvals?
While we understand that such corridors may not be set aside before development begins, it is clearly
necessary that critical pathways be identified and directly tied to the amount of development. What we
should be avoided at all costs is a "floating" corridor area that is vaguely identified or determined
without limit.
2. Who will determine the level of funding necessary to effectively monitor the resulting easements so that
necessary conditions are enforced? Who will hold and administer such funds? Given what we
understand will be many thousands of acres placed under easement, funds should be sufficient to
retain at least one full-time, dedicated staff person.
3. Development approvals, on an individual unit basis, should be assessed an appropriate fee to both
ensure the monitoring of conservation easements and/or the purchase of the most sensitive areas
where neither agriculture nor development are appropriate.
4. Has an evaluation and agreement been reached on appropriate and allowable agricultural uses that are
consistent with panther movements? We understand a scientific panel for this purpose is being
discussed, but it would seem to us that such a committee is critical in the determinalion of not only
appropriate corridors but uses within those corridors BEFORE any judgment can be made as to the
suitability of development, conservation or agricultural areas.
Ron Hamel
June 29, 2008
Page 2
183 I P age
5. What capital facilities will be needed to service the additional development anticipated? Are financial
feasibility assessments available to ensure no additional costs to existing taxpayers?
6. Have roadway design standards been set (especially if state roads are being impacted) so that
appropriate panther crossings are incorporated? What role will FDOT play in such deliberations?
7. What considerations have been made for affordable housing? For the new development to be truly
sustainable, it will need to have a range of housing types in order to service relail and commercial
employees in particular.
8. We have also read the June 16, 2008, letter from DCA to Mr. Thomas Reese. The observations
made in that correspondence raised several important planning issues with which we also concur.
Our recommendalion at this point is that the above issues be fully explored as part of your consideration, and
especially before any comprehensive plan amendment is submitted. Clearly, answers to these issues will and
should directly affect how your award winning RLSA program proceeds. As stale previously, we will be happy
to provide additional comments once the details of the proposed nonprofit/private document are available. I
will mail an original of this correspondence but will have an email copy sent to your staff for distribution.
Thanking you for considering our comments, I am
Sincerely,
( \),
C ,\~ \1,4 (WI
Charles G. Pattison, FAICP
President and Executive Director
Cc: Randy Cohen, Collier County
Thomas Greenwood, Collier County
Charles Gauthier, DCA
1841Page
APPENDIX E
'....
,
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Flonda a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST
Go~emor
THOMAS G. PELHAM
SecretaI)'
June 16,2008
Mr. Thomas Reese
2951 6lst Avenue S
St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
Re: Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Area
Dear Mr. Reese:
First let me thank you and the other participants for meeting with Secretary Pelham and
Department staff on June 10th to discuss the Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Program.
We understand that there have been ongoing discussions between property owners and
envirorunental interests on potcntial revisions to the program. It is commendable that the parties
have worked together on this issue.
During our meeting you introduced several concepts including identification of additional
wildlife linkages, an increase in development rights available for transfer through the
stewardship credit methodology, modification of controls regarding the form of development,
and establishment of a revenue source to support habitat management. It is our understanding
that incorporation of some or all of these concepts would require a comprehensive plan
amendment.
While the Department is not able to provide formal comment outside of the
comprehensive plan amendment process we would like to share several initial observations.
I. We encourage you to work closely with Collier County and its Rural Lands Stewardship
Review Committee which is conducting a comprehensive review of the program pursuant
to Policy 1.22 of the County's Gro"th Management Plan.
2. An increase in development rights available for transfer raises questions about the
adequacy of current development potential, justification for additional land use
allocation, consequences on the footprint of dcvelopment and urban sprawl, and public
facility impacts. We recommend that you work within the extent of development rights
currently available for transfer.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100
850-488.8466 (p) . 850-921-0781 (f) . Websile. ,i-'
. CQMMUNITYPLANNING %0-4B8-2356Ip) %04fj8-~1D9ff).
. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ;j50-,18~ 7~56 Ip) 1}.'$O-g22.5623 (f) t
1851 P age
Mr. Thomas Reese
June 16, 2008
Page 2
3. You indicated that an independent biological review of the concepts will be conducted to
better understand the impact on wildlife including the Florida Panther. The biological
review should take into account the type, location and extent of development that is
available through the Collier County Rural Land Stewardship Program and the impact of
public facilities necessary to serve the development. The transportation network is of
particular concem.
Thank you again for our meeting.
Sincerely,
cc:
Mr. James Mudd
Collier County Manager
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 341 12
~lr. Randal Cohen
Comprehensive Planning Director
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 341 12
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Ms. Elizabeth Fleming
Florida Defenders of Wildlife
233 Third Street North
Suite 20 I
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Mr. Eric Draper
Florida Audubon Society
2507 Calloway Road, Suite 102
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Mr. Thomas Flood
Collier Enterprises
3003 Tamiami Trail, North
Suite 400
Naples, Florida 34103
Ms. Laurie McDonald
Florida Defenders of Wildlife
233 Third Street North
Suite 20 I
Mr. Tom Jones
Barron Collier Companies
2600 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, Florida 34105
1861 P age
APPENDIX F
CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SEEKS SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES PROTECTION IN RURAL LANDS
· The Conservancy of Southwest Florida supports effort to promote smart growth, improve protection of
natural resources, including the protection and recovery of the endangered Florida panther.
· In November, the Conservancy proposed 20 points of improvement for the RLSA, which should be
included in the five-year review process. Most of these points do not appear to be addressed in the
proposed panther protection program.
. We note that over the last several days the Crist Administration's Department of Community Affairs and
1,000 Friends of Florida have made important recommendations regarding the RLSA and the proposed
plan. We urge the review committee to fully address their points before recommending changes to the
Comprehensive Plan.
· Of particular concern for both DCA and the Conservancy, the plan apparently increases development in
eastern Collier County by 15,000 acres, from the current Stewardship Receiving Area total of 30,000 to
45,000 acres. This is the equivalent of allowing three additional developments, each potentially with a
population of 15,000 to 20,000 people.
The 15,000 additional acres are above what is currently allowed by the existing RLSA program and can be
located in most Open areas - regardless of impacts on natural resources such as groundwater recharge,
water quality protection, stormwater management and wetland preservation.
. Based on what is known about the proposed plan, it also contains additional mitigation for development in
panther habitat, but does not identify the lands to be developed to ensure appropriate avoidance and
minimization steps have been taken to reduce impacts 10 critical natural resources. Additionally, without
knowing the location of the development, it is not possible to quantify the degree of impact, or the
mitigation that would be necessary to offset those impacts.
· Villages will continue to be allowed within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) and those villages
outside the ACSC could increase in size by 50%. The Conservancy supports eliminating Stewardship
Receiving Areas in the ACSC, and believes that the Village threshold outside the ACSC should remain as
current level to ensure new development in Eastern Collier County is self-sufficient and sustainable.
· New roads and transportation infrastructure will be required to serve the needs of the additional
development, and should be required to be sited such as to appropriately avoid and minimize impacts to
environmentally sensitive areas. This additional infrastructure needs to be fully addressed so that this does
not create an undue burden on the taxpayers.
· In summary, the proposal should provide where development will take place and which natural resource
areas will be protected - as well as result in a plan which will ensure that sustainable growth, natural
resources conservation and panther protection will be achieved. We look forward to participating in the
public processes, including the RLSA review, as this proposal is evaluated to ensure that our unique
natural environment and quality of life is preserved.
1871 P age
[this page left intentionally blank]
1881 P age
APPENDIX G
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA "MATURITY"
IEXISTlNG RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERL.\ YJ
~:ThomasGr""flWooo_AICP,"nnctpaIPlannar
comll'COlJnl~Comprehe""vt' Plann,ngDepar1m""l
September5.ZooS
,. S$A51-9&11 approved..sian&dcredlteuofti/1012008
EXI!lTlNG STEWARDSHIP JlFNnlNn ".11'&5 IBU.I A_ AF....FIVlNG AREAS ISRA.,
(EXISTING RU,., OVERLAV AS OF 6/11l12OG1J
'-'lWllIli
n.w [a.signedcreditsl
2. RLSA-5RA stewardshlpc.edll. con...mlOd as of 6/1012008 (Town of Ave Maria .SRA .,\
3. 5t...,..hipu..........dc...dlC.PendlnalR.2R..loration,SSAsl_9& l1J
4. SleW.dahlp Asslaned c......lI Se"""e {SSb ,.9 & 11]
5. Pol.Mial Ste.ard.h... Crull. I.om FSA HSA and WRA c1~if_ n,_iu
[asumea 10ll%property ownerpartlclpallonj
FSAbalanceasoflI2Sl/08.....21.0348Cfe.
HSAbalenCII II' of 7/2fl1OIL.__25,443 acres
WRAb"IanCflIl"ofll29/0a___.~
Totlll.........63.78Sacr.sx3.35C18dit.lacre.
'2.f$credlhlKno_.fJr~fDrSSA'f'9;
4.QgclNill'&IK,../e ~tfifrorc~"1fy pendIng SSA.;
3.3.1t:red/UIK"'lproJectfilfurfutw.SSA.;
]U~___I.___I,.u_lnrtJisc.ak.llafinn
'-"""'I>.
213.&70
.ct'" Pot.....lall1lO1__.,., CrN". Imm 1!l31G .Cre. ", "Ooen' clioul'led
~ftotlnll"".or"'"
A,sume. ~ of.",.,. /Mod _II be pMud {n SSAs....1S.316 ae....)C
,0'; XII.2 c_stl""[O.2 CrWffslK" I. bII_lIpon.~~NR{ v.IIM O'OfHl" LI"d'/
7. TOI..IProi.ct.dPol.ntlat!l1.w...d.hiDCredll.........Norinle;....d.
!IOI. 0(11.... 5."" 6/
217.1182
8. TOI.I E.islino SI_atdBhin Crildll balaRce..ndool.""..1 lulu.. C...dN.
Itot..,ofll....".rrr17}
261.912
9. An."n"adSRA Town of A". lotarl.SRA 1..1 buildoutl
!baRd "poll dOc"....m. ..~;.wedl
CREDITS
""""""'-
21.658
10_Pnt.n.1aI N_ !';1.w...dBhio R.eel~ina Arus
usumptlons:
e. 10% of SRA 9l'0" acruU' will b. USId 10' 'publlc bellelot usu' W<lh
Itll.aer.ag. is nol""'lui'ld 10 con""......c.editspe.I"-LDC;
b. SRA. wMl raqulr. a .__d.hlp crMIltI 10 _"1"- da~.Iop....nl 01 on. acr. of I"M;
c. _.. dwalllng umll-lz. of 2.5 paraonaldwllllng unll wMII 15~ occupancy (...... a. SRA 111
d. a"",so. danslty of 2.5 dwlYlng unltalK" [2.19 for A.... ......od 2.42 lor Big Cyp....]
a. S_....shipCraclitequi"aIlIntblS.dupon261.t12credil.llY.ilabfe[exislingbal.nce+ potenllaIJ
{281.912crMIIfaX1.1 [1ac:IOI'IOlCcountfor.publlcbal'lllll"....
which do not conSu.... crMIbj
2U,'03
b. Sl_ard.hipReceiv;ngAre..12U,103credll....8c.-.dltsp..sc..,o.SRA."lItle",.,"I]
~nlb", of o.relli"" Unit. [2.5 aw.IUng unit. p.r uro.. acr. In SRA b..1O
uponlhatunclfO<lhe Town of A". Mali..nd ptopoH<l Town of Big Cyp....j
d. f'rote<:tecl Populaliofo of new SRA. at buikloul[aa.uma. 2.5 ~rso".
p...houMhokl wltllan 85'Yo......ag.occup.ncy]
11. T"tsl P"'.ntlallt>f' Tawn of "". lot_ SRI. _ h,t...a MAS "_Ih. nlsll.... IUSI. O"e<\." IRLSI. OVERI lAY MATURITYl
316.761
IN SUMMARY
UoderlhtoulllllllRLSAO~. and b......d upon 5years'sxplHlence,tltelollowing I. proje.:ledwhen
tIleRuraf land" S1eward.hitl ArfIa halematurecl:
A. ~41,lNOacr"''''~'''tl1e'''i9Inal182.]34ac.e.oforlwat.''''o....ad landsintheRLSAwould
be In Sf:ew....MIp R""illving ......... .nd daveloped .. comp.cl urt>an dev.lopment..
B,~~.556aere5or~(316.761c.edli.13.35cr.lsc.JOflh"orgjn.11B2,]]....c..."ofa.lwal.lvo.....ed
~- bapermanendyprote"ted lrornd....e1opmentIn SSAs(f'SA.HSA.WRA. sndOpen I.nds}
C, Privatelv Owned Lands Outside SSAs and SRAs 46.738 acres or ~of 11M DI'lglnai 1112,334 ac.e. 01
of "rivet,,1lI IaNl.. in ItIa RLSA would nol be MthIn .Ither SS.... or SAAs. If Ihi. ac'.IIlI" _,. d.".lopft
u"darl"'tlndarlyl""Agrlt:IIItu'el%onlngol1~lngun/ll5ac:(..,Ih&followingcouldba..p""lld
"loeredil'
D. Public Lands. Thelulue amount of land. Infutu.e DUbIll: OwnerflhlD.lSlabllslle<l al 1],512 OICre5 at
tile onset ofltla RLSA. Is unknown. Howe....r, publk: o--.hip incra.sed by 3113 acres 10 13,895 ac...s
between2002"nd2007andOfl&ormorepublicl.odacquisilionsarept.nned[..g.l.ak"TraffordR..ncll].
111$ ;luurn&d Ine. public land sc..ag. ",m 1M....... o.lglllfkenlly p.io, to RLSA Ov.rt.y m.'u.i~. bo'h
....illlln as _II as outside oll"e SSAs .nd SRAs.
189 1 p ;j q ';
28.658
[c'.dlls used to aflable SRA #1 Town ot Ave Marie]
1..538
[c,edi!s"olyelea,oed due 10 lack ot.eslmal;on]
44,830
[Nole:14,53ac'edilsotlhesec'editsarenoteamedasol6J1012008]
POTEflTIl.1 STEWI.RO!lHtP VNnlYn I.RFI. CRFl'ltTS
1l!:JosnNG RU"- OWWII.Y1
J,412
EXlSTIMG I.Nn Nf!W POTl!NTII.L STEWI.RO_ REC:E1VlMG I.RFIAS
rl!lIlSTlNG RUI. [)VIERI I.V
ACRES
~lo.....Uin..Unlls
5.027 11.000
"""""'"
23.315
36.01]
9O.P3P
191.841
41.040
lll1.03l)
215.263
46,138
'.'"
19.164
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA "MATURITY"
[PROPOSED RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY]
Wi.",Mi/ler.
New Diff!K:IJon. In Planning, l18sl(}n & EnolnetJrino
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Tom Greenwood
Wilson Miller
September 18, 2008
Estimates of Stewardship Credits under the current and
revised RLSA Program and recommlt~ation for Credit
calibration
As requested, we have reviewed the RLSACrel:llt System to estimate and
compare the potential credits that can be- ,1....'Wfated under the current RLSA
Program and under the RLSA as it mOl" !I,.., revised in accordance with the Collier
County Rural Lands Stewardship Area'\-<.eview Committee's (CCRLSARC)
discussions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. JJ:te-ct:lrremty-a~ RLSA Program is estimated to produce a total of
315,000 Stewardship Credits i\ssuming 100% proper:ty owner
'Parttclpatiaa. :fn95e ~r'edits.w6uld entitle a maximum of 43,:J1Z'SRA
acres, including allowance for public benefit uses. ApproxlmawJy 4:',700
acres of Open designated land would remain with baseline rights, and
some or all of this land could potentially be converted from Agriculture to
development at 1 unit per 5 acres (or other permitted baseline uses).
B. Three proposed modifications to the RLSA Program have been
conceptually approved by the CCRLSARC, including Agriculture Credits,
Panther Corridor Credits, and Tiered Restoration. Should the three
modifications described above be adopted without further changes, and
again assuming 100% property owner participation, including all Open
designated land outside of SRAs being placed into Agriculture SSAs, the
program is estimated to produce 421,000 Credits and 57,888 SRA acres.
C. With certain recommended adjustments to the RLSA Credit system further
detailed in this report under Section 3, including a change from 8 Credits
per SRA acre to 10 Credits per SRA acre, the RLSA Program would
produce a total of 404,000 Credits. All remaining Open designated land is
assumed to be within Agriculture SSAs. This number of Credits would fall
within an appropriate range to comply with the proposed cap of 45,000
SRA acres, as further detailed below.
D. Conclusion: The proposed modifications to the RLSA Program, coupled
with recommended adjustments set forth herein, will meet the Goal and
Objective of the RLSA and will reduce the potential total development
footprint by nearly 50%.
190 I P a g f-:
APPENDIX H
..':r5".
w..:..
2
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The methodology and results for this analysis are described below and all Credit
estimates have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. Please note that we have
used a different methodology (described in detail below) than the County to
arrive at an estimate of potential Credits and development acres at maturity
under the current program, but the results are comparable (315,000 Credits
compared to 316,761 Credits).
1, CURRENTLY ADOPTED RLSA PROGRAM
Base Credits
Base Credits are the Credits generated by use of the Natural Resource Index
and Land Use Layer System. They are created from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and
Open lands that are designated as SSAs by the property owners. To estimate the
total potential Base Credits, we performed a model run of the NRI values and
current mapping of AG1 and AG 2 land uses as recently adjusted during the
Stage 1 process. We have assumed that all FSAs, HSAs and WRAs become
SSAs with land use layers removed down to current AG1 or AG2 use. We have
applied this model to all of the FSAs, HSAs and WRAs lands regardless of
whether they are in approved SSAs or not. We then compared the modeled
credits to actual SSA Base Credits generated from SSAs 1-13, and this analysis
shows that actual Base Credits in these approved SSAs are approximately 15%
greater than the model due to the inclusion of more site specific data, such as
listed species surveys which have enabled a greater level of accuracy in
calculating NRI values. However, we expect Ihis variance will be less going
forward based on the composition of future SSAs being more heavily weighted
toward WRAs. Therefore we applied an adjustment factor of 10% to the model
derived Base Credits (116,329). The rounded total estimate is 128,000 Base
Credits.
Restoration Credits
Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.11. Because these
Credits are dependent on site specific conditions that require detailed evaluations
and restoration planning and permitting by each property owner, as well as
successful implementation, it was not possible to estimate these Credits at the
inception of the RLSA Program. We now have 5 years of actual data from 13
SSAs that we can use to estimate the use of the restoration program.
Notwithstanding, the same variables of site specific conditions, owner decisions,
and permitting requirements will still apply to future restoration. For this estimate,
the following approach has been used:
Total acres of FSA, HSA, and Restoration Zone within RLSA: 73,000
Acres of planned restoration, SSAs 1-13: 12,000
Acres deemed not suitable for restoration. SSAs 1-13 21.000
Maximum eligible acreage for future restoration: 40,000
1911 P age
3
For SSAs 1-13, approximately 29% of the total acreage is proposed for
restoration. Assuming that the same percentage applies to the 40,000 acres that
are eligible for future restoration, 11,600 additional acres would be restored
(40,000 x 0.29 = 11,600). The projected additional restoration credits generated
under the current system would be approximately 78,000 credits, as shown in the
table below:
Syst!lm Pot!lntlal EstImated Re~tor!l.~lon E~tlmatlld
Restoration R!lstoratlon c::redhs Ctedlte
..' (Atlrl!!l1 ... /.Potentll.llaCI'.'"x 29.r. I I/cr!ldhli'ilcr!ll
Camp Keals 15,000 4,350 8 34,800
OK Slough 25,000 7,250 6 43,500
TOTAL 40,000 11,600 N/A 78,300
The total estimate for restoration credits under the current system is:
Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9,11): 28,000
Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10,12,13): 54,000
Estimated future restoration credits (rounded): 78,000
Total restoration credit estimate for current system: 160,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits
RLSA Policy 1.21 provides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus
Credits. These Credits are available until January 2009, at which time they are
no longer available.
Potential Credits and 8RA acres under currently adopted RL8A Proaram
Base Credits: 128,000
Restoration Credits: 160,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits: 27,000
Total Credits: 315,000 Credits
SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre:
Public Benefit Acres estimated at 10%:
Total 8RA Acres:
39,375 Acres
3,937 Acres
43,312 Acres
Remainina Baseline deyelopment potential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
ACSC Open Land
Non ACSC Open Land
Total remaining Open Land
15,000 Acres
28,700 Acres
43,700 Acres
192 1 P ii q P-
4
2, PROPOSED RLSA MODIFICATIONS
Three proposed changes to the RLSA Program have been conceptually
approved by the CCRLSARC that would change the Credit estimates described
previously. Two are new credit categories that resulted from the Florida Panther
Protection Program, and the third is a proposed modification to the Restoration
Credit system.
Aariculture Credits
These Credits result from a property owner agreeing to eliminate non-
agricultural uses from Open designated land and are an alternative to
development under baseline zoning rights. Our estimates are calculated based
on the acreage of privately owned Open designated land in the ACSC not
already included in approved SSAs (approximately15,000 acres) at 2.6 Credits
per acre yielding 39,000 Credits, and privately owned Open designated land
outside of the ACSC (approximately 72,000 acres), less the amount of potential
SRA acres proposed under the Florida Panther Protection Program (45,000) and
less the acreage of a potential Panther Corridors on such Open Lands
(approximately 1,300 acres) and miscellaneous land (700 acres). This results in
an estimated 25,000 acres of Agriculture outside of the ACSC at 2.0, or 50,000
Credits. Therefore, the rounded total estimate is 89,000 total Agriculture
Credits.
Panther Corridor Credits
Panther Corridor Credits result from a property owners agreeing to designate
land and construct improvements to implement the north and south Panther
Corridors referenced in the Florida Panther Protection Program. These corridors
will require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. We currently estimate
approximately 1,300 acres of Open land and 1000 acres of WRA land in the
north and south corridors would be required for a total of 2,300 acres at 10
Credits per acre, or 23,000 Panther Corridor Credits. It is possible for these
acreages to be more or less, and the viability of these corridors is currently under
review by the Florida Panther Protection Program Scientific Technical Review
Committee.
Tiered Restoration Credit Estimates
The proposed tiered restoration system is a modification to the current program
to better define the type and relative value of different restoration types. For this
estimate, we assume that 11,600 acres within future SSAs are suitable for
restoration activities as previously described, with 600 acres dedicated for
panther habitat restoration, and the remaining 11,000 acres split equally between
the four other restoration types (caracara, exotic removal/burning, flow way, and
native habitat restoration). For this analysis, we also assume that approved and
pending SSAs will be considered as vested under the current program, and that
future SSAs will use the tiered system. The calculations are as follows:
1931 P age
. Cr~!l~,p.r Rs.tiirlltll)l1
Rs.tc>ridlc>n Tyo. ____Acr~ll___ .. __~cmL__ ,--- Credits
._---. --
Panther Habitat 600 10 6,000
Caracara 2,750 4 11,000
Exotic Control/Burnina 2,750 6 16,500
Flaw Way 2,750 6 16,500
Native Habitat Rest. 2,750 8 22,000
Total 11,600 N/A 72 000
The total estimated restoration credits with implementation of the tiered system
for future SSAs are shown below:
Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11):
Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10,12,13):
Estimated future restoration credits:
Tiered Restoration Credits:
28,000
54,000
72.000
154,000
These restoration estimates are subject to variation based on site specific
analysis for restoration suitability, decisions made by the property owner,
approval by the County and permitting agencies and successful restoration
implementation.
Potential Credits and SRA acres under a revised RLSA Proaram
Should the three modifications described above be adopted without further
changes, there would be the following resulting Credits and SRA acres:
Base Credits: 128,000
Restoration Credits: 154,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits: 27,000
Agriculture Credits 89,000
Panther Corridor Credits 23.000
Total Credits: 421,000 Credits
SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre:
Public Benefit Acres at 10%:
Total SRA Acres:
52,625 Acres
5.263 Acres
57,888 Acres
Remainina Baseline develooment Dotential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs 0 Acres
1941 P ;] 9 e
5
6
3. ADJUSTMENTS TO ACHEIVE 45.000 ACRE SRA CAP
The Florida Panther Protection Program has called for a cap of 45,000 SRA
acres in the RLSA, and should this cap be reflected in the revised RLSA
Program, certain adjustment will be necessary so that the RLSA Credit System
will produce sufficient Credits to entitle a potential 45,000 acre SRA scenario,
without leaving a substantial number of excess Credits. The following items are
recommended:
1. The cap of 45,000 SRA acres will include public benefit acres.
2. The proposed Tiered Restoration System will be used for all future SSAs.
3. No extension of the Early Entry Bonus Program beyond January 2009.
Approximately 7,000 EEBs not included in approved or pending SSAs will
be eliminated.
4. A change in the SRA Credit Ratio from 8 Credits per SRA acre to 10
Credits per SRA acre for Credits generated from any future, non-vested
SSAs.
5. SSA vesting will be applied as follows:
a. All approved SSAs (1 -9, 11) would be vested at the 8 Credit per
SRA acre ratio and in accordance with the restoration programs set
forth therein. This represents a total of 73,488 credits. Any SRA
acres entitled with these Credits will be computed at the current 8
Credit per acre ratio. This includes Credits and SRA acres already
approved for and applied to the Town of Ave Maria.
b. Proposed SSAs 14,15, and 16 would be vested at the current 8
Credit per SRA acre ratio to the extent required to entitle the
proposed Town of Big Cypress DRI/SRA. These SSAs will include
restoration designation credits at the current rate of 4 per acre in
the Camp Keais Strand. Total restoration credits per acre will not
exceed the level provided under the new tiered system as
approved. This represents an estimated total of 24,000 Credits and
3,000 SRA acres.
c. Proposed SSAs 10, 12, and 13 will continue to be processed and
approved under current adopted standards (8 Credits per SRA acre
and non-tiered restoration). Should all of the proposed
modifications be approved, the owners of these SSAs will agree to
subsequently amend these SSAs to adjust to the 10 Credit per SRA
acre ratio and tiered restoration system following approval and
adoption of these new standards. This would reduce the estimated
restoration credits by 10,000. Should the proposed modifications
not be adopted, these SSAs will not be amended.
6. All new SSAs will conform to the new adopted standards.
195 1 P age
7
With these adjustments, the following table shows the resulting number of
Credits and potential SRA acres:
Estimated Credits lassumina full DroDertv owner DarticiDation\:
Base Credits from all NRI based SSAs
Early Entry Bonus Credits (upon phase out)
Restoration Credits
Agriculture Credits (40,000 acres)
Panther Corridors (assumes 2.300 acres)
Total Estimated Credits
128,000
20,000
144,000
89,000
23,000
404,000
Proiected SSA SUDDlv of Credits
SSAs 1-9, 11 Vested Credits (approved)
SSAs 14-16 Vested Credits (estimated)
SSA Credits vested at 8 Credits per SRA acre
Remaining SSAs at 10 Credits per SRA acre
73,488 credits
24,000 credits
97,488 credits
306,512 credits
Proiected SRA acres assumina all Credits are used:
SRA acres entitled at 8 Credits per acre 12,186 acres
SRA acres entitled at 10 Credits oer acre 30.651 acres
Subtotal of Credit entitled SRAs 42,837 acres
Public benefit acres estimated at 10% 4,283 acres
Total potential SRA acres 47,120 acres
Remainina Baseline develoDment Dotential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
o acres
Credit estimates and excess Credits
The total supply of Credits entitles less than 45,000 acres of SRAs, but estimated
public benefit acres must also be considered. Because the RLSA is a voluntary,
market based system and these estimates assume 100% property owner
participation in the RLSA Program, and each category of estimate has a range of
assumptions built in to the estimated number, it is advisable to allow for some
variance. The above estimates result in sufficient Credits that, together with
public benefit acres, provides for an approximate 5% variance in total potential
SRA acres. There are a number of factors that could offset this potential "excess"
including but not limited to: less than 100% participation by all property owners in
the RLSA, less than 10% public benefit acres, purChase of land and/or Credits by
a publicly funded conservation program, less than 100% success rate in
restoration implementation, and lack of market demand for all of the potential
Credits.
196 I P age
8
4, COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The following three tables illustrate the land use summaries at full utilization
using the current and revised and recalibrated programs. With the proposed
revisions, the acreage of potential SRAs increases nominally from 43,300 acres
(Tables 4.1 and 4.2) to 45,000 acres (Table 4.3). However the potential
development footprint of Open Land converted to baseline development could be
reduced dramatically, depending on the use of the new Agriculture Credit. Table
4.1 shows 100% of Open Lands converted to baseline uses under the current
program and Table 4.3 shows 100% of Open Lands placed in Agriculture SSAs
under the revised program.
We do not expect that all of the Open land outside of SRAs would be converted
to baseline development under the current program. Market incentives that favor
well planned, compact, mixed use communities with a wide range of housing
options served by high quality infrastructure and services would satisfy most of
the demand for new homes in the RLSA. In addition, Golden Gate Estates
already offers a significant supply of 2.25 to 5 acre lots without such services for
those that prefer this alternative.
Table 4.2 shows a more realistic scenario for comparison, where 10% of ACSC
Open lands are converted (based on ACSC regulations limiting site alterations to
10% of any site) and 25% of non ACSC Open Lands are converted. Comparing
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 still demonstrates that the potential development
footprint is reduced by approximately 7,000 acres using the revised RLSA
system.
Table 4.1: Current RLSA Land Use
Summary atfull utilization with 100%
baseline conversion Acres % of Total
--.
NRI based SSAs 92,000
SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0%
Open Land conversion to baseline rights 43,700
SRAs 43,300
J"otential Development Footprint_.____ 87,000 44.4%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6%
--.---.---".-. ,-
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
197 1 P age
9
-- -~
Table 4.2: Current RLSA Land Use
Summary with partial baseline
conversion Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000
SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0%
ACSC Open Land conversion at 10% 1,500
Non ACSC Open Land conversion at 25% 7,175
SRAs 43,300
Potential DeveloDment Footprint 51,975 26.5%
Open Land remainino in Aoriculture 35,025 17.9%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6%
Total RLSA ---, 195,846 100.01'.<>...
Table 4.3: Revised and recalibrated RLSA
Land Use Summary at full utilization Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000 47.0%
Agriculture SSAs 40,000 20.4%
Panther Corridors 2,300 1.1%
SSA Subtotal 134,300 68.5%
Potential DeveloDment ISRAsl 45,000 23,0%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,546 8.5%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
Under the revised and recalibrated RLSA, in addition to agricultural uses retained
on the majority of 92,000 acres of NRI based SSAs, 40,000 additional acres of
agricultural land are protected as Agriculture SSAs. Two important Panther
corridors are also incentivised.
It should also be noted that current RLSA Policy 4.10 requires a minimum of 35%
of each SRA to be open space. As a result, a minimum of 15,750 acres of the
total 45,000 acres of SRA will be open space, and a maximum of 29,250 acres
will be developed land. This results in a net developed footprint equal to 15% of
the total RLSA acreage.
198 I P age
APPENDIX I
RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES CONCERNING
THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA
By ERIC STAATS (Contact)
Originally published 4:30 p.m., Saturday, December 6,2008
Updated 4:30 p.m., Saturday, December 6, 2008
NAPLES - A glimpse of what build-out might look like in eastern Collier County is revving up the debate over changes to the
county's rural growth plan.
Critics of the plan have seized on a map labeled "conceptual build-out roadway network" as proof of a future of
overdevelopment, but landowners allied with some environmental groups say the map shows the way to unprecedented
preservation.
The map is gaining public attention just as a citizens committee is wrapping up a year's worth of work on revisions to the
2002 landmark growth pian.
The plan is set to go through the first of two rounds of review by the county's Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and
Collier County Planning Commission in January.
EAC member Judith Hushon referred to the build-out map last week in urging county commissioners to not skimp on review
time.
"This is scary," Hushon told commissioners. "We have to do it right."
Landowner consultant Wilson Miller submitted the map last month to the county's transportation planning department.
It shows a grid of two- to six-lane roads crossing farm fields and natural areas, most of which scientists have designated as
habitat for endangered Florida panthers.
The network of roads connects 22 dots, each representing the "theoretical location of a quantity of development,"
WilsonMiller senior project manager Jeff Perry said.
The map also plots locations for nine panther crossings beneath new roads and shows splotches of land for panthers to use
to travel between preserves.
County road planners asked for the map to help the county complete its own countywide build-out analysis, but it has taken
on a life of its own outside the arcane world of traffic modelers.
The map had gotten enough attention to prompt Perry to write a Dee. 2 memo to Collier County Transportation Planning
Director Nick Casalanguida in an attempt to correct what he said are misconceptions about the map.
For example, the original version of the map called each of the 22 dots "Town Nodes," which Perry said don't necessarily
equate to new towns.
Instead, each dot represents an amount of traffic that is plugged into the transportation modei at that spot in the road
network, Perry said.
Every dot doesn't equate to a new town, which could be up to 5,000 acres under the new plan; in fact, at least one of the
dots marks the potential spot for a 100-acre new development.
199 1 P age
Map makers issued a second version of the map last week that changes the map legend to refer to the dots as "TAZ
_. Centroids" instead of "Town Nodes." TAZ stands for traffic analysis zone.
The name change doesn't change the mind of Conservancy of Southwest Florida government relations manager Nicole Ryan.
"Call them what you want, that's a lot of development scattered across the rural area," Ryan said last week.
Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said critics are focusing on the wrong part of the map.
She said a map of eastern Collier County is bound to include growth; what is noteworthy is the preservation that will come
with it under the plan.
"This represents an effort to get growth further under control in the eastern Collier area," Payton said.
A "worst-case blood map" _ a reference to the size of red areas depicting development potential once told the story of
eastern Collier County's future, Payton said.
Then, in 1997, the state Department of Community Affairs, backed by the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County
Audubon Society, filed a legai challenge saying the county wasn't doing enough to protect wetlands and wildlife.
An administrative law judge agreed and, in 1999, then-Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet ordered a rural buildin9 moratorium
and interim environmental rules while the county undertook a three-year rewrite of its growth plan.
The result was the Rural Land Stewardship Area, a voluntary program created by landowners to comply with the Cabinet
order.
under the program, landowners can agree to preserve natural areas in return for getting credits to build new towns and
villages on less environmentally sensitive areas.
The program, which applies to almost 200,000 acres around Immokalee, envisioned a potential future that held development
to 94,000 acres.
So far, landowners have preserved or proposed to preserve about 54,000 acres under the program, creating credits to build
the new town of Ave Maria and lay the 9roundwork for a second new town called Big Cypress along a realigned stretch of Oil
Well Road and an extension of Randall Boulevard.
The citizens review committee is proposing to give landowners a chance to get more credits under a new system that would
preserve agriculture, create travel corridors for panthers and set up a new tier of credits for environmental restoration.
At the same time, landowners have agreed to cap the development area in eastern Collier County at 45,000 acres.
The Conservancy, though, runs the numbers differently.
The 2002 program created enough credits for 16,800 acres of development, Ryan said, citing documents circulated at the
time.
So the 45,000-acre cap actualiy is nearly a three,fold increase in development potential _ not a cutting in half from 94,000
acres, she said.
Payton said the Conservancy doesn't account for potential development by landowners who don't participate under the 2002
Jlan.
200 1 P age
Map makers issued a second version of the map last week that changes the map legend to refer to the dots as "TAl
Centroids" instead of "Town Nodes." TAl stands for traffic analysis zone.
The name change doesn't change the mind of Conservancy of Southwest Florida government relations manager Nicole Ryan.
"Call them what you want, that's a lot of development scattered across the rural area," Ryan said last week.
Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said critics are focusing on the wrong part of the map.
She said a map of eastern Collier County is bound to include growth; what is noteworthy is the preservation that will come
with it under the plan.
"This represents an effort to get growth further under control in the eastern Collier area," Payton said.
A "worst,case blood map" _ a reference to the size of red areas depicting development potential _ once told the story of
eastern Collier County's future, Payton said.
Then, in 1997, the state Department of Community Affairs, backed by the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County
Audubon Society, filed a legal challenge saying the county wasn't doing enough to protect wetlands and wildlife.
An administrative law judge agreed and, in 1999, then'Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet ordered a rural building moratorium
and interim environmental rules while the county undertook a three-year rewrite of its growth plan.
The result was the Rural Land Stewardship Area, a VOluntary program created by landowners to comply with the Cabinet
order.
Under the program, landowners can agree to preserve natural areas in return for getting credits to build new towns and
villages on less environmentally sensitive areas.
The program, which applies to almost 200,000 acres around Immokalee, envisioned a potential future that held development
to 94,000 acres.
So far, landowners have preserved or proposed to preserve about 54,000 acres under the program, creating credits to build
the new town of Ave Maria and lay the groundwork for a second new town called Big Cypress along a realigned stretch of Oil
Well Road and an extension of Randall Boulevard.
The citizens review committee is proposing to give landowners a chance to get more credits under a new system that would
preserve agriculture, create travel corridors for panthers and set up a new tier of credits for environmental restoration.
At the same time, landowners have agreed to cap the development area in eastern Coilier County at 45,000 acres.
The Conservancy, though, runs the numbers differently.
The 2002 program created enough credits for 16,800 acres of development, Ryan said, citing documents circulated at the
time.
So the 45,000-acre cap actually is nearly a three-fold increase in development potential _ not a cutting in half from 94,000
acres, she said.
Payton said the Conservancy doesn't account for potential development by landowners who don't participate under the 2002
plan.
201 I P age
The new system of development credits, she said, increases the incentive to landowners to participate in the program and
hold development to 45,000 acres.
Payton acknowledged that the panther corridors shown on the build'out map are "kind of skinny and awkward."
"At least it's a starting point for discussion," she said.
A panel of scientists is reviewing the county's plans for preservation in eastern Collier County, induding the panther travel
paths.
One of the two corridors juts north from Oil Well Road, about four miles east of the entrance to Ave Maria and two miles east
of where a vehicie hIt and killed a female panther Nov. 29.
So far this year, 10 panthers have died in vehicle collisions compared to 14 collision-related deaths in 2007.
About 100 panthers survive today In the WIld, up from an estimated 30 animals 20 years ago, according to state figures.
An increase in deaths is partly due to increased numbers of panthers, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
biologist and panther team leader Darrell Land said in a statement last week about the panther deaths.
Land and Conservancy panther expert David Shindle are on the science review panel.
"In spite of the modest increase in numbers, every cat remains important to the survival of the species in the wild," Land
said in the statement.
************************************************************************************
On The Mark: Faster process means more mistakes
By MARK STRAIN (Contact)
4:49 p.m., Wednesday, November 19, 2008
For a long time, Collier County has been a hot real estate market, and during the continuous spiral upward to build
everything as fast as we possibly could, the cry was constant to make sure growth paid for growth as much as was legally
permissible. At the same time, numerous restrictions were added to our development codes, in an attempt to provide some
level of control when even the highest impact fees did not deter the staggering growth within the real estate market. While
the market has changed quite a bit, we still should not lose sight of what our concerns were during the rapid period of growth
and what caused those concerns. Since the market has slowed significantly and is predicted to remain slow for quite a while,
now is a perfect time to review issues and provide clarity where it may be missing in our long-term planning,
With so much of Collier County built out, especially within our urban areas, it is difficult to adjust land regulation on existing
improvements that would alter the existing rights of property owners. But not all of Collier County is developed and, in some
areas, we have the ability to assure we do not end up with a haphazard pian that lacks clarity and the ability to definitively
plan where new towns, projects and facilities of all kinds may go. How many times have we wished that our planning had
adequately addressed necessities like road corridors, town centers, utilities, mass transit, schools and numerous other
elements that were not shown on any master countYWide plan, but merely added as words in a paragraph that were later
subject to obscure legal interpretation purposely driven by the special interests that added the language in the first place.
In the late 1980s, during the compilation of our current countywide comprehensive plan, the publiC meetings were usually
attended by attorneys, making sure the proposed and adopted language adequately protected their clients. We have lived
with that document for nearly 20 years although, ever-50-slowly, some changes have been made. We are again at a moment
,n time when a segment of the plan is undergoing changes: this time speCifically addressing approximately 200,000 acres of
rural land in the eastern areas of our county.
202 I P age
This is a huge area that includes productive agricultural lands and tremendous natural areas that are some of the most
environmentally sensitive to be found in our county. The owners who are farming and ranching on their properties are
generally known for being good stewards of their lands, not only for the agricultural actIVIties that put food on the table, bL
also for maintaining diversity of the wildlife and vegetative areas. Farming does not always mean bulldozing down the natural
vegetation, draining the land and turning everything Into a sterile monoculture.
Five years ago, Collier County adopted changes to our growth planning for this rural area. The changes were experimental,
so a mandatory five-year reassessment was built into the process. That review is currently being undertaken by a committee
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. As was evident when our comprehensive plan was written in the 1980s,
this rural review is also having to deal with speCial interests. A recent request was made that tile committee modify their
previous commitment to the public review process in a manner that would most certainly reduce the public's ability to have
input into the development of this land planning process.
Instead of providing an analysis and public discussion of the rural lands stewardship area as Initially established 1 the
committee was convinced to go directly into rewriting the growth management plan language from five years ago. This was
done after the commIttee had preVIously and speCIfically committed to a public discussion of many pages of questions
presented to it that reflected concerns over the impacts of the eXIsting stewardship program.
The reason given for doing this was for faster processing of changes the committee will be recommending.
We are in a recession. Locally, we have thousands of unsold and foreclosed units. Numerous major projects, including some
in the rural area, have been put on indefinite hold. There is simply no need to rush on anything, especially when it reduces
the public review process. Rushing through something as important as our future growth planning cannot possibly provide us
with the best possible results. The development standards for 2001000 acres are being considered and the process
dramatically affects the future of Collier County. If the proposed changes are best for agriculture, the environment and the
county as a whole, they will withstand public scrutiny. By reducing the public's interaction, any changes made will be forever
suspect.
By ERIC STAATS (Contact)
Originally publiShed 9:18 p.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Updated 9:18 p.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2008
NAPLES - A proposal to speed up a review of Collier County's landmark rural growth plan moved forward Tuesday over the
objections of an environmental group. The new schedule, which rural landowners proposed, would consolidate two rounds of
reviews by the Environmental Advisory Council and the Collier County Planning Commission into one review with an eye
toward sending proposed growth plan changes to state regulators in spring 2009. The changes could be adopted by fall 2009
under the new schedule. Under an old schedule, the Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning Commission would
have reviewed a so-called Phase II report and then, in a second round of reviews, vote on growth plan changes. That could
have pushed adoption of the changes until 2011, under one scenario. A citizens committee appointed by Collier
commissioners to review the 2002 plan approved the new schedule Tuesday.
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida objected to the new schedule on the grounds that it would short-circuit publiC review.
"What's the hurry?" Conservancy government relations manager Nicole Ryan asked the citizens review committee Tuesday.
"We want to do this right." Ryan said her group had been promised during a first phase of the review that "fundamental
questions" about the 2002 plan would be answered during a Phase II report. The new plan inappropriately jumps ahead to
reviewing a host of individual growth plan amendments, Ryan said.
The new schedule is not intended to avoid a full review of the 2002 plan; it is meant to save time and avoid duplicative
advisory board meetingsl said Alan Reynolds, CEO of land planning and engineering firm Wilson Miller and a consultant to the
Eastern Collier Property Owners. Under the old schedule, it would take four years to complete a reVIew trrggered by the five,
year anniversary of the 2002 plan. "I just don't think that makes any sense," Reynolds said. Under the new schedule, thf'
next step is to go to county commissioners in January to initiate a special growth plan review cycle instead of waiting unl
the end of a first round of advisory committee reviews in April. In an Oct. 22 memo outlining the new schedule, Reynold
writes that WilsonMiller needs assurances that the county intends to move forward with growth plan changes because
203 I P age
"county staff intends to rely upon Wilson Miller to help complete the data and analysis" to convince state regulators to
approve the changes. Going directly to commissioners first also will "give clearer direction and context" to the advisory board
reviews, Reynolds wrote in his memo.
The citizens committee already has met two dozen times since November 2007 and is wrapping up its review of the 2002
plan. The plan, the product of a legal cllallenge filed by the state Department of Community Affairs and backed by the Florida
Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society, applies to almost 200,000 acres around lmmokalee dubbed the Rural
Land Stewardship Area, or RLSA. Landowners have preserved more than 24,000 acres and have proposed another 30,000
acres for preservation in the RLSA, according to county figures. Credits have been used to build the new town of Ave Maria,
and a second new town, Big Cypress, is on the drawing board.
The citizens committee is recommending giving landowners additional development credits for preserving agriculture and
travel corridors for endangered Florida panthers and is recommending a new range of credits for other environmental
restoration. The committee is recommending capping new towns to more than 45,000 acres around Immokalee.
Environmental Advisory Council members at Tuesday's meeting objected to the new schedule. EAC Chairman William Hughes
and committee members Judith Hushon and Noah Standridge attended that meeting. The state' open meetings law, known
as the Sunshine Law, prohibits two or more members of the same board from meeting to discuss matters that could come
before their board unless the meeting is publicly noticed, held in a public place and minutes are taken. Hughes and Hushon
spoke in opposition to the new schedule Tuesday while Standridge was in the room. Whispering to Hughes before he spoke,
Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright reminded Hughes of the Sunshine Law, but Hughes spoke anyway. He acknowledged
Hushon's presence, but otherwise the three EAC members did not talk to each other during the meeting. A May 2008 opinion
from former County Attorney David Weigel, as general counsel to the attorneys' office, states that one-way communication
from one board member to another would not violate the Sunshine Law.
By ERIC STAATS (Contact)
1:31 p,m" Tuesday, September 23, 2008
New towns would take up no more than 45,000 acres around Immokalee under a proposal that won approval from a citizens
review committee Tuesday.Large landowners had committed this summer to the cap to quell criticism that revisions to the
county's 2002 rural growth plan were setting the stage for growth to overrun the environment, including habitat for
endangered species such as the Florida panther.
Collier County adopted the 2002 plan, which applies to almost 200,000 acres known as the Rural Land Stewardship Area, in
response to a slow'growth order from then-Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet In 1999. Under the voluntary plan, landowners
get development credits for setting aside land for the environment. Landowners can sell or use the credits to build new
towns. The plan laid the groundwork for the new town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University, and a second new town of Big
Cypress is on the drawing board.
The citizens committee has recommended giving landowners additional development credits for preserving agriculture and
panther travel corridors and has recommended a new range of credits for other environmental restoration. Landowners,
though, are proposing to rein in the credit system by requiring more credits per acre of development than under the 2002
plan.
The cap was not an easy sell at Tuesday's citizens review committee meeting. Committee member Bill McDaniel, a mining
contractor, said he is wary of the cap. "It tends to lead folks down the rosy path to nowhere," McDaniel said. He eventually
voted in favor of the cap after other committee members argued the cap was necessary to strike a balance between
preservation and growth. Without the cap, the new system of development credits would allow up to 58,000 acres of new
towns, according to a landowner analysis. "I don't know how palatable that is in a lot of quarters," Barron Collier Cos, vice
preSident Tom Jones, a review committee member, said.
(he sole vote against the cap came from Collier County Audubon Society policy advocate Brad Cornell. He objected to the
45,OOO-acre cap not including growth that might occur outside of new towns by landowners who do not participate in the
204 1 p age
credit system. Supporters of the cap saId the plan has enough incentives to ensure that most landowners will use the credit
system and so be counted in the cap.
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
7:34 p.m., Tuesday, September 2,2008
NAPLES - Large landowners who preserve agriculture in eastern Collier County would get development credits to build new
towns, according to a proposal that cleared an advisory committee hurdle Tuesday.The proposal is the most significant
change so far to the county's landmark 2002 rural growth plan that applies to almost 200,000 acres around Immokalee
known as the Rural Land Stewardship Area or RLSA. The plan is undergoing a word-by-word review by a citizens advisory
committee appointed by Collier County commisSIOners. The committee plans to present its recommendations to
commissioners as early as January. The state Department of Community Affairs also must sign off on any changes. Debate
over giving credits for agriculture preservation amounted to an exercise in arithmetic as critics and proponents sparred over
how many acres would be developed amid the farms, forests and flowways around Immokalee. The bottom line: 45,000
acres, accordIng to materials that have been distributed by a coalition of landowners and envIronmental groups pushing the
agriculture preserve credits as part of a plan to protect habitat for the endangered Florida panther."We intend to stand by
that in terms of that being the maximum amount of development in the RLSA," Barron Collier Cas. real estate vice president
Brian Goguen said after Tuesday's meeting. A leading critic of the proposal, though, called that number "speculation.""There
is no number," Conservancy of Southwest FlOrida President Andrew McElwaine said. "That's a concern to uS."The
Conservancy, which decided not to sign onto the panther protection plan coalition, urged the review committee to set a
development cap and then create a program to supply the credits. Instead, the committee is moving forward with various
votes on a new credit system, putting off a decision that will determine how much land could be developed with the credits."I
think the committee is moving in the right direction," Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said.
County figures show the existing 2002 plan would create enough credits to build across 36,000 acres around Immokalee,
including the new town of Ave Maria and the proposed new town of Big Cypress. That doesn't include land, though, that could
be developed outSIde of the credit system, bringIng the total amount of development to 90,000 acres under the existing
2002 plan. The panther protection coalition points to the 90,OOO-acre figure to show that their plan will cut developme'
potential around Immokalee in half, to 45,000 acres. Under the proposal that cleared the review committee Tuesday,
landowners would get two credits for every acre of agriculture preserve. Landowners would get 2.6 credits per acre of
agriculture preserve created in a strip of land east of State Road 29 that Florida designates as an Area of Critical State
Concern because of its environmental sensitivity. In a separate vote, the review committee recommended that earthmining
continue to be allowed in areas designated for environmental preservation. Last month, the committee had discussed new
rules to require that landowners give up the mining option before they can get development credits.
State Road 29 widening meeting planned for Thursday
By LESLIE WILLIAMS (Contact)
7:32 p.m., Wednesday, August 6, 200B NAPLES DAILY NEWS
It's hard to envision life five, even 10 years down the road, but the state's transportation department is planning now for
expansion of a key road In the eastern part of Collier County.State Road 29, from State Road 82 in the north to Oil Well Road
to the south of Immokalee, WIll be on the table at a workshop Thursday. The expansion from two to four lanes would likely
not take place anytime in the next five years, and could be decades away, but Florida Department of Transportation officials
are receiving public input now for planning purposes. Collier County Commissioner Jim Coletta said the project is so
important he has been pushing for it the past six or seven years, He formed a task force at the start of the decade to
advocate the expansion of State Roads 29 and 82."It's absolutely important to the nth degree that (S.R. 29) be completed to
make Immokalee the industrial hub that it wants to be," Coletta said.The workshop, scheduled for 5 to 7 p.m., at the
Immokalee One-Stop Career Center, 750 South Fifth St., will be an informal open house. Attendees are invited to review
project maps, make comments to department officials and give feedback on four alternate corridors being considered for the
widened road. Three of those four corridors would bypass the town of Immokalee,"I know there's some concerns on peoples'
minds that a bypass will kill our Main Street," Immokalee resident Fred Thomas said. "But right now our Main Street serves
as a truck route through downtown. "Thomas, chairman of the Immokalee Master Plan & Visioning, said a bypass could hel
relieve some of the pressure on the downtown streets and make the area "more walkable," particularly for the visitors the
area wants to attract,"We need to take that industrial traffic away from tourists," Thomas said. But environmental advocates
have expressed concern about pOSSible negative effects from building a four-lane highway to the east, where two bypass
205 1 P age
routes are proposed."Does it open up some areas to development?" asked Nancy Payton, the Southwest Florida Field
representative for the Florida Wildlife Federation."Some of these lands are targeted under the Rural Lands Stewardship
Program," she said. "The Wildlife Commission wrote a rather detailed letter raising concerns about the bypass, especially
wIth panther protection and road kIlls."But Coletta said development would instead be a benefit unlocked by the road's
expansion and potential bypass."That's another nice thing about roads themselves," Coletta said. "You have to have the
infrastructure in place for the growth to be possIble. It would take pressure off the coastal region of the county."A final public
hearing in the S.R. 29 Project Development & Environment Study is expected in fall 2009.To learn more about the project,
visit SR29Collier.com.
Mining may still be OK on environmental lands
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
8:59 p.m., Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A proposal to change earthmining's place in a rural Collier County growth plan got traction Tuesday.A citizen review board
voted to ask a technical advisory group to look more closely at a proposal to require landowners to give up the mining option
before they can get development credits under the plan. The review board is in the midst of a review of the county's
landmark 2002 rural growth plan that awards development credits in exchange for landowners setting aside environmentally
sensitive lands or restoring wetlands or wildlife habitaLThe plan allows landowners to get development credits first and then
dig earth mines, sparking debate Tuesday about whether mining complements the program's environmental preservation goal
or hurts it. Allowing mining on land where owners have gotten development credits for preservation is "schizophrenic," Florida
Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said. Supporters of the current system argued that earthmining creates
new wildlife habitat and that allowing landowners to keep the mining option open encourages more participation in the credit
program."I think we ought to leave it alone," said review committee member Bill McDaniel, owner of Big Island Excavating.
McDaniel, who operates nine mines around Southwest Florida including a 225-acre mine south of lmmokalee Road, cast the
sole vote against referring Tuesday's proposal to the technical advisory group."Mining has consequences but it's not
'lecessarilya detriment," McDaniel said. For example, lakes created by mining attract prey for endangered Florida panthers.
rhe lakes' edges, if designed properly, can serve as foraging habitat for wading birds, he said. Besides that, earthmines
serve a critical function of providing dirt and rock for road and home construction, supporters said. Payton, though, said an
analysis by a Lee County consultant showed existing mines in southeastern Lee County could meet 80 percent of the demand
for limerock in Southwest Florida's seven-county area for the next 19 years."We do not need to mine Collier's
environmentally sensitive lands," Payton wrote in an e-mail. "The need argument is bogus. "New mines already are scheduled
to either boost production or start digging in rural Collier County, she said.And mining still would be allowed in less
environmentally sensitive parts of the county covered by the 2002 plan, Payton said. Those areas might not have enough
rock underground to justify the expense of mining it, McDaniel said. So far, large landowners who have lifted development
credits from their land under the 2002 plan have given up earthmining, too. The plan, the product of a legal challenge by the
state Department of Community Affairs and backed by environmental groups, applies to almost 200,000 acres around
lmmokalee dubbed the Rural Land Stewardship Area, or RLSA. Landowners have preserved more than 24,000 acres and
have proposed another 30,000 acres for preservation, according to county figures.Credits have been used to build the new
town of Ave Maria, and a second new town, Big Cypress, is on the drawing board.
Conservation Collier will offer $33,2 million for Pepper Ranch
By SHANNON EPP5 (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
9:58 p.m., Tuesdav, July 22, 2008
206 I P age
-:
~~@
i!?"..,
'rllf//pJT'dlfu<(/ .
. Pepper
Ranch
ImmoitaIee Rd.
,
N
I;'
@
')OU((~ Con')~r..."tiof\
(ollit'r/ESRl
. .
Conservation Collier will make an offer to buy Pepper Ranch in Jmmokalee for environmental preservation. County
commissioners gave unanimous approval for the program to offer $33.2 million to buy the 2,SOO-acre tract, which would be
the program's biggest purchase. Commissioners also gave the program the go-ahead to seek money to pay for the purchase,
which would cost significantly more than the $6 million avaiiable In the fiscal 2008 budget after subtracting the cost of other
possible acquisitions. Taxes are levied yearly on Collier County property owners to support the preservation fund. Money to
buy Pepper Ranch would be borrowed or bonded. After the offer IS made, a formal agreement between Conservation Collier
and the current owners will be made and presented to county commissioners in September for final approval. During
discussion, board members sought clarity regarding stewardship credits awarded to the current owners under the county's
rural land stewardship program as well as panther habitat mitigation credits that will be included in the purchasr
Commissioners made approvals with the condition that the final agreement clarifies those issues."I think that things we
very well and we will now move towards the details and we'll get an agreement together that Identifies all of these things and
move forward towards the board in September with the contract," said Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier coordinator.
Lake Trafford Ranch LLP has owned the ranch since 2005 and includes engineering firm Hole Montes President Tom Taylor
and Allen Concrete owner Chris Allen. Gene Hearn, grandson of the ranch's namesake, and Hearn's mother, Joyce, are also
part of the partnership. Under conditions of the sale, the current owners would be responsible for cleanup of the property
including clearing certain structures, handling septic tanks and mediating soil and groundwater contamination. Oil, gas and
mineral rights would be included in the sale. The Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Land & Water Trust,
which coordinates acquisition, land management and publiC use of the watershed, plans to contribute $350,000 to the
purchase of Pepper Ranch."I cannot emphasize enough the importance of developing these natural systems," said CREW
Trust executive director Brenda Brooks. Sulecki said CREW Trust would empty out its bank account by making the
contribution. The purchase of Pepper Ranch would give the county the opportunity to preserve an area that is a natural
habitat for panthers, black bears and other threatened species. Sulecki and board members stressed the importance of
protecting the panthers that call Pepper Ranch home."It's significant panther habitat," Sulecki said. "If we buy it, put it in
preservation and don't develop it, that habitat can be used to offset impacts to panther habitat elsewhere. 'The land also has
the potential of being used as a mitigation bank to meet environmental permitting requirements for road and utility projects.
Sulecki said that, after gaining final approval from county commissioners, those involved hope to close on the deal in late fall
or winter.
New panther protection plan debated by citizens review panel
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
9:07 p.m" Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A citizens review committee found itself Tuesday at the forefront of a looming debate about protections for endangere
Florida panthers roaming rural Collier County. The committee, appointed by county commissioners to review the county'_
rural growth plan, agreed its review should include a panther protection plan that large landowners and environmental
groups unveiled amid much fanfare in June.In a nod to questions about whether the plan will crowd out the panther rather
207 I P age
than save it, a leader of the coalitIon proposing the plan told the committee the plan is a work in progress."We don't have all
".- the answers today," said Barron Collier Partnership vice president Tom Jones, also a member of the county review
committee. The plan builds on the original rural growth plan by awarding new development credits to landowners who
preserve agricultural land and allowing larger towns and villages to be built with the credits. The coalition figures that the
plan will reduce the development potential around Immokalee from 94,000 acres to 40,000 acres while creating new routes
for panthers to travel north of lmmokalee and around the Intersection of Oil Well Road and State Road 29.Beyond that, the
plan envisions replacing a project-by-project federal review with an overarching federal permit for development in panther
habitat wIth steeper mItigation requirements and new fees to creat" an estimated $150 million fund to pay for wildlife
underpasses and buffers. A panel of panther scientists chosen by the coalition would review the plan, which also needs
county government, state and federal approvals before it would go into effect. Jones said the coalition backing the plan still is
working on how many development credits the plan will generate and where new roads should go.ln a letter distributed
Tuesday to the county committee, the growth management advocacy group 1000 Friends of Florida raised new questions
about affordable housing and what sort of agriculture would be allowed in proposed travel corridors for panthers. Two
environmental groups stepped up their concerns about the proposed panther plan Tuesday. Conservancy of Southwest
Florida President Andrew McElwaine, who usually does not attend the committee meetings, urged caution and analysis. The
way the Conservancy counts up the acreage, the plan's agriculture preservation credits will increase the development
potential for new lowns and villages around Immokalee from 30,000 acres under the current growth plan."It is not an
evolutionary but a revolutionary change in the rural land stewardship plan," McElwaine said. Sierra Club senior regional
representative Frank Jackalone called for the panther plan to undergo a more independent review by the National Academy
of Sciences because of the plan's potential to set precedent for endangered species protection nationwide. The coalition has
proposed a science review panel to include panther scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, a University of Central Florida professor, former Conservation Commission scientists who
now work for a private consulting firm and a former Conservation Commission panther biologist who now works for the
Conservancy. Jackalone told the committee the club has "grave concerns" about the roads needed to support more growth
amid panther habitat in eastern Collier."Please remember: Cars kill panthers," Jackalone said. "Houses don't kill panthers."
Collie." a step closer to purchasing $36.3 million Pepper Ranch
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Originally published 5:36 p.m., Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Updated 8:56 p,m., Wednesday, June 25, 2008
~
~'dffml~
I~Rd.
.:::
.;.
,
N
@
Sources. (onwrvatiOfl
CollierlHRI
Conservation Collier's biggest purchase came a step closer to a done deal Wednesday. The owners of the Pepper Ranch in
Immokalee said they are willing to sell the 2,500'acre piece of Old Flonda to Collier County's preservation program for what
:he county would offer: $36.3 million. County policy requires the county to offer $36.3 million for the ranch because that is
the average of two appraisals that came back at $36 million and $36.5 million earlier this month."I think everybody's getting
a fair deal," said engineering firm Hole Montes President Tom Taylor, a general partner in the Lake Trafford Ranch LLLP that
has owned the ranch since 2005.County commissioners could vote to make an offer for the ranch July 22 after getting a
208 I P age
recommendation from the Conservation Collier advisory committee July 14.Two Conservation Collier subcommittees met
jointly Wednesday and voted to send the $36.3 mIllion deal, with conditions, to the full advisory committee. Ranch owne'
outlined the conditions in an attachment to a letter hand-delivered at the joint committee meeting."We've tried to take t
question marks we believe they might have off the table," Taylor said .As part of any sale, the ranch owners would pay to
clear buildings from the land except for a lodge, caretaker's house and pole barn near Lake Trafford. The owners would pump
out, crush and fill all known septic tanks on the property except the ones serving the structures that would remain standing.
The owners would remedlate any soil and groundwater contamination from an above-ground diesel storage tank and would
hire a consultant to determine the level of cleanup needed from an abandoned cattle dipping vat and pay for the cleanup.Any
sale wouldn't include oil, gas and mineral rights below 150 feet from the surface and would be subject to existing oil leases at
the ranch. The ranch has one nonworking oil well and two working oil wells that produce about 60 gallons of oil per day,
Taylor said.As part of the deal, owners would sell their mineral rights within 150 feet of the surface, a nod to concerns about
leaving the ranch open to earthmining by the current ranch owners. The partnership that owns the ranch includes Allen
Concrete owner Chris Allen, Gene Hearn, grandson of the ranch's namesake, and Hearn's mother, Joyce. The owners would
retain development credits that the ranch owners have stripped from the ranch under the county's rural land stewardship
program. By buying the ranch, the counly would preserve a range of habitats, from upland hammocks and pastures to wet
prairies and frontage on Lake Trafford, that is hard to hnd In Collier County. The ranch's inhabitants - endangered Florida
panthers, wild turkeys, deer, bears, rattlesnakes, sandhlll cranes and gopher tortoises - are as varied as Its landscape. The
ranch is more than just a pretty place; It could be a gold mine.A study by a county consultant found that the county could
create a mitigation bank at the ranch to meet state and federal environmental permitting requirements for road and utility
projects. The study concluded that the ranch could produce more than 320 wetland mitigation credits and more than 19,000
panther mitigation credits which the county is buying from a private mitigation bank for $1,600 each.The appraisals don't
take the mitigation potential of the ranch into account, making the $36.3 million price tag a "very good deal" for the county,
Taylor said. Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said mitigation plans for the ranch amount to
mooching off Conservation Collier. If the county wants to use the ranch as a mitigation bank, county departments that need
the credits should pay for them, she said. Voters intended for Conservation Collier to go beyond the county mitigation, not
replace it, she said."They don't piggyback," she said. "They're side-by-side."
New cutting-edge plan for panther protection to get unveiled Monday
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
10:01 p,m., Saturday, June 21, 2008
Panthers
209 1 P age
.... .. pl'MiId. ,.......
._~__......._.._.....w,,,,.__'_...........r.
____._r_~...._.__'.....__._~
-..-.....-..-.
I)~
,
.=i
~, I
-----
I'~''''
The endangered Florida panther could have more room to roam eastern Collier County under a plan forged by landowners
and environmental groups. Backers of the plan say it represents an unprecedented - even revolutionary - approach to
rescuing one of the planet's most imperiled species. Other environmental groups, though, are less enthusiastic, and Florida's
lead growth management agency signaled in a letter last week that it is worried the plan could lead to overdevelopment. The
plan, set to be unveiled Monday, builds on a partnership that led to Collier County's approval of a landmark rural growth plan
in 2002 that has preserved swaths of swamp and forest around Immokalee and has paved the way for the new town of Ave
Maria and a proposal to build a second new town, Big Cypress, on the eastern edge of Golden Gate Estates. A science review
panel is being formed to analyze the new plan, which also needs a series of county, state and federal approvals before it
takes effect. Members of the coalition proposing the plan are looking beyond the Collier County border wIth hopes that their
ideas will spread and make it easier for panthers, increasingly squeezed for space, to expand their range."There's a lot of
work to make our vision reality," Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said. "Collier County is the first
step. "The new program would:
. Focus new attention on creating links north of Immokalee and northwest of Oil Well Road and State Road 29 to connect
panther hot spots rather than cut off the cats' travel routes.
. Set up a Florida Panther Protection Fund that the group estimates would receive more than $150 million in the next 40
years from a new development fee tied to federal mitigation requirements. In addition, the plan would create a fee that
would be charged on every real estate sale in the area in eastern Collier County, dubbed the Rural Land Stewardship Area, or
RLSA, covered by the agreement. The panther fund would be administered by the Wildlife Foundation of Florida, a tax'
exempt and nonprofit arm of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and would be governed by
representatives of environmental groups, landowners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Conservation Commission.
The money would be spent on projects to restore panther habitat, build wildlife crossings and create buffers between
development and panther preserves throughout the panther's range, not just in Collier County, the group said.
. Increase by 25 percent the number of mitigation units developers would have to provide under federal permitting
requirements to compensate for effects on panthers in the RLSA.
. Create a new system under the county's RLSA program by which landowners could get development credits by preserving
agricultural land with an emphasis on high panther traffic areas east of State Road 29.
n a letter to coalition members last week, the state Department of Community Affairs recommended that the new plan
"work within the extent of development rights currently available for transfer" and said roads to support the new
development are of "particular concern" to the agency, The new scheme, paired with credits that landowners already can
210 I P age
receive under the program for preserving or restoring environmental land, could create enough credits to entitle
development of 40,000 acres of the 195,000 acres In the RLSA. Under the 2002 plan, landowners have set aside alme
30,000 acres, mostly along panther routes in the Camp Keais Strand and In the northern and southern ends of l
Okaloacoochee Slough, generating about 60,000 development credits. Another 14,500 credits would be awarded when
landowners complete proposed restoration projects. The landowners and environmental groups who hatched the new plan
include some names who stayed on the sidelines of the original partnership. English Brothers and the Half Circle L Ranch
have joined Alico Land Development Corp., PaCIfic Tomato Growers Ltd., Collier Enterprises, Sunniland Family Limited
Partnership, Barron Collier Partnership and Consolidated Citrus among the landowners who have signed a non-binding
agreement to proceed. On the environmental side, Audubon of Florida, the Collier County Audubon Society, Defenders of
Wildlife and the Florida Wildlife Federation have signed the deal. Defenders has been critical of the 2002 plan. Missing from
the signature page is the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, which had questions about what Conservancy President Andrew
McElwaine called the "very complicated legal document" that set up the partnership. McElwaine said the group's ideas are
"very worthy of public debate and review. ""We are one-fifth of their review panel," McElwaine said, referring to the inclusion
of a Conservancy biologist on the science review panel "We've not walked out on it. "The panel comprises Chris Belden, with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Darrell Land, panther team leader for the Conservation Commission; Dan Smith, a
UniverSIty of Central Florida professor who co-authored a 2007 paper that identified places for wildlife crossings in eastern
Collier County; former Conservation Commission scientists Tom l.ogan and Randy Kautz, who now work for consultant
Breedlove, Dennis and Associates; and Conservancy of Southwest Florida biologist David Shindle, also a former Conservation
Commission scientist. If the plan passes the science test, the partners will enter into a binding agreement and apply to the
Fish and Wildlife Service for an overarching permit for development and preservation across almost 200,000 acres around
Immokalee. That review is expected to take as long as two years. Scientists put the official estimate of the wild panther
population at between 80 and 100 cats. Loss of habitat and road kill are among the top threats to their survival.The group
was as stealthy as the wild cat it is hoping to protect as it worked behind the scenes to hammer out its proposal since April
2007.The secrecy has drawn criticism from one skeptical environmental advocate who said the plan is causing "all my alarm
bells to go off. ""I'm dismayed that there's some agreement in the works that hasn't gone through a more open process,"
Sierra Club senior regional representative Frank Jackalone said. The new plan has its roots in the controversy that followed
approvals for Ave Maria. Environmental groups who bird-dogged the 2002 plan already were making lists of improvements
they wanted to see addressed in the five-year review of the RLSA program when Defenders of Wildlife threatened in 2007
sue over a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for Ave Maria. The group charged that the federal review didn't use the be!,L
available science for panther protection and didn't require enough mitigation for effects on panthers. The letter got the
attention of the late Barron Collier CEO Paul Marinelli, who saw an opportunity to forge a new approach to panther protection
backed by scientists, landowners and environmental groups. Marinelli became the bedrock of the effort, keeping the
partnership together as he battled the illness that eventually would take his life. He died in April. Marinelli called Defenders to
discuss the concerns laid out In a February 2007 letter and, as the 60-day deadline for filing litigation neared, the group had
its first meeting in April 2007. In June 2007, the group convened two dozen scientists In Tampa for a workshop of panther
biologists and habitat mappers to lay the groundwork for the group's plan."Everyone has a much better perspective of each
other's needs than we did at the beginning," said Elizabeth Fleming, the Defenders Florida representative based in St.
Petersburg. The result gives both sides what they want: more certainty about where land will be preserved and where it will
be developed, she said."I think this is a very sensible way to go about things," Fleming said. But don't call it a love fest, the
once-feuding parties say. They prefer to label the program a pragmatic collaboration."We have a lot of work to do here, and I
don't know where this is going to end up, but I can't imagine going back to the way it was," Collier Enterprises CEO Tom
Flood said.
Local and state lawmakers rehash legislative session
By I.M. STACKEL (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
9:28 p,m., WedneSday, June 11, 2008
211 I P age
GREG KAHN I Staff
Florida State Representative Garrett Richter, center, speaks with County Commissioner Jim Coletta, left, before
the Collier County legislative Delegation held a joint post 2008 legislative session workshop on Wednesday,
June 11, 2008 in the Board of County Commissioners chambers.
Collier County commissioners and the local representatives who serve in Tallahassee Ilad nothing but kisses and Flowers for
each other Wednesday, even though some of the commission's legislative desires weren't fulfilled, and Collier still has to
severely reduce its budget. Some commissioners were eager for legislators to pass immigration reform, primarily to cut
costs, but they didn't raise that subject at Wednesday's meeting. No such bill passed, even though a dozen or so were
introduced, said county lobbyist Keith Arnold."None of those bills in the House or Senate were given a hearing," Arnold said.
"As (U.S.) Congress fails to act on immigration reform, I suspect local governments will pick up the slack."Commissioners
and legislators did however discuss who has the power at Wednesday's meeting when they took up the issue of home rule.
Commissioner Donna Fiala said she didn't understand why Tallahassee officials were trying to grab control from county
commissioners, the people who understand the community. Rep. Matt Hudson, R-Naples, said that argument has gone on for
a long time, in the same way that states have arguments with the federal government over issues, such as gas tax revenue.
~,Hudson noted that, ironically, most members of the Legislature have "no real experience with their city or county
]overnment. "Arnold said he was going to save home rule for last, which he called the "most contentious" of all the issues
addressed."But for Sen. Saunders, it would have passed. Without your strong support and leadership, It would have passed,"
said Rep. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, who is chairman of the Collier delegation, and plans to run for Burt Saunders' vacated
position. Term limits will force Saunders out of office. "The fact is, you don't focus on what doesn't get done. You focus on
what does get done," Richter said. Another ongoing fight between the county and state is over a desire by Florida's
Department of Community Affairs to dictate Collier's rural land stewardship act. Mudd said It was established by a special act,
but now the DCA has come up with a new boiler plate, and doesn't like the fact that Collier County is exempt, Mudd said.
Mudd tried discussing the issue with officials In the Capital, but they "said our plan was incomprehensible (and) voodoo
planning," Mudd said."It's been working very well in Collier County," Commissioner Jim Coletta agreed."1 find it disconcerting
that DCA is trying to redirect your act," Coletta said. Commissioner Frank Halas was disappointed that legislation expanding
rail transportation was defeated, referring to a plan to build rails for a bullet train to Orlando. The so-called bullet trains that
are used in Europe and Japan move at between 150 and 200 mph. "I don't think we've seen the end of the energy crunch,"
Halas said, speaking of cost of fuel, and frequent delays in air traveL Richter said the transportation bill, which included a
variety of ISSUeS, attracted "lively contentIon.""What kIlled (bullet trains) was liabIlity," Richter said. "There's a lot of support
for rail transportation" but it involves partnerships."Liability was the cog in the wheel, but I do not think the issue is over,"
Richter said. Hudson, who represents parts of Collier as well as portions of Broward County, said some of his constituents
ride the TriRail between Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. "TriRail has experienced a 45 percent increase in
business," Hudson said. All parties involved decided to give growth management a COOling-off period, Arnold said.One bill
that did pass included extensions for developments of regional impact. Mudd pointed out the commission has already
wrestled with that one with Ave Maria."1 expect to have additional efforts to pre-empt local governments," Arnold said. Halas
thanked everyone for their efforts, but implored them not to send down anymore unfunded mandates.
On The Mark: Sliding back to special interests
~. By MARK STRAIN (Contact) COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN
'.1:09 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, 2008
212 I P age
Slightly over 20 years ago, the political officials of the time were listening to a committee trying to figure out how to plan the
future of Collier County by formulating our Growth Management Plan (GMP). That committee was made up of citizens, loc"
influential land owners, experts for those land owners and their land use attorneys. The citizens unaffiliated VI
development interests were, of course, a minority. The result of all their meetings, debates and finally the GMP language I~
what has provided most of the development you see today.
Slightly over five years ago, a committee was formed to modify that original plan and to master plan the rural agricultural
lands in the east that some thought were not adequateiy addressed by the originai plan. The committee that Invented the
Rural Lands Stewardship area plan was again influenced and dominated by the land owners, their consultants and their
attorneys. Rightfully so -- if you own land, you would be expected to be involved in the planning of your land and land
owners should participate.
Observing the development to date III Collier County, it IS obvious land owners have had a great influence on the outcome.
From the very beginning pages of the GMP, It is obviously molded by legal vagueness purposely added to make sure the
outcome would be the most profitable one possible. When a committee is dominated by professionals who are paid by special
interests to make sure complex language comes out III a manner to best benefit their client, most likely it will. Having such
folks on committees in order to thwart what is best for the public III favor of land owners only adds to the frustration of
citizens, later on, as areas are built out. WItness exactly what we are experiencing today.
There is language withlll the GMP that requires a study of the various flood plains in Collier County in order to provide better
water management. For many neighborhoods, water management is a continuing and bothersome issue. Many citizen
challenges to additional development seem to always include a concern over flooding. As required by the GMP, stUdy of
Collier's flood plains has been underway by a citizen's committee to devise a Flood Plain Management Plan.
When the committee was formed In 2006, it was specifically stated that to "avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of
inter est, public members should not be involved in any way in the local building and development industry." The hope was
to fInally have a commIttee that was not led about by the nose by experts hired to Influence the outcome, especially on e'
issue as vital as flooding. Any action taken by this committee would have to be aired by a cornucopia of additiol
committees, all of which would take a shot at the committee's attempts to control flooding long before anything is made into
law. All of these additional reviews would happen in public meetings, with input from everyone willing to sit through the
process. Additionally, engineers from county staff would oversee and monitor the entire process.
With all that protection, publiC review and multiple committee reviews, It seems the development industry is still scared that
citizens may actually have an opportunity to express their concerns without the crafty influence of special interests directed
by their professionals. Recently, the Developmental Services Advisory Committee has demanded that two outside engineers
be added to the Citrzens Flood Plain Committee.
Should this happen, another committee, formed to serve citizens and not special interests, will become mired in
"professional" legalese and watered down to benefit a few at the expense of all.
DSAC proVides ample opportunity to air concerns of the business community, we need not taint the process from beginning
to end. After 20 years of our current growth plan, we still have not figured out how to avoid conflicts with special interests.
Expert: Collier growth plan does good job identifying panther habitat
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
9:26 p.m., Tuesday, June 3,2008
Collier County's rural growth plan has gone a long way toward putting together the pieces of the protected habitat puzzie for
the endangered Florida panther, a state panther biologist said Tuesday. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
panther team leader Darrell Land told a committee reviewing the county's Rural Lands Stewardship Area plan that he was
"95 percent happy" with the original 2002 plan but suggested two areas that still need protection. How the county plf
should preserve panther habitat is one of the big Questions facing the review committee, which county commissioner~
appointed to recommend changes to the plan.
2131 P age
The report is due in October.
At the center of that big question is a debate over the science behind what types of habitats are favored by panthers."1 feel
pretty comfortable we've got the big picture understood," Land said. A consultant for landowners wrote the Collier plan after
then-Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet ordered a review of the county's rural growth plan in light of an administrative law
judge's finding that the county wasn't doing enough to protect the environment. Under the plan, which applies to almost
200,000 acres around Immokalee, landowners can earn credits to build new towns by agreeing to set aside land designated
for protection. The new town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University was built under the plan, and a second new town, called
Big Cypress, is on the drawing board. Land praised the plan's preservation of 24,000 acres, particularly on both sides of Oil
Well Road and Immokalee Road east of Immokalee that WIll anchor WIldlIfe crossings to be built under the roads. A map of
telemetry points from radio-collared panthers shows that other important travel corridors for panthers haven't been
protected so far, Land said.He said the county plan should focus on preserving land along the west side of State Road 29,
north of Oil Well Road, and land north of Immokalee, between Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed and the
Okaloacoochee Slough. Some critics question the reliability of telemetry points to gUide panther protection because the
points aren't recorded at night, when panthers are most active, and only 20 panthers have radio collars. The panther
population is estimated at between 80 and 100 cats. The county plan relies too heavily on telemetry points to designate land
for protection and misses, for example, farm fields, Conservancy of Southwest Florida government relations manager Nicole
Ryan said.The Conservancy has suggested that the county revamp its growth plan so that more than just forests and
wetlands are designated for protection as panther habitat." That's only part of the picture," she said. "We have to take a
broader perspective on that. "Land is the lead author on a study published this year in the Journal of Wildlife Management
that backs earlier findings the county used to deSignate panther habitat in the 2002 growth plan. Former Conservation
Commission biologist David Shindle, now a biologist at the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, is listed as a co-author. The
study compared GPS tracking of panthers at night and during the day with daytime telemetry points and found what Land
called only subtle differences between daytime and nighttime travel habits. The landowner consultants and county reviewers
have found that land designated for protection in the 2002 plan included more than 90 percent of panther telemetry
points."When I was in school and getting 90 percent, I was knocking it out of the park," said Barron Collier Cas. Vice
President Tom Jones, a member of the review committee. Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said
she is "comfortable with the science that supported the rural land stewardship program.""J don't think we have to go back
and start at ground zero and redo the whole thing," Payton said.
Collier growth plan progress report sent to state for review
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
8:01 p,m., Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A report outlining the progress of Collier County's rural growth plan is on its way to the state Department of Community
Affairs. Collier County commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to forward the report, the first phase of a two'phase
review of the landmark 2002 plan. The plan grew out of a 1999 order by then-Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet after the DCA
successfully challenged the county's original growth plan.ln recent months, the DCA and the county have exchanged
critiques of how well the new county plan, called a Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay, is protecting the environment and
controlling growth on almost 200,000 acres around Immokalee. The report commissioners approved Tuesday shows the
amount and iocation of land that has been preserved under the plan, where development is planned and the fate of
agricultural land. Commissioner Frank Halas told the chairman of the citizens committee reviewing the 2002 plan that he
hoped the committee would come up with a way to protect agricultural land better and satisfy the DCA."1t looks like you
have a challenge in Phase II," Halas said. In a memo to county commissioners Tuesday, county planner Tom Greenwood
writes that the county has a "major concern" that the DCA will require a "major overhaul" of the county program. The memo
cites "highly critical remarks" about the program in a 2007 report the DCA wrote to the state Legislature on rural land
stewardship. The report concluded that the county plan wasn't living up to its goal of preserving agriculture and raised
concerns about whether the plan would allow too much growth. County Manager Jim Mudd wrote to DCA Secretary Tom
Pelham in March, accusing the DCA of having a "negative bias" to the county's plan and saying the 2007 report isn't based on
facts. Pelham responded in a May 8 letter, calling the DCA report fair and objective and responding in detail to each of
Mudd's allegations of factual errors."Although the Collier program is a commendable effort to improve rural planning, it
:ertainly can be improved," Pelham wrote. He wrote that he hopes the county review will be open and objective and not
driven by large landowners and their consultants."The Department will be following the County's evaluation very closely,"
Pelham wrote. Under the county's 2002 plan, written by a consultant for large landowners, landowners can earn development
214lPage
credits by preserving and restoring land deemed environmentally sensitive. So far, credits are being used to build the new
town of Ave Maria. A second new town, Big Cypress, is on the drawing board to be built under the new plan.Ave Maria and jt-_
centerpiece, Ave Maria University, is approved for almost 11,000 homes on 5,000 acres, and Big Cypress is proposed to he.
almost 9,000 homes on 3,600 acres. Landowners have preserved 24,000 acres and have proposed another 30,000 acres ot
preservation, according to county figures. Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton told commissioners
Tuesday that the figures speak for themselves."From an environmental perspective, I think the program is a big success,"
she said.
County growth plan complicates planned Pepper Ranch purchase
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
9:40 p.m., Thursday, March 6, 2008
Collier County's potential purchase of the Pepper Ranch in Immokalee could run up against a revived bid to change part of
the ranch's status under the county's growth plan.The 2,SOO-acre natural gem got a spot on the Conservation Collier list of
preservation prionties earlier this year. The next step is for the ranch to undergo appraisals. On Thursday, ranch owners got
the backing of the county's Environmental Advisory Council to pul a preservation designation over another 192 acres of the
ranch, making it possible for the ranch owners to earn additional development credits from the land. The final decision is up
to county commissioners. Under the county's Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program, landowners can agree to give
up development rights on their land in return for credits that can be used to build new towns, villages and hamlets in other
parts of the RLSA, which covers almost 200,000 acres around lmmokalee. Conservation Collier adviser Tony Pires, a Naples
attorney, has questioned whether the new designation at the Pepper Ranch will inflate the price of the ranch - somethmg
ranch co-owner Tom Taylor said Thursday was a "non-issue. ""We don't anticipate that to happen," Taylor told the
Environmental Advisory Council. The ConservatIOn Collier advisory board is expected to discuss the matter at its Monday
meeting. Taylor acknowledged the designation had become controversial and said the timing of the review was unfortunate.
The ranch owners filed for the designation in April 2006, months before the ranch was offered for sale to Conservation
Collier. Taylor said he had forgotten the application was still pending.Taylor, president of engineering firm Hole Montes, ow~
the ranch in a partnership that includes Allen Concrete owner Chris Allen, Gene Hearn, grandson of the ranch's namesak
Frank Pepper, and Hearn's mother, Joyce.Taylor said the ranch owners would drop the petition to redesignate the 192 acres
if it becomes a problem with appraisals. He said appraisals probably will be done before a final decision on the designation,
which still must undergo review by the Collier County Planning and county commissioners. One environmental advocate said
she is opposed to the redesignation at Pepper Ranch. Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy Payton said the
Pepper Ranch petition and a similar petition by the Half Circle L Ranch east of Immokalee should be folded into an ongoing
review of the county's Rural Land Stewardship Area growth plan. On Thursday, EAC members also backed the Half Circle L
Ranch's petition to put a preservation designation on more than 2,400 acres. The rest of the 5,300-acre ranch, owned by the
Scofield family, already is designated for preservation. Taylor and Allen had a contract with an anticipated closing date of
August 2006 to buy the development credits, but the deal expired. CollIer County has looked at buying the ranch as
environmental mitigation for road projects. The additional designation makes the ranch eligible for up to 7,300 development
credits - enough to build on some 900 acres, county figures show. At the Pepper Ranch, the redesignation could mean up to
1,726 development credits, allowing development on 216 acres, according to county figures. Almost 1,000 acres of the ranch
already are in preserve status.
New goal of growth plan is to keep farmland from being paved
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
9:06 p.m" Tuesday, March 4, 2008
A committee proposed changes Tuesday to one of the guiding goals of a landmark growth plan for rural Collier County. The
changes would reword agriculture preservation policies that are part of the landmark 2002 plan, which applies to some
200,000 acres around Immokalee, and would boost landowner incentives to keep farmland from getting paved. The plan's
track record on preserving agriculture has been a subject of debate. Agriculture is the first topic to be tackled by the 13-
member Rural Lands Stewardship Area review committee, which county commissioners appointed last year to recommer
changes to the growth plan. A final report is due thIS fall.On Tuesday, committee members proposed dropping the goal 0,
preventing the "premature conversion of agriculture land" in favor of a more general goal of protecting agriculture. The exact
new wording has yet to be worked out. The original wording in the 2002 plan is more of a feel-good phrase than a
2151Page
meaningful one, said Tom Jones, Barron Collier Cas. vice president for governmental affairs, a member of the review
committee."I didn't know what it meant then and I don't know what it means now," Jones said. As for how to preserve
agriculture, committee members talked Tuesday about creating a new system that would put a higher value on farmland and
then award development credits to landowners who save iLSuch a system already is in place to reward landowners for
preserving environmentally sensitive land, and some farmland has been preserved as a by-product of that system. So far,
landowners have preserved 24,000 acres and more than 30,000 acres are pending for preservation, generating credits to
bUIld the new towns of Ave Maria and Big Cypress. Ave Maria IS approved for almost 11,000 homes on some 5,000 acres. Big
Cypress is proposed to have almost 9,000 homes on some 3,600 acres. The plan gUides development to farm fields, and
county figures show the county's rural area IS losing agricultural acreage. A January draft report showed almost 94,000 acres
of agriculture in 2002 compared to some 85,600 acres in 2007. The loss could not be accounted for by development plans
alone.The county's final report revised the 2007 agriculture figure to almost 89AOO acres after a closer look at the original
estimate. Agriculture's fate in Collier County is not sealed, University of Florida agriculture economist Fritz Roka told the
committee. Farming has a good track record of using technology and new products to overcome bad economics and disease,
Roka said. "It's never a good prediction to bury agriculture," he said.
County's landmark rural growth plan needs some changes, group says
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
10:31 p.m" Tuesday, February S, 2008
A growth pian that is changing the face of rural Collier County got good reviews Tuesday but could be in for some changes
itself.Members of a county-appointed review committee wrapped up a technical report on the 2002 plan and moved to a
second phase that will stUdy whether the plan needs changes to balance agriculture, growth and the environment.
Committee members differed in the degree of praise for the plan, which applies to some 200,000 acres south of Immokalee
known as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. Under the plan, almost 56,000 acres have been preserved or are proposed to
be preserved to build the new town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University, where the committee plans to meet monthly until
,t wraps up its work in October. A second new town of Big Cypress also is in the works."1 think this program has exceeded its
expectations, /I said Immokalee agriculture supply business owner Floyd Crews.Other committee members were more critical,
outlining concerns about roads, development patterns and agriculture. Immokalee community activist Fred Thomas said the
plan has been heavy on where to preserve land but light on what he called "human habitat. ""We have not focused any
attention on the sporadic way receiving areas can come up," Thomas said, referring to the plan's term for places where
development is allowed. Both landowners and environmental groups are expected to push for changes to the program. Collier
County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida policy advocate Brad Cornell, a committee member, said the test should be
whether the rural area is sustainable in 50 years. Committee member Tom Jones, a vice president at Barron Collier Cas.,
urged the committee not to lose track of the big picture as it delves into the minutiae of the county plan."1 see us tweaking
policies," he said.The committee's poliCY review will start in March with agriculture. The technical report showed the county's
rural area had almost 94,000 acres of agricultural land in 2002 compared to some 85,600 acres in 2007.Growth doesn't
account for all of the loss, and committee members are aSking for a more detailed accounting of the fate of the area's
farmland. In a 2007 critique of the county program, the state Department of Community Affairs highlighted what It called a
lack of incentives to protect the most heaVily farmed areas, which are designated for development. The DCA, as the state's
growth management review agency, will have a hand in any rewrite of the county's plan. The 2002 plan grew out of a legal
challenge by the state Department of Community AFfairs and environmental groups that alleged county government hadn't
done enough to protect wetlands and wildlife in rural Collier County.
Collier rural growth plan meeting returns to roots
8y ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
7:45 p.m., Sunday, February 3, 2008
A review of how Collier County's landmark rural growth plan is working has been looming since the plan was approved in
?:002.Few could have envisioned, though, that the county-appointed review committee would be meeting Tuesday in an
academic building at Ave Maria University. The university and its companion town, Ave Maria, rising out of farmland south of
Immokalee, are the most dramatic signs of the 2002 plan's effect on the county's Rural Land Stewardship Area. Another new
town, Big Cypress, is in the works. The fate of Collier County's citrus groves, vegetable farms and pasture has become a
216lPage
question for the review committee, which has asked for more details about how the agricultural landscape has changed. A
critique of Collier County's rural growth plan by the state Department of Community Affairs also raises questions about
whether the plan is living up to one of its goals of preserving agricultural land and stopping its premature conversion
towns, villages and hamlets. A Jan. 18 draft report by Collier County government showed the Rural Land Stewardship Are"
had almost 94,000 acres of agricultural land in 2002 compared to some 85,600 acres in 2007 - an 8,400'acre reduction.
Row crops posted the largest loss; the only category showing an increase was fallow land. Conversion of farmland to urban
uses was expected with the 2002 plan. In fact, part of the plan's intent was to identify farmland most appropriate for
development, saId Wilson Miller CEO Alan Reynolds, whose firm large rural landowners hired to create the plan."The data
show the program is doing precisely what It IS intended to do," Reynolds saId.The 2002 plan assessed the environmental
value of almost 200,000 acres around Immokalee. The most valuable land is designated for potential preservation. If
landowners preserve the land, they get credits to develop on less environmentally valuable land. Agricultural land is included
in both categories. Landowners have preserved more than 24,000 acres of agricultural land in exchange for development
credits, according to the county review. Another 32,000 acres of preservatlon, much of it also agriculture, is pending
approval. The DCA report takes issue with a lack of Incentive to preserve more intensely farmed land, which is designated for
development."In this respect, the Collier program is not protecting and conserving agncultural lands," the report states.The
DCA report counts more than 6,000 acres of farmland planned for conversion to urban uses at Ave Maria and at the proposed
neighboring town of Big Cypress. Because the county has not approved Big Cypress, the county's preliminary tally of
agricultural land between 2002 and 2007 reflects only the loss of some 5,000 acres of farmland at Ave Mana.That doesn't
account for all of the 8,400 acres of lost agricultural land in the draft county report, and review committee members and
environmental advocates have asked for a more detailed accounting. Florida Wildlife Federation field representative Nancy
Payton said a closer look should reveal whether the county is losing farmland in parts of the rural area the plan is trying to
save or whether the farm land is being lost In places where the plan enviSIoned development in the first place. Some of the
lost agricultural land also might be attributable to landowners earning extra development credits by restoring farms and
pastures to wetlands and habitat she said.''l'm not convinced there's a problem," Payton said. Conservancy of Southwest
Florida government relations manager Nicole Ryan said the plan should be more specific about directing growth away from
"prime agricultural lands. ""It's Finding that balance," she said. Collier County Audubon Society advocate Brad Cornell said
less agricultural land might be an outcome that "we'll just have to live with.""It may be the farmers don't want to farm, and
we can't make them," he said.
Plans for town of Big Cypress submitted to reviewing agencies
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
9:29 p.m., Thursday, January 31, 2008
Plans for a new town in eastern Collier County landed on reviewers' desks Thursday in Collier County and at the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council. Collier Enterprises submitted the plans for the town of Big Cypress, dubbed a Development
of Regional Impact. The town also needs federal and state environmental permits."This plan IS a logical beginning," Collier
Enterprises CEO Tom Flood said in a statement released Thursday afternoon. Plans submitted Thursday call for 9,000 homes
in a 3,600-acre town, including 800 acres of open space. A town center would be built east of Golden Gate Estates between
Oil Well Road and an extension of Randall Boulevard. Under the county's Rural Land Stewardship Program, the company will
protect another 10,000 acres of wetlands and wIldlife habItat to generate credits to build the town, plans show. Flood's
statement says the company plans to create a sustainable community with jobs, shopping, health care, schools, civic and
cultural activities and recreation. The plans outlined In the DRI application are expected to take between 12 and 15 years to
build out. In 2006, Collier Enterprises unveiled plans to build 25,000 homes in a town and smaller Villages scattered across
8,000 acres of farmland surrounded by 14,000 acres of preserve between Immokalee Road and Interstate 75 east of Golden
Gate Estates. The plans since were scaled back. Big Cypress would be the second new town to rise in eastern Collier County,
the first being Ave Maria and Ave Maria University. Work at Big Cypress is expected to begin in 2010.
Guest Commentary: Range of efforts necessary to protect Florida panther
PAUL SOUZA, Vero Beach, Field supervisor, South Florida Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service NAPLES DAILY NEWS
6:34 p,m., Saturday, November 24, 2007
217 1 P age
The Daily News' recent three-part series on the Florida panther brought much-needed attention to the plight of this
endangered species. The series rightly underscored a fundamental theme: recovering the panther is one of the most
significant conservation challenges in the United States today. Major threats include habitat loss, degradation and
fragmentation; the reduced genetic diversity that regularly plagues small populations; the potential for disease outbreaks
such as feline leukemia; and vehicular collisions on South Florida's road network.
While the challenges are daunting, we also have some success stories to share and reason for hope. By the early 19905, the
panther population was about 20 to 30, and It became ciear that genetic probiems were causing a downward spiral that
would likely lead to extinction. In response, the state of Florida led a restoration effort that has tripled the population. Big
Cypress National Preserve and the Fiorida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, created In the 1970s and 1980s, are strongholds
of this population. Today, roughly 75 percent of the panther's primary habitat is protected, but there is ciearly more work to
be done.
One tool used to protect the remaining habitat is regulatory review under the Endangered Species Act. Actions that may
affect endangered species are reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Because the panther is highly endangeredl we have
developed detailed methods to review impacts from proposed development. As required by federal regulations, we work
closely with agencies and applicants to collect facts related to their proposals to understand the potential effects. We
regularly request detailed information on proposals, which serves as a starting point for completing and finalizing the
analysis. After we have reviewed the details of a specific proposal and compiled the best available science, we issue a
complete biological review of the proposal that includes binding conservation measures for the benefit of the species.
The scientific understanding of the panther and its habitat continues to improve, and these advances are the foundation of
successful conservation efforts. Last year, we made changes to a map used in the regulatory review process that defines
panther habitat. These changes were based on recent scientific studies, including two published in 2006, that provided a
detailed understanding of where panthers live and where they are most likely Lo be found in the future. This new information
replaced an outdated map that did not have the biological precision found in the recent science, but instead followed roads,
levees and county boundaries. Last year's advances in science have focused attention on the most important habitat and
therefore represent a significant step forward in our collective efforts to conserve the panther.
We have demonstrated notable results with the regulatory review tool. In the last four years, we have helped conserve over
20,000 acres of primary panther habitat through regulatory review. We have also worked closely with partners to secure a
number of panther crossings to provide safe passage across stretches of roads that pose a risk. For example, two crossings
have recently been added to State Road 29; four crossings are planned for U.S. 1 in the southeast part of the panther's
range; and other crossings are planned for Oil Well Road, U.S. 41 and Immokalee Road. We are committed to working with
our partners to implement additional crossings in key locations in the future.
Regulatory programs have played and will continue to playa key role in panther conservation. By definition, however, they
are reactionary in nature and a response to development proposals. We must therefore look at this need more broadly and
work together to build proactive conservation strategies to conserve this endangered species. Local, state and federal efforts
such as Collier County's Rural Land Stewardship Program and restoration of Picayune Strand through the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Program have conserved many areas important for panthers. Efforts like these can be used to
conserve important panther habitat in the future.
I firmly believe we need a broad palette of strategies to meet the significant panther conservation challenge before us. We
can realize the greatest benefits by working in partnership, building strong relationships and finding new and creative ways
to advance panther conservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to working with our partners to conserve the
Florida panther and Its habitat for future generations.
Yearlong review of Collier's landmark growth plan under way
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
10:30 p,m., Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Collier County's rural growth plan was hailed as a breakthrough when the county adopted it in 2002, but few envisioned what
was in store. Tens of thousands of acres have been preserved or targeted for restoration, creating development credits that
2181Page
have built the new town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University and have laid the groundwork for a proposal to build a second
new town called Big Cypress. On Tuesday, a i3-member committee appointed by county commissioners last month kicked
off a yearlong review to measure whether the plan is living up to its promise of balancing agriculture, development and t
environment."I don't think anybody In their wildest dreams thought the plan would be put in place and implemented tho_
quickly," Wilson Miller CEO Alan Reynolds, an architect of the rural growth plan, told the committee. The first part of the
review, expected to be finished in February 2008, will analyze a technical review of the plan's track record. A second phase
to be wrapped up by next fall, will consider whether the county should change parts of the plan. Committee members
appointed Gulf Citrus Growers Association Executive Director Ron Hamel as the committee chairman and former county
Planning Director and Golden Gate activislt Neno Spagna as vice chairman. Hamel pledged an "open and detailed review" of
the 2002 plan, he said. Hamel also was chairman of the original county committee that oversaw the creation of the 2002
plan, an outgrowth of a legal battle over whether the county was doing enough to protect its natural resources. The state
Department of Community Affairs, backed by Florida Wildlife Federation and the CollIer County Audubon SOCiety, took the
legal challenge to an administrative law judge. The judge Sided against the county, sending the matter to then-Gov. Jeb Bush
and the Cabinet. In 1999, Bush and the Cabinet ordered a three-year moratorium on rural growth in Collier County while the
county worked to rewrite its rural growth plan. Six major landowners agreed to pay for a study of almost 200,000 acres
around Immokalee that resulted in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area rules. The RLSA and the review that started Tuesday
does not include areas around Golden Gate Estates that also were caught up in the 1999 order but are subject to different
growth rules. In the RLSA, landowners have the option of preserving environmentally sensitive land to earn development
credits to build new towns and Villages mostly on agricultural land. So far, landowners have preserved 24,000 acres and
more than 30,000 acres are pending for preservation. The town of Ave Maria is approved for 11,000 homes on more than
5,000 acres. The 2,800-acre town of Big Cypress is proposed to have almost 9,000 homes. The big question for
environmental groups is whether the RLSA is on a sustainable track, said review committee member Brad Cornell, policy
advocate for Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida."So far, so good," Cornell said, referring to Ave
Maria.He said he worries, though, that the RLSA might be generating too many development credits and endangering
progress on the preservation front."We thmk there are improvements to be made, said Laurie Macdonald, Florida director for
Defenders of Wildlife, based in St. Petersburg. A representative of one half of the partnership that is building Ave Maria said
the RLSA needs only "tweaks," if that."Off the top of my head, I don't foresee any major changes," said Barron Collier Coso
Vice President Tom Jones, a member of the review committee. Other committee members are Immokalee agricultur
irrigation supply business owner Floyd Crews, land planner and engineer David Farmer, Wachovia real estate financl
services manager Jim Howard, Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association president and mming contractor Bill McDaniel,
agribusiness manager and Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association President Tim Nance, Economic Development Council
of Collier County PreSident Tammy Nemecek, former Collier County Housing Authority Executive Director Fred Thomas,
retired cable company manager and former Planning Commission member Dave Wolfley, and Gary Eidson, North Naples
activist and chairman of the Citizens Transportation Coalition of Collier County. Talk of changes to the RLSA rules could test
the good relations that large landowners and environmental groups forged to create the plan."I think we realized that we
could accomplish more together than apart," Jones said.
Rural lands Stewardship Area committee meeting postponed
By ERIC STAATS (Contact) NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Originally published 12:51 p.m., Thursday, November 1, 2007
Updated 3:59 p.m., Thursday, November 1, 2007
Collier County has postponed until Nov. 20 a kick-off meeting for a committee reviewing the county's Rural Lands
Stewardship Area program. The meeting had been set for Tuesday. The RLSA, which covers almost 200,000 acres around
Immokalee, gives landowners the option of earning development credits by preserving environmentally sensitive land.
Thousands of acres have been preserved since the county adopted the program in 2002, setting the stage for development of
Ave Maria and the proposed new town of Big Cypress. County commissioners appointed a 13-person committee last month to
oversee the review and determine whether to recommend changes. The committee's First meeting is set for 9 a.m. in Room
609 at the county's Community Development and Environmental Services building on Horseshoe Drive. Committee members
are Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida policy advocate Brad Cornell, Immokalee irrigation system supply
business owner Floyd Crews, land planner and engineer David Farmer, Gulf Citrus Growers Association Executive Director
Ron Hamel, Wachovia real estate financial services manager Jim Howard, and Barron Collier Cas. Vice President Tom Jone~
Others are Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association president and mining contractor William McDamel, agribusines_
manager and Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association President Tim Nance, Economic Development Council of Collier
C01lilty President Tammy Nemecek, land planner and Golden Gate activist Nino Spagna, former Collier County Housing
21H AlP :J C! I~
Authority Executive Director Fred Thomas, retired cable company manager and former Planning Commission member Dave
Wolfley, and Gary Eidson, North Naples activist and chairman of Citizens Transportation Coalition of Collier County
218 B I P age
APPENDIX J
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
eo..vlO CERTtFIEOClVII. TIl.!.G.l ~rrOAr*y
80AIIO CERTlflEO BVSlNESS UTtGATIQti /lTro~"'EY
JOHN M. PASSIDOMO
BOAAl'l CERTIFIED REAl F.STATE ATIOFlNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
OO"'flDCEflTIFIl:DWIl.tS. rRVSTS" ESTATESATTORNH
F. EOWAAD JOHNSON
BOARD CffHlREOWlltS TRiJsrs & ESTATE$ATTOAN!;;T
JOHN D. KEHOE
aOARD CEATIFIED e'l/ll TRIAL M10AN:'l'
LOUIS 0. D'AGOSTINO
aOARD CEfHrFIEO APPEl...ATE PRACTICE ATlQANEY
JEFF M. NQVATI
DAVID A. ZUlfAN
KEVIN A. DENTI
JEFFREY S. HOFfMAN
BOArIDCEATl"'IEOWIUS rll~rs a I:.STAIF.SATJOHNEY
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
ArroRNEVS AT UW, UP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
lELEPHONE: (239) 261-9300
FAX: (239) 281.9782
EMAll CPWJ@nap/eslaw.com
LOUiS W. CHEFFV
BOAAD CEJllJAEO FI&AL ESlAT! ATrOlWEY
USA H. SARNElT
BOARD cemJFlEDREAL urATE ATTDRNIY
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
W'LLIAM J. DEMPSEY
~flO CfRl1P1lOflEALmATEAlTORNEY
MICHAel W. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON
MICHAEL S. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. LOWE
M. FllANCUCA PASSERl
OF COUNSEl:
GEORGE L. VARNAOOE
July 1, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
PrincIpal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II
Dear Mr Greenwood
Our fIrm, together with WilsonMiller, Inc., represents Alico, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Citrus, Priddy Farm, Half Circle L Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectively comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA") In that capacity, we have been following the efforts of the Rural
Land Stewardship Review Committee in its review of the Goal, Objectives and Policies of the
RLSA. Our team is comprised of land use and environmental consultants, engineers,
economists, ecologists, wildlife experts, transportation planners and other professionals, many
of whom were instrumental in the formation of the RLSA program, and having considerable
experience in the implementation of RLSA since its adoption.
The Eastern Collier Property Owners own approximately 160,000 of the 195,000 acres in
the RLSA, and therefore have a vested interest in ensuring that any proposed changes resulting
from the ongoing review of the program by the Committee retain its incentive based, VOluntary
onentation to achieve the goal and objectives of the RLSA. Pursuant to the established
procedures for the 5-year reVIew of the RLSA program, we offer the following comments and
recommendaltons for consideration by the Committee during the Phase 2 process currently
underway
219 1 P age
In this letter we will offer our comments and recommendations related to the Goal,
Objective, and Policy Groups 1 and 2. In subsequent letters we will address Policy Groups 3, 4,
and 5.
The RLSA Goal
The RLSA Goal is: "to protect agricultural activities, to prevent the premature conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, to diract incompatible uses away from wetlands and
upland habitat, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to
discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage devetopment that utilizes creative land use planning
techniques.
The Phase I Technical Report clearly demonstrates that the RLSA Program is achieving this
goal. In its first five years, over 55,000 acres of agriculture and natural resources have been
permanently protected or are in the process of being protected as SSAs; agriculture remains a
viable and vibrant industry with nominal conversion to other uses; the sustainable new Town of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo
development of land in a manner that could be construed as sprawl, nor have any new lots been
created under the baseline zoning of 1 unit per 5 acres.
The Rural Land Review Committee has discussed that greater incentives may be beneficial to
further incentivise the protection of agricultural land, and the Committee has proposed a revision
to the Goal to more clearly define Collier County's intent to "retain land for agriculture activities."
ECPO fully supports this direction and the specific language change.
Some members of the public have offered an opinion that the RLSA Program might create an
imbalance in land uses over time, as the current program includes stronger incentives to protect
natural resources than for agriculture, and allows the conversion of agricultural land to
accommodate new community development. thereby resulting in pressure to relocate
agriculture to other natural areas. ECPO believes that the current RLSA program is well
balanced, but does support enhanced incentives to retain agriculture. ECPO does not agree
with the suggestion that development will push agriculture into pristine natural systems. Based
on review of the data and the opinions of agricultural experts, most of the RLSA lands that can
be productively and economically farmed have already been converted to agricultural use, and
the combination of incentives and regulations make it unlikely that undisturbed land will be
converted. In fact, the data and analysis is the initial study that led to the creation of the RLSA
demonstrated that over the preceding two decades, there has been very little land converted
from a natural condition to agriculture. What is likely is the specific types of agricultural activities
will change over time in response to market demands, and new techniques in farming will
continue to increase the productivity of the remaining agricultural lands.
ECPO agrees with the Committee's previous Goal revisions proposed April 1, 2008, and action
taken to reconfirmed the proposed language and intent to strengthen the Goal during the
meeting of June 17, 2008.
The RLSA Oblectlve
Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land use overlay system, herein
referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Over/ay, based on the
principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S. The Policies that
will implement this Goal and Objective are set fOl1h below in groups relating to each aspect of
the Goal. Group 1 policies describe the structure and organization of the Collier County Rural
2
220- PAGE
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, Group 2 policies relate to agriculture, Group 3 policies relate
to natural resource protection, and Group 4 policies relate to conversion of land to other uses
and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure that land that is not
voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the minimum
requirements of the Final Order pertaining to netural resource protection.
ECPO supports the stated objective, and strongly believes that an incentive based land use
overlay system is the appropriate means of implementing the RLSA program. ECPO further
agrees that the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11), F.S,
provide clear and consistent guidance in the structure and methods embodied by the Collier
County RLSA, and while the Collier County program is not considered by the State to be a
statutory program, it nonetheless has demonstrated that these prinCiples can and do in fact
work when put into practice by local governments and landowners.
The Phase I Technical Report, together with the adopted RLSA Policies and the RLS Land
Development Code, all demonstrate consistency with the Objective and have proven over the
past five years to be a well utilized and clear set of guidelines that enable implementation of the
RLSA Program. In the opinion of ECPO, and many other observers, no other Comprehensiye
Plan program in Collier County has been as well embraced and used during its initial years.
ECPO agrees with the Committee's decision to leave the Objective unchanged.
GrOUD 1 Policie.
Group 1 policies provide the general purpose and structure for establishing the RLSA as an
overlay to the existing baseline rights. The proviSions set forth the program mechanics property
owners must follow if electing to utilize the RLSA. It is within the Group 1 poliCies that the RLSA
methodology for generating Stewardship Credits is defined, and the process is established for
designating a SSA or SRA.
ECPO supports the scientific methodology used to establish the Overlay designations of Habitat
and Flow way Stewardship Districts, Water Resource Area, and Open and WRA Natural
Resource Index Values. No data and analysis, or clear rationale has been provided to support
the contention that the methodology is flawed.
Public comments have been reviewed and discussed with those offering comments. A
continued collaborative process will resolve the differences and build on the points of
agreement. Attachment A to this letter provides ECPOs thoughts related to each public
comment. The intent of the attachment is to assist the Committee with background information,
additional facts and analysis that may be needed to address the comments.
Through implementation of the program with Stewardship Sending Area applications and
Stewardship Receiving Area applications, the process and procedures defined within Group 1
have been effective in meeting the objective. The policies have provided effective incentives.
allowed the needed flexibility for property owners to manage their land and respond to
agriculture and development market demands, and produced the expected resuits.
Considering the publiC comment received and the experience of implementing the program, the
Eastern County Property Owners have the following comments and recommended revisions on
the Group 1 and Group 2 Policies.
3
221-PAGE
Policies 1.1 -1,5
ECPO agrees with the Committee's recommendation of no changes to policies 1.1 - 1.5, during
the meeting June 17, 2008.
Polley 1.6 - SSA procedure.
This policy addresses the designation of SSAs. ECPO does not have recommended revisions
at this time, however, this policy may need further review with additional discussion of SSAs
Also per the policy, the RLSA Overlay Map should be updated to reflect SSAs and Ave Maria
SRA.
Polley 1.7 - Credit value methodology
No change
Policy 1,8 - NRI Value.
No change
POlicy 1.9 - NRI Map Serle.
No change
Policy 1,10 - Credit methodology
No change
Policy 1.11 - Land Use Matrix, Attachment B
No change
Polley 1,12 - Credit transfer
No change
Polley 1.13 - LOR update
No change
Policy 1.14 - Credit exchange
No change
Polley 1,15 - SRA designation
No change
Policy 1.16- SRM to be creative and flexible
No change
Polley 1.17 - Clustering
This policy permits clustering only under the provisions of the RLSA. ECPO does not have
recommended revisions at this lime; however, this policy may need further review if the
Committee considers clustering under Group 5 policies.
Policy 1.18 - Blend of revenues for SSAs
No change
4
222 - PAGE
Policy 1,19 - Voluntary basis
No change
Policy 1.20 - Stewardship Credit Trust
No change
Policy 1.21- Early entry bonus Credit
No change
Policy 1.22 - RLSA Overlay Review Specifics
No change
Group 1 Policies may need further refinement as other policy revisions affect them. ECPO will
provide additional comments on Group 1 Policies as further discussions and refinements
necessitate.
GrouD 2 Policies
The Group 2 policies directly relate to agriculture. It is recognized that these policies should be
strengthened for the benefit of retaining Collier County agriculture lands. ECPO supports the
Committee's revisions to Group 2 POlicies 2.1 - 2.6 made during the Committee meeting April 1 ,
2008. At this time, ECPO does not have any further comment or recommendations on Group 2.
However, like Group 1 Policies, other policy refinements within the RLSA Overlay may require a
look back at Group 2 policies. If that is the case, ECPO may provide comments at that time.
In closing, we appreciate the observations in an effort to make the RLS program as
effective as possible, and while these comments are not intended to be exhaustive, we hope
they will assist the Committee as the continue their work during stage two of the update. We
look forward to the continued progress.
s~'n ely, /#J. ',_
~. tzl....C?fl /. / ,
... . - "..
,..'l-.1 v..... / J-?0~
" -
George L. V}lmadoe
5
2231Page
Attachment A
As referenced in the letter dated July 1, 2008, the following is the public input related to
Group 1 and Group 2 policies as shown in the Committee's "on-going draft: ECPO provides
comments related to the public input with the intention of providing additional information and
clarification for the consideration of the Committee through their review. Additional infonnation
related to public input related to Groups 3, 4, and 5 will be forthcoming as the Committee
progresses in their review.
Policy 1.2
Public Input:
1. The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, "techniques and strategies that are not dependent
on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional, state and federal
regulatory programs: The compatibility of the RLSA to regulations, such as the Clean Water Act
and the Endangered Species Act, must be assessed during the five-year review and changes
made where necessary to ensure compatibility. In addition, if new agency data is obtained or
new regulations are enacted, the RLSA should be reassessed and amended at that time, not
waiting for another five-year review process.
2. Clarify how RLS interacts with state and federal pennitting agencies.
ECPO Comments: The RLSA will always need to comply with State and Federal regulatory
programs such as the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts. Those requirements need
not be written directly into the RLSA. The regional approach used in the RLSA to secure pennits
ensures that all interests are party to the process.
Policy 1.4
Public Input:
1. What happens to baseline density - should disappear as in Rural Fringe TOR program?
Note: Also related to policy 1.5
ECPO Comment.: The RLSA program is incentive-based; should a properly owner elect not to
participate in the program, the Group 5 policies provide for use of the properly under the
baseline provisions.
Policy 1.6
Public Input:
1. SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring no
functionality of wetland land mass. Even though to date that has not been the case, we should
consider language that encourages contiguous SSA's.
2. No emphasis is put on trying to avoid fragmentation of natural areas and the
maintenance of corridors.
I
224lPage
Attachment A
ECPO Comments: While it is true that individual SSAs can be non-contiguous. the ultimate
implementation of the RLSA creates two large interconnected environmental systems. It is
understood that this will take many years and the voluntary participation of many landowners to
realize. Map "1E" of the RLSA Five-Year Review. Phase 1 Technical Report clearly
demonstrates that the approved and pending SSAs are forming large contiguous biocks of
protected lands that have been targeted for public acquisition since the 1970s. The RLSA
program desi9n has resulted in a predictable pattern of environmental protection. and
eventually. all or nearly all of the FSA and HSA areas are likely to be designated SSA lands.
A review of the RLSA Overlay Map (Phase 1 - Technical Review. Map 1) clearly illustrates that
the FSA. HSA, WRA, and Restoration Zone overlays collectively comprise a vast,
interconnected system of flow ways and associated native habitats. These overlays were
created for the expressed purpose of preventing wetland and habitat fragmentation, and
maintaining existing wildlife corridors. Map 1 E of the Phase 1 Technical Review reveals that the
approved and pending SSAs form a contiguous block of protected lands that already
incorporate a majority of FSA and HSA lands.
3. Maintain habitat connectivity/prevent habitat fragmentation with large linkages on a
landscape scale and in association with land uses in the open area to maintain functioning
systems and preserve the wetland to upland interface. Of particular note, are further protection
of Camp Keais Strand and maintaining the habitat linkage in the vicinity of SR 29 and Oil Well
Road.
ECPO Comments: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and
Open) do not pre-determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the
potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands
coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A
recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry
points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively
protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther.
The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in
selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These
potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year
review,
4. SSA approval is not subject to EAC or ccpe review only BCC. SRA approval occurs
via EAC, CCPC and BCC process, as should have been provided for SSA approval.
ECPO Comments: The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a
property owner relinquishes private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their
property, and provides a public benefit by permanentiy protecting natural resources and
agriculture, without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for
establishing an SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of
conditions and stipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property
owners in implementing the program. Multiple pUblic hearings are costly and time consuming.
Members of the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting
on an SSA at the BCC hearing.
2
~~!jP)Clg(O
Attachment A
The SRA approval process is more involved. as It deals with the establishment of design
guidelines, assessment of infrastructure impacts, and other matters, that warrant the review and
recommendations of the CCPC.
ECPO's experience in implementing the RLSA within the process that now exists has resulted in
a successful program, and does not believe changes are needed to the process.
Polley 1,7
Public Input:
1. Indices are determined using a grid pattern that averages uses within each grid. This
can have the effect of reducing the value of viable wetlands when the grid is split between
activities. A proportional area of the land types within each grid could be applied to determine a
more balanced index value.
ECPO Comments: The indices are not determined by a grid pattern, nor are attributes
averaged. Rather, the natural resource data layers (e.g. FLUCCS) are mapped in a
conventional manner and entered into a GIS. The individual polygons within a data layer are
then scored according to the Natural Resource Index (NRI) values. After the scoring occurs,
each data layer is then converted to a grid of one-acre grid cells. The grid ding process was
necessary to arithmetically add the data layer values in GIS.
The gridding process does create minor discrepancies along the boundaries between polygons
with different NRI values. However, the individual errors are less than 0.5 acres and are
essentially random errors that will generally cancel out across a given property. When the value
in any specific grid cell is questionable, it is easily rectified by reviewing aerial imagery and
individual data layers that are coincident with the grid cell. The grid system is used solely for
the Credit calculation process and has no effect on how environmental regulations are applied
to the land during the permitting process.
2. Clarification should be made in the GMP that while SSAs do remove land use layers
from sensitive environmental lands, they are not conservation easements and should not be
allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by regulatory agencies during the
agency permitting process. Separate conservation easements should still be entered into with
the necessary agencies for state and federal permitting mitigation requirements.
ECPO Commenta: No data and analysis, or clear rationale supports the contention that
stewardship easements .should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation
easements by regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process." The relevant question
is whether or not a given stewardShip easement is consistent with the mitigation requirements
for impacts to wetlands and/or wildlife, as determined by agency protocols. It is the purview of
the regulatory agencies to determine, on a specific case-by-case basis, whether the stipulations
contained within a stewardship easement are compatible with project-specific mitigation
requirements.
3. SSA Credit Agreements reference specifically the policies within the GMP that remove
land uses per the RLSA program. These agreements are the mechanism for removal of land
3
226lPage
Attachment A
uses. As such, the Conservancy believes these agreements should include the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), as the State's land planning oversight agency, as a signatory. Also,
the idea of requiring a national, state or local environmental organization signatory should be
assessed.
ECPO Comments: The Collier RLS program is specifically designed for implementation at the
local level, and to our knowledge, the formation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has
successfully been achieved without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory
agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should not be required as a signatory. SSA
Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier County, the
Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, the South Florida Water Management District, or a statewide land trust.
4. No development south of Oil Well Road.
ECPO Comments: The RLSA stewardship oyerlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and
Open) do not pre-determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the
potential iocation of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands
coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A
recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry
points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively
protect the habitat areas utifized by the Florida panther.
The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in
selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These
potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year
review.
The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of
panther conservation planning at a regional scale, and also site-specific analyses at the local
scale. BDth papers incorporate implicit and explicit assumptions regarding panther habitat
utifization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that mayor may not be valid.
Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the current
overlays, beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses.
The comment to preclude development south of Oil Well Road is not supported by any data and
analysis. While large areas of panther habitat do exist south of Oil Well Road, there are also
large areas of agricultural lands that lack evidence of panther utilization. These land use
patterns are reflected by the current stewardship overlays.
5. No panther credits from sending lands that will be surrounded or significantly diminished
in value by development.
ECPO Comments: The suggestion to preclude assignment of an "occupied panther habitaf
score (per the Stewardship Credit Worksheet NRI scoring) is valid where SSA lands are entirely
surrounded by development. Precluding the assignment of panther habitat scores is not
..
227lPage
Attachment A
applicable where connections to offsite panther habitat are maintained, because these areas
may provide habitat support functions.
6. Review easement language and who holds the easements - possibly FWC should hold,
but no stewardship easements to be held by private entities.
7. Signatory to easements should include the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
ECPO Comments: The Collier RlS program is speCifically designed for implementation at the
local level, and to our knowledge, the formation and official filing of SSA Credit Agreements has
successfully been achieved without issue. The Department of Community Affairs is an advisory
agency, not a regulatory agency, and as such, should not be required as a signatory. SSA
Credit Agreements run with the land and the easements are in favor of Collier County, the
Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, the South Florida Water Management District, or a statewide land trust.
Polley 1,8
Public Input:
1. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality
those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on various agency
regulations. The SSA credit system does not consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or
the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off-setting Indices should have been considered
for this.
ECPO Comments: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in
direct response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year collaborative
effort among land owners, citizen stakeholders. staff. environmental organizations and the
review committee that conducted the Study and created the RlSA framework.
Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning
and protection. In the incentive-based RlSA program, the Weighting toward environmentally
sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection of natural systems. The CREW lands, for
example. have been targeted for protection since the mid.1970s. It was only after the RlSA was
established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs.
The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First,
environmental assets do have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be
highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition
cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of acquiring
Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a full year's budget of Florida Forever.
These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation
Collier purchased 367.7 acres within the RlSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary.
The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a $300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this
relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land protected to date as SSA's at
no cost to the public. It would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than $325,000,000
to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier.
5
228 I P age
Attachment A
2. The Conservancy strongly supports the habitat stewardship crediting system be revised
to use current best available science with regard to the preservation of Florida panther habitat.
The panther habitat assessment methodology that the habitat stewardship crediting valuation
system is predicated on has been substantially revised since by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for application by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the value of
certain land cover types as Florida panther habitat. The Conservancy believes that in updating
and revising the habitat stewardship crediting element of the RlSA program based on the best
available Florida panther science will provide Important incentives for preserving critical Florida
panther habitat areas and more accurately guide receiving areas to areas that are less
impactive to the subsistence and recovery of the Florida panther species.
ECPO Comments: The most current and accepted methodology should be used to evaluate
the stewardship credit system. Habitat preservation and provision of buffered corridors In a
Regional Plan and an all inclusive panther preservation strategy could also address this
concern.
3. Revisit sending and receIVIng designations - telemetry & GPS, FWC's least Cost
Analysis, Eastern Collier Study (Smith, Ross & Main), FWC's SR 29 Dispute Resolution letter,
and Kautz, et al (all have been submitted to the county for data and analysis).
4. Corner of Oil Well Road and 29 - particularly the northwest comer - change to sending to
protect important panther travel corridors - panther 131 found dead 041]6/081.
ECPO Comments: The RlSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and
Open) do not pre-determine sending and receiving area designations, but do influence the
potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands
coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A
recent GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry
points recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively
protect the habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther.
The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RlSA program may require refinements in
selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These
potential landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year
review.
The references to the Eastern Collier Study and the Kautz paper should be considered in light of
panther conservation planning at a regional scale, and also site-specific analyses at the local
scale. Both papers incorporate implicit and explicit assumptions regarding panther habitat
utilization, corridor widths, impediments to panther movement, etc. that mayor may not be valid.
Neither paper provides definitive data and analyses to substantiate a change to the CUrrent
overlays, beyond those potentially suggested by the FWC least cost path analyses.
5. Revisit wildlife values on farm fields - caracara, sand hill crane, burrowing owl, gopher
tortoise.
6
2JO-PAGE
Attachment A
ECPO Comments: The wildlife value of agricultural land is highly dependent upon cropping
systems, tillage, water management, fallow periods, surrounding land uses, and many other
variables. The dynamic nature of agriculture precludes a general statement about habitat value
within these areas. For example, a slight change in vegetation structure (e.g., maturing row
crops, unmowad pastures) or water management can easily render agricultural fields unusable
for all of the species mentioned above. For these reasons, agricultural areas were not
necessarily assigned wildlife values.
However, the potential habitat value of RLSA agricultural fields is already recognized in two
important ways. One, agricultural fields that occurred within a landscape matrix of natural
vegetation communities ware incorporated into HSA overlays. Of the 40,000 acres of HSA
overlay, approximately 13,000 acres are existing or fonner agricultural fields. Many of these
areas have already been designated as SSAs. Secondly, over 3,000 acres of these farm fields
and pastures have been designated for habitat restoration, serving all of the species mentioned.
In summary, due to the dynamic nature of agriculture and landscape context, the most
appropriate means for recognizing wildlife value of fann fields is through incentives for
restoration within existing FSA and HSA overlays.
6. I don't believe that the NRI, as originally developed. can be taken as gospel-it needs to
be tested and re-evaluated as part of this process. Policy 1.9 states that the score will be based
on....the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the time of designation: implying a need to
update it regularly. The NRI was developed five years ago by Wilson Miller, but since that time
new data have become available that could well lead to different answers. Nowhere is the NRI
actually explained-it is presented as a black box with fixed weightings. At least it should be
handled in detail in another companion document or as an appendix. There is no explanatory
document posted on the RLSA website. There is also the need to re-examine the data upon
which the NRI scores are based-for example, there are new panther data and new primary
and secondary panther maps. There Is also new scrub jay management guidance from FWS.
Additionally, it might be a good idea to include a panther map overlay with your maps that
appear at the end of the Phase 1 report.
ECPO Comments: The Natural Resource Index (NRI) factors were developed as part of a
public process from 2000-2002, with repeated input from Collier County staff and the general
public. The intent of the NRI scoring was essentially to discriminate between areas of high
environmental value and low environmental value. The NRI scores also provide a rational basis
for detennlning how many acres of SSA lands are required to entitle a SRA. The NRI model was
calibrated with input from Collier County steff and the general public, and the NRI maps closely
correlated with lands that ware deemed as environmentally sensitive.
While listed species occurrence data, panther telemetry, land cover, and other data may change
over time, the basis for the NRI scoring remains sound. The NRI scoring system and the
stewardship overlays are consistent with the new data for panther telemetry and panther habitat
selection. The primary and secondary panther maps are not primary data; they are derivetive
map products that are specifically designed to assist the USFWS with the panther regulatory
program in south Florida. They are not deSigned to discriminate between lands that panthers
occupy or avoid.
7
2311 P a 9 e
Attachment A
Similarly, the scrub jay management guidelines may be useful if scrub areas can be restored,
but there are few (if any) viable scrub jay areas within the RLSA (known scrub jay areas do
occur within the Immokalee Urban Boundary).
7. Why are credits awarded in the ACSC, when there are already restrictions to
development?
ECPO Comments: The underlying philosophy of the RLS program is that environmentally
sensitive areas are valuable, and this value should be reflected in incentives for protection. The
state of Florida recently paid $350 million for Babcock Ranch, which one could also argue was
also under significant development restrictions. Within the RLSA, this protection comes at no
cost to Collier County, and the property remains on the local tax rolls.
Restrictions on development within the ACSC do not eliminate all development. As one
example, the Florida panther utilizes many areas within the ACSC. Highly dispersed, low
density development that is allowable under existing ACSC regulations can adversely affect
panther movement within the ACSC. By providing incentives for protecting large blocks of
interconnected panther habitat, and by eliminating development rights in those areas, the ACSC
remains viable as an area for panther utilization and movement.
8. Incorporate wording in each policy group that reflects best available science will be used
in conducting and analyzing the program (e.g., Group 1 Policy 1.22). The SSAs and SRAs
should be reassessed in light of current scient/fie findings.
ECPO Comments: There is often disagreement about what constitutes "best available
science" for any given environmental issue, even among experts. A more workable approach
may be to document the scientific references that were used for policy development in a data
and analysis report that accompanies each review of the RLSA program.
Polley 1,11
Public Input:
1. What is fate of remaining uses on designated sending lands and suggestion of removing
those remaining uses to meet mitigation obligations?
2. Remove all layers at one time - concem that several layers are contrary to conservation
and/or agriculture preservation goals.
3. Clarify what is included in Ag 2 and Ag 1 ' concerns about aquaculture.
ECPO Comments: When lands are designated as a SSA, the land owner voluntarily
relinquishes specified land use rights, and retains other specified property rights. Depending
upon which land use rights are retained, it may be appropriate to relinquish these "remaining
uses" to meet mitigation obligations. For example, a land owner who retained Ag-1 land use
rights to a farm field could relinquish their agricultural land use rights and restore the farm field
as a native wetland to address mitigation obligations. The specific characteristics of the SSA will
8
231 A-PAGE
Attachment A
determine if removing additional land uses can potentially satisfy specific mitigation
requirements, and is ultimately under the purview of regulatory agencies.
The ability to remove individual land use rights in layers motivates property owners to put larger
areas into SSAs because they can manage operations and unique resources that may be a
smaller portion of the whole. Changing the policy to force removal of all layers at one time will
likely have a negative effect on protection goals by creating uncertainty among the landowners
and slowing the process of creating SSAs.
The uses included in Ag 2 and Ag 1 are set forth on the Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, of the
GOPs. The uses are the landowners' existing rights as permitted under the Rural Agricultural
Zoning District.
ECPO supports the land use matrix as it currently exists.
Policy 1.18
Public Input:
1. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in actuality
those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on various agency
regulations. The SSA credit system does not consider the jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or
the ACOE to assess developmental potential. Off-setting indices should have been considered
for this.
ECPO Comments: The decision to assign a high priority to environmental protection was in
direct response to the mandates of the Final Order and the result of a three-year coliaborative
effort among land owners, citizen stakeholders, staff, environmental organizations and the
review committee that conducted the Study and created the RLSA framework.
Regulatory programs have limitations in encouraging integrated regional environmental planning
and protection. In the incentive-based RLSA program, the weighting toward environmentally
sensitive lands encourages large-scale protection of natural systems. The CREW lands, for
example, have been targeted for protection since the mid-1970s. It was only after the RLSA was
established that the CREW lands were effectively protected via multiple SSAs.
The recent state acquisition of Babcock Ranch, among others, illustrates two major points. First,
environmental assets do have economic and public benefit value, and therefore deserve to be
highly weighted. Second, funding for acquisition of sensitive lands is limited, and acquisition
cannot protect more than a fraction of lands that should be protected. The cost of acquiring
Babcock Ranch was equivalent to a fuli year's budget of Florida Forever.
These observations are also valid for Conservation Collier. In December, 2007, Conservation
Collier purchased 367.7 acres within the RLSA boundary, adjacent to Corkscrew Sanctuary.
The total purchase price was $5.3 million with a $300,000 contribution from CREW Trust. If this
relative cost of acquisition was applied to the 24,124 acres of land protected to date as SSA's at
no cost to the public, it would have cost the taxpayers of Collier County more than $325,000,000
to purchase these lands. This exceeds the total purchasing capacity of Conservation Collier.
9
232lPage
Attachment A
POlicy 1,21
Public Input:
1. The incentive program to jump start the RLSA program was too generous and only
increased the magnitude of development and the speed in which it will occur in the rural areas.
Because of this, a need to look at longer range studies in lieu of the typical 5-years associated
with concurrency issues should be considered.
ECPO Comment: The Early Entry Bonus Credit was specifically designed to jump start the
protection of natural resources, not the speed of development. Policy 1.21 states that:
"The early designation of SSAs, and resulting protection of t1owways, habitats, and water
retention areas does not require the establishment of SRAs or otherwise require the eerly
use of Credits'~
During the review process of the RLSA, the Department of Community Affairs supported the
EEB program as a way to jump start the program through designation of SSAs In advance of
market demand for Credits. This objective has been realized, as approximately 55,000 acres of
SSAs are approved or pending compared to approximately 8,000 acres of approved and
pending SRAs. At full utilization, 27,000 Early Entry BomW'(EEB) Credits are allowed, which
translates into 3,375 acres of Receiving Areas. To date, approximately 7,719 EEB Credits have
been approved and approximately 9,195 EEB Credits have been applied for in pending SSA
applications. By any measure, the EEB program has been a success, and has not resulted in
an increase in either the magnitude or speed of development in the rural areas.
Policy 1,22
Public Input:
1. The Conservancy believes the five year review for the Collier RLSA should be each five
years, not just at the first five year anniversary.
2. Review should reoccur at least every five years. Establish interim process for
modifications if new, sound and defensible information becomes available.
3. MonitOring: The program should include presentation of a written annual report to the
Board of County Commissioners at a BOCC meeting, with adequate public notice of the item
and notice to interested parties. At a minimum the report should include the number of acres in
SSAs and SRAs, proposed SSAs and SRAs, available credits that could entitle development,
infrastructure (roads, utilities) constructed and proposed, a status assessment of listed species
and their habitat, and acres and activities involved in restoration.
ECPO Comments: Policy 1.22 requires a comprehensive review of the RLSA upon the five-
year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District in the LOC. The initial 5-year review
period was put in place because RLS was adopted as an innovative, break-through program
that incorporated many interests. Specific criteria are to be addressed, and this task is currently
being conducted by the Review Committee. The County currently has procadures for review
and appraisal of the entire GMP (the EAR process) and the RLS program should not be subject
to a more rigorous schedule than already in place. Consideration should also be given to the
staffing of County personnel to perform evaluation of specific GMP policies as opposed to
10
2331page
Attachment A
review of the entire GMP. If it is determined that review is on a 5-year cycle, it will be important
to restrict this review to local agencies that are responsible for implementation and oversight of
the program.
Providing for a requirement to provide annual reports is onerous and unnecessary. Since
approval of the RLS program, one new town has been approved and is under construction. All
documentation relative to this approved SRA and all approved SSA's is public record and
available for review by any interested party. County staff already has numerous monitoring and
reporting requirements for various local and state initiatives and directives, and the costs
associated with such a requirement (staff time, legal advertisement, etc.) would be an
unnecessary burden on County taxpayers.
ECPO supports 5-7 year reviews.
Comments received that are not clearly associated with existing policies so therefore
would require drafting new Group 1 policies.
1. Collier County should re-evaluate how other Growth Management Plan (GMP) policies
may be appropriate for applicability to the RLSA. For example, the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (CCME) now has additional provision for stormwater treatment that
require 150% treatment. Certain GMP policies may be appropriate for application to the RLSA
and should be considered for inclusion in the RLSA. At a minimum, exempting the RLSA from
other provisions within the GMP should be re-evaluated.
ECPO Comments: The adopted GMP goals and polices and associated LDC provisions for the
RLSA are extensive and clearly detailed, and were a result of approximately three years of
meetings and public Input. Keeping these provisions together in one place in both the FLUE
and LDC provide for a comprehensive, single source guide. We are not aware of any data that
supports the need to require other proviSions of the Growth Management Plan be incorporated
into the provisions of the RLSA. Existing permitting procedures address specific and detailed
requirements. Adding permitting related regulations to the Growth Management Plan is not
necessary and could also be a disincentive to potential participants.
2. Because there are only a few large landowners in eastern Collier County, they are
generally using their own agricultural land to offset development on other land that they own
(i.e., using their own credits). There is essentially no market for the credits accrued by several
small landowners. (Create a County Credit Bank)
ECPO Comments: Further discussion with Mrs. Hushon related this item to the establishment
of a Credit Bank to track the availability of Credits. A "Stewardship Credit Trust is currently
provided for in Policy 1.20
Polley 2.1
Public Input:
1. Policy 2.1 states that, "Analysis has shown that [Stewardship Receiving Areas] SRAs will
allow the projected population from the RLSA in the Horizon year of 2025 to be accommodated
on approximately 10% of the acreage otherwise required if such compact rural development
were not allowed due to the flexibility afforded to such development." How this polley will be met
11
234lPage
Attachment A
needs to be assessed during the five-year review. Based on the figures from Policy 1.3. there
are 182,334 acres of privately-owned land. These lands, prior to the RLSA. were allowed a
density of one unit per five acres. Thus, 36.467 units would have been allowed. Assuming
development would have occurred in the worst-case scenario of the allowed one unit per five
acres, all 182,334 acres could have been impacted by development (though this is highly
unlikely, as permits could not likely be obtained for development within tha sloughs and other
extremely sensitive areas). Thus, to comply with the policy goal of the future population being
contained on 10% of this land. development should be contained to 18,233 acres of the RLSA.
This would be a ratio of development to non-development of 9: 1. Currently. the SRA to SSA
ratio for Ave Maria, the only approved RLSA town to date, is approximately 3: I. Collier County
must assess how the ultimate 9: I ratio, or development on 10% of the land, will be achievable in
the future. if ali new SRAs come in at Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) to SRA ratios of less
than 9: I. The Conservancy believes the manner in which this policy will be met should be
further clarified.
ECPO Comment: ECPO agrees with the April 1, 2008 minutes of the Review Committee
where Alan Reynolds clarified the relevance and purpose of the 10% figure.
Polley 2.2
Public Input:
1. More lands east of 29 into sending or protective status -this is ACSC land.
ECPO Comment: The RLSA Review Committee is already considering new agricultural
policies that wili incentivize the protection of agricultural land uses. The Agriculture Preservation
program, if adopted, will result in the designation of many "Open" agricultural lands as SSAs.
The proposed program provides extra incentives for protection of agricultural lands within the
ACSC. The proposed program may work in concert with other regional conservation programs
to provide vast areas of agricultural and native landscapes.
2. Agriculture preservation in receiving areas - incentives? What is left after townslvillages
are built?
ECPO Comment: The agriculture Incentives within the Group 2 pOlicies proposed by the
Committee provide greater opportunity for landowners to continue agriculture operations while
removing land rights on lands designated as 'Open." This incentive is directly related to the
desire for agriculture preservation. Provided landowners maintain the ability to create new
towns and villages, with the addition of the new agriculture incentive full implementation of the
RLSA should result in three land categories - natural resource SSAs, agriculture SSAs and
towns and villages.
3. If the Committee genuinely wishes to adopt policies to encourage the preservation of
meaningful Agricultural Lands for the future. these policies and incentives must reward the
preservation of lands with substantive Aaricultural value. The preservation of higher quality
lands with the potential to produce citrus, row crops, or other high value horticultural crops in the
future obviously should carry a higher incentive in development credits than minimally valuable
grazing lands or pasture. Agricultural value alone should be the criteria. The location of many
12
235 - PAGE
Attachment A
of these lands in Collier County is well established. In response to Mr. Jones' proposal, I do not
believe that anv credits should be granted for the preservation of Agricultural lands In the Area
of Critical State Concern. These lands are in environmentally sensitive areas and are under
little development pressure. Most should never be intensively used and hold limited Agricultural
value for the future.
In my opinion, a separate category of Aaricultural StewardshiD Sendlno Lands (ASSA) should
be created. This could identify the difference between the Ag preservation effort and current
SSA's which in practice are strictly environmental. Criteria for credits and goals Should be
separate. This need not be excessively complex, but should give the most reward to
landowners who preserve the land with the most current and potential value to Agricultural uses,
not natural resource value or conservation. This should be very acceptable and desirable to
landowners as this rewards them the most for keeping the lands currently generating the most
income.
Agriculture is currently very well defined and highly regulated by a myriad of state and federal
agencies. Any RLSA Agricultural pOlicies should not be crippled by additional environmental
restrictions. In any RLSA Ag. program there should be no additional restrictions of any kind to
any legitimate agricultural uses. Landowners should be able to capitalize on future technology.
Intensity of use should not be restricted or frozen at current levels. Any RLSA must function
within laws including best management practices. Regulation and restriction should be left to
the law makers and regulatory agencies, not the environmental advocacy interests. The
committee has serious work to do in the details of a viable Ag preservation incentive policy. I
hope that all committee members will read, in detail the 2007 RLSA Program Annual Report to
the legislature from DCA. This review outlines their concerns with the Collier County RLSA
program and policies and defines issues and shortcomings that the committee surely must
address. To develop an Ag policy that will be acceptable to DCA will no doubt be challenging
simply because it will generate an additional inventory of development credits. It is most likely
that DCA will be reluctant to endorse any policy that exacerbates their current stated concerns
include the following:
. The maximum number of stewardship credits in the RLSA is not known and therefore
the maximum development footprint cannot be determined.
. The Collier RLSA Plan has not established how many new towns and villages can be
created.
. Spatial arrangement and extent of various land uses has not been addressed.
Fragmentation of both Environmental and Agricultural lands could make both unsustainable.
The distribution pattern of Development as well as necessary buffers, greenbelts, or other
provisions to preserve rural character have not been adequately addressed, putting it at risk.
The committee will ultimately have to address these issues, and most will have to be addressed
en route to any functional and DCA-acceptable Agricultural incentive policy. All of this must be
accomplished in light of the elephant in the middle of the room, and that is the underlvino land
use in Collier County of 1 dwellino unit for five acres of land. This density, although low, Is the
reason why only agricultural land with a high natural resource value has been preserved to date.
All RLSA credits to date have been structured in a highly rewarded environmental context. A
separate and well defined Ag policy, with similar incentives, is needed. To be acceptable, I am
afraid this will require that the entire RLSA, at build out, be considered and better defined.
Is the committee willing and prepared to do this?
I look forward to discussing Group 2,3, and 5 Policies, however, In my opinion, the present
Collier RLSA shortcomings and criticisms must be addressed before additional or
13
236lPage
Attachment A
new Agriculture policy (or for that matter, any other new policy) can be created. I therefore
propose to the Committee that a structured review and discussion of DCA stated concerns be
undertaken at this time. This should be done before any complex new policy is considered. or
any new speclfic policy language is adopted.
4. Will there be a continuation of loss of agricultural acreage in the RLSA in the future?
Agricultural Productive areas need to be preserved.
5. Establish new category of agriculture preserves; however. assure that the process does
not set up a competition between conservation and agriculture preservation that would result in
failure to protect natural resources. [We note that while conservation benefits have certainly
accrued from the acres currently designated as Ag 1 and Ag 2, very few (-650 acres) have
actually been categorized as Conservation.]
ECPO Comment: The Review Committee has proposed new policies to provide incentives for
landowners to preserve agriculture land within the Open designation.
14
237 - PAGE
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TR1ALATlORNEY
BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LITIGATION ATTORNEY
JOHN M. PASSIDOMO
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WIllS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
F. EOWARD JOHNSON
BOARD CERTIAED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN D. KEHOE
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
lOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO
BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZUllAN
KEVIN A. DENTI
JEFFREV S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTJflED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATF.SATlORNEY
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
AnnRNEYS AT LAw, LLP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE: (239)261.9300
FAX: (239) 261.9782
EMAIL: CPWJ@naplesJaw.com
APPENDIX K
LOUIS W. CHEFFV
BOARD CEATIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
LISA H. BARNETT
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
WILUAM J. DEMPSEV
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
MICHAEL W. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON
MICHAEL S. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. LOWE
M, FRANCESCA PASSERl
OF COUNSEL:
GEORGE L. VARNADOE
DIRECT DIAL: (239) 436-1529
DIRECT FAX: (239) 261-0884
August 26, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Fl 34105
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Re: Collier County RlSA Phase II
Our firm, together with Wilson Miller, Inc., represents Allco, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Citrus, Priddy Farm. Half Circle l Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectively comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rural lands
Stewardship Area ("RlSA"). In that capacity, we have been following the efforts of the Rural
land Stewardship Review Committee in its review of the Goal, Objectives and Policies of the
RlSA. Our team is comprised of land use and environmental consultants, engineers,
economists, ecologists, wildlife experts, transportation planners and other professionals, many
of whom were instrumental in the formation of the RLSA program, and have considerable
experience in the implementation of RlSA since its adoption.
The Eastern Collier Property Owners own approximately 160,000 of the 195,000 acres in
the RlSA, and therefore have a yested interest in ensuring that any proposed changes resulting
from the ongoing review of the program by the Committee retain its incentive based, voluntary
orientation to achieve the goal and objectives of the RlSA. Pursuant to the established
procedures for the 5-year review of the RlSA program, we offer the following comments and
recommendations for consideration by the Committee during the Phase 2 process currently
underway.
In this letter we will offer our comments and recommendations related to Policy Group 3. In
subsequent letters we will address Policy Groups 4 and 5.
238lPage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August26,2008
Page 2
Group 3 Policies
Policy 3.2
Public Input:
1. Protection of listed species and wildlife habitat from intense land uses is one of the
requirements in the Growth Management statutes. The HSAs were delineated to protect
listed species and their habitat. During the first 5 years of the RLSA program there have
been several instances of listed species in Open areas. The HSAs alone do not provide
adequate protection to listed species. Additionally the 2002 definition of panther habitat is
very limited compared to the habitat valuation matrix utilized by USFWS now.
ECPO Comments: The HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs collectively comprise over 89,000 acres and
provide large, interconnected blocks of high-quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife.
These overlay areas contain the vast majority of the native vegetation communities that occur
within privately held RLSA lands, and also include over 13,000 acres of agricultural lands. The
native vegetation that does occur within the Open overlay is highly fragmented, often impacted
by surrounding land uses, and generally of much lower habitat quality that native vegetation
communities with the FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs.
Staff does not provide any data and analysis to support the statement that HSAs (and
presumably FSAs and WRAs) "do not provide adequate protection to listed species: Collier
County and DCA did conclude that listed species protection was adequate when the plan was
approved in 2002.
We dispute that the 2002 definition of panther habitat Is "very limited" compared to the current
USFWS habitat valuation matrix. In fact, the latest published panther research (Land, Shindle,
et. aI., 2008) and a current USFWS review of multiple published studies Indicates that the 2002
definition of panther habitat closely approximates the current understanding of panther habitat
utilization. In fact, the RLSA Habitat, Flow way, and Water Retention Stewardship Areas as
designed in 2002 incorporated ninety-one percent of the panther telemetry. Currently, the
panther telemetry within these same areas has increased to ninety-four percent. This
concludes that the habitat is protected.
Policy 3,6 and 3,7
Public Input:
1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship
Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner
participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and
conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their participation in the RLSA.
For example. on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use
layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural
activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural
uses as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the
natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition
is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should
be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs.
239 1 P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 3
Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The
Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with
all HSAs.
ECPO Comments: Land owner participation in the RLS program is voluntary and based on
market conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping
additional uses off lands not participating in lhe RLS program would reduce the market value of
that land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim action or violation of the Right to Farm Act.
FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat
required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet
the specific criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connectivity.
Policy 3.9
Public Input:
1. Review of the SSAs currently designated indicate that out of the approximately 23,000
acres that are in SSA easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to their
conservation land use. The Conservaocy believes that Collier County should be more
active in securing lands that will be maintained for conservation purposes. While grazing
may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses, more active agricultural activities
may not, especially if the environmental value of the land would benefit from restoration
activities. Collier County should revisit the SSA Group 3 policies to require more SSAs be
taken down to conservation through incentives or regulations. A better understanding of
the uses removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was required to go
through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval.
ECPO Comments: The Conservancy's statement does not acknowledge that of the 24,124
acres within approved SSAs, 19,034 acres (79%) are designated as Ag-2 lands. Of the 19,034
acres under Ag-2 land uses, 16,334 acres exist under native vegetation, and an additional 1, 781
acres are comprised of pastures. These Ag-2 land uses retain only grazing rights and other low-
intensity agricultural uses that are entirely compatible with listed species conservation. Lands
within approved SSAs "maintained for conservation purposes" are therefore more accurately
quantified as the sum of Ag-2 and Conservation land uses (19,684 acres), or 82% of all
approved SSA lands.
The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes
private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their properly, and provides a
public benefit by permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring
publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an SSA are clear,
straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and stipulations. RLSA
incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to properly owners in implementing the program.
Multiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of the public, including
advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing.
2. Provide incentive for organic farming for ag remaining in FSAs and HSAs
3. Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP)
standards, at a minimum.
240lPage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 4
ECPO Comments: The RLSA agricultural areas have been farmed for decades, utilizing
standard agricultural operations that are covered by existing state agricultural regulations.
Additional restrictions could potentially render these agricultural operations unprofitable, counter
to the goals of the RLSA. The prescription of BMPs could also create disincentives for land
owners to include agricultural areas within SSAs, thereby fragmenting landscape mosaics that
would otherwise be protected as large, interconnected blocks of land.
Policy 3.10
Public Input:
1. The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are
proffered as such in subsequent development analysis. This then supports arguments to
completely remove wetlands within the areas where development was to take place when
in reality the ratios of natural set aside preservation lands were much smaller in
comparison to the wetlands being destroyed if the Ag2 lands were exciuded. While some
A2 lands are in more natural states, the fact they are not truly conservation lands Is
misleading.
ECPO Comments: The majority of SSA lands designated as Ag-2 consist of native vegetation
communities and unimproved pastures and rangelands that contain both wetland and upland
land cover. Once an SSA easement is placed on such property, the residential, earth mining,
recreation, and intensive agriculture land use rights are removed and no further intensification of
these natural areas is allowed. As a result, there is little difference between "preservation or
conservation lands", and Stewardship Sending Area lands at the Ag 2 level, other than the fact
that the land owner is obligated to continue to manage the land In accordance with the
Stewardship Easement Agreement, rather than the public incurring this obligation and cost for
public preservation land. One critical land use that Is retained by the Ag-2 designation is the
right to graze cattle, which is an important larid management tool. In natural forest communities
within the RLSA, grazing of cattle enhances forest function by suppressing exotic vegetation
and controlling overgrowth in the understory. Ultimately, these Ag-2 lands do provide
conservation benefits similar to those provided by public lands within and adjacent to the RLSA.
With respect to wetland impacts in SRAs, the RLSA is~ a planning tool that works in a
complimentary fashion to wetland and wildlife regulalory programs, not as a replacement. Any
proposed wetland impacts and mitigation requirements are assessed and approved by the
regulatory agencies for each SRA independently of RLSA process, using standard
methodologies such as the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). The
RLSA program addresses the issue on a major system basis, which regulatory programs do not,
and protects vast acreages of regional flow ways and larger high-quality wetland systems that
greatly exceed the wetland mitigation ratios typically required by SFWMD and the US Anny
Corps of Engineers. This is one reason why the Collier County RLSA is held in high regard by
the SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Policy 3.11
Public Input:
1. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a variety of
activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination. These uses
241 I P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 5
include cattle dipping, petroleum spillage from wells and even solid waste disposal from
hunting or remote camps. Since the SSA's are given credit for their environmental value a
requirement for a clean environmental audit prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all
property within the SSA should be mandatory.
ECPO Comments: Cattle grazing (and its related uses), is a permitted use throughout the
RLSA. and may be allowed 10 continue when property is voluntarily placed within an SSA by its
owners depending upon the land use layers removed. Land within an SSA that has been
cleared or altered for agricultural support activities will be scored accordingly. SSA lands
normally remain in private ownership and the property owner retains the obligation for land
management, including compliance with regulatory requirements associated with agricultural
practices. Environmental Audits are typically required only in conjunction with a change in
ownership. Requiring an environmental audit to be performed on thousands of acres of land
would be an extraordinary expense and is therefore a disincentive for property owners to
consider placing their property within an SSA.
Callie dipping vats were constructed throughout the State of Florida as a result of local, state,
and federal programs conducted from 1906 through 1961, for the prevention, suppression,
control, or eradication of the disease commonly known as tick fever by eradicating lhe cattle
fever tick. Most vats were constructed with public funds and operated under local, state, and
Federal Government supervision and control, and participation in the eradication program was
mandated by state law and not voluntary. Chapter 376.306(2}, Florida Statutes states:
Any private owner of property in this state upon which cattie-dipping vats are
located shall not be liable to the state under any state law, or to any other person
seeking to enforce state law, for any costs, damages, Dr penalties associated
with the discharge, evaluation, contamination, assessment, or remediation of any
substances or derivatives thereof that were used in the vat for the eradication of
the cattie fever tick. This provision shall be broadly construed to the benefit of
said private owner.
Any potential oil spills are closely scrutinized by the Florida Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), and should there be an occurrence, Immediate action is required. DNR maintains
records of all petroleum spills and the action taken to address said spills. When wells are
abandoned, oil companies and property owners are required to plug the wells and clean up the
site under the direction of DNR.
Hunting camps are handled via written leases with the property owner. The stipulations of these
legal leases include the requirement for any lessee to properly dispose of all solid waste and
also include annual inspection by the property owner to insure the terms of the lease are being
met. Private property owners take great care in the protection of their land when allowing others
to use their property for hunting or camping purposes.
2. The Conservancy believes that retention of AG1 or AG2 uses on lands where credits are
generated for restoration activities creates the potential for incompatibility, Even lower-
impact agricultural uses, such as unimproved pasture, may present conflicts to replanting
and management for lands based on the restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that
on lands where stewardship credits are generated for restoration plans and actual
restoration activities, all land use layers should be removed down to the conservation use.
In addition, appropriate fencing should be required to provide a sufficient separation
between agricultural uses and restoration areas.
242 I P age
[page left intentionally blank]
243lPage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 6
ECPO Comments: The process for restoration credits requires the removal of AG1 uses, so
there is no potential for incompatibility between restoration and AG1 uses under the RLSA
program. Cattle grazing is a proven land management tool. When properly managed, cattie
grazing limits under brush from becoming an extensive fire hazard, keeps exotics from more
rapid proliferation, and requires more continuous oversight of the land. Removing all agricultural
uses from the land would be a disincentive to restoration because there is a cost associated
with land management. There must be a mechanism available to ensure that restoration and
conservation remain viable options in the market.
3. The Conservancy believes Policy 3.11 should be reexamined as to the ability for additional
Stewardship Credits to be obtained for dedication of land for restoration. The
Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands dedicated for restoration,
where restoration has been implemented.
ECPO Comments: In the RLSA, restoration is a two step process. First land Is dedicated for
restoration, and then the restoration is completed. The RLS program assigns credits for each
step. By assigning credits for the first step, dedication, the program sets aside and protects
lands for a future restoration activity, When viewed in a regional context this dedication process
is useful to other entities, such as Conservation Collier, when prioritizing which lands to protect
and restore. To eliminate the dedication step from the credit system would be a disincentive to
property owners to dedicate any restoration land until the restoration is to be completed, thereby
depriving those other entities of knowing what the true regional restoration plan is.
4, Incentives for restoring farm fields in receiving areas.
ECPO Comments: This comment is apparently referring to the potential for restoring farm fields
within the "Open" overlay designation. The RLSA program was designed to achieve a balance
between agricultural sustainability, environmental protection, and economic development. As
noted in the previous response, ample opportunities for farm field restoration already exist within
the FSA and HSA overlays. While restoration within the FSA and HSA overlays can occur within
a landscape matrix of native vegetation communities, restoration within the Open overlay lacks
a landscape-scale context, and should not be a priority.
5. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits that can be generated - too many
credits?
ECPO Comments: Both Collier County staff and ECPO are preparing more accurate estimation
of total potential stewardship credit generation, including restoration credits.
6. Why have credits been established to be awarded just for preparing a restoration plan that
does not have to be implemented?
ECPO Comments: (See response to 3 above).
7. Restoration credits: credit should be generated only for actual restoration work, this could
be a two step scaie involving the start of restoration and meeting specified success
criteria.
ECPO Comments: The purpose of providing restoration designation credits is two-fold. One,
the restoration design~tion credits can provide a source of capital necessary to initiate the
244lpage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 7
restoration work, including the costs of permitting, detailed restoration planning, etc. Secondly,
there are situations where a land owner may be amenable to allowing a local (such as
Conservation Collier), state or federal agency to perform restoration work on their land. The
restoration designation credits provide an incentive for land owners to cooperate with agencies
where they otherwise may have declined to participate, and the agencies can implement the
restoration program.
8. Any level of restoration or maintenance receives the same amount of credits. The credit
value should be tied to the functional lift and there should be levels of credit that could be
earned.
The management plan should include more than the 1 exotic plants listed by County Code
(FLEPPC Category 1). Various other exotics have been observed.
The LDC should define more specific requirements on what management plans entail.
Restoration should be to a native habitat.
ECPO Comments: ECPO agrees that a tiered system of restoration credits, tied to the
restoration functional lift, the difficulty of restoration, and the cost of restoration would be
beneficial. An approach will be provided to the RLSA Review Committee in the near future.
Management plans are currently incorporated into Stewardship Credit and Easement
Agreements, so enforceability is already present in the system. We agree that it is appropriate
to include the 12 Category 1 exotic plant species identified by FLEPPC in future management
plans. The SSA restoration management plans submitted 10 date have included sufficient
specificity to ensure the achievement of restoration goals, but we will work with the RLSA
Review Committee and staff if a standardized checklist will provide clarity for all parties while
preserving flexibility in restoration implementation.
We disagree that restoration should be limited to native habitats. Emphasis on pasture-
dependent species highlights the need for inclusion of pastures as potential restoration habitat.
Caracaras, for instance, prefer properly managed pastures over any other habitat. including
native dry prairie. Restricting restoration to native habitats could potentially compromise
recovery efforts for these species.
Policy 3.12
Public Input:
1. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention
Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year
assessment.
2. More upland buffers for Camp Keais Strand & OK Slough
ECPO Comments: The need for more upland buffers adjacent to existing FSA and HSA areas
has not been demonstrated or supported by any data and analysis. Aside from that fact,
Restoration Zone overlays were already designated in 2002 along key portions of both regional
flow ways, and comprise over 2.000 acres of potential buffers. These 500-feet wide Restoration
245lPage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 8
Zones create incentives for restoration of buffers, and can work in conjunction with SRA buffers
as well,
Policy 3,13
Public Input:
1. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water
management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of
utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated, especially for
those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would benefit from restoration.
However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for stormwater treatment and are
incorporated as part of the development's stormwater treatment system for a development
project, their acreage should be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The
Conservancy would like to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.
ECPO Comments: The comment refers to Water Retention Areas or WRAs, which are one of
three types of SSA classification. Two Policies are relevant to the comment:
Policy 3. 13
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been
permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention,
detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be
permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay.
WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management
functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA
in such instances. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to
refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be
required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge
rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and
modifications shall be allowed subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in
accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs
shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs
unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that
will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an
impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall
be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.
The SFWMD will encourage or require that storm water continue to be directed into these
reservoirs, even after converting adjoining land uses from farm to development. This is
anticipated by RLS Policy 3.13 and 3.14. There will be many cases where on-going agricultural
operations continue to use the WRA simultaneously with the developed land. In these cases,
there is no purpose served by trying to distinguish how much of the WRA is serving the farm,
and how much is serving the development, as the overall acreage of the WRA will not change.
Continuing to use these systems for water retention is efficient and beneficial to the
environment, and results in land use patterns that are more compact and cost effective.
246 I P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 9
Eliminating water flows would negatively impact hydrology and hydroperlod and would cause
detrimental changes to the habitat values of these reservoirs. These reservoirs are typically
large (over 100 acres), and often are located between the developable land and ultimate outfalls
to flowway systems.
In instances where a WRA is permitted to function solely for SRA water quality treatment and
detention, it may be appropriate to include this acreage in the SRA acreage calculation.
In closing, we appreciate the observations in an effort to make the RLS program as
effective as possible, and while these comments are not intended to be exhaustive, we hope
they will assist the Committee as the continue their work during stage two of the update. We
look forward to the continued progress.
//'
Very ~ yours, p ,
\: \~/~~~"-A
John M. bassidomo
_ F..or-th?'Firm
6434-13239 Doc #58 - Greenwood Ltr ECPO responses to GrDup 3 comments
247 1 P age
APPENDIX L
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARD CERnFIEO CIVil TRIALATTOfINEY
BOARD CSlTIFlED auS!Nl;:SS UTlGAT\ClN ATTORNEY
JOHN M. PASSIDOMO
SOARO CERTIFIED REAL "STATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
80AAD CERTIFiEOWILLS. TllUST5 '" ESTATES ATTORNEY
F. EDWARD JOHNSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WilLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN O. KEHoe
BOARDCERTlFIEO CIVIL TRiAl ATTORNEY
LOUIS D. O'AGOSTINO
BOARD CERTIFIED AJ>PELLATEf'RACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZULlAN
KEVIN A. DENT!
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
ArroRNEYS IJ LAw; UP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITe 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE: (239) 261-9300
FAX: (239)261-9782
EMA1L: CPWJ@naplaslaw.com
LOUIS W. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIfiED REAl ESTATE ATTORNEY
LISA H. BARNETT
BOARD CElmFIEO REALESTATE ATTQflNEY
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
WllUAM J. DEMPSEY
BOARD CEfUlAED REAL ESTATE AiTORNEY
MICHAEL W. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON
MICHAEL S. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. LOWE
M. FRANCESCA PASSERI
OF COUNSEL
GEORGE L. VARNADOE
DIRECT DIAL (239) 436-1529
DIRECT FAX: (239) 261-0884
September 19, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Pianning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Our firm, together with WilsonMiller, Inc., represents A1ico, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Citrus, Priddy Farm, Haif Circle L Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectiveiy comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA").
In that capacity, we have observed that a lack of certainty that stewardship credits can
be utilized to entitle a SRA and that the SRA can thereafter receive all necessary permits
required to commence construction can undermine the incentive for property owners to create
and sell stewardship credits which, in turn, can weaken the system for protecting natural
resources and agriculture in the RLSA.
We therefore respectfully propose the attached policy to make stewardship easements
created upon approval of a SSA conditional for a period of 5 years or until one of the following
events occurs at which time the easement becomes permanent:
credits from the SSA are utilized to entitle a SRA and the SRA receives all
necessary permits to commence construction;
the SSA owner irrevocably sells the credits to another person; or
248lpage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 19,2008
Page 2
the SSA owner receives other compensation in exchange for creation of the SSA
easement.
If none of the foregoing events occur during the 5 year conditional period, the owner of
the SSA lands may thereafter revoke the easement.
Upon revocation of the easement,
the SSA lands revert to base zoning,
the credits generated by the SSA cease to exist,
the rights and obligations created by the easement become null and void, and
if credits from a SSA are used to obtain one or more SRA approvals, the SRA
approvals also terminate.
During the 5 year conditional period, the owner of the SSA lands shall abide by all
conditions and restrictions contained in the stewardship easement regarding maintaining
property conditions and performing management obligations.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you and look forward to
discussing any questions you or the Committee may have concerning it.
f~
6434-13239 #163- Greenwood Ur 2 ECPO responses to Group 3 comments
249 I P age
SSA REVERTER POLICY PROPOSAL
Pronosed revision to last Hentence ofPolicv I 6:
Once land is designated as a SSA, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship
Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such propel1y unless the SSA is tenninated as orovided
elsewhere herein.
_________.__.nn______Onn_nn__d_________________________ __n_nnnn_________________________nn___________n_n_____
Prooo!'ied new provision:
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending Area
("SSA"), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a tenn of five years ("Conditional Period") and
shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship
Easement related to maintaining th.e existing property conditions, including all management obligations of the
owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period. If at any time during the
Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall
become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non~revocabJe in accordance
with the terms set forth therein:
I. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving
Area ("SRA"), and the 8RA has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders,
permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction, If Stewardship Credits
from the SSA have been assigned to more than one SRA, then the receipt of aU necessary final and
non-appeala.ble development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence
construction of any SRA shall al1tomatically cause the Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a
Permanent Stewardship Easement;
2. The owner of the SSA lands has irrevocably sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another
person or entity, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, and received the
consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not including a sale or transfer of the Stewardship
Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying fee title to the land; 01
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received other compensation as described in Policy 1.18 in exchange
for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement.
In the event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of
the SSA lands may within 180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period record a Notice of Termination.
In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary
approval is filed, the owner of tbe SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Period until the challenge or
appeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved snch that the construction may commence
under teffilS acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands may within 180 days of the
[mal disposition of the challenge or appeal record a Notice ofTemlination. Upon the recording ofsllch Notice
of Termination. the Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement shall expire and terminate, the Stewardship Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the
rights and obligations set fOl1h in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the
property, and the 8SA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a
copy of the Notice ofTennination to the County.
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA approvals,
but none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the Notice of Terrninatioll
shall also provide for temlillation of any SRAs that have been assigned credits from the SSA,_ unless the SRA
owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have
been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Tenninatioll does terminate an 8RA, the owner of the
SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Telmination.
250lPage
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is tenninated, all benefits, rights, privileges, resLrictions
and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to its underlying
zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA
Credit Agreement. Ifreqllested by the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other grantees under the
Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and tennination of easement and credit
agreements for recording in the public records within 15 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands.
Collier County shall update the overlay map to reflect the tennination of any SSA or SRA.
This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof
F:\wpdocs\RE\ECPO\EasICI11 Collier J5~\leS (13239)\Rcvcrsion8.doc
251 I P age
APPENDIX M
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LITIGATION ATTORNEY
JOHN M. PASSIDOMO
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
F. EDWARD JOHNSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN D. KEHOE
BOARD CERTIAEO CIVil TRIAL ATTORNEY
LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO
BOARD CEATIRED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZULIAN
KEVIN A. DENT!
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
SOARD CERTifIED WillS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAw. UP
821 FIfTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES. FLORIDA 341 02
TELEr>HONE: (239) 261-9300
FAX: (239)261-9782
EMAIL: CPWJ@napleslaw.com
LOUIS W. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
LISA H. BARNETT
BOAlm CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE AlTORNEY
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDAEW H. REISS
WILLIAM J. DEMPSEY
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTDRNEY
MICHAEL w. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. TI~ORNTON
MICHAEL S. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. LOWE
M. FRANCESCA PASSER!
OF COUNSEL:
GEORGE L VARNADOE
DIRECT OIAL: (239) 436-1529
DIRECT FAX: (239) 261-0884
September 23, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Proposed RLSA Group 4 Policy Revisions Regarding Transportation Issues
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
During our presentation on behalf of the Eastern Collier Property Owners this morning,
the RLSA Review Committee requested that we provide them with a written synopsis of the
following guiding principals which in our opinion are required to make the transportation based
proposals submitted to the Committee today legally defensible under Florida law:
1. There must be a reasonable connection or "rough proportionality" between the
required dedications and the anticipated needs of the community arising out of
the proposed development;
2. The dedications sought to be required must be related to the impact of the
project, used to mitigate those impacts, and applied to all types of developments
(and not just those contained within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area);
3. Any proportionate share contributions must be credited against impact fee
obligations and ensure that the landowner is not responsible for alleviating
backlogs; and
4. A financially feasible analysis must be based on the planning timeframes
contained in the county's Capital Improvement Element.
252 1 P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 2
We look forward to participating in ongoing Committee deliberations and in finding
common ground to achieve the overriding objectives transportation staff spoke with the
Committee about last week in a way which is legally defensible under Florida law.
truly yours, 0 '
/'" J~ W
John . Passidomo ~
e Firm
JMP/tpp
6434-13239 #166 - Greenwood Llr 4
253lPage
APPENDIX N
Wi/s4mMiller'
"~5Q:
New Directions In PIIInm"fJ. Ons/gn & fnoln6erillfJ
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Tom Greenwood
WilsonMiller
September 18, 2008
Collier County RLSA Group 4 Policies
On behalf of the Eastern Collier County Property Owners and pursuant to the established
procedures of the 5.year review of the RLSA program, we recommend the following
revisions to the Group 4 policies for consideration by the Review Committee.
Policy 4,2
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are
eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, Wf'{A-or land
that has been designated as a Stewardship S ending Area. Land proposed for SRA
designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4
Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay, extending to a horizon year of
2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter 163.3177( 11) F.S.,
the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be
predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated
as SRAs generally have si milar physical attributes as they consist predominately of
agriculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands
shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 75,999
72.000 acres outside of the ACSC and aDDroximatelv18,300 15.000 acres within the
ACSC. Total SRA desianation shall be am aximum of 45.000 acres. .'\J3J3rClldmately 2~~
of these laAas achieve aA IAael( SCElFS we ater than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires
SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities
and infrastructure, traditionallocational standards normally applied to determine
development suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for
designating a SRA follows the priACiJ3les of the RUFGI LaAas Ste'llarashiJ3 /\ ot as fuFther
aessriBea Drocedures set forth herein and the adoDted RLSA Zonina Overlav District.
Policy 4.3
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a pr operty owner to Coli ier County
seeking such designation and the a doption of a resolution by the BCC granting the
designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The
basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay,
including required suitability criteria set forth herein, compliance with the LDC
Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire
sufficient Stewardship Credits to im plement the S RA uses. Within one year Ham the
effestive aate Elf this am endment, Callier County shall aaElJ3t LDC am endm onts to
estaBlish the J3r-eseauros and submiltal requiremaAts fer aesignation as a SRf" to iAsluae
wovisiaAs for oaAsiaeratiaA Elf imJ3asts, iAsluaiAg eAviraAmeAtal aAa J3uBlic iAfrastruoturo
2541 p "
2
impaots, and pr<l'Iisions for 1l~lJlic notice of and the opportunity fer fJ~lJlic Ilartioillatian in
any consideration by the BCC of s~ch a aesi!jnatian.
Policy 4.7
There are feUf-three specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are
Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics
of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally
described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 ana 4.7.4. Collior C8~nty shall establish mare
~pecific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC StewardShip Districtle
guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and
development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.31 77 (11), F.S. and OJ-5.006(5)(1).
The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth in
Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may
only be exceeded through the density blending pr ocess as set forth in density and
intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area M aster Plan or through the affordable-
workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating Sys tem of the
Future Land Use EI ement. The base residential density is cal culated by dividing the total
number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area the rein. The base residential
density does not restrict net residential density of paroels within a SRA. The location, size
and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis dur ing the SRA
designation review and a pproval process.
Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types
and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support
development that is compaot, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land
uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than
~ 1.500 acres or more than 4-,QQll- 5.000 acres and are com prised of several villages
and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a
mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support
services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by
including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Towns shall have at least one comm unity park with a minimum size of
200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public
green spaoes within neighborhoods. Towns s hall include both oommunity and
neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Towns
may also include those com patible corporate office and light industrial uses as those
permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the
FLUE. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the
extent possible, schools a nd parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the
sharing of recreational facilities. Des ign criteria for Towns are shall ee included in the
LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACS C.
Policy 4.7.2
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of hou sing types and mix of
uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not
255lPage
3
less than 100 acres or more than ~ 1.500 acres. Villages are comprised of
residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the
focal point for the community's support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed
to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk
and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or
public green spaces within neighborh oods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled
retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an appropriate
location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be
located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facil ities. Design
criteria for Villages are sRall ee included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Policy 4.7.3
Hamlets are small rural resiElential areas with Ilrimarily sin!jle family 110~sin!j anEllimitod
ran!je of eonvenienoe arjontes ser'/ioos. HQmlots shall bo not less than 40 or mora tRen
100 aer-es. Hamlets will sorve as a more eompaot alternativo to tmsitional five aSrD lot
ruml s~IJElivisions e~rrently alloweEl in tho easeline stanElnrds. Hamlets shalll1a'le a 1l~lJlio
green sFlaoe fer nci!jheorRoods. Hamlets inel~do convenionoe retail ~se s, in a rntio as
fJr-eviEles in Attacl1ment C. Hamlets may 1J0 an appropriate 10cQtion fer pre K thre~!jh
elementary schools. Design criteria for Hamlets shalllJo incl~dcEl in tRC LDC Stc'IIaraship
Distriet. To maintain a proportion of Hamlcts to Villages Qnd Towns, not marD than a
Hamlets, in eambination '....ith CRDs of 100 aeres or loss, may be appr-eveEl as SHAs prior
to the approval of a Villa!jc or Town, ans ther-eQfter not mare than a ad Eliti<:mal Hamlets, in
comeinatian with CROs of 100 acres or loss, may bo afJpm'/od fer eaoh s~bseEl~ent
VillQge or Town.
Policy 4.7.4
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will fJmviEle flel(ieility '....ith
rcspeet to the mile of usos anEl Elesign stansards, lJ~t shall otl1erwise eomllly '/lith tile
stQndards of a Hamlet or Villa!jeshall suooort and further Collier Countv's valued
attributes of aqriculture. natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall
demonstrate a unique set of uses an d suooort services necessarv to further these
attributes within the RLSA. Primarv CRD uses shall be those associated with and nee ded
to suooort research. education. tourism or recreation. A CRD may include, but is not
required to have permanent residential housing and th-e-servicesand faeilities that s~Pllort
pormanent r-esisents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the demand
qenerated by the orimarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two units oer
qross acre. CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. I\n example of a CRD is an
eeata~rism village that wo~ld have a ~niEl~e sat of ~ses and s~fJfJart sarviees Elifferent
from a tr-asitional resiElontial villa!je. It 'IIa~IEl contain tr-ansient losgin!j facilities anEl
sorviees appropriate ta eco to~rists, but FAQY not praviEle fer the mn!je of servieos that
necessarj to support permanont resiElents. El(6elll as sescrilJeEl alJave, a CRD '....ill
conferFA to the charQeteristies of a Villa!je or Hamlet as set fertR on ,^.llaehment Ceased
an the size of the CRD. ,^,s r-esiElential ~nits are not a reEl~ireEl \;se, those !joads anEl
services tRat sUfJport resiElents s~el1 as rDtail, affioe, ei'lie, governmental and institutianal
~ses shall also not be reEl~ireEl, however for any CRD thQt docs inelude permanent
rGsiElential Ra~sing, the pr-eportionate s\;fJpart serviees Iistes alJave sRall bo pravideEl in
accoraanee witR P.llaehmont C. To maintQin a pmpartian af CROs of 100 aer-es cr less to
256 I P age
4
Villages ans Towns, not mom than a CRDs of 100 aeres ar less, in eameinatian with
Hamlots, may lJe appmvod as SR/\s prior to the appro'lQI of a '1illa!je or Tawn, and
ti'lemaftor not mare than a assitional CROs of 10Q aer-es or less, in Elameinatien with
Hamlets, may ee allllro'/ed fer eaElh s~ese€l~ent Villa!je or Town. Tl1ere shall be no more
than 5 CRDs of more than 100 aores in size. TI1e appr-epriateness of this limitation shall
bo rD'Iiewes in a years pursuant to Paliey 1.22._
Policy 4.9
A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in
an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development
away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, and
HSAs, and VVR/\s. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical hab itat,
residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient
housing, institutional, civic and comm unity service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on
lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition,
conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the excepti on
of those necessary to se rYe permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on
lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. Infrastructure
necessarY to serve oermitted uses shall be exemot from this restriction. orovided that
desians seek to minimize the extent of imoacts to any such areas. The Index value of
greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as
measured pursuant to Poli cy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index
score of greater than 1.2.
Policy 4.10
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water
retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant
land use. Therefore, open space adeq uate to serve the forecasted popu lation and uses
within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such areas proximate to
their homes, open space shall also com prise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross
acreage of an individual SRA Town, or Village, or thase CRDs eXEleeding 1 gg aElr-es.
Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater th an 1.2 shall be
retained as open space. exceot for the allowance of uses de scribed in Policy 4.9. As an
incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA,_loElateEl autsise of the
AGSG, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume
Stewardship Credits.
Policy 4.15.1
SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed t he full range of uses permitted
by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3,
4.7.4 and Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic,
governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and
community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and
character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within
other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By exam pie, each Village
257lpage
5
or Town shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as
appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the com bined population of several
Villages and Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in
a nearby Town. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each
category are set forth in Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC
District.
Policy 4.16.
A SRA shall have adequ ate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or
such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of
infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil
engineering practices, and LDC requirem ents. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to
serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process.
Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation
water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed
in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utiliti es are
required in Towns, Villages, and those CROs excsoding one hundr-cd (100) acros in size,
and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending
upon the perm itted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community
water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a
private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee
Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative
alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community
treatment systems shall not be prohi bited by this policy provided that the y meet all
applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potab Ie water supply well s and septic systems,
limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted
on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are
available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems arc permitted in Hamlets
ooa-may be permitted in C RDs of 100 acres or less in size.
Policy 4.19
Eight Credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, where such Credits
were created from a StewardshiD Sendina Area deemed vested under the eiaht Credit ratio.
Ten Credits Der acre shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA. where such
Credits were created from any other StewardshiD Sendina Area. exeept fer aQpen space in
excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or feF-land that is
designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19 do not reauire use of Credits. In
order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support
facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of
uses, accessory uses and a ssociated uses that provide a mix of services to and are
supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in Policies 4.7, 4.15 and
Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master pian.
Policy 4.20
While they do not reauire Credits. aDen sDace and +!he acreage of a public benefit use
shall Aet-count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7. For the
258lPage
6
purpose of this policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or
private post secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding
the minimum acreage requirements of Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional
parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The
location of public schools shall be co ordinated with the Collier County School Board,
based on the interlocal agreement ~163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent wi th
235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or
proximate to Towns and Villages, ans Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and per milling
requirements.
Policy 4.21
Lands within the ACS C that meet all SRA criteria shall also be restricted such that credits
used to entitle a SRA in the ACSC must be generated exclusively from SSAs within the
ACSC. Further, the only form of SRA allowed in the ACSC east of the Okaloacooch ee
Slough shall be Hamlets ond CRDs of 100 acres or less and the only form of SRA allowed
in the ACSC west of the Okaloacoochee Slough shall be CRDs. and Villages and CRDs of
not more than 300 acres and Hamlets. Provided, however, that CRDs. or two Villages Of
GR9s-of not more than 500 acres each, exclusive of any lakes created prior to IRe
effeetive date of this amensmont June 31. 2002 as a result of mining operations, shall be
allowed in areas that have a frontage on State Road 29 and that, as of the e#ooti'/e sate of
tRese amenElments, ~had been predominantly cleared as a result of Ag Group I or Earth
Mining or Processing Uses. T his policy is intended to assure that the RLSA Qyerlay is not
used to increase the development potential within the ACSC but instead is used to
promote a more compact form of development as an alternative to the Baseline Standards
already allowed within the AC SC. No policy of the RLSA Overlay shall take precedence
over the Big Cypress ACSC regulations and all regulations therein shall apply.
259 I P age
APPENDIX 0
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARDCERTIFIEDClVILTRIAlATTORNEY
BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LITIGATION ATTORNEY
JOHN M. PAS$IDOMO
BOARD CERTlAED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
BOARD CEflTIAEO WILLS. TRUSTS & !ElATES ATTORNEY
F. EDWARD JOHNSON
BOARDCERTIAED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATESATTOANEV
JOHN D. KEHOE
BOARD CEATIAED CIVil TRIAL ATTORNEY
LOUIS D. O'AGOSTJNO
BOARD CERllFIED APPELIJo.TE PRACTlCEATTOANEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZULIAN
KEVIN A. DENTI
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTIFIED WillS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
ArroRNEYs Ja lA'w. UP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORlDA34102
TELEPHONE: (239) 261-9300
FAX: (239) 2S1.97fl2
EMAIl: CPWJ@napleslaw.com
lOUIS W. CH~FFY
BOARD CER1lFIED I~EAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
USA H. BARNETT
BOARD CERTIFIED REAl ESTATE ATTORNEY
CLAY C, BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
WILUAM J. DEMPSEY
BOARO CERTlFIEO REAL eSTATE ATTORNEY
MICHAEL W. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON
MICHAELS. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. 1.0WE
M. FRANCESCA PASSERI
OF COUNSEL:
GEORGE L VAANADOE
DIRECT DIAL: (239) 436-1529
DIRECT FAX: (239) 261-0884
September 22, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II Policy Group 4
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Our firm, together with Wilson Miller, Inc., represents Alico, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Citrus, Priddy Farm, Half Circle L Ranch. Ranch One
Coop., English Properties. and Collier Enterprises. who collectively comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rurai Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA").
Pursuant to the established procedures for the 5-year review of the RLSA program, we offer
the following comments and recommendations for consideration by the Committee during the
Phase 2 process currently underway.
In this letter we will offer our comments and recommendations related to Policy Group 4. In
subsequent correspondence we will address Policy Group 5.
Group 4 Policies
Policy 4.2
1. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agriculturai pumpage and not
permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use
water 12 months a year so their actual use is not consistent with the impacts of residential
irrigation. This change in withdrawals over different perIods of time should be reviewed for
260lPage
261 I P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 2
impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping
there is a reduction applied that reduced maximum avaiiability should be used when
analyzing water resources for new SRA's.
ECPO Comments: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD
standards during water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from
agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater
resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the
conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater
by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual
pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. The fact that a farm operation may
not pump its maximum rate in any given year, depending on climate cycles, does not limit
their legal right to do so when the demand dictates.
Regarding seasonal agricultural consumption, there is a large acreage of perennial crops
(e.g. citrus) in the area whose temporal irrigation demand matches that of lawn and
landscape. Seasonal row crops are generally grown in the dry season and use substantial
quantities of water when impacts to the aquifer are most criticaL Typical landscape demand
associated with future development should ameliorate rather than further impact the
groundwater resource.
2. The Conservancy strongly supports further delineation of potential areas appropriate for
SRAs within the plan. While the mapping of the FSAs and HSAs are prohibited from being
aiiowed designation as SRAs, there is a large area (almost 100,000 acres) that could
potentiaiiy be used as SRAs. Further refinement of areas where development should be
directed, based on infrastructure and environmental compatibility, should be reviewed. For
example, additional provisions should be included that further directs development and other
incompatible uses away from the Area of Criticai State Concern (ACSC). A maximum
number of towns, villages, hamlets and CRDs within the RLSA should also be explored.
ECPO Comments: RLS Policy 4.16 requires that an SRA have adequate infrastructure
available to serve the proposed development. Infrastructure includes transportation, potable
water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. SRA
applications are required to include several components including a natural resource index
assessment, an impact assessment report (relative to infrastructure), and an economic
assessment report. These components are thoroughly conSIdered during the review
process, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the size, location, and land use
components of a particular SRA. One town has been approved since adoption of the RLS
program and it does not appear that the existing regulations have caused a proliferation of
development in the area. The timing and location of future SRAs will be guided by existing
market conditions and the ability of an applicant to prove that the necessary infrastructure
can be provided and that the project is fiscally neutral or positive.
3. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance separations
between SRAs. If SRAs are allowed to be locafed back-to-back, without any true
separation, mega-towns could result in areas where rural character should be maintained.
ECPO Comments: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other
uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging
262 I P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 3
development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11
requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition from higher density
and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property.
The edges of SRAs are to be weli defined and designed to be compatible with the character
of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County
collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no
SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the
SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000-acre
town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or
pending.
4. There should be more guidance on where towns and villages can be located. As it is writlen
now, it is possible to locate towns near each other with only a small buffer between which
encourages sprall. Without planning. all the density will be located on the westem portion of
the RLSA. Ideally the towns should be spread out. with large agricultural areas between
them. Maybe a maximum number of towns needs to be agreed upon (3?) and the general
areas where these can be located indicated on a map. At a minimum, there needs to be
more guidance provided as to where towns can be located and their buffering requirements.
This will facilitate all types of future infrastructure planning by the County.
ECPO Comments: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other
uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging
development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11
requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition from higher density
and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property.
The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character
of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County
collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no
SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the
SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000-acre
town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or
pending.
5. Provide maps of build out scenarios. Further, just as natural resources are mapped, so
should the areas most suitable for development
ECPO Comments: Areas suitable for development are currently mapped as "Open" on the
RLSA Overlay Map. The RLSA policies and implementing Land Development Code provide
loeational and suitability criteria as well as design standards to guide development.
Policy 4.5
6. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric light
sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation lands, such as
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
ECPO Comments: Lighting is a design standard that is considered during the Receiving
Area (SRA) application review.
263lpage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 4
Polley 4.7, 4.7.3, and 4.7.4
7. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development nodes,
such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to the extent that they
are compatible with the overall goals of the program. if these small development nodes do
not contain adequate levels of self containment or self sufficiency, then their allowance
under the RLSA should be reconsidered.
8. No hamlets or "compact rural developments" compact rural development could be a
nCoconut Point," - no cap on size of some types of CROs).
9. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) seem to be too loosely designated and could provide
a loophole for increased development in areas that are already built up. A CRD of 100
acres or less seems to be a meaningless designation and it is my belie{ that this type of
development could be dropped.
ECPO Comments: The Eastem Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to
forms and characteristics of SRA's:
. Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA.
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres.
. Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500
acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay
Program shall apply to Villages.
. Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern.
. Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research,
education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
Policy 4.8
10. Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances that did not adequately address
hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacts of agricultural uses are far different than the
uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood to assure no impacts to
surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations should be compared for compatibility
with changes brought on by development.
ECPO Comments: We are not aware of any data that supports the opinion that buffers are
inadequate. Buffers were included Within the RLSA program as a land use planning
technique to provide a transition between receiving areas and natural areas, primarily for the
benefit of water quality and wildlife. The state and federal wetland permitting procedures
meticulously review existing wetland hydro period data, proposed surface water
management designs, outfall control elevations, etc., with the expressed purpose of
preventing hydrologic impacts to surrounding wetlands. The SFWMD Basis of Review for
Environmental Resource Permits details these procedures. Permits are not issued until the
applicant can demonstrate that the proposed activity does not hydrologically impact these
wetlands, regardless of the buffer location or distance. As part of the Environmental
Resource permitting process, control elevations are determined based on average wet
season water table elevation as typically determined by hydro-biological indicators, soil
types, ground water well monitoring data, and surrounding permitted control elevatlons.
264lpage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22. 2008
Page 5
11. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention
Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year assessment.
ECPO Comments: The most current peer-reviewed research on panther habitat utilization
concluded, -[OurJ results indicated that forests are the habitats seiected by panthers and
generally support the current United States Fish and Wiidlife Service panther habitat ranking
system." (land, Shindle et. aI., 2008). This research employed GPS collars to characterize
panther habitat selection during nocturnal and diurnal periods, and compared GPS data to
standard diurnal VHF radiotelemetry data. As such, this research does represent "the best
available Florida panther science" and does not support the Conservancy's contention that
the RLSA panther habitat methodology needs to be revised.
12. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water management
system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs as part
of stormwater management should be reevaluated, especially for those WRAs that are part
of historic wetland flowways and would benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs
are deemed acceptable for stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the
development's stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should
be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like to see
this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.
ECPO Comments: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on
September 16. 2008 to Policy 3.13.
Policy 4.14
13. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result separate
developer contribution agreements are being created that provide excessive development
rights beyond those contemplated in the original SRA. DCA's should not be allowed until an
SRA is approved in order to better understand the impacts from the SRA.
ECPO Comments: Policy 4.14 of the RLSA Overlay subjects all SRAs to the County.s
adopted Concurrency Management System. Developer Contribution Agreements are used
throughout Collier County as a mechanism to address concurrency issues through public-
private partnerships to improve the transportation network. All such agreements are subject
to Board of County Commissioner approval and must be found consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and Land Development Code. In order to assure the impacts of an SRA
(or any development) are addressed and mitigated, Developer Contribution Agreements are
approved either prior to or concurrent with approval of the development. DRi's, such as Ave
Maria, are thoroughty analyzed because of the Regional Planning Council staff and other
reviewing entities analyses and the transportation and other impacts are well understood
prior to approval of the SRA.
14. An analysis is needed to determine how is the long range transportation plan is coordinated
with the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially feasible plan for this
area. Using the 5-year modeling of the GMP is inadequate for an area the size of the RLSA
and we should be anaiyzing the SRA's on their impact to the 30-year buitd out study.
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22. 2008
Page 6
ECPO Comments: The coordination of long range transportation planning with future land
use planning is a continuous process. Historically. the County's long-range transportation
planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Given that the future population projections
of a full-build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years,
and absent a planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that tlmeframe,
It is clear that, in the past, neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed
with respect to transportation planning. To address this need, three separate efforts are
underway today that will provide a better understanding of the future transportation needs of
the RLSA. The County is beginning to develop a County-wide Interactive Growth Model and
an updated Long-Range Transportation Model. In addition to the two County studies, the
Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) have undertaken the task of developing a long-
range conceptual plan for the RLSA that depicts one possible scenario of how
environmental and agricullurallands, and lands suitable for development can fit within the
program. While the areas with the highest environmental value were clearly defined in the
current RLSA Program, lands that would be most suitable for long-term agriculture and
likewise those lands most suitable for long~range development potential were not dearly
understood. ECPO has identified one potential development concept plan that quantifies
and locates the amount of development envisioned at a build-out horizon. While it is only
one possible configuration, it does allow for a conceptual roadway needs analysis to be
performed, and allows for a basis of establishing viable corridors that can be further
explored through regular County and State transportation planning channels. ECPO is
working closely with the County in an effort to bring all three of these studies into alignment
All of these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of the
County. Now, five years after inception, we have a better understanding of how the RLSA
will "grow up" and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more
appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system of the future.
Policy 4.16
15. Impacts on certain elements of regional infrastructure were not given adequate analysis.
Hurricane evacuation and shelters space, health care facilities and affordable housing as
example, were not adequately addressed and minimum standards should be considered as
guidelines for SRA approval.
ECPO Comments: Infrastructure is defined by Collier County as drainage (water
management), roads, potable water and sanitary sewer facilities pursuant to the Code of
Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Section 106-32. RLSA Policy 4.16 requires that
infrastructure be analyzed with each Stewardship Receiving Area application, and also
includes irrigation water and solid waste. It states:
"A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed
development, or such infrastructure must be proVided concurrently with the
demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the type of
development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The
capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA
designation process in accordance with the CoJlier County Concurrency
Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. Infrastructure to be
analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water,
stormwater management, and solid waste. "
265 I P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 7
While hurricane shelter space, health care facilities and affordable housing are each
important types of facilities, they are not defined as infrastructure and not subject to
concurrency management. However, every Town or Village in excess of 2000 unlts will be
required to undergo DRI review, where regional issues such as hurricane evacuation, health
care, and affordabie housing are addressed in accordance with State Law.
With respect to hurricane evacuation. the RLSA is the least vulnerable part of Collier County
as demonstrated by the fact t~\at no part of the RLS falls within a Landfalling Storm Category
1-4 map zone. Accordingly, it is the area least likely to require evacuation. In
implementation, Ave Maria provided hurricane shelter for coastal residents within the
university buildings, and in cooperation with Emergency Services, provided storage space
for emergency supplies that can be used throughout the county.
Planning for health care can only be properly addressed once specific SRAs are proposed.
Hospitals must go through a separate state needs analysis before any new hospital can be
built. These items are addressed by SRA and ORI review procedures.
The need for affordable housing was contemplated during the formation of the RLSA. The
GMP policies, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics chart. and associated LOC
standards state that the densities associated with a town, village, hamlet or CRO can be
increased beyond the base density through the affordable housing density bonus. Section
2.06.01.C of the LOC specifically addresses the affordable housing density bonus within the
RLS. Specific affordable housing conditions for a particular project are determined during
the review and approval process for an SRA (similar to the PUO and/or ORI review/approval
process). Affordable housing was provided at Ave Maria in a ratio well in excess of any
other large scale community in Collier County. All infrastructure is carefully analyzed and
consider throughout the public hearing process.
16. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages and hamlets,
a comparison of water consumption proposed for the new development versus actual
agricultural pumpage (not just a comparison of new consumption to permitted volumes)
when reviewing consumptive use impacts.
ECPO Comments: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD
standards during water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from
agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater
resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the
conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater
by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year to year. therefore actual
pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly.
17. As it is universally recognized that the wide-scaie use of septic systems as a long-term
solution to wastewater treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAs should be required to
have a plan for conversion to a private or public sewer syslem. While development may
initially be on septic systems, the plan, with timelines, for conversion to sewer should be in
place at the time of development approval.
ECPO Comments: RLS Policy 4.16 indlcales that interim septic systems are permitted
within towns, villages and CRO's greater than 100 acres, and individual septic systems are
2661Page
267lpage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22. 2008
Page 8
permitted within hamlets and CRO's less than 100 acres. The conversion of septic systems
to centralized or decentralized community wastewater utilities is managed through the
permitting process and additional provisions in the GMP are not necessary.
18. New roads and road improvements including potential 1-75 interchange must be included
ECPO Comments: Proper planning for new roads and road improvements induding a
potential 1-75 interchange is the product of coordination between long-range transportation
planning and future land use planning. Historically, the County's long-range transportation
planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Future population projections of a full-build
condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a
planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that
neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to
transportation planning. The County is beginning to develop a County-wide Interactive
Growth Model and an updated Long-Range Transportation Model. The Eastern Collier
Properly Owners have prepared a Concept Plan that demonstrates one (of many) possible
land use scenarios, Additionally, ECPO has prepared a preliminary transportation network
analysis that supports that Concept Plan. and will be working closely with the County
planners to achieve a consistent and comprehensive analysis of the future potential of the
RLSA. Together these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation
needs of the County. Today. there is a better understanding of how the RLSA is likely to
mature over time and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more
appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system improvements of the future.
19, Each new development should have to identify traffic contributions, water usage and other
resource requirements at the time they are being planned, You may want to consider the
changes in these variables from agriculture to increased density,
ECPO Comments: See response to number 15 above.
Policy 4.18
20. Fiscal impact analysis model (FlAM) minimum standards should be no less than minimum
county wide standards as a conservative approach until historic data is acquired. This will
provide the maximum protection to the taxpayers, The analysis needs to be re-visited and
the development provided corrections made every year and include accurate absorption
rates, traffic capture rates and sales demographics, all of which have significant effects on
the outcome of the FlAM.
ECPO Comments: FiAM was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October
24. 2007, as the official model for review of DRI's, and projects within the RLSA. Since the
County has adopted FiAM, it Is advisable for the County 10 keep the calibrated items up to
date with the most current data available and meeting County-wide standards, such as
current budgets, persons per household, millage rates, etc. Similarly, when an applicant
prepares a FlAM for a specific project, the FlAM will be populated with the initial data
projected for the project and subsequently with the most current data available at the five
year interval or phasing dates to reftect adjusled deveiopment plans including sales prices,
absorption rates, etc,
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 9
Policy 4.18 of the Rurat Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District ("RLSAO") and Section
4.08.07.L of the Collier County LDC both require an SRA applicant to submit a FlAM as a
part of the application for SRA approvai. and each 5 years after approval. An annual fiscal
analysis and review wouid not be appropriate as it would not account for the dynamics of the
land development process. the cyclical nature of the economy, nor wouid it account for the
period of time necessary for a community to reach a point in its growth where a stabilized
balance of population. facilities and services are reached. The LOG specifically requires
that the project demonstrate fiscai neutrality every five years as noted below:
" Monitoring Requirement. To assure (iscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA
shall submff to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report'; every five
(5) years until the SRA is ninety (90) percent built out. The Report will provide a
fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined
above. "
The five year or phase measurement was determined to be an appropriate timeframe by all
parties participating in the creation of the RLSA program due to the above mentioned
reasons and the fact that there are significant fiscal variations from year to year. This
timeframe allowed tor the project to stabilize and to account for economic cycles.
In cases where a project does not meet its estimated absorption schedule, then it may not
generate the projected revenues, however, there will also be a corresponding reduction in
the cost of public services. Therefore, any measurement must be in terms of net fiscal
impact, not just revenue shortfall.
21. Water storage areas that SFWMD allowed for Ag were allowed to be used for deveiopment
storm water as well, yet these areas were not required to be included in development
acreages nor analysis provided to determine effects of this additional use. This occurs for
many uses within the developmental areas, thus making it appear as though development is
using less acreage when in fact the impacts from development may cause changes to the
water quality and quantity in land that is not part of the SRA
ECPO Comments: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on
September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13.
Policy 4.19
22. The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been reviewed and
applied in a model as the maximum scenario for development. The averages that were
used understated the growth potential. Future adjustments should be based on a maximum
impact analysis to assure a conservative approach for taxpayers.
ECPO Comments: See the memo to Tom Greenwood from WilsonMiller dated September
18, 2008.
268lPage
269lpage
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 10
Policy 4.20
23. In order to ensure that the maximum size of a town is limited to 4,000 acres, the
Conservancy believes that all town uses. Including schools and universities, should be
incorporated into the maximum 4.000 acre footprint.
24. Why is acreage for "Public Benefit" not included within the overall acreage calculation for
any SRA?
ECPO Comments: ECPO recommends a revision to Policy 4.20 to include the acreage of a
public benefit use towards the maximum acreage limits of a SRA
25. Tie transportation planning to conservation goais
ECPO Comments: Agreed.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you and look forward to discussing
any questions you or the Committee may have concerning it.
(
ve~~
John ':'1.~ssidomo
FDrthe Firm
6434-13239 #165 - Greenwood Ur 3 ECPO responses to Group 4 comments
P
i~
I
APPENDIX P
October 6, 2008
Mr. Themas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshee Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II Policy Group 5
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Our firm, together with Wilson Miller, Inc., represents Alico, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Citrus, Priddy Farm, Half Circle L Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectively comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA").
Pursuant te the established procedures for the 5-year review of the RLSA program, we
offer the following comments and recommendations for consideration by the Committee during
the Phase 2 process currently underway.
In this letter we will offer our comments and recommendations related to Policy Group 5.
GrOUD 5 Policies
Policy 5.1
1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship
Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the
landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some
permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their
participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the
RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should
assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially
270 I P age
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
October 6, 2008
Page 2
remove the more active agricuitural uses as incompatible with protection of the quality,
quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5..1, for
HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants.
The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the
prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be
reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf
courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs.
ECPO Comments: FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified
mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. The mix of land use activities within
FSAs and HSAs are necessary te enable the delineation of the large interconnected systems.
The Group 5 poiicies collectively provide a set of minimum land development standards that
apply only when a land owner does not participate in the RLS program. In the case of Policy
5.1, the FSA provision addresses a narrow issue of water quality within regional flow ways,
where the more intensive land uses could impact offsite areas. Of the 31,100 acres of FSA,
only 800 acres are active agriculture. Within the HSAs it has been confirmed by many biological
experts, including Darrel Land who spoke with the RLS Committee, that species are very adept
at utilizing and traversing agriculture lands.
Policy 5.4
2. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and a map of locations
ECPO Comments: The RLSA program provides a tremendous framework for facilitating the
establishment of wildlife underpasses, by protecting large expanses of habitat with SSA lands.
The actual need assessments, locating, design, and construction of wildlife underpasses occurs
through the efforts of state and/or federal wildlife and transportation agencies, either as part of
public works projects or as part of the regulatory process for development projects. As one
example, FWC researchers continually evaluate the need for panther crossings, and have maps
of existing and proposed panther underpasses.
3. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which are
many.
ECPO Comments: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are
incidents on SR 29 south of the Sunniland mines. The panther-vehicle collisions on CR 846 east
of Immokalee were considered when designating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that
area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were later designated along that segment of CR 846 specifically to
provide opportunities for future panther crossings.
FWC has documented the location of all known panther-vehicle collisions in a GIS database.
This information, in conjunction with FWC's least cost path modeling of panther movements,
has been and will be used to identify promising sites for additional panther crossings. The RLSA
program facilitates the establishment of these wildlife underpasses by preserving existing iand
uses in the vicinity of the crossings.
Policy 5.6
4. The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not include an
analysis of what amount of non-jurisdictional lands couid actually be permitted. This
271 I P a 9 '"
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
October 6, 2008
Page 3
produced a false sense of urgency to protect environmentally sensitive land that in
reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even as 5 or 10 acre homesites,
the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited.
ECPO Comments: An analysis of the specific jurisdictional wetland permitting conditions of the
entire 300 square mile RLS was net within the scope of the Rural Land Study, nor is such an
analysis required for comprehensive planning. Further, as the RLSA is an optional overlay. it is
an alternative to development under the existing zoning, not a replacement.
The standard zoning of the entire RLSA is Agriculture. Under this zoning, a wide range of land
uses are permitted by right or conditional use that can have impacts to jurisdictional areas,
including the full range of agricultural activities, farmworker housing, commercial excavations,
and residential development. Under the standard zoning, land ownership can be subdivided and
fragmented in ways that compromise wetland and habitat connectivity. Once this occurs, it is
very expensive and difficult to reassemble land into manageable systems (Southern Golden
Gate Estates). The RLSA creates incentives for more sustainable and environmentally sound
patterns of protection and development on a landscape basis.
In addition, many environmentally sensitive lands within the RLSA are not jurisdictional
wetlands, yet proYide important habitat for Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox
squirrel, and other listed species. Large areas of non-jurisdictional land are included in Habitat
Stewardship Areas, particularly where these occur in proximity to native vegetated areas or
flowways.
The "sense of urgency" for protecting environmentally sensitive lands pre-dates the RLSA; and
in fact was a key catalyst that led to the estabiishment of the Final Order, the Rural ,Lands
Study, and the resulting RLSA program. The Florida Forever program (and its predecessors)
targeted the CREW lands (Camp Keais Strand) and the Okaloacoochee Slough iong before the
creation of the RLSA. Various state and federal analyses projected strong development
pressures on wetlands within the RLSA before the RLSA program was created. The South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration program predicates much of its land acquisition strategy on
potential wetland losses and landscape-scale fragmentation.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and recommendations fo you
and look ferward to discussing any questions you or the Committee may have concerning them.
Very truly yours,
John M. Passidomo
For the Firm
6434-13239 #179 - Greenwood Llr 5 ECPO responses to Group 5 comments
272lPage
APPENDIX Q
Naples Cultural Landscape
2400 Tamiami Trail N - Suite 300
Naples, Florida 34103
239.594.29780 239.261.6664 F
www.naolesbackvardhsitorv.ofl!
To: C.D.E.S. Division
Joseph Schmit, Division Administrator -
From: Naples Cultural Landscape: A Fund at the Community Foundation of Collier County
Lavern Norris Gaynor, Founder; Lois A Bolin, Ph.D., Strategic Advisor
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Requests to the R.L.S.A. Review Committee
Statement: Under the direction of the Dep!. of Community Affairs a program was started and
implemented under Florida Statute 9J-5.026 entitled the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (R.L.SA).
On the first page of that programs texts Item # I states- the: Purooses of the R.L.S.k Program and Item
# 2 states the Puroose of the R.L.S.A. Rule. Under the Standard Option of those purposes # 8 Section B
states as Item # I : Identify and explain the existing locally specific rural character of the R.L.S.A. and
surrounding area by analyzing its characteristics, including Land use, Development Patterns, and
Economic, Social, Cultural. Historic, Scernc, Landscape, Recreational and Environmental Elements.
The data and analysis shaH include under: Section # 2 Item-I: All forms of rural resource values
including Agriculture; Environmental, Eco Systems, Wildlife Habitat, and Water Resources;
Recreational, Tourism, Scenic; Cultural. and other general amenity Values.
Statement: Under the Special Option for KLS.A of 50,000 or more Contiguous Acres - Section 7 Item B, Goals
and Objective, and Policies - # E, states; A visionary Process to provide public participation in the design of any
new town or Rural Village. Under the same section -B, Goals and Objectives, B- Item 10 states; The recording of
a Stewardship easement or Restrictive covenant running with the land in Perpetuity on all designated
Conservation and Agricultural areas in favor of the Countv, the Dept. of Environmental Protection, and the Dept.
of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Intemretation; It is with the above statements that the Naples Cultural Landscape, a Fund of the Community
FOWldation of Collier County, a 501 (C)(3) non for profit organization along with the support of various other non
for profit organizations mostly representing the general charters of Historical Societies which encompass the
policies of Documenting, Recording, Archiving, and Interpreting to the general public all areas pertaining to the
past Historical and Cultural themes represented in the past History and Heritage of Collier County that we do
hereby request these additions and lor revisions be reviewed and entered where possible into the R.L.S.A.O.
policies presently being amended and drafted by the various committees.
273 I P age
The Historical and Cultural aspects of Collier County's past during the establishment of the first Rural
Lands Stewardship Area committee's meetings, plans, and discussions that took place in early 1999
through 2002 unfortunately were not addressed in any way. This was due to the fact that an accurate
Historical and Cultural Resource Assessment had not been completed and in essence, had not even been
started until 2003. It has taken over 5 years to complete the study and it was realized that any plans that
were being discussed in the new R.S.L.A.O. reviews should include the information that was found in
the study, but more important during that time a plan had been conceived that could incorporate the
objectives and Goals that the present R.L.S.A.O. committee's and interested parties, most notably
landowners, developers, planners, economic advisors, tourism concerns, transportation concerns, and
more importantly as these meetings that have been going on for many years the concems about the
Florida Panthers and wide variety of other wildlife that would in the end some how incorporate the rich
Historical and Cultural past of Collier County. On the surface this would seem an Utopian ideal until
you realize the fact that according to the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources states
that in 2007 tourists brought into Florida over 4.7 Billion dollars, 763 million ofthat went directly to
South Florida with 49 (percent) directly attributable to people who sought out in their specific
destinations areas that had Historical sites and places. This is a 60% increase over the last 4 years and
those figures are expected to double in the next 5 years and exponentially thereafter. Taken with the fact
that one organization and (there are over a half a dozen more) The Florida Communities Trust allocated
73 million dollars last year to projects that secured Stewardship Credits, purchased land for Preserves,
Parks, Wildlife Habitat, Green Space, as well as Cultural and Historical Preservation. As secretary of
the Dept. of Community Affairs Tom Pelham said "Over the past 17 years, these awards will help
communities achieve their vision of Stronger, Greener and Healthier landscapes". As it is spoken of in
the Historical and Cultural study over 80% of Collier Counties land has transitioned from the hands of
the Landowners and Collier County Govemment into private State and Federal entities in the last 34
years. This leaves the remaining 20% available for practical use by the County and landowners in the
near future. This displays the simple fact that in the final phases of build-out the County, Landowners,
Planners, Committee Members, and other organizations are to paraphrase the saying' Trying to describe
an Elephant just by its head'. Understanding that since the inception of the Everglades National Park
was established in 1947 and other 4 State and Federal preserves established since have implemented
only policies that mainly address Biological concerns. The Human element has taken a back seat as can
be seen in the fact that that with over I million acres under the different park management systems in the
last 6 t years, not one site located on these lands has been registered on the National Register of Historic
Places where the public can have access to today and enjoy. In the final phases of this visioning process
it becomes apparent that if the goals and objectives to "connect the dots" do not find their fulcrum point
the visions so earnestly sought will be like clouds without water. If the only Goal is to build houses and
communities without incorporating the past History and Cultures that S.W. Florida has always had an
association with the uniqueness that can so easily be applied simply leaves way to "offering nothing
more than any other community. It goes without saying that hundreds of thousand of hours labor are
going into the planning stages and untold millions of dollars have been and are being utilized to apply
strategies that in the end will tie into and apply to the final 'Horizon Picture' it would be constructive to
pause and remember that old and well applied adage "That a million monkey's typing on a million
typewriters for a million years will never be able to write a Shakesperian play" To simply rely on the
phrase - If you build it they will come also should have the caveat added - They will if there is
something to come to. To speak only of Natural Resources and their future conservation as only a
biological consideration in this County and not recognize that the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the
past residents is one of the most important ingredients in that term referred to as Natural Resources.
2
2741 P age
Therefore the Goals and Objectives proposed by the Naples Cultural Landscape organization in
conjunction with other interested parties and organizations collectively speaking on the Historical and
Cultural Heritage policies that make up the largest part of these organizations goals state and seek to
initiate:
1. Stop the de-designation process that removed the Historic and Cultural attributes of U.S. 41
(Tamiami Trail) and is currently in the process of removing;
A. The 1988 designation of the trail by the State as a- Florida Scenic Highway
B. The 2000 designation ofthe trail by the Federal Government as a- National Scenic Byway
2. Installation of Historical Markers and Interpretive Centers and/or Kiosks along the entire
distance ofU$. 41 (Tamiami Trail) stretching from the City of Naples to the Dade County
border that will represent Collier County's past History and Cultural Heritage. This will direct
tourism and interest from the east coast and west coast sections that will culminate on Highway #
29.
3. Installation of Historical Markers and Interpretive Centers andlor Kiosks along the entire
distance of Highway # 29 from the south on U.S. 4t north to Immokalee City that will represent
the Collier County's past History and Cultural Heritage as it relates to the past;
A. Historic lumber towns, Settlements, Farming towns, Oil producing towns [Sunniland], First
Collier County Citrus producing groves, The first Collier County Citrus Canning plant, the first
Railroad in Collier COlUlty both passenger and commercial [Deep Lake ]-Since Deep Lake is one
of only 5 sinkhole lakes in Florida and has freshwater on its first layer and saltwater on its lowcr
layer with a resident population of Alligators and Crocodiles living together it would be expected
to draw over 1 million visitors a year.
B. Seeking cooperation to open Deep Lake to the general public as it was for the first 106 years of
its operation [not currently open to the general public] and having a boardwalk installed.
C. Seeking cooperation to turn the now presently closed Old Copeland Prison into a Pioneer
Museum [This will involve seeking the N.P.S. to return the # I Lee Tidewater Cypress Company
steam train that is presently in the Steamtown Collection in Scranton Pennsylvania]
This will have a positive flow on all visitors and tourists and seek to draw them to the new
Development taking place in the R.L.S.A. area and Immokalee City area.
4. Seek cooperation from landowners to Register Fort Simon Drum-[a known and monwnented
site by David Graham Copeland in 1941]. This site is presently 6 miles east ofImmokalee City
one half mile south of Immokalee Road and would be just on the east side of the new proposed
bypass road that will COlUlect to the road north ofImmokalee City. The Fort Simon Drum site is an early
Army Seminole War fortification and is the only known site of a military installation in South
West Florida South of the Caloosahatchee River and it is expected that it would draw over 2
million visitors and tourists a year.
5. Seek cooperation with landowners and developers to have Historical Markers or Kiosks
interpreting Collier County's past Historical and Cultural Heritage displayed placed at designated
parks and open green spaces in the future planned developments. One example of the benefits
of such a cooperative agreement is the fact that in 2002 prior to development at the Ave Maria
first phase site an expensive Archaeological Survey was required by the State to try to locate a
past Historic site which the owners thought at that time to be the location of Fort Doane an early
Army Seminole War, fortification site. The investigation was done and the required paperwork
was completed allowing the continuation of development. This resulted in a coordinated effort
on the part of several research centers to try to accurately identify the previously mentioned site.
3
275 I P age
This in turn led to the eventual recording of 9 more sites in the area on 09/09/2008- State File Survey
#15576 thereby requiring an additional nine more Archaeological investigative studies being required
before development could proceed at any of those locations in and around the Phase 2 area and the
proposed Big Cypress Development, with at least 3 of those new sites in the northern part of the
R.L.S.A. This process has been described as a cycle that continually [feeds on itself] Furthermore it
was discovered that the correct name of the supposed Fort Doane site had already been previously
recorded as the site of Camp Keais and an Archaeological survey might have been avoided. The original
form has now been updated on the Florida Master Site Files to indicate this name change. This is a clear
case of how cooperation between parties would have been beneficial in concrete financial ways. As it is
expected that at least 20-30 possible new locations involving Historical Resources in the northern area of
the R.L.S.A. and the high probability that 5 or more of those sites have to do with Native American
Sacred Sites [Federal] it financially behooves all landowners, developers, and researchers to try to
cooperate on any obstacles that would impede any part of the new and growing vision. One of the
proposed solutions would be to bypass the past processes that are costly and paper riddled on each end
and just agreeing to incorporate a basic preset number of interpretive markers or Kiosks in any of the
proposed Towns, Villages, or Hamlets in any the public greenways or parks. This would serve to display
the past History and Culture ofthe county. This in effect is a visionary way in which cooperation can enhance
the value and desirability of any proposed community and fits well with the rural character these new homes seek
to display. As the Collier County Museum already has the equipment to make these markers there would be
minimal costs associated with such a plan.
6. Seek to establish at a minimum one continuous Historical and Cultural Heritage Trail unimpeded
and without any Conservation easement restrictions that stretches from the eastern corridor of the
R.L.S.A. to the western corridor of the proposed R.L.S.A.
7. Seek to establish at a minimum one continuous Historical and Cultural Heritage Trail unimpeded
and without any Conservation easement restrictions that stretches from the southern corridor of
the R.L.S.A. to the northern corridor of the proposed R.L.S.A.
STATEMENT:
Although it is understood that that many of the Environmental, Wildlife, and other numerous
agencies including those that have to do with representing the Natural Resources and Endangered
Species legislation have been working on policies that directly and indirectly have relation to the
present R.L.S.A. Processes, Goals, and Objectives, that were started in 1999 and have now been
continuing until the present time in 2008, on behalf of the people and organizations that were not
included [up to speed] in regards to the Historical and Cultural ideals that the original provisions that
were envisioned when the Purpose of the Rules found in D.C.A.s. guidelines came to public
attention and speaking on behalf of those interests now found in the capacity of being a
representative of those voices would ask that a small amount of extra time be given to the following
statements which most display our unified concerns.
A. That it be recognized that an accurate and up to date Historical and Cultural Resource study has
never been conducted in Collier County since its inception in 1923 until it was presented to
committee members on September 30, 2008.
B. That a total of 9 new Historical sites comprising a 166 year total span of a timeline of Collier
County's past has been for the first time accepted by the State of Florida 32 days ago.
. This should be accepted as a good faith effort considering these items were presented to this
committee being specifically mentioned- Purposes ofmles of the D.C.A. Objectives and Goals-
4
276 I P age
# 1- Standard Options and # 2 Special Options relating to Historical and Cultural values.
Therefore having established the items found on these pages 2, 3, and 4 the following comments are
added for the review now taking place on October 7, 9 am. Room 609, on Policy 5, however please find
other comments on policies that may also apply to the present meeting but nevertheless need to be
entered into the appropriate sections for public comment for those specific policies when the committee
has the time.
Policy 5.4
No right of way to be relinquished by the County for Panther crossings on anywhere on
highway # 29 if crossings block way of known Historical sites. As there are a preponderance of past
known sites starting at U.S. 4t and heading north to just south oflmmokalee City totaling to- they are
protected under the F.D.O.T. Cultural Resource book- 200S Fla. Statutes Title IS-Public Lands and
Property -Chapter 267 Historical Resources 267.021- (3) "Historic Property" or "Historic Resource"
means any Prehistoric or Historic District, site, building, object or other real or personal property of
Historical, Architectural value and Folklife resources. These properties or resources may include but are
not limited to, Monuments, Memorials, Indian Habitations, Ceremonial Sites, Abandoned Settlements.
Sunken Ships, Engineeriol! Works, Treasure Trove, Artifacts, or other objects with Historical or
Archaeological Value, or any part thereof relating to the History, Government and Culture of the State.
267.021-(4) Preservation or Historic Preservation means Identification. Evaluation. Re-documentation.
Analvsis, Recoverv. Interpretation.
? Has F.L.D.OT. complied with Public Law S9-665, as amended regulations (36 CFR Part SOO-revised 1/11101
Executive Order 11593 Chapter 267 (F.S. Revised 2001), N.E.P.A. 91-190, D.O.T.A. ACT 1966 Public Law S9-
670
1. For all Phases of work on Highway # 29
2. For all Phases of work on Oil Well Road
3. For all Phases of work on # 846
4. For all Phases of work on Camp Kcais Road
5. For preliminary plans on # 29 Bypass Road
6. For all Phases of work on # 858
Policy 1.2
Clarify how R.L.S.A.O. interacts with the Florida Greenway and Trails Act ~ 200S Fla.
Statutes title IS Chapter 260 -260.012 Item 1 and 2, 3B, and 6-A,D,E,F [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.6
No emphasis is put on the Historical Transportation Routes from the south to the north or the
west to the east in the present SSAs. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1. 7
Historical Interpretation markers, Kiosks, and Cultural Heritage should be allowed to be built
south of Oil Well Road and should have road access planned for them. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Review easement language and policies to prevent F.W.C. from holding all easements. All easements
should go to the County for the Cultural and Heritage Trail. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
5
277lpage
Stewardship easements should be held by private entities -Florida Community Trust provided 630
million dollars between 2007 and 2008 and have encouraged and fostered public and private
partnerships. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
S.S.A. Credit agreements should include the Department of Community Affairs and Florida Forever
programs as the signatories. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.11
Do not remove all the layers in the matrix until a Historic and Cultural study has been done
to see how the past pioneers used the Natural Resources of the land. lfa critical layer is removed in
respect to a Historic or Cultural site all future uses and activities in that layer are eliminated forever
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.12
Presently only credits for S.R.A. can be transferred for lands that meet the defined Suitability
Standard in the R.L.S.A. for S.R.A.s but language needs (0 be established to encompass criteria for
Historic and past Cultural sites. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.13
Do the procedures for the transfer of credits include language for Historical or Cultural
Resources since Stewardship credits do not require any G.M.P. amendments.
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.18
Have any studies been implemented to see where the highest ground available can be used for
the Historical or Cultural Heritage Trail and will it have a high enough ground elevation so that it will
not be prone to flooding? [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.20
Is there a provision or a percentage allocated for any educational programs that interpret to the
public any part of a Historical or Culturally related theme in the Trust. Are there any incentives to
owners to sell Credits that will go for any programs that have to do with the county's past history?
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7.1
If towns are described as having "Individualldentitv and Character" to what extent will the
interpretation in the community parks allow for Historic or Cultural values and is there a certain
percentage in space or funds allocated in the plans or designs and what will the towns display or
incorporate to educate the public about the county's Cultural past. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7.2
If villages have "Character" scaled to each particular village to what extent does this parallel
extend to in the parks and Green Spaces on a Historical level and what association does this have with
the past Cultural Heritage of the past small towns of Collier County [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7.3
To what extent will the communities in the Hamlets contribute to the Historical and Cultural
values that were a past part of the county's History and how will this be reflected in their Public Green
Spaces [Naples Cultural Landscape]
6
2781Page
Policy 4. 9
Public access should be allowed on all right of ways, Stewardship easements or Conservation
easements in any area ofland that is rated in an A.N.R.I. index of 1.2 or higher. By restricting any
Greenways or Buffer Zones, the Historical aspect and in particular the Cultural and scenic resources of
the land will not allow for full enjoyment of any future proposed Historical and Cultural Heritage trail
and will limit Eco Tourism to unsatisfying scenic endeavors. Since there is only 2 % oflands that will
qualify for a 1.2 or higher rating, the absolute best lands must be used on the Trail and an exception in
the policy should be made as it will be the county's only chance to interpret to the public the best in the
scenic beauty the county has to offer now and in the future. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.11
Where existing Agriculture activity joins a S.R.A. the design of the S.R.A. should not have
more than two geographical sides cormecting either in tandem or on opposite sides that will impede any
recreation/open space for a better possibility of having a more plea,ing environment.
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.20
For clarification all language spoken of as "Public Benefit" should include whether this
should mean to also be interpreted as public access. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
How do you quantify a percentage of "Public Benefit" relating to Towns, Villages, and
Hamlets, and is there a certain portion of "Public Benefit" that displays in any relevant way a reflection
of any part of Collier County's past Culture or Heritage. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
7
279lPage
280 I p, 9-
APPENDIX R
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCil Of COLLIER COUNTY
3050 Horseshoe Drive North, Suite 120. Naples, FL 34104
Phone (239) 263-8989 . Fax (239) 263-6021
www.eNoolesFlorida.com
~
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
of Collier County. Plorid.z
Growing Great Idea!
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Greenwood
From: Tammie Nemecek
Date: November 5, 2008
Re: Economic Development Policy Changes
In order to strengthen the economic development section of the RLSA, the Economic
Development Council of Collier County would like to propose this clarifying language.
Thank you for the consideration. Modifications are highlighted in RED.
Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix
of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is
compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips
and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 1,000 acres or more than 4,GOO- 5,000 acres
and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and
character. Towns shall have a mixed.use town center that will serve as a focal point for
community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobilitv ulan which may include a
transfer station or oark and ride area that is auurouriatelv located within the town to serve as the
connection point for internal and external Dublic tr~nsDortation. Towns shall have at least one
conununity park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns
shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods.
Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a FEttio as
pfOvis.es. described in Policy 4,..J...S. 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate
office. research and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park and
Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE and those included in Policy 4.7.4.
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns shall be
included in the LDe Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Policy 4.7.2
G:\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\RLSA 5-year Review\Committee Meetings\Nov 10, 2008\EOC proposed policy modification
11-5-08_doc
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100
acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1.500 acres
outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation
by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages
shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15.
Aoorooriate!v scaled uses described in Policv 4.7.4 shall also be oennitted in Villaues. Villages
are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design
criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Policy 4.7A 4.7.3
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will flFs.ide fle7[ibiht) '.vita resf'lest
ta tRe RUn af \.ises aRB design staRaafas, 8l:l.t sRall stkef\J':ise eompl) ';:itk the staRaaF6s of a
Hamlet ar Village. shall sunnort and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of 3lITiculture
natural resources and economic diversity. CRDs shall demonstrate 3 uniaue set of uses and
sonnoTt services neceSSi:lrv to further these attributes within the RLSA Primarv CRD uses shall
be those associated with and needed to suooort research. education. tourism or recreation.
Aoorooriatelv scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be oennitted in CROs. A CRD may
include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing~ aAa the seRiees aHA faeilities
tfiat ,s1:lflf'lSR pt1FfRBAeRt resiaeflts. The number of residential units shall be eQuivalent with the
demand f!:cnerated bv the nrimarv CRD use. but shall Dot exceed the maximum of two units ocr
lITOSS acre. A CRD shall be a maxil1]l:uTI size of 100 acres. .^ill e3(a~le af Ii CRD is aA eeetsurism
':ilIage tkat "suld Ra":e a l:1niC}1::Ie set of ases ana support seniees diUereflt fr8lB a tr8aiti0881
residential village. It .;, a1:ll8. eaHtaiH tfllAsient ladging faeilities afla seF. iees apf'lF.epFiate ts eeo
tSI:lAsts, 81:1t ma) flat flFS. ide far the fBRge sf seR iees tfiat are Re6essafY la Sl:lfl13eft f'leFffi8nent
residents. Bneeflt 8S aeseFibed asa. e, a CRn will eaH:fuffil t6 the eharBeteAsties af a Village Sf
Ham.let 8S set feRh OR ,^.ttaehm.eAt C based OR the size of the CRD. .A.S residentiallinits are nat a
req1::lired use, tHese geoas ana st1niees tHat SHf'lf'lOFt resideffls sHsh as retail, eff.iee, ei.ie,
ge-. effifReRtal and institutional \.ises sRsli also I1st be rel:jHirea, ~ IIfls'.ve\ er~ fer any CRn that
aoes ifleltlde peARBneftt resiaefltiaI h8Hsing, the 13rof'laFtioRate suppeR seRiees listed BBs/e shsll
be 13fa. ided in aeesraaflee \. ith ;\:ttaeam.eRt C. To ffiaintaiB. a prefleftiofl of CRDs ef 109 8ef-6S or
less te Villages BRa TenRil, flat mere th8ft 5 CRUs of 199 aeres sr 1635, ift S8ffisil181iaR ,.itk
Hamlets, may Be apprm eB 83 8R.\s prier ta tl:\e 8flf'lra\'al ef a Village ar Te',~'R, ana thereafter Ret
mere tHal1 5 aaaitional CRDs of 100 seres sr less, in sBmsiftatiefl ',dtk Hamlets, may 136 af'lf'lre, e8
for saeh subsel:jUeflt Village or TS..fl. Tkere shall13e ftO ffiare thaft 5 CRns efm81e than 100
Beres IfI size. The af'lpraf'lfiatefle.;s af this limitatiaft skall 13e feyie'.ved iR 5 )ears f'lUf8l:1Bm: ta
Polis) 1.22.
Policy 4.7.4 (New policy)
Towns Villalles and CRDs shall be the oreterred location for business and industry within the
RLSA. to further oromote economic develooment. diversification and iob creation. Permitted uses
shall include. but not be limited to; aviation and aerosoace. health and life sciences. comorate
headauarters computer hardware. software and services. mfonnation rechnolof!:v. manufacturinf!:.
281 I P age
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100
acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1.500 acres
outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation
by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages
shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15.
Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policv 4.7.4 shall also be Dermitted in Villages. Villages
are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design
criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Policy 4.+.4 4.7.3
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will rre'iide fleJ<iBility '.vith resreet
to the mi,( of uses and design standards, But shall otherwise eOffij3ly with the standards sf a
Hamlet er Village. shall support and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of agriculture.
natural resources and economic diversitv. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and
support services necessarv to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primarv CRD uses shall
be those associated with and needed to support research. education. tourism or recreation.
Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in CRDs. A CRD may
include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing, and the sel'viees and foeilities
that sllj'lrOR remlaneat residents. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the
demand I!enerated bv the Drimarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per
1!ross acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. ,'\0 m(affij3le of a CRn is an eeotoarfsm
village that weald flaye a Iffii'lue set sf Hses anti sllj'lrOR serviees differeat from a trallitional
resilleatial village. It wsalll eoatain transient Isdging faeilities and "erviees arrrsrl'iate to eeo
leHrists, Bat may net rroviae for the range of ser"iees tflat !ill'! necessary te sarrOR rermanent
resideats. El(eept as aeserieell aeo'ie, a CRn will eonfoffi\ to the eharaetel'isties ef a Village or
Hamlet as set fufth on Altael1ment C eased on the size sf the CRn. :.s resillential units are not a
re'lllired ase, thene goeds ana serviees that SHrreR residents slleh as retail, sflfee, eivie,
gQ', emmeatal and rnstitHtisool lIses shall also not Be re""ired, , Hhowe'/er, fur an)' CRn that
dees inelade rernlOneat resilleatial hoasing, the rroroftioflate sllj'lroft seITiees listed aBove shall
Be rrovidell in aeeonlance ','/ith ,A,ttaehment C. To maintain a rroroftion of CRDs cf 190 aeres or
less to Villages and Ts'!,'ns, flst more than 5 CRDs sf 109 aeres or less, in eom13inatiofl '!:ith
Hamlets, may Be arrroved as S~A.S rriBr to the 8jlrro'/al of a Village or TO'Nfl, anll thereafter not
mere tlHiH 5 allllitional CRDs ef 190 aeres or less, in esmbinatiBn with Hamlets, ifill)' Be ar"roved
fer each sa13se""eat Village or Tswn. There shall Be fle more than 5 CRns ef mere than 199
aeres in size. The a""rerriateness ef this limitation shall Be revie'Ned in 5 years rllfDuaat to
Pelie)' 1.22.
Policy 4.7.4 (New policy)
Towns. Villages and CRDs shall be the preferred location for business and industrv within the
RLSA. to further Dromote economic development. diversification and iob creation. Permitted uses
shall include. I2!dUlol be limited to: aviation and aerospace. health and life sciences. coroorate
h~dqu'Lrters,_CillllpUler hardware, software and services. information technolol!v. manufacturing.
2H2 -I'AGI<
research & develooment. wholesale trade & distribution: technolol:!v commercialization and
develooment initiatives, trade clusters, and similar uses,
.\ I1sm:l.et is s :fann ef 8R~~ that ','{ill pM :iae f:leni13ility ',\ ith respeet to the miJ[ sf 1:I5eS ana
aesi!;fl stSRaaras, lmt shall etheR, ise 68B1I31) .. ith tae staBdaras 8f a Ham:let Sf '.Tillage. ~
seniees aM faeilities that sl.:i~~eFt peFB.1Sfteffi fesiat'flts. :\n eJ[8ffiJ3le of B CHI) is BB eeetel:u=ism
',illsge that \'/81:1.18 ha"l6 a l:IRilt1:le set af [isea aaa S1:lp~8R seR'iees tli#erent frem a trsaitiansl
residential \'ilIage. It .. 81:118. saRtain tFaRsieRt la8.giRg faeilities BRS sef\'iees a}9prSflHate ts eee
tsuFists, 131:it may Hat flFe'. iae .fur the fBfige af 5err:iess taat !'lfe aeeeSSBI)' to SUPflSR pem.ammt
resiEieRts, Bne5f1t as 8.eS6R13eEi Ml8...e, a CRn ",,'ill 6snfuFftl. t8 t-liB easmeteFisties ef a Village ar
Hamlet as set furth eft ;\ttaehmeRt C 13aseEi 8ft the size efta€! CRn, ;\5 resi8ential1:l.Rit5 are Rat a
requires 1:Ise, these gssi:Js aREi StlR ieBs that 5l:lp}9SR resideR!S sueh. as retail, aftise, eiyie,
gS'BmmeRtal aRa iRstit1:ltieRsl1:lses shall elss Het 13e required, ~ IIha\\e,er~ far an) enD that
daes iHSludB fl6Fffi8Ren.t FesiEiBFttial BSl:isiHg, the prepeRisHule sHppeR seniees listed a13e, e shall
Be pra\'iEiea iH aeSerafl.Aee ll:ita .\-ttaeflmeRt C. Te mBiHlaia a }9re]3sFl:iaR sf CRDs sf 1 GO Beres or
less t8 Villages ana Te sas, Rat mere tilaR 5 CRDs af 1 QG aeres or le5s, in eaffJ.siflatien .:itB
Hamlets, may Be apPfs'ed as SP~ .\~s flrior ta tlie afl}9f8val sf a Village or Te .m, and tkereafter BBt
mere tRuH 5 aaaitienAI CRDs ef 100 aeres ar less, ia e8ffillinatieH v'itk Hamlets, ffiR) Be aflflrsved
fer Bash sUBsequent Village ar TO'Nfl. There shall13e He mOTe thUR 5 eRDs sf mare tl~uR 100
Beres iB size. Tke BflflFeflriateness sf this limitation shall Be re..ie;:eel in 5 )eBfS flHfSI:lBnt Is
Polie)' ] .22.
Policy 4.18
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County, The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accorrunodate affordable-
workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such
as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and
other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of
service standards.
It is recol:!nized that SRA develooment 1I1 the RLSA mav l:!enerale surolus revenues to Collier
County and Collier County may choose to allocate a oortion of such sumlus revenues to ensure
that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countvto resoond exoeditiouslv to
economic oooortunities and to comoete. effectivelv for. hil:!h-value research. develooment and
commercialization: innovation: and alternative and renewable enen;?:y business projects.
283lPage
APPENDIX S
')ecember 18, 2008
STAFF NOTE:
The Committee, during its meeting on December 18, 2008, yoted unanimously to place this document as an
Appendix in the Phase II Report.
The following comments received are related to the RlSA processes, procedures, application
requirements, and design guidelines and standards as set forth in the land Development Code 4.08.00.
These comments are attached for record retention and should be considered during the time of the
lDC amendment process.
1. SSA approyal is not subject to EAC or CCPC review only BCC. SRA approyal occurs yia EAC, CCPC
and BCC process, as should haye been proYided for SSA approval. [Mark Strain]
2. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric
light sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conseryation
lands, such as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.[Mark Strain]
3. Require exotic clearing and ongoing management/maintenance for designated stewardship sending
lands. [FWF]
4. My particular concern is that, as currently implemented, the RLSA program SSAs and SRAs do not
come before the Enyironmental AdYisory Committee. These projects are too complex for the Board of
County Commissioners to assess without timely inputs from the EAC on relevant enYironmental issues.
[Judith Hushon]
5. No exotic remoyal and maintenance is required for SSA designation. Staff has obseryed substantial
amounts of exotic pest plants, and is concerned that their grow1h will continue to decrease the habitat
value in the years to come. The presence of high concentrations of exotic plants in the sub-canopy has
long been recognized as deleterious to native species, both plants and animals. This would not be a
concern where management of the exotics were part of a restoration plan.[Environmental Staff]
6. [Further define] Procedures for recording and handling changes in ownership of SSA lands [FWF]
7. When sold who is responsible for carrying out SSA obligations [FWF]
8. Allow non-natiye, non-invasiye plantings if beneficial to wildlife [FWF]
1. What requirements are in place for the maintenance of areas that have been restored in SSAs?
[CCPC]
2. Specific criteria for lighting standards still need to be evaluated and established in order to reduce the
impact of urban lighting on wildlife and habitat areas. As Ave Maria and other towns begin to deyelop;
standards must be in place to ensure a minimum of glow to the rural area. [Conservancy]
3. Need for Smoke [air] easements [FWF]
4. Explore Dark Skies [FWF]
5. Need for Buffers and language to address human-panther/bear/other wildlife encounters [FWF]
284lpage
6. Need for buffering between communities by natural features and agriculture. Need for buffering
of natural areas by low intensity uses. [Defenders of Wildlife]
7. Policy should be developed on coexisting with wildlife, preyenting conflicts with wildlife, responsible
homeowner practices tailored to this region, and community contracts with businesses such as waste
disposal serYices.[Defenders of Wildlife]
8. All new deyelopments in the RLSA should be required to use dark sky guidelines or provide what their
maximum illumination will be. It is a rural characteristic that could be of value to many
people.[Environmental staff]
285 I P age
2861
Natural Resources within Collier County RLSA
[produced by Conservancy of Southwest Florida]
E:€Sl:j~
~
~
ro
Q.
>-
lD
",
N
'0
~ ro
c: 0
.Q a::
10 ~
is 10
-' Iii
>- '0
ro ~
~ ~
., 0
" Q.
t3 0
(f) Q:
<(
Cf)
....J
c:::
>.
-
c
:J
o
()
.
I-
.Q)
o
()
c
.c.
-
.-
S
en
(])
u
I-
:J
o
en
(])
e::::
~
:J
-
CO
Z
APPENDIX T
ro
c: ~ '"
~ -'i ~
" 0 Q. <{ '"
c:
~ 0 i: Q. "
E () ~ i: -'i
Q. '0 ~
0 .!! ~ '0 c:
0; '" Iii .Q
~ ~ Iii &J " "
~ ~ " "
c: 0 Iii a;
~ 0 >-
~ N <ii ro N 0::
'" ~ E U ~ Ii;
.c: :c
a. '" .!! ~
E '0 0 '"
~ 0 u: :r
~ c: a. " ro
'" ~ a. ~ " ~ '0 '0 '0
"iij Q. Ii; .Q <ii -'i " ~ ~
::!E >- ~ ~ ~ ~
() .c: c: 0 c: 0 0 0
" " ~ E ~ ~ ~ Q.
~ .2' '" .E e
<{ lD a. 0 0 a. a. a.
I I ~DD[[]DD.
c:
ffi ~Q)
!EO';:;
c: '0 ~
.~.s ~
~ '" c:
~C:"
(ij.Q) k
E18c
.c: '0 E" .
Ben E
('lJ"- Q. CO
,C16.Q....
Gl.c: Q) 0>
-->e
e-ro~c..
a= 0 <(
.,-(/)
,C[lJQ)....J
j-:=sCt::
"," '"
<<I :5 (fi
"c: c:
~"'-
CO o..~
;:~.
g('lJm
~.g Co
Q.
APPENDIX U
Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Plan Awards
The ReYiew Committee was informed on December 18, 2008 of the following list of Plan Awards giyen
between 2003 and 2005 for the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area program and is proyided below
for documentation with the Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship program's operation in Collier
County, Florida.
Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Plan Awards:
. 1000 Friends of Florida, Better Community Award, 2005
. FICE, Engineering Excellence Awards, Honorable Mention, 2004
. Economic Development Council of Collier County, Innovation Award, 2004
. Sustainable Florida Council, Award-Winning Best Practices, 2003
. American Planning Association, Florida Chapter, Award of Excellence, 2003
287 I P age
~"N:N~)( V
AG BUSINESS IN SW FLORIDA:
PRESENT AND FUTURE
Prepared by: The Lutgert College of Business
Florida Gulf Coast University
Dr. Stuart Van Auken and Dr. Howard Finch
Principal Investigators
Dr. Ara Volkan, Dr. Walter Rodriguez,
Dr. Shelton Weeks, and Dr. Gary Jackson
Research Collaborators
June 6, 2007
1
2fJ1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL RESPONSE ............................................ 7
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................... 10
Research Protocol.. .......... ........ .......... ........ .... ...... .......... .................. ...... ........ ........ ........ ......... 12
Ag Strengths in SW Florida...................................................................................................14
Climate (Viewpoints of Nine Executives) ....... ..................................... ........................ 14
Lands (Points-of-View of Six Executives) ............. .................... ....................... 15
Citrus (Views of Four Executives) ............................ ....................... .................................. 16
Consolidation (Insights from Four Executives). ....................................................... .......... 17
Vegetables (Perspectives of Three Executives)......................................... .......................... 17
Soils (Views of Two Executives) .............. ....................... ................ ................ ............ 18
Labor (Perspectives of Two Executives) ......... ................. ..................... ................. .......... 18
Regulations (Views of Two Executives) ......................................... ............... 18
Geography (Perspectives of Two Executives)................................ ..................................... 18
Ag Management (Insight from One Executive).............. ................................ ............... 19
Science (Perspectives of One Executive) ............ .................................................... 19
Technology (View of One Executive) .............. ................................................................ 19
Water (Insight from One Executive)... ............ .................................................................... 19
Natural Markets (Perspectives of One Executive)................................................................ 19
Grapefruit (View of One Executive) ....................................................................................20
Crop Flexibility (View of One Executive)............................................................. 20
Ag Weaknesses in SW Florida............................................................................................... 21
Labor Issues (Perspectives of Eleven Executives)..................... ................. ........................ 21
Agricultural Costs (Views of Nine Executives)................................. .................. ...............23
Land Costs (Perspectives of Five Executives)......................................... ............. .........24
Citrus Industry (Reflections from Five Executives) ................... .................. ......................24
Pricing (Views of Three Executives)................ ................... ....................................... 25
Cattle (Views of Two Executives)................... .................... ................. .................25
Promotion (Perspectives of Two Executives).. ........................................ ...................... 25
Typography (View of One Executive)................. ....................................................... 26
Ag Opportunities In SW Florida........................................................................................... 27
2
~ g/j
Citrus (Perspectives of Five Executives) .............................................................................. 28
Competitive Options (Viewpoints of Four Executives)........................................................ 28
Vegetables (Insights of Four Executives) .......................................................................... .. 29
Alternative Fuels (Insights of Three Executives) ................................................................ 30
Land and Land Credits (View of Three Executives) ............................................................ 30
Ornamentals (Points-of-View of Three Executives).............................................................30
Sugar Cane (Viewpoints of Two Executives)....................................................................... 31
Cattle (Views of Two Executives) .................................... .................................................... 31
Link to Environmentalists (View of One Executive) ........................................................... 31
Education (Perspective of One Executive) .................. ............ ........................................... 32
Vertical Integration (Insight from One Executive) ....... ...........................................32
Food Safety (Point-of-View of One Executive) .................................................................. 32
Threats to Ag Business In SW Florida.................................................................................. 33
Competition (Points-of-View of Eight Executives)..............................................................34
Diseases (Perceptions of Eight Executives).......................................................................... 35
Environmentalism (Views of Five Executives) .................................................................... 36
Land Development (Points-of-View of Five Executives) .................................................... 36
Government Regulations (Perceptions of Five Executives) ............ .................................... 37
Water Issues (Perceptions of Four Executives) .................................................................... 38
Policy Issues (Perspectives of Three Executives)................................................................. 39
Protection of Ag Products (Insights from Two Executives)................................................. 39
Climate (Views of Two Executiyes) .................................. ................................................... 39
Comments Related to Ag Businesses' Five-Year Trend Line............................................. 40
Pro Citrus (Perspectives of Three Executives) ..................................................................... 41
Neutral Citrus (Views of Two Executives)........................................................................... 41
Con Citrus (Points-of-View of Four Executives) ................................................................ 41
Pro Land (Insights from Two Executives)............................................................................ 42
Neutral Land (Perspectives of Three Executives) ................... ............................................ 42
Con Land (Viewpoints of Four Executives) ............................ ............................................ 43
Pro Ag Business (Perspectives of Two Executives) ............................................................. 43
Neutral Ag Business (Insight of One Executive)................................... .............................. 43
3
..:J q /)
Con Ag Business (View of One Executive) ......................................................................44
Pro Vegetables (Viewpoints of Three Executives)............................................................... 44
Pro Cattle (Insights of Two Executives)............................................................................... 44
Pro Sugar Cane (Viewpoint of One Executive) .................................................................... 44
Commentary on the Continuation of Ag Business Operations
Despite Land Sale Opportunities........................................................................................... 45
Ag Diversity (Views of Four Executives)
.....................................................45
Sale of Land (Perspectives of Three Executives)... ............................................................. 45
Continuation of Ag Operations (View of One Executive).................................................... 46
Pressures to Sell (Views of Two Executives) ....................................................................... 46
Diversification Outside of Agriculture..................................................................................46
Future Importance of SW Florida Agriculture.................................................................... 47
Pro Future Importance (Views of Nine Executives)............................................................. 47
Con Future Importance (Views of Two Executives).... .......................................................48
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE ...................................... 49
Comments on Whether Land Use and
Protection Are of Interest to Environmentalists ..................................................................50
High Density Real Estate Development (View of One Environmentalist)........................... 50
Common Interest Model (Perspective of One Environmentalist)......................................... 50
Pro Agriculture (View of One Environmentalist) ................................................................ 51
Response as to Whether the Development of Ag Land for Real Estate Purposes
Threatens Florida's Heritage ................................................................................................. 51
Protection of Agricultural Heritage (Views of Two Environmentalists).............................. 51
Definitional Issue of Heritage (Perspective of One Environmentalist) ................................ 52
Comments on the Awareness of Real Estate Projects
That Threaten Land Irrevocably .......................................................................................... 52
Pro Awareness (View of One Environmentalist).................................................................. 52
Negative Awareness (Point-of-View of One Environmentalist) .......................................... 53
Commentary on Preference for Developers Versus Agriculture ....................................... 53
Pro Comments in Support of Agribusiness
(Viewpoints of Three Environmentalists). ........................ .............................. ..................... 53
4
d2qi
Negative Comment Relating to Ag Business
(Perspective of One Enviromnentalist) .............................. ............................... ................... 54
Recommended Strategies of Environmentalists
To Protect Agricultural Land................................................................................................ 54
Recommended Strategies (Points-of-View of Three Enviromnentalists)........................ ....54
Final Reflections of Enviromnentalists
(Points-of-View of Three Enviromnentalists) .................. ................................................... 55
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF POLITICAL LEADER RESPONSE................................... 56
Responses Concerning the Provision of State Aid to Ag Business ..................................... 56
Pro State Support (Viewpoints of Four Political Leaders) ........ .......................................... 56
Comments on the Effectiveness of
Agribusiness Organization in Eliciting Concessions ........................................................... 57
Pro Organization (Perspective of One Political Leader)....................................................... 57
Need for Organizational Support (View of One Political Leader) ....................................... 58
Commentary on Whether Agribnsiness Is a "Sinking Ship".............................................. 58
Pro Ag (Perspectives of Three Political Leaders)................................................................. 58
Responses to One's Extent of Participation With AG Lobbyists ....................................... 59
Lobby Interactions (Perspectives of Two Political Leaders)................................................ 59
Agribusiness Interactions (Views of Two Political Leaders) ............................................... 59
Views of Political Leaders as to What Agriculture is Seeking the Most............................ 60
Perceived Agendas of Ag Business (Points-of-View of Four Political Leaders) ................. 60
Comments on Political Leader Support for Additional Ag Research Funding ................ 61
State Financial Support (Points-of-View of One Political Leader) ...................................... 61
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPER RESPONSE ....................................................................................................... 62
Response to the Extent that Ag Lands Are Being Targeted
by Residential and Commercial Real Estate Developers
in Light of Florida's Immigration Patterns.......................................................................... 63
No Ag Targeting Per Se (Perspectives of Two Executives) .................................................63
Pro Ag Land Targeting (Views of Four Executives) ............................................................ 64
Other Factors Influencing Ag Targeting (Perspective of One Executive)............................ 64
5
~ 1;).
Perceived Attitudes of Ag Business Landowners to "Selling Out" .................................... 65
Pro Attitudes Toward "Selling Out" (Viewpoints of Four Executives) ............................... 65
Family Issues (Perspectives of Three Executives)................................................................ 66
Comments on Heavily Targeted Ag Lands........................................................................... 66
Site Characteristics (Viewpoints of Four Executives) .......................................................... 67
Market Factors (Views of Two Executives) ......... ...............................................................67
Actual Physical Locations (Viewpoint of One Executive) ................................................... 68
Other Factor (Perspective of One Executive) ....................................................................... 68
Responses to Developer Interests that Are Held in Ag Land.............................................. 68
Interim Interests (Points-of-View of Three Executives)....................................................... 68
Non-Speculative Comments (Insight from One Executive) ................................................. 69
Comments on Types of Executives Most Active in Pursuing Ag Lands ............................ 69
Active Participants (Views of Three Executives). ...................................................... 69
Inactive Participants (Perspectives of Four Executives) ................................................ .....70
Responses of Developers on the Future of Ag Lands Five-Years From Now.................... 71
New Ag Focus (Points-of- View of Three Executives) .........................................................71
Ag Land Conversion Slowdown (Points-of-View of Three Executives) ............................. 71
Market Factors (Views of Two Executives) ......................................................................... 72
Incentive for Ag Land Conversion (Insight of One Executive)............................................ 72
Land Use Shift (View of One Executive) ............................................................................. 72
Comments on Factors Impacting Ag Land Conversion...................................................... 73
Governmental Influences (Points-of-View of Four Executives) .......................................... 73
Market Realities (Views of Four Executives)........................ .............................................. 74
Agricultural Efficiencies (Views of One Executive) ...........................................................74
Natural Forces (Insight of One Executive) ........................................................................... 74
Other Factor (View of One Executive) .................................................................................75
6
;:LQ
,2
AG BUSINESS IN SW FLORIDA:
PRESENT AND FUTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL RESPONSE
This summary is a compilation of the essence of ag business executive responses. It begins with
weaknesses to reveal a self diagnosis of ills and issues, and proceeds through strengths, threats,
and opportunities. It also reflects on the future and a litany of issues that are most germane to the
agricultural industry. Above all, it presents top-of-the mind issues and salient beliefs about the
industry.
Ag business is now dealing with labor issues and rising ag costs, as well as rising land costs.
There is a need for skilled and educated labor and a rising cost structure is exerting pressure on
profit. Troubles continue for the citrus industry (e.g., water, diseases, labor and foreign imports),
and the perishability of ag products continues to exercise a pressure on price taking.
Despite these weaknesses, ag business in SW Florida basks in a unique window of warm weather
and is generally characterized by a lack of freezes. Ag land is also viewed as a long-term asset
and is noted for its potential. Citrus is seen as the apex of quality production due to climate and
single blooming. There is no place in the world that produces the quality of citrus found in
Florida and the industry is seen as resilient.
7
:2qq
External forces, however, do serve as threats to ag business in SW Florida. These threats
encompass foreign competition, diseases, environmentalism, land development, government
regulation, water, and even climate in the form of hurricanes. Among the competitive issues is a
concern over the impact of Brazil, especially its' cost structure and lack of regulations. Diseases
in the form of greening and canker remain unsolved and pressures, from what many ag
executives view as uninformed environmentalists, continue to be fell. The F/orida in the Year
2060 report also reveals that only the Panhandle of Florida will not be facing build-out in fifty
years and that nearly seven million acres of undeveloped ag land will be needed to accommodate
the exploding population. Government regulations are still viewed as being burdensome on ag,
as well as water management policies. Overall, the threats evidence the potential to influence
Florida's economic base in significant and undesirable ways.
Although ag will always be open to external threats, many opportunities exist as countervailing
forces. Among them, citrus continues to apply science to diseases and in the development of
stronger root stocks. Citrus also evidences potential for demand stimulation and additional
growth. Additionally, ag opportunities serve to lessen competitive pressures and such
opportunities extend to vegetables due to their growth and demand matching potentials, as well
as alternative fuels through crop production. The sale of land and land credits is part of the
opportunity equation and ornamentals appear attractive due to a growing Florida population.
Finally, sugar cane and cattle offer opportunities and a common bond exists for farmers and
environmentalists to come together due to their common interest in land protection.
8
'Aqc::,
The trend line for Florida's immediate five-year future is mixed with the most controversy seen
in such areas as land and citrus. With regard to the former, the impact of development and
enhanced population projections casts a shadow ever land, despite the positive relating to land's
economic return. Citrus, however, has positives relative to economic efficiency, the future for
new root stocks, and land value. The negatives encompass return, foreign competition, and
mainly greening. A solving of the greening problem would do much for the citrus industry. The
five-year trend is also buoyed by vegetables which are characterized by growing demand and
lesser competition. However, ag business in general is impacted by poor returns and free trade,
yet a silver lining may be seen in the development and application of technology and science.
Uniquely, labor is not a top-of-the mind issue in looking out over the next five years.
Given these observations on the present and future states of ag business, ag executives continue
to pursue an economic model that includes land sales, yet part of the model involves the seeking
of ag diversity and the protection of land to enhance its value. Additionally, the underlying value
of land fosters a sense of security among ag producers. As ag lands continue to be held, they
appreciate in value, while efficient ag production yields an economic return. Further, the
diversity that is sought tends to be within ag although a minority of ag producers are well
entrenched in the real estate development field.
One thing is clear, SW Florida is viewed as increasing in importance in ag production relative to
the rest of the state. Developments along the coasts and inland encroachments point to a long-
term trend of SW Florida ag growing in relative importance and stature. In fact, SW Florida may
become an ag oasis. Basically, it is becoming too costly in an opportunity cost sense to keep or
9
d9L"
assemble large tracks of lands in other areas, such as Central Florida due to development
pressures. Even if SW Florida can maintain its status quo, it will grow in relative importance as
ag production statewide continues to shrink. Basically, SW Florida may become the ag mecca
for the state of Florida and depending upon the attitudes of the United States govenunent toward
food independence, ag business may become an even more valued member of the economy.
Overall, ag business in SW Florida is a key resource whose luster may still be difficult to
discern, yet all of the fundamentals that promulgate success are in place. Hopefully, this report
will shed additional light on current and future prospects for ag business in SW Florida.
Purpose of the Study
This study is designed primarily to reveal the perceptions of ag business executives toward the
present and future state of the ag business industry in SW Florida. It is designed to reveal top-of-
the-mind issues and the beliefs of those responsible for the health of the industry. The study
reflects a candid view of pressing issues and the silver linings pervading the industry. It is
unique in that it directly assesses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats pervading
the industry, as well as the revelation of five-year trends and the importance of ag business in
SW Florida relative to the rest of the state. It also assesses the prospect of ag business
continuation in light of land sale opportunities and the extent of diversification in response to
pressures on the industry.
To develop a well-rounded study, this research also embraces the views of environmentalists,
politicians, and real estate developers concerning ag business and its future. With respect to
10
:J97
environmentalists, the study assesses the relevancy of land usage and its protection; the impact of
real estate developer encroachments on Florida's heritage; and real estate projects that may
threaten land in an irrevocable way. Additionally, the degree of support for agriculture among
environmentalists is to be determined, as well as the strategies of environmentalists that may
protect agricultural land.
The study also assesses political leaders on their perceptions of State support for ag business; the
"clout" of ag business as an organized force; and whether ag business is a "sinking ship."
Additionally, the study reveals insights into ag lobbying; a determination of what ag business is
seeking; and support for agricultural research funding.
Finally, the last section of the study assesses real estate developers as to the extent that ag lands
are being targeted and their perception of ag's willingness to "sell ou!." Additionally, the views
of real estate developers as to "targeted" areas and individual developer interest in ag land are
revealed. Other assessments include a revelation of the most aggressive developers and
developer perceptions of the future of ag lands.
The views of environmentalists, politicians, and real estate developers reveal an external
perspective and help to reveal the extent of support for ag business and the obstacles that ag
business faces in the future. Such assessments can clarify thinking and help in the development
of strategic responses.
II
:2 91
Overall, it is believed that this is the first comprehensive study of ag executive perceptions and
beliefs in the state, and its development may help in the galvanization and prioritization of issues
facing the industry. The study, hopefully, will reveal the concerns in need of in-depth study and
response. This work is sure to engender debate and controversy and possibly it will be
Promethean or life-bringing in its impact.
Research Protocol
The study emanated from a list of twenty-four ag business CEOs that ranged from citrus, to
vegetables, to juice processors. However, the greatest focus was on citrus. Ofthe twenty-four
executives who were approached concerning study participation, fourteen agreed to an in-depth,
personal, face-to-face interview and participated in an interview ranging from one hour to an
hour and a half. Appendix I contains the list of participating executives and the names of their
companies. A perusal of the list reveals that they are key players in ag business. These
individuals graciously gave their time and regaled us with colorful stories and in-depth insights.
To encourage thoughtful reporting, the principal investigators informed each executive that their
response would not be revealed by name, rather their responses would be placed in categories or
taxonomies. It is felt that such an approach fostered objectivity and helped to bolster the study's
credibility.
It will be noted that the numbers of executives who responded to, or reported, a given issue have
been revealed, thus showing the magnitude of executive response. As might be expected, what is
12
~.99
important to one executive may not be to another, hence the frequencies of executive response
denote patterns in the data.
The same procedure was likewise followed with environmentalists and political leaders. In the
case of the former, three of five environmentalists who were approached responded and four of
nine identified politicians participated. The names of these participants appear in Appendix II.
Drs. Ara Volkan and Walter Rodriguez served as the study's research collaboration in these
areas, contacted potential respondents, and conducted face-to-face interviews. They
administered research questions that were unique to each group.
Finally, Drs. Shelton Weeks and Gary Jackson contacted five real estate developers and followed
the same exact study protocol. The names and companies of these participants appear in
Appendix II.
13
:;;] OD
Ag Strengths in SW Florida
The strengths of ag business are heavily seen in the areas of climate, lands, citrus, consolidation,
and vegetables. References are made to such climatic areas as SW Florida's window of warm
weather and lack of freezes, while such considerations as SW Florida's land values and land
applications are also evidenced. Citrus is praised for its quality, single blooms, and unique
climate among other considerations. And consolidation is noted for its efficiencies, economies of
scale, and a longer-term perspective, as well as other attendant strengths. Finally, vegetables are
perceived as offering natural advantages.
Other strengths are seen in labor, regulations, and geography. Additionally, strengths are noted
for each of the following: ag management, science, technology, water, natural markets,
grapefruit, and crop flexibility. Overall, climate has the highest executive response and citrus,
climate and lands are the leaders with respect to the number of individual comments and/or
observations. Clearly, ag business in SW Florida evidences significant strengths.
Climate (Viewpoints of Nine Executives)
· There is a window of warm weather for three months during the year; only two other
areas have it (California and a spot in Mexico).
. SW Florida has a two-month window of opportunity.
. SW Florida ag is south of the generally perceived frost line.
. SW Florida's climate offers a strategic advantage over the rest of the U.S.
14
.':? /) I
. Quality citrus is due to our subtropical climate.
. There is generally no frost south of Highway 60.
. Florida ag has a geographic advantage (also reported under Geography).
. Florida has a climatic window of opportunity.
· Florida's climate has encouraged citrus crop production to move here in an attempt to
escape freezes (also reported under Citrus).
· The SW Florida climate is great for vegetables (also reported under Vegetables).
. SW Florida offers a l2-month growing cycle.
· SW Florida is the winter vegetable center and can produce tlrree crops per year with the
winter season yielding the highest price.
. Climate and soil richness are the two basics of fanning and SW Florida has them (also
reported under Soil).
Lands (Points-of-View of Six Executives)
· The strength in Florida ag resides within its land and land's development.
. The SW segment of Florida has a broader use of land.
. Land is available and we should not be concerned with housing and its development.
· One can buy citrus land and have it pay for itself (also reported under Citrus).
· A strength of citrus is its land value over the long term (also reported under Citrus).
· Pricing vagaries may impact citrus in the short run (e.g., low prices may come from an
over supply), yet land values are an asset over the long run (also reported under Citrus).
· Ag land will hold value until something better comes along.
15
..3()'J..
o Canker eradicated land can be leased out for cattle ranching.
o Underlying land values serve to help farmers in a psychological sense.
o The strength of SW Florida ag is in land.
Citrus (Views of Four Executives)
o There is no place in the world that produces the quality of citrus found in Florida; not in
Brazil, not in Mexico, not anywhere else.
o Citrus offers a significant return relative to input.
o Quality citrus is due to our subtropical climate (also reported under Climate).
o All of Florida citrus blooms at the same time resulting in harvesting efficiencies.
o Florida citrus offers a quality advantage as it is produced by a single bloom which results
in a uniformly better taste; Brazil and Mexico have multiple blooms and, therefore,
varying maturities.
o The costs of citrus production have not risen dramatically; in 1962, it cost $1 per pound
and 45 years later it costs $2 per pound.
o One can buy citrus land and have it pay for itself (also reported under Land).
o A strength of citrus is its land value over the long term (also reported under Land).
o Pricing vagaries may impact citrus in the short run (e.g., low prices may come from an
over supply), yet land values are an asset over the long run (also reported under Land).
o Citrus is the leading ag enterprise.
o Florida's climate has encouraged citrus crop production to move here in an attempt to
escape freezes (also reported under Climate).
16
:.< rt "7
. Citrus is a resilient industry, as science can solve any of its maladies like greening (also
reported under Science).
. Citrus offers a production efficiency in that no grading system is required, as Florida
citrus blooms all at once; Brazil has seven blooms and seven harvests, and has the need
for a grading system.
Consolidation (Insights from Four Executives)
· The consolidation of farms and farming has resulted in efficiencies and economics of
scale and has helped to spread risk; the consolidation also applies to packing houses
which are making money, while some farms may not be.
. Corporate farmers are well capitalized.
· There has been ag consolidation in Florida that has resulted in economies of scale.
· Ag strength in SW Florida is due to an economic shakeout in which those that remain are
strong.
. Consolidation has caused owners to see value more so in terms of the balance sheet than
the income statement, as their focus has shifted to the long run.
Vegetables (Perspectives of Three Executives)
· Florida yegetable markets are closer to the NE sector of the U.S. and, as a result,
vegetables are cheaper out of Florida; trucking is also easier.
. Niche crops do well.
17
<30tf
· The SW Florida climate is great for vegetables (also reported under Climate).
Soils (Views of Two Executives)
. Climate and soil richness are the two basics of farming and SW Florida has them (also
reported under Climate).
. Florida has affordable water and good soil (also reported under Water).
Labor (Perspectives of Two Executives)
. Farm labor is comprised of hard working, good people, who are adaptable.
. Labor is adequate pending migrant bills.
Regulations (Views of Two Executives)
. A rule of law exists, which does not exist in foreign markets.
. Tariffs are a strength.
Geography (perspectives of Two Executives)
. Florida ag has a geographic advantage (also reported under Climate).
. SW Florida ag is away from Miami and exotic pests.
18
-dO~
Ag Management (Insight from One Executive)
. Florida agriculture is characterized by professional management instead of second and
third generation families.
Science (Perspectives of One Executive)
· Research is being undertaken to make fruit bigger.
. Citrus is a resilient industry as science can solve any of its maladies like greening (also
reported under Citrus).
Technology (View of One Executive)
. Mechanical harvesting is a strength.
Water (Insight from One Executive)
· Florida has affordable water and good soil (also reported under Soils).
Natural Markets (Perspectives of One Executive)
· Florida has natural markets and its population is growing, plus we export.
· The landscape market (trees and turf) is entirely local and is expanding.
19
:2 ^'
,,:2, rn
Grapefruit (View of One Executive)
· Florida is the grapefruit leader in the world as to supply and quality.
Crop Flexibility (View of One Executive)
· SW Florida offers crop flexibility, when and if citrus is out (e.g., tomatoes and
vegetables).
20
Ag Weaknesses in SW Florida
The most revealed weaknesses are centered on labor and agricultural costs. Other top-of-the-
mind issues encompass land costs, the citrus industry, pricing, cattle, promotion and typography.
Among the most pressing issues concerning labor are the need for skilled and educated labor
with school systems and universities being seen as part of the problem. Ag costs are also
perceived as generally rising, thus exerting pressure on profits. Land costs were also singled out
as appreciating in value thus creating an additional cost pressure. The citrus industry is likewise
viewed as being troubled and pricing is viewed as an ag issue. Finally, there were top-of-the-
mind considerations of the nonlucrative nature of cattle and issues with citrus promotion, and
finally typography.
Labor Issues (Perspectives of Eleven Executives)
. People don't want to work in agriculture.
. Career laddering is restricted due to a handed-down placement orientation within
agricultural families.
. Labor is a definite weakness.
. We have a hard time hiring workers in skilled trades (e.g., electricians and welders).
· Schools are not committed to developing a skilled ag labor force.
. Ag is not unionized and may not be as attractive as other protective industries.
· Universities are creating unrealistic expectations as students just want to be managers.
21
.Jot?
o Immigration reform would hurt the labor market.
oWe have labor shortages.
o CoIIege kids don't want to work in ag, especiaIIy 80-90 hours per week.
o There is a need for skiIIed people with agricultural backgrounds in civil and
environmental engineering to address such issues as water quality, discharge and
materials as applied to a crop.
o Ag competes for employees with the service industry.
o There is a need for housing for ag workers.
o The cost of executive housing that we have to provide is high.
o Labor costs keep going up in packing houses.
o There is a lack of labor and sometimes groves are not picked.
o We are now seeing global markets where foreign labor is cheaper and other than a "level
playing field." (also reported under Competition)
o One-third of my costs are in labor.
o Labor is getting tighter and tighter, thus requiring mechanical harvesting.
o Only 50% of my fruits are harvested.
o The main threat to ag business is immigration.
o Due to immigration issues, our labor costs are not competitive with Brazil (also reported
under Competition).
o Fifty percent of our costs are in harvesting, yet they are tour times higher than in Brazil
(also reported under Competition).
o Perhaps the real number one threat to Florida ag is immigration.
22
30Cf
. Citrus is still picked by hand, thus creating labor dependency; yet sugar cane can be
mechanically harvested.
Agricultural Costs (Views of Nine Executives)
. Fuel and fertilizer costs are high.
. Vegetable costs have gone up.
. Citrus has difficulty competing due to its cost structure.
. There is difficulty in controlling costs and income (e.g., we have no control over fertilizer
prices which have tripled).
. The costs of ag products are higher.
· Chemicals are three times more expensive here than in Brazil (also reported under
Competition).
. The push for com in ethanol production is raising the price of com, thus hurting ag
producers who use it as feed.
. All phases of beef and pork have felt the price increases in com.
· Imports create a cost disadvantage; for example, we pay more in one day than Brazil does
in a week (also reported under Competition).
· Quality issues as to water and work are expenses and ag output may not cover them
adequately.
· There are higher production costs and lower productivity levels in SW Florida than in
Central Florida.
23
.~ in
Land Costs (Perspectives of Five Execntives)
. Agricultural lands are appreciating in value, thus taxes keep going up (e.g., last year they
almost doubled).
. The cost of land is now going up. Those who want to farm have to buy it or rent it.
. Land is imposing a whole set of costs.
. Rents for land are going up.
. Price offarm land is exorbitant.
Citrus Indnstry (Reflections from Five Executives)
· Citrus issues are many including water, disease, labor, and foreign imports.
. Not one grower in citrus is making money; we do not pursue citrus.
. Citrus operates under a cloud; it may not be an economic engine and, if this is true, 5-7
billion dollars could disappear.
· Citrus has difficulty competing due to its cost structure (also reported under Agricultural
Costs).
· In the last ten years, citrus growers have not been covering their costs of production, yet
fundamentals have changed.
· Citrus has never seen competition like there is today (also reported under Competition).
· A lack of juice supply from citrus puts the U.S. market for not-from-concentrate (i.e.,
non-frozen) orange juice at risk.
24
<31/
Pricing (Views of Three Executives)
. There is price pressure from big players like Wal-mart.
. A reduction in the supply of citrus hurts processors.
. The perishability of agricultural products, especially vegetables, sugar cane, and oranges
leads to price taking with timber being the exception.
Cattle (Views of Two Executives)
. No one has made a lot of money off cattle; yet callie enables us to maintain our land and
keep out poachers.
. There is not a lot of money in cattle.
Promotion (Perspectives of Two Executives)
· We have long-term contracts to sell at a given price; hence the box tax doesn't seem to
help growers.
. Misperception of consumer response to orange juice has limited demand stimulation; for
example, a product called Orange Nip fits the taste preference of children and thus serves
as an entry into adult orange juice consumption, but was downed because only 75% of
the product was orange juice.
. Promotion has not stressed the role of orange juice in recovery from colds, flus, etc., thus
demand stimulation is missing some key marks.
25
a/'2
.:=? /?
· Poor marketing has been a threat, especially when one considers that orange juice at one
time did not appear in vending machines, schools, and restaurants.
Typography (View of One Executive)
. Soils here are not that great.
26
Ag Opportunities In SW Florida
Opportunities denote more of a spread with no more than five of the fourteen surveyed
executives concentrating on a given topic (e.g. citrus). Overall, twelve opportunity areas are
revealed and those with multiple executive responses are as follows: citrus (5), competition
(4), vegetables (4), alternative fuels (3), land and land credits (3), ornamentals (3), sugar cane
(2) and cattle (2). Sole executive mentions are seen for opportunities that link to
enviromnentalists, education, vertical integration, and food safety.
Citrus opportunities are seen in the application of science (i.e., stronger root stocks), demand
stimulation, growth, and having links to processors. Opportunities are also seen as a means
of protection against competition, and as a way to produce on foreign soils to evade
restrictions. Additionally, crop subsidies are viewed as a way to enhance competitiveness.
Vegetables evidence a litany of comments tied to such consideration as growth and demand
matching. Alternative fuels through crop production are seen as an opportunity, yet one
executive noted that gasoline prices will have to be in excess of $4 per gallon for alternative
fuels to work.
Land and land credits are presented as opportunities, especially the sale ofland and credits.
Ornamentals are viewed as fertile opportunities due to the housing demand generated by an
increasing Florida population.
27
.~ tLJ
,,3 J 5.
Sugar cane and cattle both offer opportunities, and an opportunity exists for farmers and
enviromnentalists to come together as both have an interest in land protection. Education
also has an opportunity to be responsive to ag and the issue of food safety could be an
opportunity area. Finally, vertical integration presents an opportunity to lessen economic
dependency.
Citrus (Perspectives of Five Executives)
. I am very bullish on citrus and vegetables, but not cattle (also reported under Vegetables).
. Citrus is a great product and it goes well with a growing demand for health and wellness.
· There is a better opportunity for citrus growers linked to processors.
. There is an opportunity for new root stock to make citrus stronger.
. There is an opportunity to stimulate demand for orange consumption; we need to support
the Florida Citrus Commission's box tax on advertising.
. There is an opportunity for citrus growers to make serious money and they should stay;
we have location and fruit quality here.
· We see opportunities in sugar and oranges; sugar is growing about 1.5% per year (also
reported under Sugar Cane).
Competitive Options (Viewpoints of Four Executives)
. Ag producers can go abroad and produce crops without restrictions and then ship to the
u.S.
28
. A crop failure outside of Florida may help the ag industry here (e.g., California lost $480
million of its citrus crop due to a freeze).
· There is an opportunity for greater crop subsidies; without them we will not be
competitive.
. We spend on ag opportunities to protect ourselves.
Vegetables (Insights of Four Executives)
· The demand for vegetables is increasing due to a greater health consciousness among the
American people.
. I am bullish on citrus and vegetables, but not cattle (also reported under Citrus).
. Vegetables have a promising future.
· There is an opportunity for big gains, especially through the selection of a crop that is in
short supply (e.g., a vegetable farmer made $17 million one year in Bell peppers).
. We constantly shift our vegetable product mix to match demand.
· We are bullish on vegetables, while fruits (e.g. blueberries) have a higher set-up cost;
$10,000 per acre in the case of blueberries.
. Vegetables and row crops have a nice future.
. Vegetable demand is growing here.
. The areas that have "legs" for the future are sod, vegetable farming, cattle and sugar cane
(also reported under Ornamentals, Cattle, and Sugar Cane).
29
~ Ii_
Alternative Fuels (Insights of Three Executives)
· There is an opportunity for alternative fuels (e.g. ethanol); sugar cane represents an
opportunity for conversion into fuel (also reported under Sugar Cane).
. Crops can now be converted to energy; even grasses.
· Unless gasoline prices are in excess of $4 per gallon, ethanol will go bankrupt.
. Corn may work as a fuel, if it is subsidized.
Land and Land Credits (View of Three Executives)
. Opportunities exist for selling land both for profit and conservation (e.g., land has been
sold to SW Florida Water Management for the purpose of conservation).
. Land is available for farming; there is a misconception of land value relative to housing.
· There is an opportunity for land owners to sell development credits, which will keep land
pristine or protected-land pristine.
. In Collier County, there is an opportunity to sell Rural Land Stewardship Credits on
pristine land and apply them elsewhere.
Ornamentals (Points-of-View of Three Executives)
. Sod is an opportunity that is linked to new home sales.
. Tree farms will do well, so will other ornamentals.
30
2t7
. The areas that have "legs" for the future are sod, vegetable farming, cattle and sugar cane
(also reported under Vegetables, Cattle, and Sugar Cane).
. Ornamentals have a good future.
Sugar Cane (Viewpoints of Two Executives)
· Sugar cane may offer an advantage; but not leafy vegetables, as they are not produced in
Florida.
· We see opportunities in sugar and oranges; sugar is growing about 1.5% per year (also
reported under Citrus).
. The areas that have "legs" for the future are sod, vegetable farming, cattle, and sugar cane
(also reported under Ornamentals, Vegetables, and Cattle).
Cattle (Views of Two Executives)
· Cattle represent an opportunity, as they can graze in a swamp.
· The areas that have "legs" for the future are sod, vegetable farming, cattle and sugar cane
(also reported under Ornamentals, Vegetables, and Sugar Cane).
Link to Environmentalists (View of One Executive)
· There is an opportunity for enviromnentalists to embrace farming, as it is better for them
to have farms than a Wal-mart parking lot.
31
/il ~
Education (Perspective of One Executive)
· There is an opportunity to educate engineers in permitting, reporting, water quality
compliance, etc.
Vertical Integration (Insight from One Executive)
. Vertically integrated ag business firms will find more opportunities, as they are not
dependent upon a single layer.
Food Safety (Point-of-View of One Executive)
· There may be a real opportunity in the creation of a safe and secure food supply.
32
::n q
Threats to Ag Business In SW Florida
The Threats that are most personified by the targeted agricultural executives encompass
competition, diseases, enviromnentalism, land development, government regulation, water,
policy, protection, and climate. They have in common a lack of control, although govemment
regulation and protection are amenable to influence. All in all, they are viewed as being more
intractable than the prior identified Weaknesses.
Among the revealed competitive issues is a real concern over the impact of Brazil on Florida ag
business, especially their far lower cost structure and lack of regulations. Diseases are also
revealed as being very worrisome along with the oppressive actions of what many executives
view as uniformed enviromnentalists. The impact of land development is noted with one
executive presenting the findings of the harrowing Florida in the Year2060 Report. Concerns
are also evident with respect to government regulations that are viewed as being very
burdensome on agriculture, as well as policies relating to water management. Finally, a few
policy issues were presented and, of course, the unpredictable nature of weather with respect to
ag business is revealed as a Threat. All in all, they evidence a litany of forces that require
resolve and try one's tenacity and spirit. Truly, the threats are formidable and they evidence the
potential of influencing Florida's economic base in undesirable and significant ways.
33
3Z0
Competition (Points-of- View of Eight Executives)
. Ag producers in the u.s. are competing with u.s. producers who go abroad and then ship
to the u.s.
· Citrus has never seen competition like there is today (also reported under the Citrus
Industry).
· Brazil is the largest producer of citrus and they do not have restrictions, thus making
them harder to compete against.
. Brazil has strategic alliances that add to competitive pressures.
. Cuba is a threat to u.s. ag or will be.
· Citrus and sugar cane are produced elsewhere, thus hurting Florida ago
. Free trade has ruined the winter vegetable crop here.
. Foreign countries have cheaper ag costs and lax laws on child labor, etc.
. We export our technology (e.g., to Brazil) and it is used to hurt us.
. We are not competitive with Brazil.
· Imports create a cost disadvantage; for example, we pay more in one day than Brazil does
in a week (also reported under Rising Agricultural Costs).
. Fruits from Brazil are cheaper.
. Due to immigration issues, our labor costs are not competitive with Brazil (also reported
under Labor Issues).
. Fifty percent of our costs are in harvesting, yet they are four times higher than in Brazil
(also reported under Labor Issues).
34
3ri.1
· We are now seeing global markets where foreign labor is cheaper and other than a "level
playing field" (also reported under Labor Issues).
· Chemicals are three times more expensive here than in Brazil (also reported under
Agricultural Costs).
. Tariff issues are a competitive threat.
. Imports and foreign competition are issues.
Diseases (Perceptions of Eight Executives)
. Cariker and greening are real issues.
. Citrus greening is worrisome, yet cariker can be overcome.
· Due to cariker and greening, there is no longer an aggressive replacement of citrus.
· Canker and greening are major threats for citrus.
. Citrus disease is a problem, especially canker and greening.
. Cariker and greening have led to a non-aggressive replacement of citrus.
. There is a new citrus disease called crustacia.
. Hurricanes served to blow canker all over.
· Greening is the culprit that could end the citrus industry, as psyllid' s spread it.
· Greening is on the Federal government's terrorism list which impedes the use of cultures
in the search for a cure.
. We see pests and diseases as threats.
· A lack of serious enforcement with respect to ag import inspections has helped to bring
diseases to us with the culprit being a new emphasis on terrorism.
35
3 J-..:l.
Environmentalism (Views of Five Executives)
. Enviromnentalists have attacked ag and sugar.
· The enviromnental scene is harmful to us; consider that the protection of 50 panthers
keeps us down.
. Enviromnentalists hurt farming, yet they do not consider how well farmers treat their land
and the fact that they are excellent conservationists.
. Ag land has been sold to the state and harm has occurred.
. Environmentalists are not familiar with wildlife as ag doesn't get in their way.
· Enviromnentalism is shaping ag strategy; for example, rezoning is a threat to land
availability.
. The threats are enviromnental, such as water, regulations, land-use, and labor.
Land Development (Points-of-View of Five Executives)
· Farming requires land and without it ag suffers; as a result, threats to land are threats to
farming.
. Development is putting stress on farmland; some are selling out, yet some of the land is
purchased by ag business.
. Land is being squeezed by development; as ag land disappears, Mexico and Cuba could
be major suppliers.
. The Federal government took out 80,000 acres in Florida to burn and control.
36
32?,
· The iropact of urbanization is being felt; oranges are not plentiful North to 1-4, yet they
are West ofI-80.
· Only the Panhandle of Florida will not be facing build-out in 50 years (Florida in the
Year 2060 Report).
· Nearly seven million acres of undeveloped agricultural land will be needed to
accommodate the exploding population (Florida in the Year 2060 Report).
. In five county areas, interiors are being pushed out to developers seeking agrarian land.
· Retirees on the coast care nothing about agricultural land and its development for non-ag
purposes.
Government Regulations (Perceptions of Five Executives)
. Permitting on the federal, state, and local level has hurt.
· Water management people are creating a whole new set of headaches (also reported
under Water Issues).
· The Department of Transportation, the Enviromnental Protection Agency, and the Health
Department all present issues.
. Governmental regulations are a weakness.
. Governmental regulations are at the top of my list.
· Government regulations add to agricultural costs (e.g., tractors must meet emission
standards and our costs on required portable toilets are excessive).
. Governmental regulations are a threat.
37
,~ d.. Lj.
· Endangered species legislation (e.g., the protection of the Mexican vulture) is wiping us
out.
. Government regulation on the lowering of lake levels makes the ag industry more
vulnerable to additionallowerings due to natural forces (also reported under Water
Issues).
Water Issues (Perceptions of Four Executives)
. The watering of yards and golf courses hurts ag, as well as regulations on lake levels
which impact irrigation.
. Government officials do not understand ag, especially the unintended consequences of
their actions, such as the lowering of lake levels to keep the fishing good.
. Government regulations on the lowering of lake levels makes the ag industry more
vulnerable to additionallowerings due to natural forces (also reported under Government
Regulations).
· With continual population growth in Florida there will be more demand for water and the
concerns of politicians over water quantity and quality will lead to zoning and land use
restrictions which will be detrimental to ago
. Water management people are creating a whole new set of headaches (also reported
under Government Regulations).
38
.32..S
5"2 (~
Policy Issues (Perspectives of Three Executives)
· The push for alternative fuels limits the use of land for ag and real estate development;
as a result, we need something else to supplement ethanol.
· Ag is impacted by jammed roads, poor schools, and higher electricity rates.
· There are trade issues and the need for good farm bills.
· u.s. taxes are used to develop sea ports and airport infrastructure, thus making it easier
for the u.s. to receive foreign ag products.
Protection of Ag Products (Insights from Two Execntives)
. Produce has no protection; it is a total "crap shoot."
. Brazil owns 50% of the citrus processing in Florida.
Climate (Views of Two Executives)
· Freezes have hurt citrus in the Central and Northern portions of the state.
· The summer climate has proven fertile for potential hurricanes.
39
Comments Related to Ag Businesses' Five-Year Trend Line
Comments by ag executives deal with the following areas: citrus, land, ag in general, vegetables,
cattle and sugar cane. The areas with the most controversy are land, citrus, and ag in general,
while positive projections are posited for vegetables, cattle, and sugar cane.
Overall, citrus and land are discussed by nine executives apiece with the most neutral and
negative observations being reserved for land. With respect to this, the impact of developer and
enhanced population projections cast a pall over land, despite positives relating to land's
economic return. Citrus trends reflect more of a mix with positive reflections concerning such
issues as efficiency, the future for new root stocks, and land value. On the other hand, the
negatives deal with such concerns as economic returns, foreign competition, and mainly
greening. Basically, a solving of the greening issue would do much for the citrus industry. Ag
business in general is buoyed by observations relating to technology and the benefits of
spending, while the negatives involve poor returns and the impact of free trade.
Vegetables are supported by three executives who note considerations such as a growing demand
and less competition, while two executives see a future in cattle, and one executive with sugar
cane. Clearly, land and citrus are at the heart of the debate as to the future five-year trend line
for ag business in SW Florida. Finally, labor is not viewed as an issue in the interpretation of a
five-year trend line.
40
3;:}.../
Pro Citrus (Perspectives of Three Executives)
. Efficient citrus growers will still be in business.
· Citrus will offer very satisfactory profit returns over the next two to three years.
· A citrus grove with 135 trees can go to 220 or 300 with costs of production only going up
a little.
· The future will lead to the development of new root stocks that resist greening and we
can develop new production practices.
· The trend line for citrus is going up, as evidenced by citrus land up to 1-4 going for
$50,000 an acre, plus the land is income producing (yielding around $2,000 per acre).
Neutral Citrus (Views of Two Executives)
· Price-wise, citrus is at a 16 year high in box prices, yet citrus can be iropacted by
immigration laws and a paucity of workers.
. Citrus growers can live with cariker, yet greening is a problem.
Con Citrus (Points-of-View of Fonr Execntives)
. Citrus is not on the trend line.
. A bank CD provides a better return than citrus.
. Citrus has a poor trend line and the culprit is not cariker, rather it is greening.
. Citrus farmers who borrowed are in trouble as Brazil is cheaper and without restrictions.
41
32~
?J~q
. Citrus is in trouble due to cariker and greening.
. The trend line for citrus is dependent upon canker and greening.
. A cure for greening is conceivable, yet it may take ten years.
. ,.Greening is spread by a flying insect and requires a series of sprays costing around $350
per acre, thus increasing caretaking costs around 50%.
Pro Land (Insights from Two Executives)
. Real estate development may be losing steam in the short run.
. Ag is being squeezed, yet land ownership yields a dividend.
. Land targeted for preservation grows into a jungle, yet farming this land would make it
more pristine.
Neutral Land (Perspectives of Three Executives)
. Orange groves can be converted to farm fields.
. When farmers go out, somebody will still use the available land.
· Ag business is land starved, thus increasing the productivity of existing land is the key to
growth.
· Projecting out to 2060, the University of Florida study notes that one-third of Florida land
will be in ag, one-third preserved, and one-third developed; thus ag will always be part of
the equation.
42
Con Land (Viewpoints of Four Executives)
· Developers are taking a bite out of farming.
. As the number of houses being built increases, ag land will be eaten away.
· The state of Florida needs an incentive to encourage land use and preservation, as there
are no value-addition policies.
. More distant population projections (2060) show that Florida will have 35.8 million
people, which is substantially higher than the existing population of 17.8 million; as a
result, nearly seven million acres of land and/or undeveloped land will be needed.
Pro Ag Business (Perspectives of Two Executives)
· The trend is toward consolidation and ag yields will increase due to technology.
. An upward trend line will continue despite weaknesses.
. As production units expand so does revenue; by spending more now, one can make more.
Neutral Ag Business (Insight of One Executive)
· Ag may diversify into areas with better returns (e.g., there are large landowners who
convert from citrus to vegetable), yet the worry is over residual chemicals used to treat
citrus.
43
3'2D
Con Ag Business (View of One Executive)
. The trend line is in decline.
. A quantitative analysis reveals that ag returns barely exceed costs and some are not even
close to break-even.
. Free trade is depressing the trend line.
Pro Vegetables (Viewpoints of Three Executives)
. The trend for vegetables is okay, as there is growing demand and a lesser competitive
threat.
· There is always a need for vegetable farming; in fact, Florida supplies 80% of the crop.
. Green beans are tough, but we can market them.
Pro Cattle (Insights of Two Executives)
. The trend line is supportive of cattle, as cows "can live on nothing."
. Cattle production is more efficient and mad-cow disease is under control, yet cattle is not
as vertically integrated as in the Midwest.
Pro Sugar Cane (Viewpoint of One Executive)
Sugar cane has a positive trend line and the farm bill may offer sugar cane protection.
44
3?>J
Commentary on the Continuation of Ag Business Operations
Despite Land Sale Opportunities
The overall theme of responses reveals the use of an economic model. If the returns are great
enough ag producers may sell, yet a component of the model is the seeking of ag diversity and
the protection of land to enhance its value. Overall, land is an asset that presents multiple
opportunities.
Ag Diversity (Views of Four Executives)
. We do a little farming; our asset is land which we lease.
· Weare very diversified; we will go into areas that represent sound economic investments
and we are not afraid to take land out of ag production.
. Weare sensitive to opportunities in real estate, yet we are looking for compatibility;
overall we seek ag production in all twelve months of the year and this leads to ag
diversity.
. We embrace diversification.
Sale of Land (Perspectives of Three Executives)
· We will sell land; the current valuation is from $5,000 to $7,000 per acre.
. Ag will continue, but some ag land will be sold for a greater return.
45
3~.l.
· We merely maintain our land for its own inherent value; this leads to land sales.
Continuation of Ag Operations (View of One Executive)
. Weare staying.
Pressures to Sell (Views of Two Executives)
· Developers are all over and not just on the coasts (e.g., there is a gated community going
up in Clewiston); Indian gaming will also develop an infrastructure to surround it.
. We are approached about our land, but it is not overwhelming.
Diversification Outside of Agriculture
The interviews conducted did not reveal a great deal of diversification in businesses outside of
agribusiness. Obviously, some major ag producers are already well entrenched in the real estate
development business. However, they represent the minority, and there did not appear to be a
great deal of current migration into new business lines concerning the development of ag lands.
Most of the diversification that was cited by executives as a risk reduction strategy was across
new agricultural product lines, such as ornamental plants and sod. Mining represents a tangential
business being developed alongside ag for product line diversification by some major producers.
46
~:;l,A
Future Importance of SW Florida Agriculture
Perhaps the most insightful responses concerned the future of SW Florida relative to the rest of
the state as a producer of agriculture. A clear consensus exists that SW Florida is growing, and
will continue to increase in relative importance for agribusiness production. Developments in
other regions, the consolidation of ag producing land, and inland locations all are cited as
contributors to a long run trend of SW Florida agribusiness growing in status and influence
relative to the rest of Florida.
Pro Future Importance (Views of Nine Executives)
. SW Florida is becoming more important relative to the East coast due to disease and
contamination; there is not much reinvestment in ag land foreseen along the East coast.
· The increased urbanization of the U.S. 27 corridor is shrinking ag production there and
SW Florida will continue to grow in relative importance even as ag production shifts
further inland within the region.
· Development in other areas of the state will increase the relative importance of SW
Florida ag statewide.
. Development in other regions will diminish ag influence there, making SW Florida
relatively more important.
· By holding ag production in SW Florida relatively constant, its statewide influence
should increase as ag production in other regions declines.
47
3 ~'f
· If citrus diseases can be controlled, SW Florida citrus will survive and increase in
relative importance as the East coast, especially Indian River, continues to develop and
take land out of ag production.
· SW Florida is becoming more important relative to the rest of Florida.
. Consolidation of large land tracts in SW Florida makes continued ag production more
economically efficient, while the opportunity cost of consolidating large land tracts in
other regions is too high.
· There will be no new land devoted to ag production, so it is a question of remaining
stable relative to shrinkage in aggregate land devoted to ag production statewide.
. SW Florida has gained in relative statewide importance over the last five years; SW
Florida can grow in relative importance merely by maintaining the status quo, as relative
ag production statewide continues to shrink.
. SW Florida ag production is becoming more influential statewide; the largest land
owners in the state are now concentrated south of Highlands County, as it is becoming
too costly to keep or assemble large land tracts in central Florida due to development
pressures.
Con Future Importance (Views of Two Executives)
· Society is going to have to decide if it is willing to pay more for current crops, or ag
production will continue to diroinish here as well as statewide.
· In the very long term, environmental land purchases and development will diminish ag
in SW Florida, but this is happening statewide.
48
3-PS
AG BUSINESS IN SW FLORIDA:
PRESENT AND FUTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
Agricultural land planning is of great interest to the three SW Florida enviromnentalleaders that
were interviewed. One of the enviromnentalists indicated that his group advocates specific
solutions, such as, high-density development; while another interviewee mentioned that land has
a life-cycle with various types ofland use at the appropriate phase. Overall, enviromnentalists
believe that real estate development is impacting agriculture, but at the same time some praised a
few sustainable developments in the area. As a result, the critical issue may be how land is
developed, rather than whether it's developed or not. The respondents indicated that ag
dynamics will change with the geopolitical enviromnent. Therefore, ag business must
continuously monitor the situation and sense and respond accordingly.
49
3 ".6 ~
Comments on Whether Land Use and
Protection Are of Interest to Environmentalists
High density real estate development is the solution of one enviromnentalist and denotes an
integrative solution. A common interest model is also developed as well as a response
supportive of agriculture.
High Density Real Estate Development (View of One Environmentalist)
. Appropriate land use and protection are seen through the Lee County Smart Growth Task
Force and the promotion of high density construction.
. Land goes through a life cycle, with different uses of land appropriate at different times;
this is the time of smart development that supports agricultural use.
· While taking citrus out to put in a trailer park is bad use of land, taking a few acres of
citrus out to have a high density subdivision along with citrus is a good use.
Common Interest Model (Perspective of One Environmentalist)
. Citrus has land and needs income, juice plant needs citrus, high density development
needs land; so, combine citrus with development to keep the citrus in the money, the
juice plant supplied, and development needs met.
50
-6?>7
Pro Agriculture (View of One Environmentalist)
· We had rather see crops grow instead of condos, as long as agriculture is well managed.
Response as to Whether the Development of Ag Land for Real Estate
Purposes Threatens Florida's Heritage
Responses are mixed concerning the query with answers ranging from definitions of heritage to a
perceived collision course between development and what amounts to agricultural heritage.
Protection of Agricultural Heritage (Views of Two Environmentalists)
. Local agricultural heritage may be kept if the Lee County Planning Commission stops
development.
· Development is colliding with rural lifestyle and technology is not developed enough to
ensure that development and agricultural use co-exist (manure-smell, equipment noise
and road congestion, and pesticides offer a health danger); Ave Maria is one experiment
and Babcock will be next, even though we don't see them as self-sustaining, we expect a
traffic nightmare.
51
33g
Definitional Issue of Heritage (Perspective of One Environmentalist)
. Heritage doesn't mean "no change" or every aspect of something (land, in this case) has
to be kept the same forever; heritage is a collection of logical, sensible, and well planned
events through time that makes us good stewards of something (land, in this case.)
. Heritage of land has always been "best use"; the only land heritage that pays for itself
right now is unimproved pasture. All other uses will change to or include development to
be profitable.
Comments on the Awareness of Real Estate Projects
That Threaten Land Irrevocably
Awareness levels are mixed with one environmentalist noting yes and another no.
Pro Awareness (View of One Environmentalist)
. While Ave Maria is a done deal, Babcock will be monitored; Big Cypress will be
challenged under the Endangered Species law (panthers) to stop it or slow it down and it
will be hampered by blocking its access to or through CREW lands.
· The Florida Water Management District 2005 Land Acquisition Report will be used to
acquire land that will make the Big Cypress project unprofitable.
52
339
Negative Awareness (Point-of-View of One Environmentalist)
. Although specific projects are not named, we can emulate Virginia and Maryland by
placing high taxes on city and rural developments and by not providing them with
infrastructure and roads; meanwhile, we place no taxes on developments in the city and
provide roads and infrastructure free.
Commentary on Preference for Developers Versus Agriculture
Responses are uniformly in favor of agribusiness with some qualifications. Overall,
enviromnentalists are in favor of agriculture.
Pro Comments in Support of Agribusiness
(Viewpoints of Three Environmentalists)
. We support agribusiness ifit is the proper use for the land; for example, Pacific Tomato
grows a breed at a premium price that can only be farmed in SW Florida, south of Ave
Maria; Duda Corporation spends more R&D on food than any other business and has
chosen SW Florida to grow miniature carrots, bagged lettuce, etc.
. The conflict that environmentalists have with agribusiness involves sugar growers and
not other agribusiness.
53
3Y:D
. Enviromnentalists will support agribusiness as long as it is responsible agriculture; in
fact, we need exemptions from the estate tax to keep land in agriculture and those
benefiting must keep land in agriculture for at least 25 years.
Negative Comment Relating to Ag Business
(Perspective of One Environmentalist)
. When Cuba opens up, sugar and citrus will be gone in a decade.
Recommended Strategies of Environmentalists
To Protect Agricultural Land
Numerous strategies are provided ranging from land rotations; the purchase of development
rights from farmers to keep land in farming; and dual strategies to protect farming and the
panther.
Recommended Strategies (Points-of- View of Three Environmentalists)
. Rotate land during the year (bird sanctuary 6 months, then crops) and every two out of
every three years.
. Florida Forever and Rural Land Development must acquire easements from sugar
growers south of Lake Okeechobee to provide flow ways and panther access to and from
the Everglades; we may consider pipets) from Lake Okeechobee to Everglades.
54
34J
· Buy development rights from farmers to keep land in farming and away from developers
forever.
· Development can protect agricultural land and the panther as follows:
o Develop a high density community to provide income to the county (tax base)
o Surround the community by agricultural land and citrus
o Set aside lots of land for panther access and roaming
o Use agricultural products to help the panther's life cycle (oranges feed pigs and
pigs feed the panther)
. Pursue an integrative strategy whereby developers get land and provide houses (tax
money), agricultural products and citrus, and land for panthers and pigs.
Final Reflections of Environmentalists
(Points-of- View of Three Environmentalists)
. My main worry is citrus as it is low impact, uses lots of land with low or no profit, and
can be developed quickly and easily.
. Citrus is dead; landholdings that are in ag will become niche products only because mass
production is gone.
· Profit is in rock, sod, timber, cattle and niche products (ornamentals and unique vegetable
varieties.)
55
2:> LJ 2-
AG BUSINESS IN SW FLORIDA:
PRESENT AND FUTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF POLITICAL LEADER RESPONSE
The four political leaders interviewed indicated that the Ag Industry is a tremendous economic
and political force in Florida. The State already provides assistance including education and
research, infrastructure-support and tax exemptions, among others. There is a continuous
concern about the health of crops and the effect of disease and climate, as well as global
competitive issues. They believe that innovations, such as, the Rural Land Stewardship program
are addressing the conflicting and complex dynamics of development versus conservation.
Responses Concerning the Provision of State Aid to Ag Business
All political leaders see some type of state support.
Pro State Support (Viewpoints of Four Political Leaders)
· The state offers a fuel tax exemption and other credits for agricultural equipment and
materials.
· Zoning protections are provided to promote the continuation of small farms.
56
3Lf?:=.
· The sale of development rights allows farmers to keep farming and well off; the Rural
Stewardship program is one of three methods to preserve agricultural land in perpetuity.
· The state encourages research to deal with canker through the University of Florida
Agricultural Extension Program in the form of support and grants.
· Secretary Brunson has the respect of all parties and will continue the funding for
Everglades restoration.
. As sugar starts migrating to Cuba and development pressures and compensations increase
for vacated land, we need tax incentives to keep farmers and sugar land holders from
selling out; we also need fuel crops to take over citrus lands (e.g., permits for site plants
and facilities for ethanol.)
Comments on the Effectiveness of
Agribusiness Organization in Eliciting Concessions
Responses encompassed ag businesses' ability to speak with a single voice and its need for
support to ensure long-term survival.
Pro Organization (Perspective of One Political Leader)
. Agribusiness is an incredibly well organized political force and is supported by Secretary
Brunson; it has good lobbyists, is equally supported by Republican and Democrats, and
speaks with one voice (including sugar, rice, dairy, plants, citrus, timber, and cattle.)
57
;64-'-(
Need for Organizational Support (View of One Political Leader)
. Agribusiness will need to join forces with enviromnental groups and will need support to
survive in the long term.
Commentary on Whether Agribusiness Is a "Sinking Ship"
Comments are supportive of ag business, yet the form or nature of ag business is projected to
change.
Pro Ag (Perspectives of Three Political Leaders)
. Selling to developers is an option, but agribusiness will remain a potent force.
. Ag business will continue in a form different than from today; compact in nature and co-
existing with high density developments without the vast areas for cattle and citrus that
currently exist.
. Agribusiness will provide high sugar crops for alternative fuels, producing niche and
specialty crops that are better than those from Brazil and ready at the table due to close
proximity.
58
.345
Responses to One's Extent of Participation With AG Lobbyists
Political leader response to the query reveals interactions with lobbyists, yet individual contacts
with agribusiness are more paramount.
Lobby Interactions (Perspectives of Two Political Leaders)
. I am working with the Florida Ag Council/Land Council and Farm Bureau, focusing on
regionalism, affordable housing, and growth management.
· The lobbyists for small growers (Vegetable Association and Fruit Association) are very
competent.
Agribusiness Interactions (Views of Two Political Leaders)
· Alico, Inc. and the Land Council own 70% of the undeveloped land in SW Florida; so we
talk to them most of the time and not lobbyists.
· We tried to combine those concerned with the enviromnent and land development
(enviromnentalists, developers, and agribusiness owners/associations); presently, no such
forum exists.
59
34~
Views of Political Leaders as to What Agriculture is Seeking the Most
Definitive points of view are presented by political leaders as to what agribusiness is currently
seeking. Several distinct agendas are presented.
Perceived Agendas of Ag Business (Points-of-View of Four Political Leaders)
. Ag business is concerned that they don't get credit for the environmental improvements
that they have made and the money they have spent on cleaning the environment and
similar projects; for example, the media and environmentalists portray the sugar industry
as polluters when the facts point to the contrary.
. Agribusiness is worried that their land will be taken by decrees, laws, and regulations to
keep farm land undeveloped, or in farming without compensation, as they will be unable
to sell for development when they wish to do so.
. Ag business wants a smooth zoning change process, tax incentives, disease and genetic
research support, access to workforce, and infrastructure (road access and rail).
· Agribusiness wants continued funding for the Rural Land Stewardship Program.
60
34tr
Comments on Political Leader Support for Additional Ag Research Funding
Responses are seen in the form of state financial support as well as laws/regulations and the need
for research support in general.
State Financial Support (Points-of-View of One Political Leader)
. While they don't need State money, they need support for research and laws/regulations,
zoning, and alternative fuel crop development.
· The issue of the land owned by sugar farms comes down to environmentalists trying to
take the land without paying for it (i.e., pass laws preventing development and other
farming projects rendering the land worthless), versus landowners trying to sell it to the
highest bidder free from zoning regulations.
61
34C6
AG BUSINESS IN SW FLORIDA:
PRESENT AND FUTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REAL EST A TE
DEVELOPER RESPONSE
The responses of five real estate developers note that while ag lands continue to be targeted for
potential development, the demand for ag conversion has cooled. However, the perceived
attitude toward selling by ag landowners continues to be encouraging. Real estate developers
have well-defined site location characteristics in mind, especially transportation access,
perceived driving time, and the presence of an infrastructure. Most of the real estate developers
have a strong interim interest in ag land (e.g., purchasing land and then leasing it for agricultural
use). Those developers who are most active at present are pure land developers and those
seeking entitled land; yet the interests of large regional and national homebuilders have waned.
Overall, the more immediate five-year future shows a newer focus on larger and more
concentrated projects like Ave Maria and Old Cypress along with a projected ag land conversion
slowdown. Finally, the perceived factors most impacting ag land conversions are governmental
influences and market realities, such as consumer response.
62
3i.}9
Response to the Extent that Ag Lands Are Being Targeted
by Residential and Commercial Real Estate Developers
in Light of Florida's Immigration Patterns
Comments by developers reveal a mix of statements that relate to land per se and not ag
targeting. In other words, land characteristics are more important than whether it is ag land.
Alternatively, some developers note specific ag targeting.
No Ag Targeting Per Se (Perspectives of Two Executives)
. We are targeting properties that can be easily entitled.
. We focus on properties that provide a mix of marketable attributes.
. We want natural features that can be developed and sold to their target market.
. Weare not really targeting ag land per se.
. We are mostly driven by location attributes.
. We are steered by a comprehensive plan.
· We look at the supply/demand for various submarkets with an emphasis on high demand
areas.
. Comprehensive plans drive us to look at certain areas, by location, and not just targeting
agricultural lands.
· Our company looks at supply and demand, demographics, and groups of home buyers
and we look at the prestige oflocations to see if they support the market segment that is
63
350
being targeted; the company is not buying land to hold, but to develop so it is not
speculating on land that might be used ten years from now.
Pro Ag Land Targeting (Views of Four Executives)
. Ag lands have been the primary focus for master planned community developers.
. Until the market slowed, agricultural lands were being heavily targeted with development
moving East; during this time there was very limited in-fill activity.
· There is a path of transition - most of the supply is further from the coast; the appeal of
urban centers/villages and demographics may slow the consumption of ag lands.
· What we have seen is buyer driven, developer demand for agricultural lands.
. Concurrency is forcing leap-frog movements toward the rural/urban fringe. Adjusting
concurrency may reduce demand for conversion of ag land.
. Long term ag is going away.
Other Factors Influencing Ag Targeting (Perspective of One Executive)
· Policy decisions of county governments are influencing the demand for ag conversion.
· Allowing for higher density in Hendry County limits the demand for ag conversion.
64
2>Sj
Perceived Attitudes of Ag Business Landowners to "Selling Out"
The response patterns denote positive views by real estate developers on ag landowner
propensity for selling. However, there is some tempering due to family issues.
Pro Attitudes Toward "Selling Out" (Viewpoints of Four Executives)
· Increasing competition, cost, and foreign influence are making selling out more
attractive.
· The economics behind agricultural operations often do not support continuation.
. Many owners of ag lands are looking to sell portions of their holdings in order to
facilitate continued ag use of the remainder.
. Some owners are willing to sell out using take-down contracts which allow the property
to remain in ag use until the last possible moment.
. Land sales are seen as a natural progression.
. Large land owners have planned for it and will likely sell out as market conditions
permit.
. Smaller operators look to maximize return (bought with appreciation in mind).
. Some landowners look at starting development companies.
. Economics may not support the continued use of ago
. The Question is: When? And how much?
. Ag landowners are aware of demand for development/conversion.
. We see ag landowners planning for exit in several years.
65
dSL
. Many in the agricultural business have many parcels that they are trying to decide when
and how much to sell at each point in time; some agricultural interests are selling parts of
their land with the option to buy more in stages.
Family Issues (Perspectives of Three Executives)
. The younger generation is more prone to sell out.
· Current ag landowners love ag, but the next generation may not feel the same way.
. The legacy of the landowner is a primary concern.
. Landowners need to be comfortable with the process and want to choose who purchases
their property.
. Parents are making decisions about continued use.
. Some are eliminating decisions for the next generation.
Comments on Heavily Targeted Ag Lands
Responses denote a heavy emphasis on site locations characteristics instead of specific
locations. Still, markets and physical locations are in evidence. Sites that are particularly
attractive possess a convenient access to transportation and the support of an infrastructure.
66
.3~3
Site Characteristics (Viewpoints of Four Executives)
. Those properties within 30-60 miles of major airports are most heavily targeted; as the
market has slowed that radius has tightened.
. Those areas along the urban services boundaries are the most heavily targeted; however,
there are exceptions such as the Ave Maria development.
. Easy access is a concern, especially access to water and employment.
. Transportation is the key driver.
. Timeline driven - ease of permitting and entitlement determine targeting.
. The percentage of land that is upland/wetland.
· Properties with access to employment, airport retail, healthcare, etc. are preferred.
. Site characteristics are defined by the end user.
. New home buyers include a new workforce, seasonal and retirees; they are looking for
the areas close to airports and hospitals.
Market Factors (Views of Two Executives)
· Certain types of lands are offered to developers.
· Markets determine what lands will be offered for conversion.
67
35Lf
Actual Physical Locations (Viewpoint of One Executive)
· SR80 and Burnt Store, Ave Maria and Eastern Collier are targeted.
Other Factor (Perspective of One Executive)
· During the last few years there was a lot of citrus conversion.
Responses to Developer Interests that Are Held in Ag Land
Three of the five executives surveyed worked for firms that have an interest in agricultural land.
The common theme for these executives is that agriculture is an interim use for these holdings.
It should be noted that the other two executives proved fee-based consulting services to the
industry and would not typically have landholdings as a part of their normal operations. The
following comments were made by the three executives whose frrms have agricultural holdings.
Interim Interests (Points-of- View of Three Executives)
· Typically land is kept in agricultural use during the entitlement process; it is leased to
ranchers.
. We have control oflots of agriculture.
. Weare buying more for future use.
68
355
· It is structured so that land will stay in ag until market conditions indicate that it is time
for conversion; the outcome is extending ag usage.
. We do not do farming, but we lease land for ag use.
. We use take-downs, allowing demand driven response to market conditions.
Non-Speculative Comments (Insight from One Executive)
. We are not buying and warehousing land.
. Weare not bearing the price risk associated with long-term purchases.
. We have a very small interest in land and we do not buy and hold; we do have some
small holdings due to staged development.
Comments on Types of Executives Most Active in Pursuing Ag Lands
Responses fall into Active and Inactive categories. Those that are most active or aggressive are
pure land developers and those seeking entitlements. The most inactive are regional and national
homebuilders who have withdrawn with the housing downtown.
Active Participants (Views of Three Executives)
· Those with cash, the pure land developers, are currently the most aggressive; the builder
developers are not actively seeking more land at this time.
. Current buyers only look for land that is already entitled.
69
350
· Those adding value through entitlement (sales to national builders from landholders
themselves - ag guys trying to capture returns for themselves).
· Some entitled parcels are now being picked up by investors.
. Some local and regional buyers are picking up parts of existing projects.
Inactive Participants (Perspectives of Four Executives)
. National and large regional homebuilders were the most aggressive; however, they are
now trying to unload properties.
. There has been a significant slowdown recently.
. Many have been out of the market since 2004.
. Regional homebuilders were very active.
. National companies were there when the housing market was on "fire."
. Regional developers and national homebuilders entered the market in a very aggressive
manner buying entitled and non-entitled ag land, thus driving prices up (they are now
walking away from deals and deposits).
70
257
Responses of Developers on the Future of Ag Lauds Five-Years From Now
. According to the surveyed executives, ag land conversions will slow down yet a different
focus may appear in land development and ag lands will be subjected to new ag uses,
market forces and newer ag incentives.
New Ag Focus (Points-of- View of Three Executives)
. We will see more concentrated development.
. Larger projects may get most of demand.
. The current big projects, Ave Maria and Big Cypress are showing the way.
. We will see a smaller market in terms of new homes especially in the $180 - $200
thousand dollar price range instead of the $300 thousand dollar price category that was
previously seen.
· Expect some owners of agricultural lands to be working on entitlements prior to selling
out.
· More prototypes like Ave Maria and Old Cypress will be in evidence.
Ag Land Conversion Slowdown (Points-of-View of Three Executives)
. The conversion process will slow and agricultural uses will still be in place.
· There will be a resumption of ag land conversion, yet 18-24 months of inventory must be
worked through.
71
35~
. During the next two to three years we will see the consumption of the existing ag supply
with little or no demand for the conversion of ag land.
Market Factors (Views of Two Executives)
· We see a return to more healthy markets; the years 2004 and 2005 were "out of control."
(The adjustment to the current slowdown may take another two years.)
. The demand for land conversion will likely trend along with the growth of the
population.
Incentive for Ag Land Conversion (Insight of One Executive)
. Owners will also have increased incentives to convert ag land as the costs of labor, fuel,
chemicals, land, and enviromnental issues increase.
Land Use Shift (View of One Executive)
. There will be some changes in the type of ag usage, such as increased acreage for
ornamentals, organic, fuel, specialty, and value-added crops; it is likely that more acreage
will be used for mitigation for habitat and carbon off-sets, and the impact of canker and
greening will also be felt.
72
..2 !;, q
Comments on Factors Impacting Ag Land Conversion
Each developer was also asked to list the items/issues that have the ability to significantly alter
the pattern of agricultural land conversion. Their responses indicate that the process is
susceptible to a number of potential shocks, especially governmental interventions and market
realities. As a result, market participants must continue to monitor the market as it responds to
changing conditions.
Governmental Influences (Points-of- View of Four Executives)
. There are problems with governmental vision of sustainable development.
. There are enviromnental restrictions - water, panther, protected species.
. We see insurance, taxes, local government and national government influences.
. International trade deals could alter the competitive position of agriculture.
· State policy or establislunent of minimum density could slow conversion.
. We see water issues and urban boundaries.
. We see the increased costs and time associated with permitting and entitlement.
. There will be increased impact fees.
· Owners will face significant risks associated with potential changes in land use
regulations.
73
3hO
Market Realities (Views of Four Executives)
· There may be a lack of market understanding of urban villages.
. How well will Florida continue to sell? More competition from other states.
. How will consumers respond to the urban village concept?
· There could be a change in the propensity for conversion.
· Declining consumer confidence could result in lower demand for conversion of ag land.
· An increasing cost of living could result in lower population growth in Florida.
. Ag and development are not mutually exclusive.
. Transfer of development rights, TDRs, will work for participants on both sides of the
equation, developer and ag; currently there is no real market for TDRs.
. It is purely an economic solution.
Agricultural Efficiencies (Views of One Executive)
· Demand for land for other uses will result in an increased efficiency of ag operations.
. Increased ag efficiency allows land to be taken out of ag usage.
Natural Forces (Insight of One Executive)
. We see naturaVenviromnental threats.
74
6&'1
Other Factor (View of One Executive)
. An increase in home loan delinquency could impact conversion.
75
..3 0 :;L
APPENDIX I
Names and Companies of Participating Ag Business Executives
CEO Agricultural Interviewees
Alexauder, John - Alico, Inc.
Buker, Bob - u.s. Sugar Corp.
Caruso, Steve - Florida's Natural Growers
Duda, Joseph - A. Duda & Sons, Inc.
Edwards, Ron - Evans Properties, Inc.
Griffin, III, Ben HiIl- Ben Hill Griffin, Inc.
Heller, Billy - Pacific Tomato Growers
Hilliard, Joe Marlin - Hilliard Brothers of Florida
Lucas, Charles - Consolidated Citrus
Lykes, Charles - Lykes Brothers
Marinelli, Paul- Barron Collier Companies
Obern, Chuck - C & B Farms
Priddy, Russell- J.B. Ranch
Wheeler, David - Wheeler Farms
76
2~2J
.30Lf
APPENDIX II
N ames and Associations of Participating Environmentalists
Hammond, William - Florida Gulf Coast University
McElwaine, Andrew - Conservancy ofSW Florida
Woodruff, Richard - Wilson Miller
Names of Participating Political Leaders
Davis, Mike
Richter, Garrett
Saunders, Burt
Williams, Trudi
Names and Companies of Participating Real Estate Leaders
Bowens, Cliff - Agri-Property Consultants
Hutchcraft, Mitch - Bonita Bay Group
McCormick, Rich - Pulte Homes
Miers, Grady - LandMar Group
Timerman, Mike - Hanley Wood
77
Management and Conservation Note
~~jk /AI
Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent
GPS and VHF Telemetry Data
E. DARRELL LAND,l Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 566 Commercial Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104, USA
DAVID B. SHINDLE,2 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 566 Commercial Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104, USA
ROBERT J. KAWULA, Florida FiJh and Wildlife Comervation Commission, 620 South Maidian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32601, USA
JOHN F. BENSON,3 F/arjda Fish and Wildlife Comeroation Commission, .166 Commercial Boulevard, Naple.!, FL 34104, USA
MARK A. LOTZ, Florida Fish and Wildlife Comervation CommiHion, 566 Commercial Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104, USA
DAVE P. ONORATO, Florida Fish and Wildlife C07/ur'Vation Commission, 566 Commercial Boulevard, Naple.!, FL 34104, USA
ABSTRACT Horida panthers (Puma wnw/or coryi) are listed as an cndangered subspeeies in rhe United States and they exist in a sin.gle
Florida population with <100 individuals~ al] known. reproduction occurs somh of Lake Okecchohee. Habitat loss is the biggest threat to this
small population and previous studieii of habitat selection have relied on very high frequency (Vl-IF) telemetry data collected almost exclusively
during diumal periods. We investigated habitat selection of 12 panthers in the northern portion of the breeding range using 1) Global
Positioning System (GPS) telemetry data collected during nocrurnal and diurnal periods and 2) VUF telemetry data collected only during
diurnal periods. Analysis of both types of telemetry data yielded similar results as panthers selected upland (P < 0.001) and wetland (p< 0.001)
forested habitat types. Our results indicated that forests arc the habitats selected by panthen; and generally support the current United States
Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat ranking system. We suggest that furure srudies with greater numbers of panthers should investigate
panther habirat selection ming GPS telemetry data collected throughout the range of the l<lorida panther and with location attempts scheduled
more evenly across the die! period, G]obal Positioning System radiocoIlars wen: effective at obtaining previously unavailable nocturnal telemetry
dam on panthers; huwever, we recommend that panther researchers continue to collect VHF telemetry data until acquisition rates and durahility
of GPS collars improve. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):633-639; 2008)
DOl: 10.219312007-136
KEYWORDS Euclidean distance, Horida panther, Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry, habitat selection, Puma conc%r
coryi, southern Florida.
Studies of habitat selection patterns of animals provide
information about areas and resources that influence the
fitness of individuals and viability of populations (Fretwell
and Lucas 1970, Powell et al. 1997). Understanding habitat
relationships of endangered species is especially important
because habitat management is a critical component of
consetvation planning (Morrison et al. 1998). The Florida
panther (Puma conco/or coryi) is a top carnivore that formerly
inhabited all of Florida and much of the southeastern
United States (Young and Goldman 1946). Today, panther
range has been reduced to a small population of <100
animals in the southern peninsula of Florida, an area where
most of the remaining habitat on private lands is threatened
by development. Florida panthers are listed by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as an
endangered subspecies and rigorous assessment of habitat
selection is needed to develop a sound conservation strategy.
Researchers have been capturing Florida panthers and
monitoring movements with very high frequency (VHF)
aerial telemetry since 1981. Historically, aerial monitoring
was used because female and male panthers have large home
ranges (193 km2 and 519 km2, respectively; Maehr et al.
1991) thereby limiting the utility of ground-based telemetry.
1 E-mail: darrell.land@myfwc.com
2 Present address: Environmental Science Division, Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, 1450 Merrihue Drive, Naples, FL 34102, USA
.1 Present address: Department of Biology, Trent University,
Peterborough, ON K9] 7B8, Canada
However, aerial telemetry data were collected almost
exclusively between the hours of 0700 hours and 1100
hours and habitat selection analyses of these data have been
limited by this diurnal bias (Belden et al. 1988, Maehr and
Cox 1995, Cox et al. 2006, Kautz et al. 2006). Panthers are
apparently most active during nocturnal and crepuscular
periods and daytime telemetry data may be insufficient to
describe habitat use patterns of nocturnal animals (Maehr et
al. 1990, Beyer and Haufler 1994, Beier et al. 1995, Dickson
et al. 2005).
Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry may be a
superior method for studying habitat selection of panthers
because GPS radiocollars can be programmed to collect data
during both diurnal and nocturnal periods. We report on the
first deployment and recovery of GPS radiocollars on 12
Florida panthers during 2002-2006. Our objectives were to
1) investigate habitat selection of panthers in the northern
portion of their range using GPS telemetry data and 2)
compare results of habitat analyses using concurrent GPS
and VHF data collected from the same individual panthers.
Our results should provide information to agencies involved
in habitat protection efforts and insight into potential
differences between diurnal and nocturnal habitat use by
panthers.
STUDY AREA
Most Florida panthers occur in southern Florida in an area
<12,600 km2, south of the Caloosahatchee River and Lake
Okeechobee and interior from the coast (Kautz et at. 2006;
Land et aL . Florida Panther Habitat Selection
633
3(0 S-
w-Q.. ,
')
4."
. . Okeechobee
o f"",rl~p;'''P"'''lIw,'''''''~~'
_ e.e"".ngta"~..p~b.c
Bteerl.ng ';I~~-tp''''''le
o
100 km
Figure t. Study area map of south Florida, USA, showing Horida panther
home ranges and distinguishing between publicly and privately owned
portions of the breeding range. Florida panther breeding range was
delineated by Kautz et at. (2006). Panther home ranges are shown as
minimum convex polygons derived from data collected in 2002-2005.
Fig. 1). Transient males have recently been documented in
other areas of Florida, but no female panthers have been
confirmed north of the Caloosahatchee River since the
1970s (Maehr et a!. 2002, E. D. Land, FWC, unpublished
data). We studied habitat selection of 12 panthers in the
northern pOftion of the known breeding range (hereafter,
breeding range; Kautz et al. 2006; Fig. 1). The breeding
range was 12,588 km2, of which 2,888 Ian2 were privately
owned, and most privately owned lands were located in our
study area (Fig. 1). In contrast, most panther habitat in the
southern portions of the breeding range was protected in
national parks and other public lands (Fig. 1). Panthers we
studied used portions of the Big Cypress National Preserve,
Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation, Fakahatchee
Strand State Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge, Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife Management Area
and State Forest, and private lands in Collier and Hendry
counties. OUf study area contained a variety of vegetative
communities including freshwater marshes, prairies, cypress
swamps, mixed hardwood swamps, pine tlatwoods, and
hardwood hammocks (Davis 1943).
METHODS
Using trained hounds, we treed panthers and darted them
with a 3-ml compressed-air dart fired from a CO2-powered
rifle aM special; Dan-inject ApS, B0rkop, Denmark). We
immobilized panthers with a combination of ketamine
hydrochloride (HC]; 10 mg/kg; Congaree Veterinary
Pharmacy, Cayce, SC), xylazine HC1 (1 mglkg; Congaree
Veterinary Pharmacy) and midazolam HC! (0.03 mg/kg;
Abbott Laboratories, Notth Chicago, 1L). Following
immobilization, we caught treed panthers with a net or a
wildlife cushion, or we lowered them to the ground by a
rope (McCown et a!. 1990).
We used a Cessna 172 (Cessna Aircraft Company,
Wichita, KS) equipped with a pair of directional antennas
that were attached to a radio receiver via coaxial cable to
estimate a radiocollar's location by selectively listening to
radio signals from either or both antennas and then homing
in on signal strength (White and Garrott 1990). We
demarcated these locations onto United States Geological
Survey 7.5-minute topographical maps and used Terrain
Navigator software (Maptech, Amesbury, MA) to obtain
Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates. We conducted
most telemetry flights betvveen 0700 hours and 1100 hours
Eastern Standard Time (all subsequent times are in Eastern
Standard Time) 3 times per week (Monday, Wednesday,
and Friday). To assess VHF aerial telemetry location error,
we estimated the location of collars at fixed locations
unknown to the observer (dropped collars, n = 2; mortalities,
n = 23; and denning panthers, n = 20) during flights from
2000 to 2006. We compared our aerial estimates with
locations obtained at these fixed locations on the ground
with a hand-held GPS.
We deployed 4 different GPS radiocollar models (Te-
lonics Argos TGW 3580, Televilt-Posrec, Televilt-Simplex,
and Televilt-Tellus) from 2 manufacturers (Telonics, Mesa,
AZ and Televilt, Lindesberg, Sweden) on panthers and we
programmed acquisition times to complement ongoing
daytime aerial monitoring (Table 1). We scheduled most
acquisitions during nocturnal hours (1900-0700 hr) and fix
schedules varied between individuals collars (Table 1). We
imported all GPS locations into a Geographic Information
System (GIS; ArcView 3.3) to visually inspect locations for
erroneous data. We pooled all GPS data to compare
acquisition success rates during diurnal (0700-1859 hr) and
nocturnal time periods (J900...{)659 hr) using chi-squared
analysis.
We estimated separate minimum convex polygon home
ranges with concurrent GPS and VHF locations for each
panther using the Animal Movement Extension for Arc-
View (Hooge and Eichenlaub 2000). Initially we considered
using fixed-kernel (FK) home-range estimators, but during
preliminary analyses we noted that one FK home range (F
FPIl2) excluded a large proportion (27%) of this panther's
locations, which was likely due to the concentration of
locations around her den site, because the size and shape of
FK home ranges are sensitive to areas of repeated
obsenrations (Worton 1987, Seaman and Powell 1996).
For FPIl2, using the FK estimator would have meant that
27% of her telemetry locations (our measure of habitat use)
would have been outside the area considered to be available
to this panther. Minimum convex polygon estimators have
634
The Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(3)
3&,&
Table 1. Florida panthers equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) radiocollars and very high frequency (VI-IF) transmitters February 2002-
December 2005, in South Florida, USA. Nocturnal time periods were between the hours of 1900-0700 Eastern Time (ET).
Model Panther Sex Age GPS daY' FIXes/day FJXeS acquired % successful %noctumal VHF locations
Posrec~ FP59 M 8.5 107 3h 120 37.0 75.0 44
Posrec~ FP83 F 4.8 614 2' 422 34.4 100 211
Posrcc" FPloo M 7' 548 3" 527 32.1 81.6 201
Simplex " FPI09 M >10,1 122 8' 530 54.5 76.8 56
Simplex . FP110 F 1.1 166 8' 827 62.1 69.0 68
Posreca FPll1 M >10d 204 8' 1,173 71.9 68.1 82
Posreca FP112 F 3-4' 200 8' 1,078 67.3 65.6 83
fugal FP117 M 2' 238 2' 349 73.3 100 99
Argol FP121 F 2_3<1 703 2' 1079 76.7 100 188
Posrec" FP128 F 3.7 526 2' 366 34.7 100 65
fugal FPl31 M 5' 614 2' 812 66.1 100 217
TeUus" FP139 M 2.9 142 24 2,333 68.4 55.8 49
a Televilt, Lindesberg, Sweden.
h Acquisition times (ET): 0300 hr, 1500 hr. 2100 hI.
" Acquisition times (ET): 0400 hr, 2000 hr.
d Age estimated at capture.
. Acquisition times (ET): 0100 hr, 0300 hr, 0500 hr, 0900 hr, 1300 hr, 1800 hr. 2100 hr, 2300 hr.
I T elonics, Mesa, AZ.
been criticized because they can include areas that were not
actually used by an animal, which can be misleading for
studies of home range size or overlap (Powell et al. 1997).
However, we estimated home ranges only to provide a
measure of availability for habitat selection analyses; there-
fore, excluding areas used by panthers was more problematic
for our analyses than including unused areas. We estimated
home ranges using data collected with the 2 telemetry
methods over the same dates. The only exception was female
FP121 because tbe VHF pOllion of her GPS collar failed
before the GPS battery was depleted. For this female, we
used all GPS data (collected over 703 days) and all VHF
data (collected over 485 days) until the VHF failure.
We modified a GIS landcover developed using Landsat 7
Enhanced Thematic Mapper imagery (United States Geo-
logical Survey/Earth Resources Observation Systems Data
Center, Sioux Falls, SD) and classified into 43 habitat types
by FWC (Kautz et a1. 2007) for our habitat selection
analyses. Classified imagery represented ground conditions
in 2003 with a resolution of30 m. We modified the original
landcover by combining similar habitat types to produce 6
broad habitat types: upland forest, wetland forest, freshwater
marsh-shrub swamp, dry prairie-grassland, agriculture, and
other. Upland forests were dominated by slash pine (Pinus
elliotit) or hardwood trees (Quercus spp.) in areas with
hydroperiods of <50 days and ma.ximum water depths <30
cm (Duever et al. 1986). Wetland forests were dominated by
various combinations of cypress (Taxodium spp.), hardwood,
and slash pine trees in areas with hydroperiods of> 150 days
and maximum water depths >30 cm (Duever et al. 1986).
Fresh water marsh--shmb swamp habitats were open-canopy
wetlands, including wet prairies, fresh water marshes, and
open wetlands that had been invaded by shrubs. Dry prairie-
grassland habitats were drier open-canopy habitats including
dry prairies, pasturelands, and various other habitat types
dominated by grasses and sedges. Agriculture was primarily
croplands and citrus groves. Finally, we placed all remaining
habitats into the category other, which included urban areas,
open water, and areas dominated by exotic plants. We
believe these broad habitat classes were appropriate for this
initial investigation of panther habitat selection using GPS
telemetry data and our reduction of the number of habitat
types facilitated multivariate habitat selection analyses,
which require there to be fewer habitat types than individual
animals. None of the individual habitat types placed into the
category other represented large proportions of available
habitat contained in panther home ranges and some were
not contained within the home ranges of all panthers. For
instance, urban habitat comprised a mean of 1.1% of
panther home ranges (SE = 0.1 %, range = 0.4-1.7%, n =
12) and exotic plant cover types were not contained in 10 of
12 home ranges. Therefore, we placed these uncommon
habitats into the category other to avoid spurious results.
We acknowledge that it would be preferable to have GIS
layers that were specific to each year that we collected
panther telemetry data, but these layers were not available
for our study area. There may have been changes to some
habitat types within our srudy area during the study period,
but we believe our results were not seriously affected by this
flaw because temporal differences between panther locations
and landcover data were :=;3 years for each panther used in
the analysis. Additionally, we used relatively broad habitat
classifications, which, coupled with the shorr duration
between panther and habitat data collection, made it
unlikely that these habitat types changed due to natural
succession events (e.g., young and mature pine and hard-
wood forests were all classified as upland forest).
We used a Euclidean distance-based approach to inves-
tigate third~order habitat selection (selection of habitats
within the home range) by comparing distances from
panther location estimates with distances from random
points generated throughout each home range to the nearest
representative of each habitat type (Conner et al. 2003,
Perkins and Conner 2004). We conducted 2 analyses, using
GPS and VHF data separately, to investigate habitat
selection of the same 12 panthers over the same time
Land et a1. . Florida Panther Habitat Selection
635
Bro7
Table 2. Results of 2 Euclidean distance habitat selection analyses tor 12
Florida panthers tracked concurrently with Global Positioning System
(GPS) and very high frequency (VHF) telemetry in south Florida, USA,
2002-2005.
GPS VHF
Habitat type RanoA p' Ranke Ratio" p' Ranke
Upland torest 0.56 <0.001 A 0.45 <0.001 A
Wetland forest 0.70 <0.001 AB 0.52 <0.001 A
Dry prairie-grassland 0.84 0.103 Be 0.97 0.824 B
Marsh-shrub 0.95 0.514 C 1.07 0.499 B
Other 0.96 0.604 C 0.99 0.907 B
Agriculture 1.02 0.687 C 1.06 0.300 B
" Mean distance ratios (distances from panther locatiom/distances from
random locations to eaeh habitat).
b P-values for I-tests (df = 11) used to assess significann~ of selection or
avoidance of individual habitats.
(" Habitat types with same letter did not differ in terms of preference (P >
0.05).
period, which allowed us to investigate potential differences
in results of habitat selection analyses utilizing the 2
telemetry methods. The GPS datasets contained greater
numbers of locations and were biased towards nocturnal
periods (Table 1). The VHF datasets contained fewer
locations, virtually all of which were collected between the
hours of 0700-1100 (Table 1). We generated a large
number (n= 10,000) of random points within each panther's
home range from uniform distributions to ensure robust
mean expected distances. We created a vector of 6 distance
ratios (one ratio for each habitat type) for each panther by
dividing mean distance from panther locations by mean
distance from random points to each habitat type.
We used multivariate analysis of variance (MANGV A) to
test the hypothesis that panther habitat use did not differ
from random with individual panthers as the experimental
unit. If the mean vector of the distance ratios differed from a
vector of ones (i,e., MANOV A was significant) we used
univariate I-tests on each habitat type to determine which
were selected and avoided. Distance ratios < 1 indicate
selection whereas ratios >1 indicate avoidance (Conner and
Plowman 2001, Conner et a!. 2003). We then performed
pairwise comparisons between habitats using univariate
paired I-tests to rank habitats in order of preference. We
further described panther habitat use by intersecting each
panther's GPS locations with the landcover to determine the
percentage of locations that occurred in each habitat type
during nocturnal (1900-0659 hr) and diurnal (0700--1859
hr) periods. We then calculated the mean percentage of
locations in each habitat type during both time periods for
the 12 panthers, so that each individual's data was weighted
equally regardless of the number of locations. Details and
assumptions of .MAN OVA are available in Zar (1999). We
performed all statistical tests using SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute,
Cary, NC).
RESULTS
We captured 12 independent-aged panthers (7 M, 5 F) and
equipped rhem with GPS radiocollars from February 2002
to March 2005 (Table 1). Panthers ranged in age from 13
months to >10 years (5 ages known, 7 estimated; Table 1).
Female FP112 gave birth to a litter of 2 kittens while
wearing a GPS radiocollar and was killed by an uncollared
male panther 3 months later. During the srudy, 3 other
panthers with GPS collars died, 2 by intraspecific aggression
and the last of unknown causes. Monitoring periods ranged
from 122 days to 703 days (Table 1).
Mean distance from our aerial VHF location estimates to
the location of stationary collars was 123.9 m (SE = 13.9, n
= 45, range = 9.1 - 363.4), Mean acquisition rate of GPS
collars deployed on panthers was 56.5% (SE = 5.0, n = 12;
Table 1). Acquisition rates differed by time period (X2] =
145.3, P < 0.001) when we pooled all data. Acquisition
rates were lower (51.4%) during day (0700-1859 hr) than
during night (61.8%; 1900-0659 hr). As a result of our
programming and differing acquisition rates, 82.6% of our
GPS locations were nocturnal (Table 1).
Separate analyses using GPS and VHF data indicated that
panthers exhibited habitat selection within home ranges
(GPS: F6.6 = 6.96, P = 0.016; VHF: F6.6 = 42.64, P <
0.001). Specifically, both analyses showed that panthers
sclected upland foresr (GPS: I" =-5.47, P < 0.001; VHF:
/" ~ -6.01, P < 0.001) and wetland forest (GPS: III =
-5.04, P < 0.001; VHF: /11 = -9.75, P < 0.001; Table 2)
and did not select or avoid any other habitats (all P> 0.103;
Table 2).
Although we performed no statistical tests, the habitat
composition of nocrurnal and diurnal GPS locations
appeared to be similar for wetland forest, agriculture,
marsh-shrub, and other habitat types (Fig. 2). However, a
greater percentage of nocturnal locations were classified as
grassland-dry prairie (16.3% of nocturnal locations, 8.50;;)
of diurnal locations) and a lesser percentage were classified
as upland forest (29.5% of nocturnal locations, 45% of
diurnal locations) relative to diurnal locations (Fig. 2).
DISCUSSION
Our findings support earlier work suggesting that forests are
the habitat types selected by panthers, because we found that
upland and wetland forests were selected and all other
habitats were neither selected nor avoided (Belden et al.
1988, Maehr er a!. 1991, Maehr and Cox 1995, Cox et aI.
2006, Kautz et aI. 2006). As pointed out by Comiskey et aI.
(2002) and Beier et al. (2006), results and conclusions of
earlier studies were limited because the analyses utilized only
telemetry data collected during daytime hours (mostly
070G-HOO hr; for review of panther habitat relationships
see Beier et al. [2003J). However, our results are based on
data collected during diurnal and nocturnal periods and
support the contention that forests are the habitats selected
by panthers, at least in the northern portion of the range.
Recent Euclidean distance analyses of daytime panther
telemetry data have found open wetlands-freshwater marsh
(analogous to freshwater marsh-shrub swamp in our study)
to be avoided by panthers, whereas panthers in our study did
not avoid or select this habitat type (Cox et al. 2006, Kautz
636
The Journal of Wildlife Management. n(3)
3bt
et aI. 2006). Kautz et aI. (2006) investigated habitat selection
at a different scale than our study (i.e., Kautz et aI. [2006]
compared panther locations to random locations distributed
throughout the study area, whereas we compared panther
locations to random locations distributed throughout their
home ranges), which may partially explain the discrepancy.
Additionally, Cox et aI. (2006) and Kautz et aI. (2006)
analyzed panther telemetry data from a larger number of
panthers across the entire breeding range of subspecies.
Future analyses utilizing GPS telemetry data collected
throughout the die! period should also investigate panther
habitat selection in the southern portion of the range where
habitat use and availability patterns may be different than in
our study area.
The USFWS currently uses a habitat assessment method-
ology to form biological opinions during permit reviews for
development projects on private lands in panther range (C.
Belden, USFWS, personal communication). Under this
methodology, all forested habitats and also freshwater marsh
were given high rankings in terms of their importance to
panthers. Our results support the USFWS methodology in
terms of the importance of forests, but we did not find
freshwater marshes to be selected in our study. However, we
do not recommend changing the USFWS ranking of
freshwater marsh based solely on the results of our study
for at least 2 reasons. First, we recognize that panthers could
select habitats differently in portions of the range we did not
study. Second, marshes have value for panthers that cannot
be quantified directly through panther use, such as providing
important habitat for prey populations (MacDonald and
Labisky 2005).
Our results and conclusions cannot fully elucidate panther
habitat relationships; however, our findings represent the
first habitat selection analyses of panther telemetry data
collected during both diurnal and nocturnal periods and
provide preliminary information about panther habitat use
across the diel period. Although our sample size is small
from a statistical perspective, it represents a substantial
portion of the individuals in this small population and, thus,
our results should be useful for conservation efforts.
Nonetheless, our results should be viewed cautiously due
to the small sample size, limited distribution of study
animals relative to occupied panther range, and potential
bias of differential GPS telemetry performance across
habitat types. A study of stationary GPS collar performance
conducted in a portion of our study area indicated that
habitat type can affect acquisition success of GPS collars (J.
Benson and D. Onorato, FWC, unpublished report). ].
Benson and D. Onorato (unpublished report) found that
Telonics and Televilt GPS collars successfully obtained all
scheduled locations in open-canopy habitats (e.g., dry
prairie-grassland, marsh-shrub swamp), whereas acquisition
success rates were lower in forested habitats, which is
consistent with many studies in other areas indicating that
acquisition success of GPS collars can be reduced in habitat
types with dense canopies (Rempel et al. 1995, Moen et al.
1996, Dussault et a1. 1999, Di Orio et a1. 2003, D'Eon and
a) Dill mal GPS Jal;1
Agriculture. 1.1
Wetland Forest.
28.1
Dry prairie-
grassland. 8.3
Upland Forest 45.3
III t\o~.:lul1ml GPS dtlla
Agriculture, 1.8
Wetland Farest.
32.0
Dry prairie.
grassland. 16.5
Upland Forest. 29.5
Figure 2. Mean percentages of Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry
locatiOn> of Florida panthers (n = 12) classified by habitat type and
separated into a) diurnal (0700-1859 hr) and b) nocturnal (1900-0659 hr)
time periods. We collected data in south Florida, USA, 2002-2005.
Delparte 2005). However, because our GPS habitat
selection analysis showed that panthers exhibited strong
selection for forests despite that acquisition rates were
probably lower in these habitat types, our results do not
appear to have been substantially altered by this bias.
Another limitation in our analyses is that we included
individuals from all sex, age, and reproductive status classes
(i.e., F with and without dependent, neonate kittens) but
were not able to test for potential differences among these
categories due to the small number of panthers for which we
had GPS telemetry data. Cox et a1. (2006) did not find
differences between sexes in daytime panther habitat
selection and visual inspection of our data did not reveal
obvious differences between males and females. All panthers
used in our analyses were independent from their mothers,
although some may have been too young to be of
reproductive age during data collection. Females tend to
restrict movements during denning and kitten-rearing
periods, and reproductive status could also potentially affect
habitat selection (Maehr et al. 1989). Future studies with
Land et a1. . Florida Panther Habitat Selection
637
307
larger samples should investigate potential differences in
habitat use between sex, age, and reproductive status classes.
Our separate habitat selection analyses using GPS and
VHF data yielded similar results suggesting that the 2
telemetry techniques, and their associated temporal biases,
may not strongly influence results of habitat selection
analyses for panthers. However, one potential difference
that should be examined further by future studies of panther
habitat selection using GPS telemetry is the use of dry
prairie-grass1and habitat. Selection for this open-canopy
habitat approached significance in the GPS analysis
(distance ratio = 0.84, P = 0.10), whereas it did not in the
VHF analysis (distance ratio = 0.97, P= 0.82). We suggest
several alternative hypotheses regarding the influence of
GPS telemetry data on panther habitat selection analyses
with regards to forested and nonforested habitat types that
should be investigated by future studies with larger sample
sizes. First, many earlier studies using only daytime data also
did not report nonforested habitats as being selected by
panthers (Belden et aI. 1988, Maehr and Cox 1995), but it
has been suggested that panthers may use nonforested
habitats more at night (Maehr et al. 1991, Comiskey et a!.
2002). Our results support this contention as nocturnal GPS
data contained a higher proportion of locations in dry
prairie-grassland and a lower proportion in upland forests
than diurnal GPS data (Fig. 2). Therefore, GPS telemetry
data could allow researchers to detect selection of open-
canopy habitats (e.g., dry prairie-grassland) that are used by
panthers primarily at night. However, it also is possible that
the nocturnal bias in our GPS telemetry dataset may have
overrepresented use of open-canopy habitat types in our
analysis. Studies with relatively large numbers of locations
during both diurnal and nocturnal periods should consider
testing for differences in habitat selection across the 24-hour
cycle. If differences are found, separating results from
nocturnal and diurnal periods may eliminate confusion and
provide a more informative analysis of panther habitat
relationships. Finally, previous work has suggested that
habitats with dense canopy can interfere with GPS reception
and result in acquisition failure and results of stationary
GPS collar testing in our study area support these findings
(Rempel et al. 1995; Moen et aI. 1996; Dussault et al. 1999;
Di Orio et al. 2003; J. Benson and D. Onorato, unpublished
report). Thus, if a greater proportion of missed location
attempts occurred when panthers were in forested habitats
with dense canopy, results of GPS habitat selection analyses
would tend to be biased in favor of nonforested habitats.
Management Implications
We suggest that habitat conservation efforts in the northern
portion of occupied panther range should prioritize areas
with abundant upland and wetland forests. We recommend
that additional GPS telemetry data should be collected and
analyzed from across the range of the panther to allow for a
morc comprehensive assessment of panther habitat selec-
tion. Our analyses suggest that results from panther habitat
selection analysis ofGPS and VHF telemetry data and their
associated temporal biases yield consistent results; however,
more in-depth analyses with larger sample sizes should be
conducted to validate our preliminary findings. Global
Positioning System telemetry may eventually be effective in
completely replacing VHF aerial telemetry in panther field
research; however, we recommend panther researchers
continue to conduct at least weekly telemetry flights for
several reasons. Until acquisition rates of GPS collars
deployed in south Florida improve, VHF telemetry (which
is likely free of habitat-related biases) will provide excellent
complementary datasers for understanding panther habitat
selection. Second, VHF telemetry collars deployed on
panthers generally continue functioning for 2:3 years,
whereas most (58%) GPS collars functioned for <1 year
and all functioned for <2 years. Thus, using VHF collars
greatly reduces stress (i.e., to animals and researchers) and
costs associated with capture efforts.
Acknowledgments
We thank M. Cunningham, R. McBride, D. Giardina, and
C. McBride for their assistance during panther captures. We
also thank P. Kubilis for statistical assistance. K. Logan, J.
Gore, T. O'Meara, C. Belden, and D. Maehr provided
comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We thank].
Qyinn for editorial comments. This work was funded
through the Florida Panther Research and Management
Trust Fund.
LITERATURE CITED
Beier, P. B., D, Choate, and R. lI. Barrett. 1995. Movement patterns of
mountain lions during different behaviors. Journal of Mammalogy 76:
lO56-1070.
Beier, P., M. R. Vaughan, M.J. Conroy, and H Qyigley. 2003. An analysis
of scientific literature related to the Florida panther. Fina! report. Florida
Fj~h and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, USA.
<http://myfwc.com/critters/pantherlBeier-Panther-SRT. pdf>. Ac-
cessed 26 Feb 2006.
Beier, P., M. R Vaughan, M.J. Conroy, and II. Qyigky. 2006. Evaluating
scientific inferences about the Florida panther. Journal of Wildlife
Management 70:236-245.
Belden, R. C., W. B. Frankenberger, R. T. McBride, and S. T. Schwikert.
1988. Panther habitat use in southern Florida. Journal of Wildlife
Managemenr 52;66D-663.
Beyer, D. E., Jr., and). B.lIaufler. 1994. Diurnal versus 24-hour sampling
of habitat use. Journal of Wildlife Management 58;178-180.
Comiskey, E. J., O. 1. Bass, Jr., L. J. Gross, R. T. McBride, and R Salinas.
2002. Panrhers and forests in South Florida: an ecological perspective.
Ecology and Society; A Journal of Integrated Science for Resilience and
Sustainability 6:18. <httpJlwww.ecologyandsociety.orglvol6lissl/artI8/>.
AW.;sscd 24 Feh 2006.
Conner, L. M., and B. W. Plowman. 2001. Using Euclidean distances to
asse% nonrandom habitat use. Pages 275-290 in J. J. Millspaugh and J.
fv1. Marzluff, editors. Radiotracking and animal populations. Academic
Press, San Diego, California, USA.
Conner, 1. M., M. D. Smith, and 1. W. Burger. 2003. A comparison of
distance-based and classification-based analyses of hahitat use. Ecology
84526~531.
Cox,]. J., D. S. !\.:laehr, and J. L. Larkin. 2006. Florida panther habitat ust':
ncw approach to :m old problem. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:
1778-1784.
Davis, J. II. 1943. The natural features of southern Florida. Geological
Bulletin No. 25. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, USA.
D'Eon, R G., and D. Delpartc. 2005. Effects of radio-collar position and
orientation of GPS radio-collar performance, and the implications of
PDOP in data screening. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:383-388.
638
The Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(3)
-370
Dickson, B. G., J. S. Jenness, and P. Beier. 2005. Influence of vegetation,
topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California.
Journal of\Vildlife Management 69;264-276.
Di Orio, A P., R Callas, and R. J. Schaefer. 2003. Pedormance of two
GPS telemetry collars under different habitat conditions. WIldlife Society
Bulletin 31:372-379.
Duever, M.J.,J. E. Carlson,]. F. Meeder, L. C. Duever, 1.. H. Gunderson,
1. A. Riopelle, T. R Alexander, R 1.. Myers, and D. P. Spangler. 1986.
The Big Cypress National Preserve. National Audubon Society, New
York, New York, USA.
DU5sault, C., R. Courtois,]. Oullet, and). Huot.1999. Evaluation ofGPS
telemetry collar performance for habitat studies in the boreal fiJrest.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:965-972.
Fretwell, S. D., and H. 1.. Lucas. lY70. On territorial behavior and other
factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical develop~
meot. Acta Biotheoretica 19;16-36.
Hooge, P. N., and B. Eichenlaub. 2000. Animal movement extension to
Arcview. Version 2.0. U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska S{:ience Cemer-
Biological Science Office, Anchorage, USA
Kautz, RJ., R Kawula, T. HOdor,]. Comiskey, D.Jansen, D.]ennings,].
Kasbohlll, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, 1.. Richardson, and K. Root. 2006.
How much is enough? Landscape-scaie conservation for the Florida
panther. Biological Conservation. 130:118-133.
Kautz, R, B. Stys, and R Kawula. 2007. Florida vegetation 2003 and land
use change between 1985-89 and 2003. Florida Scientist 70:12-23.
MacDonald-Beyers, K., and R F. Labisky. 2005. Influence of flood waters
on survival, reproduction, and habitat use of white-tailed deer in the
Florida Everglades. Wetlands 25:659-666.
Maehr, D. S., and]. A. Cox. 1995. Landscape features and Panthers in
Florida. Conservation Biology 9:1008-1019.
Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, and]. C. Roof. 1991. Social ecology of Florida
panthers. National Geographic Research and Exploration 7:414-431.
Maehr, D. 5., E. D. Land,]. C. Roof, and J. W. McCown. 1989. Early
maternal behavior in the Florida panther (FdiJ amc%r coryi). American
Midland Naturalist 122:34-43.
Maehr, D. 5., E. D. Land,]. C. Roof, and]. W. McCown. J990. Daybeds,
natal dellS, and activity of Florida panthers. Pro{~cedings of the Annual
Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
44:3W-318.
Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, D. B. Shindle, O. L. Bass, and T. S. Hoctor.
2002. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conserva-
tion 106:187-197.
McCown,J. W., D. S. Maehr, and]. Roboski. 1990. A portable wshion as
a wildlife capture aid. Wudlife Society Bulletin 18:34-36.
Moen, R,]. Pastor, Y. Cohen, and C. C. Schwartz. 1996. Effects of moose
movement and habitat use on GPS collar performance. Journal of
\Vildlife Management 60:659-668.
Morrison, M. L., B. C. Marcot, and R W. Mannan. 1998. \Vildlife-
habitat relationships. Second edition. University of \Viscnmill Press,
Madison, USA
Perkins, M. W., and L. M. Conner. 2004. Habitat use of fox squirrels in
southwest Georgia. Journal of "Wildlife Management 68:509-513.
Powell, R A, J. W. Zimmerman, and D. E. Seaman. 1997. Ecology and
behaviour of North American black bears; home ranges, habitat and social
organization. Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom.
Rempel, R 5., A. R Rempel, and K. F. Abraham. 1995. Performance of a
GPS animal location system under boreal forest canopy. Journal of
Wildlife Management 59:543-551.
Seaman, D. E., and R. A. Powell. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of
kernel density estimators fi)r home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075-
2085.
White, G. C., and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife rndiotracking
data. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.
Worton, B. ]. 1987. A review of models of home rangc for animal
movement. Ecological Modelling 38:277-298.
Young, S. P., and E. A Goldman. 1946. The Puma--mystcrious American
cat. Dover, New York, NcwYork, USA
Zar,]. H. 1999. Biostatisrical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey, USA
Associalf Editor: Strickland.
Land et 31. . Florida Panther Habitat Selection
639
37)
"'~-t_
Working to Sustaiu Florida's Rum! ~l11dNatllml Lunds: A Call to Acti(lll
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is projected that if current growth and development patterns continue, by
2060 Florida's population will double to 36 million people, the amount of
urbanized land will also double, and roughly seven million acres of Florida land
will be converted from rural to urban uses. This dramatic conversion of
Florida's working and natural lands provide an unacceptable and unsustainable
picture of how we should accommodate the expected population growth.
The time is now to issue a clarion call for change. It is imperative that citi-
zens and their leaders seek holistic, interconnected solutions that can protect
natural, rural and working lands in Florida. Here are but some of the possible
components:
VISIONING AND PUBLIC POLICY
Establish an alternative landscape vision for Florida.
Base this statewide vision on holistic, regional visioning.
Create a comprehensive state rural lands policy.
-
ECONOMIC STRATEGIES
Embrace the market by identifying multiple layers of value for rural lands
and developing strategies for compensation for protecting those values.
Provide additional density only to accomplish public benefits.
Support agriculture.
Promote compatible rural economic development.
Redirect state infrastructure expenditures toward rebuilding Florida's cities.
PLANNING STRATEGIES
Improve existing land protection strategies.
Refine Florida's Rural Land Stewardship Program.
Make additional refinements to Florida's growth management process.
Expand and improve public land acquisition.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
,-
Engage and educate the public.
If we are to succeed in better protecting Florida's rural and natural lands, it
will take tremendous vision, leadership and perseverance. If we follow a "do
nothing" scenario, in a little more than half of a century, the natural beauty and
rich heritage of Florida will be lost forever. This is not the legacy we wish to
leave to our children and grandchildren. We must act now.
37'-f
-
'Y'/orkillg to Sustain Florida's RlIml UIlt! J\lattll'U.l LUluls: A Call to Actio/!
,--
Base the Statewide Landscape Vision on Holistic
Regional Visioning
Current planning in Florida is conducted primarily county-by-county rather
than on ecosystem-based regions. This promotes the fragmentation of watersheds,
wildlife corridors and other natural systems. It also can promote patchwork urban
development as counties have not traditionally coordinated effectively with each
other on the placement of new towns and other new development.
Instead of this piecemeal approach, regional visioning, with broad community
engagement, should frame and form the foundation for the state vision. These
regional visions should not be constrained by political or market boundaries,
should be large scale and farsighted, and should focus on celebrating each
region's distinctive character. The visions should also promote the continuity
and connectivity of the region's natural systems, and address appropriate place-
ment for new development.
r-
Instead of merely protecting things from growth, the regional vision should
address what it is the residents want. For example, in Central Florida, this
could include a large area that would include natural, rural and working agri-
cultural and forestry lands, and perhaps some judiciously placed new lowns that
would all be planned to protect the connectivity in both the natural and built
systems. This must be undertaken prudently and carefully to avoid inducing
more sprawl. and to ensure that the associated infrastructure is compatible with
the regional vision.
Create a Comprehensive State Rural Lands Policy
--
When Florida's growth management system was enacted in 1985, agricultural
lands were not seriously addressed. As a result, today's growth management
process focuses primarily on promoting more orderly patterns of growth in and
around developed areas and limiting leapfrogging development in rural lands.
The primary tool for protecting rural lands has been to allow low density devel-
opment with 1 house per 5 or 10 acres, and in some cases even lower densities.
In more urbanized parts of the state, this has resulted in sprawling subdivisions.
In some rural areas, it has provided for a "holding pattern" until either market
conditions change to allow such development or a plan amendment is approved
to allow more dense development. Making matters worse, when Florida's
growth management system was adopted. there was already in place sprawling
land use patterns in rural areas that became "vested" under the new system.
The Florida 2060 "do nothing" scenario displays the results of continuing these
patterns of development. This starkly reveals the absence of a meaningful policy
regarding the protection of rural and natural lands. This must be rectified.
37&
-
lVorkiug to Sustain Florida's Rurul ul/d Nt/fllml Lands: A CuUla Acti"1I
--
opportunities. Additionally, agricultural lands can and do playa primary role
in mitigating development impacts by providing a critical buffer between devel-
oped and natural lands.
Develop Incentives for Protecting Those Values-Incentives should be
developed for landowners who safeguard open space values and ecosystem serv-
ices that are not protected under current regulations and programs. In return, a
framework in law must be established that clearly identifies what is of value,
how to assess that value, how to compensate for that value, and how to ensure
the continued protection of that value. This framework needs to provide the
public with a strong level of confidence that it is supporting fair payment for
those services. In addition to confidence in this process, the public must also
have confidence that the government will ensure compliance with the law.
~~
A variety of incentives might be made available to landowners to maintain
these lands. New options might include encouraging farmers to "grow" water
and other ecosystem services as "crops." Landowners could be compensated in
some manner for such services as water management, carbon sequestration,
open space protection, and other ecosystem protection values. As an example,
the agricultural sector could provide part of the solution to the state's water
issues for temporary and permanent water storage, water recharge, wetlands
protection, and other issues. In another example, waste management systems
could look first to agricultural lands as the preferred place for recycling certain
types of wastes that would be compatible with agricultural production, thereby
reducing cost to both residents and agricultural producers.
Other alternatives should also be evaluated. Already in place, mitigation
banking can help unlock wetland values. The mitigation banking process
should be evaluated to ensure that it results in the protection of sustainable
wetland systems. New, more effective approaches also need to be evaluated and
implemented. Tradable water credits, within the same basin, could be a viable
component. We also need to evaluate whether tax credit programs for land
conservation could be fashioned as a workable concept in a state without an
income tax.
Provide Additional Density Only to Accomplish Public
Benefits
--
The public needs to recognize and appreciate that the value produced by
development is actually a powerful tool that can help to protect natural, rural
and working agricultural lands. Florida's growth management process must be
refined to provide that decisions about the location and density of development
are part of the interconnected solutions that can accommodate future popula-
tions and protect natural, rural and working landscapes.
37t
,.
\,\'urkil/g to S/lstail/ Ploridas Ruml and Natural Lallds:A CaUla Actill1l
/"'""'
sector in Florida can be part of our future. With food security issues increas-
ing, this is a growing concern.
Flexibility and research-based innovation will be the key to success and sus-
tainability. Because of energy costs, regional and premium markets may
become more important. As agricultural lands disappear, it will mean farming
more intensively on less acreage than in the past, and inventing and utilizing
new technologies. Green house production, aquaculture, "farm to fuel" and
other alternatives hold potential too. There should be greater public funding
for applied research that can evaluate and help implement new opportunities.
The sense of land stewardship and heritage among Florida's farmers is a
strongly held value. They must participate in helping to develop the landscape
vision and the viable strategies to protect Plorida's working lands. They must
also take a leadership role in educating the public on the value and importance
of a healthy agricultural sector. We want to provide the opportunity for agri-
culture to remain viable, with farmers keeping and managing their lands.
Promote Compatible Rural Economic Development
--
We also must recognize the role of compatible economic development in
rural areas. Some parts of rural Florida have not shared in the state's relative
prosperity, and are in need of new businesses and jobs. In some communities,
strategies to revitalize small towns, promote heritage and eea-tourism, and
facilitate the creation of businesses that support agricultural needs may be mer-
ited. In other areas, the judicious placement of new towns may be appropriate,
as long as they are done in a manner compatible with the area's rural character.
Redirect State Infrastructure Expenditures Toward
Rebuilding Florida's Cities
The state provides significant financial subsidies that maintain Florida's cur-
rent patterns of development. These include allocating funding for highway
construction rather than transit, locating state offices, universities and other
public facilities in outlying campuses rather than in downtowns, and other
investments that favor sprawl over reinvestment. Instead of subsidizing inap-
propriate development, the state should prioritize its values consistent with the
statewide landscape vision, and use its capital expenditures to help direct
growth and development in appropriate urbanized locations. It will be impor-
tant to develop fiscal and tax policies that support both rural and natural lands
and promote the rebuilding of Florida's cities.
--
Bcgo
-
vViJrking to Sustain Florida's Rum! UIlI? Natural Laud,-:A Call/a ActlOlj
~
~
RLSAs are adopted as an overlay on the county's future land use map, and
are subject to review by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The
RLSA plan amendment must include a process for visioning, a process for the
control of sprawl, innovative planning and development strategies for the area,
and a process for adopting zoning and land development regulations to imple-
ment the innovative strategies.
Seven RLSAs, encompassing close to 600,000 acres, are in various stages of
review by DCA. In 2003, Collier County adopted a predecessor to the Rural
Land Stewardship Program on a tract of land encompassing almost 200,000
acres. Key concepts of that program include a transfer of development rights
program to transfer development credits from rural lands to planned new
towns) basing the value of the development credits on the environmental values
being protected on the rural lands.
There are several major advantages to the Rural Land Stewardship Program.
If properly structured, it can promote large-scale, regional planning of rural
areas, and provide the opportunity for visioning and innovative planning. It is
also intended to protect major conservation areas at no cost to the public.
While the Rural Land Stewardship Program shows potential, there are some
issues that need to be addressed. Issues to examine include: new strategies to
prevent sprawl and piecemeal development outside of new towns within the
RLSA; certainty that the development will proceed as planned and that the pro-
tected lands will remain protected in perpetuity; a transparent process to deter-
mine how to translate environmental and agricultural value into development
credits; and some means to relate conservation land set aside through the RLSA
process to the ecologically meaningful systems of open space identified in state
conservation plans. Additionally) this is an extremely complex planning process
which may prove challenging for counties with limited planning staff to ade-
quately evaluate and implement. A thorough evaluation of the RLSA approach
is merited to ensure its success in achieving its legislative intent of furthering
the principles of rural sustainability, including: "restoration and maintenance
of the economic value of rural land; control of urban sprawl; identification and
protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources; promotion of rural
economic activity; maintenance of the viability of Florida's agricultural econo-
my; and protection of the character of rural areas of Florida."
Make Additional Refinements to Florida's Growth
Management Process
.,~
The development of urban and rural areas are inextricably linked. We must
interconnect the economies of agriculture, land development and conservation
to secure effective solutions. Ifwe are to protect our rural areas, we must make
3i? ;:;A
-
Working to Sustain Florida's Rural a/lfi Nutuml Lauds: A Call IV Actillli
".--
are swallowed up by development. We must support initiatives like the Century
Commission for a Sustainable Florida's effort to map and protect all remaining
significant natural areas. It is also important to map the goals for public land
acquisition and protection, with the map being driven by the shared statewide
and regional visions described earlier. Only then can the various components
of rural land conservation be brought together to protect natural and agricul-
turallandscapes that will be resilient over time.
Understandably, many programs in Florida have focused on environmental-
ly-sensitive lands. But as Florida 2060 clearly shows, additional emphasis in
public land acquisition programs should be placed on protecting agricultural
and rural lands. Perhaps equally important is protecting buffer lands to prevent
fragmentation of natural systems, and to prevent having urban development
abut pristine natural areas. We should also acknowledge that there are certain
areas of the state whose preservation is of compelling state interest. However, it
is im portant to identify willing private sellers and use eminent domain only as a
last resort.
,--
Florida also needs to support and promote regional and local land acquisi-
tion programs. We must develop and implement regional approaches to acqui-
sition programs, and provide greater support for existing local programs.
Options might include using state funds to match local acquisition on an acre-
by-acre basis.
It is also important to evaluate components of the state land acquisition pro-
grams. Some view the appraisal process as broken. We need to create a trans-
parent system that allows owners to receive 100 percent of the value of their
property-not more or less. Restoration and management costs should be built
into the cost of acquisition. Additionally, in the future we must make sure suffi-
cient funding is allocated for public land management.
We should not necessarily treat natural, agricultural and buffer lands in the
same manner. While outright acquisition will be the best tool for some natural
lands, agricultural and buffer lands might be better served by less-than-fee mech-
anisms that allow them to remain as working lands, on the tax rolls, and under
private stewardship, while still affording long~term protection from development.
Innovative land management strategies, such as continued management by cur-
rent owners, should be explored. These are also increasingly desirable in light
of the rising average cost per acre of acquisition for the state. If we are to meet
the large need for land conservation through acquisition and appropriate man-
agement, we must fit the right acquisition tools to the right lands.
,--
_ ?, r? L1-
..
.r-
Hforkil1g to Smtaill Florida's Rum/lAnd Natural Ll11ds: A Cal/lv Action
FINANCIAL SUPPORT
..
~
This project was made possible thanks to the financial support provided by:
Peter Jay Sharp Foundation
River Branch Foundation
Thomas Reynolds
Kathy Archibald
Babcock Property Holdings, LLC
Mrs. William Lyons Brown
George and Patsy COllrades
Nathaniel P. Reed
St. Joe Company
WilsonMiller, Ine.
William Howard Flowers, Jr.
Foundation, Ine.
Berger Singerman, P.A.
The Kate Ireland Foundation
1000 Friends of Florida thanks Carlton Ward Jr.) for allowing the use of his
photography throughout this document. Carlton Ward Jr., is an eighth~genera-
tion Floridian descended from a pioneer ranching family in Hardee County. To
find out more about his work, please visit www.carltonward.com.
.2t?L
-
m'1;J1.J:41.".:.'
1000 Friends of Florida
P.O. Box 5948
Tallahassee, FL 32314-5948
www.l000friendsofflorida.org
.2.s:.7
3~f
"".."u I( )I
EXllIBIT D
The Immokalee Area Study
Stage II Technical Memorandum
C;ro~dlVaterIssues
Updated September 2002 in Response to DCA ORC Report
Technical
Memorandum
Contents
Section 1
Section 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
Section 3
3.1
Section 4
Section 5
aJM
Introduction ............. ............................................................... .......................1-1
2.4
Geology and Hydrogeology
Introduction ....... ........ ......... ...................... ..... ........ ......... ..... ............ ........ ............ ..... 2-1
Physiography and Rainfall..................................................................................... 2-2
Surficial Aquifer System ......................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 Water-table Aquifer .................................................................................. 2-2
2.3.2 Lower Tamiami Aquifer ..........................................................................2-4
Intennediate Aquifer System ................................................................................. 2-6
2.4.1 Sandstone Aquifer .................................................................................... 2-6
24.2 Hawthorn Zone I Aquifer ........................................................................ 2-6
Floridan Aquifer System .... ..................................................................................... 2-7
2.5.1 Lower Hawthorn Aquifer ........................................................................2-7
2.5.2 Underlying Units ................................... ................................................... 2-8
Current Water Uses
Permitted Water Allocations ..................................................................................3-1
Changes in Land Uses ..................................................................................4-1
Summary. ................... .......... ....... ..................... ....... ................................. ...... 5-1
C:'Mto-ntnu.\2CI02. Wor't.\13331UUflTOC.doc
Figures
Follows Page
Figure 1-1 Site Map .............................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2-1 Topographic Map (Contour Interval is 5.0 feet)...........................................2_1
Figure 2-2 Generalized Hydrogeology Beneath Collier County .................................. 2-1
Figure 2-3 Transmissivity in the Water-Table Aquifer (1,000 gpd/ft).........................2-3
Figure 2-4 Thickness of the Tamiami Confining Layer.................................................. 2-4
Figure 2-5 Transmissivity in the Lower Tamiami Aquifer (gpd/ft) ............................ 2-5
Figure 2-6 Transmissivity in the Sandstone Aquifer (gpd/ft) ...................................... 2-6
Figure 3-1 Groundwater Allocation by Section .............................................................3-1
Figure 3-2 Simulated Drawdowns in the Water-Table Aquifer Areas With
Drawdown Greater Than One Foot............................................................... 3-2
COM Camp o..-&. McK<e Inc.
Uoto_ .3 gt
ii
Section 1
Introduction
A preliminaIy assessment of the natural resources and current land uses in the
Immokalee area was provided for the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) in the
Stage I report (WilsonMiller, 2(00). As part of the Stage II study, this report provides
an evaluation of current water use and identifies areas where additional water supply
development may be feasible for agricultural, residential, or other uses. In Section 2, a
description of the study area's hydrostratigraphy is presented using information
provided from published reports with an emphasis placed on aquifer yield potential
and recharge. A review of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
water use permits is conducted in Section 3 to determine permitted water use within
the ECPO botUldary. A general a~-~sment of potential impacts to water demand
from changes in land use is discussed in Section 4. A map of the ECPO study area is
provided as Figure 1-1. The study area does not include the Immokalee Urban Area,
or the areas in Collier County known as the Rural Fringe, South Golden Gate Estates,
or North Belle Meade.
COM ~DNat&.McK...11"oC.
1-1
C;Wy(b:uncnta'2QllWGdr/IS33t132911AerpiRw.dclc
39D
I
~
~
l
Immokalee Urban Area
o
N
A
40,000
FEET
29 Eastern Collier Property Owners
(ECPO) Site
@
"'!
~
CDM
Missimer
.e>c:rj
@
Figure 1.1
ECPO Stage II
Site Map
Section 2
Geology and Hydrogeology
2.1 Introduction
The Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) study area (Figure 1-1) is located in the
area of southwest Florida generally known as the Immokalee Rise. The rise is a
plateau of land that lies predominantly in Hendry County but extends into eastern
Lee County and northeastern Collier County with a range of elevations from
approximately 25 to 40 feet above National Geodedic Vertical Datum (NGVD)
dipping gently to the southwest (Campbell, 1988). Most of western Collier County
has elevations ranging from 0 to 15 feet NGVD. The slope from the coastal areas of
western Collier County to the rise is approximately one foot per mile. East of
Immokalee is an area known as the Big Cypress Spur, which is a transition area
between the Immokalee Rise and the Everglades. Elevations in the Spur are slightly
higher than Western Collier and the Everglades but lower than the Immokalee Rise.
The study area represents a source of recharge for both the urban areas of Collier
County (western Collier County) and the Big Cypress Spur. A map of the topography
within the ECPO study area is presented as Figure 2-1.
The hydrogeology of Collier County has been investigated through a number of
studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD), academic institutions, and various consulting firms
(Boggess et a!., 1981, Knapp, et aI., 1986, and Missimer & Associates, 1983, 1986, 1988,
and 1990). 1hree major aquifer systems have been identified in Collier County. They
have been named, in descending order, the Surficial Aquifer System, the Intermediate
Aquifer System, and the Floridan Aquifer System. The aquifer systems are typically
well separated and pumpage from one system usually does not significantly affect the
others. The Sandstone aquifer, which is described below, is considered part of the
Intermediate Aquifer System. However, in portions of Collier County including parts
of the ECPO study area, the Sandstone aquifer is hydraulically connected to the
Lower Tamiami and water-table aquifers. It has been suggested that the Sandstone
aquifer be moved into the Surficial Aquifer System (Missimer, Martin 2001). For the
purposes of this report, this aquifer will be described as part of the Intermediate
Aquifer System to coincide with current publications.
The aquifers within each system are separated by confining beds, which generally do
not provide complete hydraulic separation, but to varying degrees, allow water to
leak between the aquifers. The rate and direction at which leakage occurs depends on
the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining unit and the potentiometric head
differential between the adjacent aquifers, both natural and pumping induced.
A schematic diagram showing the formations and lithologies present within each of
the aquifer systems is provided as Figure 2-2. Descriptions of the aquifer systelIlS and
of the individual aquifers with the most water supply potential in each system are
provided in following subsections of this report. In addition, a brief discussion of the
COM Camp o..-&MoK<.e Inc.
2.'
CtMrDocum...lat2oo1Wo"'lWlf.l2ltfl~.dQC
3Cj~
- Roads
~@)
'-\..~.
/'
(-.~
( ;-
""-.---
I
~
!
.......,.Y.\'.
CDM Missimer
393
Elavatlon Contours
/
I
'-
---
"'oS'
"
-J
'11
- ECPO Boundary
'?P
@
~,._/5
-
\
.- 20
'.
-~.'-
-
29
.~{)
~
@
o
N
A
20,000
FEET
o
Figure 2.1
ECPO Stase II
Topographic Map (Contour Interval Is 5.0 "et)
Th6 Immokakw Study Area
Stag6 /I R6pott, Groundws.16r IssIJ(JS
physiography and climatic conditions of the ECPO study area and how they relate to
water resource availability is included.
2.2 Physiography and Rainfall
The lmmokalee Rise separates the study area into two rainfall basins. The western
portion of the study area is included within the West Collier Drainage Basin as
defined by the SFWMD. The West Collier Drainage Basin topography is generally
very flat, with land surface elevations sloping gradually from a high of approximately
40 feet (NGVD) at the top of the rise to sea level along the coastline. The eastern edge
of the basin is designated to be approximately along State Route 29, which intersects
the project area. The remainder of the study area falls on and to the eastern side of
the rise and drains towards the Big Cypress Spur. Numerous wetland systems are
present within the study area. These include marshes, cypress forests, wet prairies
and low pinelands.
The ECPO study area is located on the lmmokalee Rise, which represents the highest
ground in Southwest Florida. The predominant land use in the area is for agriculture,
which typically requires ditches and detention/retention areas to manage waters to
facilitate production. These man-made structures partly control the flow of rainfall
nmoff which then outfalls to natural slough systems to the south, east, and west of the
study area. Much of the natural system eventually drains to man-made canal systems
such as the Golden Gate Canal System and the Faka-Union Canal System.
The ECPO site receives abundant rainfall with an average of approximately 55 inches
of rain each year (SFWMD, 1986). Because of a relatively high water table and
downstream drainage system, a large percentage of the rainfall is lost to
evapotranspiration and runoff to surface water bodies. The amount of water lost
exceeds 90% of the total rainfall. Nevertheless, rainfall and subsequent infiltration is
the primary source of recharge to the Surficial Aquifer System in Collier County.
2.3 Surficial Aquifer System
2.3.1 Water-table Aquifer
The water-table aquifer in Collier County occurs within the Pleistocene-aged Pamlico
Sand, Fort Thompson Formation, and the wmamed limestone facies or the Pinecrest
Limestone member of the Pliocene-aged Tamiami Formation. The Pamlico Sand
consists primarily of medium to fine-grained quartz sand with varying amounts of
secondary constituents including shell, detrital clays, and organic material. 1hickness
of the unit ranges from 0 to 15 feet in the study area. Permeability is generally
medium. to low depending upon the quantity of secondary constituents (Missimer &
Associates, 1986).
In areas where the Pamlico Sand is very thin or absent, a hard, sandy limestone or
calcareous sandstone is frequently encountered. These lithologies are characteristic of
COlI c::.m,. 0...,., & Mc:K..lnc.
2.2
e:JMy~1WqMt3331J3U11Ae1I~
31'Lf
S i s Formation
0 Plololocen. -
Surficial
Pliocene Tamlami Aquifer
100 System
. .
200 !3andsl<;>.nf!
Peace .. .
-
River - -
300 Clay 8nd Merl, Confining
QNenilh ~.
- low ponn~ Beefs
- -
-
400 Intennedlate
H aWtl)oin Aquifer
Miocene Zone 1 System
500
600
~
1 700
u.
~
.s::
is. 800
Q)
C
900
1000
1100
1200
Confining
Beds
Arcadia
Confining
Beds
... llri'1etrlDrieand
;:- Dolomite-..
yellowish \l'8y
hanl
loWer
Hawthorn
Confining
Beds
Floridan
Aquifer
System
Oligocene Suwannee
Limestone
," - - :G~~~-;~~:,~f;- ':-" _ '.
. - 'paleorange.-.. .Suwannee
soft_ to medium ! .
ard. fossiliferOus .
- if' ,_
1300
Ocala
Group . ,
:.,'. lm1~o,.... very
..', pale.ora....
. sol'llornecflUm
hotel
Ocalal
AvonPark
Eocene
I
~
I
1400
Avon
Park
1500
D Sand 8 Sandstone ~ Clayl Mart
ItiI Limestone end Mart ~ Limestone ~Dolomite
CDM Missimer
Figure 2.2
EC~O a.... II
Oe_rallzecl Hydrogeology Beneath Collier County
dCZS
N
A
o 2O,00l.
FEET
en
::0
I\)
<0
__nm___ .7'
/300-// i
- ?'mmOkalee Urban Area I
I .~-550' -:-:--1
IS'-? L~'/_~ !
r-----
__ --800'~
~,
?tc
,/ L__
\ -- -----
(
/'
/
((}o
CR 846 Immokalee Rd
/
,
L.
I
I
+
"
".
\
\
'.
550 \ 300
, I
m I
< 0 /
ca ,
CD ' 1-
cn
jj) ~
0-
CD
'" ~
lJl ~
~
!
~ I I
s ,
~
~
..
!
!
_-1050-
/'
~
(
"
cn
;; I
<0 j
\
\
\
\
,~i1 Well Road
",
"
A
/
I~/
I Project Area
,-_._-~
'\\
,
)
@ 1
COM Missimer
Figure 2.3
ECPO Stag8 II
Transmissivity In the Water Table Aquifer (1,000 gpd/ft).
39~
The ImmokaJee Ama Study
Stags II Report, Groundwater Issues
the Fort Thompson Formation which also contains beds of quartz sand and thin beds
of dense, hard, freshwater limestone in some locations (Missimer & Associates, 1991).
The lower section of the water-table aquifer lies within the upper part of the Tamiami
Formation in most of Collier County. The predominant lithology is a sandy, highly
fossiliferous limestone with varying quantities of mollusk shells, corals, bryozoans,
and barnacles. The limestone tmit is characterized by abrupt changes in thickness and
often has a high permeability caused by the secondary dissolution of aragonitic shell
material. This secondary dissolution creates an abundance of mold and cast type
porosity, which greatly enhances the storage and flow of water. 11rlckness of this
limestone unit increases to the north and east in Collier County where it exceeds 60
feet in parts of the ECPO study area. The overall thickness of the water-table aquifer
generally ranges from 30 to 90 feet in the study area. Low permeability sediments
consisting primarily of carbonate clays, fine sand, silt, and shell form the base of the
water-table aquifer in most of the sludy area. This unit thins and thickens erratically
and is absent in some areas (SFWMD 86-1). Where the confining tmit is absent, the
water-table aquifer is in direct hydraulic connection with the Lower Tamiami aquifeJ'
and both units are under unconfined conditions and should be termed the water-table
aquifer. In this case, the water-table aquifer can exceed 100 feet in thickness.
The hydraulic characteristics of the water-table aquifer vary considerably depending
on both thickness and lithologic character. A map showing the transmissivity of the
water-table aquifer is provided as Figure 2.3. This map was generated using data
input files from the SFWMD western Collier County groundwater flow model (April
1992). In the northwestern portion of the ECPO study area, where the limestone
layers are thinner, transmissivity values range from 50,000 gpd/ft to 300,000 gpd/ft.
In the southeastern parts of the study area where thick, highly permeable, reefal
limestones occur, aquifer transmissivity values can exceed 1,000,000 gpdl ft (Missimer
& Associates, 1986). The porosities in the reefal limestone areas can exceed 50 percent
with correspondingly high specific yield values. The small area of lower
transmissivity that is shown just north of Immokalee Road near Desoto Boulevard is
likely due to one well or set of closely spaced wells that locally do not tap a limestone
tmit with high permeability. It is possible that other locations in ~e sludy area, which
have not yet been explored, could also show lower penneabilities.
By definition, the water-table aquifer is unconfined or in direct contact with
abnospheric pressure. However, the sediments in the upper part of the aquifer often
have much lower permeabilities than the underlying limestone tmits, ~hich causes
the aquifer to respond to pumpage as a semi-unconfined tmit in some locations (using
the definitions of Kruseman and DeRidder, 1991).
COM Comp 0...... 6< Mcl(ce Inc.
2.3
<~"-'--'W~397
The ImmoksIee StJJdy Area
S/Sg6 11 Rspott, Groundws/IIT Issuss
The primary source of recharge to the water-table aquifer is direct infiltration and
percolation of rainiall. Other minor sources include lateral inflow, percolation from
septic tanks and holding ponds, and infiltration from canals and lakes when their
stages exceed the altitude of the water table. Discharge from the water-table aquifer
occurs by way of evaporation, transpiration by plants, lateral flow into canals, lakes,
and the Gulf of Mexico, leakage into underlying aquifers, and from the pumping of
wells.
The highest water levels in the ECPO study area occur where land surface elevations
are highest. Water levels generally decrease to the south and southwest following the
slope of the land (Figure 2-1). Water levels in the aquifer vary on a seasonal basis.
During the summer rainy season, water levels often approach or exceed land surface.
The natural difference in wet season and dry season water levels frequently exceeds 5
feet. Because the water-table aquifer is unconfined, it can be directly affected by
alterations in drainage.
Water quality in the water-table aquifer in most of the study area is typically good
with respect to salinity. However, the water generally has a dissolved iron
concentration above the drinking water standard and significant concentrations of
organic adds that often give the water a yellowish or brownish color. The presence of
these compounds in the water can cause treatment problems because of the potential
for trihalomethane (THNI) or other disinfection-by-product (DBP) fonnation.
2.3.2 Lower Tamiami Aquifer
A low permeability, sandy, sometimes shelly, cmonate clay commonly referred to as
the Bonita Springs Marl separates the water-table aquifer from the underlying Lower
Tamiami aquifer in northwestern Collier County including portions of the BCPO
study area. The thickness of the confining beds ranges between 0 and 50 feet and
averages approximately 30 feet where present. The unit is absent in some areas
particularly in the northeast portion of the study area. Where the confining beds are
absent, the water-table aquifer extends to the Ochopee member of the Tamiami
Formation. Wells immediately northeast of Lake Trafford do not indicate the
presence of a confining layer between the water-table and the Lower Tarniarni
aquifers (Figure 2-4). This figure was developed using the thickness map in SFWMD
Technical Publication 86-1. Although this area lies within the Immokalee Urban Area
and is not teclmically part of the study, the area around Lake Trafford and the
Immokalee Urban Area should be considered to have little or no confir\ement
between these aquifers. COM Missimer drilling logs also show a lack of confinement
in east and southeast portions of the ECPO site, north of Oil Well Road and east of
Route 29. In this area, confinement can be poor to the Sandstone aquifer indicating a
hydraulic connection from the water-table to over 200 feet bIs. However, there are
large lateral variabilities in thickness and degree of confinement indicated in the well
logs. In the central portion of the EPCO study area, the thickness of the confining unit
increases to over 50 feet (SFWMD 86-1). Drawdown in the water-table due to
pumpages of the Lower Tamiami aquifer will be dampened or eliminated with
COM Camp 0...., &. McKoe Inc.
24
---_W"'="'3-ft
N
A 20,000
0
P"'1
FEET
(J)
;:0
I\)
CO J'mmOkalee Urban Area J...~
'}.o---- i
~_?-.~ .' I
). . .,. 'r;' ":>.9 r .., .
~v
?'I . _ C'---'
__-'2: rf/-
/<:>() ,.. _J
Immokalee Rd /
/'
A:JY/'
\......_----./-
.- '1
I
I
)
OR 846
'\.
(J)
;:0
I\)
co
:.:>~
Oil Well Road
['
~--
~
~
Dr
lr
'"
tJl
~
o
~
S-
o
tJl
~
Project Area
1--
,
!
~
I
@
CDM Missimer
Flgur& 2-4
ECPO Stag& II
Thlckne.. of the Tamlaml Confining Layer.
3q9
The Immokalee AIll8 Study
Sl8ge 11 Repent, GroundwatM Issues
suitable confinement, however, where no confinement is present, drawdown in the
water-table aquifer will be similar to that encountered in the Lower Tamiami aquifer.
The Lower Tamiami aquifer occurs within the Ochopee member of the Tamiami
Formation. The Ochopee Member consists primarily of light gray to white, sandy,
fossiliferous limestones. The dissolution of shell material creates large
interconnecting shell molds that give the unit a high permeability. The thickness of
the Ochopee ranges between approximately 40 and 150 feet in the study area.
The hydraulic characteristics of the Lower Tamiami aquifer are variable. Over 30
aquifer performance tests have been conducted on the aquifer in Collier County by
the SFWMD and private consultants. Transmissivity values range from
approximately 75,000 gpd! ft in the northwest comer of the ECPO study area to over
500,000 gpd! it in the northeast corner. A contour map showing the transmissivity of
the Lower Tamami aquifer is included as Figure 2-5. This map was generated using
data input files from the SFWMD western Collier County groundwater flow model
(Aprill992). This figure shows the increasing transmissivity to the east in the
northern part of the study area and a fairly consistent value of 300,000 gpd!ft in the
southern half. The transmissivity increases greatly just to the southwest of the study
area in Golden Gates Estates. The Lower Tamiami aquifer is currently the primary
source for public water supply, agricultural, and industrial supply in Collier County.
The potentiometric surface of the Lower Tamami aquifer varies on a seasonal and
regional basis in Collier County. Water levels range from near land surface during
the wet season in undeveloped areas to 15 feet or more below land surface near
centers of pumpage during the dry season. The regional flow direction is to the south
and southwest, generally perpendicular to the land surface contours, with hydraulic
gradients that approximately range from 0.25 to 1.25 feet per mile. Steeper hydraulic
gradients and radial flow conditions are encountered near large centers of pumpage
such as municipal or agricultural wellfields.
Recharge to the aquifer occurs primarily by downward leakage from the water-table
aquifer through the overlying semi-confining beds. The potentiometric surface of the
Lower Tamiami aquifer is generally lower thail the surface of the water-table aquifer
except very near major surface drainage features or where the confinement is absent.
This results in continuous downward leakage from the water-table aquifer to the
Lower Tamiami aquifer. The amount of leakage depends upon the overall vertical
hydraulic conductivity of the confining unit and the magnitude of the difference in
the potentiometric levels of the aquifers. Therefore, recharge to the Lower Tamiami
aquifer is typically greatest near centers of pumpage from the aquifer. Discharge
from the Lower Tamiami aquifer occurs primarily from lateral flow to the Gulf of
Mexico and from the pumping of wells.
COM Camp no..., &. MdCo< 1=
2..s
(::Ny~-.rzoolWoMl333113Zll1t~.d<<;
yoo
N
A
o
~o.ooo
FEET
(/)
::0
r8
-~ ~
v,-_ I
Immokalee Urban Areal
i
I
Immokalee Rd
300000
~
t/a
tb~
(/)
::0
N
<0
"',
011 Well Road
(-~ -'-....../
I-
I
I
~---~
Project Area
l
// /{
~
OJ
~
~
(/)
S-
o
OJ
~
_____J----J
!__o
S
:a
I
@
CDM Missimer
Figure 2-11
ECPO stage II
Transmissivity In the Lower Tamlaml Aquifer (gpdlft).
~D/
The /mmokalss Study AroB
Stage /I Report, Groundwater Issues
Water quality in the Lower Tamiami aquifer meets most state and federal drinking
water standards in much of Collier County. Dissolved chloride concentrations
typically range from less than 50 mg/l to 200 mg/1. Where confinement from the
water-table aquifer is present, the Lower Tamiami contains water that is low in
dissolved iron and color. Iron content is high in the Lower Tamiami aquifer in wells
where confinement is poor. In most areas, water from the aquifer can be treated to
meet the applicable drinking water standards with conventional treatment methods.
2.4 Intermediate Aquifer System
2.4.1 Sandstone Aquifer
In parts of the ECPO study area, the Lower Tamiami aquifer is hydraulically
connected to the Sandstone aquifer, which is the uppermost hydrologic unit of the
Intermediate Aquifer System.. The Sandstone aquifer consists of moderate to low
permeability calcareous cemented quartz sands, sandstone, and sandy limestone that
belong to the upper part of the Peace River Formation of the Hawthorn Group. The
aquifer is commonly used for agricultural inigation in the ECPO study area (SFWMD,
1986). Within the study area, most of the Sandstone Aquifer wells in the SFWMD's
data set are north of the Immokalee urban area. The transmissivity of the aquifer is
high in the study area as shown on Figure 2-6. This figure was generated using data
obtained from the SFWMD groundwater flow model of western Collier County (April
1992). The potentiometric surface of the Sandstone aquifer is similar to that of the
Lower Tamiami aquifer because the two units are hydraulically connected. A
confining unit separates the aquifers in Lee and northwestern Collier County so that a
difference in the potentiometric surface exists between the aquifers in these areas.
Water quality is generally good in the upper part of the aquifer with dissolved
chloride concentrations of 250 mg/l or less. However, salinity levels typically
increase with depth.
The base of the Sandstone aquifer is marked by an abrupt lithologic transition to the
higWy impermeable pale olive to greenish-gray clays and marls of the middle and
lower Peace River Formation. These sediments form the upper Hawthorn confining
zone. The upper Hawthorn confining unit ranges in thickness from approximately
100 to 150 feet in the county. The considerable thickness and low permeability of the
clays and marls result in good confinement between the Sandstone aquifer and the
underlying Hawthorn Zone I aquifer.
2.4.2 Hawthorn Zone I Aquifer
The Hawthorn Zone I aquifer occurs within permeable limestone units that belong to
the upper Arcadia Formation of the Hawthorn Group. The upper contact of the
Hawthorn Zone I aquifer is marked by a sharp contact of a pale olive clay of the
upper Hawthorn confining unit with a very light gray limestone. The predominant
COlI Camp lAuocr &M~ Inc.
2.6
~IWOl"Wl333113Z911f111~O~
S'?8<
\
)
\
-'~
........
!
~
;;
~
f
CDM Missimer
1/03
en
::0
I\)
<0
"-- ".~-~_.__._,~ --,
\
~
Immokalee Urban Area
--,
. I
I L.
Immokalee Rd
\
\
~, \ /\
i \, \ (
1
\ en
\ ~
/ <0
,
I
I
~
.'
)
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
I
II
j
s::;, }
~ I
'i'
-_...-r.-....__._~.
I
/
~
.~
I
I
,-
o
N
A
20,000
\ '. Oil Well Road
\ ~,.->,// #
\ \----=f/'"'
\ .:": ,- Jr... /'0"
\ "- /'-
\ '
", ~ ;.;ect N:i ' ",
FEET
Figure 2-6
ECPO Stage II
Transmissivity In the Sandstone Aquifer (gpd/ft).
The ImmokaIee Study Area
Stage /I Repott, Groundwater Issues
lithologies within the aquifer are very light gray to pale olive limestone layers,
partially separated from each other by thin layers of dolomitic limestone. The
limestones consist mostly of fine-grained wac1cestones that are cemented to varying
degrees. The limestones are moderately hard to hard, and usually have moderate to
high porosity (both intergranular and moldic porosity). Sand-sized phosphate grains
are present throughout the aquifer, usually at volumetric abnndances on the order of
1 to 3%. The Hawthorn Zone I aquifer occurs at depths of approximately 290 to 420
feet below land surface in the study area and ranges in thickness from approximately
100 to 135 feet. The aquifer tends to thin toward the north.
At the base of the Hawthorn Zone I aquifer is a sequence of interbedded marls, clays,
and limestone wtils that belong to the Miocene-aged, middle Arcadia Formation.
These generally low permeability sediments form the Mid-Hawthorn confining zone,
which separates the Hawthorn Zone I aquifer from the nnderlying Lower Hawthorn
aquifer of the Floridan Aquifer System. The thickness of the Mid-Hawthorn confining
zone averages over 150 feet in the ECPO study area and the overall vertical hydraulic
conductivity of the unit is very low. Transmissivities of the Hawthorn Zone I aquifer
range from 20,000 to approximately 100,000 gpd/ft (SCRWIP report, COM Missimer,
2000).
Water quality in the Hawthorn Zone I aquifer is quite variable in Collier County.
Dissolved chloride concentrations range from less than 200 mg/l in the northeastern
section of the county to between 2000 and 3Ooo mg/l to the west and south. Although
there is not an abundance of data in the study area, water quality trends indicate that
dissolved chloride concentrations on the order of 2oo rng/l are likely at the ECPO site.
2.5 Floridan Aquifer System
2.5.1 Lower Hawthorn Aquifer
The Lower Hawthorn aquifer lies beneath the Mid-Hawthorn confining zone and is
the uppermost wtit in the Floridan Aquifer System. The Floridan Aquifer System is
regionally extensive and underlies all of Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and
South Carolina. It is used for potable and irrigation water supply in many parts of
Florida.
The upper boundary of the Lower Hawthorn aquifer is marked by a sharp decrease in
the marl and clay content in the lower Arcadia Formation. The Lower Hawthorn
aquifer consists predominantly of interbedded yellowish-gray fossiliferous limestones
and pale olive dolomites. The limestones consist mostly of wackestones with
secondary porosity and a minor amount of very fine to medium-grained carbonate
sand that is lithified to varying degrees. The Lower Hawthorn aquifer limestones are
generally moderately hard and have a moderate to high porosity. The Lower
Hawthorn dolomites have a microsucrosic texture, are very hard, and have variable
porosity. The top of the Lower Hawthorn aquifer occurs at depths ranging from less
than 600 to over 8oo feet in the county, dipping to the southeast. The thickness of the
Lower Hawthorn aquifer ranges from approximately 100 to 200 feet.
CDM CAmp 0""., &. McIC,dn,.
2"7
~lWOfWl3331132e11~.cIoc
9[)cf-
The Immokalee SlueIy Ar....
Sta{J9 1/ Report, Groundwater ISSU9S
The hydraulic characteristics of the Lower Hawthorn aquifer are variable in Collier
County. Transmissivity values for the Lower Hawthorn aquifer can range from
10,000 gpd/ft to over 2,000,000 gpd!ft over relatively short lateral distances
(SCRWTP Report, COM Missimer, 2000). A hydraulic trend carmot accurately be
evaluated given the high variability and lack of data; however, the general tendency
seems to be a set of ridges running from northwest to southeast, which alternate with
high and then low transmissivity.
The potentiometric surface of the Lower Hawthorn aquifer is highest in the
northeastern part of the county and decreases to the southwest. The direction of
groundwater flow within the aquifer is therefore towards the southwest. Recharge to
the aquifer is due primarily to direct infiltration of precipitation where the aquifer is
close to land surface in the northern and central part of the state and leakage from
other aquifers.
Water quality in the Lower Hawthorn aquifer varies greatly across Collier County.
Salinity in the Lower Hawthorn aquifer generally increases to the south and west in
Collier County. Dissolved chloride concentrations are likely greater than 1000 mg!l
in the ECPO study area and generally from 2000-3000 mg/l in other areas of Collier
County. The water is generally not suitable for individual, agricultural or industrial
uses without desalination treatment.
2.5.2 Underlying Units
The Lower Hawthorn aquifer is underlain by yellowish-gray to pale orange
fossiliferous limestones that belong to the Suwannee Limestone unit of the Floridan
Aquifer System. The Ocala and Avon Park aquifers lie beneath the Suwannee
Limestone across the study area. Confinement between the Lower Hawthorn and
underlying aquifers is thought to be provided primarily by thick sequences of
generally low permeability sediments within the Suwannee Limestone.
The top of the Suwannee Limestone occurs at depths ranging from approximately 850
to 950 feet below land surface. The predominant lithology is a yellowish-gray to pale
orange fossiliferous limestone. Permeability of the unit is significantly lower than that
encountered in the overlying Lower Hawthorn aquifer or underlying units and thus
potential well yields are not as great. Water quality with respect to dissolved chloride
concentration is similar to that of the Lower Hawthorn aquifer with values of
approximately 2000 mg!l to 3000 mg!l in the upper part of the unit. ~issolved
chloride concentrations tend to increase with depth in the Suwannee Limestone and
water quality can degrade significantly between the upper and lower part of the unit.
The Ocala Group limestones underlie. the Suwannee Limestone in the study area. The
Ocala Group occurs at depths ranging from approximately 1100 to 1200 feet below
land surface. The lithology within the Ocala Group is primarily fossiliferous
limestone. The productive capacity of the Ocala Limestone is low to moderate. A
marked increase in salinity occurs in the Ocala Group. Although only limited data
COM Camt> nr.- &. MclC.e Ine.
2-8
c;~w..rklla331m81'A~IAIv.doe
J/OS
The ImmokJJJee Study Anla
Stage /I Repott, Groundwater 1_
are available, dissolved chloride concentrations ranging from 6000 to 8000 mg/l have
been reported from test wells tapping the aquifer.
Th.e Avon Park aquifer is the lowermost unit considered in this report. Limestone,
dolomitic limestone, and dolomite are the primary lithologies present wilhin this
zone. Relatively high porosities are encountered and the aquifer possesses a high
yield potential. However, water quality within this unit is very poor with dissolved
chloride concentrations approaching that of seawater.
COM Camp 0...... &. McKee Inc.
2.9
C;~IW<lt""33)tl32lnlRep1IWY.doc
ijo,k
Section 3
Current Water Uses
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) maintains a database of
permitted well locations and allocations for Collier County (Bengtsson, 2001 personal
communication). The database consists of two files, one with allocation per permit
number, and a second which gives the locations of the individual wells associated
with each permit, the aquifer each well draws from. and the well's pump details. This
information comes from the water use permit application information that each user
submits to the agency. These two databases were combined to show permitted water
use geographically, however, these databases Were incomplete. To augment this data,
information is taken from the numerical groundwater model developed in 1992 by the
SFWMD tha t contains a well file that also has allocation information.
3.1 Permitted Water Allocations
Figure 3-1 displays the maximum daily allocation in millions of gallons per day for
each section within the study area. The water use permits have different periods of
allocation depending on the permit type (public supply, agricultural irrigation, etc.).
In the data set, most of the permits have an annual allocation and then either a
maximum monthly or a maximum daily allocation listed. The annual allocation
information is of little value as it includes periods of non-use or low use. Potential
impacts of a given water use are typically judged on a maximum month basis.
Therefore, the maximum monthly allocation data is most useful for this report. When
the maximum monthly data were unavailable, the maximum daily allocation data
were multiplied by 30 and then used. When these daily data were also unavailable,
the annual allocation data were divided by 12, and then corrected by a factor of 1.7 to
conservatively estimate a maximum monthly allocation. Sample permits with both
annual allocation data and maximum monthly allocation data were investigated to
determine a correction factor. The maximum monthly allocations were found to vary
from 1.4 to 1.9 times the annual allocation normalized to a monthly value. The
correction factor of 1.7 is approximately the average of the sampled factors. Once all
data were in maximum monthly form, the data were then converted to a daily
amount for display purposes.
It should be noted that for approximately 7.5% of the well permits, no allocation was
given over any lime period. This represents a hole in the SFWMD's database. A
numerical groundwater model developed in 1992 by the SFWMD, contains a well file
that combines all pumpages located within a model grid cell to one value. Since the
grid size is one mile by one mile, these ptunpage values approximately represent the
permitted allocation for each section. In sections where wells are present, but no
allocation was given in the permit database as described above, the model data were
used to approximate the maximum daily permitted allocation.
COM Camp 0......, Ii McKcc Inc.
3-1
-''''''''''''''''''tna''''1LO 7
o
---1
I
-~
T
Legend
-
Roads
ECPO Site
Outline
-
r
.......J
.",~.~",-
!"':~;r-,!':~]
! "",;J
,LlJ ,~.
. ;:.t~!;-'l>
;t,;~\';;t,:;{f\:
~
"""
N
CJ Public lands
E
MaxImum Dally Allocation.
(MGD)
D
'---:-
0.01 - 1
1-2
2-4
4-8
.~_..~.,..
...--.-,
. ....~j > 8
s
. MaxIm.... Dally Allocation Data
0.6 % of Permita ~ AnI1UlllIy
36.0 % of Permits AlOCl8tad Monthly
55.8% of PermIla Allocated Dally
7.5% of Pennlts Not AIIoe8led In Ale"
.. SFWMD 1992 Modal Pumpage Used
J
CDM Missimer
Figure 3-1
ECPO Site
Groundwater Allocation by Section
L/2J1
The Immok8Jee Study An1a
Stage /I Report, Groundwater Issues
The land use designation of wet1ands as described in the Stage I Report and provided
by WilsonMiller was Superimposed on this map and shown in Figure 3-2. This figure
indicates the there are extensive areas in the ECPO study area that have little or no
aquifer withdrawals and are not designated as wetlands.
The SFWMD's Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (April 2000) states that there is
sufficient water to meet the needs of the region which includes the ECPO study area
during a 1 in 10 drought condition through the year 2020 provided appropriate water
management and diversification of water supply sources. The District concluded that
"projected agricultural water demands could be met from existing sources through
modifications to weIIfield configurations and pumping regimes with respect to
locations of wetlands." They also discuss the possibility of blending water from the
Floridan Aquifer System with freshwater supplies to augment the supply. Any land
use change from agriculture to residential is likely to decrease the projected water
demand. Given the conclusions of the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan, and the
fact that alternative sources of water such as the deeper intermediate and upper
Floridan aquifers have not been utilized in ECPO, adequate water supply exists in the
area for projected agriculture growth or conversion to other land use.
COM Camp llreaor&. M~ lD<-
3-2
.---'W_'~'-'""?7tO /
o
-I
_J
Legend
- Roads
ECPO Site
Outline
o Public Lands
_ Lake Trafford
Wetlands
N
MaxImum Daily Allocation'
(MGD)
D 0.01-1
1-2
2-4
4-8
~__ _.I > 8
1
,k
s
. Maximum Dally AlIOClltlon Data
0.6 % of PennIls Allocated Annually
36.0 % of Permits AlIocaled Monthly
55.6% of PermIta AHocated Dally
7.5% of Permlta Not Allocated In FIIeH
., SFWMD 1992 Model PUItIp8ge Used
.~ ---.------.,- ---~ ~.- .~-_."- -- -- --~-
CDM Missimer
Figure 3.2
ECPO Site
Groundwater Allocation and Wetlands
+/0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EI
I
Section 4
Changes in Land Uses
The Stage I report on the ECPO study area describes land use in the study area in
detaiL A large percentage of the land in the study area is used for agricultural
purposes. In general, uplands are natural recharge areas for aquifers, and wetlands,
where water levels frequently exceed land surface, are natural discharge areas. Most
agricultural lands can be considered natural recharge areas for the water-table
aquifer, however ditching and diking common to agriculture fields alter the natural
groundwater flow patterns. Residential developments tend to have larger areas with
impermeable surfaces such as roads, houses, and parking areas. Directly connected
impervious surface areas can lead to increased runoff that does not enter the
groundwater system. However, the regulatory agencies that permit new
development, such as the South Florida Water Management District, require that
surface water and stormwater management systems be engineered to retain as much
runoff as possible in lakes and other water storage systems and that off-site runoff not
exceed historic levels. Provision of appropriately designed water management
systems allows area recharge characteristics to be maintained even with an increase in
impervious surfaces.
There is sufficient freshwater supply in the water-table, Lower Tamiami, and
Sandstone aquifers, in most if not all of the BCPO study area, to provide water
resources for potential residential/ commercial development due to the net reduction
in water demand when land use changes from agriculture to residential. However, if
the freshwater aquifers are found inadequate on a site-specific basis, other options
exist to provide adequate supply. For irrigation purposes such as for a golf course or
landscaping, blending of the freshwater and brackish water from the Hawthorn Zone
1 or Lower Hawthorn aquifers may be used. Blending such as this is conducted
successfully in many developments in Southern Lee and Western Collier Counties.
Another option would be Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) where excess
freshwater is injected into a deep aquifer during the rainy season to be withdrawn in
the dry season. After a few cycles through the seasons, the water withdrawn from the
deeper aquifers is significantly fresher and may be used without blending. Potable
water supply from brackish aquifers would need Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment. A
development could choose between a centralized plant or small individual units for
each residence. These options would only be needed in the unlikely event that the
freshwater supply is inadequate for the potential Use.
<:aM
4-1
e:~~\NIIItJ1333113211'Rep&Rev.doG
14//
Section 5
Summary
Conclusions of the SFWMD Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan including
evaluations of water resource availability and impacts associated with water use,
indicate that within the ECPO area, water resources are sufficient to meet current and
projected agricultural demands through a 20-year planning horizon. Conversion of
land from agricultural to other uses such as residential, golf, or light commercial has
historically resulted in a net reduction in water use. Any existing or proposed land
use must have appropriate water management design elements to assure that water
levels and groundwater recharge rates are maintained or improved. Properly
managed ground and surface water resources within the ECPO area are sufficient to
support projected land uses as well as the health and integrity of natural systems.
aJM h/~
C:MyOocumelUl2OO1WDN'lml/32111~mc.
S-:1
....
.E
~g
C"
:::1 C'CS
...... ::>.. ' .
o ; ~,'~
Q. U) .
Co C Ad.' ( '.
o o~.
CO>"":
.... r;,....
<( (1) i~~.
I .r: ~
...... r~.'z
Co C ,t/'
~~l"
-c C'CS ",-"-,, .
....-c
C'CS .-
3: ...... ~
(1) .2 !' a
...... u. ~~,
(/) ~ ~~~,~
.." ~ '
U) - .;f~'.' .
-C.:: . ....
C (J...
C'CS C'
...J C'CS
.r:
- C
Ew
:::1
r:t=
LjIZ-
,
"
1/3
4f1'f
ftl
"C
.-
...
o
-
LL
Q)
,r;
-
-
::J
o
,r;
0')
::J
o
...
,r;
-
...
::J
(.)
(.)
o ftl
en-
... ::J
Q) en
,r; I:
- .-
I: I:
ftl Q)
Q.o.
Q)
~
ftl
-'
-
o
,r;
-
::J
o
en
"C
I:
::J
.E
f
ftl
en
...
Q) Q)
,r; Q)
-..c
I: 0
ftl,r;
0.(.)
- Q)
en Q)
o~
:EO
,r;
1:::
o
I:
"C
Q)
E
.: Q) '"
-,r;""
1:-
O"C
(.) I: en
I: ftl ...
Q) Q) Q)
Q) Q).~
..c..ca::
Q) 0 Q)
>,r; Q)
ftl(.),r;
,r;Q)(.)
enQ)-
Q) ~ ftl
-o,r;
ftl Q) ftl
E ~ en
Q) ftl 0
-..J~
o _ ftl
zoO
,
-;~~~:;~_+Cj"":
;"'~,>;",;----,- -"
............
~.
fA
'tJ
Q.)
Q.)
z
c::
o
-
.,~--",._"........"
........
.-
.....
~
2:
Q.)
fA
c::
o
u
'-
Q.)
.c:
.....
c::
~
a.
~
'tJ
"....
"'
.-
Ic:;;:,.. '-
,. ".' 0
~.i;" u::
.,..~.. ,',~;;~~ E
~l~', ,::'~ _, ...
. '., Q.)
.....
I
C)
c::
o
-. -I
l
'<1:
'l
"/,,' :,:[i,Pit~.;., *.
.' ,.,. ".Ii"'". ,/
;>:" ":t;';,!.;.Lf!r~;..::~:>'1!.
"'t.-: :';;':--;,;?::"/'!.<'(ar-.
....
Q)
C')
c:
<a
'-
C')
c:
.-
"'C
Q)
Q)
lo..
..c
-
c:
Q)
lo..
lo..
:::::I
(J
-
(J
Q)
-
o
'-
Cl.
"'C ~.
'-
<a .'-...
~
J::
t::
o
c:
Q)
C')
c:
<a
lo..
C')
c:
.-
"'C
Q)
Q)
lo..
..c
"'C
c:
<a
a.
X
w
..
....
^.>:."
,..,.
.......
~:-.>
..
.,
'.'
r
'--jJ&
1f'7
1fJI
"'"',
~'
II:.
~'....
,f"'.
~
,l"lIi.
~~.
_t
""'~ .
,<,iilIV
'f/9
1Il 1Il
L.. Q)
Q) L..
> (,,)
o CO
(,,)0
Il.O
C/)~
...10
0:::0
L..N
Q) >,
-- i::
o CO
U ~
JfzD
1Il
L..
Q)
>,1:
..c ~
'"0 0 CO
Q) '"0 -
_I: I:
:g~coE
L.. Q) (,,) I:
(,,)_00
I: CO L..
CO .~ '"0 'S;:
c:: L.. I: I:
c..COQ)
~1Il
o
C>
z
LO
CO
L..
Q) L..
'"0 Q)
1:'"O..l:
:;'I:'E~
I: CO CO .-
CO :> c.. Q)
_:> ..c
c...! i'ij Q) -g
_ > I: L.. L..
I: Q) 0 CO Q)
Q) L.. ._ 1Il '"0
t L.. :!:: '"0 .-
8[~~~
J
~.':'t!
,
1.:~.""""~
.,'
~,
<,
y-~/
~
~
~
=0
=
c '"
~ VI ~
~ if' 7;
~ ~ ~
~ =0 ~
'h ~ 0: l5
=0 ~ = =
C = ~ ~ i5c <5
" '" 0
"' i5 :;; ::; (5 U) 0
.~ c = m
'" 0 c c ~ ~ ~
'" cc C 0 5 g
-~ '" =
~ ill ~ ~ ~
= "' =
'" c ~ ;::;
~ "' ~ 0- 0- ~T;
'" '" w '" '" '"
~22
*
0'
i
z
c
l'l
~
o
'"
~
'"
~
~
~
~
o
'-'
.~
'"
:Ii
.,
~
-
o
c
~
o
f-
DeJD
III
"
"
~
"
'"
.5
."
c
"
..
'"
.=
..
:Ii
"
~
..
."
C
'"
.....
~
~
"
Do
.~':~
'_'I: c:...
~~i .c
;;'.~I if}
ful :::
,.. I 3
~l '"
'. ) !JJ
. ' v,
g /
~
,t: It ~
-J ~
j l' c
,. ~ U
lY
(
.;
.. ~
. . <5
;. .~ 0
""':
",
~
m
~
co "
D '2 ro "D
"- C
" '" m
t if 7j; ,~
~ 0
Il: '-) L~f
;;; t- ~j
," if, -.ri ,~;
~ ~ ." ~ ~ ~:-i
m m ,', 'U
I ...J , , 0- ...J a::
: .....~I
. ',-,'.-,
'1"'"'
I, '}I
~~J
~.li:' ' f ~~_
..i,~;:~~';;' '/;:J "
'r--:u Hi'"
JI'" -l'1~\ #t
~ 1$';'; ,'" ~.
.,. 1..._
.
~
~lr"" ..~IllIt::~iJ!iJU-
...,~~''f'':t"~.~~1W1!e ,,~,
.JlI';
, ~....
r~t~!~i-
Lj-23
'1.;1 (j.
. \'
of>
'"
'J)
<l
17,
e:
D
c
'J)
1~0
c'
1>
~
if!
.Q
i'l
,^
w
of>
C
"
<f)
of>
C
o
if<
'"
~
.<:::
t1l
Il
-
of>
o
\.)
"'
t1l
W
...J
'I
,
,
"l
}'I Ji08i"
~ '''I. II': , I
IJI<,;;;:'k.li"," " ,.""
'.t!'1ll .fiJ ,W~j"':; "'~.' ~"lIIJfio:,.
\:.;~.. ,~,_ ~";.~,.' ~.t" '~-S, "., '. i1_~.:'~._ '{ iV" -"'iM-~~
, , '~, ,f', ' ~", I:,: ':>'/>",ff~'~:"'1
, ,:<;' _ _~.i_ ~ '.
~'. '~.
, %':l~(.f. .1>.' .
, ,: r:~ ~i\t
<*1. ..'~
." "~~ ...1,5\.~ .~J!
, "1,' 1.' .:,1IfI~""4 ..~
<f... ',. ;liIl!
, l"~,:>,lj',.'~ , .' ". ....
~L ,- ':;\;.i t, ;;-,~~'!IfPIio\,:"""1liilY,,
'IJ I,;" '''IE ..,. '. ""... ...
42S
'.-
t1l
U
g
(:
u
~
(L'
~
iil
~
0:;
~
L
'D
'"
~
C
<D
:;:;
C
"'
Il
"'
LL
~
.
~. /J)
ro
Q) /J)
.q: c
0
Ol :~
.f: 0
'0
C '-'
<ll <ll
(f) 2
'0 .!::
Q) Q)
.!:: :r
<!!.
:0 Q)
.!::
ro ~
~ c
/J)
W ro
D..
I
I~
/J)
c
o
""
ro
()
.Q
2:'
~
<ll
E
-"!
<D
~
<ll
.!::
~
C
ro
D..
.
.
/J)
>,
~
.!::
~
ro
D..
~"'. ,""
.~' '
, ~~
,,; "-
'.j
}:
~
I/l
o
U
~
/J)
ro
<D
...J
,:It
...",!,.
.,. -
l!lf'-.-...~...I:'.'"
.......-.
'.'
.:.:.:,;,t-k,;,':':'--
'"
8 '"
ro ii
u iii
S' '!'
6 ~
~ u ::;
;r, '"
;: u :.:0
:t; Q.
'" ~ if;
~ 0
'" u
c ."
'" '" '"
Q. Q ."
.-'
. ...
,1,
,
J/.Zg
q. 2-/
Lf30
43[
Jf33
I::
o
.-
-
-
.-
E
g 5
('11);;
~co
tn ~
'C Q)
I:: tn
Q) I::
Q,O
tn (,)
E I..
coo2
I.. tn
cn'C
~ I::
Q,co
-
I.. >-
Q) ~
~..c
I.. 0
0_
LL I..
co co
'C Q)
.- >-
I..
.2 ;
LLQ,
N
~
I..
~
o
-
I::
Q)
Q,tn
tn Q)
I..
tn (,)
co co
J:o
1..0
~~
Q)O
1..0
0<.0
LL^
co Q)
:S! tn
I.. co
OJ:
- (,)
LL I..
~ ~
C;Q,
o 0
N-
Q) I::
(,) .2
1::=
Ui:C
I..
Q)
>
~ I::
o .2
LL=
co:S
'C
.- ......
1..-
o~
-
LL^
cnQ)
I:: I..
'c ~
.- 0-
co Q)
E I..
Q)'C
I.. -
- ~
o 0
Q) ;:
tn tn
co-
J: (,)
(,) .!.,
I.. 0
~ I..
o..Q,
I
1-/3$
ij. 3t
l
___,_J'
,.'
~
D
It
~
...,
l,fI' ,'17".(
,!.:
'....
.
1.;
.-
.Ii
"
ie. rdJ'
. '
,~:' <~'''':.
'; P"I
;+t:.-'~
~':~t:'i
'~;;_:tI"
,.
,
l
'~ '
t." .:.;;i:::""'l~:!;;f'
,,:;:,i~j';8~~~:::">::-' .,,' '. -
,; ~ ".,-'. ..,
"''''''''''D
",,".of ~<~,.;~":ru.
,.,......-""-:'j"';'
t:'
II"~
,.t.....;
".
~~;~
I
~
c~
V
,r
'_J
;1:
III
C .2:
c
~'
15:-
II
t~"
(~I
'.f) ,~
'-' r!:.:'
Ci L C;'
c
-\' }: ;;< I::' to
I,~ J. ct if
-
:.)
It;$
co
\:~
(L
, )
'U
:L
,n
LJ39
~'~ ;
,
....~
Ill...
I,,;;:
,~ "'.~
:~;
0"
1.)
"
ro;
E
~
ri l~
if 'Ie)
----"
/
~
t'!,.
. ''.-'"
("',-,/,.
"
":;)
"
-l
.
.,
ocr.
'"
-
...;::
u
-=
~
.0 "
u'"1:l
..... '1::
=..s
e~
:::
..., -
u (I)
~ ~
~~
:.::l ::
'"1:l e
:-:= rfj
~
,r-
/
,-- "',,=,
~--_.,-------:-
---1:
.Jt.l~ .. -
,~--
,
. _I
\\
lJ
f'.
,'"
~
~
.
J-j42
I-f-LtS
'-f4~
F
.-
F
....
-
-:
-
-
~
.,
F
-
''''=
:,;
,..
-
:,.,
'""
-
.~
.-
,..
,..
-
.-
,..
-
-
~
~
r.
-
:"
.....
.-
-
-
'"
-
.-
~
;.;
'-
F.
-
:,.,
-
'"
,..
-
:,.,
.....
:,.,
,-..
-
-:
-
'"
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
F
:,.,
::::
-
-
-
-
-'
-
~
1.
j:&":
'j'~'
;;;'I~" .,
iQ
/'A..t
.
.
"I
t"1
!
i
,
,
i
,
"
,
."......,
Ji
."~
l;j
'i
N~
!)
,
'"
"'
'1
"0
,"
v,
.00r
1"
e
.'
..,,-
.-.;
w
!Jl'
:~ .1,
;,
,
.,~
.
-;: ,<-
"""/~">;';
" .--~,,,- (-,;"- ,',
J~;-;,';~:~;".t",,,{:,-,: ..
f~~~\ ',.,,"
~ ",I,.
,'.
\ '~:fr-~}'
~.'~. ,.:".1:-'
y :r;.....;'
""'j' "",
~~-\
:/It.~ .
'l~~!.
/~ .. \.,......."~l
:" ";
'1i~l;'
,.i.':.1
;\.j:.
'.
...
,.1 .,
"~i' ~
:..
'.
,
il. '. '~~'
'"
:,it'l
j
,<4
~ \ . . , t
t; .. ~
,,~;
,! l'
';.~
,
""
...
,-...~'
.
".
<, :,
~
,/
J,
,,,., 0...... ~.~....,.:'".,,> ~,
I\:
,
tj~.(
!'
,'.
..il
'A'~
"'t
"
:-;,
"';':,
,~
.~
t.
t' '~
~ t.!';!...,,;' t,'''''
" "\.- -,~. ,,'
','0. Vit",,'
-~.,.. ;~, ~ ~
'~\'.p"~; """'...,-..,..~--
~'" .: ';,.,...,"" f'
:::"~~~
jJ
~
"",wtloi'<"..~",~.....
~. ~"~~~
'~ .
.~
,l'~
..I
;~~"" :.~-=i'.',
~. . .jtj,:""
J-f47
~r
~,
.'
.~~
4W
J.f~1
J.f so
":J
-
~
:..J
~
:.;
'"
'..J
:.;
;::=:::
00
IJJ
......
...
'>
......
...
u
~
C
o
......
...
~
IJJ
~
U
IJJ
~
~
o
IJJ
:l
-
~
:>
'f,
'f,
v
C
bN
C
~
...-<
.-
>
....
'f,
~
c
"'"
v
en
....
Q)
c...
""::l
v
....
~
[fJ
C':1
u
8 c'
.-
f
rJ":; ~
.-i '.0
V u
~ C':1
~ c
:... ~
u ~
'S ~
o
c
o
u
,.---."
p...
~
~
x
'T' ::..--
........ '----'
:-,
~
c...
o
'-'
~
[fJ
~ ""::l
"'"
v
"'"
v
bJ)
....
"'"
v
.
c...
'.....
tJ
''--''
'f,
v
....
~
.....
.-
u
c
v
c...
><
v
......
v
....:x:
....
C':1
8
c
.....
u
v
......
u
v
'4:1
v
....
en
.....
rJJ
:.E
......
~
o
c
o
'0
....
o
c...
~
.
........
...-<
C
o
.
'M
c
.-
u
c
v
c...
en
'-'
C
v
8
c...
.....
;::l
0"'
v
U
C
C':1
~
o
v
;::l
...-<
C':1
:...
......
v
....:x: ...-<
~ ~ c.
~ ~ :~
o u C':1 ....
c: ~ v v
v ....c:....:x:
....c: v .... \-(
.......c: c: ~
.;!l 7 0 8
;; ~ u .g
trJ ..... ....-4 .......,
;::l C':1 \-4 ........
...-< ,..., V ...,
e--..c...v
...... en ....
U U
;::l '0 0 v
[fJ \-( .... '4:1
~ ~ibJJ ~
;::l ....c:. 9 QJ
rJJ '-' \-4::S
c: >. en"""'l
o ..0 c: ...... ~
y u v .~ >
v V ~ .~ u
~ > c .e~
o ...... v _
....v>u:::o
v u ~
U ~ ....c: 8 E
.E c<::9 ~ u
C':1..... ;::l C':1 QJ
c:... ,..._
~ '0 0 \-4 t'\t
v u :::: 0 QJ
.... ~ :>-. ~ ~
~ v v ~ ~
L., ....c: ....c: v- en
~ ~ i-i '-6 .......
....
;::l
...0.
'-'
c::
;::l
o <:Ii'
8 c:
C':1 0.g
U
~
rJJ
c:
~
t:i
fI:J
::s
-
fr
::s
fI:J
~
QJ
e
:s
fI:J
d
o
U
+
~
.~
"tl
d
QJ
~
en
II
QJ
:s
";
>
d
o
.~
.....
~
IJJ
~
U
~
-
t'4
.....
o
~
.
r
.
~
L-j<:;z..,
~
, '"
i :;
- ",I 11) ::) - ('1 OC; ;::
C-: ~
'-=> '-=> C\ <'l OC; ';i;
....; "'!- I~ 1- (') ::) N .S
"- ~ . . . . .
In ..... 00 00 u
... ~ ~ "0
..::: 'C (") ..... tr1 '"
~ (',1 l.fI ,.-< In ::::
~
lr;
~
'-'
"I
,..
.C'. , 'f,
'" ... .~
...... ...
...... ~ - -. - In
't; --. c '-' ..... u
~ "" C In <"" <"', q
;.." ,-. In C\. ....
'-' -.
--...: '" .
~ tr1 ("I <"', r,
,.; ",
~. ..... ..... 00
"- ~ C'
...
..::: -
,~ ~
~ ~.
'U ;.." :I:
() ~ ~
-::J ?; --
~. -, f"'
~ (7
c Q.) c - ("1
... ~ ~ ;x
.- '" - - lr, OC;
~ :..- ~ x ~ '-'
u 1:: - <"', - ~.
'-'. - ..0
,~ Q) d .
::: -, c .:
~ H ~
'" C\ ..... ' .
I 'J;. v
.- H ....; .~ .-
if,
"" () ~, .~ ;..-, 00
I" 00
~ () "- ::; ~ C'
.... c.. r-< -
.~ .... '-'
:.; ~ ~
,...". 6 I -
. 6 "
- ~ ~
, ~.
..., u
,.... ...;;: I ~ '"
'-' .... u ::c
,H ....
, '.......
....... -C", i ("I OC; O. 'C ~- "0
'!'-t l"Z'. I ~... ('tj r-. -;;J 'C ,- c::
r/l .:;:.: -F! '-' ~
-. tn 'U <"', "...:
() 't::~ (" - -;;J '-' ~.
.j...j ~ ;;:::: ("r'j 'C N :::l <"', '7 :.i
C'i ;.." ('.~ - c::
~ u ~
. . 6 '"
rn C) " ~ u
...., "
~ ...., '"0 ~
.j...j I (-"
- ~ ;::l v
Q) ex;
..... C'
~ r/l ... -
c: ~ ,~
~ 1-' --d
'U ... ".
,.... ~ '"
rn v Q) OJ; ;; -
~ -
~ '"0 ...c c: ~ "0
Q) ... .~ ...
1) r/l ~ ::: c ~
8 r..r: ~ ...,
':.; ;; ~
C'i ...0 '" .- r-< ~
~ ;:C '", ;,.. OJ; c:
;::l ~ C OJ;
'" ;; c: or. '"
rn 0... '';::: r.~ 2>a ,.., c: r-< ~ ..'-,
. '-'
t:: ;;:1 .... '0 ....
.~ .... ,~ (7.
... .,j :1 E .- c: ;::' ;..; C'
0 .~ :;:I ;,.. " -
.- C1:: c: :::l C "
U - ::; J: . 1 ..' J: ....-: '"
, '-' ..... :..-, ,.,
.
;~
li~
~~~
~ij
gz~
~OD
~O'
'.~
0._
Ii'.
...~5 l'
~I i~ l I
,: ....
os,/,
OJ <V
/'"
l,:
,~/-
1~
.'
'iI"
<;
,I ~
'r
453
. .
~
Q)
~
~
~
"'0
~
.....
rn
~
tS
Q)
~
-
~
>
rn
~
-
&
~
(IJ
~
IIJ
8 ...
~ ~
(IJ Q)
c:: ~
0 .........
U c::
- 0
~ ==
~
E 's
~ ~
- .
~ ,..-4
..... th
0 l
~
E g
Q) ~ g. ,;
.... O'I...crc:
en l~ CIa
>~Eio
C/) a:;: e Q.I
. . .
~ 8 -&.O:..J
~ ;;; '6.... '0
"::;; .!! l!! ::: ;
.... 'iiD. 0
C"'2~~~
<C~~~~
-)(3:1:
"i .~ UJ .. ...
'0 ; ~ ~ ~
"E ~ .. .3 8
::J E
lJ)
'':'J''
!;(
\'J,., ,.-,
'-":~ .
#50
~
',.
""....
~ J ~
,
,
gun ,',
<rt1\l1J':" ,
;:
i!~~
,
.! j;.'~! !:', t ij
: i~jj.,.. ~...; ". :,.., ". . t.., "i. i. "'.:. :" '.,. 'l~: ~,." ',;' ',_; !:;:j "" : ,:: ;:
.:' .1!liil!iil
i'ip:," ,-.t_ ,
. I, '.' , 'i;'.' ~..,J..'... '.' i, '
~;ll!i! ';:::,
.~ '. ').:O,i
11 i~il tiiH. iH
::IWiir
;tn;i;.
I
"
Lf- S-S
J.fSfo
457
C ..0
.- ::l
'-:J C l-<
.....
C :.J ...c
~
-' ~ ...:.::
~
'....... C' C ~ :.J
C' ::! ..... 'C
~ c....
f. ""
- ..... .-
:.; -;;; N ..... ::l ~
c.... '" c: c ..<: ~ ~
,
~ U ~ r , c....
.--. - U U - U ..... '-'
-6 "'" " 'J; .....
~ 0 ,,.) :.J
C ~ ... C' U ~ u :.J ..... :;
" - . " ... ::l ~ ~
~ C' C' . -
~ ::c ::J E
'r:: ~ '-' .....,
:; ~
~ rfj '0 ...c
...- 'J; U':
:.I ~'. f. /, 'f. , :u ~.
~ ~ ~ '-' ~
-0 ~
:; '" '" ~ ..... :; E
~ ~ i:: i:: C U
- '-' c: '"0
'" t:::
- -;;; u -;:l u -;:l u - c t::: ~
- 'f. f. 'f. .., :.;
~ .;::; C ; S .. c ... c: ...... ::l
1'- ::J '" ;:l c: ~ '"' .....
....... ~ ~ ~ ..0 '-" ~
:: ~ ... ....
(fJ "- f V E V ... V i:: '" . ~ ::::
:.J - _1. ~L_ =...c.....- ':L u ..... c....
--::; .' U -;;; ;.- .., U .., u '"0 -C
::: ..... :; ~ , ~ ::: V ::l E ,~
::<:: - ::: ::: ~ ::: @ 2
;::: l-o ;; ...3 ...3 ;; ..... ~ :.;
- - 'f. 'f. 'f. '" tJj ,~
.,.) I ~:< I '" C/. /. ~ 'f.. '" f.. f-<
" .......
.. c I ''''I " '" ;:: 'f)
'"' ::; ~ '" S .- ....... ~
.... '- ~ ;.:: ':::' ~ ,9 '"'
- ..... -, c;::l . ~ ,~
..... II '- - - .~ - :: " .....
- ..c - ..c - ..c - -
::<:: !, ~,J 'f. 'J;
~ l-o ...... ..... :;
, 0 -
"- ..... ..... ..0
00 C -
I. c.... C":l
u :u :.; -
~ ::l sl ;Q u C ..-<
0"' In I..!:. <f, :.J ~
.., I ::s ("'1 ('I ~ t'j ~
~ :; -i ..0 ~
I. ~ ,r,
00 ~ II E l-o :.rj
- "-.(: ::l
;::: U '"' ':J
! .... I .....
~ Jj C ~
..... ~ E
:u - -.r. '-'
~ ~ t:::
t::: ". ~ :.; '0
- c c -.; ..... E
- " u ~ 'J.
'..- U -.; .:;
~ " ',1; E
'.., u '" 'f. '"'
::l , ....
':; ~ -;;; ~ ~ -.; ..... Jj C
t::: ~ -;:; ~ .~ ..... ~
- ... :? c' ... 'J; ....
t::: ~ ~ '0
-.; :; ~
7 '. 7 '.. -
~ :-' '. ;.;...., ~
-
...c -
':;f~ ..... t::: ...-
c: 'r" ~ 'f;
~~~ ;:; .... :;
.- ::l
.-- ..r.::.,' /. u 'J;
. J5r- u ~ u '"0 'J; ::J '/.;
'" C - ;:l U t'j :.; '"0
:I h
'f. ... ;; c..."":J - E -.r. ,..,
I.. e... 'f.. U - -
~..) U ~ :::: 'f, c:: ~ ..... ~
:::::1 ..<: .... -;:; , ~ '"' -
.- ~ f. ,... ~ u '-' ~ :.;
'-:J 2 .~ I r- -;: .... c ~ ..,. ..-< ~ C ...c
::l 'I ,. '" 6:: :J c.... ..Ci :.;
-I I.. .7 ~ ::: -.r..
- ,-:: - C':l ~ ~ ::l
1. -, ~ ....
tf; '"0 c: ~
.--. f".
'-:J '-:J ~ ~ ~, -
.... '"0
:.; ~ ..... ~ .... '-:J
...- -' ~ ~ ::l :l
- Cl ~ r-'
I, ..... ~ -
U '-..../ '.f, c-:!
'-:
. .
~s~
lJ. s-c;
~
c::
.::J
~
~
'J,
J
~
:;-
'.)
'J.
,~
~
~
~
~
c
o
.....
.....
~
~
.....
rn
V
=
.
v
on
c
~
..c
u
v
.....
~
8
:.::l
u
8
o
4::
rn
v
on
~
8
~
"'0
--
"'0
v
u
::l
"'0
v
~
--
V
rn
U
~
o
v
::l
......
~
>
"'0
v
"'0
.....
o
>
~
II
<!f0D
:.J
.....
cc:
r
c:
.-
.....
Cf,
:.J
~
.....
.....
~
::J
<.J
,-
......
'......
.-
J
'-
'/;
:J
U
.,.....
t:;
v
'/;
t::
~
~
......
,.....
c-:::
l-<
.....
'/;
1)
;j
v
v
'/;
u
;j
..--<
~
I
..-
, ,
'-'
....
~
,~
,/,
:J
U
......
l-<
c...
....
:J
...:.::
l-<
c-::
6
:J
'/;
:J
..
Q)
>
..-1
...
~
E
Q)
...
<
~
~
....
c'
.....
.........
......
...0
......
:r;
.~
'"0
(:'::l
.....
(:'::l
...c
~
o.
rn
...
12
'-i . ~
~ c
8 ~
...0
..c:: (:'::l
u/..C
:E .~
~~
. .
CI
I~.
~CJ'
C bJJ
C) ~
8 C\i
C) V
l-; .........
'5 '"0
r::r c:
C) (:'::l
l-; v
u
c:
v
c:
(:'::l
6
Q)
c...
.
..-.
.....
~
(:'::l
c:
o
':0
......
'"0
'"0
(:'::l
'L
....)
~
.....)
r?'
--
.----
~
'f.;
.....
:.J .....
..:.: C
.... c-::
coj c....
6 'u
"'0 'f:
00 2:J coj
... coj c....
~ : 5
~ .... C
8 .5 v)
:::::l f--'
__ V .....)
"'0 '.FJ V
Q) ;;:' ;!l
00 '-' .....
~ g ~
..c ~ OJ
I u,.D
~ V'J"--"'"
... ...........
o C)-.
.;:1 C .....t
~ ~,.i':.
"3.gR
bS)C'-'
Q) ..ss ci
'-c . ~
__VJcoj
~~,]
...-n'
~ C
__ C) :-.
\J .. ~
,... ~ .
... - e:
~ ,~ '"
~ '-' '-'
~ Z
-
,....
PI
.....
. ,
'-'
, ,
v
.
.......
. ~
I.,,)
.~
v
0:::
'---'
VJ
::..;~
,'\..
C C
..... 0
bJJ .~
C coj
'!:l .-
coj :l
.... bJJ
u C)
c........
o ~
..... ....
.... C)
coj"O
t;~
8 ~.r
:>
"0 . !:l
C) coj
t '!:l
OJ ........
c....C
~ .-
':) c.;
.....
vo coj
]]
.... . ,
coj '-'
8~
"'0 C
(,) C
..... 'l:C
..ss rf
5b~
C) C
.... ....
C)
.....
'"
,.~
x
;:;.>
~
:l
i::Q
.------
vo
....
:.J
.-
--
c....
c....
:l
Cf)
C
:.J
"
(,
.--.. '"
'U '-'
01:;"0
C ........
_ cc:
'.~ ....
....c:: :.J
u :-
x :.J
~ .. ~ ifJ
~
':..) '.r,
00 ..... ....
... C':l :.J
J2~~
~ \.; :r~
~ .....
8 :: ::;
OJ:;cl]
~ '......
G>'~ ~
t":;-';'-..;
... ~ :.J
3 n ~
- '-' .,....
o " ....
:>- '-' c....
-
N
LJ-bJ
4-~ Z-
~w
J
C-
~
'-'
~
~
~
::::
'....)
'J,
~
~
~
~
:..,
'-'
C-
~.
J
C-
C-
:..,
'...J
C-
'j',
~
.....
.....
CFJ
il)
.......
il)
"0
o
::E
~
CFJ
~
CFJ
8
::l
.s
il)
~
0..
il)
::l
.......
~
>
>-..
.....
~
il)
0..
o
~
0..
il)
u
~
0..
CFJ
t::
il)
0..
o
CFJ
il)
.....
~
8 r.;..:
o
t::
o
.....
.....
u
t::
c.2
ij,?~
.....,
,/"
:J
~
:J
.....,
C
.......
'.......
""
.-----.
"U
C
1.) c-:::
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
c...
:r,
C
:J
c...
~
~
~
,......
.......
.......
~
v
~
-
,/,
v
,....
........
'-'
~
~ ----...
.... "U
~ u
c... .?::i
8
.- ,
,-."
-
...;:;
"--/
"U
v
~
v
CFJ
U
.....
;,- .....
~ CFJ
~ .C
~ Q)
.....
u
~
~
~
..c1
u
~
Q)
>
o
u
"'0
=
ell
.....
'f.-
.......
'-'
,....
w
...c
.....,
ell
Q)
~
ell
=
ell
'-
o
~
o
.
.
~
v
~
;::)
.....
:r,
~
c...
~
'-'
:r,
v
....
~
~
u
'''''''
.........
...D
;::) ~
c... ~
-:.J"'O
.... Q)
C"':l .....
> u
.~ ~
c...o
'--../ ~
0..Q.,
....... ':J':.
..c1 . ......
CFJ"U
~ ,....
Q) ....
= ...:s
~ tJ
o ,....
.......
"0 V
= ...c
~ ~
.
.....
,-.,
'"'
c:
.
..
CFJ
OJJ
c::
.....
"'0
c::
.....
~
,/,
~
...,
.....-::;
....
,...,
~
:;
if, :r, tJ
c-::: V u
OJ u C"':l
.... C"':l c...
u c... if,
C rJ),....!
..-< ....
c-::: c: v
OJ v c...
.... 0...::)
C"':l 0 ""0
c: ~ v
C"':l u....
,.... bJj U
.... ~ tJ
....... ~.....
'U ~ 0
U ,~
~' 0...
C"':l tJ
c... :-- ~
if, ..-< 0
c: ~ c;'"'
V tJ....
c....~ U C"':l
C,? u>
'...... o. ;::)'C
~LfI if, ~
- ~ +--
.,\ ("t"") 1"""1 ,."
~ ,..- \j
~,~,,~ C,.J
S...D :-1 ~
C:tJ (.; i)
vb{) ~
U C"':l tJ ,...,
.... ~ ~ ...;:;
tJ cu ~
c... > ""0 ~
C"':l ,'"'
:; if,.....
..s;;! 8 ~'J;
'-' ;:j ~~
c: if, .~ --:::0" ~
....... v t:: .~~
:.;;:j ",..c:o...
'.J:........c '.JJ
~ C"':l ~ ,/, C"':l
1..1 > 0.......... v
~ , ........ 8 ~
~ G' C"':l C"':l
C ~ c: ;:j.......
..-< V ..... .~ c-:::
o 0... b{) t:: ~
o ;J 1..1 2
o ~ 8 ~ C"':l
....... 0... 0... c:
.
.
.
........
C"':l
~
;:j
....
........
::i
.~ 8
~ ....
bL.~
C"':l P
~ -
- u
t....&::; ~
0...
~
v
~
-.
'"'
........
:.;
U
c-:::
c...
if..
'J)
.- c:
8 v
::i ~
'8 ~
v c:
~ .-
0...L:..
u........-!
U 1..1
C"':l"U
~ 2,
'J) 6
,....
....
tJ
0...
o
. .
"U
:.;
i:::
v
'/.
,...,
........
-.
'-'
'......
,...,
'-
~
~
-
"T
In
'J)
.~
........
0...
~
tJ
,....
-
~
'-,
.-
'-'
c-:::
8
.-
'-'
,/,
v
if,
8
::i
'8
:..;
~
0...
1..1
U
C"':l
c...
'f,
c:
v
0...
-.
'"'
.S
c:
,...,
-'
.....
....
c-:::
'C
.....
'"
>
,
A~JC...
B8
Rural land
Stewardship Area Program
2007 Annual Report
to the l-e~lature
~~e~ber31'2oo~
--
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
LfhS:
Table of Contents
Introduction. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . 1
Legislative History. ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . 3
Department RLSA Implementation Activities . . . 4
Collier County Rural Lands Program ... ... . . . 5
Successes and Failures in Furthering Rural Sustainability in Collier County. .. .. 12
St. Lucie County RLSA (Adams Ranch I Cloud Grove). .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 13
Successes and Failures in Furthering Rural Sustainability in St. Lucie County. .. 16
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Detailed Legislative History.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 19
Attachment 2: Department of Community Affairs Authorization Process. . . . 22
Attachment 3: Collier County RLSA factors for the calculation of
stewardship credits. .. ... ... ... ... ... . . 24
Attachment 4: St. Lucie RLSA Credit Worksheet. ... ... ... ... . . 26
4U
Introduction
The RLSA program was established in 2001 under s.
163.3177(11)(d), Florida Statutes. Since then, the Statute
has been amended four times, in 2002, 2004,2005, and
2006. St. Lucie County adopted the first and so far the
only RLSA com rehensive Ian amendment under the
statute in 2006. Prior to enactment of the starute, ollier
County InItiated a rurai lands program for its eastern rural
lalid~ to meet the reqmrernena- or a 1'mal uraer or the
Admmlstratlon CommISSIon. 1 he Collier program is J12l-.
subject to the requirements of the RLSA statute. Twel""5'fl1er
counties, Osceola and Hi2"hlands, have initiated the process
for designatmg KLSAs. Se~ other counties and large
landowners have expressed an interest in the program.
The RLSA program provides an alternative, incentive-
based planning process for conserving agricultural and
environmentally sensitive lands. As the name of the RLSA
statute indicates, the emphasis is on stewardship. The goal
of the program is to further each of the following principles
of rural sustainability:
1. restoration and maintenance of the economic value of
rural land;
2. control of urban sprawl;
3. identification and protection of ecosystems, habitats,
and natural resources;
4. promotion of rural economic activity;
5. maintenance of the viability of Florida's agriculture;
and
6. protection of the character of rural areas of Florida.
(s. 163.3177(1l)(d) FS.):
Thus, any development permitted in a RLSA to restore and
maintain the economic value of rural land must also further
the other principles of rural sustainability.
These principles are also reflected in the concurrently
enacted "Rural and Family Lands Protection Act" in
Chapter 570.70, Florida Statutes, which provides the
following legislative findings that are consistent with the
intent of the Rural Land Stewardship Area program:
"(1) A thriving rural economy with a strong agricultural
base, healthy natural environment, and viable rural
communities is an essential part of Florida. Rural areas also
include the largest remaining intact ecosystems and best
examples of remaining wildlife habitats as well as a majority
of privately owned land targeted by local, state, and federal
agencies for natural-resource protection.
(2) The growth of Florida's population can result in
agricultural and rural lands being converted into residential
or commercial development.
(3) The agricultural, rural, natural~resource, and commodity
values of rural lands are vital to the state's economy,
productivity, rural heritage, and quality oflife.
(4) The Legislature further recognizes the need for
enhancing the ability of rural landowners to obtain
economic value from their property, protecting rural
character, controlling urban sOnpNl, and providing necessary
open space for agriculture and the natural environment, and
the importance of maintaining and protecting Florida's rural
economy through innovative planning and development
strategies in rural areas and the use of incentives that
reward landowners for good stewardship of land and natural
resources."
The RI,SA program is required to utilize innovative
planning strategies that allow appropriate, well planned
development while conserving rural/agricultural and
environmentally sensitive lands and protecting them
from urban sprawL The primary method is to allow
rural landowners to voluntarily transfer stewardship
credits from sending areas, i.e.,lands identified as having
resources worthy of protection, to receiving areas, i.e., lands
Department of Community Affairs
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 1
L{b7
identified as more suitable for development. Once lands
have been designated as sending areas, the agricultural and
natural resources on these lands are protected from future
development by way of permanent stewardship easements
that run with the land in perpetuity.
The RLSA program has great potential for protecting
farmland, conserving natural resources, and ensuring our
rural landscapes arc available for future generations to use
and enjoy. It also presents many challenges, including the
challenge of fundamentally redirecting how development
occurs in rural areas.
The successful implementation of the RLSA program is
especially important for the state's agricultural economy.
Agriculture is one of Florida's leading industries, producing
a total economic impact of $97.8 billion. Agricultural
lands cover ten million acres in Florida. Yet agriculture
is under threat from urbanization, exqtic pests, and
global competition. In the last decade, about 500,000
acres have been converted from agnculture to other uses,
includmg urDan spraWL 1\.ccoramg to the CommissIOner
of Agnculture Charles Bronson, "Perhaps the most
significant long-term challenge for many sectors of Florida
agriculture is the loss of agricultura1lands from conversion
to development or into public ownership for conservation."
(July 24, 2006 Letter to Speaker Marco Rubio)
Achieving the laudable goals of the RLSA program requires
effective implementation of the statutory requirements. In
particular, it is essential that priority be given to all of the
statutory principles of rural sustainability and not just to
the maximization of development potential at the expense
of the other principles. Development is an integral part
of the RLSA concept, but the type, amount, and location
of development must be compatible with the statutory
principles of rural sustainability.
To date, experience with the RLSA concept has been
limited to the re- RLSA statute Collier pro ram ana.
t e t. ucie RLSA. e cntlc review 0 the Collier
and :':It. LUCIe experiences in this report is not intended
to disparage these two programs. On the contrary, it is
rccogmzed that these are plOneering programs which have
broken new ground in rural planning. We can learn from
these experiences. On the other hand, while each of these
programs have some commendable features, neither of .....,
them, taken as a whole, is an acceptable model tor achieving
all at me statutory goals.
.
Both programs raise concerns which must be satisfactorily
addressed It the KLSA program is to achieve its Q"oals,
especiall those relatin to the conservation of a ricultural
an sand t e maintenance 0 rural economies. Some
Of those concerns are listed in the discussions of the MO
programs in this report. The Department intends to
address these concerns in the RLSA rule currently under
development.
2 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
lfbt
Department of Community Affairs
Legislative History
The original RLSA statute was enacted in 2001. It
'i7i"tnonzea up to hve pIlot projects wIth a rriini-
mum RLSA size of 50,000 acres and a maximum
size ot :Z.':lU,UUu acres. 'The pruglam was to be
monitored by the lJepartment by providing annual reports
to the legislature and the program was not to be extended
until its success had been demonstrated.
In 2002, the requirement for consistency with s. 163.3187
FS., which includes the requirement for internal consistency
and financial feasibility, was added.
In 2004, the pilot status was removed even though no
RLSAs had been adopted and the success of the program in
meeting the legislative intent of rural sustainability had not
been evaluated. The application process was streamlined
including an exemption of the RLSA plan amendments
from the twice per year limitation on plan amendments.
The minimum size threshold was reduced from 50,000
acres to 10,000 acres and the maximum size threshold was
removed.
In 05, development in a RLSA was exempted
from the development of regional impact process if
certain other planning steps were followed g
. s was mo 1 e to require the
establishment of a methodology and assurance that the
credits would enable the long term vision and goals for the
25-year or greater projected population of the RLSA. The
assignment of higher credits to open space and agricultural
lands was specifically addressed.
In 2006, language regarding the creation of stewardship
credits was further modified to take into account the
anticipated effect of the proposed receiving areas.
A more detailed review of the legislative history is provided
in Attachment 1.
Department of Community Affairs
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 3
L/for
Department RLSA
Implementation Activities
The e artment has taken the followin ste s in
. 0 t implement the Rural Land Stewardship
rea program:
~
1. As required by the RLSA statute, the Department
has established a process to authorize designation of
a rural land stewardship area that includes site visits,
tecnnical assistance, requirements for public participa-
tion, and clarification at the reqUIrements to initiate
a !<L;,A plan amenDment. The process is included in
Attachment 2.
2. The origi
3. The Department has established a Rural Lands State
InteragencyTechnical Advisory Group which consists
of representatives from the Department of Africultqre
and Consumer Services, Department of Environmen-
tal Protection, Florida Fish aner-Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Soudi Flanna Water Management Dis
trict, Southwest Florida Water Mana2'ement Distric.t,
Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and the
Department ot lransportation. The members will
provIde the Department with technical expertise and
advice in evaluating proposed RLSA designations and
RLSA comprehensive plan amendments.
4. l1e Department has established a Rural and Natu-
ral Resources Planning Section within the agency's
Division of Community Planning to provide technical
assistance and guidance to rural communities with
regard to the RLSA program and other rural planning
techniques.
5. The Department has conducted an active public out-
reach program to inform local governments, landown-
ers, and other stakeholders about the RLSA program.
lhe Department's Secretary has made presentations
about RLSA at several regional forums and at a forum
for state agency officials in Tallahassee. Department
staff has participated in local RLSA workshops in
Highlands County and Manatee County and have
held numerous meetings with representatives of local
governments and landowners to discuss potential
RLSA proposals.
6. The Department has targeted its technical assistance
funds for rural counties and areas of the state where
RLSA proposals are most likely to originate. As part
of this effort, the Department has provided funding
to support a regional visioning process initiated by
the Central Florida Regional Planning Council in the
Florida Heartland where there are numerous potential
RLSAs.
7. The Department has received notices of intent to
designate RLSAs in Osceola County and Highlands
County. Mter evaluating the proposals, the Depart-
ment authorized designation of a RLSA in Osceola
County and in Highlands County 0 cou
cs a e now consideri
whether and how to proceed.
8. The Department has analyzed and evaluated the
Collier County rural lands program and the St. Lucie
RLSA, each of which is discussed in this report.
4 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
LlIO
Deparbnent of Community Affairs
Collier County
Rural lands Program
Background
some people ad e the Collier program as a model for
entatlOn, the Department has evaluated this
A commendable feature of the Collier RLSA program is
that it is large-scale. The RLSA contains 5,846 acres
of which ately
182,000 acres were in
private ownership. The
RLSA is located in eastern
Collier County along the
northern county bound-
ary shared wi th Hendry
and Lee counties. Within
Collier County, it is lo-
cated east of the Corkscrew/
Swamp Sanctuary an<'y /
Golden Gate Estpt4 It is
located on th7.northwest
corner o~ Big Cypress
Sw~ Area of Critical
)'tire Concern (ACSC),
./" and 63,700 acres (33%) of
the RLSA are within the
boundaries of the ACSC.
The RLSA is separated
from the Naples urban
area by extensive rural and
natural resource areas and
by Golden Gate Estates.
However, the lmmokalee
urban area is an enclave in
the center of the RLSA.
The exclusion oflmmoka-
- ~
lee precludes the trans
o stewar ship credits to
Collier County's RLSA was adopted in 2002 in response to
a Final Order of the AdministratIon CommIssIOn 1ll1999.
The program was commenced prior to the enactment of
the RLSA statute, was not subject to the reqUIrements of
the statute, and was not reviewed by the Department tor'
consistency with the RLSA statute. l'Jevertheless, because
--
----
program.
Geography and Land Use
Figure 1: Collier County Rural lands Stewardship Area
Department of Community Affairs
2007 Rural Land Slewardship Program Annual Report 5
l{7/
7-.() \p.
SfjW"\
this existing development area. Figure 1 shows the RLSA
,",'mun Colher Lounty.
Most of the lands were in agricultural use when the RLSA
was established as shown in the following Table 1.
Table 1: Agricultural lands in Collier RlSA in 2000
Type of Agriculture Acres
Citrus 39,034
Row Crops 36,037
Water Retention 19,155
Areas
Pasture 16,273
Grazing Leases 63,616
Specialty Farms/other 2,497
Total Agriculture Acres 176,612
A large portion of the agricultural lands included significant
wildlife habitat for listed species. Wetlands covered 74,586
acres of the RLSA, including both private and publicly
owned lands and overlapping with some of the agricultural
lands.
The majority of the more intensely farmed lands surround
Immokalee. This area is known as the lmmokalee Rise. Ar-
eas to the east, west, and south of lmmokalee are lower in el-
evation and contain the majority of the wetlands. The lands
now in agriculture surrounding lmmokalee are the most
environmentally suitable for agriculrurc as well as urban
development because of the relative lack of wetlands and
wildlife habitat compared to other lands within the RLSA.
Collier County RLSA Elements
An important element of the RLSA is determining what
lands should be protected through the designation ~;;d-
ing areas and what lands might be developed through the
designatlOn ot receiving areas. In order to accomplish this,
land areas within the RLSA were broadly grouped into five
categories: Flowway Stewardship Areas, Habitat Steward-.
ship Areas, Water KetentlOn Meas, Public C(~.tion
Areas, and Open Areas. Open Areas consisting of mostly
agri6J.lturallands haVThg lower environmental value covered
92,800 acres or 51% ofthe private lands in the RLSA. D
velopment receiving areas may be located anywhere withi
this very large Open Ar owed in the other
cate .. n other words, the Open Areas whie ine
e more intensely farmed lands constitute the land areas
eligible for development through the receipt oftransferred
stewardship credits whereas lands with higher environmen~
tal values are not eligible to become receiving areas. See
Figure 2.
Sending areas may be established throughout the RLSA.
There are no requirements to cluster sending areas to ensure ~
the protection of larger areas or ensure geographic connec-
tions. This can result in a patchwork quilt pattern of pro-
-
tected and unprotected areas. Further, sending areas are not
required to be adiacent to receiving areas which will evenru-=-
all receive the stewardship credits or have any geo ra hic
rclationsh. to IS s or a
s rrounding receiving areas to develop out at the underlying
la use in a low-density sprawl pattern.
The assignment of stewardship credits to create incentives
for the establishment of sending areas is a very detailed and
complex multi-step process utilizing a geographic informa-
tion system. The process is established by multiple policies
and a worksheet in the adopted plan. The factors that are
used to calculate the amount of stewardship credits for
proposed sending areas indude the narural resource attri-
butes; the land use rights that will remain on the sending
area; restoration opportunities and ongoing restoration and
land use management commitments; and early bonus credits
available during the first five years of the program.
The Collier system is extremely complex. There are over
twenty general attributes that are evaluated for every acre
of land in the RLSA. Similar in complexity are the land
use rights or "layers" that must be removea trom ing
area in 0 to receIve cre ItS. ere are seven separate and
distinct land use layers. The land~ner chooses how many
land use layers will be removed. The more layers removed,
the more stewardship credits earned and the removal of
layers and creation of credits can happen multiple times.
For example, a sending area may remove residential uses but
keep institutional uses, or remove residential and institution-
al but keep recreational, including golf courses and then at a
later time remove recreational uses. In most cases however,
sending areas have removed all land use layers down to one
of the agriculrurallayers. Attachment 3 provides additional
det_Ws-orl.-this-pr=s.._____
---
--~
1be stewardship credit assignment process creates substan-
tial incentives for land parcels with high natural resource
values to become sending areas. us ar,1Irecredir'V-alues
as . imes t e ensity value of the underly-
ing land use. This results in a greater amount of develop-
6 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
~7Z
Department of Community Affairs
Figure 2: Collier Rural Land Stewardship Areas
Rural Lands Stewardship Areas
H"'lldryCOllnl'i I
"I
"
3, ~
li!e#C,GI'
F
S1?82
~
N
0:
, "'I
.. , .~
- I _?&
Immq,ka~~
"
"
,
,
,.
;~
CR 8 6
.MMOKALEE: Rb
\
I..
GOII':l<i'l\Gdtfl
Est It",,,,
<>
>
-'
OJ
on
-w
<>
:3
'"
0:
~
'-I
- ~ ,
gll
~I
>-
o
on
w
<>
~1-'
!
<>
0:
on
:i
'"
.; ~I
"
OIL WELLJ~O
Cvhil'rt'aullt.1I
WelerRelll1'l1ion
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 7
Department of Community Affairs
2{-73
ment in the receiving areas, which over time will impact the
surrounding rural landscape.
en demonstrated that such a hi h incentive is
artici aticn, nor has it been
emonstrated that the larger amount of development al~
lowed would be compatible with the long term conservation
of rural reSOIlrres. including rural character.
- ---
For agricultural lands with less natural resource value,
there is a disincentive to become a sending area since the
resulting credit value would create less density for transfer
than the underlying land use. Most of the 92,800 acres of
Open Areas designated as eligible for receiving areas have a
disincentive to become sending areas. Instead, these Open
Areas that are mostly in agricultural use have the converse
incentive to become either a receiving area or to develop at
(Ihe underlying land use of one dwelling unit per five a~res.
In this respect, the Collier program is not protecting and
conserving agricultural lands.
During the initial planning process and in Collier RLSA
Polic .1 was anticipated that stewardship receiving
areas would only consume 9 to 10
holdings in the RLS In other words, the spatial extent
e opment or the development footprint woUIa
be about 16,800 acres. Ihis would be controlled in part by
thl;: LUlai dluuuul of .;tewardship credits possible throughout
the RLSA. However, prior to adoption of the plan amend-
ment, several reViSIOns allowed tor an muease in the total ~
~ber of stewardship credits\which in turn increased the
a;;ount of acres that could De deSIgnated as receivin~.
.:n;- maximu!E...lW~edits in the RLSA
is ~ nd thus the maximum potential ~velopmeJir '
fo~int cannot be determine . However, the nine send-
ing areas created thus far compose 24,372 acres and could
enable up to 7,507 acres in receiving areas o~
amount of acreage designated as sending and receiving areas.
It is als~ worth noting that the two Stewardship Districts
enacted by the Legislature in 2004 include a total of 32,.506
acres or about twice the acreage initially contemplated for
the total development footprint.
on rural resources, including agriculture.
,
The development footprint of receiving areas does not
include the potential for development of the underlying use.
The underlying use in Collier County is one dwelling unit
per five acres and as noted, this density exceeds the incen~
tive provided for many agricultural lands under the RLSA.
lhus, it is allowable and possible that farmlands in the
RLSA that do not participate in the program may develop
out at the underlying use of one dwelling unit per five acres,
promulgating a low-density sprawl pattern surrounding the
developed receiving areas.
The number of potential stewardship credits also has impli~
cations for the potential number of dwelling units, popula-
tion, and non~. ~idential develo~~uld occur in
the Rr::::,~~~_~e by the county was for
"j6-;466 dwelling units which would house a population of
about 87,000 person 0 cr, IS estimate wa ased
1 u able densities and did not consider
the subsequent increase in stewardship credit creation. Sev-
eral projections of ultimate RLSA population are possiB~
includmg one estImate by Collier County planninf[ ~hff Qf
~ A m~e conservative estimate would be
20ro,OO persons. It is questionable whether this very large
amount of development is consistent with rural sustainabil~
ity including maintaining the viability of agriculture.
7
Q.
(7
Forms of development within the Collier County receiving
areas include:
Towns ranging in size from 1,000 to 4,000 acres (1,000 to
16,000 dwelling units: 2,000 to 40,000 residents); villages
ranging in size from 100 to 1,000 acres; hamlets ranging
in size from 40 to 100 acres; and "compact rural develop~
ment." The maximum density for a town is 4 dwelling units
per gross acre. The non-residential requirements are not
supported by data and analysis showing an appropriate bal-
ance of uses. Other than the towns, it is unlikely that these
developments would be sustainable communities in terms of
providing an adequate balance ofliving, working, shopping,
civic, recreation, and other uses. There is no requirement
The spatial extent as well as the distribution or pattern of ._,~_.______
development within a RLSA is important with regard to the ] 2005 Build-Out Study Attachment A in the East rifCounty Road 951
impacts on surrounding rural lands and the fragmentation of InfmJtnJdure and SITvim Ho,-izon Study PTflimiualY Report dOWllloaded
rural resources including wildlife habitat and farmlands. r~om Collier County Website on December 17, 2oo?
larger the footprint and the more developments encro
int arve up t e rur an scape, t e greater the impact http://www.colliergov.netlmodules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=830
~
8 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
47y
Department of Community Affairs
that these areas be functionally related to the surround-
ing rural economy and are more likely to be linked to the
Naples urban area. Other areas, especially the compact rural
developments which provide for low-density suburban style
residential, may promote sprawl and the fragmentation of
the rural landscape.
the Collier KLSA program, large develoj;me:rtt
are required to undergo Development of Regional Impact
review. Policies in the comprehensive plan require provision
for adequate public facilities and services.
-
~," --
EThe Collier Plan has not established how many new toWns-. ,
-~
and villages can be created in the RL . eon y limit is
. r co~p~ct develo ment areas per
eacl:-t.~age. I~e study, the County planning
~ff forecast the 0s-stbility of 5 towns, 18 villages, and over
10 hamlets and compact rural developments associated with
these towns and villag . servatlve yestImate
that 22,500 acres of rec 'ving areas can be created, then it
is very possible that 4 to 5 towns and several villages may
be created along with some hamlets and compact rural
developments. The number of separate development types
depends on the size of the town or village which can vary
substantially as indicated earlier.
Current Starns
~:nding areas have been approved)The following
Table '2 shows the RLSA land attributes for these send-
ing areas. Figure 3 shows the location of the sending areas
as well as the one approved receiving area, Ave Maria, and
two pending sending areas. It is worthwhile noting that the
sending areas are for the most part geographically separate
from the Ave Maria receiving area. Sending areas numbered
1 through 6 enabled the Ave Maria receiving area. Sending
areas 7 through 9 have not yet been used. Table 3 shows the
land uses that remain on the nine sending areas.
-- ~
e nine designated sending areas have relatively higher ""
environmental values although a significant portion of the
land is used or available for lower intensity agriculture, sgj;.h-/
as ranc~or the most part, low intensity agricUItu~e will
,be ':rltOwea to continue on these lands under the stewardship
easements. Wetland and habitat restoration has occurred
on 3,344.5 acres. Also of note is that 18,116.7 acres (74%)
of the designated sending areas are within the Big Cypress
Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, which already
provided additional protections to these lands. There are 7
Table 2: Sending Area Attributes
land Type Acres
Flowway Stewardship Area 8.876.7
Habitat Stewardship Area 12.860.8
Water Retention Area 43.5
Open Area 2,591.8
Total SSA lands 24,372.8
Table 3: Sending Area Land Uses
land Type Layer Remaining Acres
Agriculture 1 5,288.6
Agriculture 2 18,382.5
Conservation 651.3
Mining 50.1
additional sending areas that are currently pending. Figure
4 shows these areas.
One receiving area, the new town of Ave Maria, has been
approved and is under development at this time. Ave
Maria has the distinction of having a new university which
will provide an economic base. Ave Maria contains 5,027
acres and is approved for 11,000 residential dwelling units,
690,000 square feet of retail, 510,000 square feet of office,
400 hotel rooms, 6,000 student dormitories, 450 assisted
living units, 148,500 square feet of civic and community
uses, and 35,000 square feet of medical and educational
uses.
s '~uses on the Ave Maria site that are
eing converted to urban uses were agriculture, including
3,357 acres of row crops, 583 acres of improved pasture, 327
acre sod farms, and 133 acres of fallow crop land. Thus,
er 8~f the receiving area was agricultural la~. ,.-
A second receiving area named Big Cypress, located east of
Ave Maria, is pending. The pre-application for the Devel-
opment of Re 'onal Impact indicates that it would cover
3,612 acres iricluding 8, we fig UnIts, ~Jl,OOO silYare'
leet t retaIl, 496,51ilSquare teet of light industrial, 858,330
square eet 0 0 ce an oorps. urrent land
cover includes 1,908 acres of row crops, 317 acres of other
cropland and pasture, 293 acres of improved pasture, 79
acres of fallow cropland, and oi-her vanous aglicultar.:d-ttses.,.-)
/" .
us, about 72% of the receiving area is agriculture land. ,
Department of Community Affairs
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 9
475
Figure 3: Collier County RLSA Status Map
RLSA Status Map
ss~ 10 ."d ss~ \ 11-1..~ nol t>~n ~rp'o.~d~, cI Julj 17111. :'00;
~.
ez3'<"
..
10 2007 Rural land Stewardship Program Annual Report
Department of Community Affairs
~/0
Figure 4 Collier County RlSA Pending Sending Area
'--~--'T'---~- .--.--
I
/1',111;:'/;1 -'I'
II J;(,'I"F:
II
,
-r!
...;,.,.,.
'::'"'..",..-
e ~.."'.'.'~
",jJ." ""--..,."..
_.---,~"...
,.". _.. -~.'-
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 11
Department of Community Affairs
477
Finally, the Collier RLSA is currently undergoing a five year
evaluation by the County as required by plan policy.
Successes and Failures in Furthering Rural Sustainability
in Collier County
1. Approximately 24,000 acres have been designated as~
sending areas and-me-~ at these lands have
hIgE1y ~..dLll:d clIvironmenta! t~_~~!h-~_~_
sending areas WIll allow lower lOtensity agricultural
act~ should be compatible ~~~~ the exist-
in,g-environmental resources.~ a~as pe.!!_~~.E_
approval total about 30,000 acres.
2. M~he ap;rov~d'~ending areas are
I~Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical
Concern and most are far rei-nOYeatrom development
pre~erefore;thebenehts ot protecting these--
lands are not as great as it might be if the lands were
under the threat of development.
3. Despite the inclusion of statements in the plan
amendment that agricultural should. be protected, the
Collier RLSA was not designed to protect agriculrur=:-
:lilands [rom converSIOn to urban development. Over j
6.,-OUO- acres ot the more mtensely farmed agricultural
lands are being planned for conversion to urban uses
in the approved Ave Maria and proposed Big Cypress
~
new towns alone. (
4. lhe more productive agricultural lands have a disin-
centive-tu LCLUllH: ~,",u~l~ng areas or ~e in agri-
culture. TIle contmued avaIlaOlIrty of the underlymg \
----rana--me allows for the development oflow-density
ranchette development and sprawl.
5. The ultimate total amount and geographic extent or
footprint of development in the RLSA cannot be
determined and there are practically no standards
guiding the distribution of deyelopmcnt areas. The
large 93,000 acre area eligible for designation of re-
ceiving areas, which also allows the conversion of land
uses to the underlying low-density uses, is the exact
opposite of a plan to direct growth to the most suit-
able areas. This may lead to fragmentation of natural
areas, wildlife habitat, and agricultural areas. The
overall rural character of the area is under threat from
the potentially large amount of urban development.
6. The compatibility of ne~ urba~.Q~'.:'elo12ment wi~.h _
lne surrounding n:;-;Jlandscape has not been well '
adc'lfesseQlnteiiTisOfou1fer-ieg~irements, gre~
orothcrpr;;;;isions for the sp.atial arrangeme'~d
~ of urban areas across the rurallands~e.
7. Although the plan requires the provision of public
facilities and services, the availability of adeguate wa-
ter supply was not evaluated in the plan amen~nt
fo-rtl1eamount of development that may occur i~
RI5'A.
8. Transportation corridors connecting to the receiving
areas-may promote turther urban sprawl as well as
pOSsibty---rr<tgIlJClll tIlt: I ural landscape.
9. The complexity and fle~..JX..inherent in the Collier
Counryapp;-oach mikes it difficult to comprehend
how the program works et one orecast or la r
future development scenarios. t wau be difficult
amre;q;-ensive for smaller rural counties with limited
resources to implement and monitor such a complex
program.
12 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
L/7t
Department of Community Affairs
St. Lucie County RLSA
(Adams Ranch I Cloud Grove)
Background and Geography
The St. Lucie County RLSA was adopted on September 12,
2006 and became effective in December 2006. Compared
to Collier County's much more comprehensive approval, the
St. Lucie County RLSA is small scale. The RLSA is only
22,384 acres in size with the distinguishing feature that it is
composed of !\.va non-contiguous land areas: Adams Ranch,
which contains 16,466 acres, and Cloud Grove, which
contains 5,918 acres. 1 These parcels are located about three
miles apart in the eastern agricultural area of the county.
2 111e Development of Regiona! Impact Application indicates acreage of
5,944.
It is important to note that Cloud Grove, the anticipated
receiving area for a new town, is located on the border with
Indian River County. Also, the landownership for Cloud
Grove extends into Indian River County, although this por-
tion is not part of the St. Lucie RLSA. See Figure 5.
Cloud Grove is a citrus grove that has been infected with
citrus canker. Adams Ranch is predominately a cattle ranch
and also includes some citrus and other rural uses.
The St. Lucie RLSA was reviewed and approved by the
Department in 2006. However, an examination of the
Figure 5: St. Lucie County Future Land Use Map showing the two RlSAs
\
A' --i\,<;--
'.
-.------.:. --\- [,1
I \ , ~:-r
--~~\-,--- {\-~ ~~\'
f\\., -
..I
"'a
......~.....""'-.._,_.
'~~--
"
.....
I
I
'" : ..1 -.-
-..) , . '",.,,~...
Jl..n_.-"~.......~........
~
T""""~[r;-~
I" I!..
"1
"
~
, -"~
'; _...-t.-....-
.,;l.;..;.-....
/
~.~~.
,
( , /-~;::~.~~..
/ '" """
L\..,/ ""-:::,.....
-- J ".J"
.,'~-"..~,
'\
......-_.
I
ST. LUCIE COUtIfrY FUTURE lAND USE MAP
JULY200EI
r?5-;;7.;;;L-;;;'~:~".'"
......".It" ,
4 ';n....'...~"
L.'_' ..,~. "',i,"
#''''''"'.'
""., ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,
'~',.,.r.",,~.
""'''''"''''''''
""',"0'0. "~,,
It ."..,......Wl..,.
.." .......~~ t;o",.,.
""'........U,t...
'J'- ..~...."..'('.......,,"'"":
"_~iOO"""
.,,~".."'"
.,....""'.",."...".,
(j"'"''''~::~_..J
J
Q
II. Mo~'ted '/11/00
Department of Community Affairs
2007 Rural land Stewardship Program Annual Report 13
~77
Department's files indicates that the plan amendment did
not receive a thorough review in terms of RLSA statutory
goals and purposes. Also, the review did not thoroughly
evaluate the issue of urban sprawl including whether there
Was a demonstrated need for additional urban uses in St.
Lucie County The agency :files do not contain any analysis
of projected population growth to support the amOUnt of
development approved for the RLSA.
St. Lucie County RLSA Elements
The St. Lucie RLSA plan amendment is similar in design to
the Collier RLSA in several respects. Land areas within the
RLSA were broadly categorized into four categories: Water
Retention Area, Hydrologic Stewardship Areas, Habitat
Stewardship Areas, and Open Areas.
Open Areas consisting of mostly agricultural lands having
lower environmental value Covered 9,222 acres or 41 % of the
RLSA. Receiving areas can OCCUr anywhere within these
Open Area designations. Cloud Grove is designated as an
Open Area, with the exception of a large water retention
area. See Figure 6.
The establishment of stewardship credits for sending areas
is a very detailed and complex multi -step process utilizing
a geographic information system very similar to the Collier
RLSA; however there are some significant differences. The
major differences include increased credits for agricultural
lands, credit allowances for "cultural heritage," and no ad-
ditional credits for early participation.
Also, credits for environmental restoration are strengthened
by requiring the completion of restoration that meets speci-
fied criteria. Additional credits are also provided for wildlife
corridors and interconnected enVironmental systems.
Like the Collier County system, the St. Lucie RLSA
methodology is very complex. 1here are Over twenty
general attributes that are evaluated for every acre of land in
the RLSA; however they have been categorized and ranked
somewhat differently than in Collier County. Similar ill
complexity are the land use "layers" that can be removed
from a sending area in order to receive credits. There arc six
separate and distinct land use layers that may be removed.
The land use layer definitions are similar but not identical to
the layers in Collier County. One difference of note is the
allowance of sod farming and telecommunication towers in
the lOW-intensity agricultural layer that reduces its compat-
ibility with some natural resource features includ on, wildlife
habitat.
St. Lucie Policy 1.5 states that "credits are created trom any
lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in pert....unent
agriculture, open space or conservation uses." This policyap-
pears to require that all development uses incIudir1.,gthe first
four layers, i.e., residential, general conditional, eart'], mining
and processing, and recreational uses, must be rem( l'y~d to
establish a sending area. This approach would enStl n that
credits are created only when agriculture, open spaCe.or Con-
servation uses are protected in perpetuity. However other
St. Lucie Policies create Some ambiguity as to whether this
is the case. Policy 1.10 explains the land use layer re noval
process and Policy 3.4 describes the "removal of OUe (Jr more
land Use layers." St. Lucie County has not adopted i'"'p]e-
menting land use regulations that would darifjr this isme
and the currently pending sending area application does
not address this issue. Attachment 4 provides the S-r. Lucie
Credit Worksheet.
One important distinguishing feature of the St. Lucie
RLSA is that, unlike Collier County, it has limited the
total amOUnt of residential dwelling units that can be built
in receiving areas to 13,428. Presumably, this is linked to
the total amOunt of stewardship credits that can be earned
through the designation of sending areas; however, there is
no information on the total amOunt of stewardship credits
possible. Apparently, no analysis showing a need for any
additional development capacity in St. Lucie County duro
ing the planning period of the County comprehensive plan
was submitted to the Department, and there is no knovvn
planning basis for the 13,428 dwelling units. The amountof
non-residential development is based on established ratios
of square feet pcr dwelling unit and under the adopted plan
could exceed six million square feet.
Further, although there is a numerical cap on the number of
dwelling units in the RLSA, there is no policy cap on the
spatial extent or footprint of the development area. How-
ever, it is likely that the footprint will be between 25 and 36
percent of the RLSA since the current Adams Ranch send-
ing area application would Covert about 1,000 acres of the
otherwise eligible receiving area acreage to a sending area.
The underlying uses can also be developed at one dwelling
unit per five acres for areas not designated as sending areas.
Forms of development Within receiving areas include:
Lf-trfZ::>
Department of Community Affairs
Figure 6: St. Lucie RLSA Areas
O"~'I"I'AIMl'I
WIll.. R~e"tu~A,... I OD4 7(' ~'-'e~ .,
ell H\lUlhl"lli:.:;''''_~Wlll'Al.... 2.6"2.~lilOl"" ./-
M H.8t111ir. o....'llPrn'II;l..."'" ~.".. It ~~n><".
op.... 1l1Z. ~~llo~*"
RlBA FIDURf 1
ST. LUCIE COUIflY RUlUtL lAND STewAROSHIP AIlEA
O\/Efa..AYMllP
JUNE 20N ,,<: 'ltlnpt..<! 'U IJ.';f~)
"'.h_"_...,
.=
,~
6)
~WJ OWl
2007 Rural land Stewardship Program Annual Report 15
Department of Community Affairs
'f ~ /
Towns ranging in size from 1,000 to 5,000 acres (2,000 to
12,500 dwelling units: 4,000 to 31,000 residents); villages
ranging in size from 500 to 1,000 acres; and compact rural
development. These development forms are somewhat al-
tered from the Collier RLSA without explanation. A major
difference is the reduction in maximum density for towns.
The Collier maximum density is 4 dwelling units per gross
acre whereas the St. Lucie maximum density is 2.5 dwelling
units per gross acre. Thus, the developments in St. Lucie
County are much more limited in density and less likely
to achieve a critical mass of sustainability as well as being
less energy efficient. The non-residential requirements are
not supported by data and analysis showing an appropriate
balance of uses. It has not been demonstrated that these
developments would be sustainable communities in terms of
providing an adequate balance ofliving, working, shopping,
civic, recreation, and other uses. There is no requirement
that these areas be functionally related to the surrounding
rural economy. Other areas, especially the compact rural
developments may simply manifest low-density residential
sprawL
Current Status
Applications are pending for the first sending (Adams
Ranch) and receiving areas (Cloud Grove). The county has
raised application sufficiency issues and decision making
is apparently hampered by the lack of detailed definitions
and criteria for some stewardship credit calculations. The
following information is based on the initial application
materials and is subject to revision.
The initial application for the Adams Ranch sending area
included 11,886 acres on two non-contiguous parcels. The
larger parcel contains 11,691 acres and the smaller parcel
contains 195 acres. The following Table 4 shows the RLSA
land attributes for this proposed sending area. Of these
acres, 8,455 acres will remove all land uses down to Agri-
cultural Group 2 uses which allow ranching and other lower
Table 4: Adams Ranch Sending Area Attributes
Land Use Acres
Habitat Stewardship Area 8,281.4
Hydrologic Stewardship Area 2,278.2
Water Retention Area 268.2
Open Area 1,058.6
Total 11,886.4
intensity agricultural uses as well as sod farming. Another
3,431 acres will remove all land uses down to Agriculture
Group 1 uses which allow more intense agricultural activi-
ties including crops and citrus. Approximately 35,000
credits will be earned allowing the development of 5 ,000
acres, enabling the planned development of regional impact
at the Cloud Grove receiving area. These credits equate to a
transfer of about one dwelling unit per sending acre or about
five times the underlying land use density of 1 dwelling unit
per five acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). No analysis was
provided that indicated that such a high credit incentive was
necessary for the RLSA to operate.
The designation of this initial sending area will leave about
2,886 acres of open lands within the Adams Ranch parcel
which can be designated for receiving or sending areas and
about 1,674 acres that could become sending areas.
An application for a development of regional impact for the
Cloud Grove receiving area has been initiated. The appli-
cation includes 12,000 residential dwelling units and over
three million square feet of non-residential development on
5,944 acres. J Current plans contemplate the expansion of
roadways extending north into Indian River County and
eventually connecting to a new Interstate 95 interchange at
Oslo Road. The Cloud Grove receiving area would consti~
tute 24% of the RLSA (excludes the water retention area).
Successes and Failures in Furthering Rural SustainabiIity
in St. Lucie County
1. Compared to Collier County, agricultural lands have
an improved incentive to become sending areas and
continue in agriculture. However, the complexity
of the credit assignment system makes it difficult to
determine the amount of the incentive. Additionally,
even though these additional incentives exist, agri-
cultural lands may still become receiving areas. Cloud
Grove, most of which is agricultural lands, is slated for
conversion to urban uses.
2. The geographic extent or footprint of development in
the RLSA could range between 25 to 36 percent of
1 the RLSA.
:; 'lhe St. Lucie RLSA plan amendment indicated an estimate of 5,918
acres fOf Cloud Grove which has been updated in the planning process fOf
the Development of Regional Impact.
16 2007 Rural land Stewardship Program Annual Report
L.j.g2
Department of Community Affairs
3. There are no provisions to separate development areas
from each other through the use of greenbelts, and
low-density sprawl is likely to occur on the lands sur-
rounding the development areas. This is a particular
problem with the St. Lucie RLSA because it is split
into!\Vo non-contiguous parcels and surrounded
by agricultural lands with no additional protection.
Within the RLSA, the continued availability of the
underlying land (one residential unit per five acres)
use can promote further sprawl.
4. The allowance of one of the parcels (Cloud Grove) to
be non-contiguous and smaller than the 10,000 acre
threshold appears contrary to the statute. 'The creation
of multiple separate parcels that are smaller than the
threshold could result in an increasingly complicated
system and unnecessarily fragment the ruralland~
scape.
S. The agricultural lands surrounding the Cloud Grove
new town could be particularly vulnerable to urban
sprawl development, including adjoining lands in In-
dian River County to the north. The proposed exten-
sion of a roadway in Cloud Grove north into Indian
River County that would connect to a new Interstate
95 interchange would increase development pressures
in that portion of rural Indian River County.
6. The great complexity and flexibility of the St. Lucie
County approach makes it difficult to comprehend
how the program works let alone forecast or plan for
future development scenarios. It would be difficult
and expensive for smaller rural counties to implement
and monitor such a complex program.
7. Transportation corridors connecting to the receiving
areas may promote further urban sprawl as well as
possibly fragment the rural landscape.
8. The allowance of sod farming in the low~intensity ag-
riculturallayer is incompatible with the protection of
some natural resources that would otheIWise co-exist
with low-intensity agriculture.
9. No analysis of projected population growth and need
was submitted to the Department to support the
amount of approved development which appears to be
arbitrary.
2007 Rural land Stewardship Program Annual Report 17
Department of Community Affairs
L/.. g 3
Attachments
L/-8Lj
Attachment 1: Detailed Legislative History
A rural land stewardship pilot program was enacted by the Legislature in 2001, including the following provisions:
. Grant the Department the authority to authorize up to five local governments to designate RLSAs;
. Establish Legislative intent that RLSAs shall further the following principles of rural sustainability:
restoration and maintenance of the economic value of rural land;
. control of urban sprawl;
identification and protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources;
promotion of rural economic activity;
maintenance of the viability of Florida's agricultural economy; and
protection of the character of rural areas of Florida;
. Provisions for local government application to the Department and a written agreement betvveen the Department and
local government;
. A minimum size of 50,000 acres and a maximum size of 250,000 acres to be established outside of municipalities and
established urban growth boundaries;
. Designation of the RLSA by comprehensive plan amendment including:
compliance review by the Department subject to s. 163.3184, FS.;
criteria for designation of receiving areas;
. goals, objectives, and policies setting forth innovative planning and development strategies;
. a process for implementation of those strategies through the land development regulations;
. a process encouraging visioning; and
. the control of sprawl;
. Designation of a receiving area through a land development regulation;
. Assignment of transferable rural land use credits to the RLSA corresponding to the 25-year or greater projected popula-
tion of the RLSA;
. Specific limitation on the use of the credits included:
. an allowance that credits may be assigned at different ratios, with the highest number of credits per acre as-
signed to preserve environmentally valuable land and a lesser number of credits to be assigned to open space
and agricultural land; and
establishment of a covenant or restrictive easement to protect lands that benefit from sending credits to receiv-
ing areas;
. Optional incentives for participating landowners;
. Requirement for annual reports to the Legislature and the following intent statement:
. "It is further the intent of the Legislature that the success of authorized rural land stewardship areas be substantiated
before implementation occurs on a statewide basis;" and
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 19
Department of Community Affairs
4 K ..s'
. Provisions allowing the Department to adopt necessary rules.
In 2002, the Legislature adopted a local government certification program, and within the body of that legislation was a
reference to rural land stewardship that reaffirmed that plan amendments must be reviewed for compliance pursuant to s.
163.3184 and 163.3187 Florida Statutes, as follows:
"163.3246(9)(b) Plan amendments that change the boundaries of the certification area; propose a rural land
stewardship area pursuant to s. 163.3177(11)(d); propose an optional sector plan pursuant to s. 163.3245;
propose a school facilities element; update a comprehensive plan based on an evaluation and appraisal
report; impact lands outSide the certification boundary; implement new statutory requirements that require
specific comprehensive plan amendments; or increase hurricane evacuation times or the need for shel-
ter capacity on lands within the coastal high hazard area shall be reviewed pursuant to S5. 163.3184 and
163.3187."
In 2004, the Legislature amended the rural land stewardship program by;
.
Eliminating the pilot status by removing the limit of five RLSAs and allowing implementation on a statewide basis;
.
Increasing technical assistance from state agencies;
.
Allowing for multi-county RLSAs;
Replacing the application process and required written agreement between the Department and the local government
with a notification process which must:
.
occur in conjunction with a regional planning council, a stakeholder organization of private land owners, or another
local government; and
describe the basis for the designation;
. Reducing the minimum size threshold from 50,000 acres to 10,000 acres and eliminating the maximum size threshold;
. Clarifying how credits are to be assigned; and
. Exempting a rural land stewardship amendment from the twice per year limitation on plan amendments.
In 2005, the Legislature further amended the rural land stewardship program by:
. Establishing an exemption to the development of regional impact program under Section 380.06(24) Florida Statutes
if the local government has entered ioto a binding agreement with jurisdictions that would be impacted and the De-
partment of Transportation regarding the mitigation of impacts on state and regional transportation facilities, and has
adopted a proportionate share methodology pursuant to s.163.3180(16);
. Requiring adequate available workforce housing;
. Requiring a listed species survey and protection of listed species at the time that receiving areas are designated;
. Replacing the assignment of a certain number of credits to an area with the requirement to "establish the methodology
for the creation, conveyance, and use of" credits;
. Replace the requirement that transferable land use credits correspond to the 25 -year or greater projected population of
the rural land stewardship area with the requirement to enable the realization of the long term vision and goals for the
25-year or greater projected population of the rural land stewardship area; and
20 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
Department of Community Affairs
~eb
. Providing for the assignment of greater credits in locations where the retention of open space and agricultural land is a
priority.
In 2006, the Legislature further amended the rural land stewardship program by:
. Adding additional language to the requirements for transferable rural land use credits in 163.3177(11)(d)6. Florida Stat-
utes as follows:
... "The total amount of transferable rural land use credits within the rural land stewardship area must enable the real-
ization of the long-term vision and goals for the 25-year or greater projected population of the rural land stewardship
area, which may take into consideration tbe anticipated effect of the proposed receiving areas."
Additionally, in 2004, the Legislature created the Ave Maria Stewardship District (Chapter 2004-461, Laws of Florida;
approximately 10,805 acres) and the Big Cypress Stewardship District (Chapter 2004-423, Laws of Florida; approximately
21,701 acres) as independent special districts to fund infrastructure improvements for the "Town of Ave Maria" and for an-
other stewardship receiving area, or group of stewardship receiving areas, currently undergoing preliminary planning. These
stewardship districts are conceptually similar to community development districts. While independent governing bodies, they
have been designed to work in concert with the rural land stewardship program in Collier County.
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 21
Department of Community Affairs
~g7
Attachment 2: Department of Community Affairs Authorization Process
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS' PROCESS
FOR DESIGNATION OF A RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA
Section 163,3177(11)(d)10., Florida Statutes, requires the Department to establish "a process by which the Department may
authorize local governments to designate all or portions oflands classified in the future land use element as predominantly
agricultural, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively equivalent land use, as a rural land stewardship area." The Depart-
ment's process includes the following major steps:
1. Pre-Notification Conference.
Prior to giving the Department official notification of its intent to designate a RLSA, the Department strongly recommends
that appropriate County officials and Department planning staff meet and discuss the RLSA program, the planning require-
ments and issues that must be addressed, the Department's expectations regarding RLSA-related comprehensive plan amend-
ments, and the technical assistance which may be available to the County from state agencies. It is especially important
that the County understand that adoption of a RLSA plan amendment may require major revisions to the County's existing
comprehensive plan and may limit the County's ability to increase development rights on other rural lands in the future.
Therefore, in conjunction with or in addition to the pre-notification conference between Department and County staff, the
Department encourages, and is willing to participate in a public workshop with the County Board of Commissioners and
County staff to discuss the RLSA program. The Department believes that such a workshop would be helpful to the County
Board in making its decision as to whether to designate a RLSA.
2. The County's Written Notification to the Department.
If the County decides to proceed with the RLSA process, the County must provide the Department with an official written
notification of its intent to designate one or more Rural Land Stewardship Areas. As set forth in Section 163.3177(11)(d)3.,
Florida Statutes, this
written notification shall describe the basis for the designation, including the extent to which the rural land
stewardship area enhances rural land values, controls urban sprawl, provides necessary open space for agri-
culture and protection of the natural environmental, promotes rural economic activity, and maintains rural
character and the economic value of agriculture.
In preparing its written notification, the County should consider the Legislature's intent
"that rural land stewardship areas be used to further the following broad principles of rural sustainability:
restoration and maintenance of the economic value of rural land; control of urban sprawl; identification and
protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources; promotion of rural economic activity; mainte-
nance of the viability of Florida's agricultural economy; and protection of the character of the rural areas of
Florida." Section 163.3177(1l)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
The RLSA process is a local government planning tool. Therefore, the written notification should represent the County's
independent assessment and justification of an RLSA designation. The Department discourages notifications that simply
"rubbers tamp" statements prepared by landowners.
Further, the notification should avoid factually unsupported (onclusory statements and generalities and repetition of the
statutory language without supporting facts. The notification should explain how the proposed RLSA designation will
achieve the statutory goals and purposes by reference to the unique circumstances in the County and the characteristics of the
proposed RLSA lands. In other words, the notification should include a discussion of how the proposed RLSA will interact
22 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
Department of Community Affairs
~g~
with the existing circumstances in the County to enhance rural land values, control urban sprawl, maintain rural character
and the economic value of agriculture, and protect the natural environment. In particular, the notification must explain how
agriculture will benefit from the RLSA.
The written notification will be carefully evaluated by the Department so the County is encouraged to ensure that the notifi-
cation adequately discusses the basis for the designation.
The Department strongly encourages the County to provide for opportunities for broad public participation in the RLSA
process. A RLSA designation will affect not only the owners of the land to be designated but all of the County's residents,
including especially other rural landowners. Accordingly, a series of public hearings or workshops on the RLSA proposals
would be appropriate and desirable before the County decides to give its written notification to the Department.
3. Site Visit.
Before responding to the County's written notification, the Department will contact the County and/or landowners to ar-
range for a visit to the site and surrounding areas. Staff of other state and regional agencies may also be invited along for the
visit, as well as representatives of the landowner/applicant. Given the appreciable size of any RLSA, the visit may need to
include views from the air as well as a vehicular tour.
4. Post-Notification Conference,
After evaluating the County's written notification and visiting the site, the Department may request another conference with
County staff to discuss issues and questions that have arisen as a result of the Department's evaluation of the notification.
The Department may request the County to supplement its written notification with additional information in writing.
5. DCA's Written Notification to the County.
Mter the site visit, any post-notification conference, and evaluation of any supplemental written notification, the Department
will prepare and issue its written notification to the County. The notification will either authorize the County to proceed
with designation of a RLSA by a comprehensive plan amendment or inform the County of the Department's decision not
to authorize the designation. If the Department decides to authorize designation of a RLSA, the notification will set forth
any conditions or understandings pertaining to the authorization, including technical assistance which the Department has
agreed to provide to the County. The notification will not guarantee that a comprehensive plan amendment(s) to desig-
nate a RLSA will be found in compliance by the Department. It will only constitute authorization to designate a RLSA if
the necessary comprehensive plan amendment(s) are adopted and found in compliance pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida
Statutes. If the Department decides not to authorize a RLSA designation, the agency's notification will explain the reasons
for the decision.
6. Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
If the Department authorizes the County to proceed, the County may apply for or receive and process an application for
comprehensive plan amendments to designate a RLSA. The plan amendments must be reviewed by the Department
pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, including the requirement that any amendments be "in compliance" with all
applicable provisions of Chapters 163 and 187, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Fla. Stat. 9
163.3177(1l)(d)4.
The Department is required to provide technical assistance to local governments in the implementation of the RLSA pro-
gram. See Section 163.3177(1l)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I encourage the County to consult early and often with
the Department staff about the RLSA program and the technical assistance available from the Department. Please feel free
to call the Director of the Division of Comprehensive Planning, Charles Gauthier, at 850/922-1751, or the Chief of the Of-
fice of Local Planning, Mike McDaniel, at 850/922-1806, if you have any questions.
2007 Rural land 51ewardship Program Annual Report 23
Department of Community Affairs
L/ [(
Attachment 3: Collier County RlSA factors for the calculation of stewardship credits
Natural Resource Attributes and Values for Credit Calculation
LWithin 300 feet of public or private pres~rve land_
I listed Species Habitat Indices
--- -~--._.._----
Panther occupied plus other listed species
f-------- -.. ------
Panther occupied
Other documented listed species habitat
Soils I Surface Water Indices
m________~__~~ ~~ -~1
Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA): Primarily privately owned wetlands (To receIVe these credits, 0 7ri
residential, general conditional, earth mining, and recreational uses must be removed.)'
Habitat Stewardship Area (HSA): Agricultural areas mostly suitable as habitat for listed species 0.6
(To receive these credits. residential uses must be removed, however other development uses I
including Inslltutional and golf courses may re,!!,,!n - see layer discussion below)' _ ---+__j
Ivvater Retention Area (WRA) Agricultural water detention areas permitted by the Water I 0 6 :
I Management District ----1 ~'
Area of Critical St~-t~C~-;:;c-;;:;-- -- - -- - --- - I - 04
---
~~~ L
:~~::~:;e:~:; ;::~~~;~ - - --==----~----~--=----I-{;J
--=----=-_ --J 0.2 I
0.8 I
O~~
0.4
----I
i~
~y
Natural Resource Index Factors
Overlay Designations
Open Water and Muck Depression Soils
------
Sand Depression Soils
I Flats (Transitional) SOils
Restoration Potential Indices (based on potential and historic use or character)
large Mammal Corridor Restoration Areas
i Connector wetlands and flowway restoration areas
Wading bird restoration areas
Other listed species restoration areas
0.5
0.5
! -
_+_-;0.4
--t-03
0.4
L!:.~"-d.use - land Cover Indices _____________._._
Wetlands: Hardwoods. Cypress, Forested-Mixed, Marshes, Wet Prairies. and Cypress-Pine-
Cabbage Palm(Transitional) ________ _____._
Uolands: Palmetto prairies, pine flatwoods, temperate hardwood. hardwood-conifer mixed, other
, hardwoods, cabbage palm _______.
Aariculture' Improved and unimproved pastures, woodland pastures, row crops, citrus, fruit
orchards, tree nurseries, sod farms, ornamentals, specialty farms. other agricultural lands. fallow
lands. Ooen lands' Herbaceous dry prairie, other shrubs and brush, mixed rangelands, Brazilian
_ pepper. ~ streams and waterways, ~akes and~':="rvoirs-"f va~ous sizes___ _____J
0.3
RLSA Policy (VII) 3.5
5 RLSA Policies (VII) 3.6 and 3.7
24 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
Department of Community Affairs
LJ9D
Land Use Layers:
Land in the RLSA has many possible uses which have been divided up into discrete land uses that are generally referred to as
layers. Each layer has a value that is multiplied times the natural resource value to determine the number of credits allowed.
For example, if the natural resource value totals to 1.5 and only the residential layer is removed, then 1.5 would be multiplied
by 0.2 to get a credit value of 0.3. The layers and their values are:
1. Residential: Value = 0.2
. Includes associated recreational such as golf, parks, playgrounds, tennis
2. General Conditional Uses: Value = 0.2
. Includes a variety of institutional type uses including landing strips and schools
3. Mining: Value = 0.1
4. Recreational: Value::: 0.1
. Including golf courses
5. Agricultural Group 1: Value = 0.2
. Includes row crops, citrus, horticulture, improved pasture, dairies, aquaculture, etc.
6. Agricultural Support Uses: Value = 0.1
. Including farm worker housing, agricultural retail, packing houses
7. Agricultural Group 2: Value = 0.1
. Including unimproved pasture, ranching, agricul~ral-educational operations
8. Conservation uses: Value = 0.0
. Includes oil and gas exploration and field development and production with some restrictions.
Each layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order indicated above (adopted as the Land
Use Matrix: in the Comprehensive Plan). Therefore, in order for an SSA to be created, residential land uses must be removed
first. Note that even if residential uses are removed, other significant uses remain possible if not also removed
Within Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs) the first four layers must be removed to become a SSA. These layers include
residential, general conditional (institutional uses), earth mining, and recreational uses. There are some exceptions. Within
Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), residential uses must be removed to become a SSA. Other uses including general condi~
tional, earth mining, and recreational uses are limited within HSAs.
Within FSAs and HSAs that are designated as SSAs, existing and permitted agriculture use may continue, but expansion is
restricted. The purpose of this policy is to limit the further expansion of agriculture into natural areas within the SSA.
2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report 25
Department of Community Affairs
if 9)
Attachment 4: St. Lucie RLSA Credit Worksheet
~
,
"--~.._--- :
x x x x ";;'
, , " . ,
e . I I I '"
. . ~ ~ Ji~J:
, , ~ ~ ""
~ 0 0 0 " ,
" I i i "
. - . I :;;: ill ...:
5 , . , ~
" ~ ~ " i :I~:
, >
, ~ . ~ s
" 0 . 0 ..; I
z ~ ~ - " .
0 . 0 ~
. ,
0 . ~ ~ ~
u . ~ .
~ ~ ~ . ~ " ~ , .E~
Ji .g u . ~ u-
~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~
" E ~ 0 ! .
g , , D 0 ,~ ~
~ . ~ ~ ~
E . Ji ~ , ,~
, u . , ]~
, . E . . g , ~ . .
]; ~ ~ .
! . . . ~ " ~~
! , ~j g . , ~ >
. . . .
" 2 " E ! ~ a .<
" ;~ 0 .e
, , ~ 0 . , ~ '"
. D i ~ < r~
. < ~g. . , ~
, D , . e < , . ~ ~ "0
D u , , ~~ , , ! ~ . 9
~ ! . t i ~~
0 ~ ~~ ti e z ~
0 , ~ ~ ~!i
a ~ ~ 5 J
,. " 3 ~ u ~~ , $ , ., ]1 g~
. 0 0 ~i . 0 ~ .
i , . " ~ 0 , 0 a ~ " R~
~ . 0 u ~ , ~ " ."
u ~ ~ 2 D~ ~ , ~
~ ,ga " , il " "'~
, ~ 15 " 0 ="
.. ~ ~ " . , ~ ~ ~ ..
~ ~ ~ !~ , . il l E ~ .
. ! < 0 " < i ~ " H~
~ . ~ ~ > ~ ~ 0 0 i
~ ~ . i . Q.UlO . ~ "~'
. ~ en u ~ . . .
. ~ ~ ~!} " . ~ ~!l5.g. .. .2 <>:'l
S . E 0 , 0 ... . u
.. 0 . ~& 0 . " ~ ~'D E ~~~
0 u ~ m ~ . E . oil 0 "
. .. ~ < .. > .~ ... of ~ ~ "!'l E
~ ~ ~ u ~
. u ~ ~ ~ , ] ~ " !!i:j: ,~,
~ , .~ , , 0"' u
. . " . ;; ~ 0
N /j :g ~ , ~ z ~. ~ < ~ ., 0 . '0 '0
w . ~ E . ~ ! . 0 , e;g, . '" ~ g:~f
~ U ~ ~ :1 . . :E 1c7l'E 0 ~ E
. . ~ ~ f;\~i!
0 , " . :f $ S . ..
" ~ ~ . z ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ., " " Pi
~ i 0 's ~ 0 0 ~ j ~-> . '"
~ " 'i ~ 0 _.E"j! ~ ~L
:\ ~ . ;! gl ; ~ ~ &'
~ ~ ..; ..; j ,.; Sh ~!!"F
~ . . ] , i 0 j ~ .,
~ ~ . ~ , . ! . . . jj ~:tJ ~ "
0 . S .. . . ~ " ~~l
j ;;; ~ ;;; 0 0 . . 0 . 0 , lIlI ;;- ~
< 0 ~ ---r--- \,
0
" I~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~
.
~ ii!
..
, ,..
'"
J> l
. I
,
0 1 I .
0 l l
. ~
" .
0 ! ,! .
~ ! ,""Ie_o! I
- ~ .
~ ~ ~ . 000000
,
. i . l! ~
z <
I . ~ I
i j ;
~ I I ~
. c l!
~ 'j ~
~ 0 ,~ "
~ " i
J "
'! . !
'. 0 i
Q 11 . ,~ i
, , .
~ . "' E ~ 0
,......II:
. ~ iB~~i!
'0 c .a
i gll.. ~ "';l!!!
-PHp
I 0 0 .
'~~"j
r i~:!:E.2
] I u~~,
26 2007 Rural Land Stewardship Program Annual Report
Department of Community Affairs
79~
'" ~:e.: \ .... 't,
.
Cc
.
COllIER COUN1Y MANAGER'S OFFICE
3301 Easr Tamiami Trail. Naples, Florida 34112. (239) 774-8383 . FAX (239) 774-4010
February 12, 2008
Tom Pelham
Office of the Secretary
2555 Shwnard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dear Secretary Pelham:
During my one-year tenure as Assistant County Manager and for six years as County Manager for
Collier County, I have had the privilege of being involved in the groundbreaking Rural Land Stewardship Area
(RLSA) program. When our community was faced with the Administration Commission's Final Order in 1999,
we were at a crossroad. We view this county's response to this crisis as a significant accomplishment. We
further believe there are important lessons learned that must be taken into consideration within the Department
of Community Affairs' proposed rule.
.
In 1999, rather than fighting among ourselves and tearing the community apart, Collier County chose to
bring the community together in an effort to achieve consensus. The process was long, some three years and 33
meetings in the making, but proved well worth the effort. A devoted committee of 14 citizens fully supported
by this government, those who owned the land in question, the environmentalists who guard the land and its
inhabitants, the business community who support a sustainable economy for all county residents and seasonal
visitors, and those who live in the rural community, worked diligently to understand issues that often were
daunting. From 1Il ground truthing" to "new urbanism, II this community learned what was necessary to make
good decisions for its future, and after a monwnental effort, unanimously agreed on a plan that would meet
everyone's needs.
Although the priorities in "The Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment" were at times
in conflict, Collier County has successfully balanced conflicting needs thn! a stewardship program that has
undergone scrutiny by all interests groups that were involved in the establishment of the RLSA. More
specifically, Collier County identified measures necessary to protect the majority of agricultural land, while at
the same time directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water
quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime as well as to protect listed animal and plant species
and their habitats.
It is a matter'of great pride that the Rural Land Stewardship program was created here, and that we
have been honored by such prestigious organizations as the Governor's Council on a Sustainable Florida and
1,000 Friends of Florida. The fact that statewide legislation and other proposed projects subsequently have
built on our efforts is also rewarding.
Still, the real measure of the success of this program lies in its successful, implementation. As we now
work through the process of its 5-year review, we believe that the program is achieving successes in all of the
areas it was created to address, and will be improved through the work of the County Committee conducting the
assessment.
The attached Technical Review represents the rlfst phase of this analysis. Although more work is to be
done, the initial rmdings are clear:
Lj73
Ii-. ' .It.
Page 2
Secretary Tom Pelham
. Februaty 12, 2008
Environmental protection is occurrinl! at a rate that literallv would be impossible without the orolttam.
Already, with approved and pending Stewardship Sending Areas, nearly 30% of the total 195,000+ acres
of land in the RLSA area has been or will be set aside for protection, of which all but approximately 640
of almost 55,000 acres remains agricultural or rural in nature. Importantly, among the lands that have
been approved or are pending as Stewardship Sending Areas is the vast maj ority of lands targeted for
acquisition by Florida Forever; these lands will be restored as necessary, then protected and maintained
in perpetuity, with no tax dollars involved.
Agriculture remains strong. The only areas taken out of agricultural production to date are the roughly
5,000 acres on which Ave Maria is being constructed. This represents less than 2.5% of the total area.
The economic benefits are huge, Particularly in this market slowdown, the job creation at Ave Maria
has been significant to the vitality of our community. In addition, the companies already committed to
locating in or expanding to Ave Maria will provide an important new source of economic diversity
and employment in our rural areas over the long term.
We are, however, conSiderably less optimistic about the potential of success for the Department of
Community Affairs' proposed rule for RLSA. Based on our analysis of what has allowed the Collier program
to work, we see at least four major issues that we believe need to be addressed:
I.
The rule appears to considerablv limit the potential for conservation oflands. Not only does it fail to
properly incentivize landowners for participation, it also requires identification of conservation lands far
in advance of mowing ground conditions when sending areas are actually designated. It also appears to
deny agriculture's inherent benefits to the environment.
.
2. The rule also anoears to il1llore the realities of viable a2riculture. Ag is a risky business, vulnerable to
disease, weather, international trade agreements, changing world markets and much more. To survive,
land owners must be able to substantiate the value of their land, and remain flexible to respond to
continuing challenges and opportunities as they present themselves.
3. The rule anoears to undulv limit the potential for economic Ittowth. It is a fact that our rural
areas are economically depressed. By restricting the ability to diversify beyond agriculture and to create
higher wage jobs, the rule will not provide for the long-term health of our rural communities.
4. The rule appears to deviate sil1llificantlv from the intent of the current lelrislation. The current RLSA law
calls for voluntary, incentive-based participation from landowners, while the rule definitively does not.
We urge you to look to building on those fundamentals of the Collier County RLSA that have allowed for its
successes, and to incorporate thern into any proposed rule. Certainly, our program can and should be adapted as
it is applied in other areas. However, its basic tenets -being collaborative, incentive-based, and founded on local
needs --should be carried forward.
Thank you so much for your consideration and I welcome your questions or comments.
rely,
. 1w?!. ~
James V. Mudd
County Manager
117'
A~iJL 1:)1:)
'.
.
COllIER COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
3301 East Tamiami Trail' Naples, Florida 34111 . (239) 774-8383 . FAX (239) 774-4010
March 24, 200B
Secretary Thomas G, Pelham
Florida Department of Community Affairs
255S Shurmard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Fl 32399-2100
Re: Rural land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the legislature
Dear Secretary Pelham:
This is to provide Our input on the assessment of the Collier County Rural land Stewardship Program as
articulated in the DCA's Rural land Stewardship (RlS) 2007 Annual Report to the legislature.
Summary Conclusion
.
The DCA assessment displays a negative bias toward what has proven to be an innovative and
successful rural growth management strategy, which DCA found in compliance pursuant to the
requirements of "The Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment" as mandated by the
June 22, 1999 Final Order.
Findinl!s
1. Many of the findings cited in the report simply are not based on 1';Ict, As examples:
The report determines that the Collier program is not protecting and conserving agriculture land.
First, it must be understood that, as virtually 100% of potential receiVing areas are currently in
agricultural use, any conversion will be at the expense of agricultural land. However, stewardship
credit geNeration quite often resll1ts in permanent preservation of agricultural uses In other areas,
In fact, Collier County has now preserved in perpetuity nearly 25,000 acres of agricultural land,
including 5,260 acres for citrus and row crops and 19,034 acres for cattie, in just the first five years
ofthe program.
The cited amount of land converted from agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses in the DCA's
Annual Report to the legislature is in error. The Report claims "over 6,000" acres having been
converted from agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses, however, the County's Technical Report
has found the total number of agricultural acres converted between 2002 and 2007 as a result of
RlS to be 5,058, principally for the Town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University.
.
It is also important to note that the statute specifically allows for the "conversion of rural lands to
other uses...through the application of innovative and flexible planning and development
strategies." The 5,000 acres that have been approved for development clearly follow this directive,
as well as the Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments adopted pursuant to the State of
Florida Administration Commission's June 22, 1999 Final Order which were found in compliance by
the DCA.
l../95
.
.
.
2
The population estimate included in the report may be overstated, as it is based on "preliminary
findings" of the Collier County planning staff that are not achievable. As one example, the model
applies restoration credit potential to pristine lands that do not qualify for such credits.
The report characterizes the Collier system as "extremely complex" and suggests that it would be
"difficult and expensive for smaller rural counties with limited resources to implement and
monitor." Although the program uses many variables and conditions to precisely establish the
credit value of the land, its modeling is done with simple multiplication. Tracking and use of the
program is now done on a simple spreadsheet format that details each sending area, agricultural
uses, credits assigned and credits used. An updated version of the spreadsheet is available on the
County website.
2. Rather than focusing on the full spectrum of evaluative criteria established in the statute, the report
addresses only a few.
The statute includes six criteria to further the broad principles of rural sustainability, specifically:
restoration and maintenance of the economic value of rural land; control of urban sprawl;
identification and protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources; promotion of rural
economic activity; maintenance of the viability of Florida's agricultural economy; and protection of
the character of rural areas of Florida. The DCA report, however, chooses to focus on a much
shorter list. Unmentioned are the positive economic impacts of RlS, garnered from the investment
in infrastructure, affordable and work force housing, services and educational and recreational
facilities in Eastern Collier County; they are without precedent.
The DCA report cites as a failure the fact that some three-quarters of sending areas are located in
the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. In fact, the Collier program intentionally
places the greatest value on lands that are most environmentally significant. In so doing, the
program is preserving forever natural resource lands deemed important to the state, at no cost to .
the taxpayer. The Collier County RlS program is in stark contrast to the State of Florida's expensive
purchase of the Babcock Ranch in Charlotte and lee Counties which was borne by all the taxpayers
in the State of Florida. Obviously the owners of the Babcock Ranch property could have availed
themselves of the RlS statutory program at no cost to the taxpayer. Collier County's RLS program is
the most innovative of fiscally responsible RlS programs which demonstrates that local government
can achieve sound growth management under the existing statute. Moreover, Collier County has
adopted a financially feasible Capital Improvements Element while maintaining the concurrency
management system requirements set forth in section 163.3180, F.S.
The report also concludes that the 93,000-acre area eligible for designation as receiving areas "is the
exact opposite of the plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas," apparently because of its
magnitude. In fact, the referenced area comprises less than half of the total 196,OOO-acre RlS area
and has been shown by data and analysis to be the most suitable for future development. This
statistic, in addition to other parameters in the plan that protect flow way systems, critical habitat
areas, and water retention areas, does direct growth to the "most suitable areas." Furthermore, the
Florida Department of Community Affairs critique of the Collier County RLS program is without
merit as the assessment criticizes DCA's own Notice of Intent which found the Collier County RlS
program Growth Management Plan amendments in compliance with the State of Florida
Administration Commission's June 22, 1999 Final Order.
2f9b
3
. 3,
The report is in stark contrast to every other assessment of the Collier County program,
Recent and independent reports including the Department-funded report from Florida State
University (2007) and the Collier County Government report (2008) have provided factual and
objective assessments of the program that are positive.
land planning and environmental groups alike have applauded the Collier RlS program. Included
are prestigious awards from 1,000 Friends of Florida, the Governor's Council on a Sustainable Florida
and the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association.
Recommendation
From our perspective, it seems dearthat an objective re-evaluatlon of the Collier County program is
necessary if the DCA Report to the legislature is to provide a fair and productive assessment of the
Collier RlS program and its potential for the rural lands of Florida. We would welcome the opportunity
to provide DCA with assistance in this regard.
Sincerely,
.~~~
.. - County Manager
Collier County
.
1f97
)
)'
A-,.pf;~/JJ. E6
.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DE PAR T MEN T 0 F COM M U NIT Y A F F AlR 5
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST
Governor
THOMAS G. PELHAM
Secretary
May 8, 2008
Mr. James V. Mudd
Collier County Manager
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Re: Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature
Dear Mr. Mudd:
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 2008, and your comments on the above-
referenced report by the Department of Community Affairs to the Legislature.
Collier County is justifiably proud of its rural lands program, but I think you are being
much too sensitive to criticisms of the program. Your letter concludes that "[T]he DCA
assessment displays a negative bias" toward the Collier County rural lands program. With all
due respect, I do not believe that any objective reader of the DCA report would reach such a
conclusion. Your letter ignores significant parts of the report which refute your allegation of
Departmenta.l bias against the Collier program.
First, the report. not only commended the Collier program but noted that it is a
groundbreaking rural planning experience. In commenting on the Collier program and the St.
Lucie County RLSA, the report states that it is
"not intended to disparage these two programs. On the contrary, it
is recognized that these are pioneering programs which have
broken new ground in rural planning. We can 1eam from these
experiences."
(Report, at 2). Further, I would note that the Department has paid perhaps the highest of all
compliments to the Collier program by incorporating some of its commendable features into
DCA's draftRLSA rule.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100
Phone: 850.4-88.8466 Fax: 850-921-0781 Website: Www.dca.state.fl.us
COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE HOUSING-AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Phone: 850-488-2356 Fax: 850-488-3309 Phone: 305-289-2402 Fax: 305-289-2442 Phone: 850-488-7956 Fax: 850-922-5623
Lfri
Mr. James V. Mudd
May 8,2008
Page 2
Second, your letter ignores the context in which the Department evaluated the Collier
program. The Department's report was not intended to and does not eva.luate the Collier
program for compliance with the State of Florida Administration Commission's June 22, 1999,
Final Order, or with state law as it existed at the time the Collier program was initiated. Rather,
as the report clearly states, its purpose was to evaluate whether the Collier model as a whole
complies with the RLSA statute which was established in 2001:
"The [Collier] program was commenced prior to the enactment of
the RLSA statute, was not subject to ilie requirements of the
statute, and was not reviewed by the Department for consistency
with the RLSA statute. Nevertheless, because some people
advocate ilie Collier program as a model for RLSA
implementation, the Department has evaluated this program."
(Report, at 5).
Although your letter twice mentions that the DCA found the Collier County plan to be in
compliance, it fails to acknowledge that DCA did not review it for compliance wiili the RLSA
statute. Further, the well-deserved commendations received by ilie Collier program from various
oilier organizations were not based on an evaluation of ilie program's compliance with RLSA
statutory requirements.
There are numerous significant differences between the Collier program and the RLSA
statute. As a part of its technical assistance responsibilities pursuant to section 163.3177(11),
Florida Statutes, DCA has an obligation to point out those differences to people who are
interested in utilizing the statutory RLSA process; For this reason, DCA's report understandably
concentrated on aspects of the Collier program which may be problematic under the statute.
In your letter, you seem to question the Department's characterization of the Collier
system as "extremely complex," but you failed to refute that description. In fact, numerous
people outside of DCA have told me they consider the Collier methodology to be "Byzantine,"
"incomprehensible," "voodoo planning," "there is no there there," and "lacking in transparency."
Having devoted a significant amount of my time in trying to understand the Collier
methodology, I can appreciate why people view the methodology in such an unfavorable light.
Fortunately, the RLSA statute does not incorporate the Collier methodology for determining and
utilizing stewardship credits.
Despite your assertion that "many of the [mdings sited in the [DCA] report simply are not
based on fact," you give only a very few examples. Moreover, review of these examples
indicates that you have either misunderstood or mischaracterized our report. A detailed response
to your alleged factual errors is enclosed.
l./ 91
.
"
;
Mr. James V. Mudd
May 8,2008
Page 3
In conclusion, I believe that DCA's report is a fair and objective cormnentary on the
Collier County rural lands program in the context of RLSA statutory requirements and that it
accurately sets forth pertinent facts about the program. We have received compliments on the
report from nwnerous people, including persons involved in the implementation of the Collie;
program who agree with the Department's conclusions.
Although the Collier program is a commendable effort to improve rural planning, it
certainly can be improved. I understand that the County is involved in a detailed evaluation of
the program, and I hope that it will be an open and objective evaluation which is not driven by
affected landowners and their consultants. The Department will be following the County's
evaluation very closely. Please let me know if the Department can be of any assistance to the
County in, this important endeavor.
Sincerely yours,
J8YY1 (j)~
Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary
TGP/rd
Enclosure
cc: Members of Board of Collier County Commissioners
..s- 0 ~
I'
Response To Allel!:ed }<'actual Errors In The Department's Annual Report
As Stated In Your Letter Dated March 24, 2008
The fIrst paral!:raph under #1 in your letter states:
"First, it must be understood that, as virtually 100% of potential receiving areas are currently in
agricultural use, any conversion will be at the expense of agricultural land However,
stewardship credit generation quite often results in permanent preservation oj agricultural uses
in other areas. "
It is fully understood that some agricultural lands will convert to urban uses. The Department's
concern is much broader and includes:
That such a large expanse of agricultural land is eligible to become a receiving area.
The high number of credits allowed by the RLSA program that will permit the conversion
oflarge amounts ofthese agricultural hinds.
Agricultural areas have little incentive to become sending areas.
o The fact that Some agricultural lands have become sending areas is probably more
the result of ownership patterns and proximity to habitat areas instead of a
concerted effort to protect such lands in agriculture.
The paragraph goes on to state:
"In fact, Collier County has now preserved in perpetuity nearly 25,000 acres of agricultural
land, including 5,260 acres for citrus and row crops and 19, 034 acres for cattle, in just the first
five years oj the program. "
The Annual Report includes the following tables:
Table 2: Sending Area Attributes:
Land Type Acres
Flowway Stewardship Area 8,876.7
Habitat Stewardship Area 12,860.8
Water Retention Area 43.5
Open Area 2,591.8
Total SSA Lands 24,372.8
Table 3: Sending Area Land Uses:
Land Use La er Remainin Acres
A iculture 1 5,288.6
A ricu1ture 2 18,382.5
Conservation 651. 3
Mining 50.1
SO)
1
,
The nearly 25,000 acres in the approved sending areas included several different types ofland
use features. Almost 9,000 acres were classified as Flowway Stewardship Areas. Flowway
Stewardship Areas are described by Collier County in Policy 3.1: "FSAs are primarily privately
owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough.
These lands form the primary wetland jlowway systems in the RLSA." Additionally, lands
classified as Flowway Stewardship Areas are assigned one of the highest natural resource index
values. It seems very clear that these Flowway Stewardship Areas contain vel)' important
environmental attributes and although cattle may use these areas it seems clear That these are
natural wetlands. It also appears that portions of these areas are targeted for restoration. The
protection of these areas is frequently cited as an important achievement of the Collier County
RLSA program. The Department also commends the county for protecting these natural
resource lands.
However, an examination of Table 3 shows that only 651 acres ofthe total sending areas were
protected for conservation. Therefore, the vast majority of these important natural resource areas
continue to allow agriculture of some type or another. This is consistent with your letter and the
Annual Report provides this information. Your letter indicates that 19,034 acres are preserved
for cattle and the Annual Report gives a figure of 18.382 acres for the lower intensity
Agricultural 2 category which includes cattle. The number was the best number available at the
time the Annual Report was published. In fact, it appears that there may be an error in your final
technical report published on February 13,2008. Table I-D shows inconsistenttotals. Itappears
that the 651 acres for conservation was double counted for agriculture, although we do not have
the primary data available to conIum that error. However, this would account for the difference
between the Annual Report and the County's final technical report, published six weeks later.
Your letter states that 5,260 acres in citrus and row crops have been preserved. This is more or
less consistent with the hil!:her Annual Report number of5,288,6acres allowed to continue in
the more intensive Agriculture 1 category. However, the Department did not luive the detailed
information regarding number of acres in specific agricultural uses such as citrus and row crops.
Table 2 in the Annual Report indicates that the sending areas include only 2,591.8 acres in the
Open Area where these more intense agriculture uses are likely to be. Apparently, the additional
citrus and row crop acres you mention are located in Habitat Stewardship Areas.
The Habitat Stewardship Areas are defined by Policy 3.2: "HSAs are privately owned
agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them
suitable habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are
included because/hey are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape.
that can augment habitat values." It would appear that the county has determined that citrus and
row crops that are contiguous to natural habitat areas may be classified as Habitat Stewardship
Areas. The Department's initial understanding was that the compatible and complementary
agricultural areas classified as Habitat Stewardship Areas would likely be of a low intensity
nature.
.s;o~
2
,
r
1
The second paragraph under #1 in your letter states:
"The Report claims "over 6,000" acres having been convertedfrom agricultural uses to non-
agricultural uses, however the County's Technical Report has found the total number of
agricultural acres converted between 2002 and 2007 as a result of RLS to be 5,058, principally
for the Town of Ave Maria and Ave Maria University."
This misrepresents the Alillual RepOli.
First, the Annual Report stated that "3,357 acres of row crops, 583 acres of improved pasture,
327 acres of sod farms, and 133 acres offallow crop land" were being converted to urban uses
on the Ave Maria site. This totals to 4,400 acres. Second, the Annual Report stated that the pre-
application materials for the proposed Big Cypress Development ofRegionallrnpact reported
that, "Current land cover includes 1,908 acres of row crops, 317 acres of other cropland and
pasture,293 acres of improved pasture, 79 acres of fallow cropland, and other various
agricultural uses." This totals to 2,597 acres. Thus, the Ave Maria and Big Cypress
developments are expected to conveli 6,997 acres from agricultural to urban uses. Finally, the
Annual Report states, "Over 6,000 acres of the more intensely farmed agricultural lands are
being planned for conversion to urban uses in the approved Ave Maria and proposed Big
Cypress new towns alone." This statement is clearly a conservative underestimate ofthe planned
conversion of agricultural lands. We believe that the Annual Report is a fair representation of
the facts available to the Department at the time of publication.
The fourth paragraph under #1 in your letter states:
"The population estimate included in the report may be overstated, as it is based on
"preliminary findings" of the Collier County planning staff that are not achievable. "
The Annual Report clearly stated that the source document was a "preliminary report."
Nevertheless, these preliminary findings that projected a RLSA population 389,193 appearto
represent the only RLSA population analysis done by the county since the adoption of the RLSA.
It is interesting to note that this report was prepared in 2005 and although it was labeled as
preliminary, to the best of the Department's knowledge, it has never been updated or replaced.
Also, the Collier County planning staff recommended that we review the report when we (Robert
Pennock) met with them in August, 2007 in Naples.
It is entirely appropriate for the Department's Annual Report to provide the results of this county
produced report. ltwas also appropriate for the Department to analyze the report and in doing so
we concluded in the Annual Report that, "A more conservative estimate would be 200,000
persons." In other words, we agree that the population estimates may be overstated, although we
would not go so far as to say that they are not achievable.
More importantly, the Annual Report stated, "It is questionable whether this very large amount
of development is consistent with rural sustainability including maintaining the viability of
agriculture." We stand by that concern.
~03
3
f
)
The second paralrraph under #2 in your letter states:
"The DCA report cites as a failure the fact that some three-quarters of sending areas are located
in the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. "
On page 9, under the Current Status section, the Annual Report describes the characteristics of
the nine approved sending areas. The Report states, "Also of note is that 18,116,7 acres (74%)
of the designated sending areas are within the Big Cypress Swamp Area of Critical State
Concern, which already has provided additional protections to these lands."
Clearly, the Department is not suggesting that this indicates a failure of the program, by itself.
However, this fact, in combination with other features of the program does raise several concerns
of the Department that are described in the Annual Report.
The third paralrraph under #2 in your letter states:
"The report also concludes that the 93,OOO-acre eligible for the designation as receiving areas
"is the exact opposite of the plan to direct growth to the most suitable areas, " apparently
because of its magnitude. "
Once again, it is important to provide full, correct quote from the Annual Report. The Annual
Report states,
"The ultimate total amount and geographic extent or footprint of development in
the RLSA cannot be determined and there are practically no standards guiding the
distribution of development areas. The large 93,000 acre area eligible for
designation of receiving areas, which also allows the conversion of land uses to
the underlying low-density uses, is the exact opposite of a plan to direct growth to
the most suitable areas. This may lead to fragmentation of natural areas, wildlife
habitat, and agricultural areas. The overall rural character of the area is under
threat from the potentially large amount of urban development."
Allowing the undirected conversion of productive agricultural lands is inconsistent with the
principles of rural sustainability.
so~
4
. -ryo ~-:,(~~F5
. ~\ :ii_ '. j.. \.JUtl
.%!!oi;.!!-~' ~,,~
STATE OF FLORIDA 7"'~1 j.:,O''''iO'CDO,,,,v;:cn,m<sslonl
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY A~IRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST
Governor
THOMAS G. PELHAM
Secretary
%
May 14,2008
,~;'~
E^CH (OMM. RECD COP\
DF FH TH FC J(
The Honorable Jim Coletta
Commissioner, District 5
Board of Collier County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112-4977
Re: Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Dear Commissioner Coletta:
Thank you for your February 8, 2008, letter which offered your observations on the
Collier rural lands program and the Department's proposed Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) rule. Your observations are appreciated. However, I must respond to some of the
statements in your letter.
As you know, the Collier County rural lands program is not subject to Florida's RLSA
statute, and it will not be subject to the Department's rule. The Collier program was initiated
prior to the adoption of the RLSA statute, and it was not reviewed by the Department pursuant to
the provisions of the RLSA statute. Nevertheless, because the Collier County program is a
pioneering rural lands planning program, Department staff has spent considerable time in
studying both the strengths and weaknesses of the Collier program. The Department and others
can benefit from the lessons learned from the Collier experience.
However, the Department's proposed rule does not, and is not intended to, implement the
Collier County rural lands program. Rather, as required by law, the Department's proposed rule
implements Florida's RLSA statute. There are significant differences between Collier County's
program and the RLSA statute, which has been amended numerous times since its adoption in
2001. Indeed, if reviewed under the RLSA statute, the Collier program, as currently adopted,
would not be found in compliance with the RLSA statute. Therefore, the Department's RLSA
rule will not mirror the Collier program.
,., /l ' ,.;r;:;.""~"v#,'~ ',' . ," " ,tt
L---C- . ":-~~~" ''-''
;g.i I ( Lor en z-
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE. FL 32399-2100
Phone: 850-488-8466 Fax. 850-921-0781 Website: ':!'Lw'1Y-.-._dC3.o.staj,g-,-'-L.g.s_
COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Phone 850-488-2356 Fax: 850--488-3309 Phone: 305-289-2402 Fax: 305-289-2442 Phone: 850-488-7958 Fax: 850-922-5623
~os-
..
The Honorable Jim Coletta
May 14,2008
Page 2
The Collier rural lands program arose out of and is based on the unique circumstances of
Collier County. The Department faces a much bigger challenge. We have the difficult task of
developing a program and a rule which can be applied statcwide. Unlike the Collier program,
which commendably involved multiple landowners in the comprehensive planning of the
County's 200,000 acres of eastern rural lands, the RLSA statute has regrettably evolved into a
process whereby single landowners of tracts of land as small as 10,000 acres can utilize the
RLSA process. This piecemeal approach to a county's rural lands creates issues that were not
present in Collier's comprehensive approach. Of necessity, this requires the Department to
establish some standards and guidelines which may not have been necessary in Collier County.
After all, we can hardly allow a new town on cvery 10,000 acres of rural/agricultural land. Also,
the RLSA statute itself contains standards and requirements that did not apply to Collier County.
Your letter makes three specific criticisms of the Department's proposed rule. First, you
state "that community participation and collaboration" do not appear to be a part of the
Department's draft rule. The Department's draft rule does not preclude such participation and
collaboration, and local governments have the power to establish such processes at the local
level. More importantly, the Department's is also developing a RLSA procedural mle which will
address community participation and a collaborative process involving state, regional, and local
agencIes.
Second, you state that the proposed rule lacks incentives and "seems over regulatory."
Both the RLSA statute and the Department's RLSA mle, once adopted, are regulations as a
matter of law. However, the mle will provide abundant incentives, namely, substantial new
development rights and flexibility as to when and where those rights are exercised.
Third, in criticizing the Department's proposed mle, you state that "the limitation of
economic development to agriculturally related business seems impossibly restrictive." The
Department's proposed rule contains no such restriction. In fact, like the Collier program, it
allows for the development of new towns similar to those of Ave Maria. In fact, some of the
new town provisions in the Department's proposed rule were borrowed from the Collier County
rural lands program. In addition to allowing the development of new towns, the Department's
proposed mle also allows for agriculturally related development in designated agricultural areas
as one would expect.
The Department's draft rule is a work in progress. To solicit and receive public input, the
Department has held several public workshops and numerous meetings with stakeholders to
develop the proposed rule. Additionally, the Department has received voluminous written
comments. After assessing this public input, the Department will soon be issuing a revised mle.
SDL
The Honorable Jim Coletta
May 14,2008
Page 3
Again, thank you for your interest and your comments.
Sincerely yours,
",->-.j (SJ1/'v) ."f O;~
Thomas G. Pelham
Secretary
TGP/rd
cc: Members of Board of Collier County Commissioners
SD?
'J/y......')
A ~.,...,a i k
(1,.
eoJl!l! gounty
- ~
To:
From:
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee [Committee]
Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Staff Liaison, Comprehensive Planning
Department
August 5, 2008
PROPOSED FLORIDA PANTHER PROTECTION PROGRAM
INCLUSION WITH THE PHASE 2 REPORT REVIEW OF THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY [RLSAO]
Date:
Subject:
I. Report in Brief. The purpose of this document is to gain Committee direction on
the inclusion of the proposed Florida Panther Protection Program [FPPP] within the
Committee's Phase 2 Report review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay [RLSAO]
as follows:
A. RLSAO possible Dolicv amendments. What amendments [new policy or
amended policy] of the RLSAO may be required to accommodate the FPPP?;
and
B. FPPP feasibility determination and the Phase 2 Committee ReDort. How
will the timin!!: of the determination of the feasibility of the proposed FPPP fit
into the currently scheduled Committee recommendations regarding the Phase 2
Report which is as follows?
o November 12,2008.. ..Environmental Advisory Council
o December 1, 2008.. ....Planning Commission
o January 29, 2009.......Board of County Commissioners
o February 27, 2009.. ....Department of Community Affairs
II. Baclmround. The following is presented as background to the proposed FPPP and
its review by the Committee:
A. Florida Panther since 1967. The Florida Panther has been classified as an
endangered species since 1967,
B. Town of Ave Maria in the RLSA...2002-2004. With the approval of the Town
of Ave Maria in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area in 2002-2004 several
environmental groups, including the Defenders of Wildlife, raised many
questions concerning the impact of this new Town upon the Florida Panther and
required mitigation steps,
C. Eastern Collier County Property Owners and Environmental Protection
Or!!:anizations.., 2007 and 2008. Since April, 2007 eight major Eastern Collier
County property owners and leading environmental protection organizations
have met to forge a non-binding agreement [agreement] to explore the creation
of the FPPP.
o Property owners are English Brothers, Half Circle L. Ranch, A1ico Land
Development Corporation, Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd., Collier
Enterprises, Sunniland Family Limited Partnership, Barron Collier
Partnership, and Consolidated Cirtrus
COg
1
" l':
o Non-profit organizations are: Audubon of Florida, Collier County Audubon
Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and Florida Wildlife Federation.
III. Bodv of Report. The proposed FPPP was presented to the Committee during its
July I, 2008 meeting as a, "collaborative effort between four leading conservation
organizations and eight major Eastern Collier County landowners to better protect and
manage the Florida Panther in Southwest Florida and assist in the recovery of this
endangered species".
The Florida Panther population decline over the years has been caused primarily by the
loss of Panther habitat and road kill, leaving an estimated remaining 80 to 100 Panthers,
with habitats limited to South Florida. Core habitat is located in Collier, Hendry and Lee
Counties. The proposed FPPP incentive-based land use program helps secure a
contiguous range of panther habitat connecting the Florida Panther Wildlife Refuge and
Big Cypress National Preserve through Camp Keais Strand and the Okalaocoochee
Slough with Corkscrew Marsh and adjacent lands in the region. The proposed FPPP
involves 195,000 acres of private land in Collier County.
The proposed Florida Panther Preservation Plan IFPPPI. in brief
The major elements of the proposed FPPP are as follows;
I. Create links. This effort would create panther habitat links for the Florida
Panther north of Immokalee and northwest of SR 29 at Oil Well Road using a
variety of incentives including agricultural land preservation credits, restoration
credits, land acquisition, and stewardship credits.
2. Create Paul J. Marinelli Florida Panther Protection Fund. This fund will be
established using a fee tied to the utilization of "Panther Habitat Units" from the
Stewardship Sending Areas and by a fee attached to every real estate sale in the
RLSA Overlay. The fund will be administered by the Paul J. Marinelli Florida
Panther Protection Fund, a tax-exempt and non-profit organization. The fund
would be governed by representatives of the four environmental groups,
landowners, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission. Fund uses would include:
o Restoration of Panther habitat;
o Construction of wildlife crossings; and
o Creation of buffers between development and Panther preserves
throughout the Panther's range.
3. Increase the Panther Mitigation Units by 25%, the number of Panther mitigation
units developers would have to provide under federal permitting requirements to
compensate for effects on the panther in "primary panther habitat" in the RLSA.
4. Create a new RLSA credit svstem by which landowners could get development
credits by preserving agricultural land with an emphasis on lands in the Big
Cypress Area of Critical State Concern.
Scientific Technical Review Committee.
The proposed FPPP, according to information received by the Committee on and after
July 1, 2008, is to be subject to review by a Scientific Technical Review Committee
..509
2
composed of Chris Belen of the US Fish and Wildlife Service; Darrel Land, Panther
Team Leader of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Dan Smith of
the University of South Florida; Tom Logan and Randy Kautz, former Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission scientists currently in the private sector; and David
Shindle, Conservancy of Southwest Florida biologist and former Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission scientist.
According to information received during the July 1, 2008 Committee meeting, the
Scientific Technical Review Committee's work could take "less than 6 months, but
additional time may be requested if deemed necessary". This timing would place the
timing of the proposed FPPP feasibility determination into late 2008 or early 2009 or
beyond the Review Committee approved schedule to complete the wrap-up of the Phase
2 Report by October 7, 2008. However, it is important to note that tbe RLSA Review
Committee's review and action on tbe proposed FPPP enbancements to the RLSA
Overlay are not contingent upon the {"mal report of tbe Scientific Tecbnical Review
Committee.
IV. Recommendation
Staff requests Committee action directing the inclusion of possible FPPP-related
recommended amendments into the Committee's Phase 2 RLSAO Report subject to
further determination of the viability of the FPPP by the Scientific Technical Review
Committee and other appropriate organizations and parties.
i;;tD
3
.
A 1-PEN~J)(
HH
TO: Tom Greenwood
FROM: Judith Hushon, EAC Vice Chair
SUBJECT: Comments on RLSA Phases I and 2
DATE: February 27, 2008
Three comments on the Phase I report:
I. It was requested that the table of sources used to compute the NRI for the first
five years of the RLSA Program be attached as an appendix and referenced in
Section 3 and the Definitions section. I still think this would be a good addition.
This table is currently available on the County RLSA website.
2. There should be a discussion of the mitigation efforts/requirements met to
accommodate development to date (e.g., wetland mitigation credits, panther
credits).
3. There is discussion of Ave Maria, but some discussion of Big Cypress, the other
new town that is moving through the process should also be included as to what
impacts are planned.
Comments as input to the Phase 2 effort:
I. I don't believe that the NRI, as originally developed, can be taken as gospel-it
needs to be tested and re-evaluated as part of this process. Policy 1.9 states that
the score will be based on.. ."the Natural Resource Index values in effect at the
time of designation," implying a need to update it regularly. The NRI was
developed five years ago by Wilson Miller, but since that time new data have
become available that could well lead to different answers. Nowhere is the NRI
actually explained-it is presented as a black box with fixed weightings, At least
it should be handled in detail in another companion document or as an appendix.
There is no explanatory document posted on the RLSA website. There is also the
need to re-examine the data upon which the NRI scores are based-for example,
there are new panther data and new primary and secondary panther maps. There
is also new scrub jay management guidance from FWS. Additionally, it might be
a good idea to include a panther map overlay with your maps that appear at the
end of the Phase I report.
2. There should be more guidance on where towns and villages can be located. As it
is written now, it is possible to locate towns near each other with only a small
buffer between which encourages sprawl. Without planning, all the density will
be located on the western portion of the RLSA. Ideally the towns should be
spread out, with large agricultural areas between them. Maybe a maximwn
number of towns needs to be agreed upon (3?) and the general areas where these
can be located indicated on a map. At a minimum, there needs to be more
guidance provided as to where towns can be located and their buffering
.5JJ
I
requirements. This wiJI facilitate all types of future infrastructure planning by the
County.
3. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) seem to be too loosely designated and
could provide a loophole for increased development in areas that are already built
up. A CRD of 100 acres or less seems to be a meaningless designation and it is
my belief that this type of development could be dropped.
4. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which
are many.
5. No differentiation is made between different types of Water Resource Areas
(WRAs). Some are much more valuable than others such as cypress domes and
emphasis should be placed on maintaining them in their current state in the future.
6. Each new development should have to identify traffic contributions, water usage
and other resource requirements at the time they are being planned. You may
want to consider the changes in these variables from agriculture to increased
density.
7. No emphasis is put on trying to avoid fragmentation of natural areas and the
maintenance of corridors.
8. My particular concern is that, as currently implemented, the RLSA program SSAs
and SRAs do not come before the Environmental Advisory Committee. These
projects are too complex for the Board of County Commissioners to assess
without timely inputs from the EAC on relevant environmental issues.
9. Because there are only a few large landowners in eastern Collier County, they are
generally using their own agricultural land to offset development on other land
that they own (i.e., using their own credits). There is essentially no market for the
credits accrued by several small landowners.
SrL
2
.
A PPe'N1::>/ X
XX
Collier County RLSA Issues & Concerns List
As of November 5, 2007
Compiled by Nancy Payton/FWF
. Revisit sending and receiving designations - telemetry & GPS, FWC's Least Cost Analysis,
Eastern Collier Study (Smith, Ross & Main), FWC's SR 29 Dispute Resolution Letter, and
Kautz, et al (all have been submitted to the couoty for data and analysis)
. Corner of Oil Well Road and 29 - particularly the northwest corner - change to scnding to
protect important panther travel corridors Ipanther 131 found dead 04/16/08J
. No development sontb of Oil Well Road
. More upland buITers for Camp Kcais Strand & OK Slougb
. More lands east of 29 into sending or protective status - tbis is ACSC land
. Require exotic clearing and ongoing management/maintenance for designated stewardship
sending lands
. Establish distances between villages and towns; and distance from Immokalee
. No hamlets or "compact rural developments" Icompact rural development could be a
"Coconut Point," - DO cap on size or some types ofCRDs]
. What happens to baseline density - should disappear as in Rural Fringe TDR program
. Agriculture preservation in receiving areas - incentives? What is left after towns/villages are
bnilt
. Revisit wildlife values on farm fields - caraeara, sandbiU crane, burrowing owl, gopher
tortoise...
. Incentives for restoring farm fields in receiving areas
. No panther credits from sending lands that will be surrounded or significantly diminished in
value by development
. Review easement language and who bolds the easements - possibly FWC should hold, but no
stewardship easements to be held by private entities
. Need for Smoke easements
. Explore Dark Skies
. New roads and road improvements including potential 1-75 intercbange must be inclnded
. Tie transportation planning to conservation goals
. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and a map of locations
. Need for Buffers and language to address human-pantherlbear/otber wildlife encounters
. Clarify how RLS interacts with state and federal permitting agencies
. What is fate of remaining uses on designated sending lands and suggestion of removing tbose
remaining uses to meet mitigation obligations
. Remove all layers at one time - concern that several layers are contrary to conservation
andlor agricultnre preservation goals
. Clarify what is included in Ag 2 and Ag I - concerns about aquaculture
. Allow DOD-Dative, non-invasive plantings if beneficial to wildlife
. Establish time period to opt into program- both sending and receiving
. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits tbat can be generated _ too many
credits?
. Procedures for recording and handling changes io ownership of SSA lands
. When sold who is responsible for carrying out SSA obligations
5)3
Cj'
.
A FPE1JClttk
...::r .:r
~
CONSERVANCY
Of Southwest Florida
- -
-
-
1450 Merrihue Drive-Naples, FL 34102
239,403,4213-Fax 239.262.0672
www.conservancy.org
Updated November 14,2007
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida participated iu the Eastern Lands Study that
ultimately resulted in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA)
program. At the time, we were conceptually supportive of the rural stewardship program
and our conceptual support remains. We believe the concept of balance between
conservation, retention of agriculture and limited development in appropriate areas can
provide an important tool for the necessary protection for our rural lands in eastern
Collier County. However, the Conservancy submitted a list of concerns during the 2002
approval process of the Collier County RLSA, some of which were addressed, while
others remain as outstanding issues to be assessed and acted upon during the five-year
review. In addition, as the RLSA has been implemented and we have had time to further
review the program and process, new issues have emerged that must be addressed during
this review.
The Future Land Use Element requires a series of specific measures be used to analyze
the RLSA. However, this review should not be limited to these specific measures, and
should be a comprehensive review of the program in its entirety, as required by Policy
1.22. The Conservancy believes that within this comprehensive assessment, the
following issues should be addressed. We see this list as a working document that will be
modified during the assessment, with issues either being added, or removed when
resolved.
I. The Conservancy believes the five year review for the Collier RLSA should be
each five years, not just at the first five year anniversary.
2. Collier County should re-evaluate how other Growth Management Plan (GMP)
policies may be appropriate for applicability to the RLSA. For example, the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) now has additional
provision for stormwater treatment that require 150% treatment. Certain GMP
policies may be appropriate for application to the RLSA and should be considered
SJ~
for inclusion in the RLSA. At a minimum, exempting the RLSA from other
provisions within the GMP should be re-evaluated.
3. The Conservancy strongly supports the habitat stewardship crediting system be
revised to use current best available science with regard to the preservation of
Florida panther habitat. The panther habitat assessment methodology that the
habitat stewardship crediting valuation system is predicated on has been
substantially revised since by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for application
by the agency based on more recent scientific literature on the value of certain
land cover types as Florida panther habitat. The Conservancy believes that in
updating and revising the habitat stewardship crediting element of the RLSA
program based on the best available Florida panther science will provide
important incentives for preserving critical Florida panther habitat areas and more
accurately guide receiving areas to areas that are less impactive to the subsistence
and recovery of the Florida panther species.
4. The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, "techniques and strategies that are not
dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional,
state and federal regulatory programs." The compatibility of the RLSA to
regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, must
be assessed during the five-year review and changes made where necessary to
ensure compatibility. In addition, if new agency data is obtained or new
regulations are enacted, the RLSA should be reassessed and amended at that time,
not waiting for another five-year review process.
5. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of
whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include
restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands,
regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not
voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within
FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities
are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses
as incompatible with protection of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the
natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright
prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy
believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited
uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as
to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and
other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs.
6. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the
five-year assessment.
5)5
7. The Conservancy believes that retention of AGl or AG2 uses on lands where
credits are generated for restoration activities creates the potential for
incompatibility. Even lower-impact agricultural uses, such as unimproved
pasture, may present conflicts to replanting and management for lands based on
the restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that on lands where stewardship
credits are generated for restoration plans and actual restoration activities, all land
use layers should be removed down to the conservation use. In addition,
appropria1e fencing should be required to provide a sufficient separation between
agricultural uses and restoration areas.
8. The Conservancy believes Policy 3. I I should be reexamined as to the ability for
additional Stewardship Credits to be obtained for dedication ofland for
restoration. The Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands
dedicated for restoration, where restoration has been implemented.
9. Policy 2.1 states that, "Analysis has shown that [Stewardship Receiving Areas]
SRAs will allow the projected population from the RLSA in the Horizon year of
2025 to be accommodated on approximately 10% ofthe acreage otherwise
required if such compact rural development were not allowed due to the flexibility
afforded to such development." How this policy will be met needs to be assessed
during the five-year review. Based on the figures from Policy 1.3, there are
182,334 acres of privately-owned land. These lands, prior to the RLSA, were
allowed a density of one Wlit per five acres. Thus, 36,467 Wlits would have been
allowed. Assuming development would have occurred in the worst-case scenario
of the allowed one Wlit per five acres, all 182,334 acres could have been impacted
by development (though this is highly unlikely, as permits could not likely be
obtained for development within the sloughs and other extremely sensitive areas).
Thus, to comply with the policy goal of the future population being contained on
10% of this land, development should be contained to 18,233 acres of the RLSA.
This would be a ratio of development to non-development of9:1. Currently, the
SRA to SSA ratio for Ave Maria, the only approved RLSA town to date, is
approximately 3: I. Collier County must assess how the ultimate 9: 1 ratio, or
development on 10% of the land, will be achievable in the future, if all new SRAs
come in at Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) to SRA ratios of less than 9: I. The
Conservancy believes the marmer in which this policy will be met should be
further clarified.
10. The Conservancy strongly supports further delineation of potential areas
appropriate for SRAs within the plan, While the mapping of the FSAs and HSAs
are prohibited from being allowed designation as SRAs, there is a large area
(almost 100,000 acres) that could potentially be used as SRAs. Further
refinement of areas where development should be directed, based on
infrastructure and environmental compatibility, should be reviewed, For example,
additional provisions should be included that further directs development and .
other incompatible uses away from the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). A
S/b
maximum number of towns, villages, hamlets and CRDs within the RLSA should
also be explored.
II. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance
separations between SRAs. IfSRAs are allowed to be located back-to-back,
without any UUe separation, mega-towns could result in areas where rural
character should be maintained.
12. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages
and hamlets, a comparison of water consumption proposed for the new
development versus actual agricultural pumpage (not just a comparison of new
consumption to permitted volumes) when reviewing consumptive use impacts.
13. Specific criteria for lighting standards still need to be evaluated and established,
in order to reduce the impact of urban lighting on wildlife and habitat areas, As
Ave Maria and other towns begin to develop, standards must be in place to ensure
a minimum of glow to the rural area.
14. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water
management system for a SRA, The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of
utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated,
especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would
benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for
stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's
storm water treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be
included within the maximum acreage ofthe SRA. The Conservancy would like
to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.
15. In order to ensure that the maximum size of a town is limited to 4,000 acres, the
Conservancy believes that all town uses, including schools and universities,
should be incorporated into the maximum 4,000 acre footprint.
16. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development
nodes, such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to
the extent that they are compatible with the overall goals of the program. If these
small development nodes do not contain adequate levels of self containment or
self sufficiency, then their allowance under the RLSA should be reconsidered.
17. As it is universally recognized that the wide-scale use of septic systems as a long-
term solution to wastewater treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAs should
be required to have a plan for conversion to a private or public sewer system.
While development may initially be on septic systems, the plan, with timelines,
for conversion to sewer should be in place at the time of development approval.
18. Review of the SSAs currently designated indicate that out of the approximately
23,000 acres that are in SSA easemen1s, only 650 acres have been taken down to
St7
their conservation land use. The Conservancy believes that Collier County should
be more active in securing lands that will be maintained for conservation
purposes. While grazing may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses,
more active agricultural activities may not, especially if the environmental value
of the land would benefit from restoration activities. Collier County should
revisit the SSA Group 3 policies to require more SSAs be taken down to
conservation through incentives or regulations. A better understanding of the uses
removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was required to go
through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval,
19. Clarification should be made in the GMP that while SSAs do remove land use
layers from sensitive environmental lands, they are not conservation easements
and should not be allowed to substitute or double as conservation easements by
regulatory agencies during the agency permitting process. Separate conservation
easements should still be entered into with the necessary agencies for state and
federal permitting mitigation requirements.
20. SSA Credit Agreements reference specifically the policies within the GMP that
remove land uses per the RLSA program. These agreements are the mechanism
for removal ofland uses. As such, the Conservancy believes these agreements
should include the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the State's land
planning oversight agency, as a signatory. Also, the idea of requiring a national,
state or local environmental organization signatory should be assessed.
TIris list represents the major issues that the Conservancy would like to see addressed in
the RLSA five-year review. We reserve the right, during the review process, to include
additional issues to be addressed. If you have any questions regarding the Conservancy's
position on the RLSA review, please contact Nicole Ryan, Governmental Relations
Manager, at (239) 403-4220.
S)~
A'PPfiHI;)/ jL Ie"
LTD--be~~~ ~
F~~
/}?cej~
Q..'f- m~ IJ 2t!.2Jf!
RLSA DISCUSSION ITEMS {/ J
CePc- rJ?es;drP:f
~1'7 e?
Updated 4-28-08 :8e... / ~~
This is a draft listing of concerns noted during the implementation of the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA) in Collier County. The purpose of this list is to document
issues that need to be addressed at the 5-year review of the RLSA amendments.
Compiled by Mark Strain from December 2005
Concerns Post RLSA:
I. Fiscal impact analysis model (FlAM) minimum standards should be no less than
minimum county wide standards as a conservative approach until historic data is
acquired. This will provide the maximum protection to the taxpayers. The
analysis needs to be re-visited and the development provided corrections made
every year and include accurate absorption rates, traffic capture rates and sales
demographics, all of which have significant effects on the outcome of the FlAM.
2. The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been
reviewed and applied in a model as the maximum scenario for development. The
averages that were used understated the growth potential. Future adjustments
should be based on a maximum impact analysis to assure a conservative approach
for taxpayers.
3. Impacts on certain elements of regional infrastructure were not given adequate
analysis. Hurricane evacuation and shelters space, health care facilities and
affordable housing as example, were not adequately addressed and minimum
standards should be considered as guidelines for SRA approval.
4. The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are
proffered as such in subsequent development analysis. This then supports
arguments to completely remove wetlands within the areas where development
was to take place when in reality the ratios of natural set aside preservation lands
were much smaller in comparison to the wetlands being destroyed if the Ag2
lands were excluded. While some A2 lands are in more natural states, the fact
they are not truly conservation lands is misleading.
5. The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not
include an analysis of what amount of non-jurisdictional lands could actually be
permitted, This produced a false sense of urgency to protect environmentally
sensitive land that in reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even
as 5 or 10 acre home sites, the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited.
.s:/c;
I
6. The incentive program to jump start the RLSA program was too generous and
only increased the magnitude of development and the speed in which it will occur
in the rural areas. Because of this, a need to look at longer range studies in lieu of
the typical 5-years associated with concurrency issues should be considered.
7. The Governor's order was aimed at creating a balance between Agriculture,
development and environmentally sensitive land. What ended with up is a plan
that can create an imbalance as the program is geared to produce more
environmentally set aside land and development and greatly reduces agriculture.
This will result in Agriculture being pushed further out and destroying more
pristine systems under the auspices of the Right to Fann Act.
8. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result
separate developer contribution agreements are being created that provide
excessive development rights beyond those contemplated in the original SRA.
DCA's should not be allowed until an SRA is approved in order to better
understand the impacts from the SRA.
9. Indices are weighted heavier towards environmentally sensitive lands when in
actuality those are the areas least likely to ever be used for development based on
various agency regulations. The SSA credit system does not consider the
jurisdictional aspects of SFWMD or the ACOE to assess developmental potential.
Off-setting indices should have been considered for this.
10. SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring
no functionality of wetland land mass. Even though to date that has not been the
case, we should consider language that encourages contiguous SSA's,
II. SSA approval is not subject to EAC or CCPC review only BCC, SRA approval
occurs via EAC, CCPC and BCC process, as should have been provided for SSA
approval.
12. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural
pumpage and not permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts.
Agricultural uses do not use water ] 2 months a year so their actual use is not
consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals
over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers.
Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a
reduction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when
analyzing water resources for new SRA's.
13. Concen1rated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric
light sources, the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation
lands, such as Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
Szo
z.
14. Water storage areas that SFWMD allowed for Ag are allowed to be used for
development storm water as well, yet these areas were not required to be included
in development acreages nor analysis provided to determine effects of this
additional use. This occurs for many uses wi1hin the developmental areas, thus
making it appear as though developmen1 is using less acreage when in fact the
impacts from development may cause changes to the water quality and quantity in
land that is not part of the SRA.
15. Indices are determined using a grid pattern that averages uses within each grid,
This can have the effect of reducing the value of viable wetlands when the grid is
split between activities, A proportional area of the land types within each grid
could be applied to determine a more balanced index value.
16. Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances that did not adequately
address hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacts of agricultural uses are far
different than the uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood
to assure no impacts to surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations
should be compared for compatibility with changes brought on by development.
17. An analysis is needed to determine how is the long range transportation plan is
coordinated with the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially
feasible plan for this area. Using the 5-year modeling of the GMP is inadequate
for an area the size of the RLSA and we should be analyzing the SRA's on their
impact to the 30-year build out study,
18. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a
variety of activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination.
These uses include cattle dipping, petrolewn spillage from wells and even solid
waste disposal areas from hunting or remote camps, Since the SSA's are given
credit for their environmental value a requirement for a clean environmental audit
prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all property within the SSA should be
mandatory.
SZ-)
.3
w~J'"
This study contains in part a report that is a synopsis on the merit and process of designating several
historic districts throughout Collier County with a view of understanding the past, present, and future
cultural programs, and to give general guidelines on the processes required to implement a program
that would recognize, nominate, and establish as a beginning foundation several nominations to The
National Register of Historic Places. These would include structures, places, objects, and historical
districts with a definitive view of preserving and interpreting to the public the cultural aspects and past
heritage of Collier County. It will also outline in a broad sense the direction of a proposed Historical
and Cultural Heritage Trail and or Greenway Trails in the county, based on systems presently in use in
other county's and states. It will also outline the Historical (themes) that could be used on any
proposed Trails and the cooperation between county, state, Federal entities, private landowners, or
organizations and their possible roles with any of the above mentioned proposed projects in the future.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Study / Report will include but not be limited to:
SECTION I-PAGES 3-13 A basic review of the buildings and sites in Collier County
presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
SECTION 2-PAGES 14-16 The present system in Collier County of nominating sites to the
National Register of Historic Places.
SECTION 3-PAGE 17 Understanding the difference between Historic Places and
Historic Districts.
SECTION 4-PAGES 18-23 The present fragmented system in regards to the cultural (theme)
now present in Collier County.
SECTION 5-PAGES 24-31 The loss of cultural sites in respect to governing agencies
presently managing land in Collier County.
SECTION 6-PAGE 31
to the National Register.
The recognition of Historic sites and the process of nominations
SECTION 7-PAGES 32-60 The economic loss to Collier County in respect to no present
historical or cultural programs and themes.
SECTION 8-PAGES 60-62 The economic benefits to Collier County endorsing a unified
cultural and Historical program.
SECTION 9-PAGES 62-63 The economic benefits to private organizations, investors,
partners, contractors, surveying or engineering work.
52S
SECTION to-PAGES 63-129 A unified Historical theme assembled into workable programs
to include a Heritage trail and travel destinations, and interpretive centers along the proposed
historic districts.
SECTION II-PAGES 130-132
heritage trails.
The acquisition of properties along the proposed cultural and
SECTION 12-PAGE 133
relation to any proposed projects.
The ownership or management of acquired properties in
SECTION 13-PAGES 133-136 The cooperation between development companies and specific
goals to include but not be limited to, conservation easements and Development credits (in
conjunction with Collier County Government) with a view of future proposed historical and
interpretive displays along trails and adjoining properties along any present or future proposed
development sites.
SECTION 14-P AGES 137-138 A plan to establish cooperative management agreements that
can be used with several of the Federal and State park systems in Collier County.
SECTION IS-PAGES 139-140 The preparation of a detailed map and plan (similar to
Conservation Collier) showing the proposed historic districts, heritage trails, any interpretive
centers and state or county markers.
SECTION 16-PAGE 141
Collier County.
Compile a final prospectus of the economic benefits to
Sd.'-j
2
... r:- ~
(- . .... .~.A.
SECTION 1
In taking a briefIook at the sites that are registered in Collier County on the National register of
Historical Places the total as of 2008 comes to 2 sites in Everglades City-The Bank of Everglades
City and The Everglades Laundry (which is also one of Collier County's museums). Everglades
City has been in the process since 2007 of nominating several other buildings. Another site is
located in Chokoloskee-The Ted Smallwood Store, run by the Smallwood family. One is The
Ochopee Post office 30 miles east of Naples on highway US 41, run by the U.S. Post office in
conjunction with the Wooten family who own the property and one is located in the Collier
Seminole State Park - The Bay City Walking Dredge (also known as The Monegan Walking
Dredge), managed by park officials.
On Marco Island there is the Captain John Foley Horr house, which is private - The Church of
God (recognized by the county) and the Historic Otter Mound Property (also only recognized by
the county) both managed by The Marco Island Historical Society.
In the city of Naples there was - The Keewaydin Club [no longer in existence] on the north end of
Key Island in Naples- The Parker House, which is Private- The Palm Cottage, which is run by The
Naples Historical Society- The Seaboard Coastline Railroad Depot, which is run as a museum by
the Collier County Museum, and the Rosemary Cemetery off Pine Ridge Road and highway US 41
(only recognized by the county)
There are 2 Historic Districts in Collier County, one being The Naples Historic District covering
an area from Ninth Ave S. Third St., and Thirteenth Ave. S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The other
Historic District is the Roberts Ranch in lmmokalee City 50 miles northeast of the downtown
district on the opposite end of the county and is run by the Collier County Museum.
The Big Cypress National Preserve on the eastern edge of the county has nominated a total of9
sites but 8 of those sites are off limits to the general public and the 9th site Monroe Station added in
2002 is still found to be in a condemned state as of 2008 after being in the possession of the Dept.
of the Interior (N.P.S.) officials for over 15 years. This then gives a fair recording of the actual
historically recorded and nominated sites in Collier County as of 2008 and the actual National
registry files will be attached on the following 9 pages.
GZS
3
National Register of Historical Places - FLORIDA (FL), Collier County
Page 1 of 10
.
\ '~t,1L> ii<.(lfl!)'i J\l1I':.;~->:L'}e2. .
:.A,.;
^
',.""
I
FLORIDA - Collier Connty
th- Bank of Everglades Building (added 1999-
Building - #99000825)
201 W. Broadway, Everglades City
Historic Signilicancc: Architecture/Engineering,
Event
Architectural Style: Classical Revival
Area of Significance: Architecture, COlllmerce
Period of Significance: 1925-1" I'
Owner: I'rivalo
Historic Function: Com ,Ie
Historic Sub-function: h: ' lution
Current Function: D.
Current Suh-function:
th- Bay City Walking Orcd14' \;Idded 1974 -
Struclurc -1f74002371)
Also known as Monegan Walking Dredge
l3arron (.. Co1lier--Seminole Slate ]',Irk. Naples
Owner: Slate
th- Bnrns Lake Site (8CR259) ** (added 1986 - Site
- #8(001192)
Also known as 8CR259;BICY-OSO
Address Restricted, Ochopee
lli')!oric Signil-icancc: Information Potential
,\reu of Siuniticunce: Prehistoric
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.comfFLlCollier/state.html
7/1212006
S 2_ (c,
4
, .. ,'e' 1\
,.'" .
National Register of Historical Places - FLORIDA (FL), Collier County
Page 2 of 10
Cultural Affiliation: Native American
Period ofSigniticance: 1000-500 AD, 1499-1000 AD
Owner: Federal
Historic Function: DOIl1CSti('
[Iistoric Sub-fi.lI1ction:CamjJ. Village Site
Current Function: LanJscape
Cmrent Sub-function: Conservation Area
fb- Evcr'glades Laundry (added 2001 - Building-
#0 I 00 1012)
Also known us MlIsclllllllfthc Even::lades
I ()) W. Rroadway, Everglades City
llisroric Significance: Archikcture/Fngineering,
Event
.\rchitec!, builder, or engineer: Sparklin, William 0.,
Sparklin-Gitl
Construction Co.
Area of Signilicance: Commerce, Community
Illaru1ing And
Development,
Architecture
I'criod of Signiticance: 1925-1949
Owner: Local Gov't
Ilistoric Function: Commerce/Trade
Historic Sub-function: Business
CliIwnl function: Recreation And Culture
Current Sub-function: j\,luseum
fb- Halfway Crcek Site (added 1980 - Site -
.~S()O()()l6) )
A Iso known as Ser 176
!\ddress Restricted, Carnestown
HisroriG Signiticance: Information Potential
Area ofSignilicance: Prehistoric; Historic -
Aboriginal
Cultural 1\lllliat;on: seminoles, glades iii b. glades
tl
Period or Siglliiicance: I 000-50(J AD., 1499-1 (JOO AD,
1749-150() ,\D, I R 75-1 R99,
http://www.nationalregisterothistoricplaces.com/FL!Collier/state.htmI
7/12/2006
S2?
5
National Register of Historical Places - FLORlDA (FL), Collier County
._--~~-~
Page 3 of 10
1900-1924
Owner: Federal
Historic Function: Agriculture/Subsistence,
Domestic
Historic Sub-function: Animal Facility, Village Site
Current function: Landscape
Current Sub-function: Conservation Area
fb- Hillson Mounus (added IlJ78 " Site" #78000:145)
Also known ;IS SCrlSO
Address Restricted, Miles City
Historic Significance: Information Potential
,\rea of Signi licance: Prehistoric
Cultured At1iliation:glades iii, native american.
glades i
Period of Significance: 499-0 AD, 1000-500 AD,
14<)9- I 000 AD
Owner: Federal
Historic Function: Agricullure/Subsistence.
Dumestic' Funerary
Ilistoric Sub-llJnction: (iravesiSurials, Processing,
Village Sit<:
Current Function: landscape
Current Sub-tlll1ction: Park
~ HOlT, Capl. .John Foley, House (added 1997"
Site - #970(1215)
;\Iso known ;IS Site File #SCIUII3
!" sid~ ()j' \vhi,kn CI~l'k I)r !-.:,'\ \Ltr~\)
Histol'ic Signiticance: Event.
\rch itl..:'(! ur~'lLngin~erjllg
\rchitectuI'al Style: No SL) Ie I istcd, Other
,\ rca of Signi licance: Arcbitecture.
Lx p I oration/Set tlemcn t
I'erind ofSigniticance: 1875-189<). 1900-19~4
()Wllcr: Pri"a te
Ilistol'ic Function: Domestic
Ilistoric Sub-function: Single Dwelling
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.comiFLiCollier/stale. html
sa!
.. ~l.'"
;,;,
6
, ",""
"
{" ..
7112/2006
National Register of Historical Places - FLORIDA (FL), Collier County
Page 4 of 10
Current Function: Vacant/Not In Use
R>- Kcewaydin Club ** (added 1987 - Building-
#X7001(79)
N end of Key Island, Naples
r listoric Significance: Event.
Arch i tectu re/E ng i neering
.\rchitect, builder. or engineer: Kittredge,Chester
Architectural Style:No Style Listed
Area ofSignitjcanc~: An.:hiteclure.
E ntertai nmcnt/Recreat ion,
Education
Period of Significance: 1925-1949
()\\'ner: Private
Historic Function: Domestic, Recreation And
Culture
Historic Sub-ti.lnction:Camp, Outdoor
Recreation
CUITcnt Function: Domestic, Recreation And
Culture
Current Sub-function: Camp, Outdoor
Recreation
R>- Monroe Station (added 2000 - Building-
40000(427)
.leI. ofTamiami Trail and Loop Rd., Ochopee
Ilistoric Signiticance: Event
\ rea u f S igll i tied I}('C': F~xploration/SeltlerncnL
rranspor1ation
Pc-rind of SigJldi'''::IIH'':l~: 1925-19--J9
Owner: F",feral
Ilistoric Function: COJnlnerce/Trade, DC)l1lestic,
(JoverlJlllcnt, Transportation
j [istoric Sub-functioTl:Correctional Facility,
Department Store,
Institutional Housing. Road-
Related
Current runction: V"c:lnti"otln Use
http://www.nationafregisterofhistoricplaces.comlFUCollier/state.html
7/12/2006
sz,
7
Nallonal Keglsler 01 tilsloncal t'laces - ~ LUKllJA (~L), CollIer County
R::=- Naples Historic District (added 1987 - District -
#87002179)
Roughly bounded by Ninth Ave. S, Third St.,
Thirteenth Ave. S, and Gulf of Mexico, Naples
1--1 iSloric Signi ticance: Event,
.,\rchi tecture/E ngineering
\rchit"ct. builder, or "ngin"er: Unknown
\rchitectural Style: Bungalmv!( 'raftsl11an.
l.ate ] 9th And 20th
('entury Revivals.
Colonial Revival
\rea 01' Significance: Architecture. Commerce
I'erind ofSigniticance: ]875-1899. ]900-1924,
1925-1949
Owner: 1','i""I,'
I fistoric I:unction: Domestic
Ilistoric Sub-tll11ction: Single Dwelling
Current Function: Comnlerce/Trade
('urren[ Sub-Ilmction: Business
R::=- OSII, C. .J" .<;;ill' (;idded 1978 - Sill' - 1i780(3380)
/-\1:;0 Known as 1\ Cr 163
Address Restricted, Ochopec
Histnric SigniricancL': Information Potential
\rL'<1 of Significance: Prehistoric
('ultural Aftlliation:Glade II
Penoel "r Significance: I OOD-50t) AD. 1499-1 noo AD
fhvller: Ft'(ll'ral
Historic FUllction: Domestic
Hi,[uric Sub-t'unctiol1: VilLlgc Sitc
('llrrent Function: Landscape
Current Suh-fuflction: p~jrk
R::=- Palm Cottage ** (added 1982 - Building-
"82002.1711
\ I'll kllllwll as Henry \Vattnson Cottage;Thc
CClllcut Cottagc;Thc Palmcl' Homc;A
137 12th Ave., S.. N:I[Jles
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/FL/Collier/state.h1mI
S30
8
., / ,f: i.
Page 5 of 10
7/12/2006
l"'C:lllUHc:U t\.~gl:::ill;;1 01 OI:SlUl1l,;C:U rlC:ll,;C:S -.f' LV.t\.U..Il-\. "r L), \",UUICI \...,uUlIlY
ri:lgc U Ui IV
Ilistoric Significance: Person,
Arc h itec ture/Engi n eeri n g,
Event
Architect. builder, or engineer: Unknown
/\rchitectural Style: No Style l.istcd
I listoric Person: Watterson,Henry
Signi ficant Year: 1906, 1888
\rea of Signiticance: Architecture,
Exploration/Settlement
Period nfSignitieance: 1875-1899,1900-1924
Owner: Private
Historic I'unction: Domestic
Ilistoric Sub-function: Single Dwelling
Currcnt Function: Recreation And Culture
Current Sub-tllrlctilln: Museum
R::-- Parku House (added 1990 - Building--
#90(01732)
Also known as 8CR00705
680 Eighth Ave. S., Naples
Historic Signiticance: Event,
Arc hit ect ure /E ngin eeri ng
Architect. builder, or engincer: Unknown
Architectural Style:No Style Listed
'\rea of Significance: Architecture, Community
Planning And
Dev<:lopment
Period of Significance: 1925-1949
Owner: Privalt'
liistoric Function: Domestic
II i,toric Sub- fUllction: Single Dwelling
Current Function: Domestic
Current Sub-timction: Single Dwelling
R::-- Platt Islaml (added 19n - Site - #7800(934)
Also kno\\n as 8C.-I82
Address Restricted, Miles City
Ilistoric Signi licance: Information Potential
Area of Signiiicance: Prehistoric
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.comIFLlColJier/state.html
7/12/2006
.~S 3)
9
National Keglster 01 Hlstoncal t"laces ~ rLUKJlJA V'L). comer LOWlty
rage 101 IV
t '<1Itural Affiliation: Glades 1 (Late), Glades II A
Period ofSigniticance:499-0 AD, 1000-500 AD
Owner: Federal
Historic Function: Domestic
Historic Sub-function: Village Site
Current ['unction: Landscape
Current Sub-nlllCtion: Park
\h Plaza Site (IlCR3113) ** (added jSlS6 - Site-
qR6()() I 190)
Also known as SCR31l3;BICY-126
,\ddress Restricted, Ochopee
! lisloric Signiticrlllce: Information Potential
\rea or Signi ticance: Prehistoric
Cultural Affiliation: Nati, e American
I'eriod of Signiticance: 1000-500 AD
Ownel': Federal
Historic Function: Domestic
Ilistoric Sub-function: Village Site
(UlTent Function: Landscape
Current Suh-functioll:Con,~ervation Area
f6.- Roberts Ranch (ad(kd 2003 - District -
.'!()30009<)O)
,\ Iso kIH)\\ 11 as Old Allen Place; Baucolll Place
12 I 5 Roberts ^ ve.. I tl1l11okalee
Hi:-itoric Significance: [vent,
.\1'eh itecture!Engineeri ng,
Person
Historic t'erson:Roberts, Rohert,.Ir
SiglliJicallt Year: 1915
\rea ofSignitic:mcc: Agriculture, Architecture
Pcriod of Signi lic,lIlCe: 1900-1924. 1925-1949. 1950-
1974
(hvner: Lo(~al Cov',
Ilistoric Function: A~ricLl1ture. Subsistence,
UClInc'stic
llistoric Suh-tlmction: i\~ricultural Outbuildings,
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.comfFLiCollier/state.html
7 !I 2/2006
.53 ~
10
National Register of Historical Places - FLORIDA (FL), Collier County
Page 8 of 10
Animal Facility, Secondary
Structure, Single Dwelling
Current Function: Recreation And Culture
Current Sub-function: Museum
fb- Seabuard Coast Line Railroad Depot (added
1974 - Building - #74000(13)
Also known as Naples Railroad Depot;Seaboard
Ai,' Line Ilailroad Depot
1051 5th A vc" South, Naples
I listork SigniJic8nce: Architecture/Engineering,
Event
Architect, huilder, or engineer: Clarke,[_. Philips
.\rchitectul'Ul Style:No Style Listed
,\rea ot Significance: Architecture,
Transportation, Industry
Period of Significance: 1925-1949
Owner: Private
Historic Function: Transportation
Historic Sub-function: Road-Related
Current Function: COlllmerce/Trade, Social,
I'ransportation
( urrent Suh-function: Civic, Road-Related.
Warehouse
R>- Smallwood, Ted, Sfure (added 1974 - Building-
#74()()()612)
.\Iso known as Smallwood's Tradiug Post
FL. 29 in Everglades National Park, Chokoloskee
Island
Historic Significance: Event
A.rea or Significance: Commerce
Period ol'Signiticance: 1900-1924
Owner: PI"ivatc
f-listoric FUllcti(lll: Commerce/Trade.
G:overnment
Historic Sub-function: Post Omee. Specialty Store
Current Function: Conunerce/Trade,
G()Venll11ent
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.comIFLlCollier/state.html
7/12/20Q6.
c:-'"2..~
....-' ~U
11
National Register of Historical Places - FLORIDA (FL), Collier County
Current Sub-function: Post OtJice, Specialty Store
R>- Sugar Put Site (added 1978 - Site - #780(0264)
i\ Iso known as 8Cr 172
Address Restricted. Ocho[Jee
llistoric Significance: Information Potential
.\rea ofSignif!cance: Prehistoric. lIistoric-
,\ boriginal
Cullural Aftiliation: seminole
Period of Significance: 1499-1000 AD. 1800-1824.
1825-1849, 1850-1874. 1875-
t 8'1'1. 1'100-1924
(h.\'llcr: Ft:deral
llistoric Function: Domestic
J listori(' Suh-function: Village Site
Current cunclion: Landscape
Current Sub. function: Conservation Area
R>- Turnu Rivcr Site (added 1978 - Site-
cinOOO2(3)
Also known as 8Cr8
Address Restricted, Ochopec
i listoric Significance: Infl)rmation Potential
.'\rca of Significance: Prehistoric
C'ultural Aniliat;on: glades i. glades iii a
PCI"lod of Signiticance: 49'1-0 AD, 1000-500 AD,
!cl'l'l-IOOOAD
I )"ner: F~(leral
Ilistoric Function: Domestic
i (1)llll'll; ')llh-llll1ctic>!",:Villagc' Sil(~
( L1rrenl l' unctioll: Landscape
C lllTenl Sub.fullct;on: Park
'-dcer a Differ'cnt FLORIDA Cuunty (map) Alachua Baker Bay
Bradford Brevard Broward Calhoun Charlotte Citrus Clay Collier
Columbia Dade De Soto Dixie Duval Escambia Flagler Franklin Gadsden
Glades Gulf lIamilton Hardee Hendry Hernando Highlands Hillsborough
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricpJaces.comIFL/Collier/state.htmI
~3'f
12
Page 9 of JO
7/12/2Coo
One important item that should be noted about the recording and registration of these sites is the fact
that all of these sites were either nominated by private individuals, historical societies, park managers,
or county employees for a specific purpose tailored for their specific needs. There has never been a
concentrated effort to record or nominate all of the sites or Historical Districts in Collier County. If
one was to read the past minutes from the Collier County- Historical I Archaeological Preservation
Board (H.A.P.B.) in 1987 they would see that over 50 properties and structures were recognized as
being historic, but no formal action was ever taken. These actions or inactions cannot be placed at the
feet of the H.A.P.B. but because of the present system it serves to highlight the fact that there is no
unified approach to nominations of many of these sites.
Since then properties have had either had development take place in certain areas with no historical
recognition and consequently many of the structures have been either destroyed or demolished. This
also applies to the 5 Park systems that presently surround Collier County and the land that is presently
under their management. As of 2008 over 80 per cent of Collier Counties land is under the jurisdiction
of the - Picayune Strand State Forest, The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, The Big Cypress
National Preserve, The Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, and the Everglades National Park. This
would give the appearance that the history and cultural heritage of Collier County is represented until
you consider the fact that none of these 5 parks have ever nominated to the National Register any
structures or historical districts accessible for the public since their establishment.
For the Big Cypress I Collier County area to have a history and culture that stretches back over 170
years, well past the counties inception in 1923, and no cultural representation in respect to their past
cultural heritage is a disservice to the residents and ultimately to the State of Florida as a whole. Other
counties in the state have fiscal budgets of over 100 times less than Collier County and yet they
continually display the history in many ways, through Nominations, Historical Districts, heritage trails,
pioneer museums, and interpretive centers. Many have cooperative agreements with the park systems
in their counties to display their heritage but as of this writing Collier County has no agreements with
any of the park services in present day Collier County. These agreements should have been instituted
as far back as 1947 with the establishment of the Everglades National Park. Collier County at this
point does not even have a cooperative agreement within its own local jurisdiction with Everglades
City.
/935
13
SECTION 2
Presently the order of nominating a site in Collier County usually begins with a hearing request at
a meeting of the H.A.P.B. which takes place once a month in one of the county facilities. After the
request is made the requesting party is scheduled to be placed on the agenda for the next months
meeting at which time the formal request is made to the board. Understanding that the H.A.P.B. is
an advisory committee to the Board of County Commissioners, authority still resides with them to,
make recommendations, or notify owners that a designation will be made, or use the county's
resources and legal dcpt to investigatc designations. For demonstration purposes only an example
will be given on how the board operates.
Taken from the minutes of the meeting on November 15,2006 which is a matter of public record:
On 9-20-06 a request was made by a private citizen of Collier County before the H.A.P.B. to
designate a historical status for 2 structures - Weavers Station on highway US 41, 20 miles east of
the city of Naples, and Royal Palm Hammock and restaurant, eight miles east of Naples on
Highway US 41. Also requested was to have a historical designation placed on 2 properties. One
was the present site of a known monument placed in 1941 by David Graham Copeland marking the
site of Fort Simon Drum, an Army fort us cd in the 3rd Seminole war located 6 miles east of
Immokalee City and the other was at the sitc of Deep Lake, 14 miles north of Everglades City on
highway # 29.
*
It was also requested that the Deep Lake site be nominated to the National Register of Historic
places in view of the fact that it was the site of the first railroad in what is now Collier County. A
current picture of the Deep Lake site was also submitted which will be placed on the following
page.
S3~
14
1
" I ~.
~. "
" if"'"
Ii"}' i.., .
It.,.,... ' ....'~ '..~: . I....:;, ",,', ~.,. " .
., ."
.~',: ..'
,.1 ',I''f(,- ,
....
::;j::',,".t\:'4}' ._:~ 4',
I ~r
,., ,.,.
. . ''''-', .. .,..
;,,1 !:!1l'-t -:1J:.tlM~;, '"" .~, '
. ....l::t~:>:.I,.."1',""\.. .,' ,
~}". '. "),!~'i:,o...."~~." ...",;;:'. /' :~'
.;.'01.; , 'III' \ . ., '. '."f'" ,
J:, .,~ 'j'!i--.,_ '. ;,,'.~,j:'; ;
For the first time in collier counties history Deep Lake has been placed off
limits to the citizens of the county. The last time Big Cypress officials
purchased the historic post office in Copeland they immediately bulldozed
the structure before citizens were able to register it on the national register of
historic places. Out of the last 9 properties in Collier county registered by
Big Cypress officials 8 have been placed off limits to the citizens of Collier
County. Plans are now being taken by Big Cypress to nominate 385 sites
including Deep Lake on the national register at which time access that has
always been a part of this counties history to these areas will be restricted,
Furthermore the IO acre parcel ofIand across highway-29 which used to
house the Copeland prison has been cleaned up as ordered by the state. This
property had a clause attached to it when it was leased to the state that it
should revert back to the owners. This should be investigated as a property
that can be ceded back to the county or purchased.
53(
15
Out of that request made on 9-20-06 a discussion was brought up in the next meeting on November
15,2006 where several significant factors were revealed. Among those were:
1. The possibility of several letters could be drafted and sent to State and Federal governing
bodies.
2. No structures are necessary: a plaque would serve as notice that it is a historic site.
3. A determination was needed by the County Attorney's otlice on what the preservations board
jurisdiction is on Federal and State owned lands, within Collier County: especially when the
public has been discouraged from accessing those lands.
4. Inquiries were made into the possibility of having a cooperative agreement of some kind that
could provide site markers and public access at historic sites.
5. It was agreed that the process of researching the county jurisdiction and boundaries would
begin.
6. It was discussed that Deep Lake is in Big Cypress, Royal Palm Hammock is privately owned
and Fort Simon Drum is in County land.
7. It was noted that Fort Simon Drum is owned by parties that may be willing to work with the
Board on site designation.
8. A discussion was held on the need to hire someone to survey Fort Simon Drum.
The meeting moved to address these issues and it was seconded and carried unanimously 5 - 0
* Unfortunately these actions were never followed up on but it does serve to show that a process
was begun that has been needed for a long time. It also shows (the cart before the horse) in regards
to the process of working on specific sites as opposed to Historic Districts being designated first.
S3gJ
16
SECTION 3
-
The differences between Historic places and Historic Districts are fairly well straight forward.
They are noted as:
A. Historic places are considered to be a traditional cultural property and can be defined generally
as one that is eligible for inclusion in The National Register of Historic Places because of it's
association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that:
1. Are rooted in a community's history.
2. Are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community.
B. As per the National Historic Preservation Act there are 5 different property types:
1. Districts
2. Sites
3. Buildings
4. Structures
5. Objects
C. An example of different variations of categories could include:
1. A farm house that that could be filled with 19 century furniture (as is the case with the Roberts
Ranch).
2. A fence may be viewed as a discrete structure.
3. The extension of a building
4. Part of a landscape.
D. Historic Districts can be formed by various combinations of cultural landscapes, structures, and
Ethnographic and Archaeological Resources.
E. Cultural landscapes are settings people create in the Natural world. They can be Settlements,
Transportation Routes, an area of Recreation, Social, Artistic, and Religious expression. They can also
be Plants, Fences, Watercourses, Buildings, Gardens, Cattle Ranches, Cemeteries, and Pilgrimage
Routes.
..5~9
17
SECTION 4
Today there exists in Collier County 2 historic districts. One is in the city limits of old Naples and
the other one is located in lmmokalee City. The one in downtown Naples is around 5 city square
blocks and is recorded on the National Register under time frame as 1875-1899. Under the heading
Architect, Builder, or Engineer it states: unknown, and under owner it states: private. In general the
only house in the historic district that the public can visit inside is the Palm Cottage. Other houses
included in the Register can only be viewed by driving past or walking by foot. This in itself shows
the need for a small brochure for the public at large to read about the history of the houses, buildings
and even the pier in the district and can be as simple as a marked footpath.
The other historic district is located in Immokalee City at the Roberts Ranch. Although it is described
as an historic district it can be fairly stated it was just the farm / homestead of one man, Robert Roberts
Jr., with a date recorded on the register as significant: 1915. The distance between these 2 districts is
50 miles and can be accurately described as the farthest points opposite of each other geographically in
Collier County with no unifying historical (theme) to tie them together. This theme whether as a
registered structure or district should have the following as a minimum criteria:
1. The first exploration of the land in the present county.
2. The beginning incorporation of the county
3, The culture and heritage of the first settlers and pioneers.
4. The transportation routes in the time before the county was established to include,
Native Americans, U.S. Army routes used during the Second and Third Seminole Wars
that took place in the Big Cypress area, the settlers and pioneer trails and roads, and the
later development of transportation routes ( such as US 41)
5, The past townships, farms, and communities in the early county.
6. Places, structures, and locations where significant events took place in history in the
county.
Therefore it can be seen that the two present historic districts in Collier County have no connecting
attributes within the framework of a unified (theme).
Looking at the general dates of the nominations to the National Register for Collier County it
becomes apparent that the majority of the nominations took place within the last 15 years. A closer
look would also reveal that all of the sites or districts were registered one at a time either by
individuals, the county, or by Federal entities (N.P.S.) the latter being solely for land management
issues and not for any interpretation to and for the general public. This policy of nominations which
can be described as individualistic can be highlighted by example by reading the minutes of the Collier
County H.A.P.B. minutes taken on April 18,2007. On page 4 under: Discussion of addenda items,
three properties were brought before the board for an application for historical designation in
Everglades City.
1. The Everglades City Hall.
2. The Rod and Gun Club.
3, The Everglades Community Church.
In the process to nominate these buildings to the H.A.P.B. and eventually to the National Register
it was revealed that there was no inter local agreement between Everglades City and Collier
County. This agreement is necessary to (spell out) what each jurisdiction can and cannot do in the
others jurisdiction. On page 5 of the minutes it states that: "A discussion took place on designating
the whole Everglades City area as a historic district".
$; L/-O
18
Considering the fact that Everglades City is close to 50 miles east of the city of Naples this would
make all three of the historic districts geographically as far apart from each other in regards to the same
distance on opposite comers of the county.
This would take a driving distance of over 100 miles in one district to connect with the other 2
districts in Collier County. This distance can be better visualized as a three point triangle with Naples
Historic District on one point, Everglades City on the other point and Immokalee City on the top point.
These points are isolated with no historic districts in between them and for all general purposes there
are no presently marked historic sites between them. The most common sense approach to tie these 3
districts together would be to have an historic district that stretches from the Naples Historic District
on US 41 all the way east on that route to the Dade County line. The next historic district should
stretch from the town ofChokoloskee, through Everglades City north to Immokalee City on highway #
29. This would follow the guidelines set forth in the National Register for historic districts. Once the
districts are tied together all of the historic sites, townships, and structures, would be nominated for
historical status along the entire west to east route, and the south to north route. To accomplish this in
a reasonable and effective manner the first step would be to go before the Collier County Historical!
Archaeological Preservation Board and request the board to recognize these 2 new districts and assign
an historical designation to them. The following procedure would then be to return to the board and
request the individual sites to be recognized and designated as historical along the districts.
Nominations to the National Register of Historical Places for the districts and sites would naturally
follow. This would allow the process to be streamlined instead of single nominations and would allow
the H.A.P.B. board to review their files for other sites they have recorded. Much of the required
information by the National Register would then be at hand and available. This process if followed in
a logical fashion would readjust the presently fragmented system in Collier County to effectively unify
the Historical, and Cultural Heritage (theme). For clarification purposes a list of the proposed sites
along the proposed districts will be recorded here as well as being placed on the survey map which will
be enclosed in this report.
For the first Historic District starting near county road # 951 traveling east on US 41 to the Dade
County Line proposed sites for markers in order are proposed as:
1. A marker for the Belle Meade Trail Station
2. A marker for the Royal Palm Hammock Trail Station
3. A marker for the Big Cypress Bend! Weavers Station Trail Station
4. A marker for Carnestown (north side of 41)
5. A marker for the past township of Halfway Creek
6. A marker for the past township of Birdon
7. A marker for the Turner River Trail Station
8, A marker for Bums Lake
9. A marker at the Kirby Storter Park
10. A marker for Monroe Station
11. A marker near Loop Road for the township of Pinecrest
12. A marker for the Paoli to Trail Station
* A marker at the Collier County! Dade County line should describe the large stone arch
(The Gateway to the West) that was in place at the Incorporation of Collier County in 1923.
SCf)
~
19
For the second Historic District starting in the town of Chokoloskee and heading north on
highway # 29 to Immokalee City proposed sites for markers in order are proposed as:
1. The town of Chokoloskee
2. The city of Everglades
3. The town of Copeland
4. The town of Jerome
5, Deep Lake
6, The Old Copeland Prison (across the street from Deep Lake)
7. The Deep Lake Railroad Depot Platform (on the Old Copeland Prison property)
8. The township of Tuckerton
9. The township of Matmon
10, The township of Rock Island
11. The township of Miles City
12. The township of Sunniland
13. The oil pump # I donated by Humble Oil Co. presently in Oil Well Road Park.
14. The old railroad depot north of Sunniland.
15. The township of Arzell
16. The township of Harker
17. The township of Bunker Hill
18. Marker for the previously monumented site of Fort Simon Drum - A U.S. Army fort used in
the Second and Third Seminole Wars, 6 miles east oflmmokalee City on Immokalee Road.
The Department of State, Florida Division of Historical Resources on 9-09-2008 accepted a Site File
Survey Report # 15576 titled "A Final Report on the Army Forts South of the Caloosahatchee River
during the 2nd and 3rd Seminole Wars". In this report 8 new locations were registered on the Florida
Master Site File as being the site of U.S. Army Forts and Fortifications built and used during the 2nd &
3rd Seminole Wars located in Collier County and I name and I location change for previous sites
recorded in Collier County. They are listed as follows:
1. A change of status form requesting that the name recorded as Fort Doane (CR660) be changed to
Camp Keais as David Graham Copeland accurately monumented it in the 1940s.
2. A change of status form requesting that the site previously recorded as Fort Keais (CR669) have a
name change to Fort Keys.
3. CRI074 is now registered as Old Fort Foster
4, CRI075 is now registered as Fort Loomis
5, CR I 076 is now registered as Camp Near Depot No. I
6. CRI077 is now registered as Depot No. I
7. CRl078 is now registered as Fort Doane during the 3'd Seminole War
8. CRl079 is now registered as Fort Keais during the 2nd and 3'd Seminole War
9. CRI080 is now registered as Fort Kneas
10. CR I 081 is now registered as Fort Doane during the 2nd Seminole War
This brings to a total of 41 Historical sites as of 9 -11 -2008 in Collier County that can be recognized
by the Collier County Historical/Archaeological Board and have the ability to have historical markers
placed at those locations either by the county or the State and have them placed on any future proposed
Cultural or Heritage Trails implemented by the county. This also paves the way to have these sites
eventually nominated and placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
s f..}- Z
20
=,:,~__.L ..L:--:':L L-:~:T . L:..L._~':.r ,":," -L,":T=-:r:--_:r=.~__::T'=-::--
, ~ .tlft'l U!1 l lll'lli I~lp: j ~ f UHI"!IT'P~~ ;!a' HWI ~ IWiJ' 'llit.~J"""
.J h!ll !iq ! hiH 'ri~i'lthH i i ~ HU~h~ilUUh JfH mdH e:liUIH~hlIH!!l~!!' .:
...... J~rl ! ~gI~ ! .~ji:. t JiI l"u j lll! J~~~il. It:'!]lr) .;.a=f~~ll.~ ~.t ~ ."1 "l"
~~ J~ ~h)H t PJ'ldHi1hHH mJ~ cdH!l!lhld,~H W{~Hlint-~ljmh h:.i~ 1 :"
~ ill1l' io1Ji ~"J 'l hIJ~ill.fli1 ~n'j ~~!i!.H~3H1).P ,,~JHI;lJ1l~jij:,iltll
.8 f~ji,~mH~~j m .m~jih~l.rl!!; ~3lm!lh!1!~~lJ~.~m~i!!J~tl131p'f{.lif.; lh
Z ~di:f1Hh~I~"I!~"ji. 'i.t--~ ~!~. :::l~Ji1! ;!jjUH-H;'i'i~'!tq: ~mitl",h:-Iti-jnH
....... ijh.~I. Hj'~il,~~Wr~im.;:, ~Hl~~H ;;;j!H!I~PI;"!li!", ~~d..1ui!! ~tu bhl'1\~Aa."
~ ~H.il i , ljll;'1' 'U i ~:',~__ " ;,,~..
"0 "" t, C.' : ~,;,d,l lU. .
~ ~ '" -iil-' ;"'1 i 1 "'i~~:1i!] ~~;: ~ v
'U' ,L " -;,. ~tq~~-j ;o~,' "~
'ft~ ,. ~ ~ii ~~ i ~ f~:'~~-~~i'~ ~~:1 ~ ~ ~\
.". ~ ~~, ~-'" " ," :;J.~J~_! .. Il,,'" _.~.
M~ . ~.., ,J ~ - "' '," '!l1I' - ~ ""
.16 j ill ~IHHH'im!l! HH~
','"'''''' ,. o.:~I. 1,".!' 'I' ..11, i. 'II" l' 1;. '...
,- ~~rl '.i'd, ~",j"l d'" (.'g"""
~ .~'~ ~ ~'~~l~~q~; ~~~,s-nq~ ~~i~' :~.,
. , "H l~hH;;~n, in;H,' j~!, ';",
. 1"';" '. ". .'~,
~'.J~~:j, - - ~ ~,; '-'
..0 LW '; ::;'
~ ~. . " ~ " ~
U "::"H~ -'J' j'I;;::'!" c
~'C HW ~j:i ijHi {n j;jJ
's... t.~~1'";....J~. .'~ ;hl.'.j;;,j.i. '''1,;3
o ~;"~d ~ ~ -;, ;;!~ ,'j~r .1-f<<
.~~ ~.nl~~o~=:::L.Jn~n~~J~.,:i~~j~ r/lVl>
i-T-!~ ::{'j'~":! :;:'31li~~"-i-'~~;-;P~tS'. HI
~ ~:~.j;~J'J;1~O!U~~,~~;;.j~.::l,.j~,_~.... :2\ ~ '. S >1.11 k
j/';.~-----~-'-- _.v....:'Ni.~oc,,4 "",,ow..-- G ~ i j '~.,. '"
,..._~ "'"' .,-"""1.,'1-"1'-". II'" 11 r. ,.!l .... "" ~ "~ ,.'r,9~ 1
~. _. ~ ':!'i' ~ lS .l!,::j , , ~ '-:l '1
~-- :J~' -==. ~ ,,~' ";:"".Y};" ":';",;V;'"'~ ;. "'" ...- _....,~: .$.\ '> .iJ<' ^,'
Jb "". ~J..s'_~~1 _ _ _ ~ ~" ~.,Ij
-. . .' 1J.;)8, '::Ii !' J .J\'/i
-. J ~~'---1;'.;.~pt ~
!:l~;'!-; :........... ,.~ I 'Jr~.; ,
~~~0 ~ I
...'So:~if" ~., ~r'" j' I
..'~ ~~ r .tl~~' J' t) I
-- ;:i'!' - ',.'J' ,.,' I,
~~ ,'I'J~, kif ~j
." 'r~?;'--K Ii
.oJ "iL I I
i if, (."}' :,;.'..r i1
'" / Y ,7'y J/',,-,""\ U '
if /\.,1/ ~ <5' ~ I"
'/,.~ :f~" l '~ \ \ \.~':;; 'O;~:i: ) J-- -j
,,'j..('./ I\;~~,~ ./ '") ./ i~ 1
,'~. '~" "~. ~ I, I I.
----=~,..'~~1.i'~ I j. i ".,.. :l.jjcO.:"', >~ '.. il,~!
! iq}- .. J l; '" ~.., ~ orlV./ ~
~ ~ ~f .", '~'i 11
l'<.'S..,""
~
c. __] ~.j r::::::r,- ,.."",.::~=r".c--,' ,:_=~:"' L-=::J::::::: _r----r-:..' ,
,
r
'.
.
.f
>
,
,
1.;
:;~~ j -<
. c~..~. ~
"':'1'<'0'. I ~
:~~J~~. ~
,."~,,"
tl;' ..... .r,
il~: i
I '
.
L '"
~~ f-
"",,,
~
,
~
',1
~
~! ' ~
".i.>
'. <oJ
....... c:'
-.., , u
I'; 'p.
I ! - ~J.
I.... r$-
o
.J
\
~
m
~
,.
'.
~
o
<
~
o
~
~
~
<
~
o
I
j ,,,,_..J ::::=:.'~I
THE COLLIER COUNTY JUBILEE HISTORICAL MAP
{;9-3
21
TYPES OF HISTORICAL MARKERS
There are in general 2 types of markers used in the State of Florida today. One is the individual county
markers which are based on the profile of the state markers and the other is the State of Florida
markers distributed by the Florida Historical Markers Program. The Collier County Museum currently
has the equipment to produce the county type markers which they have done at several sites. The
following are the type of state markers available today and the State of Florida requirements for those
markers and landmark sites.
Florida II iSlorical
t'vlarkers Program
'-
or ~__""'_
Hi,h,,;.,,1 f',.brl~N 0f FI.".j';)"
CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA HISTORICAL MARKERS
The Florida Historical Marker Program recognizes historic resources. persons and events that are
significant in the areas of architecture, archaeology, Florida history and traditional culture by promoting
the placing of historic markers and plaques at sites of historical and visual interest to visitors. The
purpose of the program is to increase publiC awareness of the rich cultural heritage of the state and to
enhance the enjoyment of historic sites in Florida by its citizens and tourists.
To be recognized as either a Florida Heritage Site or Florida Heritage Landmark a resource must me<
the following criteria:
FLORIDA HERITAGE SITE
· To qualify as a Florida Heritage Site a building,
structure or site must be at least 30 years old and
have significance in the areas of architecture,
archaeology, Florida history or traditional culture, or
be associated with a significant event that took place
at least 30 years ago.
· Resources associated with a historically significant
person may qualify as a Florida Heritage Site 30 years
after the death of the individual or 30 years after the
event with which the person is associated.
"Railroading in High Springs" at
the High Springs Station Museum.
· The resource should visibly retain those physical characteristics that were present during the
period for which it or the associated person is significant.
· A moved building or structure may qualify as a Florida Heritage Site if the move was made 30 or
more years ago, or the move was made to preserve the resource from demolition and reasonable
altempts were made to ensure that the new selting is similar to the historical selting.
$Lfi
22
FLORIDA HERITAGE LANDMARKS
· To qualify as a Florida Heritage Landmark a building, structure or site must be at least 50 years old
and have regional or statewide significance in the areas of architecture, archaeology. Florida historyor
traditional culture, or be associated with an event of statewide or national significance that took place
at least 50 years ago.
· Resources associated with persons of regional or statewide historical significance may be
recognized with Florida Heritage Landmark status 50 after the death of the individual or 50 years after
the historical event with which the person is associated.
· In certain cases, resources that are less than 50 years old but are significant at the statewide or
national level also may qualify as a Florida Heritage Landmark.
.~
~
~
· The resource should visibly retain those physical
characteristics that were present during the period for
which it or the associated person is significant. A moved
building or structure may still qualify as a Florida Heritage
Landmark if the move was made 50 or more years ago,
or the move was made to preserve the resource from
demolition and reasonable attempts were made to ensure
that the new setting is similar to the historical setting.
Mayo, County Seat of Lafayette County.
TYPES OF FLORIDA HISTORICAL MARKERS
MARKER FUNDING
Normally, individuals and for profit organizations must bear the full cost of paying for historical markers
and plaques, but when funds are available state and local governmental agencies and nonprofit
organizations may apply for matching grants to defray half the cost of markers and plaques.
PROGRAM INFORMATION
The Division of Historical Resources will provide
detailed information about eligibility
requirements and application and review
procedures for the marker program, Requests
for information and application forms may be
made by writing or telephoning the Division of
Historical Resources, Department of State, R.A.
Gray Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250,
(850) 245-6333 or 1-800-847.7278. Office hours
are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
m .,
Florida's Historic
Mu-ker Program
~
Click here for
a list of markers
-.
$4-S
23
SECTION 5
Today to establish with any sort of accuracy the present state and condition of any Historical or
Cultural Heritage interpretation in Collier County it is necessary to understand the basic geographical
boundaries in the county. This would serve to give a general view of the present situation in regards to
any proposed plans. There are currently 5 park systems in and around Collier County's borders and
will be placed here in order as:
l. The Big Cypress National Preserve (Federal)
2. The Picayune Strand State Forest (State)
3. The Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve (State)
4. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (Federal)
5. The Everglades National Park (Federal)
These parks today represent 80 per cent of the total land area in Collier County. Each one of these
parks, have their own directives, policies, and comprehensive plans, to deal with the management and
maintenance of these lands with no required input from Collier County government. Therefore it
should be of paramount interest to the citizens and county as a whole to review how the policies of
these parks relate to the Historical and Cultural representation of the county's past heritage. Since
such a large amount of history is to be found on this land a general and basic report on 4 of these parks
will be attached on the following page, the one not being attached is The Everglades National Park for
reasons of their being in control of the least amount of geographical land area in Collier County. This
report on the next several pages should in fact serve to give an accurate review of how the county's
past history is and has been displayed and interpreted to the public at large in these parks and
preserves.
$(jL
24
The Die: Cypress National Preserve Todav
The Big Cypress National Preserve was established in 1977 with a total of 574,440 acres of land.
Starting in 1977 through 1983 a total of 5 Archaeological expeditions took place on the preserve to
fulfill the requirements of Executive Order 11593 that mandated inventory on Federal properties for
Archaeological Resources. Out of those 5 expeditions a total of 395 archaeological sites were
recorded. From those 5 expeditions approximately 1,132,461 artifacts have been collected. Out of this
collection, by 2002, . 625,947 objects had yet still to be cataloged. From a direct result of the first 5
expeditions, 8 sites were nominated to the National Register of Historic Places between 1978 and
1986. Of those eight sites, all were classified as "address restricted" with no access or mention to the
public. The ninth site, Monroe Station was added in 2000 but after 15 years in the possession of the
Department of the Interior it has not yet been restored as of 2007. This in itself is interesting
considering the fact that the Big Cypress National Preserve only has 2 sites listed in its inventory under
[ list of classified structures] one being the Momoe Station. structure # HS-O I, and the other is listed
as the H.P. Williams Park Marker. structure # HS.02. The actual 2 foot x 3 foot marker was moved to
this site from its actual historical location. When added with the fact that no Historic Resource Study,
Cultural Landscape Inventory, or Cultural landscape Report, all items that were made a requirement by
Federal Legislation in 1991-Public law, 101.628, Section 1209, it becomes evident there are
shortcomings in the present system.
Although David Graham Copeland placed monuments at 4 sites from 1938 to 1942 in the Big
Cypress National Preserve. (I. the site of the 1936 Seminole Conference, (2. the East Crossing site,
(3.Fort Harrell site and (4. Hinson Mound [Billy Bowlegs Old Town]), no mention was made to
Register one of those sites even though they were clearly indicated on County Maps and the 1947 US
Geological Survey Maps. In 1988 the Preserve was enlarged with an additional 146,000 acres of land
commonly referred to as the "New Addition Lands." From the year 2000 to 2002, two separate
Archaeological Expeditions were conducted on the new addition lands producing 71 new sites of
Archaeological importance, In a move that was unprecedented, Big Cypress National Preserve
officials (Federal) refused to divulge the locations of the 71 sites to the Division of Historical
Resources (state), the agency who is officially in chargc of maintaining the Florida Master Site Files.
They expressed concern over the "protection of site location infonnation."
Evidence from all available records indicates there has never been a violation of Historical or
Archaeological artifact removal from someone who has used the public accessed Florida Master Site
file from any Parks location in South Florida. This evidence is supported in Big Cypress Preserves
own Archaeological Overview and Assessment; completed in 2005 where page 247, paragraph 4 (a)
states:
"Although no violations of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, have been investigated
within the preserve."
Of the 395 sites originally found between 1977 and 1983, ninety six percent have never been revisited
by Archaeologists for almost 25 years and then the selected few that were visited in 2002, were found
to be mostly damaged by animal "burrowing and activity". While the Archaeological Overview
written in 2005 recommends on page 232 paragmph A (2) to, "Identify the location and nature of
Sawmill sites, sites of logging opemtions, and agricultural and company towns, identify, map, and
record extant 54 structural remains, features and landscapes."
* Thirty years after the establishment of the preserve this remains to be accomplished.
.s-c+7
25
As a requirement of Federal Law under the Antiquities Act, Historic Sites Act, National Preservation
Act, and Archaeological Resources Protection Act, a primary responsibility of the National Park
Services is to "identify, interpret, and protect cultural resources under its jurisdiction."
Now many question the fact that after 30 years in existence, the Big Cypress National Preserve
according to their own overview in Chapter 9, page 237, under Cultural LandscaDes, states '<Co date, no
cultural landscapes have been identified in Big Cypress." On the same page under Structures,
paragraph 2 it states, "Though no formal inventory of structures has been conducted in Big Cypress,
dozens of significant structures have been recorded during Archaeological Surveys of the Preserve."
The dozens of significant structures spoken of are recorded in the archives of the South East
Archaeological Center in Tallahassee Florida which is the support center of the National Park Services
Southeast Region. It is registered under the Accession number 1396.
Although the National Park Services management policy is predicated on the National Historic
Preservation Act and includes Cultural Resources as Archaeolollical Resources. Cultural LandscaDes.
Structures. Museum Obiects and EthnollfaDhic Resources, Chapter 9 Page 238 paragraph 6 states that
"to date no inventory study aimed at identifying ethnographic resources has been conducted for Big
cypress National Preserve."
Furthermore in chapter 9 of the Archaeolollical Overview it states under Archaeolollical Evaluation
Studies. page 239, paragraph I "an Archaeological Study is conducted to meet a, parks specific needs
and to assess and document the scientific value, integrity, condition, and National Register eligibility
of Archaeological Resources." Paragraph 3, under the same heading concludes:
"Unfortunately, a final report detailing the results of previous evaluation studies was never
prepared." Under the same heading paragraph 4 it states, "To date no evaluation studies have
been conducted in the New Addition Lands." This then would bring a total of 455 sites to be
placed on the National Register with "address restricted" placed in the nomination. Under the
heading Confidentiality of Site Information, chapter 9, page 248 paragraph 2, it is stated: "It is
recommended that Big Cypress National Preserve management continue to protect the
dissemination of sensitive Archaeological Information including public venues, documents,
maps and printed and electronic media." 93
Although basic information proffered by Big Cypress National Park officials states that the 455
Archaeological sites found to date all have a Seminole Historic context that includes sacred and burial
sites and are "Sensitive Archaeological Sites" (as those type of sites should be). The information
provided during the first 5 field seasons of Archaeological Expeditions, 19977.1983, clearly show a
preponderance of sites "clumped together" with traditional pioneer sites. Out of the 395 sites found
during the 5.year survey, records indicate there were:
I. Thirty-six Historic Camps, one clearly an Euro American Historic Site (rust contact)
2. Seventy two Fields with gardens
3. Three Sugar Cane Mills
4. Two Stills
5. One Trading Post
6. One hundred twenty four Seminole Camps
7. One Green Corn Dance Site (sacred)
8. One Well
9. One House
10. One Rock Wall
* After 34 years of being established there remains no mention of these sites in the Big Cypress
National Preserve either by a marker or in an interpreted way, and available for the public to visit.
~cjg
26
The Picayune Strand State Forest Todav
The State Forest today known as the Picayune Strand State Forest is located two miles east of Naples,
south of Highway 1-75. It is an area ofIand that has been combined from the South Golden Gates
Estates and the property known as the Belle Meade tract. Through acquisitions today it comprises
more than 69,975 acres of property. Since its establishment in 1996 several Archaeological surveys
have been conducted by the Division of Forestry revealing 44 Seminole and early Army sites built and
occupied since the mid 1800s. To date, none of these sites have been disclosed to the public, recorded
on the National Register, or displayed in any type of interpreted way.
The "Old Walker Horse Trail" used by the US Army during the Seminole Wars is now called the
Belle Meade Horse Trail and although it stretches over 22 miles through the forest there is no
interpretation in the form of kiosks or markers not only for the trail, but any of the known cultural or
historical sites from early pioneer communities or homesteads, that had occupied the area for over a
hundred years. Although one of David Graham Copeland's monuments was placed at a site there
during the 1940s called Table Camp, there is no available access for the public to visit this site.
Starting in 1985 purchase of the land from 17,000 different landowners began in order to expand the
park. In 1998 the federal government gave 25 million dollars in aid to the state of Florida for
additional land purchases with the intent of restoring the natural sheet flow of water over the area.
This restoration project is included in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP). In
2004 Governor Jeb Bush included in the state budget a 360 million dollar allocation for Picayune
Strand State Forest to begin removing 227 miles of roads and blocking 45 miles of canals, (a process
now more than 50% completed). In a move most Collier county residents disagreed with, Collier
County otlicials in 2003, "transferred authority over Southern Golden Gate Estates roads (and access
to historic areas) to the South Florida Water Management District.
Part of that agreement included an agreement by the South Florida Water Management District to
provide a 640 acre parcel, at the Belle Meade site for off road vehicles to retain a right for use.
*
Soon after the State took control of the right of way in Southern Golden Gates Estates, officials
at the Picayune Strand State Forest made it illegal to use off road vehicles in the Park (an activity in
use for over 80 years) and as of2008 the South Florida Water Management District has failed to fulfill
their obligation providing a 640 acre site for recreational vehicles. There was an attempt to do so in
2005 but the 640 acre parcel then being offered, was found to have considerable arsenic contamination
from past fanning activities and was therefore rejected. These actions prompted one of the members
of the Sportsman's Alliance club to comment in a local interview "We feel like we've been sold out."
* Today there remains no historical markers, or interpretive displays in the Picayune forest for the
public, and with the subsequent flooding of the area that will be the result caused by the C.E.R.P.
program chances are good there probably will never be.
54-7'
27
The Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve Todav
The almost 80 thousand acre wilderness area purchased by the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company in
1913-14 is today known as the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. It has one of the largest subtropical
strand Swamps in the United States. It is located south of the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge on 1-75 and east of the Picayune Strand State Forest in Collier County. Access to the Strand
was traditionally made from the S.E. or N. W. corner of the Preserve but with the restoration process
going on in Picayune Strand State Forest, access from the N.W. Bridge at Prairie Canal has been
eliminated by the removal of the bridge. This is in fact the location of the new border between the
Picayune and Fakahatchee Preserve. Today there is only motorized access through the Park on Janes
Scenic Drive located in Copeland on Highway # 29, approximately 4 miles north of the Tamiami Trail.
The Strand is about 5 miles wide and 20 miles long and was created from the first land purchase in
1974 by the State of Florida.
Today if you used your computer to go online at Fakahatchee Strand State Parks website it would
direct you to the Nature & History section under which you would find the heading "Florida's Cultural
Resources" where it states:
"Cultural resources management in state parks involves identifYing, maintaining, protecting,
preserving and interpreting evidence of those who lived in Florida before us. This evidence takes the
form of resources which range from Native American sites thousands of years old to military sites
from World War 11. Many state parks exhibit and interpret diverse collections of cultural objects
which may include archaeological artifacts, furniture, textiles, papers, tools, and agricultural
implements."
It further states: Florida State Parks Cultural Resources Sites
"The Division of Recreation and Parks, is charged by statute to provide for perpetual preservation of
historic sites and memorials of statewide significance and interpretation of historic sites and memorials
of statewide significance and interpretation of their history to the people. Approximately 200 historic
structures and 750-1000 archaeological sites are located on lands in the Florida State Park system. All
but a few of the 151 parks have pre-historic or historic resources."
Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve is one of those "few" that have no historic resources with markers
or any type of interpretation of historical sites for the general public. Probably one of the main reasons
is that there never has been an archaeological survey conducted in the park over the last one hundred
years. Dozens of the earliest pioneers have built houses in the Strand and many hunting camps, but as
of 2006 none had been recorded.
In March of 2007, the first of what is called a Levell archaeological survey was begun in the Strand
by a two-man team representing the University of South Florida. The team, which also used
volunteers from the community, found over a two-month period several sites of importance. The
initial report has not been completed yet as this is only the beginning of the most basic of surveys.
However in all it probability will come at a time perceived by most as too late now that the Prairie
Canal has been filled in and the subsequent flooding of the area has begun in both the Picayune and
Fakahatchee state parks. It is in a way ironic that the Table Camp monument placed by David Graham
Copeland in 1942 at a sacred and historic site has changed borders from the Picayune Forest to the
F akahatchee Stand State Park by rea~on of the same event that will probably end up destroying the site.
* As of July 2007 there, remains no historic markers, cultural interpretation trails, signs, or any listing
of structures on the National Registry of Historic places, in the Fakahatchee Strand State Park.
$~()
28
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Todav
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is located approximately 20 miles east of Naples along
1-75 in present day Collier County. It was established in 1989 by the authority of the Endangered
Species Act and its primary purpose was to protect the endangered Florida Panther. According to the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Refuge written in 1997 under the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act, the history of the Refuge is described as follows: History of the Refuge:
"Prior to the Refuge establishment the area was owned by the Collier family. Land use was limited to
private hunting leases and cattle grazing. Several hunting camps were constructed throughout the
Refuge. The largest camp was located on the east side and was referred to as the "Fakahatchee
Conservation Club". Deer were hunted by the leaseholders or their guests with the aid of dogs, tree
stands, swamp buggies, or on foot. The service purchased the initial 24,300 acres of the Refuge from
the Collier family (for which Collier County was named) tor 10.3 million through a series of Fee Title
acquisitions. With the addition oflands from the Collier Land Exchange on December 18, 1997, the
Refuge grew to approximately 26,400 acres."
When the Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge in Collier County by 1997, part of the recommendations for an
Operational Guide for management for the next 10 to 15 years was to establish a Visitor Center and
Interpretive Facilities.
Under Federal Law public input into the use of the Panther Reserve was implemented as ajoint group
called thc Stake Holder Committee, which came together for recommendations to the Preserve
management. At the time the public was evenly split 50/50 on whether or not to allow the general
public access to the preserve through as variety of interpretive displays, hiking trails and general
activities. Management at the Preserve went ahead with the decision to keep the Refuge off limits to
the general public stating that in five years the managers would revaluate the Recommendations again.
Ten years later this still has not been accomplished under the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP).
The CCP clearly states under management direction that:
"The mission of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is to conserve and manage lands and
waters in concert with other agency land efforts within the Big Cypress Watershed, primarily for the
Florida panther; other threatened and endangered species; natural diversity; and cultural resources for
the benefit of the American people."
Under Appendix C of the Public Involvement Process of the CCP it is recorded that:
"Stakeholder Consensus and Recommendations"
"On November 5 1997, the committee voted unanimously that a visitor center be constructed close to
the 1-75 corridor, be a multi-agency venture, and not on a site containing sensitive resources. It could
be located either inside or outside the Refuge."
The Stakeholder Group recognized the need for more public access when under the same appendix,
recommended:
"Service Responses"
"The, 1-75 highway connects Naples to Miami and bisects the greatest wetlands of the United States,
the Everglades, and Big Cypress Swamp. Yet no facility exists along this stretch to fully inform the
public of the wonders of these wetlands or the major restoration events that are taking place. No site
exists where school groups can go and learn about the dynamics of this intricate system. Interstate 75,
in Collier County, east of Naples offers a perfect venue for a multi-agency interpretive and education
center to accomplish these endeavors."
oSS;
29
Although the CCP states in Appendix A under environmental assessment one ofthe objectives under
6.3 is to: "Facilitate partnerships to manage cultural resources with the National Park Service, the
State Historic Preservation Office, professional archaeologists, Native American communities, and the
general public."
* This has never been undertaken since the Preserves inception.
It was recommended under the Archaeological Resources Management Goal Objective 7.1 :
"By 2005 conduct a Refuge-wide Archaeological Survey". * To date this has not been done.
On page 79 Appendix A of the CCP one of the alternatives proposed under Cultural Resources states:
"This alternative would provide for greater public interpretation of historic and archaeological
resources on the refuge. Refuge interpretation would mostly be in conjunction with the exhibits
associated with historic uses, however, other cultural resource sites associated with the refuge would
be opened up for interpretation as well."
* The development of these resources has never been implemented despite the fact that there arc
seventeen recorded archaeological sites in the Preserve.
As of 1989 there were thirty-one National Wildlife Refuges, containing historical sites with a total of
ninety-one actual sites having been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Despite the
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge having recorded II twentieth century Rock Island camps and
the historic Colding House, page 66 of the CCP states:
"None of the Historic sites arc considered eligible for the National Register of Historic places."
Conspicuously absent from the list of recorded sites at the Preserve is the monument David Graham
Copeland placed at the Preserve in 1942 indicating an Indian village and mound site. This placing of
the monument in 1942 at this site makes it eligible for the National Register. The fact is officers of the
U.S. Army have recorded on most topographical engineer maps from 1837 to 1858 this site including,
Army Forts and trails, Indian Villages, and Supply Depots.
The CCP on page 66, Appendix A states:"Miccosukee and Seminole bands may have utilized the
Refuge in the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, no sites or camps have been found or reported on
the Refuge which can be attributed to either group."
Questions now being raised by residents of Collier County (as should also be raised with Big Cypress
National Preserve) why with such a large number of sites from early Pioneer Communities, industries,
and buildings, has one of the preserves main goals has been, under Cooperative Management Goal
6.3.4: To: "Work with local Native American Communities to develop an education program
regarding their cultural heritages."
Although the Preserves officials will readily admit that they have a serious shortcoming in the areas
of implementing past goals and have shortages in the Refuges staff, one of their main objectives
(which the budget hasn't seemed to impede) found on page 31 under Strategies 6.1.1 states:
"By 2005 strive to achieve perpetual protection of approximately 10,000 acres of Panther Habitat north
of the Refuge through casement or Fee Title acquisition."
It would be important to note here that the research report completed in 2006 reveals that Fort Keais
and Fort Doane in the Second Seminole War along with several Army encampments are located on this
parcel of land north of the Preserve. In 2005 after a decade in the planning a small 1.5 mile hiking
trail, (representing 4 percent of the Preserve) was opened on the S.E. comer ofthe Preserve on
Highway # 29 for use by the general public.
* No interpretive markers to denote any past cultural sites exist along this hiking trail and as of2008
the Preserve remains off limits to the general public.
.s;Sz-
30
The Preservation of Historical Sites in South Florida Todav
Today almost no historic structures or sites, on the National Register of Historical Places today can be
visited by the general public in 5 of the largest State and Federal Parks in South Florida. This
encompasses a vast 21,000 square mile area that can best be described as "historically threadbare." It
should also be noted that there is no historical district (an area to incorporate any past place or
communities) between Miami on the east coast and Naples on the west coast. Indeed by 1985 eighty
nine years after Miami had become incorporated did the historic preservation board in Miami act on a
1980 Historic survey done in Metropolitan Dade County. By that time out of the 587 properties that
were envisioned to be placed on the National Register, it was found that 20 I of those properties "had
been demolished." This then would have to raise the question why the longest continuous stretch of
past communities in Collier County, some older that Miami's and numbering over 15, (the largest
number in a continuous 40 mile line in Florida) have not been placed on the National Register as an
historic District. Stretching from Chokoloskee north through Everglades City, Carnestown, Copeland,
Lee Tidewater, Jerome, Deep lake, Matmon, Tuckerton, Rock Island, Miles City, Sunniland, Arzell,
Harker, Bunker Hill, onward north on Highway # 29 right up to the gates of Fort Simon Drum.
SECTION 6
This then gives an accurate description in section 5 in regards to the loss of Cultural sites in respect to
governing agencies presently managing land in Collier County. The actual statement: loss of Cultural
sites is perhaps a misnomer considering these sites are not (lost), they are just not being interpreted to
the general public in any meaningful way thereby depriving Collier County residents and ultimately all
of the residents in the State of Florida of their past History, Culture, and Heritage. Since 1974 with the
establishment of the Big Cypress National Preserve and the subsequent establishments of the
Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, and the Picayune
Strand State Forest it can accurately be stated that Collier County has lost over one million acres in
the last 34 years that are not now under any county taxable base, management, or possible usage in
regards to development and sustainable infrastructure for the county's future. It is apparent that with
such a large geographical area of land here being discussed - 80 percent of the county - that an equally
proportionate part of the county's past History, Culture, and Heritage would be found on those lands.
These are in essence a part of the county's past that stretches back to 1837, at least one hundred years
farther back than the county's inception in 1923. It therefore becomes incumbent for Collier County
officials to review how such preservation and interpretation of the county's past history is presently
being demonstrated and in what manner this will bc done in the future.
In Section 14 - A plan to establish cooperative management agreements that can be used with several
of the Federal and State park systems in Collier County - will address this issue in more detail.
5' .GC3
31
SECTION 7
In describing what would be considered an economic loss to Collier County in respect to no present
Historical, Cultural, or Heritage related themes it would in general be of primary importance to view
what the county's assets are in regards to attracting visitors/ tourists with a specific travel destination in
mind. During the I 970s and continuing into the late 1980s there was a definite direction to establish
Naples as the (Golf capital of the United States). The results of this process can fairly well be seen in
view of the fact that there are now over 300 golfing clubs, developments with a golfing theme, and
private golf driving ranges. However the recent downturn in the real estate market (the reasons not
offered here) coupled with the fact of several hurricanes damaging the area (something not seen for
more than 40 years), a national economic downturn coupled with the fact of the affordable housing
situation, unprecedented growth in population and progressive development it becomes apparent that
what was once considered to be sustainable economic commodities, has indeed found its limits and
short comings.
In looking at what is economically sustainable using the county's resources, a need to review the
present system should warrant a closer look. One obvious and untapped asset that can be readily seen
is the county's historical past and cultural identity. These assets are now fully being realized and used
in the eastern part ofthe county to a large degree but unfortunately the financial returns and assets are
not finding or being received in a full measure by the county nor is there any meaningful results being
derived in the fashion of attracting tourists / visitors through this historical or cultural (theme). This
can be further illustrated by a simple review of:
1. The current processes and a geographical understanding of the routes the visitor / tourist arrives
by in entering Collier County and the city of Naples.
2. What purposes or destinations would that visitation best be described as including.
3. What attractions are available in a time saving manner and set forth as a concentrated and
uniform direction that leads the visitor / tourist into the Collier County and city of Naples area.
As can be expected this visitor would arrive at the destinations by the primary mode oftravel
which would be the automobile. Therefore it is essential to understand those routes and services
presently used there and the conditions relating to those on and during travel by those same routes.
Two directions can be used to enter Collier County and the city of Naples. These would be the
eastern direction and the northern direction. The Eastern direction would consist of 2 roadways
leading trom the east coast, one being the 1-75 Interchange in the central part of the county and the
other road would be US 41 in the southern part of the county running east from Miami to its
terminus in the city of Naples whcrc it turns and continues in a northerly direction up the west
coast. The same roadway US 41 can easily be seen to be the other direction on a return trip south
in which Collier County and the city of Naplcs can be accessed.
The 2 roadways on the eastern directions will be discussed here in section 1
The other northern section will be addressed in a later section of this report.
SS;~.
32
TRAVEL DES TINA TlONS FROM THE EAST COAST ON .-75
[n taking a view of the direction taken by visitors I tourists traveling from the east coast on 1-75
towards Collier County I Naples the first stop on the leg of the journey would bring you to exit # 14
where a service station, rest area, and restaurant are located and leads to the entrance of The
Miccosukee Casino and Hotel area located 25 miles west of Fort Lauderdale. This has become a
favorite travel stop and has become very profitable and a major attraction for the Miccosukee Tribe.
On this same exit road can be found the (Snake Road) which stretches for 14 miles north until it
reaches the Big Cypress Seminole Reservation where attractions such as the Ah- Tah- Thi-Ki museum
is located along with several other tourist attractions including the, Billy Swamp Safari tours, and other
similar tour attractions operate on a daily basis. After returning to [-75 to continue your journey west
the next exit stop available would be a rest stop 12 miles west of Snake Road. Here refreshments can
be purchased and a large 3 dimensional electronic map can be interactively used by the public showing
the Big Cypress National Preserve and the entire biological resources (not historical) in the Everglades
region are displayed. This rest area is also the northern terminal point for the Florida National Scenic
Trail ( Federal not state or county) that stretches for about 20 miles south through the Big Cypress
National Preserve. Visitors walking on this trail will eventually end up at the Big Cypress National
Preserve Oasis Visitor Center run by the Dept. of the Interior (N.P.S.) on US 41 where the visitor
center offers an interpretive center, ranger tours, refreshments, visual and audio displays, concessions,
books, souvenirs, and a long boardwalk in front of the center. In these services are included maps of
the Big Cypress and Everglades region which highlight the other N.P.S. visitor centers and activities to
be found at these locations. Continuing west on [-75 towards the city of Naples an unbroken stretch of
highway for 45 miles continues past the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve on the south side, the
Florida Panther National Wildlife Preserve on the north, followed by the Picayune Strand State Forest
on the south side with no other available areas to rest or experience any part of Collier Counties past or
present opportunities.
This highlights the fact that on one of the most heavily traveled roads leading into the county no
financial returns are realized by the county, which is obviously in the tens of millions of dollars
annually, as well as no county control or management input on or near any stretch of the [-75
Interchange. This will even be more pronounced when plans for the state to start leasing out portions
of 1-75 to private enterprises takes place in the near future. These services currently being utilized are
only represented by a small land area by the Miccosukee Tribe, The Big Cypress Seminole
Reservation, and the Dept of the Interior (N.P.S.) entities despite the fact, that the actual land area
being used only represents about 10 per cent of what is actually available to Collier County. This
would naturally be along the highway # 29 roadway which is in the center portion of the 1-75
interchange and runs north and south 20 miles in each direction. Although much of this land presently
still has the capability of being acquired by donations, preservation credits (offered to in lieu of
development rights), and purchases from individual land owners the county still has no possession or
control of any part of this area.
Particular attention should be given towards preservation credits from development on both sides of
highway # 29 in respect to establishing greenways west, north, and east of the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Preserve where development is starting to take place in Sunniland, the Ave Maria Phase 2
projcct, and the proposed development of the Okaloacootchee Slough area leading to Immokalee City.
This then represents approximately 78 miles on the 1-75 Interstate and 38 miles of roadway on
highway # 29 that are not only devoid of capital generating facilities and any existing traveler I tourist
information on scenic destinations in the western part of the county but is completely barren in regards
to having any historical, cultural, or interpretation of the county's past heritage that is now currently
being used so effectively by these 3 previously mentioned entities.
S55
33
* It should be noted that the preliminary discussion talked about by the state and Federal agencies
found on page 28 in regards to any interpretational centers along the 1-75 corridor would in general be
run by either a state or Federal agency with no financial assets recognized, and no control or input by
Collier County as to the policies, usage, and management of such a facility.
In 2003 the Collier County government sold the right of way to the roads in Southern Golden Gates
Estates to the State of Florida for 25 million dollars. This action had the effect of causing a
geographical separation from the eastern part of the county in land management terms and future
financial returns. Now that the Picayune Strand State Forest is in the largest control of this area the
most likely land area to compensate this imbalance would be to have an effective greenway starting on
the north side of the 1-75 Interchange at or near Everglades Blvd, and continuing in an easterly
direction to Highway # 29. This in fact may seem complicated but with the proposed 1-75 exit being
proposed for the Everglades Blvd. exit or the possible alternative near Desoto Blvd. having the county
own property along this route would be a wise long term benefit considering the Florida Dept. of
Transportation would own the right of way on either side of the exit.
Future development that would include the Big Cypress project, phase 2 of the Ave Maria project, or
any other project that would naturally fall in line with any projected, preservation areas, conservation
easements and / or development credits. Conservation Collier has an agenda leaning more towards
purchasing property where ever it can be found but the benefits of using a unified approach would
serve the purposes of the county better by acquiring more of a land area at a vastly cheaper cost. With
a possibility of approval by the county for Conservation Collier to use certain funds for purchase of
any lands along this Heritage / Greenway space for a specific area and purpose its use would be
enhanced rather than diminished as is now presently on some of the preservation lands now in the
county's possession that have accessibility and maintenance issues.
· An understanding of this process should include the fact that if the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Preserve were to be successful in pursuing their plans to purchase, acquire by
easement, or to obtain lands by fee title acquisition on the approximately 10,000 acres north
and west and of the present day preserve, the off limits to the general public policy would likely
continue, and the county would loose this income generating potential indefinitely with a large
part of its past history that took place along this trail, never being able to be fully interpreted to
the public at large.
By establishing the largest possible green way space that is now possible to do in the near future with
proper planning and concentrated efforts, access to income generating land that has been lost since the
inception of the Everglades National Park system in 1947 and by slow attrition from the 4 major parks
outlined in section ~ may be regained and utilized in an economic revenue producing way for Collier
County. This will further be highlighted in the following section.
~.S;k,
34
TRAVEL DESTINATIONS FROM THE EAST COAST - US 41
The lower transportation route from the east coast (Miami) to the city of Naples is the highway
known as US 41. Constructed and completed by 1928 it holds a large part of Collier County's past
history and cultural heritage, To begin the journey from the east coast to the west coast a look at how
the counties past history, culture, and heritage that is now being interpreted along this route will be
reviewed. Starting from the east coast the first opportunity for the tourist / traveler to safely exit this
road would have been the Dade County / Collier County marker which at that time was a large stone
arch. This information will be attached here.
If you would have started from Miami traveling west on the newly built Tamiami Trail in 1928, your
starting point would have been at the large stone arch that was built several years earlier. The colossal
arch was built not only to designate the Dade and Collier County borders, but was built to showcase
the beginning of what at the time was called "the greatest road ever built". It was the new gateway to
the west coast and was a highly visible landmark designed to give the traveler a visual perspective of
the new frontier now opening up. For over 3 decades the spot was used for various social celebrations.
j
~:.!.~,.
.---- .
~~ '.-,<
-
The Gateway to Paradise Stone Arch -1958
The Stone Archway was an historic landmark for over 30 years until the State Road Department
decided to widen the road in 1958 and had the structure razed, despite many objections from the public
and different historical societies desiring to save the Arch, and place a pass around easement. Today
there remains no Historical Marker at the location of the "Gateway to Paradise".
SS}
35
Following US41 west for about I mile would have brought you to the first Tamiami Trail station that
was named the Paoli to station. The following attachment with information on that station will be
added here.
The Station at Paolita
Completed at the end of 1927 the Paolita Station was identical to the other 5 stations built by Barron
Collier for travelers on the Tamiami Trail and was located about 200 feet west of Chestnut Billy's
Village on the south side of the road. Named after David Graham Copeland's daughter, it was the
farthest station east on the Trail and by all accounts, one of the most dangerous. The Southwest
Florida Mounted Police Force, started by Barron Collier to patrol the Trail every hour, had their
headquarters in each ofthe 6 stations.
"
~.1
Deputy SberilTBiII Weuver-1924
This photograph of an officer in the Southwest Florida Mounted Police was taken in 1924. It shows
the type of uniform (based on the Canadian Royal Mounted Police) and Harley Davidson motorcycles
used at the time. The patrols taken every hour between stations when the Trail was first opened were
very dangerous because of potholes and no shoulders on the road. During the first year of the Trails
opening, 4 Police Officers were killed in the line of duty riding their motorcycles according to Maria
Stone, historian and author of The Tamiami Trail - 1998. The first Deputy killed was W. B.
Richardson on December 14, 1928, 14 days after being hired. His motorcycle struck a bridge and he
was killed instantly making his patrol from the Paolita Station. The second Deputy Sheriff killed was
William Irving on January 20, 1929 only 60 days after he was hired. Working the route between
Paolita and Monroe Station, he was struck head-on by an automobile in a heavy fog. The Paolita
Station continued in existence after 1932 when the Collier County Sheriffs office took over Patrol of
the Trail, but in 1960 Hurricane Donna destroyed the Station. Today there remains no evidence or
marker to denote its past history.
\
~56
36
Continuing on US 41 the next destination that you will encounter today would be the Shark Valley
Visitor Center on the south side of the road 28 miles west of the city of Miami. It is run by the Dept.
of the lnterior- The National Park System (N.P.S.). It has services for a tourist destination that
include a rest stop, boardwalk, interpretive trail, and an above ground tram rail that stretches for over 7
miles until it reaches an observation tower. Continuing on US 41 for another 16 miles brings you to
the N.P.S. Oasis Visitor Center. Here visitors I tourists are offered a rest stop, an interpretation center
(based on the N.P.S. park theme not Collier County's history). Also offered are refreshments,
souvenirs, books, a running film loop, ranger guided tours on the trails nearby, and a long boardwalk
out front.
Landmarks on the Tamiami Trail
One of the most visible landmarks in south Florida was located on Tamiami Trial several miles east
of Monroe Station. Bordering the trail on the north side was a privately owned commercial airfield
known as the Oasis Airport. Built in the early 1960s the small runway which was graded rock had a
large 2 story airplane hangar that the owners planned to turn into a hotel. Its biggest form of
advertisement was a large propeller commercial aircraft that was built on a frame and was mounted
over the building.
Propeller Aircraft on the roof of Oasis Airport -1974
After Big Cypress Nadonal Preserve was established in 1974 the plane was removed. Today
this is the present site of the Oasis Visitor Center run by the Dept. ofthe Interior (N.P.S.)
C;;S;y
37
Traveling 4 more miles west on 41 would bring you to the western edge of Loop Road where on the
north side of the road there is a Native American (Indian Village) located and is presently off limits to
the general public. Across the road on the south side of 41 the Historic Monroe Station is located.
Basic information on that structure will be attached below.
Monroe Station
Traveling on the Tamiami heading west after leaving Chestnut Billy's Village, your next structure
would be the Monroe Station. Built in 1927, the foundation and framing was built of Dade County
Pine (now extinct) while the outer walls were made out of Cypress wood. The 12 foot deep x 24 feet
wide building had a second story above, the general store used by employees. Every week they would
bring the receipts to Collier Company in Everglades City stationed in the Manhattan Mercantile
Company building. The National Park Service took ownership of the Station in early 1990. The
Station, which had been in continuous use for 65 years, was closed without further use for over a
decade. According to one Park official "we just mothballed the building."
The National Park Service, under pressure from Historical Societies and citizens, fmally placed the
Station on the National Register of Historic Places in 200 I and spoke of restoring the building. As of
May 2008 the building remains closed and off limits to the public,
,r
.
.-----
."
--_J
iI
. I
,. 1
'''.':~~~:~:'~.'-'':':' .
. - .
-_r
. "~",.. '"it'7-.
. ..
._."r~
m.~~-.'
___'!I.
".- -- -~-
'j'
-~~~- :~':' '.'~
..
-
.......'
..
" ,-1,'$_
~-,..,.:...-,,"f,...;.~'~:
Monroe Station - 2008
The present condition of Monroe Station was further damaged by Hurricane Wilma and was to many
accurately spoken of in an interview for a local paper when one resident commented, "Wilma exposed a
long running problem at Monroe Station. While skilled at preserving nature, park officials have proven
less capable of caring for History."
5G,c.>
38
'11""'.
h' ).If.
~. ":.
'~".'.--' ," ,.'
~-".
MONROE STATION -1927
- -- """
--- , .
-'-- . ~ ,,-.. .
_.,.,......---..F ..,
MONROE STATION -1929
5lp/
39
Monument Lake
Traveling west the next stop you would come to would be Monument Lake, The lake was used first
by the Seminole / Miccosukee Indians as a ceremonial site during the mid 1800s. It is now under
management by the National Park Service, and it was at this site on February 22, 1936 that several
local and state officials met with about 275 Seminole residents. Also present at the ceremony was
David Graham Copeland, Collier County Commissioner, who was acting as a liaison in the historic
conference. Also present was acting Chief Tush Kee Henehe (Corey Osceola) and Council Member
Gotch Nagoftee (Josie Billie).
,,' "
.~.~, -'k
'1\' 1~.:iJ.. ".i'
;' . I .\, I' '1
't' 1 - ~ r, __ ~.;. '. ;..........
..- ...r" r-
~,
t," . ~"
~;
,1;.i
.,
h
.
,
,\'~
, !,t"
J
'\
'I.
.., '
")
t
: (~": #
. :~
""';~\.i., "
.,~"
"'.", ;r
',' ;',.)>,'.:.';
.j,~,
~."
Historic Council with Governor Sholtz, 1936
This historic photograph, taken on February 22,1936, shows Governor David W. Sholtz asking the
Seminole tribal leaders if there was any way he could offer aid from the Government. The classic
reply now recorded for all posterity was simply "Pohoan Checkish" Gust leave us alone).
S0G.
40
..'.....
v
.~.t\ ,..,
" ~"".
',.,,::'.
." .
.
~~..,;~; t
~,.
-..,t
, c-
o .., .
......' ...
."' .,...... '....~
.
; '''''I .',
-.~ .,,,::;>' ..
"r" .' ~. ~
\~~;t;r.'. -,
,~,;. ~ *~;.~
. . "''- '-%""
. ' ,,);'.. :i' , ---~! .- ;,
.... ,~ :~.;~ :..
,.~~ t.., oj:..
. . !"~ I.....
~.
00:"",
'... ,
'.
. ~ ,,'
'-
"","'t.
-
;}
The site at Monument Lake today reveals the monument missing tbe bronze plate tbat was attached to it
in 1947. Today there is a smaller aluminum marker placed near the site, but it is not located in tbe same
historical location where the historic conference took place and there is no interpretive kiosk or easily
accessed parking area for the general public near the site.
50
41
At this point in the report considering that a large part of Collier County's past history is to be found
traveling along US 41 through the Big Cypress National Preserve it will be necessary to take a basic
review of what the N.P.S. policies and guidelines are in respect to the recording, preservation, and
eventual interpretation to the public of any, buildings, sites or objects. In 1991 public law 101-628
required the U.S.-N.P.S. Park system to revise its thematic framework for history and pre history to
reflect among other things - current scholarship - and represent the full diversity of Americas past. In
1996 the Dept. of the Interior (N.P.S.) revised this theme to include as its first change: (Theme l.
"Peopling Places" This can be found in the Big Cypress National Preserve Archaeological Overview
and assessment manual where on page 252 p-3 it is recorded:
"Historic sites in Big Cypress also provide good examples of this theme. Early American pioneer
settlements and communities, such as those at, Halfway Creek, Turner River, Black Hills, and the later
agricultural, sawmill, and logging communities of Birdon, Ochopee, and Pinecrest are clearly
representative of this theme as they represent the story of the settlement, success and abandonment of
this harsh, remote region".
* Since the establishment of Big Cypress National Preserve in 1974 this has not been accomplished.
The following attachment will be added here:
Traveling four miles west on Tamiarni Trail from Monroe Stution in 1940 you would have come
across a large sawmill operation named the Reynolds Saw Mill. one of nine sawmills that was located
in the Big Cypress region. The Reynolds Mill was opened in 1937 by C.l. Jones, owner of the Jerome
SaWlTIill that opened 5 years later. The mill was capable of cutting 20,000 feet of lumber a day and
Jones built bridges on the north and south side of the Trail with (tram) roads that stretched for 10 miles
south until it reached Gator Hook Strand. It was at the time the closest road leading to Fort Harrell on
New River. The sawmill compound had houses on the north side for the foreman and houses for the
employees and a, sawmill with wells and a borrow pond (to soak the lwnber) on the south side.
During the seven years the mill was in operation one vvorker was killed~ the son of George Cromartie.
In return for compensation to the young workers family C. J. allowed George and his wife Hattie
Cromartie to continue living at the site of the sa'WlTlill until his death in 1960. During this time he
opened a small tour guide and hunting camp at the location.
Today re.lllnants oC the 'Wooden brid2e leadin2 to where 'Workers ;It the
Sawmill lived remain on the north ~ide of the Tamiami Trail.
~~lJ-
42
Looking south about 100 feet off the Tamiami Trail across from the old bridge the remains of the
concrete footings that supported the large saw can be seen, This site as well as 8 other former sawmill
sites remain unmarked in the Big Cypress National Preserve.
s~s
43
Three miles farther west on 41 on the south side of the road is the small roadside stop area (100 feet
by 20 feet) called the Kirby Storter Park. Despite the fact that Kirby Storter was the son of George
Storter a pioneer who first came to the Everglades City area in 1887 and founded the town of
Everglade and the first trading post in the area which is now known as Everglades City, this site only
has several picnic tables and no historical interpretations of any kind about this pioneer's past.
Continuing to travel on 41 heading west 4 miles farther will bring you to the site of Burns Lake
another site in Collier County's past that has no historical interpretation for the public despite the fact
that one of the sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Collier County is located there.
II is presently managed by the N.P.S. and is only open to the public at certain times of the year.
One mile further down US 41 on the north side the visitor / tourist will come to the H.P. William's
Park. This park is on the Turner River Road that runs north 20 miles to Bear Island to a small visitor's
area managed by the N.P.S. The H.P. Williams run by the Dept. ofthe Interior has a public restroom
facility, parking, and a large boardwalk for visitors to observe the Turner River Road Canal (not the
river) for about 200 feet running south to north. The historic Turner River Jungle Gardens (a tourist
attraction for several decades before the Big Cypress National Preserve was established and the site
closed) was located about 1000 feet north of the present park on the north side of 41. II was the
traditional home site of one of the county's pioneers C.G. Mckinney and the site of the Big Cypresses
first planned communities then called (Needhelp).
The Tamaiami Trail Station called the Turner River Station, one of 6 such stations built right after the
creation of Collier County and the completion of the Tamiami Trail was located opposite of this
community on the south side of 4 J. Today there is no present interpretation center, kiosks, markers, or
historical representations of these sites that were such a vital part of the county's early past.
Traveling west on 41 about 2 miles west of the H.P. Williams park on 41 the next stop on the
destination of travel would bring you to what once was the community ofOchopee. Started in the
year's right after the completion of the Tamiami Trail the following attachments on the next several
pages will give a basic view of this community's past and present condition.
S~J-
44
OCHOPEE
Although there were still some fonns of segregation in the town as was the case throughout the era, all
the workers were paid about the same wages during the 1930s which was about $1.25 a day. The fields
were very difficult to work in because of the thick and wet marl prairie, which made walking and
working a real chore. But above average prices the Gaunt famls were receiving for their winter tomatoes
which were shipped by rail up north, allowed them to employ workers in the season that reached an all
time high of 1200 people in 1940, more than the population of Naples at that time. Workers were paid in
Company coin called "babit! or Jigaloo" depending on who you asked and made mosl of their purchases
at the Company Store similar to the payroll on the fanns in Copeland and the Store run by J. B. Janes
there.
Ochopee continued to prosper until the late 1940s when the effects of the newly constructed Turner River
Road and Birdon Road began to cut off the natural sheet flow of water and started to affect the crops
supply of water. In 1953 in the middle of the night, during a rather long cool spell, a fire broke out when
an overnight gullst fell asleep in the Boarding Housc smoking a cigarette. TIle people of the small town
tried to fight the blaze and ironically, the only person killed was the guest when he (apparently ashamed
of running out naked) went back into his room. In the morning the effects of the fire could clearly be
seen. The Boarding House, General Store, Post Office and several buildings were burned completely.
After realizing that a new Post Omce was quickly needed, Mr. Sidney Brown and Raymond Cail moved
a water pipe irrigation shed approximately 7'3" x 8'4" from the north side of the trail to the south side of
the trail. Shelves were installed in the shed and a new Trailway Bus Depot sign was posted next to it.
Several years later several lawsuits against thc Gaunt Company and the death of pamler Ralph Brown
coupled with several years of drought began to see the dL'Cline of the township and several tarm operators
in the area decided to move to Immokalee where the land was easier to cultivate.
Th-,
.fw
I
Iii'
ii,
II~
"\.,.,;;,r. -
......,.
. t"
Ochopee Post Office, Gas Station and Garage, 1958
507
45
What can be described as the end of the Ochopee Township finally came in 1960 when the State Road
Department which also had offices and a camp in Ochopee for maintenance of the Tamiami Trail,
announced plans to widen the Trail and according to Erica Lynne in her 1995 booklet remembering
Ochopee, "The Ochopee Packing House, Ochopee Garage and Ochopee Cafe, all historic buildings were
demolished in order to widen the Tamiami Trail. When the National Park Service established the Big
Cypress Preserve in the 1970s other historic buildings were sold and moved onto private property or
burned". Her sentiments about the destrnction of the historical features of the town of Ochopee would be
mirrored by 88 year old Maria Stone, author of several books on Collier County's history most notably,
The Tamiami Trail 1998 when in an interview given on July 9, 2006 she stated "They have taken away
everything historic in this town." Today only the Post Office remains as a symbol of one of the last,
communities that were the beginning of Collier County.
. ,
,
1!
tl
:.
~,.
____~~ i
!
-= I
"'J
..~}5~.
IJ:
~'- .
~._~
n.._,~'.;.,~:'" ',-
Today the Post Office at Ochopee represents what is billed as the smaUest Post Office in America but it also
represents the only township along the Tamiami Tail recognized on the National Register of Historical
Places from Miami to Naples. In the wonls of Erica Lynne "It is ironic that Ochopee's present fame
revolves around this little Post Office, whose very existence symbolizes the end of the dreams for those who
lived here".
J;;'6g
46
Continuing to head west on US 41 the traveler would soon see Wootens Air Boat attractions (the
owners of the Ochopee Post Office) and the Trail Lakes camping grounds (home of the Skunk Ape
Research Center) on the south side of the road. Less than a mile more traveling west would bring you
to Birdon Road on the north side of the road. This road runs north where it has a left turn available on
Wagon Wheel Road until it reaches highway # 29 about 2 miles further. At this spot on US 41 an early
town in Collier County's history called Birdon started in the 1930s. The following attachment will be
added to give a basic review of that town's past.
Captain Jaudon's Sugar Mill, 1937
********
1bis 1937 picture of the sugar mill Captain Jaudon had worked so hard to establish was finally built but
the Captain was never able to procure the needed fimds to jwnp start all of the operations and plans he
had hoped for. During 1934-35 he applied for a $750,000.00 loan from the government and had written
proposals for up to 75,000 acres of land to be under cultivation for sugar cane but the momentum of
investment had been lost and in 1938 Captain Franklin Jaudon father of the Tamiami Trail died. Several
years of flooded crops because of improper drainage on the Trail and a change of right of way along the
Trail turned Birdon, a community of thousands of workers, into a ghost town by 1945. When most of the
land in the Big Cypress area became the Big Cypress National Preserve in 1974, park officials started an
acquisition program to purchase most of the homes and properties in Birdoll and proceeded to remove
over 95% ofthe historic structures. Today there remain only a few homes now used by park officials and
the remains of all the processing plants have been demolished. There is no marker presently to denote
Birdons past.
S?Cf
47
Continuing west on 41 for I more mile would bring you to the Big Cypress National Preserve
Headquarters on the north side of the road. These headquarters are located about 1,000 feet east of Sea
Grape Drive, a road on the south side of 41 that runs for about 2,000 feet until it terminates at a
turnaround where a small boat launch is located. This area at the launch is in fact the headwaters to
one of Collier County's oldest communities called Half Way Creek. It was so named for the fact that it
was a transportation waterway located halfway between Everglades City and the Turner River and
former community located there. The HalfWay Creek community was an early pioneer settlement
that had farms and dozens of homes where families lived since the 1890s and prospered bringing their
crops to such places as Everglades City and Chokoloskee where they would then be shipped to
different ports like Key West and Fort Myers. Tbe HalfWay Creek community was also the location
where the first elections held in the Ten Thousand Islands took place in 1892.
Big Cypress National Preserve officials have known about tbe HalfWay Creek site for several
decades having sent several Archaeologists to the area during one of their surveys. The surveys which
were started in 1978 have now produced over 455 archaeological sites in the Big Cypress National
Preserve but unfortunately none of those sites bas ever been interpreted to the general public including
9 sites that have been nominated and accepted to the National Register of Historic Places. The
exception being Monroe Station in which the past bistory and present condition of that structure today
bas already been diseussed in the earlier section.
The HalfWay Creek site was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places by Big Cypress
officials in 1980 and the registration number is # 8000365 also known as 8 Cr 176 - address restricted,
Carnestown - Owner, Federal. Although this designation only covers one site (a blaek midden soil
type associated with the Seminole Glades iii b, and Glades ii time frame) the rest of the entire area of
the Half Way Creek site is not presently represented with any type of interpretive display or historical
marker to denote its past existence either on US 41 or at the terminus of Sea Grape Drive where the
small boat launeh is located. Collier County still controls the road rights on Sea Grape Drive and this
presents a good opportunity to recognize and assign a historic designation to this site and place a rest
area for the traveler I tourist with a marker and possible future interpretive center.
*
Now the traveler I tourist who started trom the Dade County I Collier County line on west bound US
41 comes to an important 4 way junction in the road. They arrive at the intersection of US 41 and
highway # 29 where in 1966 the dedication of a welcome station took place (the first in the county) on
the south side of the road where that station is still present. This station was formerly owned by
Collier County but it is now managed by tbe Everglades Chamber of Commerce, and owned by a
consortium of business owners living in Everglades City. This intersection will allow the motorist to
continue to:
1. Drive west for 30 miles until finally reaching the city of Naples as the final destination.
2. Drive in a southern direetion for ten miles which will take them to Everglades City and the
final terminus of the road ending witb tbe township ofCbokoloskee 2 miles further south than
the Everglades City limits.
3. Drive north on highway # 29 for 38 miles until eventually reaching the city of Immokalee.
$;;0
48
For practical purposes here the directions for travel will include what a visual, and destination
orientated journey would include if the northern # 3 route is taken. Followed by a continuation ofthe #
1 route west on US 41. The # 2 route from US 41 to Everglades City will be discussed in a later
section as it pertains to other considerations found in this report.
ROUTE # 3
Today if the traveler / tourist would take the northern route on highway # 29 from US 41 for 38 miles
to Immokalee City they would have to pass by what would have been a total of 10 past townships that
were a part of the early county's history. However in reality in they would never realize this as there
are no historical markers or any other forms of historical interpretation along this road. For
demonstration purposes an outline of these past communities history will be attached here in the order
they would be found in on this journey and would in fact serve to display what type of information
could be interpreted about these sites.
Coveland"Was started in 1932 and nmned in honor of David Graham Copeland~ and was the starting
point ofa fanlily owned farming business. The owners J.B. Janes and Alfred Webb owned property
there where they grew and cultivated tomatoes. The first building to go up in Copeland was the J.B.
Janes & 'Company Store~ and Copeland eventually housed 200 families who were largely employees of
the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company. Most of the people were taken to work every moming~ by the
trains that would bring the loggers to their daily work areas. Tokens were issued to employees called
""babbitts'~ that could not be used except for purchases at the Company store. Later the store was
remodeled and a post office was added with a restaurant.
* (Big Cypress National Preserve bought the historic post office and restaurant in 2003 and bulldozed
the entire site soon afterward)
Jerome begun in the late 1930's, was named after lwnber mill owner C.J. Jones and ended up with a
population of 150 people. The benevolent Mr. Jones had about 40 houses built for his employees.
Tuckerton, approximately two miles north of Deep Lake, became a vibrant fanning town in the early
1930's building two large packing houses and crate manufacturing sites before averaging 150 people in
their community who were proud to have their own "'school teacher."
Marmon was a small farm combine just north of Deep Lake along the new Atlantic Coast Railway Line
and employed dozens of people who worked the fields or in one of the two tomato packing plants.
..
Rock Island just to the north of, Tuckerton was a hardscrabble place because of the limestone that is
scattered across its plains, but a dozen or so fatni1ies were able to farm the land for at least a
generation.
..
Miles Citv, named after one of Barron Collier's sons, Miles Collier. opened in the 1920s and was home
to dozens of families who worked at the Roskey Packing Plant. Its location was just south of modem
day 1-75 at Highway #29.
..
Sunniland. started as a small fanning community in the 1930s~ and became a midway point between
Immokalee and Everglades for the railroad lines. This community built a large shipping railway depot,
and processing plants were started on the south side of the community. Sunniland's prosperity tripled
in 1943, when Florida's first commercial oil producing site was started by the Humble Oil Company,
and within a decade 11 oil wells. were producing a halfa million gallons of crude oil a year.
Eventually the 11,000 foot deep wells required a pipeline to distribute the oil to retmeries and a 94
mile pipeline was built to carry the crude oil to Port Everglades on the east coast.
..
Arze/l. was a collection of small fanns in the 1930s about 4 miles north of SunniJand near the bend on
Highway #29, and became somewhat famous for it cucwnbers and watermelons.
Harker, 2 miles north of Arzell was known for its squash. potatoes and large tomatoes. It was mostly
home to farm workers who rode the daily train south to various work sites.
Bunker Hill located four miles north of Harker and about 4 miles south of the city of Immokalee. It
was started in the 1920s as a prominent lumber camp town inhabited mostly by African Americans
whose nllll1bers rose to around 100 by 1935. The town's claim to fame was being the largest exporter
or railroad ties for the growing railroad lines throughout the entire state of' Florida.
~71
49
ROUTE # 1
Carnestown Todav
Continuing to travel west on US 41 past HalfWay Creek right before coming to Highway # 29 the
traveler / tourist would see on the south side of the road a large A frame building called an information
center. This is a site where the motorist can buy, refreshments, books and souvenirs and is in all
general respects fully represented as Camestown in this location. This can be seen on various maps and
travel guides at this site and in most of the visitors and tourist's literature presently being used.
However this is incorrect due to the fact that the traditional and historically correct site of Camestown
is one half further west on the north side of 41 where it was a construction boomtown started during
the I 920s. At one time it housed one of the largest warehouses on the southwest coast. The railroad
coming from Everglades City passed right by Port DuPont and continued north through Camestown,
Copeland, Jerome, Deep Lake, Tuckerton, Matmon, Rock Island, Miles City, Sunniland, Arzell,
Harker, and Bunker Hill, until it reached lmmokalee City. The site now is presently being used by
Collier County as a trash transfer station. There is no historical interpretive marker located here and
many historians and preservation societies in Naples would like to see the site restored and used as an
interpretive exhibit with a proper marker.
't...
A....'."'l!;.\
. . ".
t-f'. ~..i'
"."
- . ",! t 1I l~ ( "I .', I \
,><....1 ~ !' ,'.\ " :
,)l.f\ll....I.II....ljl<l~
: HO~.S 0' 0"'0"'0,,1\:
,'l1
Jl
"1
I'
.~-'''. "'"'
,; .
...
-
Carnestown today is just a past memory. The town lost much of its luster in 1950 wben Samuel Carnes,
one of Barron Colliers sons of wbom tbe towu was uamed after, died in an automobile accident racing
cars in New York.
<5)2
50
The picture above shows the location of what is today perceived as Carnestown where the large visitor
and information building is located on US 41 and highway # 29 on the south side. This picture, taken
in 1930 shows the actual Indian Village that was located at this site since the early 1900s.
."
,/""
. ". .~
'';':.'
This picture taken in 1930 shows the actual historical location of Carnestown located today one half
mile west of highway # 29 and north of US 41, where this worker is shown loading tomatoes at the
railroad depot, for shipment to Fort Myers in refrigerated rail cars,
S73
51
Continuing to travel on US 41 heading west the visitor / tourist would see 2 small air boat tour
companies in the next four miles located on the south side of the road.
Continuing west for a total of9 miles past Camestown the next available stop area would be Big
Cypress Bend. The area and location known as Big Cypress Bend is so named for the fact that a jog or
(bend) in the road US 41 takes place at that location. Information about this site that includes first, the
former Big Cypress Bend Station that was located on the south side of 41, and the Indian Village and
Big Cypress Bend Boardwalk on the north side of 41 will be attached here.
WEAVER STATION
Weaver Station was later renamed Big Cypress Bend Station and was smaller than most stations.
When it opened in late 1928, Mr. S. M. Weaver, (a.k.a. Red) ran the filling station. Later it was bought
and run by Inez Simmons and her husband who changed the name to the Big Cypress Bend station. It
had a small restaurant and also held a court for tourists in the back. The Simmons ran the station for
over 30 years.
BIG CYPRESS BEND STATION - 1950
S7Y-
52
Today the Big Cypress Bend Board Walk, a part of the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve on the
northern border of US 41 is located about 100 feet east of the present day Indian Village and is a
wooden boardwalk that stretches for about 1,500 feet in a northerly direction giving visitors a chance
to see some of the fauna and wildlife of the region. Across US 41 on the south side of the road is the
last remnants of the 4th Tamiami Trail Station built in 1928. The following description of that site will
be attached here:
THE TRAIL AT BIG CYPRESS BEND
One of the stations built in 1928 to service motorists on the new Tamiami Trail was Weavers Station
at Fakahatchee, or as it is called today, Big Cypress Bend. It was also on the old military trail leading
from Royal Palm Hammock east where at the cross junction of trails on the west side of Fakahatchee
Strand, it turned north where it eventually led in a north by north eastern direction to Fort Keais. There
had always been Indian villages located in the immediate area, and its upper trails led to Fuse Hadjo's
village, which was located II miles cast of Jerome. From there it had trails stretching to Turners
River, Monument Lake, and on eastward to the lower Everglades.
^.:-:/"'
.(~~-
This photo shows one of the early Indian villages located at Big Cypress Bend in 1946. The villa~e is still
there and sells souvenirs. It is one of the last such shops on Tamiami Trail. While the small store is open
for visitors except during the summer months, the small Indian settlement that lives inside the village is
closed to the general public.
S:7S
53
Weaver Station Todav
Although the Collier County Commission had recognized in the late 1980s the remnants of Weaver
Station as being Historic, no efforts to preserve the site were taken. After several severe storms the
property now sits vacant, with no Historical Marker to identify it along Highway # 4]. It is located at a
strategic midway point between Naples and Everglades City across from the Big Cypress Bend
Boardwalk.
~
:.,1
WEAVER STATION - 2008
*
Many residents in Collier County would like to see this property to be bought by the County and
restored. It is the only remnant left of the original Weaver Station and Big Cypress Bend Station. Since
building along the Tamiami Trail is now very limited, this be seen as a good opportunity to purchase the 5
to 10 acre site for an interpretive exhibit.
.[;71
54
Continuing to travel on US 41 heading west for 2 more miles will bring you to the small development
community of Port of the Islands. It is in general a small number of town homes and residences
located on the south side and north side of the road. The next available stop would be 6 miles further
west would be the Collier Seminole State Park located on the south side ofthe road. The Bay City
Walking (Monegan) Dredge listed on the National Register of Historic Places is located about 2,000
feet inside the entrance of the park. The only other object to be found on the National Register of
Historic Places driving on the Tamiami trail starting east at the Dade County border and heading west
until you reach the city of Naples would be the Ochopee Post Office. For a fee the park offers
refreshments, camping facilities, boat tours, an interpretation center, and a monument dedicated to
Barron G. Collier. The following basic information on the park will be attached here,
THE PARK TODAY
One year after the new county obtained its title "Collier" Barron G. Collier donated land surrounding
the proposed park, and again offered it to the government as a proposed location of a national park.
The government at the time didn't see the need for it and again declined the offer. The county
acquired the land nnder its ownership and started to design a park for its citizens. By 1944 the county
had control of 5,475 acres, when they donated the Park to the State of Florida as "Seminole Park." The
name Barron Collier had desired to honor the Seminole people of Florida. Finally, 3 years later the
State took over management of the Park and in 1947 when the Everglades National Park was
dedicated, the Park was renamed the Collier Seminole State Park.
",~" ~1~'~,~"
..... "' ...~
THE BARRON COLLIER MONUMENT DONATED AND ERECTED BY COLLIER COUNTY IN 1941
The name of the founder of the County, Barron Collier is etched in the marble on the top colonnade.
On the left side of the name is his birth date, March 23,1873 and on the right side the date of his death,
March 13, 1939. The words on the bottom marble pedestal read "The Founder and Father of Collier
County Florida and faithful friend of all mankind" Erected January I, 1941 by Collier County Florida.
* The marble pedestal supported a bronze bust of Barron Collier for 64 years~ until in 2005 when it
was stolen. Although the cost of a replacement is only estimated at $1,500.00 to date it has not been
replaced. There were also several bronze marker plates installed in 1941 on the sides of the
monument inset on native rocks, with the na.rn.es of the State and Federal troops, who gave their lives
during the Seminole Wars, and the names of Seminole warriors who defended their homes and lands,
during the conflict. Park officials have removed the bronze tablets and for reasons still unclear have
placed them in storage where they have remained for many years. There are no other monument
markers that describe officers and 'Warriors besides these in South Florida.
~77
55
Directly opposite of this village on the south side of US 41 is the location of the 5th Tamiami Trail
Station that was built when Collier first became a county. Today it is still being used as a service
station but it is not being used in a historically interpreted way. There is also a restaurant operating on
the west side of the station which borders county road # 82 that runs ten miles south to the community
of Goodland and 5 miles in a westerly direction where it finally enters onto Marco Island. The site
presently has no markers present to describe its past heritage and history however the present owner
has indicated he would be willing to consider those options. There is presently a large 100 X 200 foot
lot I area on the western side of# 82 opposite the restaurant that may be available. This would be a
good location for an interpretive display considering it is an important 4 way junction on US 41. The
following basic information about this station will be attached here.
~
';fj
1
Royal Palm Hammock Station - 1929
The Royal Palm Station was the second farthest station built on the west side of the Tamiami Trail
(Belle Meade station was the farthest) and was the largest of the six stations. The first officer deputized
for the station was J. A. Pike in 1928, but by far the most remembered was Meese Ellis and his wife
who bought the filling station and restaurant, and later built 10 cottages that were for rent either daily or
weekly. The food that was served was well known by locals and visitors alike. By 1934 the southwest
Florida Mounted Police Force that had headquarters at the six stations ceased to operate, but Mr. and
Mrs, Ellis continued to stay and run the station and restaurant for 30 more years.
S7t
56
~
View from the air showing the Royal Palm Hammock Station looking south
.;.;..~,;>, .,.,......
.,
.1:~~~~t;._,
.-9
'~
:",~" , _ 4'~:
~ilI< :;.;-"",,:';'_'~'_~?
The Royal Palm Hammock Restaurant Today - (presently called the Rhino Saloon)
S7C;
57
The Royal Palm Hammock Trail Station Today
Continuing to drive west on US 41 about one half mile past county road # 82 the traveler / tourist
would pass a small hiking trail on the south side of the road but chances are good they would not
recognize this site because the small sign on the gate located there is barely visible to the motorist and
the trail is only open for a short time of the season. Continuing in a westerly direction for ten more
miles the motorist would view on the south side of the road a new Real Estate development and the
Henderson Creek Trailer Court, and on the north side a golfing range that allows people to play golf at
night time, and the site of the new Big Cypress open air market near the small community of West
Wind. This area has always been traditionally known as the Belle Meade community and was the
location of where the last Tamiami Trail Station was located near present day county road # 951 in the
city of Naples. The station was built between 1927 and 1928 and the first proprietor of that station was
James Laury who also doubled as a deputized policeman in the Southwest Florida Mounted Police
force that Barron G. Collier started and placed at the other 5 trail stations to patrol and help any
stranded tourists along the Tamiami Trail. The Belle Meade station was destroyed in 1960 when
hurricane Donna came through Naples. Today there remains no marker present to show the location of
this station. This ends the historical past history of the Tamiami Trail from the Dade County line to the
city of Naples and gives a fairly accurate view of its present day use and status.
S"lQ
58
OVERVIEW OF SECTIONS 1 - 7
Facts taken from sections 1 - 7 can now be placed in the following order:
1. No information in the fonn of guides, maps, brochures, scenic attractions, or any representation
on Collier County's past history or cultural heritage to visitors I tourists is now being
interpreted along a major road way leading into the city of Naples, that being interstate 1-75
along a 78 mile route running east from a major metropolis city - Fort Lauderdale.
2. No economic benefits are being realized by Collier County along this same 78 mile route.
3. No Collier County governmental authority or jurisdiction is present along this same corridor
which passes through and by the borders of the Big Cypress National Preserve, the Fakahatehee
Strand State Preserve, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, and the Picayune Strand
State Forest.
4. Collier County presently owns no lands on this same 78 mile corridor.
5. There are presently no cooperative management agreements between these same 4 park entities,
6. Collier County presently owns no lands on the 50 mile corridor route on highway # 29 running
south from Immokalee City past US 41 to the town of Chokoloskee.
7, There are currently 18 historical sites that are eligible to be nominated to the National Register
of Historical Places on this same corridor on highway # 29 including:
[AI - The Humble oil pump # I presently located in Oil Well Park Road Park.
[81 - The old train depot north of Sunniland.
[C) - The previously monumented site of Fort Simon Drum where in 1942 David Graham
Copeland (a former county commissioner) placed a marker.
8. There are currently no county or state roadside markers on the entire route of highway # 29 to
denote, interpret, or in any other way recognize 11 past townships of the early county.
9. There are currently 14 sites along the US 41 route from the Dade County I Collier County
border traveling west 90 miles to the city of Naples that are eligible to be nominated to the National
Register of Historical Places.
10. There is presently only one site relating to Collier County's past history and cultural heritage,
that being - the Ochopee Post Office placed on the direct roadway of US 41 that can be safely
visited and interpreted that is on the National Register of Historic Places, the other site presently
found on this roadway and on the National Register of Historic Places is Monroe Station and is
presently found to be in an unsafe condition.
11. Collier County presently owns no property on the 90 mile east to west corridor of US 41.
12. The welcome station presently at the crossroad junction of US 41 and highway # 29 formerly
owned by the county is now privately owned and operated by the Everglades City Chamber of
Commerce, a private consortium of business owners who live in Everglades City.
13. There are presently no interpretive centers being operated by Collier County on a total of 185
miles of roadways leading into the city of Naples or Immokalee City from the eastern part of the
county.
14. There is presently no interlocal or jurisdictional agreement between Everglades City and
Collier County.
15. There is presently no access for the general public or residents of the county to view or have
interpreted in any manner 6 out of the 10 sites that David Graham Copeland monumented in 1941
- 1943 in Collier County today.
..s ~/
59
While Section 1 on the previous pages has served to outline what would be considered an inventory of:
1. The physical aspects of certain time frames associated with past history as it relates to specific
events, people, places, structures, and geographical locations in Collier County.
2. The county's past history in a basic way as it applies to a planned (visitor / tourist) destination
with emphasis on scenic attractions and activities as it relates to a sustained mobile medium
(the automobile).
3. The availability of using resources and assets in a financial and economic manner.
4. The decline of actual geographical land for purposes of taxation, usage, future development,
and sustainable infrastructure.
5. The inability to exercise any jurisdictional control and future planning in land areas larger than
a present day land tax base arc a in Collier County.
Section.!! will discuss:
The economic benefits to Collier County endorsing a unified Cultural and Historical program
SECTION 8
Today in what could be described as economic and financial returns to the county in the eastern part of
the county would be described as:
1. A limited property tax base.
2. Revenue from a relatively small number of occupational licenses.
3. Compared to the western part of Collier County a small percentage of impact fees from any
new construction or development projects.
4. No financial return on any property that is that is leased from the county to any other entity.
5. No financial returns to the county in what could be perceived as goods or services to the
Traveler / Tourist.
6. No financial returns to the county as related to any scenic attraction, concessions, souvenirs,
guiding services, boating and water related services, or Historical interpretation in any manner
as it relates to the county's past Cultural Heritage.
*
Here it should be noted that the Museum of the Everglades, a county run museum and the only
present entity in the eastern part of the county that displays and interprets the past history of the
county, presently located in Everglades City, does not charge an entrance or admission fee to
visitors or tourists.
On the following page the general map that is handed out to all visitors, travelers, and tourists, at all
of the N.P.S. visitor centers, rest areas, and trail locations in the Everglades National Park and Big
Cypress National Preserve lands under present management will be attached. It should serve to give a
visual understanding of how all interpretation and visitor! tourist directed traffic is being moved in a
direction that not only is limited to the scrvices that bring thc largest financial returns to the Oept. of
the Interior (N.r.S.) and other private and non county entitics but:
* A close examination ofthe map would reveal that the City of Naples and Immokalee City is not
present on the map. Arrows in red have been highlighted to show the general direction of travel on
Interstate 1-75 and US 41 from the east and areas in the Blue boxes have been highlighted to show the
N.r.S. visitor centers. The areas in magenta have bccn highlighted in boxes to describe private
enterprises considered tourist attractions.
Sg2
60
"
: "
-
:1 ~
., If
tj
It
II
r
II
I
J
I
"
N{~ ',...-""""''''
, , I
"V. "
t. II'
, I'
I,'
, ,oj
, I!
,
,"
~ - ~
:: ~
'.
""
l:
I'
.
Il
lU
'>
,J
z
<)
:~
./;
I;
il)
J
JJ
t~..
..l'
:;O'-'=if.W-~
1$
I!~ : /' ;
ll~;/
" "
.' >
;1' <(
{;. ~
..
.
, ,
0 " "
-
u ~ e
. . .
.
,e
III
.--
-<;; /!.3
,:
,.
I,
, ~
l.
is t!
, jl
~ ; i
l )
,';;
"'.i
b
.
..~
61
.,
fII
,I'
'I'
II!
~-;{'-"
\,~;~
t!.
l~
~. IJ
.~
,
0; i l~!
/' I
,
II, '
1
!f
~! ,I
II
!l ·
Jr,ll .J
,
1
~J
~,'''I
::
"
" - :,~
I:
~.
,
.'
fl'
llf
,n
'~ II
l'
Ii > .\
'!f
i
I
I.
i
~
I
~ "~~
~t; ~~z~~
t:~j;i E<l~8@~e ~
n~ ~~i~U ~~5
I ~h~~s ~o~
[if 0
If
IJ.
..<<
,,,"
. I'
!I
. .
g ,~
","
;:::
,
,
"
"
.,
II
I
I
!
. I
V j
I
I
L i
. " ,i)'
1 jt
I I I
I
. II
!! II n
~bol ~; H
IfI r1 []
!
! III
o m ~
I'Jill!
III
8SIlIIII
.h! !
i ,"H!
I nl i
.~- <ItCH:]
By studying this map it becomes apparent that a large part of Collier County's attractions are now
being utilized in the eastern part of the county with a minimal interpretation of the county's past
history and almost no financial assets realized to the county. This is in fact due to the most simple of
reasons being that the visitor / traveler / tourist - has most of their planned travel destination needs met
in the eastern part of the county and finding no practical reason to continue in either a northern
direction to Immokalee City or in a westerly direction to the city of Naples concludes the full
(Everglades experience) has been achieved. In reality the full experience has not been achieved in a
complete manner as the majority of the destinations have only relied upon and introduced the mostly
(Biological) assets the county has to offer and not the Historical, Cultural, or full measure of the
county's past Heritage. A unified and continuous system of the county's historical past would bring
into alignment a full realization of what is described in section l!. as - The economic benefits to Collier
County endorsing a unified Cultural and Historical program.
SECTION 9
In describing what would be the economic benefits to private organizations, investors, partners,
contractors, surveying or any engineering work: in Section 2 a basic list of possible aspects to any part
of a unified program will be listed here.
1. Private Organizations - Private organizations and a host of Nonprofit Organizations now
present and operating in Collier County have traditionally taken over the task of preserving the
county's past History, Culturc, and Heritage. This can be seen in such places as the Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary originally conceived and now presently run by the Audubon Society - The
Naples Historical Society which currently manages Thc Palm Cottage - the Marco Island
Historical Society which prescntly manages or oversees several historical sites and is presently
leading the financial drive to establish a new museum on Marco Island, the Everglades Wonder
Gardens, Naples Trolley Tours, Naples Botanical Gardcn, and many more similar attractions.
2. Investors - Investors from private and non profit organizations in different areas of the tourist
industry can be seen in such organizations as the Authorized National Park Concession Tours
in Chokoloskee and Everglades City, the Big "M" Casino Cruises, Wootens Everglades Airboat
Tours, and many others currently operating in Collier County.
3. Partners - Partners in specific projects can be found in many instances with the N.P.S. Park
systems, state programs and parks, and many joint ventures with countics in the State of
Florida. They range from concessions, guide services, boat tours, gift shops and parking areas
to name a few.
4. Contractors - A wards of contracts to contractors are traditionally the general result of any
proposed projects in the State of Florida that (bids) are needed to fulfill plans such as roadways,
structures, trails, concession stands, interpretation centers, or kiosks in public areas that
accompany a host of proposed or planned projects on Federal, State or County and private
lands.
5. Surveying or engineering work - Needless to say before any proposed project is usually
approved or implemented the services of surveying companies or engineering companies are
needed whether the project is Federal, State, or county oriented. Most of the time local
companies in the specific area are hired, employed, or otherwise given / awarded the contract to
fulfill any proposed projects.
~C;; g 4-~
62
OVERVIEW ON SECTION 9
When the seat of Collier County was relocated in 1960 from Everglades City to the city of Naples the
companies usually associated with the above services continued to operate in the eastern part of the
county which was within an extremely limited geographical scope. The companies now providing
those services had a general movement resulting in the fact that they are now mostly engaged in those
services in the western part of the county. Any proposed projects started in present day Collier County
and directed in an easterly direction would naturally financially benefit these companies whose
services have been geographically [ isolated] from the eastern part of the county since 1960.
SECTION !!!
Section 10 - A unified Historical theme assembled into workable programs to include a Heritage Trail
and travel destinations and interpretive centers along the proposed historic districts.
A unified historical theme that would include any transportation routes was already discussed in
Section 1 and included the fact of having 2 historic designations attached to 2 roadways.
1. US 41 from the city of Naples traveling east to the Dade County! Collier County line
approximately 80 miles.
2. Highway # 29 starting in the town of Chokoloskee and heading north to the city of Immokalee
approximately 50 miles.
Using the basis of these roads as a beginning point of any unified proposal! project it will be necessary
to review the US 41 roadway in more detail. The following information will be attached to more
accurately understand the present Historical status of this road.
One of the more popular misconceptions about historical designations is that once a property or
Historic Trail, House, or even road for that matter is established, it can never be reversed. In what
would seem a typical one step forward two steps back scenario a grass roots effort was started back in
1995 to designate the Tamiami Trail as a "Florida Scenic Highway." After thousands of hours of
research work the proposal was brought forward to the Metropolitan Planning Organization [M.P.O.]
and in 1996 the M.P.O. which is in charge offilture decisions for a three County area, decided to move
forward with the Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway designation on April 2, 1996.
The section of the Trail in question was the east to west stretch from Naples to Miami.
Other counties had already designated their part ofthc 275 mile road starting in Tampa on State Road
60 to U.S. Route 1 (Statc Road 5) in Miami.
In May of 1996 thc first Stakeholders mecting was held and confirmed the decision to create a
Corridor Advocacy Group, a necessary step the state required. In Junc of 1997 the Collier M.P.O.
prepared and submitted an eligibility application to the State of Florida
In February of 1998 a Community participation program was developed, and in August of that same
year, thc Tamiami Trail Corridor Management Plan was developed. By December 1988 the east to
west section of the Tamiami Trail was approved by the State of Florida as a designated "Florida Scenic
Highway." By June 2000 more paperwork and submissions were madc by a grass roots cffort and
historical societies, and were rewarded with the fifty mile stretch of the Tamiami Trail being
designated on the Federal level as a "National Scenic Byway." With all of the obstacles removed in
January 2004 the Master Plan for thc Tamiami Trail National Scenic Highway was complcted
fmalizing the process. In what would then seem, an incomprehensible action certain, "vested interests"
without the knowledge of all thc people and groups involved, camc before thc M.P.O. Board in early
2005 and requested the State and National designations be removed.
s:-~
63
In May of2005 the M.P.O. Board voted to remove the Scenic Highway designation. When the State
and Federal Authorities received the request to remove the designations they were astonished at how
much work had been done to accomplish the designations and refused to de-designate the Highway,
citing the fact that the community and efforts of all organizations were not informed of the meetings
that led to the M.P.O. Board vote. The battle to keep the designation intact was still going strong when
on September 14,2007 the M.P.O. reiterated its position at a public meeting, and proceeded with the
motion to "dedesignate" the stretch of highway on the Tamiarni Trail. It was not without protest on the
part of a large group of organizations. One person Jack Wert, executive director of the Naples, Marco
Island, and Everglades tourism bureau perhaps summed it up best when he said:
"Without the scenic highway designation, we lose a valuable promotional opportunity... The brand
equity that we have with this designation truly helps us showcase our unique attractions. If we lose
this designation, it really is going to hurt us all over the world in promoting our destination."
Unfortunately even with supporters like Joe Bonness, co-president of the Naples Pathways Coalition
board of directors, all of the participants in favor of the project were ignored. He went on to say that
his organization "would love to see a scenic trail for bikers and walkers to be able to make it from the
east coast to the west coast and vice-versa.".. . "It hasn't hurt what's out there, and it's been in action
for years."
* The motion prepared by the M.P.O. to have the Tarniarni Trail's designation removed has been sent
to the state level, and the future status of the Tarniami Trail's designation is uncertain.
A relevant understanding of the process which is now taking place should include the fact that
regardless of any designation that the State or Federal government places on US 41, the Collier County
Government or The Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board can recognize and designate a
historical designation on US 41. At a later date other designations can be nominated to either a State
or Federal level. Considering the fact that Dade County has announced plans to continue with a
historical recognition of US 41 or with any Federal or State designations now in place or considered in
the future it becomes apparent that the only section of the Tamiami Trail in the present 275 mile route
in regards to any significant State or Federal designations being removed is now on the west to east
corridor of this roadway through Collier County. This in turn relates to Section 1- ROUTE # 2
spoken of on page 46 being later discussed in this report. This designation can be considered to be the
l,t step in establishing a Historical or Cultural theme. The second step in the process would be to ask
the county / (H.A.P.B.) to recognize and designate the south to north route of highway # 29 as a
historic district first by the county of Collier and later by any state or Federal entities. The third step
would be to have the county recognize the sites listed on pages 19 and 20 and designate a Historic
status to those.
* If in the event the county neither recognizes or designates the 2 historic districts or individual sites,
this can be done on a State and Federal level by private citizens or organizations. With what could be
described as [travel destinations] placed along the highway routes the process of installing interpretive
centers would be the next phase. Interpretive centers can be viewed in several contexts much of which
will be determined after steps 1-3 have taken place and logistics are considered such as:
1. Ownership of land - Private individual. private organization, Collier County, or State of Florida
(Federal ownership would not be recommended)
2. Right of way - usually in conjunction with the Florida Oept. of Transportation with a standard 100
foot easement
3. Types of interpretation - Markers - Replicas - Kiosks - Maps on boards showing routes - Printed
literature - Chickee Hut / Hutch - Building / Museum with a pioneer theme
4. Management of site - Benches - landscaping - Water - Restrooms - Parking
5, Location of site
~Rk.
64
HERITAGE TRAIL THEMES
A heritage trail can be described or displayed in many ways. Usually it represents a theme that
includes:
1. Information about a single individuals - Place of birth - Place of work - Place of residence
2. Events in history that took place at certain areas or at a specific geographical location
3. Information about a either a single structure or several structures in a specific location or
several locations having to do with past history
4. Certain time frames that would include a period of time where early activities took place
having to do with the past history of a state, county, or town in which it is located
5. A certain progression of events having to do with industry, politics, communities or community
events
6. Places that past authors have lived in, written about, included in their work, or visited
7. Transportation routes or routes of travel that were used in certain locations during a certain
time period and associated with past historical events
8. Types of transportation used at specific locations or at certain time periods such as,
automobiles, trains, ships, airplanes, or even wagons and carts
9. Ethnic themes based on cultures that were the first inhabitants of the land
10. Pioneering themes describing the first time settlers arrived, lived, or started settlements or
communities
This gives a basic understanding of what can be displayed or interpreted on a certain path, trail, route
on any roadways, or museums that Historical, Cultural, or Heritage themes are presented to the public.
The distance that a Heritage trail can extend to can be as little as several hundred feet or several
thousand miles (As is the case with the Trail of Tears or the Lewis and Clark Heritage Trail) It can
have one single theme or have a combination of all the themes presented above.
********
An example of the several different heritage trails that exist today in Florida and around the country
will be attached on the following pages. After these basic types of heritage trails are reviewed a
proposal on the type of heritage trail will be discussed that would best fit the Historic and Cultural
Heritage theme for Collier County.
.sQ7
65
THE HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL IN OHIO
About the Trail
",
;ii',!ii
I'l'tlJllli.\(tIlY
Frail OWllt'nl1ip (lilt!
\/aillfl'J1f111('('
f,.ail r'(icluerte
1Ii~,~.. ~-;----
- :=\ An information kiosk located at the
trailhead holds information about
..~...._ .., . . upcoming cventsas well as news about
'.~~ ~ ~ , the trail. tnuJ maps, and infonnation
~ .-' Akt,<,~ ~I ....lIIabouttbeHerilageRall.TrailC<lalition
Dedication platfonn located at the
trailhead is surrounded by bricks with
name... of supporters etched in them
The warm up area at the trailhead is
adjacent 10 Ute parking lot on Center
Street
The Heritage Rail-Trail is a 7 mile multipurpose trail which stretches between Hilliard, Ohio and Plain City, Ohio in
the central portion of the state. (See trail map for more information.) The trailhead is located in the "Old Hilliard"
historic district of Hilliard which contains many shops and eateries as well as the Northwest Historical Village
located in Weaver Park.
41!'-
Colwell
Church built in
1876 is located
in Weaver
Pa<k.
Hilliard's Station built in 1899
..- is now located in Weaver Park
"Old Hilliard" historic district
located in dowlJtown Hilliard,
Ohio.
Log cabin built in Weaver Park is
fashioned after one built in the area
around 1850.
The Northwest Historical Village run by the Northwest Franklin County Historical Society, is a portrayal of real
pioneer living from 1850 to 1900. Inside the village stands the train station built in 1899 that once stood on the north
side of the railroad tracks west of Main Street in Hilliard, Ohio.
~
1!J- The bluebird boxes
located along the
trail are enjoyed by
,:: .. all
......~
S1r:f.'.--"'~
tr~'
Water fort and play
area at Homestead
Parle
Shelter house
at Homestead
Parle.
Two and a half miles northwest of Hilliard along the trail you will find The Homestead, a public park operated by
Washington Township. This park contains many special play areas for children such as a water fort and toddler play
area, as well as basketball and sand volleyball for those interested in active recreation. Don't forget to tour the the
three quarter mile picturesque path around the park.
+
.
- ..",
.._~.~
u'-'JL&.._ r 1\ml
A large crowd of
..; walkers and
riders,preparesTo
use the new
Hayden Run trail.
A thank.you
fromtberiders
and their
horses_
Horse trailer puking and a
corral are available at the
., Hayden Run Trailhead
Opened in July of2002 the Hayden Run Road Trailhead is where the Franklin Couoty Metro Parks has developed
S"'g,f)
66
The next Heritage trail would be the Zora Neale Hurston - Dust Tracks Heritage Trail- Located at the
city of Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County, Florida.
ZC7RA NEALE Hl/R5'TC7N
L 'u ~{ 1/ di ,,( ~ lie; ',/ci;-}t' ,7/,", ,(I
THE KIOSKS
The following texts are included with illustrations on the full-color
maps of Florida and Fort Pi~'rcc on each of the three kiosks at the
following locations.
"The strangest thing about it was that once I found the use of my feet. they
took to wandering. I always wanted to go. I would wander off in the woods
alone. following some inside urge to go places. This alarmed my mother a great
deal. She used to say that she believed a woman who was an enemy of hers had
sprinkled 'travel dust' around the doorstep the day I was born."--Dust Tracks
on a Road (1942)
Zora Neale Hurston Branch Library
3008 Avenue D
The Zora Neale Hurston Dust Tracks Heritage
Trail commemorates the life of author Zora
Neale Hurston through the prism of her Fort
Pierce years. Markers along each stop of the
trail, where memories of Zora coalesce, focus the
light of her life's story onto her final days.
Zora Neale Hurston, writer and ethnologist,
storyteller and dramatist, drew inspiration from
the African American folklore of Florida.
Nurtured by rural folkways, she knew no other
world until sent off to boarding school at age 13.
After a long struggle to work her own way through school, she arrived at
5:17
67
Barnard Collegc in New York during the Roaring Twenties. There she shone
among the stars in a constellation of talent called the Harlem Renaissance.
She revisited her roots in 1927 under a fellowship from Columbia Univcl'sil)'.
With the "spy-glass of anthropology," given her by her teacher, Franz Boas, in
hand, she set off in a used car named "Sassy Susie" on an adventure of
research and rediscovery. It would take her, over the next two decades, all
across Florida, to the islands of the Caribbean and to the coast of Central
America
Zora became a leading authority on African American anthropology. She
sought to elucidate the workings offolk tradition, to reveal its depth and
complexity both as art and as a creator of community. She pioneered an inside-
out approach to research, and a unique delivery that aimed at involving her
audience in the ongoing action of tradition.
Fort Pierce Police Substation
"
ll~ ""h
.\ II"
. ...,c:L:
('~ "~',"';;'jf!
j~~W1
_.- .,
, '1'\1;1
.. ./.':, if' 'I;j !"
....'...'. :1.1 ......,....
~ ..'f'>~.....-..." ",-~
._. ...-.'~,.,...~. .... '-':~';.>., -'I j
-".-- '11j 'I "Ii .! :::
- ,.iN.. '..
.t:ll 01;; '. ';;~ ~
II
"-
1220 Avenue D
When she ultimately moved from
documentary works to fiction, for which
she is best known, her art was fueled by the
same inspiration. To be true to herself, it
was inevitable that she drop the spyglass
and let the folklore live through her. Live, it
did. She published seven books and nine .
more appeared posthumously. She wrote
more than 140 short stories, articles,
poems, songs and plays. That Zora's
writings, so earthy, so often hinging for
effect on a turn of phrase, are sold in
bookstores around the world validates her
vision and attests to the universality of her art. Her books have been translated
into languages as different as Swedish, Italian and Korean.
-.S:9' 0
68
Not content to document her folkloric discoveries with notebook, tape recorder
and camera, Zora memorized the tales, songs, and dances she collected until
she could tell, sing and perform them herself. Since she had taken folklore to
heart from an early age, her sources stretched back to her childhood. She drew
upon these sources as long as she wrote. And she wrote as long as she lived.
She taught, as well as wrote, in Fort Pierce. A fellow teacher at Lincoln Park
Academy remembers a half.hour in a hallway streaming with kids spent
explaining to Zora why her students should be allowed to break for assembly
in the middle of her class. Zora could see nothing more important than their
undivided attention to their studies. The years diminished neither her
outspokenness nor her zest for learning.
) Seven Gables House
1::7:,~~',~~.L~
482 North Indian River Drive
Zora looked at both herself and the world around her honestly and fearlessly.
She defied the pigeonholing of her period, to the frequent consternation of her
contemporaries. She comes across time standing tall, an American original,
with all the stature of a Mark Twain.
Many thanks are due the people of Fort Pierce-the residents of Avenue D and
the Northwest neighborhoods; the teachers, writers, artists, philanthropists;
the just plain folk who befriended Zora many years ago-who have donated
their time and lent their memories and mementos to make the Zora Neale
Hurston Dust Tracks Heritage Trail a reality.
~0'J
69
This gives 2 examples of what a basic Heritage Trail would be comprised of and the different forms of
interpretation at those locations. While both of these Heritage Trail programs offer several items out
of the ten themes presented on page 64 the fact is, that most counties in the state of Florida have only 3
or 4 themes that can be incorporated into any type of Historical or Cultural themes. This is not true of
Collier County for the simple fact being that all ten of the themes found on page 65 are a recorded part
of the county's past. This makes Collier County one of the most unique areas found in the state. This
will be highlighted and described on the following pages as a uniform theme to be proposed based on
the county's past. It will be laid out in a chronological manner as a continual Ethnographic time table
that includes past indigenous residents, exploration, political resolutions that led to military actions at
specific locations, geographical locations associated with past history, activities, pioneers, the
establishment of different settlements, industry related to several unique biological factors, and
transportation routes. The Heritage Trail theme will start with what the first display would interpret
and progress in stages along the proposed trail.
PROPOSAL FOR 11 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE TRAIL THEMES IN COLLIER COUNTY
1. Since Collier County's inception in 1923 the geographical area of the county encompassed about
3 million acres in what would today be referred to as Big Cypress - The Ten Thousand Islands _
The Big Cypress region - The Everglades. As most of this actual history on the southwest coast
took place in Collier County these terms will be used and interpreted to mean the same areas.
Archaeology has now proved beyond any doubt that the first indigenous people in the Big Cypress
area were the Calusa Indians. The tribe known as the Calusa from the earliest reports numbered in
the thousands and lived on the Southwest coast below Charlotte Harbor to where some historians
and archaeologists have said one of the main villages near present day Naples was located. The
Calusa's subsisted mostly on sea food and they built their main villages along the sea coasts, and
around rivers, inlets, mouths of creeks, and on many of the islands in the Ten Thousand Island
areas. This was proven in written accounts as far back as the mid 1500s when Spanish explorers
mentioned them. Further archaeological finds like the one that took place on Marco Island in
1895 resulted in one of the most celebrated finds of Calusa Indian artifacts an a expedition led by
the Frank Hamilton Cushing recovered thousand of items that were then taken to the Smithsonian
Museum. The abundant shell mounds found by archaeologists in the last 100 years in the Big
Cypress region and Collier County region are well documented and are found in more numbers in
the S. W. Florida area than any where else in the state. There are dozens of, Federal, State, and
County parks in Florida that display the Calusa theme with recreated villages at the actual
locations where these large shell mounds were discovered and are now being interpreted to the
public including several non profit organizations that have interpretive centers and trails.
Unfortunately Collier County has never had one of the many hundred of sites located in the
county interpreted to the public. This can be done at an actual location along the beginning of the
trail or can have a replica mound built to interpret this theme. In addition at one of the kiosks a
picture of what one of the mound sites actually looks like now presently along the Turner River
but presently placed off limits to the general public by the N.P.S. Park system. This picture can
also have a dual purpose and be placed at an interpretive center or kiosk at the Halfway Creek Site
or the Turner River Trail site that is placed on the Heritage Trail map that will be enclosed with
this report / proposal. This shows that the roadway travel routes can also share information at the
actual locations of these sites. The following picture of those mounds will be attached on the next
page taken from a sketch that was drawn in 1922.
SQ2
70
The River called Turner
Heading west on the Trail from the old Reynolds Saw Mill you will come upon the Turner River.
Flowing in a north to south direction the River was named after its most famous resident who moved to
the mouth of the River in 1874, Captain Richard Turner. The Captain who was a guide for the army
during the Seminole Wars received pre-emption papers for 80 acres in 1878. His farm was located on
the east side of the Turner River about a quarter of a mile north of the River mouth and he farmed
there, until selling the property to Dr. Harris in 1890, who then sold the same property to David Daniel
House five years later in 1895. The house and farm was located on property at one of Florida's largest
Indian mound complexes unknown to archaeologists until Ales Hrdlicka in 1918 conducted one of the
first archaeological expeditions into the Ten Thousand Island area.
Ales Hrdlicka was an anthropologist for the Smithsonian musewn and wrote in his book published in
1922, Anthrooology of Florida, a description of the Turner River site:
"So characteristic, so easily approached and probably so important to science, that steps, it would
seem, ought to be taken to preserve it for posterity which would best be done by making it a National
Reservation.
Today it is part of Everglades National Park but the mounds are off limits to the general public.
---"--
, -
=--"""'~: ~.;:-=-- ~ ~ '- -~-
- ~ --==~-=..: - ---'<. ~ - - =... - ~-=--=
. ~!iM;if,~~___.--- ........-:::::.- ~__ .___ -:::-_---:--
~-~- -----~ ~--
-----...... ~:~ - """,...- ~~ -. -----~
r-~ 1..:-.... ~. rfIj~'4-. ~"'-._ .::;...- __
- ---.-=,......, -..... -- -- ~~:::-.. ~;:,~. -.... ~
~....... ~ ~- ....... "li..~"=' '1.lll'.... _ ." -=.....--- ___
~~---'--- };f..~ --~~~. ,~~. _:::::--~~-:'" _ .' .--.:
,- ""=- -~~, ---~~ - ~"- ~---
---:-:==- - ---~ - ~~J;~~ w"4'n~~ _ ~ ~
- .- ~--- ;-~~;:--"" .., - ~~. ,. "'.'"
--.:=:- ~hW~j~'::~-.-;;;~~~~- -..- ~_
-=-.~_WtJ(8,$<!.;,,_ _ ~:,_-;,:=-:'...~_,.~".... _ ~ _~' .
-: - ~f"~ _ ----;; - ~..:=----
-:::------- - ~~~ ..--::~--- ~ - - - -- ~?~~~""- .~
=--~j{-~:!:: 7"~'c.~~~-:-~.=---.
--.:--e~~~.--~~~--~~-;~~~---"--- 7~",,~,==-"
~-~ ~i7~!,.:~. ~_. ......".'::...~-:=,...~tz..'\...-;:::::=::. '.....,~~ -
. _'-- ...0.:-=_ -;., -o~"'o..".;.- ~,\\,,_ ~'~ ' ._'
~.... - -~... .._--.....--;r;-R"'~-:=;:_<~:P _ ____~y-.rEif~~"'"""~'""""i '-..~
~- "::-'7: ~r~ -~,.:..~~~~~.~---- --=---, ~__ -
~~~. ..$........... ~~"1;:~~~t..\~..;z--~~~~~~~
--:::..- - #~ ~ - -~~ ;~~~~~~~--
- - - -~ff!Ji..~---=---=,. .j'.~~.'fy:;(;"'~~?-@.-~'ik~~
;~~~--wtili;.~~.;:;,~;,,~.::~~~,~~ =,,;~_~~
. , .-."' - '"' i:. -=.~$o/I'qtl~~.....,.. 7J:111':~"': ~ ~~~l'!"',,:""'''''',,\~__ ,
I , . , .... ;.z'l.f't.,l.c" 0"'"'\''''' ~....,',... .... _-..
. ~~~:l"';'\.'""ci."''''--~~ __;::::::::::.~_____
. llf.~'~~ ...-::. ~I;:: ~;---.--; ~ _ ~ _ ---
----..;;~ . ---~-.-
- ~~~~~"-~~c
, .r~b'"
'. . ~<rr
~(
~f.
-
--
~--_-:..-
A sketcb oftbe mound complex made in 1922 by Ales Hrdlicka and publisbed in bis book, Antbrooolol!v
of Florida. Tbe smaU bouse in tbe picture was described as Brown's place and tbe 27 mounds are
described as "12 to 15 feet in beigbt and 60-70 feet in diameter at tbe base,
S93
71
2. The first exploration of and mapping of the Big Cypress area of Southwest Florida took place in
1837. [t was at this time that the U,S. Army started sending in troops into the Everg[ades region in an
attempt to locate members of the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes who were at war with the
government. This was the starting of the wars now known as the Second and Third Seminole Wars.
The individuals leaders most sought after were a chief named Sam Jones and another named Holatter
Micco better known as Billy Bowlegs. The Army established several outposts, forts, and supply
depots in the Big Cypress region in an attempt to locate and remove any Indians. Several battles and
campaigns took place in the area now known as Collier County including the Big Cypress Campaign
and the Battle of Royal Palm Hammock. More Army forts had been built in the area of Collier County
than any other area in the state of Florida but to date none of these forts or battle sites, have been
interpreted to the citizens of Collier County, This is presently being done at several state and Federal
parks in the northern part of the state, with replicas of the forts and kiosks describing these important
events that took place in Florida's past. One other important fact is that the past presence of the
Seminole People in the Big Cypress region during the conflicts and afterward has not been interpreted
presently in the county. Although there is a small replica of an army fort presently at the Collier
County Museum it is at least 40 miles away from any actual site and is not in a proper geographical
setting. This leaves a large void in the county's history and should be placed as second in order along
any proposed Heritage Trail. The following information will be attached here about Old Fort Foster,
the first fort built in Collier County.
OLD FORT FOSTER
A physical description of this Fort is found in Charlton Tebeau's book Florida's Last Frontier, page
39 where he states "In March of 1837 the Army established "Old Fort Foster" on Rattlesnake
Hammock nine miles out of Naples towards [mmokalee. This was an oval shaped stockade with a
small creek flowing through one edge. It stood on an old Indian trail from the head of Henderson
Creek northward to Bonita Springs and Fort Myers, Fort Dulany at Punta Rassa near the mouth of the
Caloosahatchee, Fort Poinsett at Cape Sable, and Fort Harrell at the head of New River followed soon
after."
From historical records it is established that Fort Foster in Collier County was first built by the U.S.
Navy in March of 1837. The forts first activation was under the command of Major Richard A.
Zantzinger who was enrolled in the U.S. Army. It was closed in 1838 one year later and reopened in
December of 1841. It was then closed at the end of the Second Seminole War in 1842 and reopened
again in 1855 at the start of the Third Seminole War when it was referred to as "Old Fort Foster". A
supply depot "temporary Depot II" was opened during the Third War one half mile north of the Fort
site.
********
An example of an interpretation in the form of a kiosk and a breastwork replica of Fort King in
Marion County, Florida will be attached to the next several pages. This kiosk and replication were
reproduced from a sketch drawn ISO years ago.
S9y
72
A: .~.: ,
<= LO,-
~ ft....
~iL~"l.
-~
.'"
SKETCH OF FORT KING MADE 150 YEARS AGO
f
1Ib~
0",':
f
..
__~ n in t-egral par~ of Floric:la's fro nt"ier history
.,~.j;: .A... _"'I...:Jt-:-..Ixin~ D-- o(.-)ltxC'...-~
~, L"~ [....._......k~"'--"........ tl'_"J;..frr.:..:r~
";1 (:.. -":L"IL~1"1l E:. .,...Ii..........
~
..,';,\}~~;~ ...
~
.. . .<..
"'. ~Jri': .,", ',__--rp
.........!!l:..
........,...,..,..
-"':"
!';~':l.
. .....
II-K" 1'1;'..
~
fJ
~ '-: 9'~
!I~ .
'/11
-~____ --o::~--
qL"L]rC<'r~
~..:
.-
'):.
__ -to
.--
-
~.
...
Lnoc:OlIlt-ion ~
FOorr 1<...-..: uc..r..d
u.WLiI If.: --a:s: t-u~1.I
C':)I'.......- ItO tho' Ge...............
Landi Ofll"", i... '_6
--. d "ub5c q.....,., u.,..
sokl 'k;u- t..'ildin~
tr"Q c.cr.;:J I 50 "b3
100ilI ICQSid'E'nt:Sii
~ '"
~). '....
" n_ e.....b.shed. ......
~ b-~[; ~...d ......._.,
~s::...uP.loIlrd. _
'11."-'-"0..1-.- 3,., Pw::w1.A; --a.... "-...
or-o:t;er.e-d ;&ba ndo.:--....d .:..-.d .......
...-oelY~.:n~ ~ ~- ,,:""'oe~ 'r~r.. "~
........1...... T)-P'::::r.t; """'--_
r-~o;-...~
m:BIIro-.e--.:. JiS)............j- F...~'lI l O~rfl(O ~~n-:::I
I I I ..of hi.....,....... I!IlnIrnLll~ ra:ll Fr:-r1:;
:<.1"'tJI. 1~ t'or.. ~Ioce on
"'1........... F<o.I.<I,:F~ K.-..,g
FI...a.dl --.-r-.. _~1'Y'lo!!:l-..51..d iI.k:f
hiLd b,.. Scm.-c.... Ind_____
....(o.c. .JB)-Ci.............-~I
~ S. ~p&CII'_ LE..
~"Tl...I"- s;....-~.:oa..r.d u.-...
-:;-,.JWI............ ~. ~~c......... :rnd
...~ ~Cltdtt- c...... ~ 01' ~a~
''In;s ~ OS<601i11 --.-.dII his. 't"'~,.L
......([,l~c ..! I )-f.rSL
~"'z.Ad ........rv~tftl:
""-_141:. 111-0 StI.r.....oI,O'rtd...r'd_ Tt.... tl4',et,.........r.g
~ c..t.. s..~_ "rtIV'ar.
f 1JIDiII2I(M.:r,)-P-c;n.1 ........u. -'.~~ ~.... ....,.d
i ~qU1l"UJ", d-=a.."'.....-~..-.d i... JLW""'" _h_.
. 1,-Jt.-.':4 ..-1 I't; IOlI"I r........_
'~
-'
~~
_.-
~---
--.n.
~ ---~_.
....~-i:.
~
S
.....
.!t
j
J
2""
,r-r-
..... '1Ift____"--'
"J
.-.'
.
.
"
r
rJ
--Jl
JI
~
<>- ""-- -
"- .... --
In.!'t.
..;,
" ,F--.1
'l! I~-
.. ,-
.I' .
A~~
..--.J
,~.
~~
....
-I
.
lE:IID..;A.pr. ,.!2).Po~..... _..... ~..OO::O"p4-..-.:I ;Jnd
~L
1I:I:B(~t'- 2SoI-'Fc.r-1: KIlo-<<- __... rwu.)' ....~d~
~ et'-Q..",p.. '4c:u- ,.1ItDorl
57'S
73
REPLICA OF THE BREASTWORKS AT FORT KING
Fort King was a major Seminole Indian War Fort in pioneer Florida. Established in 1827 it was
garrisoned off and on from 1827 to 1829 and then reoccupied in 1832. In 1835 Major Francis Dade
and 108 men were massacred on way from Fort Brooke (Tampa) to Fort King along the Fort King
Road. (This attack enraged the country however it was short lived overshadowed, one month later, by
an event called "The Alamo") The Fort King Road was once an old Indian trail and now is basically
SR30 I. Dee 28th 1835 General Wiley S. Thompson was killed along with others just as they left the
gates of the Fort by Osceola and his men. His scalp was divided among the attackers as trophies. The
post was abandoned burned in 1836. In 1837 it was reoccupied and reconstructed. The Fort was finally
abandoned in 1843 and in 1846 the General Land Office sold the materials to the locals for building
materials. There is a local effort to buy the site and possibly reconstruct a replica. Reportedly, up to 40
years ago remnants of the fort could still be found on the McCall property. Today the site would
require an archeology team to locate the garrison's wooden stockade
********
Fort Keais was the next fort built in Collier County and the following information on that site will be
attached on the following page:
5C7b
74
THE FOUNDING OF FORT KEAIS
General Persifer F. Smith opened Fort Keais on March 7, 1838 and in a report to his superiors states
that "he left Fort Denaud with a Company of Second Dragoons, a Battalion of Second Infantry
Marines under Captain Dulany on the edge of Big Cypress Swamp. "I erected on this spot, which is
about 35 miles south by east from Fort Denaud, a small work in which I placed 20 days rations and one
Company of LA volunteers manning the work until the Generals pleasure is known after one of the
officers who fell with Major Dade (Keais)."
The battle he refers to in his report to General J esup, is the Dade Massacre, (emphasis mine)
To begin the research of Fort Keais we have to go to the beginning of the written accounts of when
the Fort was first used in battle. This would have been in December 1841 when Major William
Belknap took command of, 'the Campaign of Big Cypress.' The most complete account of this is in
Sprague, The Origin, Progress, and Conclusion of the Florida War-I 848 pages 348-375. Major
Belknap also drew a fairly accurate map of the Forts, Depots and routes during this time.
The orders for the different companies came on October 30, 1841 from the Headquarters of the Army
of Florida, Tampa and it instructed them to all join at Fort (Keas) page 349. Belknap, after receiving
his orders wrote to Co!. Worth, page 357, about his activities at Fort Keais, as did all the other officers
call it with the exception ofC.R. Gates (Captain) who referred to it as Fort Keas in hisjourna!. His
journal, recorded as the daily events unfolded, was one of the most accurately preserved during the
Second War.
As to the date regarding the opening of the Fort, Tebeau states in "Florida's Last Frontier" page 39-40
that: "In January of 1838, units of the Seminole hunting party first crossed the Caloosahatchee and
established Posts there, some of which later became settlements with the same name. General Persifer
S. Smith gave the name T. B. Adams to a camp on the north bank and Fort Denaud on the south bank
where he crossed, On the return trip from Fort Harvie, Smith's forces moved southward and
established Fort Keais on the western edge of the Okaloacoochee Slough, then marched northeastward
and established Fort Thompson at the head of the Caloosahatchee. "A military map of 1840 shows the
pattern of action down toward Collier County. Interestingly enough, this map also shows a route for
small boats from the north end of Key Biscayne across the Everglades to Fort Keais "as reported by the
Indians". Actually, the commonly accepted location of Fort Keais is thirty miles west of the edge of
the Everglades on the eastern edge of a large Cypress strand now know by the name Camp Keais
Strand. It is unlikely that the water level ever was high enough for the last thirty miles to be
navigable."
********
The next fort that was built in Collier County was Fort Simon Drum. The following information on
that site will be attached on the next 2 pages.
SCJ7
75
FORT SIMON DRUM
State records indicate this fort was established as a base of operations in March 1855, ten months
before the start of the third Seminole war. The forts name was taken from Captain Simon Drum a
West Point officer who was killed on September 13, 1847 during the American assault on Mexico City
during the war with Mexico. In the beginning the fort most likely was a staging area because Indian
trails crossed it in a NW, SW, and easterly direction.
Tebeau in Florida's Last Frontier, pg 45, describes:
"A detachment of 2nd artillery personnel that included Commander First Lieutenant George L.
Hartstuff, 2 non-commissioned officers and eight privates who left Fort Myers on a reconnaissance
mission on December 7, 1855 and soon after arrived at Fort Simon Drum to find it burned." Not long
after this they found Fort Shackleford in the same condition.
On January 12, 1856, Brevet Major Harvey Brown wrote a letter with detailed instructions and
construction plans for the fort to be rebuilt and sent it to Brevet Major Lewis G. Arnold.
State historical records then indicate the Fort was rebuilt into a wooden blockhouse 200 feet by 300
feet out of pine logs in April 1856 by Major Lewis G. Arnold and members of the I't and 2nd Artillery.
Alexander Webb made a drawing of this Fort about that time and it is the only one known to exist. It
shows a fort approximately 150' x 150' square with 2 guard towers built diagonally on the inside
perimeter. One tower appears to be 12 foot high while the other looks to be about 18 feet high with an
upper lookout station. The drawing also shows one gate about 8 feet by 8 feet. Its three tiered
structure shows barracks 8'x8', one 10'x10 and another 12'xI2' with its main perimeter of logs being
about 10' tall.
James Covington in his book The Billy Bowlegs War states that on May I, 1856 one month after the
large blockhouse was erected, a task force consisting of 38 men of Johnston's Company, 20 men from
the Kendrick Company, and 26 from Durrance's Company left Fort Denaud under the command of
Captain Abner P. Johnston (Florida mounted volunteers) and Hartstuffwho had 28 (regulars) a total of
113 people left for Fort Simon Drum. On arriving at the Fort the next day on May 2, shots being fired
were heard by soldiers in the vicinity of Fort Simon Drum and was later learned that Indians were
attacking soldiers stationed there who were out hunting. The Indians disappeared quickly when the
soldiers showed up to engage them.
Correspondence from soldiers indicates that this Fort was still used as a negotiation site as late as
February 1858 and when the Army abandoned usage, the Seminoles continued to use it as a crossroads
for trade.
********
Excavations by archaeologists H. 8. Collins in the early part of the century at the Fort Simon Drum
site produced a quantity of decorated pottery and other artifacts. Some of those artifacts, and others
representing the eight Army Forts of Collier County, are in possession of Historical Preservation Inc. a
Florida based non-profit organization,
071
76
..'>
j....
;, I
~. ..
\ J"'\ ~ fl'.!\'
. .-
...~
"1", .
Sketch of Fort Simon Drum made by Alexander Webb In 1856
David Graham Copeland placed a general vicinity monument at what he believed was the Fort Simon
Drum site in 1941. This monument was located 6 miles east of the city of lmmokalee on lmmokalee
Road # 846. It has not been verified that the monument is still present and would in effect represent
one of the last of 10 monuments placed by Mr. Copeland in and around Collier County. Without
access to this site no further studies can be made. A replica of Fort Simon Drum from this sketch can
be made as was in the case of Fort King. There are several more fort sites located along the strip of
land of the proposed Heritage Trail in this proposal that follow a west to east direction in a general
path that is parallel to Golden Gate Blvd. and ending up on highway # 29. Regardless whether the trail
is close to the original sites or will be just be an interpretational version this gives an outline on what
the 2nd theme would be on the proposed Heritage Trail. This sketch can be used for interpretation or
for a replication as was in the case of the Fort King sketch.
Ser9
77
3. The third theme would encompass the U.S. Army soldiers and the battles and skirmishes between
them and the Seminole Indians. The actual locations are along the proposed Heritage Trail and the
following information will be attached to give a basic insight of what the interpretation of this historic
time frame would include.
BATTLE OF BIG CYPRESS
During the 2nd Seminole War when the US Army occupied it's first fort in southwest Florida, Fort
Foster, on March 24, 1837 in Collier County, expeditions, battles, skirmishes, and general warfare
declared on the Seminoles continued with various campaigns from the Army forces, through the Big
Cypress and Everglades areas. One of the last confrontations before the second war ended in 1842 was
the Battle of Big Cypress, December 20, 1841 when Lieutenant Collinson Read Gates was leading an
expedition through the area that is now known as the Picayune Strand State Forest, on Collier County's
east section when the force was attacked. Herc are thc words taken directly from C, R. Gates journal
on that day and the two following days. . .
December 20 "Started from camp about seven; went westerly a mile and a half through thin
pine and cabbage, till we came to the edge of the cypress; we here were halted by the firing of a
musket on the left, shortly after another, and another; it proved to be a flanker who go lost; he
was not paying attention when we took at turn north; after waiting an hour or more, and hunting
for him, he came up. We then entered the swamp westerly, went a mile nearly, and came to a
flag-pond, (very bad place to get through), and water waist-deep; after emerging from it a short
distance, we came upon an Indian camp, with signs of the day before; rested a short time, and
then pursued thc trail through pine, oak and cabbage. hammock a mile and a half, then through
swamp another mile and a half, there found evident signs of the Indians. The guides refused to
go in front. We went half a mile further, when the cypress was more open on the trail, a large
flag-pond one hundred yards to the left, and a small one immediately on the right, water nearly
waist-deep. Here the advance was fired upon by about twenty Indians, who were posted about
forty yards in front and to the left, behind the cypress. Sergeant Down of my company was
shot dead at the third shot; the ball hit just above his left collarbone, and cut the artery; he was
in the advanced guard, next to Lieutenant Johnson. Foster, of D company, 4th infantry, was
shot also in the advance; was shot in his right arm, and the ball passed through the left; shot
dead. The Indians ran, after the first fire; to the left and right; some companies pursued a short
distance, and returned, as the thicket was very dense. [ went back, and after finding the dead
bodies, brought assistance and carried Down to camp, which was in the one where the Indians
were evidently just making preparations for a permanent camp. A sentinel fired at night; the
men turned out promptly; no cause of alarm discovered."
December 2 J "We started this morning, and carried the bodies as far as the second flag-
pond, and there sunk them - very had work taking them through the cypress. We reached the
edge of the cypress (where the flanker fired) about 12. We then turned a small cypress and
went northerly. Captain Thornton had been taken with chills and fever the day before, and now
had to be put into a blanket and carried. We went three miles and discovered Captain Hutter's
trail, leading S. W. into the cypress, but one day old, apparently; marched a mile further, and
camped near some small cypress. Marching, since we left the cypress, pretty good; pine most
of the way."
bOO
78
December 22 "Started at seven, and went northerly through the cypress. We marched six
miles through thin cypress and pine islands. We halted to lunch on a piney point, a large extent
of thin cypress. We then went two miles, and came to a pine-barren and two or three cabbage
trees. A pine-tree was blazed at nine miles. Wagons can come here. A mile further we came
to a cypress, bordered with oak scrub. Horse trail (Walkers) discovered.....
"We steered easterly through pine and thin cypress belts two miles and two more through
prairie, and reached Fort Keas at four P.M., the men and officers much fatigued, and out of
provisions - some the day before Lieutenant Arnold in command, with fourteen dragoons and
six infantry sick. Captain Hutter with his command, have gone on a six days' scout. We had
half a barrel of biscuit divided in the command, and an express sent to depot No, I, ten miles
for rations. We went to Arnold's tent, and ate every thing he had in short order. Captain Sibley
and Lieutenant McClay arrived at half past ten, P.M" with provisions."
* The Horse Trail talked about by C. R. Gates as the Walker Horse Trail is the modem day Belle
Meade Horse Trail that starts on Sable Palm Road in Naples and continues 22 miles through
Picayune Strand State Forest and ends in Golden Gate Estates.
With this theme interpreted the next phase of history in Collier County to be interpreted would be the
actual battle that took place referred to as the Battle of Royal Palm Hammock. That information will
be attached here.
The Army's scorched earth policy of capturing the women and children, burning villages and crops,
taking all the livestock including cattle and hogs to the nearest depot, and if not practical, destroy them
and shoot warriors on sight, began to take its toll and led up to one of the last battles of the 3'd War.
Colonel S. St. George Rogers, commanding a force of 110 volunteers from Florida, landed on the
south side of present day Everglades City to continue the pressure on the Indians. Unfortunately he
became ill so command of the troops was given to Captain John Parkhill who took 75 men and led
them on an expedition 9 miles north up the Turner River on November 24, 1857 where they left their
guide Captain Richard Turner and proceeded on foot for the next 3 miles until coming upon the higher
lands of Deep Lake Hammock. Four days out into their journey they discovered a large Indian
settlement and destroyed it with fire. The following day they came upon 2 other large Indian fields
with crops and they quickly burned those also. While in the same area fresh Indian tracks were seen,
and in one of the worst military mistakes of the war the captain left his garrison there while he
proceeded to follow the tracks where they led to a small stream. In the process of crossing the stream
he was ambushed by a band of Indians who instantly killed the captain in the first volley of shots. As
his troops fell back approximately 40 Indians wounded another 5 men of his force before Lieutenant
John Canova was first to hold the line, but as usual in these circumstances the Indians retreated into the
swamps. The Captain's men then carried the lifeless body of their commander back to the awaiting
garrison left behind,
~Ol
79
While some historians say they carried the body 10 miles, others say they carried it 15 miles before
burying it, but most agree the captain was interred at a local lake, Which lake he was buried at is in
question. Some say Deep Lake, which at the time was called "Lake Lizzy" by the soldiers, and "Fish
Eating Lake" by the Indians, or at a lake at the fork of the Fakahatchee River as recorded by some
historians. Charlton Tebeau says the soldiers traveled a total of 40 miles back to Chokoloskee Island,
almost starving on the way before they reached the Island on November 30th. Recent research shows
that this battle, The Battle of Royal Palm Hammock, might not have taken place near where it is
reenacted every year at Collier State Seminole Park. Collier Seminole Park has decided in 2008 not to
sponsor this reinactment on any future events. Evidence points to the battle taking place near
Assinwahs town, 40 miles north ofChokoloskee, while Deep Lake is 15 miles south of that village and
geographically matches the historical report.
CAPTAIN JOHN PARKHILL
The highest ranking officer killed in the 3'. Seminole War
GCJ~
80
The next theme would be the relationship between the Seminole chief Billy Bowlegs, the Army, and
the land of Big Cypress. The actual site of Billy Bowlegs [Old Town] was monumented by David
Graham Copeland in 1942 in what is now The Big Cypress National Preserve. It is under the site
registered on the National Register of Historic Places called the (Hinson Mounds) the site is located
near the N.P.S. managed site of Bear Island and has never been revealed to the general public or
interpreted in any way. The following information on Chief Billy Bowlegs will be attached here.
4. - THE LAST WARRIOR
By the end of 1857 forays into the Big Cypress to destroy villages and crops had finally worn down
the Indians. Relentless hounding by the forces of Captain William Cone of the Florida mounted
volunteers, continually destroyed villages that held from 15 to 50 huts, and burned hundreds of acres of
crops at a time. By the end of 1858 the government finally established the Indians on reservations in
Arkansas. Billy Bowlegs left for New Orleans, on the steamer QUAPAW with the remnants of his
family and tribe headed for Arkansas, where a reporter from Harper's Weekly Magazine wrote this
article on June 12, 1858:
"Billy Bowlegs - his Indian name is Halpatter-Micco - is a rather good looking Indian of about
fifty years. He has a fine forehead, a keen black eye; is somewhat above the medium height, and
weighs about 160 pounds. His name of "Bowlegs" is a family appellation, and does not imply
any parenthetical curvature of his lower limbs. When he is sober, which, I am sorry to say, is by
no means his normal state, his legs are as straight as yours or mine. He has two wives, on son,
five daughters, fifty slaves, and a hundred thousand dollars in hard cash. He wears his native
costume; the two medals upon his breast, of which he is not a little proud, bear the likenesses of
President Van Buren and Fillmore."
"Billy Bowlegs is a direct descendant of the founder of the Seminole nation. A little more than a
century ago, a noted Creek chiet~ named Secoffee, broke away from his tribe, and, with many
followers, settled in the central part of the peninsula of Florida. They werc followed by other bands
and all received the name of Seminoles, or "Runaways." The Mickasukies, the legitimate owners of
the country, at first opposed these emigrations, but they were too feeble to make any effectual
resistance. In a short time all the Indians amalgamated, and joined in efforts to resist the white men, the
common foe of all. Secoffee was a bitter enemy of the Spaniards and a strong ally of the English.
When Florida was re-ceded to the Spaniards, in 1784, he took the field against them. He died the next
year, at the age of seventy, and was buried near the sitc of the present Fort King. When he felt that his
end was near, he called his two sons, Payne and Bowlegs, and exhorted them to carry out his plans.
The Great Spirit, he said, had revealed to him that, if he would be happy in a future state, he must
cause the death of a hundred Spaniards. Fourteen of this number, were still wanting; and he adjured
his sons to make up the deficiency."
~1)3
81
"In 1821 Florida was ceded to the United States. Emigrants began to pour in who demanded
possession of the lands. The Indians were estimated at four thousand men, women and children withy
eight hundred Negro slave. Their villages were scattered from St. Augustine to the Appalachicola
River. They consisted of log-huts surrounded by cleared fields. It was vain for them to urge their
claim to the country. Our Government recognizes no such title in the Indians.
In 1823 they were compelled to enter into a treaty making over to the whites the greater part of their
lands, and restricting themselves within narrow bounds formally, laid down. Still the white settlers
pressed upon the Indians. A thousand pretexts for quarrels arose. Slaves ran away and jointed the
Indians who refused to surrender them. The property of the whites was plundered, reprisals were
made, and a border war seemed imminent, which must involve the extermination of the Indians. In
1832 Mr. Cass, then Secretary of War, directed Colonel Gadsden to negotiate with the Florid Indians
for a total relinquishment of their lands in exchange for others west of the Mississippi River ".........
"With much difficulty Mr. Gadsden succeeded in inducing some of the Seminole chiefs to sign a treaty
empowering a delegation to visit the country proposed to be allotted to them, and in case they were
satisfied with it, the nation should cede all their Florida lands, and remove west of the Mississippi.
This was the famous "Treaty of Payne's Landing" made on the 9th of May 1832. The delegation
visited the country, made their marks to a paper expressing themselves satisfied with it, and agreed that
their nation should commence their removal as soon as satisfactory arrangements could be made. In
this treaty the name of Halpatter-Micco appears for the first time in history. He was then a young man,
a sub-chief of the band of Arpiucki, or "Sam Jones". It is noticeable that the names of the leading
Seminole chiefs, especially that of Micanopy, the recognized head of the nation, were wanting in this
treaty."
"Such was the opening scene of the Florida War, which was to cost so much blood and treasure, and
task so severely the skill and energy of our ablest officers. Generals Gaines, Clinch, Scott, Call, Jesup,
Macomb, Taylor, Armistead and Worth were successively placed command. For a time it seemed as
though a few hundred savages would successfully defy the whole power of the United States. The
Indians, indeed, soon found that in open fight they were wholly unable to cope with the whites. They
adopted the true policy of scattering themselves in small detachments, striking a sudden blow upon
some exposed point, and then taking refuge in the almost inaccessible swamps. Still, year-by-year
something was gained. One chief after another was killed or captured, and their bands surrendered,
and were sent to Arkansas. Osceola, coming into the camp of General Hernandez, on pretense of
treating, was made prisoner, sent to Fort Moultrie, where he died of a broken heart. He had broken
truce more than once, and had no right to complain of any want of faith. Coacoochee, or Wild Cat,
next after Osceola, the most formidable warrior, surrendered. "I am leaving Florida," he said; "it was
my home; I loved it; to leave it is like burying my wife and child. But I have thrown away my rifle and
taken the hand of the white man, and said to him, 'Take care of me." So band after band had been
broken up and sent to Arkansas. The remaining Indians were slowly forced southward toward the
impassable Everglades, where they were sorely pressed by the enemy. The name of Billy Bowlegs
appears only rarely during the first three years of the war, and then only incidentally as a sub-chief
under Sam Jones."
~C>Y-
82
"From this time the influence of Bowlegs began to increase. Sam Jones, who was said to be ninety
years old, was feeble and inert. He was formally deposed from the chieftainship, and Bowlegs was put
in his place. The dignity was hardly worth the having. The band now numbered scarcely two hundred
and fifty souls, of whom only eighty were warriors. The new chief saw that further resistance was
useless, and, after sending an emissary to ascertain that proposals for peace would be favorably
received, he made his appearance at headquarters, fully authorized to treat. At last, under date of May
8, 1858, came "General Orders, No.4" from the "Head-quarters of the Department of Florida"
announcing that the war was closed. "You have," says Colonel Loomis, in mustering the volunteers out
of the service of the United States, "with untiring zeal and energy, penetrated in every direction the
swamps and Everglades of the country, driving the enemy from their strong-holds and hiding-places; you
have engaged them in several skirmishes and action, killing more than forty of their warriors, as
acknowledged by the chief, Billy Bowlegs; you have destroyed their magazines of stores and provisions;
you have captured more than forty of their men, women and children; you have rendered them hopeless
of remaining any longer with safety in the country, thereby preparing them for, and greatly facilitating
their peaceful emigration, by the delegation under Colonel Elias Rector, Superintendent of Indian
Affairs."
HOLLA TT A-MICCO - BILLY BOWLEGS
BILL Y BOWLEGS GRAVE SITE AND TOMBSTONE
ARE LOCATED AT FORT GIBSON NATIONAL
CEMETERY IN OKLAHOMA
After being relocated to Arkansas, Chief Bowlegs enlisted in the Union Army in May of 1862 with
the rank of Captain, where he fought battles at Cane Hill. He was given command of Company A of
the First Indian Home Guards, and continued in several battles serving with many commendations and
distinctions, until his death in 1864 of small pox.
(005
83
The next theme would be the first pioneers in the area and the settlements they started. Information
on those resources will be attached on the following page.
5.
SETTLEMENTS IN THE BIG CYPRESS AFTER THE THIRD WAR
The generally held belief by most historians regarding the first recorded settlements in the Big
Cypress and Collier County area after the wars was in the town ofChokoloskee. Charlton W. Tebeau,
in his monumental book Florida's Last Frontier states 'The name of the first modern day settler on
Chokoloskee is difficult if not impossible to determine. That he came in the early 1870's is fairly
certain. "
Digging deeper in the state of Florida archives reveals the first official settler of record as John
Weeks and his family in the year 1862. He began a farm near his palmetto house on the west bank of
the Allen River; now known as the Barron River (renamed after Barron G. Collier in 1923).
Further investigation of thc Chokoloskec area was made by Dr. Joe Knetsch, an historian in
Tallahassee Florida, when he wrote a treatise "Surveying Chokoloskee's Wilderness World". In it, he
describes a letter written by surveyor John P. Apthorp on June 9, 1883 to the Surveyor General, which
is most revealing.
It states:
"I have been requestcd by thc people living in what is known as Chockaluskee in the Ten
Thousand Islands, to present to you their situation and desire in regard to the survey of their
lands. Some 30 or 40 families are living at the place named on the keys near the coast, mostly
along banks of ereeks that come down from the main land. These strips of alluvial land are of
the highest fertility and the settlers are engaged in raising early vegetables and tropical fruits
for the Key West and northern markets. Some of them have been occupying their places from
upwards of thirty years, but have never been able to acquire any title, as the lands have not been
surveyed. "
Dr. Knetsch then comments:
'Thirty or forty families at Chokoloskee Bay in the year 1883 shows the area was well known
and settled at least a decade earlier than other historians have reported. Historian Charles W.
Tebeau who interviewed many of their memories did not establish any totals for the area and
recognizes only a few of the families, e.g. the Santini's and Von Phitsters, as being there earlier
than 1883. Now one can see that the actual time and growth of the settlement around the Bay
came earlier than Dr. Tebeau's witnesses could have remembered."
This in turn prompted early settler William S. Allen to write a letter in 1883 to E. O. Gwynn, a
Deputy Surveyor from Key West. In it, Allen wrote the following:
"I need not inform you that nearly cvcryone, of us in this community are old acquaintances of
yours and every house will be opcn to you as to an old friend." (Allen listcd thc settlers in the
area including the number of people living at each homestead.) "David Roberts, II: Phineas
Myers, 7: Lewis Roberts, 4: 1. R. Walker, 7: John F. Ferguson, 2: C. M. Brown, I: W. S. Allen,
3: Geo Phister, 2: Augustine Swicurse, 4: T. T. Avan, 1: D. B. Lott, 7: N. F. Brown, 4: B. B.
Brown, 1: L D. Lockhart, 2: John Hall's Wife, 3: John Gardner Jr., 6: R. B. Turner, 2: los.
Wiggins, 3: Geo. Christian, 2: Wm. H. Van Phister: P. A. Santini, 7: Nicholas Santinj, 6:
Gregorie Gonzalas, 4: Mrs. Fletcher, 3: Joshua McLeod, 2: Richard Hamilton, 9: and Luther
Barnes, I."
~Ob
84
Dr. Knetsch goes on to comment:
"This detailed letter gives a very clear picture of the nature of the Chokoloskee bay settlements and
the number of people involved. The total of 116 named settlers and the estimate of /25, including
transients show that a viable frontier community had been established as early as 1883 and probably
earlier. What is so interesting is the notation that about 50 of these people attended Sunday school, the
first mention of this type of church organization made in the known literature in Chokoloskee."
In 1874, Captain Richard Turner, a scout for the Army during the Seminole wars settled along the
river's mouth, directly opposite from the island of Chokoloskee. The river was once known as the
Wahiki Inlet, when its name changed to Chokoloskee Creek. Later it was aptly named the Turner
River after its most famous resident. George Storter Sr. who came from Alabama in 1881 to the
Everglades region, joined with William S. Allen in his first year to grow a variety of produce including
cucumbers, tomatoes, and later sugar cane. His experience as a tinner allowed him to can and preserve
his goods. His son George W. Storter Jr., later known as the judge, would follow his father to the area
in 1887 when he brought his wife and daughter with him. After fivc years, in 1892, he opened the
second trading post in thc area. Title to the first trading post goes to Joseph Wiggins who opened one
in 1883.
Living on the west bank of the Allen River very close to the modern bridge were the first recorded
black settlers, Augustus Swycover and his wife who were making deliveries for William S. Allen, on
his boat to Key West for his produce. He also was shipping his own sugar cane up to 1,500 stalks at a
time from his home site where the later Port Dupont was established. In 1887 he sold his property to
George W. Storter who then bought the property owned by William Allen in 1889, which effectively
gave him ownership of the entire area of modern day Everglades City for the total princely sum of
$800.00. From the William Allen house, where he ran his trading post down the river, the industrious
George Jr. took a small wooden shack with dirt floors, and with continued renovations enlarged and
furnished it, to eventually, became known as the modern day Rod and Gun Club. It was in the year
1886 when the illustrious C. G. McKinney declared he would start the first city on the north side of
modern Highway 41, and taking a few people began clearing a six acre area and planting crops. The
project was a disaster because as later soil samples would reveal, thcre just wasn't enough nutrients to
allow for healthy crops. In his own words it was "just too wet and too hot in the summer and it killed
my stuff." After relating to a visitor "the site is surely a dull looking place now, the orange and
grapefruit trees are yellow, and they have no fruit to speak of. There is no water on the land and grass
and weeds have control." When further asked what the name of the community was he replied "Need
Help." This then establishes the name of the first planned town in the Big Cypress area, later to
become Collier County.
In the year 1888 around the halfway creek area, records indicate the first teacher came to the area, a
Mr. D.W. Black. In 1889 the first preacher, Rev. George W. Gatewood gave the first sermon at
William F. Brown's house. The scattered settlers continued to prosper trading with the Seminole
people, and taking their crops to Key West until 1895, when David Daniel purchased property near the
large shell mounds on the Turner River, and bought Dr. Harris' two story house. He then moved his
family in and opened a vegetable packaging house, which increased the shipments from the
community to Key West.
Unfortunately weather patterns changed over the next five years, so that by 1900 constant overflowing
of salt water on crops, made the land practically useless at that site. It was a direct result of Florida's
great freeze of 1895, which destroyed large numbers of citrus groves in north Florida, and hundreds of
farmers started looking for a frost-free zone. The common thought of the day was that heavily wooded
areas near a water supply or lake would provide shelter from the cold for vegetable and citrus crops.
This would in effect bring two businessmen to the area of Deep Lake in 1900, to start what would
become the forerunner of a new county and the city of Naples.
~D7
85
The next theme would be the beginning of the first industry in the Big Cypress region which in turn
would eventually become modern day Collier County.
6.
THE FUTURE BEGINS FOR COLLIER COUNTY
Hardships had always accompanied the settlers in South Florida, so in 1900 when the vegetable
packinghouse and farms were abandoned on Turner's River because of flooding, two men, John Roach
and Walter Langford purchased 200 acres of land in the Deep Lake area. The land was situated on a
hardwood hammock that stretched for about 2,000 acres and their property comprised the most fertile
part of it, with the lake almost in the center. It was this frost proof area they believed could weather
any freeze, but realistically the freezing rains never came this far down south. Walter Langford knew
several families in the area and being from Fort Myers. was familiar with the farming done there. His
partner John Roach was mostly the investor. They hired locally and imported help for what was then,
the high pay of six dollars per week, but considering the fact that they had to uproot large pine trees
and shrubs, all the time working in a half swamp and mosquito infested area, its no wonder that after
ten years of hard work, thc two hundred acres had still not been completely cleared. Walter Langford
brought a special hybridized grapefruit strain from northern farmers which, was developed for its
seedless quality and the ability to start producing fruit before the traditional seven year wait period.
After five years the grove, aptly named the Deep Lake Company Groves, was still not turning a
profit. Partly because the partners had to bring everything from Fort Myers to build the houses and
tool facilities, when scarcely more than Indian trails existed in the whole area. This brought even more
difficulty when the fruit on over 300 trees started bearing, and required a transportation system that
could keep up with the delivery of produce over land, fourteen miles away at the head of navigation on
the Allen River. From there it could be shipped by a barge type boat to Fort Myers, where packing
would take place before shipping it to various different markets. The only form of transportation for
shipment to the Allen River was by a team of wagons being pulled by oxen, which was a slow and
tedious operation.
By 1908 the trees were producing so much fruit that the growers inability to have the fruit picked and
sent to market quick enough, resulted in over seventy percent of the crops being lost when the fruit fell
to the ground, and began to rot. By 1910 the grove was still financially breaking even, despite the
reputation of the fruit being "so sweet no sugar is needed," When the great hurricane hit that same
year the trails became flooded and were under water. It was during this time that one of the partners,
John Roach, a wealthy man in his own right being president of the Chicago Street Railway Co,
purchased Useppa Island near Fort Myers just off the coast, and built a home and 'rather small hotel, to
entertain wealthy tourists and travelers. In 1911 he invited his friend Barron Collier to visit the island,
and it appears they discussed the problems at the grove becausc soon after, the two partners of the
grove decided to open a railroad line from Deep Lake to Everglade. Barron Collier purchased the
island and home with the hotel staff to stay on in that same year and in early 1913 the owners of Deep
Lake Grove had ordered the fourteen miles of railroad tracks thcy needed to go from the grove to
Everglade. They also purchased thc whccls and frames for the carriage that would basically be a steel
box with a Ford engine taken from a Model T. The wheels would have flanges to keep the narrow
gauge train on course, which then would tow several flat cars behind. Paychecks were raised to $9.00
a week for anyone willing to help clear the path and lay a grade. Workers started immediately and on
May 21, 1913, George Starter Sr. drove the first of thc six inch spiked nails to begin the project
accompanied by his son, George Stortcr Jr., who drove the second nail, which was the official
beginning ofthc Deep Lake Rail Road.
(PDq
86
"
;,
~~-,/
~,':,~'
~.~
--~,~
'-'
T~
r
.
Opening day at Deep Lake Railroad
George Storter Jr. is at the controls accompanied by his wife on the right. First engineer Harry Magill
on the left would only drive the "locomotive" for one year until when in 1914 he died of appendicitis.
The Deep Lake groves along with all the communities including Marco, Chokoloskee, and Everglade
were stilt under Lee County's district until 1923 when Everglade added an'S' and became the seat of
the new county, "Collier".
********
The Deep Lake Groves immediately began to prosper from the ability to bring not only the
grapefruits to the market quickly, but other groves like the Welch grove seven miles to the north,
became paying customers to the new freight line. The Deep Lake Groves reputation was becoming
well known and when A. W. Dimock visited there in 1911 he wrote an article called "Turkey Tracks in
Big Cypress" based on his experience visiting the grove. His short story is found in the compilation of
stories titled "Tales of Old Florida". In his article he relates his first hand account at the grove, and the
hundreds of wild turkeys that would frequent the grounds.
He thus records:
"In many states where these birds once flourished, they may be classified with the dodo. The
one place within my observation where their number has decreased but little, in the last two
decades, is the country of the Big Cypress Swamp in Florida."
&D7
87
"Here their environment protects them. In the dry season the turkeys scatter over the open prairies
where they are not easily approached. When these are covered with water that rises to the hunters'
knees, above fathomless rnud in which he might disappear entirely, they gather in the thick woods of
the hummocks. On one of these almost approachable oasis is a recently established grapefruit
plantation. The owner of these three hundred acres has forbidden the killing of turkeys on his grounds.
The Indians, who often visit his place, scrupulously respect the prohibition. White hunters don't poach
on the domain, because of its inaccessibility and the certainty of detection, while the Negroes that work
in that isolated field prefer not to incur the twenty five dollar penalty, the sure enforcement of which
means involuntary servitude for an indefinite period. He goes on to record the relationship of the
turkeys with the employees: "on the plantation groups of young gobblers and hen turkeys with their
broods walk freely and fearlessly among workmen and they have often come within reach of my hand
as, in the shade of a water oak, I sat idly on a stump. Yet they kept wary eyes upon the suspicious
character who neither slung an ax nor grubbed with a mattock, and were more distrustful of a slight
motion of my hand than a shovel full of soil thrown beside them by a laborer. They responded
promptly to the call of a tree felled by the workmen, to seek the insect life to be found in its upper
branches."
"I sought to secure their confidence by scattering handfuls of grain among them, but they
feared the gift bearing Greek, and I only succeeded in implanting distrust, by actions which
their inherited experience had taught them, were of evil portent."
WALTER G. LANGFORD -1924
Business continued to prosper and by 1915 a newspaper in, Key West started to question the
possibilities of the small railroad reaching all the way south to Key West. Henry Flagler considered
this at one time but decided the cost was too great. If the truth be told, the rail line weaved in slow
curves around obstacles and underwater, for a good portion of time because of the low grade. The
Grove started to financially prosper and by 1917, when they installed another rail to make a round
circuit, newspapers were reporting a record 17,000 field boxes, (crates made out of wood slats) were
being taken to Everglade every year.
&/0
88
Picture from 1920 shows the first passeuger train iu the Big Cypress area
By the time 1920 rolled around 40 employees were working at the grove, and there was close to a
dozen families living there in small tents and chickee huts. The Foreman had a larger house and there
were several tool sheds nearby. The owners had installed a small generator, and had a water tower
built approximately 30 feet high. By this time people had their fill of riding in a steel box car,
especially passengers and visitors to the Groves. The owners decided that building the first
commercial railway in the area was not enough, so they concluded that a first class passenger train was
needed. This proved not too difficult of a task considering all they had to do was cut the steel box off
the frame, and welded on a Model T car body. It was an instant success and highly used considering
there was no charge for riders.
* * * * * * * * * *
The success of the Railroad and Grove spread far and wide, and rumors of the Lake being bottomless
added to the mystery of the site. Modern day geologists believe the lake is a common 'sinkhole lake'
like four others in Florida, that exist when over time the water table fills a void, and erodes or sculpts
the edges creating a deep body of water. However there may be ample evidence to show that this is
not entirely correct in regards to Deep Lake.
to! J
89
In 1921, a year before Barron Collier bought the Railroad and Grove, Charles Torrey Simpson heard
about the Lake, and took the 400 mile round trip journey from West Palm Beach, (the only way to get
there at the time) and rode the train from Everglade to the Lake to investigate.
Torrey, a veteran of over 300 journeys into Florida's hammocks, was called "The Patriarch of the
World's Naturalists" by the Miami news when he died in 1932.
He describes in detail on the pages of his book Out Of Doors in Florida his findings where he relates:
"It's possible for the Lake to have been an enormous spring that has long since been dead." He goes
on to state that "In the period of the Pleistocene, a crack or crevice under the now formed Lake could
have forced tremendous pressure through it, which eroded and dissolved the limestone until a big basin
was formed." He believed Silver Springs was formed the same way, but that spring is still active
today.
He concluded his investigation by stating that "The bottom of the Lake is sloped like a cone and if a
line rested on one of its shelves it would register 95 feet, but if it went through the mouth of the spring
it would probably be unfathomable."
When Charles Torrey Simpson passed away in 1932 his widow donated part of his vast collections
and scientific papers to the Flagler Memorial Library that included 34 volumes on geology. More
evidence of the Lakes mysterious features was revealed in 1953 when researchers found that the Lake
was separated in two layers, the top one half being fresh water and the bottom half being salt water.
Later investigators placed a dye in the lake and found that the dye appeared in Chokoloskee Bay 17
miles further south. Another fact that Simpson found out is the waters do not overturn with seasonal
temperature changes.
* * * * * * * * * *
The abundant wildlife that still surrounds the area around the Lake was immortalized in text in May
of 1952, by Ed Scott when he wrote an article called Deep Lake for the magazine Florida Wildlife.
On page 19 he writes: "There is song, and there is tragedy; pursuit of life disrupted by the pangs of
hunger from the carnivores in search of their daily food. This is love, courtship, and happiness; there
is life in all its various forms and there is death." Ed Scott would later become foreman of the Grove
from 1929 to 1939 and later became a columnist in the Collier County News (forerunner to the Naples
Daily News) under thc heading "Lets Grow" where he continued to write stories about Deep Lake until
his death in 1959.
~jZ
90
The next phase of Collier County and the Big Cypress region will be attached here.
7.
THE BEGINNING OF THE COLLIER ERA
With his purchase ofUseppa Island and Hotel in
1911, Barron Collier visited Florida every year
and became increasingly interested in the area.
With his substantial profits from the Consolidated
Street Railway Advertising Company, which he
set up at the age of25, he quickly established
franchises all over the United States. This was at
a time when land in Southwest Florida was
considered swamp overflow lands. The average
price going for an acre ofland was between 12
and 30 cents, and smart investors were starting to
look at south Florida for is potential profits in
lumber, farming, and real estate. Barron Collier in
a little over a decade from his first purchase of
Useppa Island would become the largest
landowner in Florida, owning more than 1.4
million acres in what was then southern Lee
County.
~/3
BARRON GIFT COLLIER
91
In 1915 state legislators along with business men from the east and west coast of Florida started to
formulate a plan, that would put a highway through the Everglades from the city of Miami to the west
coast of Florida. It would be be called the Tamiami Trail, a name derived at the joining the names of
Tampa and Miami and would become one of the costliest construction projects at the time, taking over
12 years to complete. The man most responsible for generating interest in the project was Captain
James Frankli Jaudin, the tax assessor for Dade County. He not only owned a real estate company that
was very successful, but he was the President of the Royal Palm Sugar Cane and Planting Company,
The Consumers Power Company, Perrine Mercantile and Investment Company, and a half a dozen
other companies in Dade County. Captain Jaudon completed the surveys for the Tamiami Trail in
1916, and Dade County issued the Bonds a year latcr, at which time the Captain established the
Chevalier Corporation. He had big plans to develop the land that bordered the new highway, and built
logging operations along with sugar plantaions nearby. Work was slow on the new road, and Lee
County in 1919 building from the west end to the east end, finally ran out of finances. This forced
Captain Jaudon along with the Chevalier Corporation to pay for the route through the northern part of
Monroe County where his Corporation owned 207,000 acres. The corporation had also planned to
build the community of Pinecrest, with 54 residential city blocks, carved up into sellable lots. The
community was to have a school, a community center and a park. The Captain started to build the road
now known as Loop Road, and advertised to potential buyers up north that this would become the
"Next Miami".
In 1921 Barron Collier bought the Deep Lake
Railroad and Groves from John Roach and Walter
Langford, and with the purchase slowly and
steadily, bought the property down the fourteen
mile track heading to Everglade. In 1922 he
purchased almost all of the land in the Everglade-
Halfway Creek region from George Storter.
During this time he raised the grade of the
railroad, and added several more small
locomotives, which required the rails to be
widened. Slowly over the next two years, he
started buying large parcels of land from the state
and different timber companies in Lee and Hendry
Counties, which would leave him with over a
million acres before the new county was named
after him. His sights wcrc set on Everglade and
during the Florida boom of the 1920's, thirteen
new counties were started in the state. Most of the
residents did not trust owners of large tracts of
land or corporations, so when Barron Collier
announced in 1922 his plans to open the lands for
settlement and transportation, and provide
drainage, people in general had reservations.
~/(j
CAPTAIN JAMES FRANKLIN JAUDON
92
~ 1922
THE DEEP LAKE RAILROA
lew County to be named Collier, and it was
lil to the eastern side. He immediately
,
le name, and had his engineers begin to
was the problem of the town being barely
de. This was solved by dredging canals,
approximately 700 acres ofland in the
vice the equipment being used on the
uilt in 1922 and by 1927 it was one of the
I that could produce 10,000 feet of lumber a
that were taking place on the Tamiami Trail
special mill was set up to plane and mill the
Ipply not only a bigger passenger service,
ogging camps, that were springing up. At
In 1923 Mr. Collier petitioned the state to allow the forming oj
granted with the stipulation that he would continue the Tamiami
made the town of Everglade the new County seat, added an "s"
draw building plans for the new city. The first item to be addres
above sea level, causing large parts of it to be flooded during hig
and later dredging the bay area, in an effort to raise the grade of
town. Next was to install an industrial site that would be able to
construction of the Trail. This area would be named Port Dupon
largest machine shops on the south west coast. It also had a saw
day, to keep up with the demand of the numerous bUlldmg proJe,
and in Everglades City. New boats were also built as needed, an
lumber. Barron Collier now expanded the Deep Lake Railroad t,
but added two more locomotives to bring wood in from the varie
the same time he increased advertising for the Deep Lake produc
(0 )5
93
D A TROPICAL THEME.
THE NEW LABELS FOR THE BOXES OF GRAPEFRUIT
pany the Chevalier Corporation, was
es, in the hard Tamiami limestone. The
cing dredges that piled it up on the right
d roadbed. His corporation spent vast
a road that took a long horseshoe route
Work on the Tamiami Trail now progressed as Captain Jaudon's c
struggling under the burden of having crews surveying and drilling
limestone then had to be dynamited before it could be removed by 1
side. This gave a one hundred and thirty foot right of way for the n
sums of money on the Chevalier Road, later named Loop Road. It,
near Pinecrest, the town which the Captain had such grand plans 1'0
(P(b
94
,"
This picture from 1920 shows the men and machinery startiug the
Tamiami Trail, on the outskirts of Miami.
* * * * * * * * * *
During 1923 through 1927, Barron Collier cleared large areas of the Deep Lake Hammock where he began
planting more grapefruit trees, and started working on a hunting lodge styled after a large resort cottage.
Although no hunting was permitted near the groves, forays into the Big Cypress regions were a common
activity, for the guests that were invited during the cooler seasons. Mr. Collier personally was never the
director of his business activities in south Florida, but allowed many local people and others from out of state to
design and run the day-to-day operations of the road building and construction of Everglades City the "Crown
Jewel of South West Florida." No one became more important than civil engineer David Graham Copeland,
who personally took over all of the projects in 1923 as Chief Engineer. He resigned that position in 1929 when
the Trail was finally completed however he still continued to be resident manager of Barron Collier's interests,
for the next quarter of a century.
eot7
95
Barron Collier's hunting lodge and cottage at Deep Lake, 1926
During 1924, when the building of Everglades City was starting to blossom with new streets, homes and a
business district, Barron Collier lobbied State legislators to change the route of the Tamiami Trail. His
reasoning was that since he provided the main financing, most of the drainage, dynamiting, and road building,
the new road should be moved farther north, through properties he owned in Collier County, and the State
agreed. Soon the road took a northern route effectively bypassing the community of Pinecrest and devastating
the Chevalier Corporation's plans for a host of projects. Barron Collier then immediately had the new County
issue bonds to help pay for the rest of the road to be completed. Six months after this, the State agreed to finish
the construction of the Tamiami Trail by calling it State Highway 27, which would be joined to the new State
Highway system. Barron Collier continued to provide materials to the system already set up. The Trail still had
over 85 miles of hard work still ahead that would require crews to drill holes for the dynamite, explode it, and
dredge through mostly swampland. Nevertheless, many of the crews had sleeping quarters built right into the
drilling platforms and dredges, and continued to live and work for 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for the next 4
and a half years, until the official opening of the Tamiami Trail late in 1928.
& I r;J 96
The next theme for Collier County would be the early trading posts, pioneers, Seminole Indians in the 19th
century and the beginning of Everglades City and the seat of the new county.
8. THE TRAIL THROUGH THE OLD TRADING POSTS
One of the earliest trading posts during the turn of the century was Chief Charlie Tigertail's Trading Post. The
site was located on a large hammock island at the head of Lost Man's River, and has mixed hardwood trees
around the entire area. All the local people knew the owner of the site, and many of the settlers used to bring
their sugar cane there, because it was one of the few places that had a cane mill (a piece of equipment used to
extract syrup from the cane). For a small portion of the crop, the locals could use this mill to make sugar cane
syrup, a valuable commodity before molasses was primarily used. The Chief was a friend of Ted Smallwood
and used to provide teams of guides from his tribe, to take wealthy hunters and sportsmen to the deepest reaches
of the Everglades.
1
~~' ....-
! .....>- .
.~\ ,'-' ,', ..~.
r.'.~~f'.. 'L~. '
.. .," i J.....
,Pf,',,<""yt'. I."
o j\" ~;'(i.."'!
li€~ . ,tj
~"J' J
< 'k~l ~ .~~
,,j,,-_, I.,
<~' "Do ,
, r' 'I'.',.
~ ...,. ,
.":-.:,'; ?'r......,' ,I
..._.~.....4''''1'
..r":'~~ :
. . \'"
'~~#".~. ;. ....
" ,.,.
,~'h .o:d-
~.,...\r,:.~:;
. ..' '..r .
.,
,.
THIS IS A 1920 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE INDIAN GUIDES AT CHARLIE TIGERTAIL'S CAMP. NOT ONLY DID THEY GUIDE
HUNTING TRIPS, BUT WERE GENERALLY SOUGHT OUT BY BOTANISTS AND NATURALISTS IN SEARCH OF EXOTIC
."pLANTS AND ANIMALS.
b / 7
97
A census taken in July of 1915 by Special Commissioner Lucien A Spencer reveals that Charlie Tigertail was
born in 1870, and had his mother and one sister in his immediate family. There were only 3 other Trading Posts
in the area at the time of the turn of the century. The other posts were C. G. McKinney's Place, Ted
Smallwood's Post, and George Storter Jr.s Store.
Charlie Tigertail was a colorful individual who for a fee would pose for tourists, and give guided tours of his
camp. Later in 1948 after the site was abandoned a survey party led by John Goggin, an archaeologist by trade,
visited the site which he described in his notes as having four coconut trees over a two acre area, with a small
shell mound. He described the site as untouched and in a natural state in his unpublished notes, and he named it
the Coconut Camp site. When he registered another site called the Cane Mill Mound in 1952 designated
Florida Site # 8M070, it was discovered that it referred to the same site as the Coconut Camp site and is listed
today as the same with the number 8M070. The site was visited in 1977 by archaeologists working for the
National Park Service, and a small quantity of shells, glass beads, and metal artifacts were found. The cane mill
that was on the property was reported to have been removed, and was being shown at one of the Indian tourists
villages on Highway 41 for some years.
.;".. .
f ).....
" .:: >.' '~----. .
~.
"
,.
,
.",-,......
]/'
.1"
~
!J''''
-':.;'"
.--
..! c- .\It \ N d Lr:-
Charlie Tigertail photographed in 1910 on Chokoloskee Island
(;, ZD
98
The Ted Smallwood Tradine: Post
Chokoloskee Island is approximately 150 acres in extent, and is generally at a higher elevation than the other
surrounding areas in the Ten Thousand Island area. Its highest point rises more than 20 feet above sea level,
.-- nd coupled with the fact that there are fresh water springs on the Island, it made a suitable habitation for early
tribes of Indians, which modern day archaeology has shown stretched back for thousands of years.
When Ted Smallwood came to the Chokoloskee area in 1896, he would later relate that there were only five
other families on the Islands. However there were at least a dozen more living in the immediate area. Six years
earlier C. G. McKinney petitioned the US Postal Service to have a Post Office placed at his small store, and
collected the twelve signatures need for the application. He was told by the Postal Service that if he could
continue a steady mail route for a one year period they would approve a new Post Office at the Island. He
performed this for a year by sending all mail by boat to Key West, and on November 27,1891, he hung his sign
over his Trading store as the new Post Oflice of 'Comfort.' Later on June 30, 1892, the name would be
changed to Chokoloskee Post Office. Ted Smallwood had come from Fort Ogden to the Chokoloskee area as
early as 1891 at 18 years of age, where he helped farm along the Halfway Creek region. He soon left and would
not return for another 5 years. When he did return he worked on the farm ofD. D. House on the Turner River.
Living at the farm was his future wife he would marry one year later, Ms. Mamie House. Three years later in
1900, Ted along with his father Robert B. Smallwood bought two houses from the Santini family. The senior
Smallwood occupied the larger of the two houses while Ted resided at the smaller house. Six years later in
1906, Ted opened a Trading post in his home and in the same year became the Postmaster of the Island, moving
the Post office from C. G. McKinney's place to his house.
l" ;""""~l' ----::';;.-x-, "1' .
_:- . - "n: ~',~<. ~-. j "I;J-~ ,\ _'
(,HOI\OlO ",
" . FI.A.>,
Historic photo taken around 1911
left to right, Tommy Osceola - Charlie Tigertail - Charlie Cypress - Little Jim Dixie.
~ 2(
99
The Trading Post soon prospered as Mr. Smallwood began buying animal and alligator hides from the Indians
and local hunters, while at the same time he would buy seasonal crops from the farmers in the area. Early on
there was also certain bird species that were exclusive to the Island, and they were hunted for their plumes
before the laws were changed. Since Smallwood had the only accessible Trading Post between Key West and
Fort Myers with the exception of George Storter, Jr. in Everglade, he began to prosper at a fast rate. Adolphus
Santini, the person who sold two houses to Ted and his father, had also sold him all the property on the Island at
that time. Santini had pre-emption papers for 160 acres that was granted to him in 1877. He had never had a
clear title granted to him because the land had never been surveyed, a requirement by the State of Florida.
When the Smallwood's attempted to acquire title to the land in early 1900 from the United States government,
they were told that all of the land had been granted previously to thc State who in turn had granted it to different
railroad companies as a subsidy for building railroad lines in differcnt parts of the State. Upon further
investigation it was found that the railroad companies had sold the property to different land and timber
companies. Up until that time only squatter rights had been established and while the timber companies
recognized the claims for the squatters, they were unwilling to pay for the survey. In 1902, R. B. Smallwood,
Charles Sherod (Ted) Smallwood along with George Storter, Jr. in Everglade had the surveyor for Lee County,
Joseph F. Shands do the survey work at which time Ted, received the eastern side of the Island, while his father
received the western part of the Island.
George Storter, Jr. received title to the Halfway Creek and Everglade region. The original home Ted
Smallwood built his Trading Post in was about onc hundred yards east of the waters shores until in 1917 he
dismantled the house and rebuilt the Trading Post as it still stands today, right near the shore. By 1918, Ted had
dug a well that provided clean water, and in 1918 he dredged a deeper channel that led to his stores docks, that
would allow the larger boats to access his store. A bad storm in 1924 flooded his store, so he decided in 1925 to
have his store raised on large wood pilings, just in time to beat the killer hurricane of 1926. The 1926 storm
ravaged the Island and flooded the whole area but the store remained undamaged and continued to prosper.
* * * * * * * * * *
Ted Smallwood was the Postmaster ofChokoloskee for 35 years until 1941 when he retired. He had 6
children during this time, three girls, Nancy, Marguerite, Thelma, and three boys, Robert, Glen, and Ted. His
wife died in 1943 and was buried at the cemetery on the Island, and Ted died 8 years later in 1951. The store
and Post Office remained open and was run by his daughter when in 1974 it was placed on the National
Register of Historic Places. It was in use as a general store until it was closed in 1982. Seven years later in
1989 the store was reopened and still retrained over 90 percent of its original trade goods. Today it is used as a
living museum, and remains one of the few Trading Posts from thc 19th Century, still left in thc State of Florida
on display for tourists.
0-2-,G
100
'iI~.~
,
~
J
I
.....
"""""
--
--
.
This photograph was taken of Ted Smallwood in J 928 after the Trading Post was raised 8 feet higher on wood
pilings.
~G3
101
Eyen!lades City - The Early Days
When John Weeks first came to the area in 1862, later to be known as Everglades City, he had not recorded
visitors until 6 years later in 1868. That's when William Smith Allen stopped by on his way to Key West.
Allen was just returning from Sanibel Island where he had failed to bring to market, a crop of castor beans he
had been trying to grow for over a year, before weather destroyed the entire harvest. Looking for fresh water on
his journey south, Allen met Mr. Weeks, who at the time was living at the mouth of a nearby river, (later named
the Allen River) where he was impressed at the soils richness, and the abundant crops Weeks was harvesting.
Later records showed John Weeks bought his homestead from 2 plume hunters, a Mr. Lowell, and William Clay
around 1861. When William Allen returned to the area several years later, John Weeks eventually sold his
home to Allen and moved away. Mr. Allen soon became sole owner by squatter rights of all, the Everglade
region until George W. Storter Sr. came in September of 1881, and started to farm at the north end of the town.
Allen had already been living in a house raised 2 feet high on concrete blocks, and when a hurricane hit in 1873
the house became flooded, forcing Allen to raise it another 4 feet. In 1887 George W. Storter, Jr. came to the
area and two years later on January I, 1889 George Jr.'s wife gave birth to Frances Eva Storter, the first "white"
child born in the area. That same year George Jr. became the owner of the entire Everglade area when he
purchased it from William S. Allen for $800.00, and moved in Allen's house. He opened one of the few
Trading Posts around the area in 1892, and continued to cultivate sugar cane, and farm, while at the same time
trade with Indians and hunters. With continual improvements over the years, George Storter Jr.'s home
eventually became the Rod & Gun Club opened later by Barron G. Collier, soon after he purchased all of
George Jr.'s property in 1922.
l".
'!'
....,.
f
......-.-..-.- .-.' _.._-
G W ~; 1 lJH I'll
';[,rl M' 1\\:' \;;<,.
'i'ii\~.4~;l~,'.~1\'
'~~'l '1-/1...
'It','~' 1:' i :j''',
. :....... '.
..' '. '
II
.1
This picture ca. 1910 shows the original George W. Storter Trading Post. C. G. McKinney is standing in the
center, fifth from left. He died in almost the exact same spot sixteen years later on October 16, 1926 while he was
at the store picking up supplies.
0'd-Y
102
George W. Storter Jr., along with his brother R. B. Storter also known as Bembery, continued to prosper
selling sugar cane and syrup. A general rule of thumb was that one acre of sugar cane could produce almost
800 gallons of sugar cane syrup. Although the Storter's were the largest landowners in the town of Everglade
owning over 700 acres, they only used about 50 acres of the most productive soil. The area was still a wild sort
,fbreed as the first minister sent by the Methodist church, George W. Gatewood found out. On an initial
survey of the area in 1888, Reverend Gatewood booked passage on a sailboat to Everglade, but before it
reached its destination there was a shooting on board and one of the Reverends first duties was to hold a
memorial service for the murdered man.
The area continued to grow and in 1895, George Storter Jr. received word the U.S. Postal Service granted him
permission to open a Post Office at his Trading Post. He tried to use the name Chokoloskee Post Office but C.
G. McKinney had the name previously recorded and it is at this time that George Jr. along with his father and
brother named the Post Office and town area Everglade. It was under Lee County's jurisdiction until 1923
when it became incorporated into Collier County.
One of the earliest photographs of a vehicle taken in Everglades City was the Deep Lake Company car, as it led a
parade down the streets in 1915. Later the car would be turned into the first passenger train in Collier County.
~7S:
103
The next past historical events that happened in Collier County that can be included in the Heritage Theme
would have been the building of Everglades City, the completion of the Tamiami Trail, the trail farmers and the
Seminole People as it related to the trail, and the expansion of the Deep Lake Groves.
9. EVERGLADES CITY
In 1923, after the state voted in favor of the city of Everglades as the new County Seat, the first Board of
Commissioners met on July 7 at the modern day Rod & Gun Club. Board members were William D. Collier
(no relation to Barron collier), Adolphus Carson, James Barfield, George Sorter, Sr. and The Deep Lake
Company's manager, Jack Taylor.29 The first order of business was the location of the new courthouse. It was
decided to be established at the Rod & Gun Club and would later be moved to one of the first buildings planned,
the Manhattan Mercantile Building.
The first Sheriff elected was Captain W.R. Maynard, who advised the Commissioners that when the new road
was finished, it would require a small police force and travel stations every 10 or 15 miles, to help scrvice
motorists and tourists. This advice was taken and by 1928, six stations were built along the Trail to serve the
meals and sell gasoline and other goods.
In 1924 progress on the City of Everglades was in full swing with the basic plan of the city laid out in two half
sections. Port Dupont, named after Coleman Dupont one of the Barron Collier employees, was built in the
northern section. Its claim to fame was a single streetcar, powered by battery to make the journey from Port
Dupont to Carnes town. What made this so interesting was that at that time there were no roads going to or from
Everglades City, hence there were no other automobiles in the new City. All traffic was through the rivers on
boats and barges.
Although the railway car generated a lot of publicity and was heavily used, no fares were charged to ride on it.
It was only in operation 4 years before a fire damaged it beyond use, but by then the "little train that could"
served it purpose well. Another employee on Barron Colliers Board of Directors was Cornelius Vanderbilt Jr
who oversaw the purchase of the Fort Myers Steamship and Navigation Co. Through one of the company's
subsidiaries, he set up a route from Fort Myers to Everglades City called the Collier Line. This Line was
mainly used to bring supplies into the new city, but was later expanded to offer services up and down Florida's
southwest coast. The Collier Line became mostly obsolete, when it had largely served its purpose by the time
the Trail opened in 1928, and the new Atlantic Coast Railway Line (A.C.L.) train route arrived.
Phone lines had been set up from the very beginning and they stretched from Everglades City, to lmmokalee
and onwards to Fort Myers. Houses in the new City were slow to be built until the huge dredge called BAR-
CAR-MIL was completed in early 1926. Its sole purpose was to make fill from the nearby channel in the river for
the foundations of the streets and houses. Its namc was a combination of joining Barron colliers three sons
names; Barron Jr., Samuel Carnes Collier and Miles Collier. For almost 4 years, 24 hours a day, the barge was
operated until finally being disassembled in 1929.
With the bank of Everglades being open since July in 1923 on the banks of thc river, many homes and
properties were being bought at an increasing pace. Slowly the Everglades Railway Light and Power Company
was lighting the darkness of a once 'quaint fishing village' to a modern well planned City. The streets were
wide and the draftsmen were continually trying to make each house a little different so as not to give it the
feeling of being a company built city, leaving plenty of room for trees and later improvements. One of the
highlights of the city was the Everglades Inn, begun in 1924, a beautiful building in the middle of what was at
the time called a "construction camp".
The Rod & Gun Club formerly opened its doors in 1925 after continual renovations over the years, while the
state had just announced they were going to take over the completion of the Tamiami Trail. Most of the
infrastructure had been built for the new town, along with roads going west where the Trail was to be joined,
ready for a new era of development, finance and the long awaitcd "gateway road" from the east to the west.
Ca"Z-{o
104
THE T AMIAMI TRAIL
Over 12 years of hard work finally brought the Tamiami Trail to its completion. its construction under the
guidance of David Graham Copeland, a highly qualified civil engineer, was one of the great achievements in
Florida during the 20th Century. Draining the 80 miles of swamps drilling holes for dynamite, blasting,
excavating, and grading the roadway finally paid off on April, 25 1928 at its completion. The next day a large
gathering was held at Everglades City where County, State and local people had a ceremony with invitations
extended to the Seminole people.
Tamiami Trail Opening day ceremony, April 26, 1928, brought thousands of people to the City of Everglades.
Barron G. Collier is seen standing second from right.
c-c7
105
The completion of the Trail started to bring prosperity almost immediately, not only to the people who started
purchasing land, but also to the homesteaders and farmers, who previously had to take their crops to the rivers,
where commercial barges charged a hefty price to transport to markets.
Now fruit stands and vegetable stands started popping up along the barren road, where farmers used thp
leftover spoil from the road to set up little roadside markets. The farmers, who had been using the highly ric.
black soil of the flat prairies, were producing crops that were better tasting, and much larger. They did this
without using fertilizers like the produce sold in stores and other markets.
...
f/
....-.
This woman in 1929 proudly displays a large head of cabbage that was typical of the
htrail farmers."
G2~
106
The Tamiami Trail and the Seminoles
-- Although the Seminole and Miccosukee Indians had lived in the southwest Florida for hundreds of years, they
aostly were only seen when they went to trading posts like Ted Smallwood's in Chokoloskee, or Brown's
Trading Post at Boat Landing, closer to Immokalee. Charlie Tigertail was one of the few Indians that had an
early trading post in the Everglades, but unfortunately the completion of the Tamiami Trail was his downfall.
After purchasing an automobile, he became one of the Trails first fatalities, crashing into the canal and
drowning.
A,
.
J..
,
., . .".~..." . ~-
. .:~. '''"f;~'':,#.~',:~' ..-'
.JI','. ......~.-',.#' .
.;.. . .......~.. .-' - .
This photo shows a typical small Seminole family alongside the Tamiami Trail after it opened in
1928.
The Seminole and Miccosukee quickly took advantage of the new road by opening small souvenir shops and
selling their cloths and handmade goods. At the turn of the century, there were over 400 Indians living in the
immediate area of the new county, with over 25 villages that ignored the government's offer to either move on
the reservation in Hendry County, Dania or the Brighton Reservation. Today there are only a few of the
souvenir shops and airboat tours left but the government has reimbursed the native tribes with larger tracts of
lands and monetary compensation.
&27
107
I'
I
I~
, .
This village was located on the Tamiami Trail at Turner River crossing and was owned
and operated by Ingraham Billie (standing in center) Ca. 1938
Co 3()
108
The Deep Lake Groves
The grove and small railway Barron Collier bought in 1921 had now grown, to include 2 small locomotives
_. and a passenger train. Three other tractor trains were operating on a daily basis bringing supplies and laborers,
Jack and forth from the trails and Everglades City. Mr. Collier had already rebuilt the railway from the grove,
to Everglades City by widening the tracks and improving the grade.
When the grade for the new road, which is modern day Highway # 29, was completed and the Atlantic Coast
Railway finally reached south to Everglades City on June 15, 1928, Barron Collier sold The Deep Lake Grove
Railway to Atlantic Coast Line Railway.
This rare photograph shows visitors at Deep Lake in 1927. Althongh the lake has been at the center of much
activity for over a hundred years, it has only been photographed a handful of times.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Barron Collier had not only cleared and planted, more grapefruit trees by 1928, but also had workers plant
different fruit trees and other vegetables. Now was the time to start expanding, and with two other companies,
.the Scott Canning Company, and the Webb Trading Company leasing land at the grove, Barron Collier decided
open up a large new canning company. The new cannery was opened in 1929 and was marketed under the
name brand "4-C", short for Collier County Canning Company and started processing all types of vegetable
juice from the neighboring farms. With the new railroad stretching north to Fort Myers, shipping problems
from the past had been largely overcome.
ro3 ( 109
THIS IS THE LABEL FROM THE GRAPEFRUIT DIVISION OF THE 4-C CANNERY THAT WAS OPENED IN 1929. THE CANNERY
OPERA TED FOR 10 YEARS UNTIL THE DEATH OF BARRON COLLIER IN 1939.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Collier now needed someone who was energetic with experience in running his grove at Deep Lake and
had to look no farther than one of his present employees. His name was Edmond Franklin Scott and he was
then living on Marco Island when Barron Collier of Ie red him the job of manager and foreman of the Deep Lake
Groves & Cannery. He accepted and one of the first things he did was to hire 40 additional workers, bringing
the total number of employees at the Grove to 100 people. He also had workers clearing and planting new trees
so that by the end of a decade almost 12,000 trees were producing fruit. Ron Jamro, present day Director of
Collier County Museums, wrote a small article about Ed Scott in 1999, in which he described Ed Scott's
enthusiasm;
&32-
110
"Scott became so engrossed the grove's possibilities that when he wasn't packing and shipping the golden fruit,
he was experimenting with it in the kitchen, turning the factory's by-products into a bewildering variety of
grapefruit goodies. To test the consumer appeal of his concoctions, on Halloween night 1929, Scott and his
- wife hosted a dinner party at their Deep Lake home for just about everybody who was anybody in Collier
=ounty. Threading their way past eerily decorated grapefruit trees, guests were invited to fill up on homemade
grapefruit cakes, grapefruit pies, grapefruit candies and cookies, all served with grapefruit punch and bottled
grapefruit soda, with sides of fresh grapefruit, grapefruit butter and grapefruit jellies and marmalades. For
dessert, there was grapefruit sherbert. The party was a huge success despite so much grapefruit."
In 1932 Ed Scott was appointed Clerk of the Circuit Court and held that position until his death in 1959. His
list of accomplishments included Acting County Agent, Director of the Bank of the Everglades, 1" President of
the county Farm Bureau, Liaison for the County and State for road dept., and the job he loved most, writing a
column in the Collier County News, under the heading "Let's Grow. " He wrote numerous articles on Deep
Lake and its abundant fish and wildlife. Ed Scott's father was a Canadian citrus grower, however Ed was born
in Florida where he quickly became what one would call "a natural farmer." In 1947, while talking with Mr.
Terrell, Director of the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company, he lamented the fact that many of the hardwood
species left behind by loggers could not be used as wood for a small sustainable furniture business. In one of
his articles, under the heading "Let's Grow", he wrote:
"WOODS WITH POTENTIALITIES"
"Along the coast, the Buttonwood and alligator apple abounds with a texture of wood, all its own. The
Seminole Indians have worked up a profitable business making small toy canoes from these woods. Light as a
-...feather, white in color, they make beautiful displays. The red and black mangrove has quite a number of
.lssibilities along this line and besides, the tannic acid in their bark is quite valuable. The mangrove roots,
intertwined as in their native habitat, can be fashioned into numerous outdoor decorations, such as a base for a
pot of native ferns, wicker chairs and the like. When the state took over and established the Collier-Seminole
State Park, I suggested that a portion be reserved for some of the Seminoles who could be encouraged to ply
their trade, and not inconsiderable art, in the handicraft at which they are quite adept. There are innumerable
small local industrial possibilities within the county that might, in time, be a stepping stone to the really big
industries that no doubt will soon invade this land of promises."
By the end of a decade long run from 1929 to 1939, the Deep Lake Groves & Cannery had prospered but labor
costs and lowered profits coupled with the death of Barron G. Collier in 1939, led the Board of Directors of
Collier Companies to close the operation in early 1940. However several families, including locals and Indians,
remained to live in the area around the Lake.
fc, 33
III
DEEP LAKE HAS REMAINED PRISTINE AS SEEN IN TillS 2006 PHOTO. THE LAKE HAS NEVER BEEN OPENED TO THE
PUBLIC AND REMAINS ONE OF THE 'BEST KEPT SECRETS' IN THE BIG CYPRESS.
The Deep Lake area has always been treated as a preserve and has only been viewed by a handful of people
through time, but those who have seen it would not disagree with the prosaic words of Ed Scott: 'The Deep
Lake Hammock strand is a virtual laboratory for botanists. Here are thousands of small and large animals all
bent on the furtherance of their cxistence, the haven for the naturalist and the perfect sanitarium for all nervous
disorders. "
~3<f
112
The next theme in Collier County would have been the logging era. This took place all over the Big Cypress
area and was the most prevalent in the lumber town of Jerome and the town of Copeland.
10. THE LOGGING ERA OF BIG CYPRESS
While Barron Collier owned more land and timber rights than anyone in Southwest Florida during the 1920's,
his interests were in building the Tamiami Trail, and the City of Everglades. In the area of Pine crest, where
Captain Jaudon had planned on building a new town, a commercial sawmill was opened near the doomed town
by the name of Cummer & Sons Lumber Company. The lumber company was milling pine from the 1920's,
when teams of men had to go out and chop the trees down, before loading the lumber on carts pulled by oxen.
When loaded the teams of oxen would then take the timber to the mills.
**********
The Cummer & Sons Company was largely responsible for the many tram roads that were built for the next
20 years that stretched from Monroe County to eastern Collier County. It was around 1945 that operations were
\king place on Collier lands. The basic way a tram road was built involved dredging soil in a long tract, to
tJuild the grade of the road higher than the water level, and installing crossties to lay flat while machines called
skidders were used to drag the felled trees onto the railroad cars, waiting to take the lumber to the mill.
Channels were also cut to run alongside ofthe tram roads to help the water drain and keep the tram road from
being washed away. A large number of hardwood strands including Gator Hook, East Hinson Strand, Bear
Island, and several others were depleted by the 1950's. There were several smaller portable sawmills like the
Williams Sawmill on the south side of the Tamiami Trail, 4 miles east of modern day Burns Lake Road, that
could quickly be moved to a certain area.
* * * * * * * * * *
Different trees required different techniques for harvesting the lumber. In the case of the 150 foot tall Virgin
Bald Cypress, some had so much water stored in them they had to be 'girdled' by cutting a large gash around
the perimeter of the trunks and letting the water drain out for at least a year before cutting. Several other lumber
operations started during the 1930's including the Maxcey Mill near the Turner River, which mostly logged
Cypress north of Tamiami Trail, at a time when huge virgin Bald Cypress strands ran through Collier County,
for over 50 miles in length. The logging operations started to flourish when in 1928 the Atlantic Cost Lines
came to Everglades City and started hauling out trees faster than they could be milled.
(P3S
113
Early Pioneers tell stories of the largest Bald Cypress trees taking 3 or 4 train cars to haul away. Here the Atlantic
Coast steam locomotive is shown taking some of the first shipments of lumber from Collier County.
Early in 1913, the J.e. Turner Lumber Company paid fourteen dollars an acre for a huge tract ofland in
Collier County, a little over a hundred thousand acres. This was at least two thirds of the Cypress Reserves in
the growing County, and by the 1950's a division oftheir company, the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company, had
become the world's largest supplier of Cypress lumber. Few if any gained more notoriety than Conrad Jerome
Jones from Felda, a.k.a., C.J. Jones, who opened the Reynolds Mill in 1937,just on the western edge of Miami.
His mill was producing 20,000 feet of lumber a day, nearly twice as much as Port Dupont. His new mill used
tractors with special wheels to bring logs to the mills and pioneered the skidding process so that by the end of
seven years he was able to open a new mill in the town of Jerome, aptly named after his middle name, which
began processing over one hundred thousand board feet oflumber a day by 1950. He was considered to have
the "golden touch" when he secured the contract to supply the government with lumber for the rebuilding of
war torn Europe.
~3b
114
o"'"\,\ ...
if~
1..'~1"'.
~~
"'.,
C. J. JONES at the controls of his flagship locomotive in 1943
By the early 1940's the pinelands farther north near Immokalee had been logged out. C. J. moved his
operations to bear Island. In 1956 a fire devastated the Jerome sawmill and Mr. Jones moved his operations to
-'lOrthern Florida.
By the 1950's the huge groves of pines had been depleted and logging operations had begun to come to a
crawl. In a rare correspondence between business partners from a letter dated August 4, 1934, one partner
complains to the other that several sawmills are not clearing their land fast enough because of other clients the,
sawmills are contracting with. This then gives a clear insight into the massive logging operations in service at
the time and the indifference to clear-cutting. In part it reads:
"It was our idea that they would cut one hundred thousand or more pine per month thus earning
us at least one hundred dollars or more per month; when they started on cypress (of which we
have some two million feet) it was our idea that they would cut much more than one hundred to
two hundred thousand feet monthly; thus, on the commission or percentage of 20% of gross
with cypress at sixty to one hundred dollars per thousand, would create a revenue of one
thousand dollars or more monthly."
They are paying Copeland et al six dollars per thousand for their pine, (selling them no cypress
but cypress is now worth more than pine) even cross tie stumpage is .15 cents per tie; thus, if our
timber was cut into cross-ties it would pay far more than the lumber price."
Many of the property owners wanted the roads that the logging operations ultimately left, thereby leaving the
land cleared and ready for development or farms. When the vast tracts of the Fakahatchee Strand were finally
logged out, it was only by a small handful of people who organized a local citizens group to save the final stand
of, virgin Bald Cypress trees. Though an initial donation from the Lee Cypress Company of 640 acres, and the
Collier Companies donation of the same amount of land, Collier County can now enjoy a long boardwalk trail
through the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. '
&37
115
.'"'''' ",;',,',
".,,: i" .:.:_11~"'" "
,t.t,":iK1"t""',;~"1>"_'-" _'
"1'>t,;,::-.~," 'l;~'i
. 1
I '.
j
)
,
This 1910 hand painted post card was one of many sold in souvenir shops and gives some perspective of the
mighty "Wood Eternal" Bald Cypress. This particular tree was reported to be 3,100 years old.
03g
116
This picture taken just outside of Copeland in 1948 shows the process of extracting the trees from the swamp in an
operation called skidding.
**********
"THEY ARE GONE, GONE FOREVER THESE BEAUTIFUL WILD BIRDS AND ANIMALS, THE GLORIOUS FORESTS, THE WIDE
UNTOUCHED STRETCHES OF SWAMP, THE PEACE AND HOLINESS OF THE EVERGLADES. THEY ARE VICTIMS OF GREED,
OF FOLLY, OF UNBELIEVABLE BRUTISHNESS AND CRUELTY OF THAT STRANGE DESIRE IN THE HEART OF MAN TO
TRAMPLE OUT AND MERClLESSL Y DESTROY."
CHARLES TORREY SIMPSON
~31
117
Jerome
The town of Jerome located 10 miles north of Everglades City on highway # 29 had its beginnings in 1940
when Conrad (Jerome) Jones, closed the operations of the Reynolds Mill just outside of Miami's city limits, ant.
brought all his equipment to a small parcel of land just north of the town of Copeland. He secured a lease from
the Manhattan Mercantile Corporation (a Collier family business) and soon started to build two large buildings,
that would house his new sawmill and lumber operations. Different than other lumber and sawmill operations
in the area the new mill would not only trim the logs into stock dimensional lumber, but it was set up to plane
the wood and add preservatives to keep the wood impervious to the weather.
Most other sawmills were set up for machinery to process pine, but C. J. (as he was called by his friends) was
set up to cut and mill the larger Bald Cypress trees. Mr. J ones only had a ninth grade education but he was
trained well by his father who was in the turpentine extraction business since the tum of the century. His
process of preserving the wood was to dip the pieces of lumber after they were milled and dried into large
containers of creosote. Creosote today has mostly been outlawed because of its harmful chemicals. Large
lumber operations today now stack large loads of lumber into containers and subject them to high pressure,
which bursts the woods capillaries allowing them to then inject chemicals into the sealed containers, hence the
modem term 'pressure treated wood' is the most commonly preserved wood available today.
~.'.'
I
I
"
'"
..,~",,---,
-~..
. --L:;"
'.~ - .. ,-<- "-. -'--=~---..
~ ~'-~- ~..
~ ,'. ~.~:'~~'M:~. ..-~-
,~~:,,,,,~,~,:,:'.. . ,'_,r-~~~r~.~.. _ ._
-
~--
~~'~:..~- ~'~"''lI~~':'~~_~_
This photograph of the Jones Lnmber Company in 1955 shows part of the operation which was all stream
operated. At the height of its operation in 1953 the mill employed almost 200 workers. The smokestack at the
mill was over 200 feet tall.
~y-v
118
When Mr. Jones first came to the area in 1940 there had only been about a dozen families working on the
farms of J.B. Jones and Alfred Webb several miles to the south. Within 10 years C.J. had over 200 employees
and had helped build over 40 homes for his workers. The small lumber town of Jerome taken from Mr. Jones'
- middle name was named after him. His sawmill became one of the largest wood producing and processing
Jlants in the state of Florida. Jones came at the right time because the Lee Cypress Company was just starting
to harvest lumber on their vast properties, and the Federal Government offered Mr. Jones a contract to purchase
as much lumber as his operation could produce. The lumber was being used overseas to repair war torn Europe
and was in demand for such items as crates, telephone poles, railroad ties, coffins, and PT boats used by the US
Navy. Jones also sold lumber at his own retail stores that he set up on both coast at eight different locations.
Demand for cypress lumber was so high at that time that in exchange for not using cypress wood on his workers
homes, the US government had redwood shipped in from California to build the homes. Mr. Jones was
responsible for building most of the logging tram roads in Eastern Collier County, and modern day Big Cypress
Preserve.
This 1951 photograph shows train # 22 at the Jerome Sawmill getting ready to load the 100,000 feet of board
lumber that was cut, milled, and dipped in creosote daily.
Production at the Jerome Sawmill required workers to put in at least 12 hours a day. It was at this time that
"" 'he Lee Tidewater Cypress Companies full production run of producing 40 million board feet of lumber a year,
"ame to a crawl in 1955 when most of the harvestable lumber had been used, and the smaller strands of trees
were deemed to be too expensive to build tram roads to recover them.
~ tf-)
119
C. J. decided to shut down his sawmill at the end of 1955 and sell everything including equipment and trains
to a scrap dealer in Miami. The official closing took place on December 3, 1956. Three days later one of the
workers employed to disassemble the plant accidentally started a fire that burned down the entire site including
most of the workers homes and their favorite hang out "the Jerome Juke" a two story structure and after houro
club owned by Buster Graham.
The fire was seen from as far away as 20 miles and the flames rose as high as 150 feet. The two buildings that
housed the sawmill along with lumber sheds, 2 drying kilns, and a special mill setup for sizing wood boards,
were completely destroyed. Witnesses described one of the creosote vats that held about 3,000 gallons of the
preservative (there was at least one more) burning and spilling creosote all over the property. With the closing
of the mill and the subsequent fire soon after, the fate of Jerome was sealed. Today only a handful of people
live in Jerome near the site of the old mill. The National Park Service purchased an additional 146,000 acres of
land from private landowners to be added to Big Cypress National Preserve property in 1988. Final ownership
was accomplished in 1996 bringing the total acreage of the Preserve to 729,000 acres. Mostly all of the early
townships of Collier County including Jerome were located in the new addition lands.
The site of the Jones Lumber Mill today as with all other property purchased by the Big Cypress
National Preserve in the new addition lands, has been fenced off or gated with no access for the public.
There remains no marker today at the site of the Jones Sawmill.
&Lj-Z
120
LEE CYPRESS - COPELAND
The town of Copeland is located 4 miles north of Tamiami Trail on Highway #29 and its actual location, is in
.... 'In area formerly called Lee Cypress since the 1940s. The roots of the Lee Cypress region began in 1907 when
. Michigan based corporation purchased 150,000 acres of land in southern Lee County (now Collier County).
The land was a vast wilderness that had ncver been surveyed and held one of Florida's last strands of virgin
Bald Cypress, a wood that was highly prized at the turn of the century. The land stretched mostly through parts
of what are now Big Cypress National Preserve and the Fakahatchee State Park system. Because of a lack of
roads and the remoteness of the area, the company refrained from any operations in the Big Cypress area. It
was during this time that a large property and sawmill owner, J. C. Turner was buying logging rights and
sawmill operations in northern Florida and in 1910, set up a new large-scale lumber sawmill located at Centralia
Florida. Mr. Turner soon learned about the vast supply of harvestable lumber in southwest Florida and
approached William Burton and Edward Swartz, both large property owners in Florida with timber interests,
and convinced them of the potential profits to be made on this large strand oflumber.
By early 1913 J.C. Turner had convinced Mr. Burton and Mr. Swartz to purchase the 150,000 acres with Mr.
Turner providing 40% of the cost and the other 2 partners to supply 60%. They decided to name the new
subsidiary of J.C. Turner Lumber Company (in the Big Cypress area) the Lee Cypress Company. However it
would be almost 20 more years before large scale logging operations would take place in that area (now Collier
County) because of the deaths of J.e. Turner in 1923 and William Burton in 1926.74 It was during this time in
1932 that 2 men from Miami, J. B. Janes and Alfred Webb purchased 10 acres, for a reported $10 about 4 miles
north of Tamiami Trail on Highway # 29. The low purchase price was due to the fact that landowners wanted
to bring farming operations into the area. After clearing and planting a tomato and pepper crop, farming
operations slowly grew to encompass several thousand acres. They employed and housed over a dozen families
living in the area. Two brothers of J. B. Janes, Wayne and Winford, came to help their brother and together
they opened up the first general merchandise store in the area aptly named, "The Janes and Company Store".
-This would become the Township that would later be named Copeland after the head engineer for the Tamiami
rail, David Graham Copeland.
By 1941 the Burton and Swartz Lumber Company had almost completely depleted the forests in northern
Taylor and Lafayette Counties and in 1943, sold 'lock, stock, and barrel, all of their interests and equipment at
the large sawmill in Perry Florida to the J.C. Turner Lumber Company. With full control of the operation the
Turner Company announced plans to begin logging operations in the Big Cypress area. Part of their acquisition
from the former owners were 5 steam and wood burning locomotives with a 2-6-2 wheel arrangement that was
generally preferred in the flat prairies of Florida, because of their enormous power at the wheel ratio. The
Company kept engines # I and # 2 at the Perry plant for loading and switching operations and sent engines 3, 4,
and 5, to a lumber camp that was being set up at the Copeland Township. The J.C. Turner Company signed an
agreement with the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad that all lumber harvested in the region would be shipped on
their railroad, north to the, sawmill in Perry Florida 400 miles away. In late 1943 the first locomotive # 4 was
shipped to Copeland on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad and in March of 1944 the first shipments on 40 train
car caravans were sent to Perry, Florida for processing.
The Lee Cypress Company started hiring workers for their new logging operations, and set up a small
switching station on the west end of Copeland. The Company also started a building project to house their
workers which by the end of 1950 had reached over 200 employees. Also built were offices, warehouses, and
repair stations, all powered by a self-sustaining electrical plant. Altogether over 80 Cypress homes were built to
house the workers who left on the 5:30 A.M. trains to go as far as 45 miles into the swamps, where logging tram
roads were cleared ahead of the main rail lines. All of the harvested lumber followed a pretty standard routine
with surveyors first locating and marking different species, followed by a crew to clear roads and girdle the
-Larger Cypress trees, (an operation that cut a 6" perimeter circle around the base of the trees to drain water).
Jme trees were so large that it took over a year before the trees were drained and deemed light enough to
harvest. All harvesting was done by hand with large two-handed saws some reaching well over 20 feet long.
U? Lj- 3
121
The next step in the labor intensive project was to have a crew lay tracks on the cleared logging roads so that
train engines and rail cars could attach cables to the largest trees, and use them to winch all other trees in the
strands, (a process called skidding) to empty rail cars where they were loaded by a self propelled crane attached
to one of the locomotive engines.
The Janes Brothers Mercantile Building in Copeland, known formerly as the Red Barn, was a main supplier of
goods to the community for over 30 years. The structure one of the oldest in Collier County has long since
vanished, with no marker at the location to denote its past.
By 1947 operations were in full gear and the 1.e. Turner Company changed the name of its subsidiary
company The Lee Cypress Company, to the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company. During the 14 year operation
from 1943-1957,915 shipments each containing 40 train cars per shipment were made. This brought the total
amount of harvested wood in that time frame to around 350 million board feet that was logged and shipped to
the Perry plant. The employment and activity of the Lee Cypress Company no doubt had a large influence on
the prosperity of the town of Copeland until 1956, when the Jones Sawmill closed, (and subsequent fire)
coupled with the depletion of the vast tract of Pine and Cypress, forcing the 1.e. Turner Company to
discontinue operations in the Big Cypress area by early 1957. By 1961 the J.e. Turner Company acquired sole
ownership of all properties in the Big Cypress area and in 1966 the Company sold 75,000 acres to the Gulf
American Land Company. They in turn started to promote what would be billed as the worlds, largest
subdivision for homes. The new project would be named the "Golden Gates Estates."
Cp~L/
122
The community of Copeland continued as a Township with about 200 residents opening a new general store
next door to their longstanding Historic Post Office. One year later in 1967 the developers started to run into
financial problems trying to add so many streets. They also cut canals to drain the water (most of the land was
._previously overflowed during rainy season). By the early 1970s over 95 miles of paved and unpaved roads had
een cut and 723 miles of canals had been dug. The canals finally drained most of the water off the land but the
ecological disaster that it left on the lands and wildlife continues to this day.
**********
As early as 1967 the developers were having legal problems and were charged with hundreds of counts of
fraud, deceptive business practices, and a variety of other charges which they eventually pled guilty to. By
1973 the developers were claiming bankruptcy and because of an illegal dredging operation the company was
involved with in Charlotte County, Cape Coral, they forfeited 9,523 acres to the State in 1972, starting in
motion many other land acquisitions by the State so that by 1999 over 69,896 acres had been purchased which
now make up the Fakahatchee Strand State Park.
One of the main entrances to the Fakahatchee Strand State Park is located on the north side of Copeland,
where the Janes Scenic Highway, stretches west to the Picayune Strand State Park. Copeland continued to
enjoy some measure of prosperity until in 2002 the U.S. Department of the Interior bought the Janes Restaurant
and Historic Post Office to add to the Big Cypress National Preserve and completely razed the historic
structures. This brought an immediate public outcry not only from the community of Copeland, but also from
several historical societies. Officials stated that they wanted to restore the area to its original "state" but
considering the preserve has over 700,000 acres within its boundaries, and the site only comprised one eighth of
--'In acre, one has to question this decision.
Nith the closing of the Copeland Road Prison in the same year, and the U.S. Post Office refusing to continue
operating a Post Office at the Township, the residents have endured economic hardships. Even though
Copeland remains as the last community still surviving on Highway # 29 that borders Big Cypress National
Preserve, there is presently no effective industry present today and no historical markers to denote the
community's contribution to the early County.
&'-1-5
123
Locomotive Engine # 1
This picture of Locomotive Engine # 1 was taken from the engine shed of the Lee Tidewater Cypress Lumber
Company at Live Oak, Florida, on September 4,1956.
This was one of the 5 engines used by the J.e. Turner Company at the Perry Plant to switch cars, and was last
"fired" in the fall of 1959. The company stored the train until 1962 when it was sold to F. Nelson Blount's
Edaville Railroad. Sold and moved several times over the years, it finally ended up in the National Park
Services collection at Steam town in Scranton, Pennsylvania. This train meets all of the requirements to be
placed on the National Register of Historic Places as an (Object) and can be requested to be loaned on an
agreement with the National Park Service with Collier County Government and placed on the Heritage Trail or
the long envisioned [Pioneer Museum of Collier County].
Gt/h
124
~
Locomotive Engine # 2
Photographed here in 1944, Engine # 2 which would later be referred to as "The Deuce" was built by the Baldwin
Locomotive Company in 1915.
As steam engines go it was the smallest of the Lee Tidewater engines and was primarily used as a transport, to
take the daily average of200 workers deep into the Big Cypress area. Cecil B. Oglesby, an engineer who drove
the Deuce for 14 years, made 63 cents an hour at that time. The engine was sold several times over the years
and was eventually rebuilt and donated to the Collier County Museum where it has been on display since 1988.
, -(.. 53 S I :N Ul
~C1_~
l:)~
-T ~
, OP-LOOK
AN.,
VISIT
BRADENTON
'\ \
---::'--
o~~~~;; ,
~~:'"
~f.
- ..,I
~;:ill
'.
Locomotive Engine # 3
'1hen the Lee Tidewater Lumber Company closed operations in 1957 engine # 3 was sold and re-lettered. It
~ventually ended up in 2002 at the "Manatee Historical Village" in Bradenton, Florida.
~Cf-7
125
. -- <.. ...,.,~
~~I;!.'" . .' .
....~. ~, ...,~ .
~.Jr.,_.:::'~' t-..,...:a..:
Locomotive Engine # 4
Steam Engine # 4 owned by The Lee Tidewater Cypress Company was perhaps the most famous of all the
locomotives owned by the J.e. Tuner Company.
* * * * * * * * * *
Called "The Big Engine", it was built in 1914 by the Baldwin Locomotive Works of Eddystone, Pennsylvania
for the Burton Swartz Cypress Company of Florida, and was shipped 400 miles south in 1943 to Copeland,
Florida. Primarily used to bring logs out of Big Cypress, it became known as part of an operational system
considered the first true unit train operation in America. When logging operations stopped in Copeland in 1957,
the train sat in open storage until F. Nelson Blount bought it in 1962. Mr. Blount kept Engine # 4 in Copeland
until 1968 when he sold it to George Silcott who had no choice but to leave it in Copeland because the tracks
had been removed years earlier. Years later, Chicago train collector John Thompson bought the train and
moved it to his ranch north of Monee, Illinois. In 1988 after 20 years of storage Mr. Thompson's estate donated
the # 4 to the Hardin Southern Railroad who then allowed the Mid South Rail Heritage Foundation to start the
rebuilding process and bring back a part of history from Florida's Steam Locomotive and Railroad past.
Co y!- &
126
..
-
~
,~.
....
........... ,..
.
.......:I'm
.
""..'
.
Locomotive Engine # 5
Engine # 5, owned by the Brooks & Scanlon Company and sold to the J.C. Turner Company in 1943, was the 5th
and last 2-6-2 locomotive used by the Lee Cypress Tidewater Company. In 1955 because of maintenance problems
the Engine was sold for scrap iron.
t?'f1
127
The next and what can be considered last theme in Colliers County's past history would be the era of oil
exploration and drilling. This would have taken place in the past township of Sunniland and was started a short
time beforc the logging operations started to slow down.
11. SUNNILAND
The original Sunniland Township was located on Highway 29, seven and a half miles north of Interstate 75.
This was a major area for the Seminoles who lived here from the 1800s because it was on the edge of the
Okaloacoochee Slough, and had one of the shallowest crossings. It was later used as a major thoroughfare for
the Army troops during the Seminole Wars. The Trail started in Naples at Fort Foster, and stretched east past
Fort Doane, Fort Keais, and finally ending up in present day Sunniland, where early military maps show where
Fort Keys was located. Starting today on what would be Golden Gate Boulevard in Naples, traveling east you
would now come through the future planned Phase II of the Ave Maria township project. If you continued east
on the northern border of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, you would eventually come to Highway
29. Most historians view this as the traditional trail through an historic route used by the Seminoles, the Army,
and early pioneers.
Although several preservation and historical societies would like to see this trail used as a greenway and
historic interpretive trail stretching from Naples to highway # 29, this has presented various problems. The
ownership of land starting on the west side in Naples is private and scheduled for future development. As it
continues east to highway # 29 the trail passes by, (not on) the northern side of the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge would like to receive the development easement and incorporate it into the
preserve. That would then eliminate any possibility of the public in the future to walk on this trail, as the
Refuge is off limits to the general public. Fort Keais and several other past Army posts are on this trail.
Requests to do an archaeological survey on the land has been proposed to owners or managers in one form or
another but unfortunately there has been no response as yct. Many have hoped the futurc development of thes
ten thousand acres would usc this strip of land after development as a conservation easement, and preserve it as
a nature trail with historic exhibits and markers along the way. This has already been done at dozens of
development sites and the state of Florida, has a stewardship program just for this reason. By Collier County
formerly selling the roadway rights to a large parcel of land to the State of Florida for Picayune Strand State
Forest for $25 million dollars, they have effectively lost access to the eastern part of the County. This trail in
essence many believe could bridge that gap and work with development to have a conservation easement, like
other counties and preserve this historic corridor.
* * * * * * * * * *
Previously started as a farming community in the late [920s, Sunniland reached it prominence in 1943 whcn
Humble Oil Company, (later to become Exxon Corp) drilling to 11,626 feet struck oil. It would be Florida's
first producing oil well and would break a string of over 80 failed attempts and a decade of unproductive
searching. The well started pumping 140 barrels of oil a day and by 1954 several well fields combined in the
Sunniland field were producing 500,000 gallons of oil a day.
~S;D
128
....,..
I
, '
-~-...,
..
--
The Humble Oil Company depot in Sunniland and the oil platform - 1946
The site has long since vanished.
Sunniland was an important railway stop for farmers during the 1940s through the 1960s with a railroad depot,
several stores, and commissary the community grew to over a hundred people. Soon it came to a crawl when
the Sunniland mine took over large areas of land in the area. Today there is but a few homes and farms still
located in the area but as of yet no historical markers are displayed about Sunniland's past, except for a small
oil pump (#1) donated by Humble Oil Company which is now eligible to be nominated to the National Register
of Historic Places. After three years the first pump was closed down, restored and now sits at Oil Well Road
Park off Highway 29 and is the last visible trace of Sunnilands boom time era.
GSI
129
Although this appears to be just another one of the dozen or more abandoned stores around Sunniland,
this particular spot was a midway point between Fort Keais and Fort Keys on the old military trail.
The Sunniland Railway Depot and Farming Station now sits abandoned along bighway # 29. The station is
now also eligible for nomination to the National Register and was a midway point between Everglades City
and Immokalee City for over 50 years. This would make an ideal site for an interpretational center or a
Pioneer Museum.
foSZ
130
These II themes that have been itemized on the previous pages in Section 10 from Collier County's past
history can be used in an interpretational way along any proposed Cultural or Heritage Trail, Interpretation
Center (providing it is large enough) or in a possible future Pioneer Museum. Combined with the proposed
""highway markers and / or interpretation centers discussed in Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 this would represent an
ffective answer to any future interpretations of Collier County's past history and cultural heritage.
SECTION 11
Section II will address: The acquisition of properties along the proposed Cultural and Heritage Trail
There are several sites that would make an ideal situation for any proposed interpretational centers or possible
future Pioneer Museum building. It should be first understood that the possible donation or purchase of any
property need not be through the Collier County Government. As can be seen with the Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary run by the Audubon Socicty a private non for profit organization can effectively operate and interpret
to the public the past history of the county by property that was donated to a private organization. This is not to
say that the county can not:
I. Purchase any property for any proposed project
2. Donate or use any land currently in it's possession
(One example would be the 100 plus acres that were donated to the county by the Ave Maria Project)
3. Seek to set land aside that is presently required to be set aside for preservation land by developers
seeking to earn development credits for future development sites
4. Redirect Conservation Collier's resources to purchase any land for any proposed projects
5. Help to maintain any lands used in any proposed projects
6. Ask any developers or development companies presently planning any projects for a donation of land
7. Implement any programs that would be in line with any proposed Interpretation Centers or any future
Cultural or Heritage Trail projects
8. Seek to work with privately owned organizations that plan to build or use a certain site for a Pioneer
Museum
Although the map that will be proposed in Section 15 will show a path that stretches through the center portion
of the county, practically any area that already has a road system in place will accomplish the projectcd goals of
any Interpretation Center or Cultural Heritage Trail/Pioneer Museum theme. These roadways would ideally be
US 41, highway # 29, Oil Well Road, Camp Keais Road or # 846 Immokalee Road.
· An example of a possible donated or purchased site will be attached on the following 2 pages.
GS3
131
..... ...
~.-,.,,,""..~.
The Collier County Canning Company at the Deep Lake Groves seen here photographed in 1935 had 100 workers
and was one of the largest employers in Collier County. The cannery was closed and dismantled after the death of
Barron G. Collier in 1939. It later became tbe site oftbe Copeland Road Prison.
0>5<f
132
The Old Copeland Prison
The property now known as the old Copeland Road Prison was purchased by Barron G. Collier along with all
ne other properties he purchased in 1920 and 1921. The land where the Deep Lake Cannery was built was on
about 50 acres and was deeded to the state in 1952 by Barron collier Jr. and his wife. It was to be used for any
purpose the state seemed fit, or by any use the State Road Department required. The stipulation in the Deed
was "the land was to return to the owners if the State ever stopped using the property." Department of
Correction records indicate the Copeland Road Prison was opened in 1951 one year before the land was
donated. Evidence suggests the grounds were first used as a transportation junction to ferry prisoners between
Miami and Fort Myers. The prison was used for level-2 security prisoners and was housing an average
population of 68 prisoners in 1995. The Department of Corrections decided in 2002 to close down the prison
because of its age and cost associated with its remote location.
~
~
r..
'j\\.;M
-. ~::\.-,'l!
Today the Copeland Road Prison across the Highway # 29 from Deep Lake sits abandoned. Many historical
Societies believe the large acreage plus the still existing buildings would make an ideal location for a Pioneer
Museum, Living Sawmill, or a Cultural Interpretation Center.
&55
133
SECTION 12
The ownership or management of acquired properties in relation to any proposed projects.
Besides outright ownership of land other options are available. These would include but not be limited to:
1. Leases on land with any private owner, organization, or corporation
2. Leases on land presently owned by Collier County
3. Cooperative management agreements with State or Federal agencies (to be discussed in Section 14)
On general conversations with owners of private businesses along US 41 indications in the past were, that
several individuals thought that the idea of proposed markers, interpretation centers or a possible future
Pioneer Museum would be a positive step for the county and good for local business. The owners of the
Ochopee Post Office currently have many items from the past community ofOchopee and display them in
their present gift shop and air boat attraction nearby and have expressed a desire to someday have a
permanent place to display these objects. The family that currently owns the Weaver Station property some
while back asked the county for permission to clean and fix up the current site but at the present those
efforts seemed to havc stalled. The new present owner of the Royal Palm Hammock station and restaurant
currently owns property around the arca and has a small display of gift shop items and has been restoring
the station and buildings on his property for the last several years. All of the present owners of property on
US 41 understand the benefits would be to their personal businesses and to their property values were there
to be any new projects instituted in the immediate area. The State of Florida Division of Historical
Resources has several programs that help fund projccts of this description and havc agreements with the
Florida Dept. of Transportation to maintain any sites on easemcnts along any roadways.
SECTION 13
The cooperation between development companies and specific goals to include but not be limited to:
Conservation Easements, Development credits (in conjunction with Collier County Government)
Florida Archaeological Site Stewardship Programs, and historical and interpretive displays along
trails and adjoining properties along proposed development sites.
1. Conservation easements are presently used in many places today in the state of Florida. The primary
difference between conservation easements and other building and zoning easements are the different purposes
they are used for. For purposes of clarification the Conservation Easements that are intended here are presently
endorsed and utilized by the Florida Division of Historical Resources for Cultural Preservation on private land.
It is one of the options discussed in Section 13 and a basic explanation of the purposes and procedures to
implement these easements will be attached on the following page.
(bS0
134
r I :) ..1 oj a Division of Historical Resources Department of State Menu
'/1'
~.
~-
Conti:t Us Site ~, Search DHR Go
";1
'i".
;'j'
''':<;'1
'. L'
11-;~11
, l'-'! L
I~ I. r
tF:~~
~~
d: :1' IriSi ';1
I. !f) I~'F) ,j
C 1121! ;()UII ;5 Jr
KIIW:t,-
'=' '-~ Ii ,f
A,le "i! 1I(;]ll'~1 Rest I Ii
Conservation Easements
If you own an historic building or an archaeological site, you can play an
active role in its preservation by placing a conservation easement on your
property. A conservation easement offers property owners flexibility in land
management while at the same time protecting some of Florida's history.
Additionally, it can afford property owners tax benefits.
What is a conservation easement?
Conservation easements may apply fo a variety of resources. Broadly
applied, a conservation easement is a legal agreement a property owner
makes with a non-profit or government organization to protecf a cultural or
natural resource on his property. Depending on the resources they protect,
conservation easements are known by several different names. For
example, an agricultural easement would protect a family farm. Types of
conservation easements commonly used to protect historic buildings and
archaeological sites include historic preservation easements and open
space or scenic easements.
Why place a conservation easement on my property?
Along with tax benefits and community benefits, conservation easements
are uniquely tailored to meet the needs of the individual property owner.
They allow property owners to protect specific resources on their property
while retaining ownership. An owner can choose which portions of the
property he wishes to protect and which to exclude from protective
covenants of the easement.
{p S7
135
2. Development Credits - In 2002 Collier County Government established a rural growth plan that
encompassed an area ofland called the Rural Land Stewardship Area (R.L.SA.). This area is about
195,000 acres and landowners that wished to develop on their lands were allowed to receive development
credi ts [rights] that could be used towards proposed development sites if a certain amount ofland was set
aside for what is termed [preservation] or for the act of restoring environmental land. Under this plan the
new town of Ave Maria was started and well over 10,000 acres have now been set aside from that project
for future preservation. With continuing development and other large scale projects like the proposed new
town of Big Cypress being planned a total of approximately 30,000 acres have already been set aside by
landowners and developers with a total of 60,000 development credits given as of 2007. At this point there
is now presently 14,500 more development credits that will be allowed to developers once the owners
complete certain proposed restoration projects having to do with those lands. Future expected development
in the Collier County area is expected to expand to as much as 40,000 additional acres than has already
been proposed from 2002 t02007 if the new plans, for a development / conservation coalition effort goes
through county, state, and Federal review processes. Those plans were announced to the general public in
Naples on Monday, June 23, 2008.
· On June 6, 2008 the public was invited to a meeting that was held at 14700 lmmokalee Road. That
meeting was called; the Northeast Collier County Trail Feasibility Study Workshop. Its purpose was to
discuss with the public possible future proposed trails called [Greenways] that would stretch for 20-25
miles on the northern end of the county eventually being envisioned to connect to Lee County and
continue for a possible total of 50 miles along the total route. Out of that workshop the following
information was discussed:
1. Potential trail routes pass through county and state property, while others could necessitate the purchasc
of right of ways through privately owned property.
2. The vice president of real estate of Consolidated Citrus expressed a desire to "develop a partnership with
the county and work together on the project" - citing concerns over the trail crossing an area that has an
"active 10,000 acre citrus grove with power lines".
3. Proposed plans do not currently include any trails to pass through Ave Maria.
4. Concerns were raised over the "long tenn maintenance and management of the trails.
5. One option "shows the trail turning onto the [under construction Oil Well Road] to pass through the
future planned town of Big Cypress and alongside the Ave Maria development".
Present condition of preservation lands in Collier County
The preservation lands now presently set aside have no access for the general public. This is due to the
fact that the actual land being preserved is:
1. Now on lands that are in the actual development and only residents of the community in the
development have access to any portion ofthe preserved area.
2. Border on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and have [buffers] between development
and the refuge * The Panther Refuge is presently off limits to fhe general public.
3. Not being utilized in a fashion that will allow public access in any future planned projects.
CaSg
136
· This is an important part of what the Historical and Cultural Heritage Trail and [Greenway] plan and
proposal is based upon. With the preservation lands that have currently been set aside that do not
include any specific plans or definitive plans for access to those lands for the general public and the
future preservation lands now being considered by as many as 8 other interested landowners that have
plans to develop a total of 40,000 more acres in the future it becomes evident there is no mention of
saving any space that would be considered a [Greenway] for future public use. It can now be also
established that.
1. No present Historical markers are now present and available for the public to visit on any properties that
have been developed upon in Collier County since the Landmark Growth plan was instituted in 2002.
2. No present interpretation of Collier County's past History or Cultural Heritage has been displayed at any
location that the county has allowed the landowners to develop in the last48 years:
[Since the county seat was moved to the city of Naples in 1960]
3. No present program exists in the county to display the complete and unified past History and Cultural
Heritage of Collier County in a chronological time fashion.
4. No present programs currently exist in Collier County to specifically record, recognize, nominate to the
National Register, or install interpretational markers on any part of Collier County's past History and
Cultural Heritage.
5. No present programs are currently planned in the future to Locate and record any known Archaeological
sites where past significant Historical events took place in Collier County.
OVERVIEW OF SECTION 13
,( Understanding that with over 80 per cent of Collier County's geographical land area being redistributed to
State and Federal entities over the past 34 years and future plans to develop as much as 20 percent more of the
geographical land area now available it becomes incumbent on the Collier County Government to take
proactive measures to preserve land that holds a large part of the county's past History and Cultural Heritage.
While much of this has been done in the past towards biological considerations such as preservation for areas
that encompass the Florida Panther Habitat, land area preserved for and used for the interpretation of the
county's past History and accessible to the general public has never been properly addressed. It is with this
intention that a planned proposal hereby referred to as The Historical and Cultural Heritage Trail/Greenway _
be considered and acted upon by the representatives of the citizens of Collier County. This in a most basic view
would be the [setting aside] whether by donations, purchase, or lands now presently available or in the future
that are to be preserved by any agreements associated with development activities. In Section 15 a proposed
map that delineates these boundaries and ideas will be presented. It will also show on the map the inclusion of
one of the proposed Greenway Trails discussed by The Northeast Collier County Trail Feasibility Study Public
Workshop on June 6, 2008.
(0 [;9
137
SECTION 14
A plan to establish: Cooperative management agreements that can be used with several of the Federal
and State park systems in present day Collier County.
Today in the state of Florida many counties havc established different types of agreements with an assortment
of Parks, Refuges, Sanctuary's and Land and Wildlife Preservcs and cven private landowners. There are
several different types of agreements ranging from right of way issues to available access to Historic sites,
Structures, or natural settings that the counties past, is tied to. An example of what one past agreement would
be is the agreement that Collier County entered into with the State of Florida with rights to the roadways in the
Southern Golden Gate Estates. For 25 million dollars the roadway rights were transferred from the county's
possession and soon after all 4 wheel drive or (O.R.V.) vehicle use was terminated in the (Picayune Strand State
Forest) area. Not only was the right of roadways lost but access that had always been available to past historic
sites became non existent. Part of the agreement could have included provisions for that purpose along with
several other conditions that would have allowed greater public access and interpretational kiosks along the
Historic Walkers Horse Trail (now called the Belle Meade Horse Trail) that stretches 22 miles through Collier
County, thc majority of that being in the Picayune Strand State Forest. Since Collier County's inception in
1923 there have been no cooperative agreements by the county with The Everglades National Park established
in 1947, and the establishments of the Big Cypress National Preserve, The Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve,
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, and The Picayune Strand State Forest.
That is not to say that several times permission was not requested of the county to secure some type of
permission having to do with some type of land management issue associated with a particular entities needs,
but the cooperation only extended to the point of those specific needs being met, and Collier County's needs
and best interests were not necessarily involved. This can be readily seen in anyone of Park systems already
mentioned by the fact that not onc monumcnt, site, or area of Collier County's past History or Cultural
Heritage has been represented by any form of Historic interpretation in a meaningful way in any of the present
park systems. Although many counties have a member of the county staff involved with the cultural aspects of
the park systems in their particular counties and are able to have input into the different programs and
interpretational themes presented in those park systems at this point Collier County presently has no such
representation with any of the previously mentioned entities.
For these current entities to have 80 percent of the geographical land area of Collier County and retain the
effective control of the right of way or any management policies leaves serious shortcomings in the present
system. It would be advisable for Collier County Government to establish a general and basic agreement with
the 5 park systems that are presently in Collier County. This would benefit the county not only in the areas of
interpretation of the county's past history and Cultural Heritage but in many other ways that these entities plan
and implement their future policies.
· An example of the present absence of representation on different environmental and preservation
committees including several park entities with Collier County will be placed on the following page.
Grov
138
On June 23, 2008 an article came out in the Naples Daily news that described a new plan that had been worked
on since April in 2007. The plan which was devised between various land owners and environmental groups
and had as one of its most basic objectives a plan that included:
1. Efforts that would bring attention to the fact that new connecting links on the roadways from the north
side ofImmokalee and Northwest of Oil Well Road should connect Panther [hot spots] instead of cutting
off any routes the Panther's travel on.
2. A discussion with plans to set up a Florida Panther [protection fund] that could possibly receive up to
150 million dollars in the next 40 years from possible new development fees that would be derived from
an expansion of present Federal mitigation requirements.
3. A plan to [increase] by 25 percent the number of mitigation units developers already have available to
them at the present time with the Federal permitting requirement that are now in place to compensate for
any effects on the Florida Panther in the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
4. Plan a program that would introduce a new system to modify Collier County's present [R.L.S.A.]
program. This would include a provision that awards landowners extra development credits by
preserving present agricultural land and putting added [emphasis] on high Panther travel routes east of
highway # 29.
This plan also included the possibility of changing the roadways on certain portions of highway # 29 and
the placing of 40 Panther crossings where the endangered animal can safely cross the roadways on highway
# 29, Oil Well Road, and Immokalee Road # 846. Also stated in the article was the fact that this [coalition]
would seek to work with Collier County on seeking certain right of way areas for the panther crossings. The
agreement that they would seek would require the county to set aside an adequate amount of land on each
side of the crossings that would in essence be [off limits] to the public. In looking at the proposed crossings
it becomes apparent that one of the main corridors planned for the Panther is at the Old Railroad Depot
where it meets highway # 29 already previously discussed on page 129.
In taking a closer look at the sites where the Panther crossings are planned it becomes evident that many
of those crossings on highway # 29 and Immokalee Road are located at the sites of 16 of the previously
mentioned townships, structures, and areas where past historical events took place in Collier County's past
history. The complete listing of those places, are found on page 20. By entering in with any type of
agreement that places certain areas on these roadways that cannot be accessed by the general public or used
in the future for placement of Historical Markers, roadway pull off locations, interpretive centers or any
other form of historical display relating the county's past History or Cultural Heritage it should become
incumbent on the Collier County Government before signing any type of agreement that steps should be
taken to insure that any considerations that may affect the past, present, or future preservation or
interpretation of the county's past Historical and Cultural Heritage be reviewed judiciously. This
consideration should not be intended to or construed as, having the desire to change any of the proposed
locations of any future Panther or wildlife crossings but to examine what effect any of those will have on the
past history of the county and any future plans to display or interpret this. It can be seen that any part of the
new plans and proposals that were revealed to the public on June 23, 2008 had no inclusion or mention of
any past Historical locations in Collier County and failed to describe any future plans or efforts to include
them in any type of form presently or in the future.
* It should be noted here that as of June 1st - 2008 fencing is being installed along portions of the east
and west side of highway # 29. The eastern perimeter of the Old Copeland Prison along highway # 29 has
now been entirely fenced off.
fo0)
139
SECTION 15
The preparation of a detailed map that [includes the visual plan] showing the proposed Historic
Districts, Heritage Trails I Greenways - possible Interpretive centers, and the proposed county or state
roadside markers previously discussed in Sections 1-7 found in this report I proposal.
The map that was drawn to supplement this Report I Proposal will be attached on the following page.
Contained on the map the list of what has previously been discussed will be found to be included thereon and
listed below.
1. An outline of the present townships and ranges presently in Collier County and used in standard survey
maps will be found on the outside perimeter edges of the map.
2. A legend in the upper right hand corner that displays in a color coded scheme the following items:
A. Eight out of ten previously monumented sites in Collier County placed by David Graham Copeland
during the years 1941 -1947.
B. Preservation land presently required from development taking place at this time in Collier County
C. Proposed boundaries between development sites and preservation land to be set aside from present
development now taking place and planned in the near future in Collier County.
D. Proposed Historic Districts along US 41 and highway # 29.
E. Proposed Cultural Heritage Trail.
F. Portions ofthe proposed Greenway Trail discussed at the Northeast Collier County Trail Feasibility
Study Public Workshop that took place on June 6, 2008.
G. Proposed highway markers furnished by the county or state along US 41 and highway # 29.
H. Proposed Interpretive Centers along US 41 and highway # 29
I. A 10 mile scale in single mile units to denote distances in Collier County
The map attached on the following page serves to give a general and basic visual understanding of what a
possible proposed I planned map would look like and can be adjusted in any combination of ways that follow
what could be interpreted as a logical direction or path.
tob2
140
....
....
..
""
....
..
..
""
....
N
..
""
....
~
..
""
....
'"
..
""
....~
GO :::J
N 0
""U
~
...
C
..
:z:
....
..
N
""
....
....
N
""
....
..
N
""
....
...
N
""
T4&S
T 47 S
-- ------T--
T48S
T 52 S
T50S'
T 49 S
T 51 S
~no:> pJeMOJO
~ ~ ~~
~ ~e tl ~ ~
~ ~~~~~i~
... '" '" lib.. !;! I'i
~ ~~~~~ ~~ 3
-< ......0 ~.. i:'" "
~!::'~,,~ ~I:: ;
!=:k.dCOC o~
;T:QSt:d3 us
~Q;f.jl&l(ll I:t::::/l
fa! ~O:;l:l 00,:;
::11 oQ., 0 g" l&l,o..
....0.. 0....0
=:00;0 a; "f.~
~"Q., ~ Q.. t;,o..
..! :: II ~
~
18111:1 ?
I: ~
u
.e '"
~no:>""l
'"
~
'"
'"
,.~
;;;~
"'eI
g..
r;:j?:
",8
....
II
+
><
~<
8~
~O
i:l1i
....
S
u
S9tl
~ ...
:::J ~
" f'< .J
U ~+
~ ...
a: ...
'0 '" '" ...
c '" '" .. .~ ...
.. 6 ~ ~ ~ ,0 ~
= 0 "
.... ~ "" ~~ ~ :a
.. '"
~+ u :i 12
a. ~ ~....
~ " Z 0
<Ii .... 0 ..
. o:l .... .
'"
< :::J
Z "
. U
0"
~g+ ..
..::HIlZ",lIC llIl_>...lIC lICQ~Q "
o~ -
~9 c
@. ~~ ,. "
C ::Ii
. u
~ '"
~
'" ..
Hendry County
~
"~
~.
.-
~
\ll
..
::l
...
~
....
....
....
6l ~ ~:i~
I 0
/ ~
.~ -.
1\
."'"
a.
U
...
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ '"
~ '" .. ~
.:
'"
~ ...
~~+
.." ...
ol! ~ (.)
~ " ~
o ~ ~
~ ~
~
z
S t::
g ~
'" 0
!;! ..
(\ i os
;)D\"911;)A
... ~-
--f, ~
\.J l:r.
0::
Q
Z
<
....
Q
~ 0
...... 0
a. -~<.:)
u "
/";"
/.-' ""
,/
. \:\._/;
~96 - "M":> 7' -< '--'.
i )_~_. I I
Ir---.--\" :___'.J j
~
:::J
o
U
..
..
....
~
...
6
t:i
..
as;
..;:
"I
'-',
....
..
a.
<Ii
~z
~o
.~
~96 - "M":>
LU.~
'-'~ 3: ...
~ C.z .2
U 51 c. en~- I
9f-1 ~ "i ~-~- J
Q.. ~f C
'mJl)J~~VLr~T~~ _ _
~l>-"s"n
..
',,-
'..OCl
'uz
~~CI!:<
-0<....
u 2!1!
/"
S l" 1
en
>l.4.~
COCo
U <
z
SfII>1
S6I>1
S ~9 1
S 09 1
S lS 1
6&3
141
T 53 S
is
j~
>
~
u
~no:> "peo
<z
~~
t;!;
:i
z
~
<
z~
~~
fol .
~""
~
~
f'<
...
fol
.,,:~Q
o~~
~ "'"
~
~~~
O~<Zl
~~~
l
Ii
I'
I
i
S &9 1
SECTION 16
Compile a final prospecfus of the economic benefits to Collier County
The intention of this study was to:
t. Give a general idea of the past ethnic history of Collier County in the Big Cypress, Ten Thousand
Island, and Everglade[ s] area.
2. Give a general idea of some of the Historical places, time frames, structures, and locations where past
historical events took place as it relates to Collier County.
3. Give a general biography of the past pioneers in the Collier County area.
4. Give a general history of past settlements, communities and industries that were a part of Collier
County's Cultural Heritage in the past.
5. Give a general idea on the current processes used to record, designate, or nominate any past sites,
structures, or objects to establish either a, recognition of these items to the Collier County Government
or to the National Register of Historic Places.
6. Give a general idea ofthc present policies that are used and implemented by 2 State and 3 Federal
entities that will be here referred to as parks as they relate to the interpretation of the past history of the
Big Cypress, Everglade[s] and Collier County area.
7. Give a general idea of the economic assets that are presently being utilized in the Collier County area.
8. Give a general idea ofthc present Historical and Cultural Heritage [theme] that is present at this time in
Collier County and has been previously referred to as - fragmented.
9. Give a general idea of how Historic Districts can be used at the present time to unify a Historical and
Cultural Heritage related theme in Collier County.
10. Give a general idea on what the processes and benefits would be to acquire certain properties or manage
certain properties that can be used in a historical and interpretational manner.
I t. Give a general idea of how the present system works in relation to development, conservation
easements, and basic information on preservation lands including how they are acquired and or used.
12. Give a general idea of cooperation that can be used with private owners ofland and the Collier County
Government.
13. Give a general idea of the present status of [cooperativc management agreements] and how they can be
uscd in the present and in the future with state and Federal entities in relation to the preservation and
interpretation of Collier County's past Historical and Cultural Heritage.
14. Give a general idea of how future development may have adverse effects on any proposed plan to
establish roadside markers, interpretation centers, or past Historic locations in Collier County.
15. Produce a map that would scrve to give a visual understanding of what a unified Historical and Cultural
Theme could be based upon in Collier County.
While it is beyond the scope of this report to address any other issues than the above mentioned items, it can
fairly well be deduced that with even the most basic implementations of any of these Historical and Cultural
Heritage Themes that revenues in the tens of millions of dollars annually can be realized for private industry,
private organizations, or by the county in terms of tax bases and tourist related attractions. Private development
would naturally have the added benefit of being able to offer the future homeowner the availability of having a
unique setting close by that is now absent on any marketing themes presently in Collier County.
* The information for this study was assembled, compiled, and formatted by volunteers, historians, and
residents currently residing in Collier County at the request of the Naples Cultural Landscape Fund. Its
intended purpose was to evaluate how the County's past history has been and is presently being interpreted
and to facilitate in a visionary manner how the restoration of historical sites along with basic guidelines on
any planned future programs could facilitate the interpretation of Collier County's past Historical and
Cultural Hcritage.
0bl+
142
A
~M
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
North Collier Regional Park, 15000 Livingston, Conference Room A of the Administration
Building; December 11, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the North Collier Regional Park,
15000 Livingston, Conference Room A of the Administration Building, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Gary Eidson [arrived about I 0:00am]
David Farmer
Dave Wolfley
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
Jim Howard
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Mike DeRuntz of the Comprehensive
Plaruring Department, Jeff Wright of the Assistant County Attorney's Office, Norman Feder and Nick
Casalanguida of the Transportation Division, Laura Roys of the Engineering and Environmental
Department as well as approximately 25 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:03AM by Chairman Ron Hamel
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 9 of 11 members were present [Gary Eidson
arrived at !0:00am], with Fred N. Thomas, Jr. absent.
III. Approval of Agenda
David Farmer moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Bill McDaniel-
Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minutes of the November 10, 2008 Meeting. Brad Cornell moved and Tom Jones
seconded to approve the minutes as distributed. Upon vote, the motion canied unanimously.
V. Presentations. See Attachment A to these Minutes.
A discussion ensued by the Committee members concerning Attachment A and other related matters
with the following consensus:
I. Public Meetings with the EAC. CCPC. and BCC: Public meeting dates to review the Phase
II Report are: EAC [9:00am January 29th] and CCPC [8:30am January 28th/January
30th] both in Rooms 609/610 of CDES and to the BCC will be held beginning at
9:00am on March 16 with a carryover to March 17 in the BCC Chambers. Public
IIPage
G,,6S
F~
meetings will be legally advertised with a court reporter and television and posted
and advertised so that members of all the appropriate and actively involved standing
and ad hoc County comrrrittees can participate.
2. Committee attendance at these meetings: The consensus was that members should be
present at these meetings to provide support and rationale for the proposed GMP
amendments where needed as the Committee has held 28 public meetings to date to review
the RLS Program.
3. Committee meeting in Februarv. The Committee decided to meet in February after the
EAC and CCPC have each provided comments and recommendations to be transmitted to
the Board.
4. Committee meeting in March. The Committee decided to meet in March after the March
]6/17 Board meeting and, if approved by the BCC, to start work to commence the GMP
amendments.
5. Committee role after the Phase 11 Report is submitted to the Board and DCA. Committee
members appeared to indicate that they would like to continue as an advisory group through
the Growth Management Plan amendment process which would require the Board approval
to extend their original terms beyond the current extension expiring on Apri] 24, 2009. The
Committee was originally appointed on October 24, 2007.
6. Phase II RepOlt Contents. The contents of the Phase 11 Report will remain unchanged,
unless changed by the Committee.
7. Phase 11 Report distribution. The Committee wished to have the Phase II Report in the
hands of the EAC, CCPC, and BCC at the same time as soon as it is copied following
Committee appro va] of the final document.
Brad Cornell moved to: I) have the Committee reconvene in February following the EAC and
CCPC public meetings; 2) meet following the March] 6/17 Board meeting: and 3) to request that
the Board extend the term of the Committee to allow the Committee to function while the GMP
amendments are underway. Tom Jones seconded the motion. Upon vote, the motion carried
unanimously.
Following discussion of the fact the Board did not take action on the Committee's November 24,
2008 letter [Attachment B to these Minutes] requesting a special GMP amendment cycle the
following action was taken. Bill McDaniel moved and Brad Cornel seconded to resend the
letter of November 24, 2008 to the County Manager for consideration under the County
Manager correspondences section of the December 16th Board Agenda. Upon vote, the motion
was carried unanimously.
VI. Old Business
A. Review of Draft Executive Summary to BCC to accompany the Phase II Report.
Tom Greenwood stated that this Executive Summary [now scheduled to go to the BCC for
the March 16 meeting] will change and will include comments from the EAC, CCPC as well
as the entire Phase II Report. The revised Executive Summary would like]y come to the
Committee in February. Tom Jones stated that he had issue with: ]) the referenc.e on page 2
that "the amendments are synonymous with private initiated GMP Amendments"; 2) that
there was only :"Cursory staff input"; and on page 10 under Recommendations, that the
Phase 11 Report "is a preliminary planning too]". No Committee action was taken.
B. Review of draft Phase II RellOrt. Tom Jones stated that he would like to offer some
changes to the layout and formatting of the Phase II Report and handed out a one-page
proposed set of format changes to make the document for user friendly, which includes:
1. Cover letter. Replace the existing cover letter with the November 24 letter signed by
Ron Hamel addressed to Tom Henning.
2lPagc
0~b
2. Phase I Report. Include the Phase I Report with the Phase II Report.
3. Phase II Report. Suggested changes and additions including relocation of the
proposed Transportation Element Policy 3.7; inclusion of the revised Worksheet;
inclusion of the revised Attachment C [Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics];
and miscellaneous changes including making Appendix reference to letters from the
various organizations rather than including the text from these letters in the currently
referred to "Long Version". Tom Jones moved and David Wolfly seconded to direct
staff to reformat the Phase II Report as stated above and as detailed on the handout
provided by Tom Jones. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
4. Additional Staff comments. The Committee asked staff to either remove its
additional comments or to highlight and explain why they were included since they
were not previously discussed by the Committee. The Committee stated that any
additional information provided within the report beyond that discussed and agreed
upon by the Committee would not be placed within the Report.
Tom Jones moved and David Wolfly seconded, to direct staff to make the above proposed
changes to the Phase II RepOlt and provide copies to the Committee for the December 18
meeting. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. Tom Greenwood stated that the Committee
would not likely see hard copies until the December ] 8th meeting but that he would put on the
web site as soon as it is available for review.
VII. New Business
VIII. Public Comments.
IX. Next Meeting. Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on Thursday, December 18,
2008, in Conference Room A of the Administrative Building of the North Collier Regional Park located
at 15000 Livingston Road from 9am to ] 2 noon for the purposes of finalizing the review of the draft
Phase 2 Report. He stated that he may not be able to attend due to the illness of his mother.
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjoumed by acclamation at 12:06 PM.
Ron Hamel, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Committee on
amended 1)(
/;;;2-jg-o ~,
as presented
or as
3lpage
&~7
/J ;r;/c::.lcA ,Yj-Je'7j- /l
,
c:;.o~-y <:;d>un:ty
To:
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
From:
Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner
Date:
December 8, 2008
Subject:
Supplement to Agenda for December 11, 2008 meeting
Chairman Ron Hamel and I discussed the following today and felt it important for the entire Committee
to discuss these and other related matters related to the future of the Committee during its December
11th meeting.
The Committee can decide where on the Agenda it wishes to discuss this.
1. Presentation of the Phase II Report to the EAC [January 29th) and CCPC [January
28th/January 30th) both in Rooms 609/610 of COES and to the BCC [in March with a
date yet to be determined). These public meetings [court reporter, TV, advertised) may well
take 1 day with the EAC [with 1 carryover day]; 2 days with the CCPC; and 1 day with the BCe.
Staffs involvement in the public meetings may be limited to a brief review of some of the maps
and tables contained in the Phase I Report, as introductory to the Phase II Report. However, the
Phase II Report, being Committee-driven, should be presented by the Committee.
Given the large amount of time involved by the Committee in such public meetings [estimoted
20-25 hours Jonuary 28-30 ond about 6-8 hours in March}, the Committee is requested to
determine whether the entire Committee should be involved in such meetings OR whether it
wishes to have a smaller group of Committee members be involved in these public meetings.
ACTION REQUESTED.
2. EAC and CCPC recommendations to the BCC, Both the EAC and the CCPC have indicated to
staff on December 3 and 4, respectively, that they wish their respective comments and
recommendations on the Phase II Report to go to the Bee as separate documents. Staff will
share those comments and recommendations with the Committee when they are ready.
However, will the Committee wish to meet to review those comments [likely in mid February}
and prepare any answers or rebuttals OR provide such to the BCC during the March BCC
special meeting?
ACTION REQUESTED.
~be
3. Future Role of the Committee and Committee term limit. The Committee's 6-month extension
ends on April 24, 2009. The Committee's Phase II Report directive comes from BCC Resolution
2007-30SA [October 24, 2007] and states:
"2. Review the RLSA Overlay and make recommendations to increase the effectiveness of
the Overloy"
IF the Committee wishes to stay functioning as an ad hoc advisory committee to the BCC beyond
April 24, 2009, it needs to decide whether it wishes to stay involved through:
. The Growth Management Plan Amendments....likely through 2009 into early 2010
. Land Development Code Amendments...likely in 2010
Depending upon the Committee's feeling about continued involvement, the Committee MAY
wish to make a recommendation to the BCC to extend the term of the Committee an
appropriate amount of time.
ACTION REQUESTED.
0b?
A'H~Ch~
~
November 24, 2008
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Dear Chairman Henning and Commissioners:
The Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area ( the "RLSA Overlay") was created in
2002 through a collaborative community based planning process intended to protect natural
resources, retain viable agriculture and promote compact rural mixed use development through
an incentive based land use system on approximately 195,000 acres in eastern Collier County.
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long term strategic plan with a planning horizon
year of 2025. Many of the tools, techniques and strategies proposed in 2002 for the RLSA
Overlay were nonetheless new, innovative, incentive based and untested. A comprehensive five
year review of the RLSA Overlay by Collier County was therefore proposed to assess
participation in and effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay in meeting its Goals, Objectives and
Policies.
.
.
The Board of County Commissioners created a citizen oversight committee (the "RLSA
Committee") in 2007. The RLSA Committee is comprised of a diverse group of local citizens
dedicated to creating a balance between agriculture, development and environmental sensitivity
based on the principles of rural stewardship articulated in Florida's Rural Lands Stewardship
Act. Its members include environmental advocates, farmers, professional planners, rural land
owners, community activists and advisory board volunteers. I am privileged to serve as its
Chairman.
The RLSA Committee has met over twenty times during the last year in publicly
advertised work sessions that typically lasted no less than three hours each. Public participation
was encouraged; diverse opinions were solicited; challenging questions were welcomed; expert
testimony was offered; absolute transparency was preserved; the sunshine law was observed; and
nearly every question posed, comment offered and recommendation made was considered.
Representatives from a broad range of interest groups, including Audubon of Florida,
Collier County Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Wildlife Federation, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Collier County Transportation Department, the Collier
County Community Development and Environmental Services Department, the Collier County
Comprehensive Planning Department, the Eastern Collier Property Owners and others vigorously
participated. Memoranda submitted by representatives of the Collier County Planning
Commission, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, the Sierra Club, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida and the Department of Community Affairs were vetted. The
RLSA Committee was ably supported throughout our process by dedicated county staff who
documented the committee's work in detailed and voluminous public records.
& 7D
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members
November 24, 2008
Page 2
The RLSA Committee devoted the first three months of its existence to a quantitative
assessment of the effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay in meeting its Goals, Objectives and
Policies. The resulting Phase I Technical Review was thereafter furnished to the Environmental
Advisory Council, the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners and,
ultimately, the Department of Community Affairs. The Phase I Technical Report concluded that
significant progress had been made in achieving the RLSA Overlay Goal.
It also provided the foundation for the RLSA Committee's Phase II qualitative evaluation
of ways in which the RLSA Overlay Growth Management Plan Policies could be improved to
more effectively implement the program's overriding Goals and Objectives and achieve the
RLSA Committee's Project Management Plan mandate to consider "potential opportunities and
amendments to the Growth Management Plan". As part of Phase II, the RLSA Committee
received expert testimony from the following pre-eminent industry leaders in their respective
fields:
Dr. Fritz Roka, Agriculture Economist, University of Florida Institute for Food
and Agricultural Sciences, and Gene McAvoy, Regional Extension Agent,
University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences, shared their
findings on the status of agriculture in Southwest Florida and focused the RLSA
Committee on the need to bolster incentives to retain land for agricultural use.
. Dr. Timm Kroeger of the Defenders of Wildlife testified as to the economic value
of protecting the natural environment and retaining agricultural lands.
. Clarence Tears, Director, Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management
District, testified as to the vital role the RLSA Overlay plays in protecting
important watersheds.
. Eric Draper, Florida Audubon Society, testified as to the use of the RLSA as an
invaluable tool to protect environmental resources at no cost to the public at a
time when the precious few public dollars eannarked for this purpose are harder
and harder to find.
Darrel Land, State of Florida Panther Team Leader, Florida Fish and Wildlife
ConseIVation Commission, who is generally regarded as the state's foremost
expert on the panther and as a highly respected scientist, testified as to how the
RLSA Overlay provides incentives to protect and restore panther habitat.
. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, testified to acquaint the RLSA
Committee as to how strategies contained in the Florida Panther Protection
Program recently adopted by a consortium of environmental groups and rural
landowners are intended to promote the protection and recovery of the panther
C- 7/
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members
November 24, 2008
Page 3
throughout the RLSA Overlay and surrounding lands and how those strategies
could be integrated into the RLSA Overlay.
. Dr. Paul Van Buskirk, Van Buskirk & Associates, testified as to his findings in
the "Collier County East of 951" study and how those findings fit within
population growth models projected for the RLSA Overlay.
Nick Casalanguida, Director, Collier County Transportation Planning Department,
testified as to the need to develop a plan for a county transportation network that
meets the adopted Level of Service through build out of the county and considers
the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population.
As a result of the exhaustive public input and expert testimony, the RLSA Committee
unanimously approved the following proposed amendment to the Goal for the RLSA Overlay:
"Collier County's goal is to retain land for agricultural activities, to direct
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore
habitat connectivity, to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in
appropriate locations, to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development
that employs creative land use techniques through the use of established
incentives. ,.
As we considered this reconstituted Goal in the context of existing Growth Management
Plan ("GMP") Policies, the RLSA Committee developed strategies to create incentives to
encourage rural landowners to voluntarily:
eliminate their right to convert agricultural land to non agricultural uses In
exchange for compensation;
retain agriculture within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands
using Baseline Standards (and thereby reduce the size of the "development
footprint" and the threat of urban sprawl in the RLSA Overlay);
create, restore and enhance panther corridor connections;
. restore flow ways and habitat through a credit generating system that considers
cost, difficulty and benefit value of each restoration type through a newly adopted
tiered system;
. impose a cap of 45,000 SRA acres in the RLSA Overlay and recalibrate the credit
system to ensure the balance essential to the sustainability of a voluntary incentive
based program which generates significant public benefits without incurring
public expenditures; and
07-~
The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman
and Members
November 24, 2008
Page 4
. cooperate with Collier County in its creation of a plan for a county transportation
network that meets the adopted Level of Service through build out of the county
and considers the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out
population.
The RLSA Committee also engaged the public and various interest groups in a rigorous
assessment of each and every RLSA Overlay policy to ensure internal consistency, thoughtful
precision and careful scrutiny of the data, analysis and justification for each of the proposed
Policy amendments. We feel that the work product of the RLSA Committee for its Phase II
Report therefore actually consists of proposed GMP Policy amendments. Further, after extensive
discussion, we concluded that the public proceedings and thousands of man hours of work
expended by scores of interested parties should be recognized.
At its most recent meeting, the RLSA Committee voted to authorize me to respectfully
request that the Board of County Commissioners take the steps its deems appropriate to initiate a
special cycle for Growth Management Plan RLSA Overlay amendments to review, refine and
consider the RLSA Committee's policy proposals, data and analysis, and record of public
testimony in public hearings before the EnvironmentaI Advisory Council, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners.
We recognize that each advisory board has a distinctive role and a special responsibility
to make to the public planning process and we look forward to public consideration of our Policy
proposals by the other advisory boards.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the Board of County Commissioners and stand
ready to proceed in whatever way you believe best serves the people of Collier County.
Sincerely,
l?C1J
~.d).
Ron Hamel
Chairman, Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee
cc; County Manager James V. Mudd
~73
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: DECEMBER 11. 2008
...MEMBERs (PLEASE INITIAL)
Ron Hamel, Chair V -
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair =/--
/
-~
V
/'
/'
/
/
r-J \ L
t')C''''<'. +' \ c"'" I,
\"\ \ c \,'" 0 \ :; ~ " ~
~Vtkfi1j
k, 7'i-
\'-1 T--I-I Llt..oT Cot k~t=--r
Brad Cornell
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas. Jr.
Dave Wolfley
/
----~
Public
E-maIl! Affiliation
je\\r~J:.lIf, I ~)V\ IU~Lll"V-,( OVV\
...z;. (-<' eKA
J~ffvJr~~t<~~.~
<::oIl i <.re...,:~~ r
<'"",.u;:.It ~~~HP/J'~.r
'"I
, I ,
l\/V>\.;..I ,)1<~"'~}'~{ ~
-' '--'
L,' .:: ';\"J,
.-10,. .,
{H '-'. '\ 'I::~
" ,
ll\"^-.,'
" c,- l (
l (:, 1 y\
'\fY\
1'\ J" \ c ') , ,-\ ' , s e
vJ; hm M;/I..u-
C-\ L
Phone #
c,'f'f-Lj{j'f(j
20. N"<f?
205,). - ~ 9$'7
;tc., \ ~44S-S
6% fj'/
~/-YV'('
~~- oliD
5<; 7 f'R~J
(p 113 -b~ .,.>--
I L r:2,"'"'.J,
), J' '"'2_ =.\
s J 0 - '1/ 3 :
I, (L'i"Y\
, \
{f yq- cj/JfO
)Y/L/I..JIc::.I-h:~P'fT<<;:c..c..'-f"'C.1T'F-o..>",> . c.Q~
.". -z:.c,. 4_<.. . / l-erL/
IV ;f-l1b
~/1 &,
111~~D,
Jf~f#;
e:J11/-1 L- P FR-/4-77aA...J
iE~Etf~P k
!ft?~~tJ)'/PIE/
G~ \j[::...~~~ c.,~~-:s;
!-o:m"", ~cy CC 0m' <;"'S ~
CaeR4C tJJI(Cht-JJ /"up
J0VlC<- Pt~ LCkILAC ~
Lv Jv1..-vJ Uu 0 s
;;n; j)u(A/)~ ,.1/ 14.;/..
vr r', UIJi/5 ~ n t'/ff
6~\ llf(,
(\{ o~t S\O\V\d I'\>>~l
~ --' ---7'-'
,V,-" L( _J..-- .... /1 '/ r-'""
) J
NVr' C " ('
C,J IC~ (~/0~(fr{; ,(11/
(] If; 1\11''0 ~j',r 7,)
Eli lahU-e, p( €-to/t; J
07$;
-- ,
J(~V)f'1 t~
(; .. ~- ,
-e) _ ( , '
(c>!lli:,1L PoT
/. i. /
?#3We=d-
U.2 ~ 3/31
2J.c \ -~:S~
'7'0"1-- 5/ It
J--JO~ -If()(){)
:lS d-.-~q3]
7() 7 -7(57
Y/7-0L'tU
6L/1-LjoIJO
ill" I,'
.'
'"'-;,- "1 "'~,:f ./
,.J -"
111?
cJ]'J-J;-;;. :s 97..--.
1.- ') 9 _ l--S L - '6 ( qZ,.
, - 0 ~'J '/3 /~~ ,
7-2--:r/ ~'2-. 3 . i3 P-?- J>'
.e. (21~Wl(~ I;;:; J~(WS. ~
,- <-j
I
':;:--'-'"'
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES] Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; November 10, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Dave Wolfley (left meeting at 12:00pm)
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood and Mike DeRuntz of the Comprehensive
Planning Department, Jeff Wright of the Assistant County Attorney's Office, Nick Casalanguida of the
Transportation Division, Laura Roys of the Engineering and Environmental Department as well as
approximately 15 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05AM by Chairman Ron HameL
II. RoU Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of II members were present, with Jim
Howard and Fred N. Thomas, Jr. absent and Bill McDaniel having excused absences. Thomas
Greenwood pointed out that Floyd Crews was forced to resign due to County ordinances which
prohibit members to stay on a Committee or Board when they are running opposed for an elected
position. An earlier email was sent to Committee members to advise of this fact. A quorum for
meetings will now consist of a minimum of 6 members in attendance.
III. Approval of Agenda
Tom Jones moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Tammie Nemecek. Voice
Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minntes of the October 14, 2008 Meeting Brad Cornell stated that the abbreviation
for South Florida Water Management District needed to be corrected to which staff stated that the
abbreviation will be corrected. Gary Eidson moved and Tammie Nemecek seconded to approve the
minutes as distributed with the correction. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
V, Presentations. No presentations.
IIPage '~7fo
VI. Old Business
A. Phase 2...Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies ofthe Rural Land Stewardship
Overlav. includinl! Issues. Concerns. and Questions
1. Proposed new Policy 3.7 of Transportation Element of the GMP and RLSA
Overlay Policies 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7.1, 4.14 [Transportation Division] and proposed
Economic Development Corporation amendments to Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3,
new Policy 4.7.4 and amendment to Policy 4.18
Policy 3.7 [new policy for the Future Transportation Element...see attachment from
the Transportation DivisonJECPO]
Within 12 months after adoption of this policv. the countv shall develop a plan for a
transportation network that has been shown to meet the adopted Level of Service (LOS)
through the build out of the county (the "County Build Out Vision Plan"). The build out
network shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan shall define the existing roadwavs
that need to be improved. all proposed roadwavs, and the facility type and lane needs.
The Countv Build Out Vision Plan shall be adopted by the MPO. serve as a guide to
future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LR TP). and be reviewed no less
than annually and amended as needed by the MPO to reflect changed circumstances
which occur from time to time. The County Build Out Vision Plan adoption and review
shall include a review of land uses within the Countv and shall include consideration of
the location of public services needed to accommodate the build out population. These
services shall include but are not limited to government offices. iails. court houses.
landfills. maintenance facilities or any other facilitv that might otherwised reQuire long
distance travel.
Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nick Casa/anguida, Director of the Transportation
Planning Department, stated that this proposed new Policy is intended to apply county-wide and
not be limited to the RLSA Overlay. Mr. Farmer asked what is considered "long distance travel"
to which Nick Casa/anguida replied that it is subjective, but generally a trip in excess of 30
minutes in length. Mr.Spagna questioned if the "County Build Out Vision Plan" would be done
in one year. Nick Casa/anguida stated that it would.
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed new Policy 3.7 to be located in the
Transportation Element of the GRP and is outside of the RLSAO, but should be considered for
recommendation by the Committee as it would harmonize the new language being proposed in
the RLSAO. The above language represents a consensus by those staff personnel participating in
its creation.
Committee action on September 23, 2008: The Committee referred certain Group 4 Policies to
John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve and this new policy outside of the
RLSAO was found to be needed.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Farmer moyed and Mr. Jones seconded to
approve the new Policy 3.7 as proposed. Upon vote, the motion canied unanimously.
Policy 4.4.. .see attachment from the Transportation DivisonJECPO]
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA.
Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be
21Page
077
retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment
process when it periodically occurs.
Public comments on November 10, 2008: None.
Staff Comments: The language show above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation
Division and John Passidomo to remain unchanged and the Committee should vote on this policy.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. Wolfley seconded to
recommend to not amend Policy 4.4. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 4.5....see attachment from the Transportation Divison/ECPO]
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted
to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will
demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC
Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from
wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. To the extent
practicable, the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the Countv's then-adopted Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP). the Countv Build Out Vision Plan referenced in Policv 3.7 of the
Future Transportation Element. and Access Management procedures.
Each SRA master plan shall include a Management Plan with provisions for minimizing
human and wildlife interactions. Low intensity land uses (e.g. parks. passive recreation
areas. golf courses) and vegetation preservation requirements. including agriculture, shall
be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by
human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most current guidelines and
regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife conflict. The management plans shall
also require the dissemination of information to local residents, businesses and
goverrunental services about the presence of wildlife and practices(such as appropriate
waste disposal methods) that enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while
minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction. such as appropriate waste disposal
practices.
Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Judy Hushon suggested a few changes or word
smithing to the new paragraph 2 language which changes are shown above in paragraph 2 of
Policy 4.5. Thomas Greenwood stated that the same language should be amended in Policy 5.5
which was approved by the Committee on October 28th.
Staff Commel\ts: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation
Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to
approve the amended language for both Policy 4.5 and for the portion relating to the Management
Plan contained in Policy 5.5 as approved by the Committee on October 28th Upon vote, the
motion carried unanimously.
3lPage
C;, 7t
Policy 4.6...see attachment from the Transportation Divison/ECPO)
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies
referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(1). These planning strategies and
techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite conununities. area-based allocations,
clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow the conversion of
rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas,
maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and
providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. The SRA shall also
include a mobilitv plan that includes consideration of vehicular. bicvcle/pedestrian. public transit.
internal circulators. and other modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of
outside development and land uses. The mobilitv plan shall provide mobilitv strate!!ies such as
bus subsidies. route sponsorship or other incentives which encoura!!e the use of mass transist
services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the Countv Build
Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would increase internal capture,
and reduce trip lenlrth and Ion!! distance travel. Such development strategies are recognized as
methods of discouraging urban sprawl, .encoura!!in!! alternative modes of transportation.
increasin!! internal capture and reducin!! vehicle miles traveled.
Public Comment on November 10, 2008: Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy has some
concerns about the use such words as "consideration", "encourage", etc. and that the language
should be more definitive. David Wolfley stated that he agrees with Ms. Ryan. Russ Priddy
stated that the RLSAO is a voluntary program and the property owners do not need more
regulations or the program will be less likely to work and suggested leaving the language the way
it is. Tammie Nemecek stated that the program does need to be flexible. Judy Hushon stated
that sustainability of conununities is key to making the RLSA Overlay program work. Gary
Eidson stated that the language needs to be wide enough and broad enough to cover everything.
Mr. Casalanguida suggested the following change in the second new proposed sentence the
words "consider the applicability of' to "provide mobility" and to change the word "and" to "or"
in the same sentence. Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Priddy if he was OK with that change to which Mr.
Priddy stated that he was.
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the Transportation
Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above,
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to
amend the language of Policy 4.6 as shown above by also changing in the second new proposed
sentence the words "consider the applicability of' to "provide mobility" and to change the word
"and" to "or" in the same sentence. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 4.7.1...see attachments from EDC and from the Transportation Divison/ECPO)
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix
of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is
compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips
and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than -l-;\JOO 1.500 acres or more than ~ 5.000
acres and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity
41Page
~'71
and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for
community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobilitv plan. which shall include a
transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriatelv located within the town to serve the
connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one
community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include
both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a retia as l"raviaea described
in Policy +.B 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office, research.
development companies. and light industrial uses such as those permitted in the Business Park
and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. and those included in Policv 4.7.4.
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3. Design criteria for Towns are shall be
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the word "may"
should be changed to "shall" in the proposed new sentence included in the first paragraph. Tom
Jones stated that he is comfortable with that change. Tammie Nemecek explained the minor
changes to paragraph 2. Brian Gogen suggested adding "development companies" as a uses
which may be permitted in Towns. Tammie Nemecek stated that she felt that would be a good
addition.
Staff comment: none
Committee action taken on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Mr. Eidson
seconded to recommend the amendments to Policy 4.7.1 as shown above. Upon vote, the motion
carried unanimously.
Policy 4.7.2...see attachment from the EDC
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100
acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1.500 acres
outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation
by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages
shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15.
Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policv 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages
are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design
criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that the addition of the 4th
sentence from the bottom of this Policy is needed to refer to a new proposed Policy 4.7.4.
Staff comments: none
5lPage
~eo
Committee action on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Gary Eidson
seconded to approve the additional sentence, "Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4
shall also be permitted in Villages." Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 40+.4 4.7.3.....see tbe attacbment from tbe EDC
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that will Jlmvi"e flexi8ility '.vith reopeet
to the mix of uses an" "esign stan"ar"s, 8l1t shall otherwise eomply veith tho stanaar"s of a
Hamlet or Village. shall support and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of alITiculture.
natural resources and economic diversitv. CRDs shall demonstrate a uniaue set of uses and
support services necessarv to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primarv CRD uses shall
be those associated with and needed to support research. education. tourism or recreation.
Apl'ropriatelv scaled compatible uses described in Policv 4.7.4 mav also be permitted in CRDs.
A CRD may include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing~ an" the seFVieeo
an" faeilitieo that support permanem reoi"ents. The number of residential units shall be eauivalent
with the demand generated bv the primarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two
units per lITOSS acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. .^.n example of a CRn io an
eeotoHRsm ';illage that ,,/oHI" have a Hni'lue set of 1I0es and SllppOrt serviees "ifferent from a
traditional residemial village. It weuld eentain traf,"ient lo"ging faeilities and serviees apprepriate
to ece tOIlRStS, 8Ht may not proviee for the range ef servieeo that ~ Reeessary te sllJll'ort
flefffiflnent reoieents. Exeapt as descri8ee above, a CRn ,,;ill cORfarm to the ch8facteriotics of a
'l illage or Hamlet ao set forth OR :\ttachmeRt C 8ase" OR the size of the CRn. .!\s resideRtial URits
are Rot a re'luirea lise, those goodo and servieeo that sUflflort reoidento sHeh as retail, offiee, civie,
goveAlffiental aIla iRotitutioRal us eo shall also Rot be re'lHired, ~ !lhowever, fer aRY CRn that
aoeo ineholde flClmaRent reoiaential hOHsing, the flreflortioRate sUflflort servieeo listea above shall
be flrO'iidea iR accordanee with ,^,ttaehrneflt C. To maiRtain a flroflortioR of CRns of I gO aeres or
less to Villages aRe To';;ns, not more thaR 5 CRns of 11313 acres or le80, iR combination with
Hamlets, may be a"Jlro'ied as SR.^,s prior te the appmval of a Village or Tewn, ana thereafter Ret
mere than 5 aaaitional CRns of I gO aeres or less, in combiRatien with Hamlets, may 8e appro'ied
for eaeh subse'luent Village or Town. There shall 8e RO more thaR 5 CRno ef more thaR Wg
acres iR size. The approflriateReos of this limitatiefl shall 8e re', iewed ifl 5 yeam fluroliaRt to
Poliey 1.22.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that the only additional
sentence being added is the fourth sentence and that she would like to change the word "shall" to
"may". Gary Eidson stated that the word "compatible" could be added after the word "scaled".
Judy Hushon stated that she does not like industry in CRDs and felt that it should be limited to
Towns and Villages. Nancy Payton stated that she felt the same but there are nature and
agricultural based uses that would be appropriate and that the compatibility issue can be
addressed in the LDC. Tom Jones agreed with Nancy Payton. Gary Eidson asked if CRDs, as
proposed, are not morphing into Hamlets. Anita Jenkins pointed out that the first two sentences
point out that the uses must be in support of agriculture, natural resources and economic diversity
and that the CRDs must demonstrate a set of uses to further these attributes within the RLSA.
Mr. Farmer stated that the CRDs must be very small in size. Mr. Wolfley stated that he is
concerned about an intense use being placed on a 1 DO-acre site. Russ Priddy stated that he might
do two or three CRDs and asked what if someone wanted to do agricultural research, etc. He
stated that the door needs to be left open for these uses. Mr. Jones stated that a use might be a
fishing lodge. Anita Jenkins stated that the Committee needs to address the intent of the CRD as
it is now written. Judy Hushon stated that CRDs should be limited to environmental and
agricultural uses. Brad Cornell stated that the word "shall" may be too strong and that it should
be changed to "may" as uses are not permitted by right and that there will be a need for strong
6lPage
0~
LDC language. After further discussion both Gary Eidson and Tom Jones agreed to amend the
motion by substituting "may" for "shall" and inserting the word "compatible" after the word
"scaled".
Staff comment: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to add
the fourth sentence with the two changes of changing "shall" to "may" and adding the word
"compatible" following the word "scaled". Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policv 4.7.4 ....see attachment from the EDC
Existing urban areas. Towns and Villages shall be the preferred location for business and industrv
within the RLSA. to further promote economic development. diversification and iob creation.
Pennitted uses shall include. but not be limited to environmental research. agricultural research.
aviation and aerospace. health and life sciences. eoroorate headquarters. computer hardware.
software and services. information technologv. manufacturing. research & development.
wholesale trade & distribution: technologv commercialization and development initiatives. trade
clusters. and similar uses.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Tammie Nemecek stated that she would like to add
environmental research and agricultural research to the use of pennitted uses. Brad Cornell
stated that he would like to see the words, "existing urban areas" added at the beginning of the
Policy as this is a preferred location of business as the infrastructure is already in place. Nancy
Payton asked to have CRDs eliminated as preferred locations for business and industry although
such would not necessarily prohibit such uses and that "environmental research" and "agricultural
research" be listed as examples of pennitted Uses. Tammie Nemecek stated that she is
comfortable with the changes promoted by Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton.
Staff comment: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Tom Jones seconded
to recommend the creation of new Policy 4.7.4 as outlined above, including all changes
discussed. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-1 with David Wolfley voting in opposition.
Policy 4.14....see attachment from the Transportation Division and ECPO
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access
via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed
development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. At the time of SRA
approvaL an SRA proposed to adioin land designated as an SRA or lands designated as Open
shall provide for the opportunitv to provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections from said
areas to the Countv's arterial/collector roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out
Vision Plan so as to reduce travel time and travel expenses. improve interconnectivitv. increase
internal capture. and keep the use of countv arterial roads to a minimum when traveling between
developments in the RLSA.
Public or private roads and connecting signalized intersections within or adiacent to an SRA shall
be maintained bv the primary town or communitv it serves. No SRA shall be approved unless the
capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in
accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of
SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3
of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the
necessary data and analysis. To the extent required to mitigate an SRAs taffic impacts. actions
7lPage
~g,2
mav be taken to include. but shall not be limited to. provisIOns for the construction and/or
pennittin!! of wildlife crossin!!s. environmental miti!!ation credits. ril!ht of wav dedication! s ).
water mana!!ement and/or fill material which mav be needed to expand the existin!! or proposed
roadwav network. Anv such actions to offset traffic impacts shall be memorialized in a developer
contribution a!!reement. These actions shall be considered within the area of si!!nificant influence
of the proi ect traffic on exist in!! or proposed roadwavs that are anticipated to be expanded or
constructed.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Nick Casalanguida stated that the language
proposed is now in two paragraphs rather than the existing one paragraph and has been
developed in working with ECPO. Gary Eidson asked about the Open Lands and if no
development occurs in such lands. Laurie McDonald stated that "DCA" should be spelled out
because of possible confusion with the Department of Community Affairs. Nancy Payton stated
that the language on mitigation needs to be clarified as to whether it is environmental or
transportation impact. Nick Casalanguida stated that the intent is transportation mitigation. Dave
Wolfley stated that the word "Credits" should be capitalized and not to use the DCA abbreviation.
After further discussion conceming language in the new second paragraph the Committee asked
Nick Casalanguida, Nancy Payton, and ECPO to resolve and clear up ambiguities and report back
to the Committee when resolved, Later in the meeting, Nick Casalanguida read the proposed
new language for the second paragraph and stated that this language was agreed to by those
meeting this morning.
Staff comment: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to
approve the above language amendments to Policy 4.14 as shown above, Upon vote, the motion
was approved unanimously.
Policy 4.18.. ..see attachment from the EDC
The SRA will be platmed and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a cosVbenefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-
workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such
as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and
other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of
service standards.
It is reco!!nized that SRA development in the RLSA may !!enerate surplus revenues to Collier
Countv and Collier Countv mav choose to allocate a portion of such slU:plus revenues to ensure
that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countv to respond expeditiouslv to
economic opportunities and to compete effectivelv for hi!!h-value research. development and
commercialization. innovation. and alternative and renewable enerilV business projects.
Public discussion on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek explained the rationale for this
language. Judy Hushon stated that a CRD might provide such surplus revenues. Laurie
McDonald asked if such surplus revenues could be used for environmental purposes. Tammie
Nemecek stated that the purpose of the revenues is to further economic development. Brian
Goguen stated, as chair elect of the EDC, that he supported this language.
8lPage
0R3
Staff comments: none
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Gary Eidson
seconded, to recommend the additional language to Policy 4.18. Upon vote, the motion carried
unanimously.
2. Proposed new RLSA Overlay Policies 4.22 and 5.7 [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Noah Standridge appeared on behalf of Naples Cultural Landscape and presented the
attached proposed new Policies.
Policv 4.22
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation
process. the applicant in coni unction with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources
will assess the historic or cultural significance and explore the educational and public awareness
opportunities regarding significant resources.
Public discussion on November 10, 2008: Noah Standridge presented the proposed Policy
4.22. Tom Jones asked if the Policy was intended just to promote. Gary Eidson asked who is
going to detennine historic or cultural resources to which Noah Standridge stated the County and
the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources detennine such at time of a
development review. Gary Eidson questioned whether this Policy is superfluous. Noah
Standridge stated that the Policy is intended to promote, once such is identified. Gary Eidson
suggested moving the first clause to the back of the Policy. Christia/l Spilker stated that the State
often keeps its responses to development reviews as quiet as possible because of the possibility of
someone destroying or removing such if that information gets into the news media. Gary Eidson
asked Noah Standridge to re-craft the language for each Policy and report back to the Committee.
This item and Policy 5.8 were temporarily tabled. Noah Standridge reappeared during the
meeting and presented revised language for Policies 4.22 and 5_8 which was re-crafted with input
from Christian Spilker and ECPO.
Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural
resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Tom Jones moved and Gary Eidson seconded to
approve the language as re-crafted above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 5.8
When historic or cultural resources are identified within the RLSA. the applicant in coni unction
with the Florida Division of State and Historic Resources will assess the historic or cultural
significance and explore the educational and public awareness opportunities regarding significant
resources.
Public comment ou November 10, 2008: Refer to Public discussion above under Policy 4.22.
Staff comments: Tom Greenwood stated that if the County and State find an historic or cultural
resource, then such must be preserved per the LDC.
Committee action on November 10. 2008: Tammie Nemecek moved and Tom Jones seconded
to approve the language as re-crafted above. Upou vote, the motion carried unanimously.
9lPage
0gC;
VII. New Business
A. Review of Draft Executive Summary to BCC to accompany the Phase 2 Report
David Wolfley stated that, as a member of the Planning Commission, he is opposed to
bringing the Phase 2 Report to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the GMP As to
the RLSA Overlay. He stated the Commission needs to understand what is being presented
and response and react prior to the GMP As going forward. Tom Jones stated that he does not
believe the Committee is jamming anything, citing about 30 advertised Committee meetings
and that the Phase 2 Report has morphed into a GMP A document and that it is appropriate to
get BCC direction as to when and how they wish to have the Phase 2 Report presented to the
EAC and CCPC. David Wolfley stated that EAC and CCPC want to see the Phase 2 Report
first and then with a follow-up GMPA cycle stating that the RLSA Overlay is too important
to the County to shove through. Tammie Nemecek stated that it was the intent of the
Committee since November, 2007 to make specific recommendations in the Phase 2 Report
Regarding specific amendments to policies in the RLSA Overlay. Ron Hamel stated that he
was involved in the original RLSA Overlay presentation and he recalls that the Committee
report went directly to the BCC for direction and then into GMP A transmittal and adoption
hearings. George Varnadoe stated that Ron Hamel's recollection is cOlTect, that the original
RLSA Overlay report went to the BCC and the BCC directed GMP As which then went to the
CCPC and EAC in transmittal and adoption hearings. Jeff Wright stated that the Committee
can go to the BCC without the Phase 2 Report being completed and ask their direction with
respect to the special GMP A cycle, priority on the Cycle and presentation timing to the EAC
and CCPC. George Varnadoe stated that is a good approach and this will let the BCC decide
as to when the EAC and CCPC will receive the Phase 2 Report. Gary Eidson stated that
there must be an emphasis as to how long and how many public meetings the Committee has
taken to get through the RLSA Overlay. Christian Spilker stated that there is a perception
that the Committee wished to bypass the EAC and CCPC which is not the case. Laurie
McDonald stated that the EAC and CCPC simply want to review the Phase 2 Report before it
comes in the form of a GMP A on such a complicated matter. Mr. Jones stated that the BCC
can decide when the Phase 2 Report should come to the EAC and CCPC and no one is
planning on bypassing the EAC and CCPe.
Committee action taken on November 10.2008: Gary Eidson moved and Tammie
Nemecek seconded to have Chairman Ron Hamel craft a letter to accompany an Executive
Summary to the BCC to be presented to and approved by the Committee during its December
II meeting which will ask the BCC to determine when it wishes the EAC and CCPC to
formally review the Phase 2 Report [either prior to any GMP A or in conjunction with the
GMPA if authorized by the BCe]. Upon vote, the motion carried, 6-1 with Neno Spagna
voting in opposition.
B. Future meeting space available and Phase 2 Report wrap up. Tom Greenwood reported
that meeting space has been reserved for the December II and possible December 18
meetings in Conference Room C of the Administrative Building of the North Collier
Regional Park located at 15000 Livingston Road from 9am to 12 noon. The agenda for the
December 11 meeting will include a review of the draft Phase 2 Report and draft Executive
Summary and letter from Ron Hamel to the BCC.
VIII. Public Comments.
IX. Next Meeting. Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on Thursday, December 11,
2008, in Conference Room C of the Administrative Building of the North Collier Regional Park located at
15000 Livingston Road from 9am to 12 noon for the purposes of reviewing the draft Phase 2 Report and
10 I P age
0!?S
the draft letter from Ron Hamel to the BCC to accompany the standard staff Executive Summary to the
Bce.
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 12:30PM.
. ew Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on/co//~/O~ ,as presented S<::
amended
DA~(kJ
~~
or as
11lPage
?= e.b
II-)CJ-D~
&h?h-)j~~~
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Po~ments
Future Transportation Element New Policv
/ Policv 3.7
Within 12 months after adoction of this colicv. the county shall develoc a clan for a
transcortation network that has been shown to meet the adocted Level of Service (LOS)
throuah the build out of the county (the "County Build Out Vision Plan"). The build out
network shown on the County Build Out Vision Plan shall define the existina roadwavs
that need to be imcroved. all proposed roadways. and the facility tyce and lane needs.
The County Build Out Vision Plan shall be adocted by the MPO. serve as a auide to future
ucdates of the Lona Ranae Transcortation Plan (LRTP). and be reviewed no less than
annually and amended as needed by the MPO to reflect chanaed circumstances which
occur from time to time. The County Build Out Vision Plan adoction and review shall
include a review of land uses within the County and shall include consideration of the
location of public services needed to accommodate the build out coculation. These
services shall include but are not limited to aovernment offices. iails. court houses.
landfills. maintenance facilities or any other facilitv that miaht otherwise reauire lona
distance travel.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed new Policy 3.7 to be located
in the Transportation Element of the GRP and is outside of the RLSAO. but should be
considered for recommendation by the Committee as it would harmonize the new
language being proposed in the RLSAO. The above language represents a consensus by
those staff personnel participating in its creation.
Committee action on Seotember 23. 2008: The Committee referred certain Group 4
Policies to John Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve and this new policy
outside of the RLSAO was found to be needed.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
RLSA Overlay Group 4 Proposed Revised Policies
) Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved
SRA. Such updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but
shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based
amendment process when it periodically occurs.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by, consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to remain unchanaed and the Committee
should vote on this Policy.
Committee action on Seotember 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve,
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
~g,7
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Policy Amendments
p.2
I Policy 4.5
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and
submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master
plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and
the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed
away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map.
To the extent practicable. the SRA Master Plan shall be consistent with the Countv's then-
adopted Lono Ranoe Transportation Plan (LRTP). the Countv Build Out Vision Plan
referenced in Policv 3.7 of the Future Transportation Element. and Access Manaaement
procedures.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
I Policy 4.6
SRA characteristics shall be based upon innovative planning and development strategies
referenced in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 9J-5.006(5)(I). These planning strategies
and techniques include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based
allocations, clustering and open space provisions, and mixed-use development that allow
the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting
environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and
other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public
facilities and services. The SRA shall also include a mobilitv plan that includes
consideration of vehicular. bicvcle/pedestrian, public transit. internal circulators. and other
modes of travel/movement within and between SRAs and areas of outside development
and land uses. The mobility plan shall consider the applicabilitv of strateaies such as bus
subsidies. route sponsorship and other incentives which encouraae the use of mass
transit services. The development of SRAs shall also consider the needs identified in the
Countv Build Out Vision Plan and plan land uses to accommodate services that would
increase internal capture. and reduce trip lenoth and lona distance travel. Such
development strategies are recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl,
encouraaino alternative modes of transportation. increasina internal capture and reducina
vehicle miles traveled.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
t;, gf
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Policy Amendments
p. 3
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
.j Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types
and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support
development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land
uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than ~
1.500 acres or more than 4;GOO 5.000 acres and are comprised of several villages and/or
neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use
town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services.
Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an
interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods.
Towns shall include an internal mobilitv plan, which may include a transfer station or park
and ride area that is appropriatelv located within the town to serve as the connection point
for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one community
park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town.
Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall
include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as
provided in Policy 4.15.1 Towns may also include those compatible corporate office and
light industrial uses as those permitted in the Business Park and Research and
Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. Towns shall be the preferred location for the
full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located
abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities and as provided in
Policies 4.15.2 and 4.15.3.. Design criteria for Towns shall be included in the LDC
Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above. However,
the Comprehensive Planning Department staff has noticed in the consensus version given
to staff that the changes to the threshold acreages for Towns was not changed according
to the Committee's recommendations and has shown that change and has incorporated
that change in Policy 4.7.1.
Committee action on SeDtember 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
Policy 4.14
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect
access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate
the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning
tp~
Final Consensus Draft of Proposed Transportation Related Policy Amendments
p. 4
standards. At the time of SRA approval. an SRA proposed to adioin land desianated as
an SRA or lands desianated as Open shall provide for the opportunitv to provide direct
vehicular and pedestrian connections to said areas throuah the Countv's arterial/collector
roadwav network as shown on the Countv Build Out Vision Plan so as to reduce travel
time and travel expenses. improve interconnectivitv. increase internal capture. and keep
the use of county arterial roads to a minimum when travelina between developments in
the RLSA.
Public or private roads and connectina sianalized intersections within or adiacent to an
SRA shall be maintained by the primarv town or community it serves. No 8RA shall be
approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the 8RA is
demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency
Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact
assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC. or its successor
regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and
analysis. To the extent reauired to mitiaate an SRA's impacts. mitiaation may include. but
shall not be limited to. the construction and permittina of wildlife crossinas. the provision of
environmental mitiaation credits. and/or the provision of riaht of way. water manaaement
and/or fill material which mav be reauired as mitiaation to expand the existina or proposed
roadway network. Any such mitiaation provided to offset environmental impacts and to
maintain the adopted level of service shall be memorialized in a Developer Contribution
Aareement iDCAI. The DCA shall consider the need. if anv. to provide mitiaation for
species. wetlands. or other impacts within the area of sianificant influence of the proiect
traffic or existina or proposed roadways that are anticipated to be expanded or
constructed.
Public Comment:
Staff Comments: The language shown above is proposed by consensus of the
Transportation Division and John Passidomo to be changed as shown above.
Committee action on September 23. 2008: The Committee referred this Policy to John
Passidomo and the Transportation Division to resolve.
Committee action on November 10. 2008:
~Clo
Policy 4.5
To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to
Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate
that the SRA complies with all applicable polici of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship
District and is designed so that incompatible land ses are directed away from wetlands and critical
habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the verlay Map. To the extent oracticable. the SRA
Master Plan shall be consistent with the Co t's then-ado ted Lon Ran e Trans rtation Plan
LRTP the Count Build Out Vision PI referenced in Polic 3.7 of the Future Trans ortation
Element and Access Mana ement roce res.
Each SRA master Ian shall include a ana ement Plan which includes s for minimizin
human and wildlife interactions. Lo intensit land uses e. . arks assive ecreation areas 011'
courses and ve etation eservatio re uirements lOcludin a iculture s II be used to establish
buffer areas between wildh e hab' at areas and areas dominated b hum activities. Consideration
shall be iven to the most ent idelines and re lations on t hni ues to reduce human
wildlife conflict. The mana ement lans shall also re uire the disse nation of information to local
residents. businesses and govenunental services about the oresence of wildlife. oractices that
enable responsible coexistence with wildlife. while minimizing oooortunites for negative
ineraction. such as aoorooriate waste disoosal oractices.
(.07)
GreenwoodThomas
/ Jc;!~;;;-c(~ RLif~
From:
~ent:
To:
Subject:
Noah Standridge [noah@centrusplanning.com)
Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:29 PM
GreenwoodThomas
Re: Friendly Reminder...Monday. November 10 Committee meeting
Tom,
Please find below policies 4.22 and 5.7 on behalf of Naples Cultural Landscapes. Thank you for putting us on
the next meeting agenda. If anyone has questions or comments, feel free to direct them to my contact info.
Sincerely,
Noah Standridge
www.centrusplanning.com
239.777.7145
Naples, FL
Proposed Amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Regarding Historical or Cultural
Resources
11/10/2008
Policy 4.22
To promote knowledge of Collier Countv's historical and cultural heritage. when historic or cultural resources
are identified within the RLSA through the SRA designation process. the applicant will assess the historic or
cultural significance and explore the educational opportunities regarding: significant resources.
Policv 5.7
To promote knowledge of Collier Countv's historical and cultural heritage. when historic or cultural resources
are identified within the RLSA. the applicant will assess the historic or cultural significance and exolore the
educational opportunities regarding significant resources.
&CJ'L..
1
MEMORANDUM
/ / -J 6 -cgl ~p)?( ./C(=
~[~
~
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
~f Collier County, Florida
Growing Great Ideas
~
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Of COLLIER COUNTY
3050 Horseshoe Drive North. Suite 120. Naples. FL 34104
Phone (239) 263-8989 . Fax (239) 263-6021
www.eNaolesFlorida.com
To: Tom Greenwood
From: Tammie Nemecek
Date: November 5, 2008
Re: Economic Development Policy Changes
In order to strengthen the economic development section of the RLSA, the Economic
Development Council of Collier County would like to propose this clarifying language.
Thank you for the consideration. Modifications are highlighted in RED.
I Policy 4.7.1
Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix
of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure that support development that is
compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips
and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 1,000 acres or more than +,GOO 5,000 acres
and are comprised of several villages and/or neighborhoods that have individual identity and
character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for
community facilities and support services, Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all
residential neighborhoods. Towns shall include an internal mobilitv plan. which mav include a
transfer station or park and ride area that is appropriatelv located within the town to serve as the
connection point for internal and external public transportation. Towns shall have at least one
community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns
shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods.
Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, ill a ratio as
I'f8\'iEied described in Policy ~ 4.15.1. Towns may also include those compatible corporate
office. research and light industrial uses such as those pennitted in the Business Park cjnd
Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE and those included in Policv 4.7.4.
Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible,
schools and parks shall be located abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational
facilities and as provided in Policies 4.15.2 and 4,15.3, Design criteria for Towns shall be
included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC.
\I
Policy 4.7.2
G:\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\RLSA 5-year Review\Committee Meetings\Nov 10, 2008\EDC proposed policy modification
II-S-08.doc ~ 0
Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses
appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than lOa /
acres or more than 1,000 acres inside the Area of Critical Concern and not more than 1.500 acres
outside the Area of Critical Concern. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and
shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support
services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation
by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential
neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages
shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15.
Appropriatelv scaled uses described in Policv 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in Villages. Villages
are an appropriate location for a full range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks
shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design
criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District.
Policy 4.1A 4.7.3
Compact Rural Development (CRD) is a form of SRA that '",ill ]3re'iise flelli13ilit)' wita res]3eet
to the mil( ef liGes and sesign stlll'\sarss, bHt saall otaerwise 00"'1'1)' '.Vita the staadarss of a
Hamlet or Village. shall support and further Collier Countv's valued attributes of agriculture.
natural resources and economic diversitv. CRDs shall demonstrate a unique set of uses and
support services necessarY to further these attributes within the RLSA. Primarv CRD uses shall
be those associated with and needed to suPport research. education. tourism or recreation.
Appropriately scaled uses described in Policy 4.7.4 shall also be permitted in CRDs. A CRD may
include, but is not required to have permanent residential housing, ans tae serviees and facilities
that s>lj3]3art ]3effil!lfleat rcsidcats. The number of residential units shall be equivalent with the
demand generated bv the primarv CRD use. but shall not exceed the maximum of two units per
grOSS acre. A CRD shall be a maximum size of 100 acres. f.n eX""'l'le cf a CRD is aH ecoleoosm
';illage that ",euld have a lHli'lue set ef ase" IlI'\d s>lj3f1art serviee" diffcreat from a traditiefllll
rs"ideatial village. It '.\'8\l1d eeataiH traHoieat ledgiHg facilities aHd serviees a]3]3T8f1l'iate to ece
tourist", but may Hot f1reviae fer the nmge of serviee" that are Hecessar)' to sU]3]3ert f1elH\8Heat
re"iaeats. Exe"l't as seseribes a"eve, a CRD will eOHfefffi te the eharaeteristics of a Village or
Hamlet as set forth OH .^,ttaehrneat C based aa the size of the CRD. /\" resiaeHtial anits are aet a
re'lairetl aGe, those geods IlI'\d serviees that sllf1f1ort reGiaeats sHeh as retail, offiee, eivie,
gO'/emmeHlal !Ifld iHstitulional Hses shall also net "e reqllirea, ~ Hao',,'ever. for any CRD that
does inelllde ]3effilllf\eat resideHliel aOllsiHg, the pre]3ortiOnHle Sllpport serviees lioted a"o'/s sooll
be proyised in aeearaaHee wila .".ttachmeat C. To maiataiH a ]3re]3oflion ofCRDs of lOa aeres or
less to Village" and Towns, Hot more taaH 5 CHUs of 100 acres or less, iH eomiliHalioH wita
Hamlets, ma)' "e approved a" gR."." ]3rior to tae ap]3roval of a Village or TO'.\'H, aHS thereafter Het
IRere taaH 5 additional CRDs of 100 acros or leas, iH eomiliHEllioH wita Hamlets, may "e a]3]3f8'/e6
for eaell sabse<}li8flt Village er Towa. There shall be He mere taaH 5 CRns of _re taaH 100
acres m size. The ap]3f8]3riatenes" of tais limilatioH saall "e rcviewed iH 5 years ]3UfO_ to
Polic)' 1.22.
Policy 4.7.4 (New policy)
Towns. Villages and CRDs shall be the preferred location for business and industrv within the
RLSA. to further promote economic development. diversification and iob creation. Permitted uses
shall include. but not be limited to: aviation and aerospace, health and life sciences. corporate
headquarters. computer hardware. software and services. information technology. manufacturing.
?oq~
/
I
research & development. wholesale trade & distribution; technolol!V commercialization and
development initiatives. trade clusters. and similar uses.
.A. Hamlet is a fef'ffi of ~R.'\ that will ]3revide fle"ieility '.vith recl'eet to tHe mill sf liSe" aaa
aesiga slaflaara", but sllall elllerwise eeffiJlly with tile staadams ef a Hamlet ar Village. aaa tile
sef'.iees aaa faeilitieG tllat sup!'ert permaaent reGideal". ,'.Ii e"affiJlle of a CRD is aa eeatauRsm
village tllat wauld have a liai'tlle set ef liGeS aad SUp]3SR sen'iees differeat ffOm a tl'f\aitional
resiaeatial village. It \','8\ila eaataia traasi"at Ie aging faeilities aaa ser\'iees ",,!,repriate ta ees
teuRsls, Imt ffiay not l'rs'iide far tHe range of sep/iees tllat are neees"ary ta cU]3port ]3eHHaaent
residents. !')w"!'t a" aeseRbea absye, a CRn will eonfsf'ffi ts tile ellaracteRstie" of a Village or
Hamlet as set forta Sf! ,'.ttaohmeat C basea on the size of tHe CRn, .A.S recidealialllnitG are not a
req>lirea lise, tllase gsoas ana servieeG tllat sUI']3srt resiaeftts sueH aG retail, omee, eivie,
gevemmef!tal ana if!Gtitutiof!al IIse" SHall also net be required, , ITh8'::ever, for any CRn tbat
dees melllae 1'8fffiflf!ent recideatial Ilellsing, tbe pf0partionate sU]3]3ort sen'iees listea above saall
be l'w':iaea in aeeordanee witll ,'.ttachrncnt C. To ffiaintain a ]3ro]3ortien of CRDs of 100 aefe" or
leGS to Villages and TownG, Rot more tllaR 5 CRns of 100 aereG or less, in eeffibinatisR witll
Hamlels, ffiay be a]3proved as SR.'\s l'rior ta tile apl'rsval of a Village ar Tewn, aaa tllereafter Hat
mare thaJl 5 additional CRns af 100 acres ar leGS, in caffibiaatian witll Bamlel", may be "Jl]3f€'ied
fer eaea slll1se'tllellt Village ar TovlB. Tllere sllall be ne ffiore tllan 5 CRDs af mare tlllHl 100
aercs ill size, Tile ""prBpriatelless sf tllis limilatioll SHall be reviewed ill 5 yeafs pllfGooat 10
Polie)' 1.22.
Policy 4.18
The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the
horizon year based on a cosVbenefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be
adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-
workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such
as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a
minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation,
potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law
enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and
other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of
service standards.
It is recognized that SRA development in the RLSA mav generate surplus revenues to Collier
Countv and Collier Countv may choose to allocate a portion of such surplus revenues to ensure
that sufficient resources are available to allow Collier Countv to respond expeditiouslv to
economic opportunities and to compete effectivelv for high-value research. development and
commercialization: innovation: and alternative and renewable enerl!V business proiects.
t95
/I-/D-if
~/?)I ~-e oJ
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .;e...,-e..-.vl
[DRAFT, SUBJECT TO REVISIONS]
Request of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee to the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners to consider authorizing a special Growth Management
Plan Amendment Cycle solely for the purpose of considering the adoption of the
Committee-recommended amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay of
the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan as outlined in the
Committee's Phase 2 Report, and authorization to present and review the Phase 2 Report
concurrent with the requested special Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle.
OBJECTIVE: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee ("Committee") on
, voted to request the Collier County Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) to
consider authorizing a special Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Cycle solely for
the purpose of review and consideration of the Committee-recommended amendments to the
Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan as outlined in the attached Phase 2 Report, and to review the Phase 2 Report
concurrent with those amendments. The RLSA Overlay is the basis for Section 4.08.00 of the
Land Development Code (LDC) entitled, "Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay
District" and, if amended, would serve as the basis for amendments to this section ofthe LDe.
By established BCC policy, there is only one GMP A cycle per calendar year. However, the
Florida State Statutes permit local units of government a maximum of two GMP A cycles per
calendar year. This request, if approved by the BCC, would use the second statutorily available
GMP A cycle solely for reviewing the Committee-recommended amendments to the RLSA
Overlay concurrent with the Committee's Phase 2 Report.
The Project Management Plan (PMP) for the five-year review of the RLSA Program calls for the
Phase I Report and the Phase 2 Report to be submitted to the Environmental Advisory Council
(EAC) and the Planning Commission (PC) prior to submittal to the BCC. The Phase I Report
complied with this directive of the PMP. However, the Committee did recommend to the BCC
that the review of the Committee-recommended amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area (RLSA) Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan be
considered concurrently with the Phase 2 Report for greater expediency and to eliminate what
the Committee considered double reviews by the EAC and the PC of the Phase 2 Report. Thus,
the Committee is asking BCC concurrence to divert from the PMP only with respect to this
proVISIOn.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The RLSA has been recognized in Florida, regionally, and nationally for visionary methodology
to preserve environmentally significant land, to protect agricultural land and to direct growth to
suitable locations. Collier County adopted the RLSA Overlay in the Land Development Code
(LDC) on January 30, 2004 as the implementing regulation for the Growth Management Plan
amendments known broadly as the "Rural/Eastern Lands Amendments" which were developed
in response to Administration Commission Final Order No. AC99-002, which required a "Rural
?CJb
1
and Agricultural Assessment" and subsequent adoption of the Growth Management Plan
amendment based upon that assessment.
Policy 1.22 of the of the RLSA Overlay requires a five-year comprehensive review of the RLSA
Overlay by Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) following the five-
year anniversary of the adoption of the Stewardship District into the LDe. Accordingly, the BCC
on October 24, 2007 approved Resolution 2007-305A which provided for the creation of the
Committee and listed its functions, powers and duties, including: I) "Review data concerning the
participation and effectiveness in the Overlay meeting the Goal, Objective, and Policies in the
Future Land Use Element of the GMP"; and 2) "Review the RLSA Overlay and make
recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the Overlay". Staff of the Comprehensive
Planning Department was assigned to assist the Committee in its functions, powers and duties.
With respect to number I above, the Committee's efforts resulted in the issuance to the BCC of
the Phase I Report and airing during the BCC's May 27, 2008 regular meeting. During this
airing the BCC authorized transmittal of the Phase I Report to the Department of Community
Affairs as provided for in Policy 1.22 of the RLSA Overlay. The Phase I Report was transmitted
to the DCA on May 30,2008.
With respect to number 2 above, the Committee's Phase II Report was compiled during the final
19 of the total 27 Committee public meetings in its effort to provide a comprehensive review of
the existing RLSA Overlay with all stakeholders. Committee meetings were well attended; open
dialogue was encouraged; and minutes were taken and maintained as part of the public record by
personnel of the Comprehensive Planning Department. These public meetings were held in the
Ave Maria University Academic Building, in the Community Development and Environmental
Services Building, and in the North Collier Regional Park Administration Building.
As directed by Resolution No. 2007-305A, the Phase II Report includes recommended GMPAs
to improve the effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay based, in part, upon the experience with the
RLSA Program during the first five years following the January 30, 2004 adoption of the
implementing Section 4.08.00 of the Land Development Code. Committee-recommended
amendments to the RLSA Overlay were also based, in part, upon the following:
I. Expert speakers who spoke during Committee meetings;
2. Independent research reports, statements, and issues expressed relative to the Rural Lands
Stevvardship program;
3. Public participation;
4. Data and analysis/justification; and
5. Cursory Staff input.
The following organizations were involved in the deliberate and detailed open public discussions
and educational efforts involving the Committee's review of the RLSA Overlay:
1. Audubon Society
2. Collier County Planning Commission
3. Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division
4. Collier County Environmental Advisory Council
5. Collier County Transportation Division
2
077
6. Conservancy of Southwest Florida
7. Defenders of Wildlife
8. East Collier Property Owners
9. Florida Gulf Coast University
10. Florida Department of Community Affairs
1]. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
12. Florida Wildlife Federation
13. Fort Mvers News-Press
14. Naples DailvNews
15. One Thousand Friends of Florida
16. Sierra Club
17. South Florida Water Management District
18. University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The legal review of the Phase II Report has only been cursory,
concentrated on only a few Policies, and has not been completed. A full and complete legal
review of the Phase 2 Report and the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments would
need to be completed. Note: This section has not yet been submitted or reviewed by legal staff
and will be modified prior to submittal to the Bee.
FISCAL IMPACT: IF the BCC authorizes County staff to initiate a Growth Management Plan
Amendments special cycle solely for the consideration of amendments to the RLSA Overlay, the
following are the estimated associated costs:
a. Lel!:al advertisements: $10,032 [for transmittal and adoption hearings before the
Envirorunental Advisory Council (EAC), Planning Commission (PC) and BCC: $1,254 x
8= $10,032]
b. Court reporter: $7,495 [assumes 1.5 days for EAC; 2.5 days for PC; and 1.0 day for the
BCC]
c. Cost of printinl!: This cost cannot be calculated at this time.
d. Cost of staff time: Staff time to review and compile this GMP amendment is difficult to
calculate. However, the following is an estimate of staff hours by Division:
· CDES Division: 2,000 total staff hours, including the following departments:
Comprehensive Planning, Engineering and Envirorunental Services, Zoning and
Land Development Review, Assistant County Attorney, and Administration.
· Public Services [Housing and Human Servicesl: 100 hours
· Public Services [Parks and Recreation 1: 50 hours
. Public Utilities: 100 hours
. Transportation: 200 hours
There are no additional fiscal impacts associated with this project, other than incidentals, such as
postage, etc.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The GMP will need to be amended concurrent with
or prior to the proposed RLSA Overlay amendments to align Plan dates throughout the GMP in
response to the Objection received from the Department of Community Affairs related to DCA
review of the 2006 cycle of GMP amendments.
&?rI
3
The Phase II Report recommendations have not been comprehensively scrutinized in their
entirety by County staff to the point where it can be said that the recommendations are ready for
GMP amendments presentation and public vetting. However, the Assistant County Attorney, the
Transportation Division, and several CDES staff have participated in all or portions of the
Committee's deliberations and have provided some input to the Committee.
Due to the attached list of projects internal to the Comprehensive Planning Department,
including the 2007/2008 GMP Cycle amendments, upcoming 2009 GMP Cycle amendments, the
Annual Update and Inventory Report, and many other projects, the Comprehensive Planning
Department staff will need BCC direction as to what priority to assign to the Committee-
recommended RLSA Overlay special GMP A cycle. If priority is given to this project, then the
production of other products may be delayed. Further, all dates for transmittal hearings and
adoption hearings will need to be coordinated with the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC),
the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and the BCC, both as to meeting room space
availability and availability of the hearing bodies for specific dates.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners provide
direction to staff with respect to the Committee's requests which are: I) authorization for the
holding of a Committee-recommended special Growth Management Plan Amendment cycle,
which is a departure from the BCC-adopted policy of limiting GMP amendments to one cycle
per calendar year; 2) assigrnnent of priority to this special GMPA cycle required hearings versus
the already filed GMPA 2007/2008 combined cycle petitions and the upcoming 2009 GMPA
cycle petitions; and 3) authorization to present and review the Phase 2 Report concurrent with
the requested special GMP A cycle contrary to the PMP.
PREPARED BY: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Department
~17
4
DRAFT
Comprehensive Planning Depertment Major Project. 2008-2011
lAiI<
o ala ,'_ '___m __ '_ , .
Prepare annual Population estimates and projeCtions by-PC, Cities. alrure dis1ricls, all """l3ler & sewer distrlcls, HS auendanee
1 ZOOes. coastal Urban a_r~, GGE,. RF,.,.UD, RLSAO. other Qeographies as warranled
2 :er~_~ &n_nlJ!lf?u 8stl~~~_a~jiol~~i()ns,
3 ~Il!~re I,JI)d8te of ooun~~ Buil~utStudy.
l!emt;lll,.phlcllnventory Dele
'~U~atlL~-PSl~htt 61;:_~miCf'rDllte.
2' UP.dattl,!~,~~~t~lal in.~",!~~.
3:,~!e CommetClsl._lnllel1tory;
~I ~:~::: ~~~~O:~h Mod~f~
~,Gls__t.'''-aPPlnll: .l?f_ll1Yenlones lilnd ModiSS.
(jMP~meruf_b:_. , __ _~ ~~~__ __
1 2607'200~~eorryblne<l. afl!,U81 cycle of GMP amlmdl11.e-"!p81itlons (nine 2007ptolltiO/1S a~ two 20_0l;iJ;~~![ti'?~,
2 ~09 annual cycle of GMP amendment petlllOns.
~ 20_10allnulIl ertle_ of GM? amendment pe@ons_
4 2011 annual cycle of GMP ~~ndm_'!_r1~,~~<!~
5 NIot.lal.f:l~ upd.'e ", _ _
6 .RLSA5-Year"Revlew-based Imeodments,_____
J _Allgn-cfiift9 in all Bemenl& (e.g:"fLU~!J~_ map-s,)~~SAO,_ elc-l, aod compIle neCessary daie & anel)"Sls.
8 lAMF'VG-bil5ed. ,__ " '_
9 'CP:2006:-,': Toil~ttl.snake ORI.relat$d .amendment
-Amend GMPA procedural- Fte,Oiutlon to 6dd NIM requirement & reference LDe propeiitY-ownetnotJIr-clllon're:q'rii1:ancfs5
10 otherwise neeesSlo~__ _ ___ _____ _._.
Revise mipA .,e&;tion ~ inclUde (;over sheello l1elp explain desired formal/organization at lt1e petition pack.agB_ Create a
t1 checklist? Include NIM and propttf1~~l!Ir~JI~catlon requiremen~;
12' PrOQ~.l'e'Vlew of Ihe GOlden ~e_ Mn!(tr f'lan ., '.
,,_t~, exploration of adoplion of mass tf6tl~it e/emefl!!,_~"M~Jler c<;pc
LDCfAmer'dm.nt.
1 I RL$A 5-Year Review~basedTbCAi.
"if PSFE.b~sed:__
GM.P-~O.n!:I'''ncYRevleM_ "'M" _ __, _____, . __
'.jcPcrj"{co. m!;J Plan ~nstSlency, o~..!!linatiP.~l!!9.U.Bsts .':'JeQUIIB.d." by DEP and' USACO~ Jmostl'L>,!aler.!r~1Lropt':rtie:s}.
_ ~ ~ISle!l9'.'eV'iews ~ZLDR pebtlOl1$ {RZs. CUll, PYPZ5, ~~5, elC.)...
Olh.r~~..!~k._ " _n
1 !Revlse S8R 1LA.. In c.oordinaUon with School Oi5-trk:t slaff.
'2: PrOcesSlRe~&ent CDI?,..petltlons_as _SlJ~,!!!!~~_' -
3 !Prot;e55lRevtew SSAs 8S .submitted.
4. Review p4"oposeclf.~ie(~-jegi.lioo for ilTlPac(upoo' COtlierCounty.
5 Annua!!t~ate Inter~\le (;ro~ fotodel.
~_r~~~ldueJ~'2oni=-~-=~ ~. ._. ~~, ~'__ .__
1 'Census 2010 PSAP (dlanie5 to trac1S, ~~oek Qroups. COP~,_CCP-S}.
_!S:!.n~~ 2010 ero~.~mrrs ~ie:'o" (n~lng homf!S. ALFs,etc1
9 'accRe..-diStrlc1:ini.
10, eRA Annual and Quarterly, FWportin.i
Commj_8~~-""---- --
t 'SlIff Wattling Group (JfSchools,lnletb;:liI Agreement
-2 -Afbdable Housin.a.9.E..n.!JtIsslon____
3 Flo aln~ltntComrmtltte
..Napl8!~~~~~~~~S!r:n!'!'~
_~_Immokalee A~ Ma,ster Pta_ABncl Yisktnln; C~_1!11ttee
_~_ R~~lIr ~~_Commlnee_
1 Horiton~lu~~~rslllt ~onv'rWI1~
Im~~ieCom,,!unlty Tasks
t Enlerprtze Zone Ouartelfy_Reports
_~:~~~!.~!!~al RepOrt
MtK.-'aib ---
_J Respond tO~bltc Record, "Beq,uesls .ncr:~unts fCr-PUbjtclnfOfmatJOfl,
2 TOR Prolll'am AdmInlttrlltlOr'l. ____ _~__
3 ~jtver sllind q.MP AdOption
4IAve~rta._~_5:}'e!irrevlewofAAM _,_"~____ ~___~__
LeQI.!~\I. review 0' P<<lI)Osed growltll!'!!fI8ie~rt! 8nd 1'eWled JegislatJo'.l.
&1 Revlew_ off~C propose~ Ieg!sIIIav_.~1:fcY stalB!!1.nts.__~
-Green" GMP amendrmets
DRAFT
, g<
annual
ar'Inual
PE~Odlc__
annUBI
;rlnual
.8N\Ua
8f'\1lual
lJr.nual
IInm;RI
ann';ll
a'lI'.)!!..
annual
lI!1f11.JlIl
~~-
onCll
?~-
'"~
per1o;j'c_
_~DO'C:
~2:~1"''''r!..__
once {multJ year)
'Sytla~
~
,onc.e
onll'olnll
~"9~ln9
periodi't
00:90ln9
~n~.!.I!$
annual
annu.~.
B~!pll~
evety10years
e>IeiY10:!,ear.s.
_~~~.rs
;Of'Iioir1ll
"on:1l.~j_
;on1Jni"11
l~:2ol~
'onlloll'lll
_~(ffiu!~'Yearf
~.~~ {l'1"MJ1I year)
Cl~(I11UlI.YNr)
;.!I.nCI!:8~Br
4bm~lyelr
~~?<!~.
_____ _ ~n-9olog
--=__"oncelrfi\itf~ar)
""'"
ifmual
.annlUlll
....nuat
200$.201ilR.ior-pn.jeelS-bcJlii..sditiOlll-
G~~,d
JD~
It.I(i.08
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: NOVEMBER 10. 2008
....MEMBERs (PLEASE INITIAL)
Ron Hamel, Chair V -
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair /
Brad Cornell ~_ . / _
~~~~~~
Gary Eidson _ ~
, .~
-----~--
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
-- ,//
Bill McDaniel
-7
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
~~
Public
Name
C~~i~
-<;~.4j /-/u, I:: e (
, -f1! '/1 ~ II/' ~',
E-mail! Affiliation
Phone #
~D\ -~ ~o"
-L;:, K/ k, (If/,
j s-~_ S:s-<r.7
I Z!?v
026/-"/(,/5 r
jJ IrIf g
.d?JI/-1 L 1fff7L/ A770.;J
I
t::SF/t.K-Ze =//'iw-..~~/:SetS.c,o-.
,F),/;;;Ji~
CA/'/~h..~ S;::>/LI:.'iPt..
~f.cJ
lh\kVC ~~d '\)etudbS z;,f iJIJI,(Cllf'e7d 7 - 9Jz-s-3>S8'2>
g.r"" ~''''-- bJT->e ly,~ M,',P~r. "'''''' 2L 2--osr>>
tJy~L )~Jf'l~ r:L l ~ 41?
'C-(r\ C C;~uJi t'VV' <;foC\~~ (? l/\'c.{fle5 Vl(-' VV) (OlfV',
..:l" J -<{<:fS5
b $ ) - L/:5'7c
702-
d~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES] Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; October 28, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Gary Eidson
Bill McDaniel
Dave Wolfley
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
Floyd Crews
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood, David Weeks, and Mike DeRuntz of the
Comprehensive Planning Department and Jeff Wright of the Assistant County Attorney's Office as well
as approximately 15 members of the public.
I. CalI Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05AM by Chairman Ron HameL
II. RoIl CalI
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 9 of 12 members were present, with Jim
Howard absent and Fred N. Thomas, Jr. and David Farmer having excused absences.
III. Approval of Agenda .
Neno Spagna moved to approve the agenda as presented and sec'onded by Bill McDaniel.
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minutes of the October 14, 2008 Meeting
Mr.Spagna moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to approve the minutes as distributed Upon vote,
the motion carried unanimously.
V. Presentations.
VI. Old Business
A. Discussion of logistics and alternative calendars for Committee Phase 2 Report.
I. Current Project Management Plan alternative for Phase 2 Report. Tom Greenwood
presented the attached Project Management Plan-based revised Phase 2 Report Schedule
which calls for the Phase 2 Reoort to go to the EAC and CCPC prior to going to the BCC
IIPage
7D3
with the tentative schedule to the EAC on February 4, the CCPC on March 16 and 17, and the
BCC on April 7 or 8, 2009 and then proceed with the Growth Management Plan amendments
if directed by the BCC
2. Alternative Schedule for Phase 2 Report. AI Reynolds with Wilson Miller presented the
attached memo dated October 22, 2008 and submitted to the Committee and participants on
October 27th which proposes a January 13 presentation to the BCC asking authorization to
initiate a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Special Cycle for the RLSA
GMPA; a GMPA transmittal hearing before the EAC on February 4; a March 5 GMPA
transmittal hearing before the CCPC; and a April 7, 2009 GMP A transmittal hearing before
the BCC.
Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Jones seconded to approve the alternative schedule and to go
directly to the BCC to request a special GMP A Cycle to adopt the proposed RLSA Plan changes.
Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Discussion prior to above vote: Al Reynolds stated that the Committee has met 24 times since
November, 2007; that waiting until 2011 for a RLSA Overlay GMP amendment is too long; that
Wilson Miller is working on data and analysis, but needs some clear direction from the BCC on
timing for the GMP amendments for the RLSA Overlay; and that much of the work to support the
GMPA involving the RLSA Overlay has already been done by the Committee. Brad Cornell stated
that the RLSA Overlay is receiving statewide scrutiny and we need to do it right. He stated that he
had seen Nick Penniman's attached comments. Mr. Cornell suggested that the Phase 2 Report be
presented to the EAC, CCPC and the BCC prior to the transmittal hearings. He stated that the BCC
should not be asked to approve the report, but to accept it and provide further direction with respect
to authorizing a special GMPA cycle just for the RLSA Overlay. Dave Woljley stated that the
executive summary should clearly indicate that the Committee is not asking BCC approval of the
report, but to authorize a special GMP amendment cycle for the RLSA Overlay with the submittal
of the Phase 2 Report to the EAC and CCPC prior to the time of the transmittal hearings.
Mr. Cornell moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to submit the Phase 2 Report to EAC, CCPC and
BCC for their review at the time of the GMPA transmittal hearings. Mr. Cornell stated that he
would like to see the EAC, CCPC and BCC see the Phase 2 Report prior to the GMPA adoption
hearings. Upon vote, the motion carried 8-1 with Mr. Woljley voting in opposition.
Discussion prior to above vote: Ms. Nemecek stated that the Phase 2 Report needs to go to the
BCC directly for further direction and authorization so that the work of the Committee since
November, 2007 is recognized and that it can go into the GMP amendment process as soon as
possible. Nicole Ryan stated that the Phase I Report and Phase 2 Report both have a purpose and
that she supports following the current Project Management Plan in that it is what has been
expected by the EAC, CCPC and BCC all along and that a thorough review of the report prior to
transmittal hearings is appropriate. Judy Hushon of the EAC stated that the EAC expectation is
that the Phase 2 Report would come before it just like the Phase I Report did and supports the use
of the schedule developed using the current project management plan. William Hughes, chairman
of the EAC, stated that the public perception of the entire RLSA Overlay review process may be
tainted by not following the established procedure in the project management plan. Nancy Payton
stated that schedule change is a way of expediting the process, eliminating special extra long
meetings to review the Phase 2 Report by the EAC, CCPC, and BCC, and that the content of the
Executive Summary transmitting the Phase 2 Report to the BCC will be important and that she
favors the use of the expedited schedule. Russell Priddy stated that he supports the expedited way
of presenting the Committee's recommendations to the BCC and asking for GMP A authorization.
21Page
'70~
Mr. Jones stated that it is important to note that the EAC and CCPC will not be bypassed with the
Phase 2 Report and that it will be made a part of the RLSA Overlay GMP A transmittal hearings.
Mr. Jones requested staff to have a draft Executive Summary for Committee review during its
November lOth meeting.
B. Phase 2...Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay,
including issnes, concerns, and questions.
1. Policies 1.6 and 1.7
Policy 1.6
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in
permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as
Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate
for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property
owner seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC), which acknowledges the property owner's request for such
designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such
designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each
approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an
amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the
adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A
Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable
residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and
Credits or other compensation is granted to the owner, no increase io density or additional uses
unspecified in the Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property
unless the SSA is terminated as provided elsewhere herein.
Policv 1.6.1
Notwithstanding anv provision herein to the contrarY. upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending
Area ("SSA"), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five vears ("Conditional
Period") and shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period mav be
extended for one additional vear at the option of the owner bv providing written notice to the Countv
prior to the expiration of the initial five vear period. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship
Easement related to maintaining the existing propertv conditions, including all management
obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Period. If
at anv time during the Conditional Period anv of the following events occur. then the Conditional
Stewardship Easement shall become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final,
perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with the terms set forth therein:
I. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship
Receiving Area ("SRA"), and the SRA has received all necessarv final and non-appealable
develooment orders. oermits. or other discretionary aoorovals necessary to commence
construction. including subdivision plat and site development plan approval, but not building
permits. If Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to more than one SRA, then the
receint of all necessary governmental final and non-aooealable develooment orders. oermits. or
other discretionarY approvals necessarY to commence construction of anv SRA shall automaticallv
cause the Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easemen!;
2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred anv Stewardship Credits to another person or
entitv, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policv 1.20, the closing has occurred.
31Page
{OG
and the owner has received the consideration due from such sale or transfer. but not expresslv
excludine::
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillarv to the sale or transfer of the underlving
fee title to the land. or
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specific SRA. whether the SRA is
owned or developed bv a separate or related entitv. and the Stewardship Credits are
transferred as required bv the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA
aporoval: or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange for the creation of the Stewardship
Easement Agreement other compensation from local. state. federal or private revenues
(collectivelv. the "Events").
The LDC shall specifv how. assuming a Notice of Termination (as hereafter described) has not
been recorded. the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automaticallv convert to a Permanent
Stewardship Easement upon the earliest to occur of (a) anv of the foregoing Events during the
Conditional Period. or (b) 180 davs after the last dav of the Conditional Period. as and to the
extent extended hereunder. In the event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the
Conditional Period. then the owner of the SSA lands mav within 180 davs after the last dav of the
Conditional Period terminate the Conditional Stewardship Easement bv recording a Notice of
Termination. In addition. if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessarv development order. permit
or other discretionary approval is filed. the owner of the SSA lands mav elect to extend the
Conditional Period until the challenge or appeal is finallv resolved. If the challenge or appeal is
not resolved such that the construction mav commence under terms acceptable to the owner of the
SSA lands. the owner of the SSA lands mav within 180 davs of the final disposition of the
challenge or appeal record a Notice of Termination. Upon the recording of such Notice of
Termination. the Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area
Credit Agreement shall expire and terminate. the Stewardship Credits generated bv the SSA shall
cease to exist. the rights and obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer
constitute an encumbrance on the propertv. and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised
accordinglv. The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a copv of the Notice of Termination to the
Countv.
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA
approvals. but none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period. then the
Notice of Termination shall also provide for tennination of anv SRAs that have been assigned
credits from the SSA. unless the SRA owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from
another source and such Stewardship Credits have been applied to the SRA. In the event that a
Notice of Termination does terminate an SRA. the owner of the SRA lands shall ioin in the Notice
of Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated. all benefits. rights. privileges.
restrictions and obli'gations associated with the SSA shall be null and void. and the land shall
revert to its underlving zoning classification. free and clear of anv encumbrance from the
Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA Credit Agreement. If requested bv the owner of the
SSA lands. Collier County and the other grantees under the Stewardship Easement Agreement
shall provide a written release and termination of easement and credit agreements for recording in
the public records within 15 davs of request from the owner of the SSA lands. Collier County
shall update the overlav map to reflect the termination of anv SSA or SRA.
This policv shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof.
4lPage
'1 Dk.
Public Input:
I. SSA's can be created in a non-contiguous and piece meal fashion, thus assuring no functionality
of wetland land mass. Even though to date that has not been the case, we should consider
language that encourages contiguous SSA's. [Mark Strain)
2. No emphasis is put on trying to avoid fragmentation of natural areas and the maintenance of
corridors. [Judith Hushon]
ECPO Comments: While it is true that individual SSAs can be non-contiguous, the ultimate
implementation of the RLSA creates two large interconnected environmental systems. It is
understood that this will take many years and the voluntary participation of many landowners to
realize. Map "IE" of the RLSA Five-Year Review, Phase I Technical Report clearly
demonstrates that the approved and pending SSAs are forming large contiguous blocks of
protected lands that have been targeted for public acquisition since the 1970s. The RLSA
program desigo has resulted in a predictable pattern of environmental protection, and eventually,
all or nearly all of the FSA and HSA areas are likely to be designated SSA lands.
A review of the RLSA Overlay Map (Phase I - Technical Review, Map I) clearly illustrates that
the FSA, HSA, WRA, and Restoration Zone overlays collectively comprise a vast, interconnected
system of flow ways and associated native habitats. These overlays were created for the
expressed purpose of preventing wetland and habitat fragmentation, and maintaining existing
wildlife corridors. Map IE of the Phase I Technical Review reveals that the approved and
pending SSAs form a contiguous block of protected lands that already incorporate a majority of
FSA and HSA lands.
3. Maintain habitat connectivity/prevent habitat fragmentation with large linkages on a landscape
scale and in association with land uses in the open area to maintain functioning systems and
preserve the wetland to upland interface. Of particular note, are further protection of Camp Keais
Strand and maintaining the habitat linkage in the vicinity of SR 29 and Oil
Well Road. [Defenders of Wildlife)
ECPO Comments: The RLSA stewardship overlays (FSA, HSA, WRA, Restoration Zone, and
Open) do not pre-determine sending and receiving area desigoations, but do influence the
potential location of SSAs and SRAs. In 2002, the sum total of FSA, HSA, and WRA lands
coincided with 91 percent of panther telemetry points collected between 1981 and 2000. A recent
GIS analysis shows that these same overlays now contain 94 percent of all telemetry points
recorded between 1981 and 2007. These data suggest that the overlays very effectively protect the
habitat areas utilized by the Florida panther.
The FWC least cost path analyses suggest that the RLSA program may require refinements in
selected areas to accommodate panther movements between large habitat blocks. These potential
landscape connections are currently being reviewed as part of the RLSA five-year review.
4. SSA approval is not subject to EAC or CCPC review only BCC. SRA approval occurs via EAC,
CCPC and BCC process, as should have been provided for SSA approval [Judith Hushon]
ECPO Comments: The desigoation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property
owner relinquishes private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their property,
5lPage
167
and provides a public benefit by permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture,
without requiring publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an
SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not subj ect to the imposition of conditions and
stipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in
implementing the program. Multiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of
the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an SSA at
the BCC hearing.
The SRA approval process is more involved, as it deals with the establishment of design
guidelines, assessment of infrastructure impacts, and other matters, that warrant the review and
recommendations of the CCPC.
ECPO's experience in implementing the RLSA within the process that now exists has resulted in
a successful program, and does not believe changes are needed to the process. ECPO does not
have recommended revisions at this time. However, this policy may need further review with
additional discussion of SSAs. Also per policy, the RLSA Overlay Map should be updated to
reflect SSAs and Ave Maria SRA.
Staff Comments: With respect to July 15 Committee action, the amendments recommended are
minor to correct the title of each of the SSA Credit Agreements.
Public Discussion on October 28.2008: Tom Greenwood stated that the Assistant County
Attorney would prefer that the language be brief in the RLSA Overlay and more detailed in the
LDC. He stated that, should the Committee wish to include the specificity in the RLSA Overlay
that is included in John Passidomo's language, then the language as submitted to the Committee
is acceptabie. The attached was presented to the Committee for review. Mr. Jones stated that
the two attorneys have agreed to the language. John Passidomo stated that what you see
embodies the consensus of ECPO and the assistant county attorney. Jeff Wright, Assistant
County Attorney, corroborated Mr. Passidomo's statement and the content of the language before
the Committee.
Committee October 28. 2008 Action: Mr. Spagna moved and Mr. Jones seconded to approve
the modification of Policy 1.6 and the new policy language as potential Policy 1.6.1. Upon vote,
the motion carried unanimously.
2. Polices 4.4. 4.5, 4.6. 4.7.1. 4.14. and 4.16 Tom Greenwood reported
that these Policies will be ready for discussion on November 10 and
the Transportation Division will be present for that discussion and he
believed that the differences in language have been resolved. No
action was taken.
3. Continuation of Group 5 Policies (beginning with Policy 5.5)
Policy 5.5
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away
from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and
standards:
I. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to
inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed
61Page
log
71Page
species or protected species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be
conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
guidelines. The County shall notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any
listed species or protected species that may be discovered.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated
listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and
can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how
the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species or protected
species and their habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species
or listed species and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed
development. The most current and completed data and local. state. and federa
guidelines and regulations shall be utilized to prepare the required management
plans. Oj3CR &flaee aRa 'legetatioR j3resefvatieR relj,uiremcRts shall be usea to
establish B"ffcr areas Bet?le"" 'Ililalif.e haBitat areas ORa areas aeffllRatea BY
ImmnR aetivities. Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be
provided to minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and
encourage wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings,
underpasses and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors.
Mitigation for impacting listed species habitat shall be considered in the
management plans. as appropriate.
i. The fellowiRg refcr""ees shall Be lisea, as lIjlj3roj3flate, te j3fel'Hlre the
relj,,,irea managemclll j3laRs:
I. South Flsnaa Multi Sj3eeies Recovery Phm, USFWS, 1999.
2. Habitat M8.flagemeIlt GuiaeliRes for the Bala Eagle iR the Seulheaot
RegieR, USFWS, 1987.
3. Eeelogy aRa Habitat PreteetieIl ]>Ieeas sf GSj3her Terteise (Cej3herus
j3el)'flhemtls) Pej3ulatieRs fe_a eR Laoos Slatea fer Large Seale
Develol'meRt iR Pleriaa, Teeh.>ieal R8J'lsrt ]>10. 1, Fleflaa Came aRd
Fresh '},Tatcr Fish CemmiosisH, 1987.
1. Eeelegy aHa Develel'melll Relatea Hallitat RClJ.I'ircmellls sf the Flenaa
Sernll Jay V.fleleesma eserulesceRs), TcehHieal R8J'lert ]>Is. 8, Florida
Game aRa Fresh Water Fish CsmmisoieH, 1991.
5. Eeolsgy aIla Habitat ProteetisH ]>Ieeas of the Seli!heasteffl ,\meriean
Kestrel (Pales Sl'arverius Pa"l"s) sn Large seale De'ieleflmelll Sites in
Flsriail, ]>IeBj<;ame TeehHieal R8J'lert ]>Ie. 13, Flenaa Game aRa Presh
Water Fish ComrnissieR, 1993.
L it, The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
11. fit, When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence,
such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native
vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for
agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of
other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy.
b.Management plans shall include provisions for minimizing human and wildlife
interactions. Low intensitv land uses (e.g. parks. passive recreation areas. golf
courses) and vegetation preservation requirements. including agriculture. shall
be used to establish buffer areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas
dominated bv human activities. Consideration shall be given to the most
7D;
81Page
current guidelines and regulations on techniques to reduce human wildlife
conflict. The management plans shall also require the dissemination of
information to local residents. businesses and governmental services about the
presence of wildlife. practices that enable responsible coexistence with
wildlife. while minimizing opportunites for negative ineraction. such as
appropriate waste clisposal practices.
c.The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than ten acres.
B. Fer pareel5 eeHlainiRg gepher tertoises (Gepheru5 pelYJ'lhem\ln), prierity shall
Be gi';el1 te preteetiHg the largest mast eeRtigaeus geJ'lher terteise haBitat with
the greatest Hu""'er ef aeti'le B\lrnJ'o'o's, aRa fer pre..iaiRg a eelilleetieH te eff
site aajaeeflt gaphor tertei5e J'lre5erves.
c.HaBitat J'lrenervation fer the Flerida seme jay V\J'lheleeema eeeruleseeR5) shall
eSRfmm te the gaideliRes eefltaiRea iR Teehnieal R"l'srt ~le. 8, Flerida Game
aHd Fresh Water Fish CommiS5ioR, 1991. The reqHirea mnflagemeflt plaR shall
alse pre,-iae fer a maiflteflaRee J'lfBgrnm aaa speeifj aR aJ'lpreJ'lriate fire er
meenaRieal prete eels to maifltaiR the Ratural seruB ee"""\lRity. The pi"" shall
alse eatliRe a pHBlie awareaess pregram te eaHeate resiaoflls abaut the eR sile
preserve aRd the need ta maiRtaiR the sernB ...egetatiaR. These re<jlliremeflts
shall Be eeRsisteRt with the UFWS Sa~tn Flariaa Mlllti Speeie5 Reeevery PIaR,
May 1999, sHbjeet to the J'lfOvisieRs ofpamgr8j3h (3) afthis J'leliey.
d.F ar the bald eagle (HaliaeetuG le>!eaeephal\ln), the required haBitat maRngemeflt
pl""5 snail establish J'lreteetive zeRes arellRa the eagle Rest restrietiRg oertain
activitien. The plaRs snail alsa adarens restriotiRg oertaiR tYJ'le5 ef aetivities
duriRg the Rent seaseR. These reqHiremeflts shall Be eaRsisteflt with the UFWS
SOHth Floriaa M\llti Speeies Reea,..er Plan, May 1999, sHBjeet ta the previsioRs
afJ'laragrapn (3) afthis peliey.
e.Fer the red eeolalaea vo'eedJ'leeker Ipieaiaes Borealis), the requirea habitat
pro!eelieR plan snail elltline measures te aveia mp:erse iffij3aets ta aative
dusters ana te miRimize iffij3aets te faragiRg haBitnt. Where aaverse eff-eets
ean Rot be aveiaea, meaSlffes shall Be tnkeR te miHimize aR site aisturbaRoo
nRd compeRsate ar mitigate f-er impae!s that remnifl. These re<jlliremeats shall
Be oeRsisteflt 'lo'ith the UF\'iS Se>!th Flerida Mlllti Speoies Reoevel)' Pi"", May
1999, sUBjeel te the pre,..i5ieR sf paragr8j3n 3) afthis paliey.
f. lR area5 where the Flerida Blaok Bear (Urslls amerieaR>!s lleriaamw) may Be
J'lreseat, the maflagemeflt plaRs shall re'lHire that garbage Be plaeed ifl Bear
preef eeRtniRers, at efle ar mare eeatrallaeatiaRs. The mallllgement plaR shall
alsa iacfltifj metheas la iRferm leeal resiaentn ef the eeReems rclatea ta
iateFllotieR BetweeR Blael, Beam aRa '*'maRs. MitigatieR fer impaetiRg haBitat
stlitable fer Blaok Bear shall Be ",,,,sidered iR the maRagemeRt plan.
g.For prejeots leeated ill PFierity I er Priority II plIfilher HaBitat areas, the
HlfH13gemeflt J'llaR shall disoeW'age the destruetieR ef lIfidistllr-bea, Rati...e
habitats that are J'lref"ff"a BY the Floriaa paRther (Felis "aReoler eaFYi) BY
direetiRg iRteasive l""a IIses te eUffeatly disl1ffiled areas. Preferfed habitats
iRelllde piRe flat'lo'eeBs and hara.....eea hammeeks. In t\lm, thene arellS shall Be
buffcrea fiam the mast inteRse lana lines ef the prejeot BY HsiRg lew iflteanity
lana uses (e.g., J'larlm, ~assi"e reereatieRal areas, golf ee>!rses). Gela eeurses
withiR the RHFlII LaRBs ,'\rea shall Be aesigaed aHa fllfllIagea usiRg staHaaras
f-eIlRa 'o'o'ithiR tRis Overlay. The m""agemeflt plaRs sRall identify aJ'lJ'lrepriate
lighting eORtrolG far these J'lermittea IIses aRa shall alsa aaaress the eppertl!nity
;/0
Ie lliilize preseRBsa BlH'niRg te maiRtaiR fire aa!lfltea preservea vegetatieR
comnmmtieo aRd previae Brewse fer '...-hite tailea .leer. Thoso requifemeRts
shall Be eensisteRt with the UFWS SOHlh Flerida 1hilti Species Recover PlaR,
May 1999, DHbjecl te the pre'lioiens ofpaFagr!lflh (3) efthis pelicy. The Multi
Species Reco'/ery PlaR (1999) shall eenotilute miniffillm ';lildlife 13reteetioR
stanaaras fer the RLS.'\O.
liThe MllflllgemeRt PI""s shall conlaiH a meHiloRHg program fer developmeRts
greater IhaR I 9 aeres.
3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and
utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property cORlaiHiRg utilized bv
listed species. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case
basis, may change strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife
protection policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. However. no reduction of the wildlife protection policies of
Policv 5.5will be considered as these shall constitute minimum standards for
wildlife protection.
Public Discussion on October 28, 2008: Mr. Woljley stated that he did not feel that bald eagles
should be called out specifically, but that other listed species should be included as well in
paragraph I of Policy 5.5. Elizabeth Fleming agreed that other listed species should be cited so
that the wording is more inclusive. Brad Cornell and Nancy Payton both agreed with Mr.
Wolfley and Ms. Fleming.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on lJarallralJh 1 of Policv 5.5: Mr. Eidson moved and
Brad Cornell seconded to accept the language amendments for paragraph I of Policy 5.5 as
shown above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Committee Action on October 28.2008 on lJarallralJh 2 of Policv 5.5. subsection a: Mr. Eidson
moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy
5.5 through paragraph a as shown above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on lJarallralJh 2 of Policv 5.5. subsection b: Mr. Cornell
moved and Gary Eidson seconded to accept the language amendments for paragraph 2 of Policy
5.5 through paragraph b as shown above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on lJarallralJh 2 ol'Policv 5.5. subsection b: Mr. Eidson
moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to move the last sentence regarding mitigation to the last
sentence of paragraph 2.2a of Policy 5.5. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on lJarallralJh 2 of Policv 5.5. subsection c: Mr. Cornell
moved and David Woljley seconded to approve this language as shown. Upon vote, the motion
carried unanimously.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on deletion of existinll lJarallralJhs 2b throullh 2h of
Policv 5.5: Mr. McDaniel moved and Gary Eidson seconded to delete this existing language.
Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
9lPage
7 II
Committee Action on October 28. 2008 on amendinll the lanllualle of varallravh lof Policv 5.5:
Gary Eidson moved and Tom Jones seconded to delete this existing language. Upon vote, the
motion 'carried unanimously.
Policy S.1i locw policyl
}..u'l aevelepmeflt eR laRa" Ret l'JartieiflatiR~ in the RLS}. Frecram ane/er Ret iReluaea iR aR','
RL8A Pre cram flartieiflafll"' Haeitat CeRservatieR FIBR. CeRaervatioR }.crecIRefll er other feecml
equi'laleftt lHlecr the EReaneerea Saceie" }.et iR the RL8,,\ are re€luiFOEI te fllirslie al3preaRate
permittiR~ BREI mitieutieR tJu-eu~h the FloriEla Fish aREI 'NilEllife CeRoelTatioR CommiSGioR aREI
US Fi"h aREI WilEllife 8crviee. }Ie eeHfllv Ele"lelefllReHt allthonzatioR ohall ee isoueEl uBlil a
USF',l/S ES,^. SeetioR 7 or 10 arnhorizatieR is ioslicEl er EleemeElulHleeeasar,' for the flrolloscEl
Elevelol"mefll. LaflElowRem are cReoHfa~eEl te Ilarticiflate iR ioifll effeFls te eo!aelioh RLS,^. "::iEle
wilEllif-e managemefllllre~rams.
Public Input: none
Staff comments: none
Committee action on October 28. 2008: The Committee consensus was that a proposed Policy
5.6 {shown above] was not necessary.
Policy 5.6
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier
County shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting
direct impacts within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a
wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as
follows:
I. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the
Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as
FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting
the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA's as described in Policy
3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site
clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements
addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in
those areas. 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 the South Florida Water Management
District.
a. 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:
1. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland
functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this
policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and
5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of this
Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used
10 I P age
7/2-
lllPage
to determine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required
by Policy 5.3.
n. Wetlands and immediate adiacent upland buffers required bv regulatorv
agencies that are utilized by listed species, or serving as corridors for the
movement of listed species, shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway
functions through the project shall be maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table draw downs or
di versions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of preserved wetlands on
or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding
wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations
and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be
designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis
of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities may be utilized to
meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation requirements of this
Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review,
applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water
Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described
in Technical Publication Reg-OOI, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999,
or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C.
Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP
scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall
review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall
use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning
wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (I)
of this policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate
buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated
upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in
conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by
50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are
allows ed. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and
expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defIDed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions
and are allowed within the buffer:
(I) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
7 )3
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with
suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net
loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
1. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of
the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the
impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative
communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the
land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive
exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic
plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal
agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities.
lV. Exotics removal or maintenance mav be considered acceptable mitigation for the
loss of wetlands or listed species habitat if those lands if those lands are placed
under a perpetual conservation easement with perpetual maintenance
requirements.
-w y. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this
policy and SFWMD standards. If agency permits have not provided mitigation
consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that
of the jurisdictional agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted
as separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (POO), these areas
shall also be depicted on the POO Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free
from trash and debris and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited
to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and shall not include any other activities that are
detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water conservation, erosion control or fish
and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraged to consider participating in anv programs that provide
incentives, funding or other assistance in facilitating wetland and habitat restoration on
private lands including, but not limited to, federal farm bill agricultural conservation
programs, private or public grants, tax incentives, easements, and fee or less than fee sale to
conservation programs.
Public Input:
I. The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not include an analysis
of what amount of non-jurisdictional lands could actually be permitted. This produced a false
sense of urgency to protect enviromnentally sensitive land that in reality may never have been
allowed to be improved. Even as 5 or 10 acre home sites, the ability to infringe upon wetlands is
limited. [Mark Strain]
Staff Comments: minor corrections [Comprehensive Plauning]
Currently there are no buffer requirements to FSAs, HSAs or WRAs if the project is going through base-
line standards, besides the standard 25' for wetlands. Recommend some type of buffer -commercial
excavation has no minimum setback to an FSAlHSA. Policy 5.6 [Environmeutal Staff]
12 I P age
7JLj-
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: Bill McDaniel moved and Gary Eidson seconded to accept the
proposed new language in Policy 5.6, section 3, subsection f iv. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-1 with
Mr. Cornell voting in the minority.
Public discussion rerzardinrz lanrzuarze in Policv 5.6. section 3. subsection (iv: Mr. Cornell suggested
that exotic removal should not be regarded as mitigation. Mr. Priddy supported the mitigation proposal
for exotic removal. Christian Spilker supported the idea but needed clarification on "exotic removal or
maintenance". Nancy Payton stated that she also had a problem with that wording. Dane Scofield
proposed "ongoing control". Elizabeth Fleming suggested removal of that subpart. Tim Durham stated
that SFWMD will specifY the expected minimal level of control.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: Gary Eidson moved and David Woljley seconded to add
"SFWMD standard" to the language in existing subsection 3f iv of Policy 5.6 and renumber subsection
3fiv to 3fv. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: Gary Eidson moved and David Woljley seconded to leave the
language in existing subsection 3g of Policy 5.6 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Committee Action on October 28. 2008: Brad Cornel moved and Tom Jones seconded to add Section 4
to Policy 5.6, without the last sentence. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policv 5.7
Anv development on lands not participating in the RLS program shall be compatible with surrounding
land uses. Outdoor lighting shall be reasonablv managed to protect the nighttime environment. conserve
energy, and enhance safetv and securitv.
Public input: Dane Scofield asked for someone to defme a smoke easement. Chistian Spilker stated that
he is concerned about smoke easements and it gives him pause. Nancy Payton suggested eliminating the
last sentence and that can be addressed in the LDC. Brad Cornell stated that he had no opposition to
eliminating the last sentence. Russ Priddy stated that he would like to see the entire Policy deleted.
David Woljley stated that lighting is almost always an issue when land use intensity is proposed to
increase.
Staff comments:
Committee Action taken on October 28. 2008: Mr. Cornell moved and Gary Eidson seconded to add
new Policy 5.7 as outlined above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously, 8-1 with David Woljley
voting in the minority.
Chairman Hamel asked when the Committee should review the remaining issues that may require
additional policies. The Committee felt that when the draft report is in review would be a good time to
review these issues.
Elizabeth Fleming stated that she felt that new Policy 5.5 2b should be put in Group 3 Policies. Tom
Jones stated that it may better be placed in Group 4 Policies related to SRAs. Anita Jenkins stated that
the language in the proposed Policy 5.5 2b is already in the LDC for SSAs, but could be put in the LDC
for SRAs as well. She stated that Policy 5.5 2b would better fit in Group 4 Policies. Ron Hamel
requested staff to provide a review of this issue.
13IPage
71 :;
VII. New Business
A. Discussion of Naples Cultural Landscape proposal for Policy language in the RLSA
Overlay. Noah Standridge stated that the distributed Policies 4.4 and 5.7 do not have consensus
yet by the stakeholders and asked that this item be placed on the November 10 agenda.
B. Group 4, Policy 4.1. Tammie Nemecek stated that she would like to submit some proposed
Policy language related to economic development for discussion at the November 10 meeting.
VIII, Public Comments.
IX. Next Meeting.
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on Monday, November 10, 2008, in Rooms 609/610
of the CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, in Naples, Fl. from 9:00 A.M.~. 12:00A.M.
X. Adjournment
Mr. McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Eidson with the motion approved
unanimously with adjournment at l2:02PM.
/.,
Rural Lanis Stewa
'ew Committee
These minutes approved by the Co~ttee on //-/t>_OY , as presented X
amended
or as
14 I P age
1 Jb
Present Technical Review.. Present RLSAO Recommendations..Phase 2 Report
Phase I Report to: to:
Current Schedule
EAC, March 6, 2008 EAC.....November 12, 2008
CCPC, May 1, 2008 [9:00am in BCC meeting Room]
BCC, May 27, 2008 CCPC...December 1, 2008
DCA, June 23, 2008 [8:30am in BCC meeting Room]
BCC......January 29, 2009
[1:00pm in BCC meeting
Room]
To DCA..February 27, 2009
NOTE: The following, as directed by the Committee on October 14, 2008, is for
Committee discussion purposes during the October 21, 2008 meeting.
DRAFT REVISED PHASE 2 REPORT SCHEDULE FOLLOWING THE
APPROVED PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN [PMP]
Caveats associated with the Committee's Phase 2 Report possible timing under the
approved PMP [CDES and County Manager sign off]
The timing on the release of the Phase 2 Report to the EAC, CCPC, and BCC is primarily
dependent upon:
I. The timing of the Committee completion of the RLSAO Phase 2 Reoort; and
2. Whether the Committee wishes to have a full data and analvsis section io the Phase 2
Report [required for a GMP amendment]. Staff has previously stated, in response to
Committee actions to proposed amendments to Policies 2.1 and 2.2 that there is not
sufficient staff at this time to do the data and analysis to support such amendments
and, for that matter, other proposed amendments to the RLSAO.
Accordingly, the following DRAFT schedule is based upon Committee wrap up of the Phase 2
Report not later than November 25, 2008. IF the Committee wraps up the Phase 2 Report later
than November 25, then this schedule MAY need to be revised.
October 21, 2008.......Committee completion of Policies 1.6, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7.1, and 4.14 and
remaioing Group 5 Policies
October 28, 2008.. .....Committee review of Policies yet to be proposed by Naples Cultural
Landscape and further direction to staff from the Committee
November 25, 2008... .Committee review of draft Phase 2 Report and wrap up.
************************************************************************
February 4, 2009.. ....EAC review of Phase 2 Report February 4 is the EAC regular
monthly meeting date and the date, time and place will need to be
confirmed with the EAC]
March 16/17 CCPC review of Phase 2 Report. These dates are open and
reserved for the BCC meeting room, but will need to be
confirmed with the CCPC as dates suitable to the CCPC.
April 7 and/or 8, 2009.. .BCC review of Phase 2 Report. These dates are open and
reserved for the BCC meeting room have been reserved.
However, confirmation ofBCC availability will have to be made.
lJ7
I
GMP AMENDMENTS....POSSIBLE SCHEDULE
NOTE: Very preliminarv schedule and subiect to revisions. The following, as
directed by the Committee on October 14, 2008, is for Committee discussion purposes
during the October 21, 2008 meeting. There are manv more timing uncertainties
regarding GMP amendment than Phase 2 Report presentation and direction for the
following reasons:
I. Annual Cycle GMP Amendments Docal timing determinationl. BCC
Resolution No. 97-431 provides for one GMP cycle per year unless the BCC
authorizes a second GMP cycle which is also the limitation [2 per/year] per
Florida Statutes. Thus, there are two local options on timing for the GMP
amendments for the BCC to consider as follows:
A. The Bee could authorize the inclusion of the RLSAO GMP amendments
into the current annual 2009 cycle [submittal deadline is April 25, 2009.]
This could be done by the Bee during its tentative April 7 or 8 review of
the Phase 2 Report.
B. The BCe could authorize, due to the enormity of the RLSAO GMP
amendments and the special public interest shown in these possible
amendments, a second special GMP amendment cycle and then the
RLSAO GMP amendment application could be filed any time after April
25, 2009.
2. Timing of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process r external tJmmJ]:
determination per attached from Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.
Following the local transmittal hearings [CCPC and BCC], then the timing
and procedures would follow per the attached "Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Process" provided for in Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.
3. Timing of Transmittal Hearings and Adoption Hearings. Comprehensive
Planning Department's current estimate of 2009 cycle GMP amendments is to
have transmittal hearings in summer or fall, 2010. No dates have been set as
the 2007/2008 cycle hearings have not been set and it is unknown how many
applications will be submitted for the 2009 cycle. Transmittal hearings and
adoption hearings are held in the time set forth in the attachment. At this time
it is estimated that RLSAO amendments could become effective some time
during the last half of 2011. This timing is felt to be aggressive and is
dependent upon compliance with all local policies, resolutions, ordinances
and State Statutes.
,
7/cj
2
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
S,,'cllul' 1633184. F'ullcJu Slulu!e,
Proposed Phase
Lccal gO\'E.'fF'ment tran..miN three Mpif.ll;. of
the plEin amendmert to thE- DepartJnent of
Community Affairs (DC,;) andOl1e copy to
. ,
re'llew ageooes. (l.=lllgawlTlmHf/;nlty~
rnoowJttransm/ttal).
"Conwleu')
lOcal govemmen: and agencies nctified
$ubmitlol i3 .O)mplcll;lo"
~1t1lJ/lfII.oelv.>rl/Jtlgdilysor/VC9IpIJ
Re\lie,^, 1:lc9oociM ~nd co'J'lmcmts to DCA.
:wmWr3lldl)Sofroo::eljtdronljlb1,,~,
Local government requests
review.
RPC/Affected penOl"l request
review.
Rt'lllr!!>t
(0 ,"f'ViI'W"
I-<:eglonal Planning COunCIl ;:tiPL:J1
Affected porn.':m sends DCA reque-st to
review. (MJ$fIPf'e(:fffiloo\\1h1I'tJOda-YSil~
fr.jfWll/(taIJ
"!nC:I'mptete"
"l\(lft'pU;!SrUIN!YiL'lt'"
. 'lI,"'''' ~~~~~-.."
____ decison to revievv'. ,'tMllin35d8ys ______
_________""""""00""'"" _________
_u_ -------11--- ______ _ _______ ___ _ __~"''''''~--- _________
Ado ted Phase
,
I
I
,-oeal govErnment adopts plan
amendment:s ~th etfectrle delte. (>>lllliu6(l
oia)'S&l'fa-(flwipl,JfORC(Jl'wilhin12(lctlysrorB~
iYlRbawcfa'Uoootllolll)
L{l(;al gO'ilernment foubnits three
copi$l of adopte-d plan amendmentto
DCA: on: copy to review agencies, l
(l1t:/1ti1'l1Qwror/iing18ys&nere'op;jon;
local government and
agencies nolifie::J sllbmittal
IS "incomplete,"
(W'llill~_'IlGl'~JI'SM
fm9ip/J
1 RElviewa9~ncia9 indude:
appropriate Regional Planning
CoullCil and VIJa:er Management
Distfll.'!, Depilftrrrerll of
Tnlnsportation, Departmel'1t of
Environmental Frotection,
Department of Slate: the appropriate
count~ (rnunioipElI plan smendmehb
only); the FIe,rida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and the
Department of Agriculture and
Cons.um~r SiJrvicqs (county plan
amendments only); and the
Department of Education (public
educ;ational faciities element only).
~.jJbpfed AmenJmt!tlll~ith Objl'dUms or Chawge.!" "Fnc},anf;l'd .,1tnJ!ndml!lI! rlO! lWviell'ed or .Pilh no Objtdi4lts"
..-----DcA i'SU~
~otioe oflntent(NOI1_' (WIIf1I11.f$
d!rjoSofrewlptofa(X}rr.pkttv lJdopkJd'--
--t"'1'l~""''lrim.om) ~
~omp(iQnct'''
;'In"
DCArequest8 hearing,
OOAH, (DM8follaf.4dnWistlll/Jwl
1WMItIQs.Dfw.\arfmmltpfM;lfl9U1>-
lIlelllSeIIIICfM.)
If chal enged. or
klUndnotin
complianCl!
ne:;!otiation rT;ey
leadtoa
compliance-
~rElGfllElntar1d
remedialplen
"mendll'lent
pureuantto
s.163.3164(16),
FS
AdrninisLr<Otiv~ Pwce.!diBg
pursuant to 5. 12057, F S
DCA or AdmiristHltion
Com mission Final Order
t
I=ttective Date
Q'I<,stial.'l. {{I/J H{{I'Erl},<<nk.'l. Bure,'TtI ifSt"te P/mllll1IZ.
iJepartllW111 ofConllnlmity !l1fairs al ("50)\122./767
mratr: my~jb(l!Iks(fjMcn.SI:ue,J1,u~
71 r
;'fn"
'In CilmpliffnCt"
AffoctEd Party has 21 days
to challenge_
If ch<iJle~ed, lef~r 10
DCAH Adrninistr'iltive
Proceedini;) pJfSUant to $,
120.57, FS
UpclOfed Apl1l2002
.. DCA does rtOt review
fur cc-mpiience adopted
slllallscale
amerdments. L:)cei
Qovernments are
required to submit one
COpy of !:he adO:1tea
smallliClUe amendment
to DCA and ttJe RP::;
, NOI Will be published
30 deys after receipt of
~mi=liance agreement
amerdment
"local government
Ctln1i1msthatthe-
adapted amendment is
LJnchang~ "from the
proposed amendment,
wcs not reviewed and
no objectlollS were
raised 17)' an affected
party or the Department
Wi,."Mille,.
N~rtil'.
~~
New Directions In Pfanning, D8sign & EnglneerinO
TO:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Collier County RLSA Review Committee
Tom Greenwood
AI Reynolds
October 22, 2008
Proposed Schedule
At the Collier County RLSA Review Committee on October 14, there was a
discussion about the schedule for completion of the Committee's work and the
process that will follow, leading to transmittal and adoption of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) Amendment necessary to implement the Committee's
recommended policy changes. I proposed an alternative approach to the
published schedule that would forward the RLSA Review Committee's Report
and Recommendations directly to the BCC for their review and action to initiate a
special GMP Amendment cycle to formally review, transmit and adopt the
changes. The advantages to this proposai are several. First, there will be a
significant savings of staff time and cost, as duplicative advisory board meetings
will be eliminated. In addition, as the County Staff intends to rely upon
Wilson Miller to help complete the data and anaiysis to support a GMP
Amendment, on behalf of our clients we need assurance that the County intends
to initiate the amendment process. This approach will also give clearer direction
and context regarding the role of the Advisory Boards in their review of the
proposed changes.
Based on the latest staff analysis, the Committee will wrap up the Phase 2
Report no later than November 25, 2008. The following would be a
recommended schedule thereafter:
January 13. 2009: Presentation of the Committee Report to the Board of
County Commissioners and action by the BCC to initiate a special Growth
Management Plan Amendment Cycle for the RLSA Plan Amendment.
February 4. 2009: EAC review of the RLSA Plan Amendment
March 5. 2009: CCPC review of the RLSA Plan Amendment
April 7. 2009: BCC review of the RLSA Plan Amendment and action to transmit
the Amendment to DCA.
The timing of the process after transmittal will depend on the response from the
DCA regarding the completeness of the GMP Amendment and any Objections
Recommendations or Comments. Assuming a typical ORC Report and response
from the County, I would anticipate adoption hearings in the fall of 2009.
72D
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Dear Chairman Hamel and Committee Members:
For the past 4 \oS years, I have been a member of the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council (CCEAC); the contents of this letter express my individual opinion
only. At the October 14th meeting of the Rural Lands Stewardship (RLSA) Review
Committee, the idea was put forth by some members that initial Phase 2
recommendations be brought directly to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
without benefit of review by the CCEAC and the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC). This change is to be further discussed at the RLSA Review Committee on
October 28th I am strongly opposed to this idea for the following reasons:
I. What's the rush? Given the real estate market in Collier County, with
massive inventory, there is no pressing economic reason to sidestep the
review process already in place. We are talking about the next twenty years
in eastern Collier County, and we need to be deliberate and thoughtful with
adequate public input every step of the way. And, the east of951
infrastructure study was at an entirely different scale than the RLSA - it is
not comparable.
2. This would circumvent the established process already in place. The RLSA
Review Committee came to the CCEAC and the CCPC with the results of
their Phase I Technical Review. We were told, at that time, that you would
return with Phase 2 recommendations; that is in the existing Project
Management Plan.
3. The eeEA C and cepe were established for this very purpose. We would
like the opportunity to carefully review initial Phase 2 recommendations
because our proven expertise would make the final work product of the
Review Committee a better document for presentation to the BCC.
The RLSA Review Committee members articulated a rationale that Phase 2
recommendations would need to be translated into Growth Management Plan
amendments, and would come to CCEAC and CCPC review in that form after receiving
"guidance" from the BCC. That may be true, but from my 4 \oS years on the CCEAC it is
much better to review a plan in its comprehensive, whole, organic form rather than as a
series of disconnected paragraphs, couched in the legal terminology of growth
management plan amendments.
I hope the RLSA Review Committee will follow its original Project Management Plan.
That's what the public expects, and that's what we all deserve.
Sincerely yours,
Nicholas G. Penniman IV
/2-{
GreenwoodThomas
%t.-i c/Es j.&-:;.. I
I
From:
>ent:
(0:
Subject:
Attachments:
ashton _ h
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:52 PM
'John M. Passidomo'; GreenwoodThomas
FW: SSA Reverter Policy Proposal
20081014084135437.pdf
John and Tom,
For Tuesday, we will need to clarify under Section 2: What is an unrelated entity? Different officers
and directors? Please clarify what is intended.
Also, I'd prefer to have some language in the first full paragraph after Section 3 to provide that: After 5
years of the establishment of the SSA, or anyone year extension of the conditional period of the
conditional stewardship easement, the conditional stewardship easement shall become permanent
unless the owner records a notice of termination.
Please also make sure that the RLSA committee understands that I continue to recommend that the
GMP language I previously provided, but if they desire to place the details in the GMP amendment,
that I am recommending the above changes.
Thanks
'-teidi Ashton-Cicko
.-leidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Phone (239) 252-2939
Fax (239) 252-6300
From: John M. Passidomo [mailto:jmpassidomo@napleslaw,comJ
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 20088:58 AM
To: ashton_h
Subject: SSA Reverter Policy Proposal
The attached draft picks up the one year extension option the Committee discussed last Thursday and clarifies the
meaning of "irrevocably" sold in accordance with your request.
John M. Passidomo
Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer
For the Firm
Cheffy Passidomo Wilson & Johnson, LLP
821 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 201
Naples, Florida 34102
Telephone: 239-261-9300
Oirect dial: 239-436-1529
ax: 239-261-0884
Imoassidomot1ilnaoleslaw.com
J2-.Z-
(VII) Policy 1.6
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within RLSA that are to be
kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be
identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within
the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a
SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of
a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which
acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns
Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier
County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved
SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an
amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated
into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it
periodically occurs. A Stewardship Agreement shall be developed that identifies those
allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is
designated as a SSA and Credits or other cOlHjlensation is are granted to the owner, no
increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Agreement shall
be allowed on such property, unless the SSA and Stewardship Agreement are
terminated. The SSA may be terminated by the owner for a period OfUD to five years
after approval of the SSA if the Stewardship Credits have been assigned to an
aj:lProved Sending Receiving Area rSRA). and the SRA has not received fmal
development orders or Federal. State and local permits necessary to Commence
construction excluding plat approval, site development plan approval and building
permit approval. The SSA shall not be terminated if owner has sold the Stewardship
Credits or if owner has received compensation in exchange for the credits.
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES
6' 0 ,-,rc...=-.' lle-i&.. l}[;'hinrJ
/o-7-0cf -To
c:e,,.,., ~ --rh=-E:....-
(VII) Policy 1.7
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific
methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet),
incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for
SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include
but not be limited to the following: (I) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the
Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall
also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier
County, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized
statewide land trust, which mav be modified or terminated if the SSA and Stewardship
Agreement are terminated; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Agreement will
identifY the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party
responsible for such measures.
/2-3
l2e.c '<2') . LJ'...(,:J cr.9
/0 - I c,-of
SSA REVERTER POLICY PROPOSAL
.rmI!Q""~d,,r~)C,>iQ!UQJ,'-;;.'-~)JJ'llj;\c'<if.,tQlIcY,).,.9;
Once land is designated as a SSA, no increase in density or additional lIses unspecitlcd in the Stewardship
Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such properly unless the SSA is terminated as orovided
elsewhere herein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------
ErQP~Q.~Q_'11~~7PJQ~.i$jQ_l1:
Notwithstanding any provision herem to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending Area
("SSA"), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a term of five years ("Conditional Period") and
shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. The Conditional Period may be extended for one
additional year at the option of the OWner by providing written notice to the County prior to the expiration of
the initial five year period. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship Easement related to maintaining
the existing property conditions, incJudlllg allmanagen1ent obligations of the owner of the SSA lands, shall be
in full force throughout the Conditional Period, If at any time during the Conditional Period any of the
following events OCCllr, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall become a Pem1anent Stewardship
Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non-revocable in accordance with the temlS set forth therein:
1. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving
Area ("SRA"), and the SRA hns received alJ necessary governmental final and non-appealable
development orders, penmts, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence construction,
incJuding subdivision plat and site development plan approval, but not building permits. If
Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned 10 mOTe than one SRA, then the receipt of all
necessary govemmental final and 110lHlppcalable development orders, pelmit's, or other discretionary
approvals necessalY to commence constmctioll of any 8RA shall automatically cause the Conditional
Stewardship Easement to become a Permanent Stewardship Easement;
2. The owner of the SSA lands has sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another person or
entity, including a Stewardsbip Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, the closing has occurred, and
the owner has received the consideration due flam such sale or transfer, but expressly excluding:
(a) a sale or transfer of the Stewardship Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the underlying
tee title to the land, 01'
(b) instances where a landowner establishes an SSA for a specHic SRA, whether the SRA is
owned or developed by a separate or related entity, and the Stewardship Credits are
transfCITed as required by the Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code for SRA
approval; or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received in exchange if']f the creation of the Stewardship Easement
Agreement other compensation from local, state, federal or private revenues (collectively, the
"Events").
The LDe shall specify how, assuming a Notice of TerminatIOn (as hereafter described) has not already been
recorded, the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall automatically convert to a Penn~nent Stewardship
Easement upon the earliest to Occur of (n) any of the foregoing Events during the Conditional Period, or (b)
180 days after the last day of the Conditional Period, as and to the extent extended hereunder. In the event that
none of the foregoing Events has OCCUlTed during the Conditional Period, then the owner of the SSA lands may
within 180 days after lhc last day of the Conditional Period temlillate the Conditional Stewardship Easement
by recording a Notice of Tennination. In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development
order, pennit or other discretionary approval is filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the
Conditional Period until the challenge or <ippeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved
slIch that the construction may commence under terms acceptable to the owner oflhe SSA lands, the owner of
the SSA lands may within 180 days of the final disposition of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of
7 21.}-
Termination, Upon the recording of such Notice of Termination, the Stewardship Easement Agreement and
con'esponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreenlenl shall expire and temlinate, the Stewardship
Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the rights and obligations set forth in the Stewardship
Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be
revised accordingly, The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a copy of the Notice of Termination to the
County,
In the event that the Stewardship Credi(s from an SSA have been used to obtain one or more SRA approvals,
but none of the foregoing events has OCCUlTed dllring lhe Conditional Period, then the Notice of Tennination
shall also provide for termination of any SRAs that have been assigned credits 6'0111 the SSA, unless the SRA
owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and snch Stewardship Credits have
been applied to the SRA. In the event that a Notice of Tennination does terminate an SRA, the owner of the
SRA lands shall join in the Notice of Termination.
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is terminated, all benefits, rights, privileges, restrictions
and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall revert to its underlying
zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA
Credit Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other grantees under the
Stewardship Easement Agreernent shall provide a written release and tennination of easement and credit
agreements for recording in the public records within] 5 days of request from the owner of the SSA lands.
Collier County shall update the overlay map to renect the termination of any SSA or SRA.
This policy shall be implemented in the LDe within 12 months atter adoption hereof,
6434-1 J239 # 192 -- f{.eversion 13
72-5
Proposed Amendment to the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay to promote and
safeguard cultural heritage or archaeological resources
Policy 4.22
To further the principles of rural sustainability. where appropriate and allowed by the
State of Florida Division of Historic Resources, historic or archaeological resources in
the RLSA shall be promoted and conserved in SRAs and along transportation corridors.
These resources will assist in maintaining the rural character of the RLSA and integrate
them into efforts to promote and interpret the unique culture and history of Collier
County.
Policy 5.7
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the RLSA program. where appropriate
and allowed by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources, historic or
archaeological resources in developed areas and along transportation corridors shall be
promoted and conserved. These resources will assist in maintaining the rural character of
the RLSA and integrate them into efforts to promote and interpret the unique culture and
history of Collier County.
"
7'2.&
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: OCTOBER 28. 2008
Ron Hamel, Chair
MEMBERS (PLEASE INfTlAL)
y/
-~
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
/
..-/
--
~
eX~
1
/'
~-
V
1
7
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name
E-mail/ Affiliation
Phone #
(" l/ if-b bLL
7~ '-( - 51 I 9
'-'I l(~l/D
P -1-/./
(I t/,11 P a.,..f;1!
GC/-)/\~
?1o
o
72-7
b~2\ \j~~~c
~!A4 ;J"",)<J 5:,"i<.i, ({)
c)ti1'7v %:-50 (b OtV\ 0 C?cuJ
~rr7 5Jvr~al'Y1 w:/~I1,)/f;(
-,*~\;}":"LY ~.s-
~, c .--,
{'~r,~)\-\'^-'^ _) (' <-\,'-,,-y L
(. (__,,\.<?.( (;;~_,\:~~O(\:)(<'~~ --'
t;llca.Ge-~ R-€ VVlI'YJ
!1z-kP1cJ~f/5 "e WI/dIrk
/L.-t
:2Jo \ - \.::) ~()()
Ie .- "'-c/- if
:h:1 ) ~ I
y 3(; -/S-<2cr
~'f~.qo'fl,J
Jl,l-L1'-J5S
~2+ / ,?z 5- 3m-~
25
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES) Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; October 14, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell [arrived at I 1:00am]
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
Bill McDaniel
Dave Wolfley
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek [left meeting at II :OOam]
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Thomas Greenwood of the Comprehensive Planning Department
and Laura Roys of the Engineering and Environmental Services Department as well as approximately 15
members of the public.
I. CalI Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05AM by Chairman Ron Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of 12 members were present, with Floyd
Crews, Jim Howard, and Fred N. Thomas, Jr. having excused absences and Brad Cornell was
expected to arrive later due to a conflict with the BCC meeting.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Mr. David Farmer.
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minntes ofthe October 7, 2008 Meeting
McDaniel moved and seconded by Mr. Farmer to approve the minutes as distributed.
Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Greenwood to brief the Committee on the Committee logistics with respect to
moving forward with the Phase 2 Report and to the now scheduled November 12 EAC presentation,
December I CCPC presentation and the January 29, 2009 BCC presentation. Mr. Greenwood
referred to the attached schedule as discussed on October 7th and stated the following:
. The Committee charge. by Resolution No. 2007-305A with respect to the Phase 2 Report, is
to "Review the RLSA Overlay and make recommendations to increase the effectiveness
of the Overlay".
IIPage
707
. The timing in the completion of the RLSA Overlav by the Committee and the lack of data
and analysis to completely support the proposed changes [staff made this statement in
response to Committee proposed changes to Policies 2.1 and 2.2] has made impractical the
planned Phase 2 Report presentation to the EAC during its November meeting, to the CCPC
on December I, and to the BCC on January 29,2009.
. Following the existing Proiect Management Plan would likely place the presentations to the
EAC in either January or February, the CCPC in March, and the BCC in April.
Mr. Farmer asked what data and analysis is required. Mr. Greenwood stated that the statutes would
require an analysis of the impacts, including upon public facilities and services, that would occur
through the proposed RLSAO amendments. Bill McDaniel stated that it would be prudent to allow
enough time to include the work being considered by Naples Cultural Landscape and to set aside
enough time so that the Committee is not rushed and a good product is produced as the Committee
work will be scrutinized heavily, both locally and on the state level. Tom Jones wondered why the
Committee's Phase 2 Report could not go directly to the Board of County Commissioners, receive
some direction from the BCC regarding possible RLSAO amendments and then go through the EAC,
CCPC and BCC with transmittal and adoption hearings [as opposed to going to each of the bodies
three times]. Al Reynolds stated that the Committee has done well to date and would like to see a
comprehensive set of recommendations come from the Committee. He stated that he would be willing
to provide an expedited schedule to the Committee for it to consider. Gary Eidson stated that he
would be most disappointed if there would be a lack of interest in putting the Committee
recommendations into the GMP and LDC. Mr, Farmer asked why the Phase 2 Report could not go
directly to the BCC in a manner similar 10 the East of CR 951 Infrastructure Horizon Study
presentation to the BCC on September 29. Tom Jones stated that he would like to see two schedules
[one following the Project Management Plan and one providing a more expedited schedule to cause
the Committee recommendations to go to the BCC as early as possible].
Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to ask staff to prepare a revised schedule based upon
the current Project Management Plan and the expected delay in getting the Phase 2 Report for review.
Ms. Nemecek asked that the schedule include the tentative dates ofRLSAO amendment hearings, etc.
Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously. The Committee also accepted Mr. Reynolds' offer to
develop a schedule for the expediting of the Phase 2 Report.
V. Presentations.
A. Dr. Paul Van Buskirk: Briefing on East of Collier County CR 951 Infrastructure and
Services Horizon Studv. Dr. Van Buskirk provided an approximate I hour power point
presentation of the Study's findings similar to that provided to the BCC on September 29th Mr.
Woljley stated that he felt that the numbers may be accurate, particularly if they are updated
annually, but that the locations of many of the public facilities and private developments cannot be
predetermined well in advance. Mr. McDaniel asked if Dr. Van Buskirk could share with the
Committee the map prepared showing possible SRA locations. Dr. Van Buskirk stated that the
map could be made available to the Committee. Mr. Jones cautioned that a person viewing this
map should know what they are dealing with in such maps as they should not be construed as
future land uses and that the model will have to be regularly updated to stay useful. Bill McDaniel
stated that the Growth Model can be updated and that the model is on the internet and those staff
personnel able to update it have been given permissions to do such. Cormac Giblin stated that the
model is excellent and questioned which set of population projections will be used by Collier
County for the RLSA...the 2005 projections of 392,000 or the new projections of about 210,000
developed through the East of 951 Study and the Committee. Mike Bosi stated that the County will
need to accept one of the two alternative projections and that the use of the 2035 BEBR projections
is problematic in that their projections are pretty much global for the County and they do not break
down projections to a smaller geography such as the RLSA. Laurie McDonald asked how the
2JPagc
'73b
model accounts for demographics, natural resource limitations such as potable water, etc. Dr. Van
Buskirk stated that the model is land based and if it is found that the East of 951 area will have
water available only for 300,000 residents, as opposed to the build-out population of 400,000+,
then the model would be reset with a limit of 300,000 and this would be true for any other required
facility or service. With respect to conservation lands, if lands are removed from possible private
development to conservation, then the model would be adjusted for that as well on an annual basis.
No Committee action was taken and the Committee thanked Dr. Van Buskirk.
VI, Old Business
Phase 2... Review of GrouD I-GrouD 5 Policies of the Rural Land StewardshiD. includin!!
Issues. Concerns. and Ouestions (concentration on GrouDs 4 and 5 Policies] as well as data
and analvsis with reSDect to DroDosed revisions to the RLSA Overlav
The following is a summary of discussions and Committee actions taken on Policies during its
October 14, 2008 meeting.
A & B. Policy 1.6 and 1,7 and Policies 4.4, 4.5, 4.7,1, and 4.14. Mr. Greenwood stated that these
policies are not ready of review by the Committee today and that Transportation has stated that
they would present them on October 21 and Heidi Ashton is in contact with John Passidomo
regarding Policies 1.6 and 1.7 and hoped to have a report on October 21 as well. Mr. Eidson
moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to table action on these policies to the October 21 meeting.
Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
C. Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the
natural water regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land
that is not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
Policy 5.4
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the
provision of wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these
potential crossin!! locations will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the
Growth Manal!ement Plan Amendment and used in evaluatinl! communitv. cultural and historical.
and transportation planninl! for the RLSA . includinl! all SRAs described in Group 4 Policies.
Public Input:
I. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and a map of locations [FWF)
ECPO Comments: The RLSA program provides a tremendous framework for facilitating the
establishment of wildlife underpasses, by protecting large expanses of habitat with SSA lands.
The actual need assessments, locating, design, and construction of wildlife underpasses occurs
through the efforts of state and/or federal wildlife and transportation agencies, either as part of
public works projects or as part of the regulatory process for development projects. As one
example, FWC researchers continually evaluate the need for panther crossings, and have maps of
existing and proposed panther underpasses.
2. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which are many. [Judith
Hushon]
ECPO Comments: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are
incidents on SR 29 south of the Sunniland mines. The panther-vehicle collisions on CR 846 east
of lmmokalee were considered when designating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that
31Page
73/
area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were later designated along that segment of CR 846 specifically to
provide opportunities for future panther crossings.
Brad Cornell stated that he would like the Committee to consider adding additional language to
Policy 5.4 which was acted upon during the October 7 meeting. He asked the Committee to add
the following language at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs
described in Group 4 Policies."
Public Discussion on October 14: None
Committee action taken on October 14: Mr. Cornell moved and Mr, Eidson seconded to add
the words at the end of the last sentence of Policy 5.4: ", including all SRAs described in Group 4
Policies." Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously so that Policy 5.4 now reads as shown
above.
Brad Cornell presented the following proposals to the Committee on October 14 to amend the
following Group 5 Policies [attached to these minutes]
Policy 5.5
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away
from the listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and
standards:
I. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to
inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed
species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall
notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species that may be
discovered. No local permits shall be issued until necessarv state and federal permits
have been obtained.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated
listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and
can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how
the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species
and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. Open
space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer
areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses
and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors.
i. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the
required management plans:
I. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999.
2. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region, USFWS, 1987.
41Page
/32.....
5lPage
3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale
Development in Florida, Technical Report No.4, Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987.
4. Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida
Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No.8, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991.
5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American
Kestrel (Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large-scale Development Sites in
Florida, Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, 1993.
n. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS
and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
iii. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence,
such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native
vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for
agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of
other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 ofthis policy.
b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall
be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with
the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off
site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves.
c. Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall
conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No.8, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall
also provide for a maintenance program and specify an appropriate fire or
mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall
also outline a public awareness program to educate residents abont the on-site
preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy.
d. For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management
plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities
during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS
South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions
of paragraph (3) ofthis policy.
e. For the red-cockaded woodpecker Ipicoides borealis), the required habitat
protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active
clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects
can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance
and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall
be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May
1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3) of this policy.
f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in bear-
proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shall
also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to
interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat
suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan.
133
g. For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the
management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by
directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats
include pine flatwoods and hardwood hanunocks. In turn, these areas shall be
buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity
land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Gold courses
within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards
found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate
lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity
to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation
communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy. The Multi-
Species Recoverv Plan (999) shall constitute minimum wildlife protection
standards for the RLSAO.
h. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than 10 acres.
3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
in issuing development orders on property eentainiHg utilizing listed species. It is
recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may eflaHge
strengthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any
such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, no
relaxation of these wildlife protecton policies will be considered.
Public discussion on October 14. 2008: Tom Jones stated that he has a problem with inclusion
of the additional language in Policy 5.5, paragraph I. Brad Cornell stated that he is OK with
deleting that language. Brad Cornell stated that all the studies need to be updated. Bill McDaniel
stated that the Committee should consider reference language to the most current studies and not
cite each plan. Brad Cornell stated that he does not object to a universal species clause rather
than list specific studies. Tom Jones suggested that draft language be prepared for Policy 5.5f.
Bill McDaniel suggested drafting language and sending it out to the Committee. Tom Jones
stated that he is trying to forego a list of 68 species. Elizabeth Fleming stated that the language is
a forward looking policy on people interaction. It would require provision of information about
wildlife to people. Gary Eidson stated that this discussion would be a lot easier if there were
specific motion language to vote on and not just ideas.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee Action on October 14.2008: Brad Cornel moved and Gary Eidson seconded to
have staff develop language for Policy 5.5.2. f. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Committee Action of October 14. 2008: Brad Cornel moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to
amend the language in Policv 5.5. paragraph 3 as shown. Bill McDaniel stated that he is not in
favor of first change in paragraph 3 in that it is too discretionary and that he is OK with the rest of
paragraph 3 proposed amendments. Laura Roys stated that the word "native" could be inserted
after the words "or listed species" in the fourth line. Mr. Farmer stated that he is opposed to
61Page
73tJ
Laura's suggesting citing previous problems with such provisions. Upon vote, the motion failed
by a vote of7~1 with Brad Cornell voting affirmatively.
Committee Action of October 14. 2008: Mr. McDaniel moved and Gary Eidson seconded to
amend Policv 5.5, paragraph 3 to include the changes proposed in the last two sentences. Upon
vote, the motion canied, 7~1 with David Wolfley voting in opposition.
Lauri McDonald stated that she felt the use of the word "utilizing" rather than "containing" in the
first sentence of Policv 5.5. Da.ragraph 3 would be more appropliate.
Tom Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to amend the word "containing" to "utilizing".
Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
D. Staff initial review of Naples Cultural Landscape presentation of October 7, 2008. Mr.
Greenwood stated that review memo was provided to the Committee [attached as part of the
Minutes]. Noah Standridge stated that he represents Naples Cultural Landscape and asked that
the Committee not consider any further the 15 comments and questions under the ] 5 different
policies previously covered by the Committee. He stated that he would like to provide one or two
new freestanding policies for Committee consideration. Af1er discussion, the Committee invited
Mr. Standridge back to its October 28th meeting to present the proposed language.
VII. New Business [none]
VIII. Public Comments.
IX. Next Meeting.
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on October 2], 2008, in Rooms 609/610 of the
CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, in Naples, Fl. from 9:00 A.M. - 12:00A.M and that Neno
Spagna would chair the meeting in his absence.
X. Adjonrnment
Mr. McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Eidson with the motion approved
unanimously with adjournment at 12:02PM.
w Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee
amended
presented
tx.
or as
7lPage
I 35"
PHASE II REPORT PREPARATION SCHEDULE AND REPORT FORMAT
REVIEW COMMITTEE DIRECTION
August S, 2008 [updated through October 7, 2008]
SCHEDULE
A. REMAINING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS
. September 2...RLSA Overlay Review [(DES]
. September 16...RLSA Overlay Review [(DES]
. September 23...RLSA Overlay Review [(DES]
. September 30...... RLSA Overlay Review [(DES]
· October 7...RLSA Group S Policies [CDES]
. October 14...RLSA remaining Group 4 transportation-related Policies, Policy 1.6, and Data and
Analysis [(DES]
. October 21....Draft Report Review?? [(DESJ
. October 28...Final Review and wrap up for Phase 2 Report [(DES]
B. PUBlI( VETTING MEETINGS
· November 12....Environmental Advisory (ouncil
. December l......Planning Commission
. January 29, 2009..,Board of County Commissioners
. February 27, 2009....Department of Community Affairs
PHASE 2 REPORT FORMAT AND CONTENTS
The following is format approved by the Review (ommittee on August S, 2008:
. COVER
. TRANSMITTALLETER with 2 maps: 1] "(oilier (ounty Rural & Agricultural Area Assessment
Stewardship Overlay Map; 2J "RLSA Status Map" which shows all approved Stewardship
Sending Areas and the one approved Stewardship Receiving Area, The Town of Ave Maria.
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
. COMMITTEE- RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSIP AREA
OVERLAY
a. Short Version Annotated
b. Long Version Annotated
. DATA AND ANALYSIS
. APPENDICES
73~
Co~T <;;Ou.nt:y
TO: RLSA REVIEW COMMITTEE
FROM: THOMAS GREENWOOD, AICP, STAFF LIAISON
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2008
SUBJECT: STAFF INITIAL REVIEW OF NAPLES CULTURAL LANDSCPAPE [NCL]
PRESENTATION TO RLSA REVIEW COMMITTEE ON OCOTBER 7, 2008
I. REPORT IN BRIEF. The purpose of this report is to provide the initial staff response to
the Committee's October 7 request for staff review of the materials presented by James
Hammond of Naples Cultural Landscape (NCL] to the Committee during the Committee's
October 7 meeting.
II. BACKGROUND. Mr. Hammond made an initial brief appearance before the Committee at
the end of the September 30th meeting and he was invited back to make a more detailed
presentation during its October 7 meeting. Mr. Hammond made an approximate 45-minute
presentation to the Committee on October 7 and distributed the attached memo to the
Committee addressed to Joseph Schmitt, CDES Division Administrator. Subsequent to
October 7 staff asked for and received a "word" version ofNCL's presentation dated October
7,2008 addressed to Joseph Schmitt, CDES Division Administrator.
III. BODY OF REPORT. After a review of the information in the packet provided to the
Committee, Staff has the following comments and observations in order to receive further
Committee direction:
A. Cultural Resource Management Handbook of FDOT's Environmental Management
Office dated November, 2004 and related 2008 Florida Statutes. Staff considers this
for information purposes only and not requiring Committee action at this time.
B. Letter dated September 9, 2008 from the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources. Staff considers this for information purposes only and not
requiring Committee action at this time.
C. 2008 Florida Statntes related to Florida Greenways and Trails Act [FS 260.0121.
Staff considers this for information purposes only and not requiring Committee action at
this time.
D. October 7, 2008 letter to Joseph Schmitt, CDES Division Administrator. Staff's
initial review of this letter includes the following:
1. First Statement on Dal!e 1. The Collier County RLSA does NOT come under the
Florida Statutes and, as such, will not come under the DroDosed 9J-5-026
[which is only in the rulemaking process at this time according to Robert
Pennock of the DCA by telephone on October 8, 2008J
llPage
737
2. Second Statement on pal!e 1. The Collier County RLSA does NOT come under
the Florida Statutes and, as such, will not come under the proposed 9J-5-026
[which is only in the rulemaking process at this time according to Robert
Pennock of the DCA by telephone on October 8, 2008J
3. Interpretation on pal!es 1 and 2. The information on page 2 is support
information leading to the balance of this letter and no Committee action is
required at this time.
4. Goals and Obiectives on pal!es 3 and 4.
#1... US Highway 41 is outside of the RLSA
#2... US Highway 41 is outside of the RLSA
#3, #4, #5, #6 .. .All of these goals and objectives will require close
coordination with landowners and funding sources to achieve,
5. Statement on pal!e 4. It should be stressed, in response to the opening
paragraph, that all Review Committee meetings are well advertised and
attended by those having an interest in the RLSA Program 5-Year Review
process, significant products and documents relative to Committee actions are on
the web site. ond the Navies Dailv News has published between November 1,
2007 and Septemher 2, 2008 no less than 19 articles about the RLSA and the
Committee's meetings. No person from Naples Cultural Landscape has stepped
forward prior to September 30, 2008 and asked to be on the email participation
list [50+J nor contacted current staff assigned to the Committee. As stated
earlier, the Collier County RLSA does NOT come under the Florida Statutes
and, as such, will not come under the vroposed 9J-5-026 [which is only in the
rulemaking process at this time according to Robert Pennock of the DCA by
telephone on October 8, 2008J
6. Comments. Questions. SUl!l!estions on specific policies listed on pal!es 5. 6.
and 7. IF the Committee decides to go back at this time to address each of the
15 NCL Policy-specific comments, questions, and suggestions in the same open
public manner as those already acted upon by the Committee beginning on April
1, the comoletion of the Phase 2 Reoort would be delaved bv a vet to be
determined amount of time.
IV. RECOMMENDATION The Committee has at least two options with respect to the NCL
materials received on October 7: (I) proceed to review the fifteen [15] separate Policies
listed in the October 7 NCL presentation and provide open public responses in the same open
public manner as those already acted upon by the Committee, or (2) receive and include the
NCL materials as an Appendix in the Phase 2 Report in a fashion similar to that of other
received documents. IF the Committee selects Option 2, the NCL will have the opportunity
to provide public input during the Environmental Advisory Council, Planning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners public vetting of the Phase 2 Report as well as during
hearings related to future RLSA Overlay Growth Management Plan Amendments.
Attached:
Naples Cultural Landscape October 7, 2008 Requests of the RLSA Review
Committee
21Page
73}
Naples Cultural Landscape
2400 Tamiami Trail N - Suite 300
Naples, Florida 34103
239.594.29780 239.261,6664 F
www.nanlesbackvardhsitorv.ol.l!
To: C.D.E.S. Division
Joseph Schmit, Division Administrator -
From: Naples Cultural Landscape: A Fund at the Community Foundation of Collier County
Lavern Norris Gaynor, Founder; Lois A Bolin, Ph.D., Strategic Advisor
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Requests to the R.L.S.A. Review Committee
Statement: Under the direction of the Dept. of Community Affairs a program was started and
implemented under Florida Statute 9J-5.026 entitled the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (R.L.S.A.).
On the first page of that programs texts Item # I states- the: Purposes of the R.L.S.A. Program and Item
# 2 states the Purpose of the R.L.S.A. Rule. Under the Standard Option of those purposes # 8 Section B
states as Item # 1 : IdentifY and explain the existing locally specific rural character of the R.L.S.A. and
surrounding area by analyzing its characteristics, including Land use, Development Patterns, and
Economic, Social, Cultural. Historic. Scenic. Landscape, Recreational and Environmental Elements.
The data and analysis shall include under: Section # 2 Item-I: All forms of rural resource values
including Agriculture; Environmental, Eco Systems, Wildlife Habitat, and Water Resources;
Recreational, Tourism, Scenic; Cultural. and other general amenity Values.
Statement: Under the Special Option for R.L.S.A. of 50,000 or more Contiguous Acres - Section 7 Item B, Goals
and Objective, and Policies - # E, states; A visionary Process to provide public participation io the design of any
new town or Rural Village. Under the same section -B, Goals and Objectives, B- Item 10 states; The recording of
a Stewardship easement or Restrictive covenant running with the land in Perpetuity on all designated
Conservation and Agricultural areas in favor of the Countv, the Dept. of Environmental Protection, and the Dept.
of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Interpretation; It is with the above statements that the Naples Cultural Landscape, a Fund of the Community
Foundation of Collier County, a 501 (C)(3) non for profit organization along with the support of various other non
for profit organizations mostly representing the general charters of Historical Societies which encompass the
policies of Documenting, Recording, Archiving, and Interpretiog to the general public all areas pertaining to the
past Historical and Cultural themes represented in the past History and Heritage of Collier County that we do
hereby request these additions and lor revisions be reviewed and entered where possible into the R.L.S.A.O.
policies presently being amended and drafted by the various committees.
l37
I
The Historical and Cultural aspects of Collier County's past during the establishment of the first Rural
Lands Stewardship Area committee's meetings, plans, and discussions that took place in early 1999
through 2002 unfortunately were not addressed in any way. This was due to the fact that an accurate
Historical and Cultural Resource Assessment had not been completed and in essence, had not even been
started until 2003. It has taken over 5 years to complete the study and it was realized that any plans that
were being discussed in the new R.S.L.A.O. reviews should include the information that was found in
the study, but more important during that time a plan had been conceived that could incorporate the
objectives and Goals that the present R.L.S.A.O. committee's and interested parties, most notably
landowners, developers, planners, economic advisors, tourism concerns, transportation concerns, and
more importantly as these meetings that have been going on for many years the concerns about the
Florida Panthers and wide variety of other wildlife that would in the end some how incorporate the rich
Historical and Cultural past of Collier County. On the surface this would seem an Utopian ideal until
you realize the fact that according to the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources states
that in 2007 tourists brought into Florida over 4.7 Billion dollars, 763 million of that went directly to
South Florida with 49 (percent) directly attributable to people who sought out in their specific
destinations areas that had Historical sites and places. This is a 60% increase over the last 4 years and
those figures are expected to double in the next 5 years and exponentially thereafter. Taken with the fact
that one organization and (there are over a half a dozen more) The Florida Communities Trust allocated
73 million dollars last year to projects that secured Stewardship Credits, purchased land for Preserves,
Parks, Wildlife Habitat, Green Space, as well as Cultural and Historical Preservation. As secretary of
the Dept. of Community Affairs Tom Pelham said "Over the past 17 years, these awards will help
communities achieve their vision of Stronger, Greener and Healthier landscapes". As it is spoken of in
the Historical and Cultural study over 80% of Collier Counties land has transitioned from the hands of
the Landowners and Collier County Government into private State and Federal entities in the last 34
years. This leaves the remaining 20% available for practical use by the County and landowners in the
near future. This displays the simple fact that in the final phases of build-out the County, Landowners,
Planners, Committee Members, and other organizations are to paraphrase the saying' Trying to describe
an Elephant just by its head'. Understanding that since the inception of the Everglades National Park
was established in 1947 and other 4 State and Federal preserves established since have implemented
only policies that mainly address Biological concerns. The Human element has taken a back seat as can
be seen in the fact that that with over I million acres under the different park management systems in the
last 61 years, not one site located on these lands has been registered on the National Register of Historic
Places where the public can have access to today and enjoy. In the final phases of this visioning process
it becomes apparent that if the goals and objectives to "connect the dots" do not find their fulcrum point
the visions so earnestly sought will be like clouds without water. If the only Goal is to build houses and
communities without incorporating the past History and Cultures that S. W. Florida has always had an
association with the uniqueness that can so easily be applied simply leaves way to "offering nothing
more than any other community. It goes without saying that hundreds of thousand of hours labor are
going into the planning stages and untold millions of dollars have been and are being utilized to apply
strategies that in the end will tie into and apply to the final 'Horizon Picture' it would be constructive to
pause and remember that old and well applied adage "That a million monkey's typing on a million
typewriters for a million years will never be able to write a Shakesperian play" To simply rely on the
phrase - If you build it they will come also should have the caveat added - They will if there is
something to come to. To speak only of Natural Resources and their future conservation as only a
biological consideration in this County and not recognize that the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the
past residents is one of the most important ingredients in that term referred to as Natural Resources.
7 }./D
2
Therefore the Goals and Objectives proposed by the Naples Cultural Landscape organization in
conjunction with other interested parties and organizations collectively speaking on the Historical and
Cultural Heritage policies that make up the largest part of these organizations goals state and seek to
initiate:
1. Stop the de-designation process that removed the Historic and Cultural attributes of U. S. 41
(Tamiami Trail) and is currently in the process of removing;
A. The 1988 designation of the trail by the State as a- Florida Scenic Highway
B. The 2000 designation of the trail by the Federal Government as a- National Scenic Byway
2. Installation of Historical Markers and Interpretive Centers and/or Kiosks along the entire
distance of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) stretching from the City of Naples to the Dade County
border that will represent Collier County's past History and Cultural Heritage. This will direct
tourism and interest from the east coast and west coast sections that will culminate on Highway #
29.
3. Installation of Historical Markers and Interpretive Centers and/or Kiosks along the entire
distance of Highway # 29 from the south on u.s. 41 north to Immokalee City that will represent
the Collier County's past History and Cultural Heritage as it relates to the past;
A. Historic lumber towns, Settlements, Farming towns, Oil producing towns [Sunniland], First
Collier County Citrus producing groves, The first Collier County Citrus Canning plant, the first
Railroad in Collier County both passenger and commercial [Deep Lake ]-Since Deep Lake is one
of only 5 sinkhole lakes in Florida and has freshwater on its first layer and saltwater on its lower
layer with a resident population of Alligators and Crocodiles living together it would be expected
to draw over I million visitors a year.
B. Seeking cooperation to open Deep Lake to the general public as it was for the first 106 years of
its operation [not currently open to the general public] and having a boardwalk installed.
C. Seeking cooperation to turn the now presently closed Old Copeland Prison into a Pioneer
Museum [This will involve seeking the N.P.S. to return the # I Lee Tidewater Cypress Company
steam train that is presently in the Steamtown Collection in Scranton Pennsylvania]
This will have a positive flow on all visitors and tourists and seek to draw them to the new
Development taking place in the R.L.S.A. area and Immokalee City area.
4. Seek cooperation from landowners to Register Fort Simon Drum-[ a known and monumented
site by David Graham Copeland in 1941]. This site is presently 6 miles east ofImmokalee City
one half mile south of Immokalee Road and would be just on the east side of the new proposed
bypass road that will connect to the road north ofImmokalee City. The Fort Simon Drum site is an early
Army Seminole War fortification and is the only known site of a military installation in South
West Florida South of the Caloosahatchee River and it is expected that it would draw over 2
million visitors and tourists a year.
5. Seek cooperation with landowners and developers to have Historical Markers or Kiosks
interpreting Collier County's past Historical and Cultural Heritage displayed placed at designated
parks and open green spaces in the future planned developments. One example of the benefits
of such a cooperative agreement is the fact that in 2002 prior to development at the Ave Maria
first phase site an expensive Archaeological Survey was required by the State to try to locate a
past Historic site which the owners thought at that time to be the location of Fort Doane an early
Army Seminole War, fortification site. The investigation was done and the required paperwork
was completed allowing the continuation of development. This resulted in a coordinated effort
on the part of several research centers to try to accurately identify the previously mentioned site.
7 Lf (
3
This in turn led to the eventual recording of9 more sites in the area on 09/09/2008- State File Survey
#15576 thereby requiring an additional nine more Archaeological investigative studies being required
before development could proceed at any of those locations in and around the Phase 2 area and the
proposed Big Cypress Development, with at least 3 of those new sites in the northern part of the
R.L.S.A This process has been described as a cycle that continually [feeds on itself] Furthermore it
was discovered that the correct name of the supposed Fort Doane site had already been previously
recorded as the site of Camp Keais and an Archaeological survey might have been avoided. The original
form has now been updated on the Florida Master Site Files to indicate this name change. This is a clear
case of how cooperation between parties would have been beneficial in concrete financial ways. As it is
expected that at least 20-30 possible new locations involving Historical Resources in the northern area of
the R.L.S.A. and the high probability that 5 or more of those sites have to do with Native American
Sacred Sites [Federal] it financially behooves all landowners, developers, and researchers to try to
cooperate on any obstacles that would impede any part of the new and growing vision. One of the
proposed solutions would be to bypass the past processes that are costly and paper riddled on each end
and just agreeing to incorporate a basic preset number of interpretive markers or Kiosks in any of the
proposed Towns, Villages, or Hamlets in any the public greenways or parks. This would serve to display
the past History and Culture of the county. This in effect is a visionary way in which cooperation can enhance
the value and desirability of any proposed community and fits well with the rural character these new homes seek
to display. As the Collier County Museum already has the equipment to make these markers there would be
minimal costs associated with such a plan.
6. Seek to establish at a minimum one continuous Historical and Cultural Heritage Trail unimpeded
and without any Conservation easement restrictions that stretches from the eastern corridor of the
R.L.S.A to the western corridor of the proposed R.L.S.A.
7. Seek to establish at a minimum one continuous Historical and Cultural Heritage Trail unimpeded
and without any Conservation easement restrictions that stretches from the southern corridor of
the R.L.S.A to the northern corridor of the proposed R.L.S.A.
STATEMENT:
Although it is understood that that many of the Environmental, Wildlife, and other numerous
agencies including those that have to do with representing the Natural Resources and Endangered
Species legislation have been working on policies that directly and indirectly have relation to the
present R.L.S.A Processes, Goals, and Objectives, that were started in 1999 and have now been
continuing until the present time in 2008, on behalf of the people and organizations that were not
included [up to speed] in regards to the Historical and Cultural ideals that the original provisions that
were envisioned when the Purpose of the Rules found in D.C.As. guidelines came to public
attention and speaking on behalf of those interests now found in the capacity of being a
representative of those voices would ask that a small amount of extra time be given to the following
statements which most display our unified concerns.
A. That it be recognized that an accurate and up to date Historical and Cultural Resource study has
never been conducted in Collier County since its inception in 1923 until it was presented to
committee members on September 30, 2008.
B. That a total of9 new Historical sites comprising a 166 year total span of a timeline of Collier
County's past has been for the first time accepted by the State of Florida 32 days ago.
· This should be accepted as a good faith effort considering these items were presented to this
committee being specifically mentioned- Purposes of rules of the D.C.A. Objectives and Goals-
jLtL
4
# 1- Standard Options and # 2 Special Options relating to Historical and Cultural values.
Therefore having established the items found on these pages 2, 3, and 4 the following comments are
added for the review now taking place on October 7, 9 am. Room 609, on Policy 5, however please find
other comments on policies that may also apply to the present meeting but nevertheless need to be
entered into the appropriate sections for public comment for those specific policies when the committee
has the time.
Policy 5.4
No right of way to be relinquished by the County for Panther crossings on anywhere on
highway # 29 if crossings block way of known Historical sites. As there are a preponderance of past
known sites starting at U.S. 41 and heading north to just south oflmmokalee City totaling 10- they are
protected under the F.D.O.T. Cultural Resource book- 2008 Fla. Statutes Title 18-Public Lands and
Property -Chapter 267 Historical Resources 267.021- (3) "Historic Property" or "Historic Resource"
means any Prehistoric or Historic District, site, building, object or other real or personal property of
Historical, Architectural value and Folklife resources. These properties or resources may include but are
not limited to, Monuments, Memorials, Indian Habitations, Ceremonial Sites, Abandoned Settlements.
Sunken Ships, Engineering Works, Treasure Trove, Artifacts, or other objects with Historical or
Archaeological Value, or any part thereof relating to the History, Government and Culture of the State.
267.021-(4) Preservation or Historic Preservation means Identification. Evaluation. Re-documentation.
Analvsis. Recoverv. Interpretation.
? Has F.L.D.O.T. complied with Public Law 89-665, as amended regulations (36 CFR Part 800-revised 1111101
Executive Order 11593 Chapter 267 (F.S. Revised 2001), N.E.P.A. 91-190, D.O.T.A. ACT 1966 Public Law 89-
670
I. For all Phases of work on Highway # 29
2. For all Phases of work on Oil Well Road
3. For all Phases of work on # 846
4. For all Phases of work on Camp Keais Road
5. For preliminary plans on # 29 Bypass Road
6. For all Phases of work on # 858
Policy 1.2
Clarify how R.L.S.A.O. interacts with the Florida Greenway and Trails Act - 2008 Fla.
Statutes title 18 Chapter 260 -260.012 Item 1 and 2, 3B, and 6-A,D,E,F [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.6
No emphasis is put on the Historical Transportation Routes from the south to the north or the
west to the east in the present SSAs. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.7
Historical Interpretation markers, Kiosks, and Cultural Heritage should be allowed to be built
south of Oil Well Road and should have road access planned for them. [N aples Cultural Landscape]
Review easement language and policies to prevent F.W.C. from holding all easements. All easements
should go to the County for the Cultural and Heritage TraiL [Naples Cultural Landscape]
743
5
Stewardship easements should be held by private entities -Florida Community Trust provided 630
million dollars between 2007 and 2008 and have encouraged and fostered public and private
partnerships. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
S.S.A. Credit agreements should include the Department of Community Affairs and Florida Forever
programs as the signatories. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.11
Do not remove all the layers in the matrix until a Historic and Cultural study has been done
to see how the past pioneers used the Natural Resources ofthe land. If a critical layer is removed in
respect to a Historic or Cultural site all future uses and activities in that layer are eliminated forever
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.12
Presently only credits for S.R.A. can be transferred for lands that meet the defined Suitability
Standard in the R.L.S.A. for S.R.A.s but language needs to be established to encompass criteria for
Historic and past Cultural sites. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.13
Do the procedures for the transfer of credits include language for Historical or Cultural
Resources since Stewardship credits do not require any G.M.P. amendments.
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.18
Have any studies been implemented to see where the highest ground available can be used for
the Historical or Cultural Heritage Trail and will it have a high enough ground elevation so that it will
not be prone to flooding? [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.20
Is there a provision or a percentage allocated for any educational programs that interpret to the
public any part of a Historical or Culturally related theme in the Trust. Are there any incentives to
owners to sell Credits that will go for any programs that have to do with the county's past history?
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7.1
If towns are described as having "Individual Identitv and Character" to what extent will the
interpretation in the community parks allow for Historic or Cultural values and is there a certain
percentage in space or funds allocated in the plans or designs and what will the towns display or
incorporate to educate the public about the county's Cultural past. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7.2
If villages have "Character" scaled to each particular village to what extent does this parallel
extend to in the parks and Green Spaces on a Historical level and what association does this have with
the past Cultural Heritage of the past small towns of Collier County [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7.3
To what extent will the communities in the Hamlets contribute to the Historical and Cultural
values that were a past part of the county's History and how will this be reflected in their Public Green
Spaces [Naples Cultural Landscape]
7Lf~
6
Policy 4. 9
Public access should be allowed on all right of ways, Stewardship easements or Conservation
easements in any area of land that is rated in an AN .R.I. index of 1.2 or higher. By restricting any
Greenways or Buffer Zones, the Historical aspect and in particular the Cultural and scenic resources of
the land will not allow for full enjoyment of any future proposed Historical and Cultural Heritage trail
and will limit Eco Tourism to unsatisfying scenic endeavors. Since there is only 2 % oflands that will
qualifY for a 1.2 or higher rating, the absolute best lands must be used on the Trail and an exception in
the policy should be made as it will be the county's only chance to interpret to the public the best in the
scenic beauty the county has to offer now and in the future. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.11
Where existing Agriculture activity joins a S.R.A the design of the S.R.A should not have
more than two geographical sides connecting either in tandem or on opposite sides that will impede any
recreation/open space for a better possibility of having a more pleasing environment.
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.20
For clarification all language spoken of as "Public Benefit" should include whether this
should mean to also be interpreted as public access. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
How do you quantifY a percentage of "Public Benefit" relating to Towns, Villages, and
Hamlets, and is there a certain portion of "Public Benefit" that displays in any relevant way a reflection
of any part of Collier County's past Culture or Heritage. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
7YS
7
6 r=cC- Ce:r-P'\~ ( )
pY'o'P~
~ ~(2 /"7<<J! ?--nClrli-s
/ 6 - / Cf ~ a;? n --"q
Policy 5.1
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as
FSAs and lands described inPolicv 3.12 surroundiml the CantD Keats Strand and Okaloacoochee Slou12h
on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit
Program. Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses. and
Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed III the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs and lands described in
Policy 3.l2. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those
necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in FSAs with a Natural
Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional~drilling techniques
andlor previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to
minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in
areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as
well as the right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute
compensation for the loss of these rights.
Policy 5.4
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of
wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A maD of these crossinll locations will be
develoned bv Januarv 2010 and used in evaluatinll community and transoortation olannimr: for the RLSA.
Policy 5.5
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the
listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards:
1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to
inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed
species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall
notifY the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species that may be
discovered. No local oermits shall be issued until necessarv state and federal oermits
have been 0 btained.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans fOT listed species shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated
listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and
can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how
the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species
and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. Open
space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer
areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife conidors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses
and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors.
1. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the
required management plans:
1. South Florida Multi-Species RecoveI)' Plan, USFWS, 1999.
2. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region, USFWS, 1987.
7L/~
3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale
Development in Florida, Teclmical Report No.4, Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987.
4. Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida
Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No.8, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991.
5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American
Kestrel (Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large-scale Development Sites in
Florida, Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, 1993.
ii. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the USFWS
and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this policy.
iii. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence,
such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native
vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for
agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the recommendation of
other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy.
b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall
be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with
the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off
site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves.
c. Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphe1ocoma coerulescens) shall
conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No.8, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Corrunission, 1991. The required management plan shall
also provide for a maintenance program and specifY an appropriate fire or
mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall
also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site
preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy.
d. For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management
plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities
during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS
South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions
of paragraph (3) of this policy.
e. For the red-cockaded woodpecker ~icoides boreaJis), the required habitat
protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active
clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects
can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance
and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall
be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May
1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3) of this policy.
f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in bear-
proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shall
also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to
interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat
suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan.
\
'y 1f7
g. For projects located in Priority I or Pnority II Panther Habitat areas, the
management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by
directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats
include pine tlatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be
buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity
land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreatIOnal areas, golf courses). Gohlf courses
within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards
found within this Overlay. The man"gement plans shall identify appropriate
lighting controls for these pennitted uses and shall also address the opportunity
to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation
communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements
shall be consistent with the US,FWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) oftrus policy. The Multi-
Snecies Recoverv Plan (1999) shall constitute minimum wildlife protection
standards for the RLSAO.
h. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than 10 acres.
3. The County shall, consistent With applicable policies oftrus Overlay, consider and utilize
reconunendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
in issuing development orders on property containing listed species~. or listed soecies
habitat canable of sunoortinlZ wildlife and can be anticioated to be occuoied by listed
~ It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis,
may eftettgestremrthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection
policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management
Plan. However. no relaxation of these wildlife orotection oolicies will be considered.
Policv 5.6 '. . _ . . .. . .. _ . _ _ . _ . .. .. . . .. . . . _ ..
Any develooment on lands not narticioatinll in the RLSA ProllI"am will not be included in any oossible
Habitat Conservation Plan. Conservation Aereement or other federal eauivalent under the Endanllered
8necies Act in the RLSA and are reauired to nursue aonrooriate oennittimr and mitio:ation throul!:h the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service. No county
develooment authorization shall be issued until a USFWS ESA Section 7 or 10 authorization is issued or
deemed unecessarv for the oronosed develooment.
[** For Policy 5.16 (wetlands protections), I would like to revise the numerous references to
WRAP (delete) and use UMAM as the fimctional evaluation standard. I also suggest adding a
policy disallowing exotics removal counting at all as wetland impact mitigation (5.6.3.f. ~ add a
new "iv".) Finally, I would like to add incentives to restore wetlands and habitat through non-
RLSA tools, like Farm Bill easements, grants, tax benefit programs, etc_ J
101
~_..._---~._.__._--
fot"matted: Font: 14pt, Bold ---.l.
----.------------ -----
Formatted: Indent; Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: left, Indent: Left: 0", First line:
0"
Policy 5,7fi
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County
shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts
within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely
changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows:
1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the
Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as
FSA's. Policy 5.1 prohibits certain uses within the FSA's, thus preserving and protecting
the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are \\!RA's as described in Policy
3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site
clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements
addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in
those areas. 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 the South Florida Water Management
District.
a. 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:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland
functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this
policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and
5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of this
Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used
to detemtine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required
by Policy 5.3.
ii. Wetlands utilized by listed species or serving as corridors for the movement of
listed species shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through
the project shall be maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table
drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of
preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set
to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and
project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements,
projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of
SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities
may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation
requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is
less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review,
applicants shall rate functionality of wetland~ using the South Florida Water
7L/--1
Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described
in Technical Publication Reg-OOl, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999,
or the Unifonn Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C.
Chapter 62-345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP
scores, or Unifonn Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall
review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall
use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning
wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (1)
oftrus policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate
buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated
upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in
conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by
50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are
allow5~. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line,
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and
expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions
and are allowed within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with
suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net
loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
I. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of
the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the
impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA 's.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iii. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative
communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the
land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive
exotic plants defined by the Florida Exotic Plan Council) and continuing exotic
plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal
agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities.
J5b
iv. Under no circumstances will exotics removal or maintenance he considered
acceotahle miti23.tion for the loss of wetlands or listed soecies habitat.
j..yy. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (1) i, ii, and iii of this
policy. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this
policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional
agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as
separate tracts. In the case of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be
depleted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris
and from CategOIY I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and
shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water
conservation, eroSIon control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouralled to consider oarticioatin~ in any pcoiITams that orovide incentives
fundina or other assistance in facilitatimz wetland and habitat restoration on orivate lands. includinll but
not limited to federal farm bill amicultural conservation DfOllTams. Drivate or DubHc arants tax incentives
easements. and fee or less than fee sale to conservation DrOllTams.
Policv 5.8..
Anv develoDment on lands not oarticioatinli! in the RLS DrollTam shall be reauired to assure comoatibilitv
with surroundinllland uses. Outdoor lillhtina shall be reasonablv manali!ed to orotect the nillhttime
environment conserve enenzv and enhance safetY and securitv. Other comoatibilitv elements to be
addressed include but are not limited to aoorooriate buffers smoke easements and allricultural neilZhbor
alZTeements.
7'51
I Formatted: Font 14 pt, Bold
-.J
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2008
~BERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
Ron Hamel, Chair ~
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair .
Brad Cornell __~ (i \~)
NO
~.~~~~
---t;!
NO
~
::-. 't l left I (fI~
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
--/0 Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
,/.
Name
T CI71 G,..-~ ~'1 "-' Co <:,cJ.
?$t Ift!V l5Vft/ti'L
CfiRLET ()l\ 1 rK '( r-fe..l
r) r.... ,"/_1 JiJ Aet '
c;:- t-tVVWtVI Wl~
~'--€'~
~'\~ f~
I Olt CoAl~I=r' ,~E
c' ~ ':1 /f<< ~v1J,,- -
J "dJ<.)
A~! , (~~(' )I)J~
G ( \A <1L ~cc.-c..-- . / f V~ i1 '7
7SZ-,
Public
E~mall! Affiliation
f6j? /8'rw~trJ '
J,
II
CV~/Ip,',s: at lM/cJ/f'e
j\;:f(,~ Jf \iV, \,d 00'#
G~~ ~~
d,l:L/~ Ejv~jF'J
c4t->
~."J,!7'~ C'J4L/
,~) ,.
. vVv,
, .,,'I! ~J" 't''' ;ll~.
,
(.
Phone #
;:).11-97:).- 9og~
If<n 3 -3C)1.9
"Tn - o2j - 3l?'o?,
7)- 7- ~d-3 -:::,~
6 ~/- <:/ sJ
",2"'1- 'fly S'.s-
~ '-/36 d.;;"d-.-
.70 Si>-Y r
'7/.fC ),'1;, 5~2.'5
t. LI 'i L{" '-l ~
V) W VCC1twu
rJiH Pl7ssA'c)(>~o
(~eJ(,^Pt 0 i ~ L.r....
J: yvj 01; r~d '(}1
13'0 6VJ ~~
7?;3
C61WQMW~ l{ 01:J -ifJJ 0
7/36-/.!:>- 019-)
I) c,</r y,,<u
l~/oJ ( <;r~ (\'4' tljy
(J.}ko/;/! /hi/ (; if!? - lkflO
80<tYW\ c:: 1/\fJ-/ 2C2-~ 261:)0
"<.......-
2-1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES] Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; October 7, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna [left at I lam]
Brad Cornell
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
Bill McDaniel
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Heidi Ashton, Thomas Greenwood, and Laura Roys as well as
approximately 15 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:03AM by Chairman Ron HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 9 of 12 members were present, with Floyd
Crews, Jim Howard, and Dave Wolfley reported to be out of town.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Parmer moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Mr. Eidson.
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minutes of the September 30, 2008 Meeting
McDaniel moved and seconded by Mr. Parmer to approve the minutes as distributed.
Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Greenwood to brief the Committee 01} several items as follows:
. Policy 1.6 and 1.7 language. Mr. Greenwood distributed a document prepared by Assistant
County Attorney Heidi Ashton and distributed internally on October 6 [attached]. He stated
that the Committee may wish to review and, upon request of Attorney John Passidomo, may
wish to table until he has an opportunity to review further. Mr. Parmer stated that he felt that
the 5 year limit was severe and perhaps there could be one year extensions. Heidi Ashton
clarified that the SSA owner could terminate the conditional SSA sooner than 5 years but that
the LDC should have some definite language in it. After further discussion the Committee
IIPage
7!S.Lj.--
took no action and encouraged Ms. Ashton to meet with Jolm Passidomo and develop
language to be brought back to the Committee as soon as October 14th.
. Policies 4.4, 4.5, 4.7.1 and 4.14. Mr. Greenwood reported that he was advised that there will
be more discussions between Nick Casalanguida and ECPO this week and they will,
hopefully, have language for Committee review on October 14th.
· Mr. Greenwood reviewed with the Committee the current SRA characteristics table
[Attachment C] and the revised Attachment C. Tammie Nemecek pointed out that the
minimum for a Town has been increased from 1000 acres to 1500 acres. Mr. Greenwood
stated that he would make that change. Mr. Farmer stated that he does not favor an upper
limit of density of 4 dwelling units per gross acre. Brad Cornell stated that this issue is worth
talking about but that it would be wise to have an upper limit on density so that everyone
knows how many dwelling units to plan for and that it provides some certainty. Mr, Eidson
stated that his underlying concern with not having a density limit is impact on infrastructure
and how the BCC would accept such an impact.
. Mr. Greenwood reviewed an updated schedule of the Committee through today which shows
the Committee completing Group 5 Policies today. [attached]. Mr. McDaniel stated that Dr.
Van Buskirk is committed to provide a presentation on October 14th and Mr. Greenwood
stated that he would place on the October 14th Agenda if his availability is confirmed. Mr.
Farmer stated that he would not be able to attend the October 28 meeting due to a conflict
with a conference and Mr. Hamel stated that he also would not be able to attend the October
21 meeting due to a conflict. Other members indicated availability for the October 21 and
October 28 meetings and the consensus was to plan to keep those meetings scheduled.
V. Presentations. [attached "Requests to the RLSA Review Committee]
A. James Hammond, Director of Historical Resources of Naples Backyard History..."Naples
Cultural Landscape"
Mr. James Hammond stated and covered the following:
I. The study was not done in time for the original RLSA Overlay development as this
proj ect has taken 9 years.
2. Reviewed the following maps: #1 Nine Sites from archaeological survey; #2 IVES Map
done by Jefferson Davis; #3 Collier County Monument Map; #4 1973 Historical
Jubilee Map of Collier County; #5 Map of Proposed Collier County Cultural Trail.
3. Reviewed his request to use stewardship credits to help develop a heritage trail.
Mr. Jones advised Mr. Hammond that one of their maps is incorrect and that there is no planned
Ave Maria Phase 2 south of Oil Well Road. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Hammond if he had talked with
any of owners of property over which the heritage trail is proposed. Mr. Hammond responded that
he had not.
Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to ask staff to review Mr. Hammond's proposals
and report back to the Committee on October 14th. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
VI. Old Business
A. Phase 2... Review of Grouo I-Grouo 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardshio. includinl!
Issues. Concerns. and Ouestions (concentration on Grouos 4 and 5 Policies] as well as data
and analvsis with resoect to orooosed revisions to the RLSA Overlav
The followiog is a summary of discussions and Committee actions taken on Policies during its
October 7, 2008 meeting.
2JPage
,SS;
Group 5 - Policies that protect water quality and quantity and the maintaining of the natural water
regime and protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats on land that is not voluntarily
included in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program.
Public Input: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Action: The Committee took no action on the above statement.
Policy 5.1
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as
FSAs and desilmated Flowav buffers on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as
SSAs under the Stewardship Credit Program, , Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining
and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated" ffi
~ Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those necessary to
serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall eaIy not be allowed in FSAs with a Natural Resource
Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or
previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to
minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in
areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as
well as the right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute
compensation for the loss of these rights.
Public Input:
I. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of
whether the landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include
restrictions of some permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands,
regardless of their participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not
voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within
FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural activities
are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially remove the more active agricultural uses
as incompatible with protection ofthe quality, quantity and maintenance of the
natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright
prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy
believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the prohibited
uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as
to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf courses, and
other impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments: FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of
habitat required for species and adequate land uses. The mix of land use activities within FSAs and HSAs
are necessary to enable the delineation of the large interconnected systems.
The Group 5 policies collectively provide a set of minimum land development standards that apply only
when a land owner does not participate in the RLS program. In the case of Policy 5.1, the FSA provision
addresses a narrow issue of water quality within regional flow ways, where the more intensive land uses
could impact offsite areas. Of the 31, I 00 acres of FSA, only 800 acres are active agriculture. Within the
HSAs it has been confirmed by many biological experts, including Darrel Land who spoke with the RLS
Committee, that species are very adept at utilizing and traversing agriculture lands.
3lPage
756
Note: Brad Cornell 10-7-08 Proposal for this Policy is attached to these minutes along with ECPO
responses to the original Group 5 public comments received from others.
Public discussion on October 7. 2008
Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to accept Mr. Cornell's rewording of Policy 5.1 as
provided to the Committee by Mr. Cornell this morning. Mr. Jones stated that he is opposed to the
language proposed as Policy 5.1 is not broken and does not need fixing. Mr. Cornell stated that this is a
way to ensure that development does not occur on the edge of the OK Slough and the Camp Keais Strand.
Mr. Jones stated that the County may be subjecting itself to a taking of a property owner's rights and
subject to litigation. Mr. Cornell stated that the owner would receive compensation if he chose to
participate in the RLSAO. Anita Jenkins reiterated that would entail a property owner losing rights to
use that land and that setbacks in the LDC may be the way to handle this. John Passidomo stated that if a
landowner loses rights to use his land through a government action a Bert Harris violation would likely
occur and the County could be subject to a lawsuit. Mr. Cornell asked about the loss of the use of land in
the FSA that has already occurred. Mr. Passidomo stated that ECPO agreed to that previously. Mr.
Cornell asked about the other property owners other than ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that those
property owners could have exercised their right, but chose not to. Mr. Thomas stated that he felt the
LDC could assist. Nicole Ryan stated the Conservancy supports Mr. Cornell's suggestions and that it
should not wait to be addressed in the LDC. Christian Spilker stated that he thought the proper
terminology is "restoration zone".
Staff Comments:
Committee Action taken on October 7. 2008: Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded that
Policy 5.1 be amended by changing the period to a comma after the word "program" in the third line.
Upon vote, the motion carried, 9-0. Mr. Eidson moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to add the words,
"and designated Floway buffers" [staff found that the wording should be, "designated Restoration
Zones"] after "FSAs" in the second line and to change "only" to "not" in the second sentence. Upon vote,
the motion carried, 9-0.
Policy 5.2
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 that are within the ACSC, all ACSC regulatory standards shall apply, including those that strictly
limit non-agricultural clearing.
Public Input: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Action taken on October 7. 2008: Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to leave
Policy 5.2 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 5.3
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 that are not within the ACSC, if a property owner proposes to utilize such land for a non-agricultural
purpose under the Baseline Standards referenced in Policy 1.5 and does not elect to use the Overlay, the
following regulations are applicable, shall be incorporated into the LDC, and shall supercede any
comparable existing County regulations that would otherwise apply. These regulations shall only apply
to non-agricultural use of land prior to its inclusion in the Overlay system:
4lPage
7[i;,7
I. Site clearing and alteration shall be limited to 20% of the property and
nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed 50% of any such area.
2. Except for roads and lakes, any nonpermeable surface greater than one acre shall provide
for release of surface water run off, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating
the natural surface water flow regime of the surrounding area.
3. Revegetation and landscaping of cleared areas shall be accomplished with predominantly
native species and planting of undesirable exotic species shall be prohibited.
4. An Environmental Impact Statement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by
Collier County in accordance with County regulations.
5. Roads shall be designed to allow the passage of surface water flows through the use of
equalizer pipes, interceptor spreader systems or performance equivalent structures.
Public Input: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Action taken on October 7. 2008: Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to
leave Policy 5.3 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 5.4
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of
wildlife crossings at locations determined to be appropriate. A map of these potential crossing locations
n / will be developed within 12 months of the effective date of the Growth Management Plan Amendment
.IV' . and. used in evaluating communi tv. cultural and historical. and transportation planning for the RLSA.
V) "\..-/
Public Input:
I. Stronger language for wildlife underpasses and a map of locations [FWF]
ECPO Comments: The RLSA program provides a tremendous framework for facilitating the
establishment of wildlife underpasses, by protecting large expanses of habitat with SSA lands. The actual
need assessments, locating, design, and construction of wildlife underpasses occurs through the efforts of
state and/or federal wildlife and transportation agencies, either as part of public works projects or as part
of the regulatory process for development projects. As one example, FWC researchers continually
evaluate the need for panther crossings, and have maps of existing and proposed panther underpasses.
2. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which are many. [Judith
Hushon]
ECPO Comments: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are incidents on SR
29 south of the Sunniland mines. The panther-vehicle collisions on CR 846 east of Immokalee were
considered when designating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were
later designated along that segment of CR 846 specifically to provide opportunities for future panther
crossmgs.
3. FWC has documented the location of all known panther-vehicle collisions in a GIS
database. This information, in conjunction with FWC's least cost path modeling of
panther movements, has been and will be used to identify promising sites for additional
panther crossings. The RLSA program facilitates the establishment of these wildlife
underpasses by preserving existing land uses in the vicinity of the crossings.
5lPage
{s;,-:J
Note: Brad Cornell 10-7-08 Proposal for this Policy is attached to these minutes along with ECPO
responses to the original Group 5 public comments received from others.
Public Discussion on October 7, 2008. Mr. Thomas stated that he would have the word "cultural"
added to the new sentence proposed by Mr. Cornell. Mr, McDaniel suggested eliminating the deadline of
January, 2010 for the creation of the wildlife crossings map as that could be problematic. Mr. Eidson
suggested making the date January, 2011. Laura Roys asked who is going to prepare the map and which
study is it based upon. Mr. Cornell stated that the map to be used is that prepared for the Eastern Collier
County Panther Study as the basis for crossing needs and for future used for site development plans,
stewardship receiving areas, the MPO, etc. He stated that the map is essentially done. Elizabeth Fleming
stated that the word "identified" would be better because the study has already identified such crossings.
Nancy Payton gave a brief history ofthe development of the Panther Study.
Staff Comments: none
Committee Action taken on October 7. 2008: Mr. Cornell moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to amend
Policy 5.4 as outlined above. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 5,5
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the
listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards:
I. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to
inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed
species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall
notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species that may be
discovered.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated
listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and
can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how
the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species
and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. Open
space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer
areas between wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses
and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife corridors.
1. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the
required management plans:
I. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999.
2. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region, USFWS, 1987.
3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale
Development in Florida, Technical Report No.4, Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987.
6lPage
7:;;'J
7lPage
4. Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida
Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No.8, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991.
5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American
Kestrel (Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large-scale Development Sites in
Florida, Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, 1993.
11. The County shall consider any other techniques recommended by the
USFWS and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 of this
policy.
iii. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence,
such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of
native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing
for agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the
recommendation of other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph
3 of this policy.
b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall
be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with
the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off
site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves.
c. Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall
conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No.8, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall
also provide for a maintenance program and specifY an appropriate fire or
mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall
also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site
preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy.
d. For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management
plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities
during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS
South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions
of paragraph (3) of this policy.
e. For the red-cockaded woodpecker Ipicoides borealis), the required habitat
protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active
clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects
can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance
and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall
be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May
1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3) ofthis policy.
f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in bear-
proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shall
also identify methods to inform local residents of the concerns related to
interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat
suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan.
g. For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the
management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by
7roG
directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats
include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be
buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity
land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Gold courses
within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed using standards
found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate
lighting controls for these permitted uses and shall also address the opportunity
to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation
communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this policy.
h. The Management Plans shall contain a monitoring program for developments
greater than 10 acres.
3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies of this Overlay, consider and
utilize recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service in issuing development orders on property containing listed
species.
It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis, may
change the requirements contained within these wildlife protection policies and any
such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
Note: Brad CorneU 10-7-08 Proposal for this Policy is attached to these minutes along with ECPO
responses to the original Group 5 public comments received from others,
Public Discussion on October 7. 2008
Mr. Jones stated that the County already has language in paragraph I as is proposed by Mr. Cornell. He
stated that in paragraph 2g he is not even familiar with this document or the standards. Mr. Cornell stated
that the intent is clarify things. He further stated that the language in paragraph 3 comes from the
Conservation and Coastal management Element of the GMP. Elizabeth Fleming stated that Brad is
trying to find a standard for other listed species. Most other species are already covered. She also stated
that the language in this Policy needs to be updated to cite more current information and studies. She
stated that in paragraph 2g she would like to see something for Panthers. She stated that she supports
Brad's recommendations. Mr. Eidson stated that the species plan deals with 68 listed species. Mr. Jones
stated that he is ok with citing more updated studies, but we should not have to have a litany of 68 studies
listed in the RLSAO. Dane Scofield stated that he is concerned about listed species and how a temporary
use would have to comply with state and federal requirements. Mr. Cornell stated that this is something
he may have to work out with the state or federal agency. [discussion ended here to lack of additional
time].
Public Input: none received
Staff Comments: none
Committee Action on October 7. 2008: Motion by Mr. Cornell that his proposed amendments to Policy
5.5 be approved and seconded by Mr. Eidson to approve the proposed amendments advanced by Brad
Cornell. [action on the motion and second was tabled until the October 14th meeting and no action was
taken due to meeting the end of the meeting deadline].
VII. New Business [none]
VIII. Public Comments.
81Page
I ~)
IX, Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on October 14, 2008, in Rooms 609/610 of the
CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, in Naples, FI. from 9:00 AM. - II :30 AM.
X. Adjournment
Mr. McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Eidson with the motion approved
unanimously with adjournment at 12:02PM.
Review Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on
amended
, as presented
or as
9lPage
710c
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES
(VII) Policy 1.6
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within RLSA that are to be
kept in permanent agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be
identified as Stewardship Sending Areas or SSAs. All privately owned lands within
the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land becomes designated as a
SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the adoption of
a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which
acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns
Stewardship Credits or other compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier
County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved
SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require an
amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated
into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it
periodically occurs. A Stewardship Agreement shall be developed that identifies those
allowable residential densities and other land uses which remain. Once land is
designated as a SSA and Credits ar other compeRsatiaR is are granted to the owner, no
increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Agreement shall
be allowed on such property, unless the SSA and Stewardship Agreement are
terminated. The SSA may be terminated by the owner for a period of up to five years
after approval of the SSA if the Stewardship Credits have been assigned to an
approved Sending Receiving Area (SRA), and the SRA has not received final
development orders or Federal. State and local permits necessary to commence
construction excluding plat approval. site development plan approval and building
permit approval. The SSA shall not be terminated if owner has sold the Stewardship
Credits or if owner has received compensation in exchange for the credits.
(VII) Policy 1.7
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific
methodology set forth on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet),
incorporated herein as Attachment A. This methodology and related procedures for
SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District in
the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include
but not be limited to the following: (I) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the
Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall
also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and shall be in favor of Collier
County, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, South Florida Water Management District, or a recognized
statewide land trust, which may be modified or terminated if the SSA and Stewardship
Agreement are terminated; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship Agreement will
identify the specific land management measures that will be undertaken and the party
responsible for such measures.
(03
PHASE II REPORT PREPARATION SCHEDULE AND REPORT FORMAT
REVIEW COMMITTEE DIRECTION
August S, 2008 [updated through October 7, 2008]
SCHEDULE
A. REMAINING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS
· September 2...RLSA Overlay Review [(DES]
. September 16...RLSA Overlay Review [(DES]
· September 23...RLSA Overlay Review [CDES]
. September 30...... RLSA Overlay Review [CDES]
. October 7...RLSA Group S Policies [(DES]
. October 14...RLSA remaining Group 4 transportation-related Policies, Policy 1.6, and Data and
Analysis [CDES]
. October 21.... Draft Report Review?? [CDES]
. October 28...Final Review and wrap up for Phase 2 Report [CDES]
B, PUBLIC VETTING MEETINGS
. November 12....Environmental Advisory Council
. December l......Planning Commission
· January 29, 2009...Board of County Commissioners
. February 27, 2009....Department of Community Affairs
PHASE 2 REPORT FORMAT AND CONTENTS
The following is format approved by the Review Committee on August S, 2008:
. COVER
. TRANSMITTAL LETER with 2 maps: 1] "Collier County Rural & Agricultural Area Assessment
Stewardship Overlay Map; 2] "RLSA Status Map" which shows all approved Stewardship
Sending Areas and the one approved Stewardship Receiving Area, The Town of Ave Maria.
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
· COMMITTEE- RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSIP AREA
OVERLAY
a. Short Version Annotated
b. Long Version Annotated
. DATA AND ANALYSIS
. APPENDICES
10\}-
Naples Cultural Landscape
2400 Tamiami Trail N - Suite 300
Naples, Florida 34103
239.594.29780 239.261.6664 F
www.nanlesbackvardhsitorv.ol.l!
To: C.D.E.S. Division
Joseph Schmit, Division Administrator-
From: Naples Cultural Landscape: A Fund at the Community Foundation of Collier County
Lavern Norris Gaynor, Founder; Lois A Bolin, PIt.D., Strategic Advisor
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Requests to the R.L.S.A. Review Committee
Statement: Under the direction of the Dept. of Community Affairs a program was started and
implemented under Florida Statute 9J-5.026 entitled the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (R.L.S.A.).
On the first page of that programs texts Item # I states- the: Purooses of the RL.S.A. Program and Item
# 2 states the Purpose of the RL.S.A. Rule. Under the Standard Option of those purposes # 8 Section B
states as Item # I : Identify and explain the existing locally specific rural character of the RL.S.A. and
surrounding area by analyzing its characteristics, including Land use, Development Patterns, and
Economic, Social, Cultural. Historic, Scenic, Landscape, Recreational and Environmental Elements.
The data and analysis shall include under: Section # 2 Item-I: All forms of rural resource values
including Agriculture; Environmental, Eco Systems, Wildlife Habitat, and Water Resources;
Recreational, Tourism, Scenic; Cultural. and other general amenity Values.
Statement: Under the Special Option for R.L.S.A. of 50,000 or more Contiguous Acres ~ Section 7 Item B, Goals
and Objective, and Policies - # E,. states; A visionary Process to provide public participation in the design of any
new town or Rural Village. Under the same section -B, Goals and Objectives, B- Item 10 states; The recording of
a Stewardship easement or Restrictive covenant running with the land in Perpetuity on all designated
Conservation and Agricultural areas in favor of the Countv, the Dept. of Envirorunental Protection, and the Dept.
of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Inteq>retation: It is with the above statements that the Naples Cultural Landscape, a Fund of the Community
Foundation of Collier County, a 50 I (C)(3) non for profit organizat.ion along with the SlIppOr1 of various othcr non
for profit organizations mostly representing the general charters of!JistoricaJ Soc,icUes which meomp?"" the
policies ofDocumentillg, Rceordillg, Archiving, and lntcq)n}tillg to the genera) public aU areas pertaining to the
pa~t lTistori1e.1 ""d Cullersl themt,., represented ill the past History and Heritage ofCollierCounly that we do
hereby r~yUt;:;l tlH~S\) uddiliGn:) and lor pjvisions 00 l'cvkw~d and entered wl)(xe possible into the R.L.S.AO.
policies presently being amended and drafted by the various committees.
ibS
I
The Historical and Cultural aspects of Collier County's past during the establishment of the first Rural
Lands Stewardship Area committee's meetings, plans, and discussions that took place in early 1999
through 2002 unfortunately were not addressed in any way. This was due to the fact that an accurate
Historical and Cultural ResullrC''':: Ass<)ssment had not b...>cn completed and in essence, had not even been
stll1ted until 2n03, It ha~ takcn ovcr 5 Y~drS to complete the study and it was realized that any plans that
wcre being discussed in the nGW R.S.LA,O. reviews should includc the information that was found in
the study, but more impol1ani during thai time a plan had been c~)f(ecivc-cJ Ihat could inmrporatl' Lhc
objectives and Goals that the present RJ >.S.A.O. eomrniilec's and inten:,;1C'd panIC's, J1)OSl no:attiv
landowners, developers::- planners) {'.conoDJic advjsors..~ lourIsni (':.()rl..:Cfns, transpOnaH(;n eoncoTls~ and
rtlOi(: hnO',jd:~.nHv (.is [h(~~,;.; meetings that hav(: bec-l} going on for many years the concerns about the
i'tOrW:E i;anrw:r:; aw.1 \-\V1e v~lxii.;(Y of Dther \viidli 10 that would in the cnd :,:;onv; ho\v incorporate the rich
i iiSfonCHi and t.uttutni pa~j~ ofCoHicT Count}.-. On lhG surfaci:; this would seenl anlJtopian ideal until
you reaJize the fact that aewrding to Ihe Departmenl of Slate, Division of llisloncal Rl'sollj'C{~ slales
that in 2007 tourists brought inlo Florida over e17 Billion dollars, '/61 rnilJin!l of lh~! i\""t dneciiy 10
South Florida with 49 (percent) directly attributable 10 people who SnU!'fll nHi )1) !"en spew."
destinations areas that had: listol1cal sit,~s and pJaec"S. 'This is a <iO"/o incrcasc over the last 4 years and
thos" ttp,ur<;s arc ,;.xpc<;le<J to <.loubk itlthe next 5 years 1l11d exponentially thereafter. Taken with the filet
mat 0'1<; on;anrmlioil llnu (the[e W'<; over a half a dOZ':11 mono) Tn.; Florida Cmnmunities Trust allocated
73 million dollars last year to proje.cts Ihat secured Stewardship Credi1s, purchased land for Pm;crvrs,
Parks, Wildlife Habitat, Green Sp,i{:.c, as wd! as Cultural and l!istoricall'n:scrvation. /Is secremry OJ
the Dept. of COITlImmity Affairs Tom l'dJl,un said "OYer Ihe past 17 years, lt,ese awards Wlli help
communities achi-;"i) their vision ofSlmngcr, (}f<,cllcr and Healthier land~capes". As it is spoken ofin
the 1 tlslOrl,;a! and Cultural study over 80% of Collier Counties land has transitioned from the hands of
me Lanumvncrs find Collier Coullly Government into privak Stat<; and Federal entities in the last 34
years. This leaves the remaining 70% available for practical use by 1he Cmmty and lando\\1wrs in the
near future. This displays the simpIc fa,'t Ihal in tk final phases ofbnild-out the Coun1y. Landowners,
Planners, Committee Membt,rs, and other organi~2ti(lns ilre to paraphrase lhe :;RYll1[' . j jyinl' io (;CSCfme
an Eh;phant iust by it~ hr:>ad '. Understanding that sinee the inception of the Everglades National Park
was e)~I:.lbiis!H;d in t 9.17 and othr:>r 'I Stale and Federal pl\)scrvcs established since have implemented
onlv pohelGs that mainly addl'<)ss f1ioloU1cal <:Dnc<;ms. TIH) I Iuman element has taken a back seat as can
be seen in the fact that that with over I million acre.s lmdcr the different park rmmagemenl systems in the
last 61 years, not ODe site locate.d on thesc lands has heen registered on the National Rcpistef oj Ili;:1orie
Places where the public can have ac<.css 10 Imlay and enjoy. In the final phasC'" of lhis Yisioninp wocess
it bc><:omcs upparent that if the goals and object! vcs to "conncct the dots" do not find their fulcrum point
and Ihe VISions SI) eamcsliy sought will be like doud~ without water. If the only Goal is to build houses
ami >;ommwlitit:" ,vitl1uut incorporating the past Ilistory and CulhJres that S. W. Florida has always had
an association with the muquencss Ibal c.an so easily be applic.d simply leaves way to "oJTnirw n01hinj!.
more than any other COmmlUlfly. To distinguish 1he Sou1h West coast fi-om ik eastl'OaSl wouio be one
of the greatest assets in a f"mancial v.'aY_ It goc.$ without saying thatlmndrnls of thousand OJ hours laboT
arc going into thel planning stages and untold millions of dollars have been and are being utilized to
apply stratcgi,;s ihat in the cnd will tic into and apply to tIle final 'Horizon Picture' it would be
COtlStruCtlV{) to paus(~ and remember diat old and well applied adage "TIIat a million monkey's typing on
a million typewriters for a million ye.ars will nevCf ]x able to write a Shakcspcrian play" To slmplv relv
on the phrase - If you build it they will eome should also seek to have a cavea! added - T1,(:y Wl!i if
there is something 10 come to. To speak only of Nalmal Resources and their luime conservation as ihc
oniy biological consideration in tlus County and fail to not recognize that the Historical and Cultural
i leritage of tir.: past rcsid"nts and the type of individual lifestyle is one of the most important ingredients
In that term referred to a~ Natural Resources.
1101-
2
Therefore the Goals and Objectives proposed by the Naples Cultural Landscape organization in
conjunction with other interested parties and organizations collectively speaking on the Historical and
Cultural Heritage policies that make up the largest part of these organizations goals state and seek to
initiate:
1. Stop the de-designation process that removed the Historic and Cultural attributes of U.S. 41
(Tamiami Trail) and is currently in the process of removing;
A. The 1988 designation of the trail by the State as a- Florida Scenic Highway
B. The 2000 designation of the trail by the Federal Government as a- National Scenic Byway
2. Installation of Historical Markers and Interpretive Centers and/or Kiosks along the entire
distance of U.S. 41 (famiami Trail) stretching from the City of Naples to the Dade County
border that will represent Collier County's past History and Cultural Heritage. This will direct
tourism and interest from the east coast and west coast sections that will culminate on Highway #
29.
3. Installation of Historical Markers and Interpretive Centers and/or Kiosks along the entire
distance of Highway # 29 from the south on U.S. 41 north to ImmokaJee City that will represent
the Collier County's past History and CulturaJ Heritage as it relates to the past;
A. Historic lumber towns, Settlements, Farming towns, Oil producing towns [Sunniland], First
Collier County Citrus producing groves, The fIrSt Collier COilllty Citrus Canning plant, the first
Railroad in Collier County both passenger and commercial [Deep Lake]-Since Deep Lake is one
of only 5 sinkhole lakes in Florida and has freshwater on its first layer and saltwater on its lower
layer with a resident population of Alligators and Crocodiles living together it would be expected
to draw over I million visitors a year.
B. Seeking cooperation to open Deep Lake to the general public as it was for the first 106 years of
its operation [not currently open to the grneral public] and having a boardwalk installed.
C. Seeking cooperation to turn the now presently dosed Old Copeland Prison into a Pioneer
Museum [This will involve seeking the N.P.S. to return the il 1 j .ee 'j'ickwal€'r Cypress Company
steam train that is presently in the Steamtowl1 Collection in Scranton Pennsylvania]
This will have a positiVI) flow on all visitors and tourisl, and seek to draw them to the new
lnvdopmcnt taking plac\) in tlJ<) R. r "S.I\, area and Immokalee City area
4. Seek cooperation from landowners to I~egis1cr Fort Simon Drum- fa known and monllmenl.cd
site by David Graham Copeland in 1941]. This sit" is presently 6 miles cast ofhnmokake City
one half mile south ofJrnmokake j~oad and would lx, just on the cast side of the new proposed
bypass road that will t;onncc! to tll<; road north of Immoka1cc City. The Fort Simon Drum site is an early
Army Seminole War fortifkation and is the only known site ofa military installation in South
West Florida South of the Caloosahatchc() River and it is expected that it would draw over 2
million visitors and tourists a year.
5. Seek cooperation with landowners and developers to have Historical Markers or Kiosks
inlcrj}roting Colli<;r County's past Historical and CulturallI,,'litage displayed placed at designated
parks and open f'Tccn spa\Jcs in ttll) future plann,,"d devclopnK'uts. One exam pic of the benefits
or such a ';()OIJCmtlve agr\Jcmcnt is the fad that ill 200? prior to dcvelopruGnt at the Ave Maria
first phase site an expensive Arehaeological Survey was rcquiw:l by the State to try to k,c~ite a
past Historic site which the owners thought at that time to be the location of Fori Doane 811 early
Army Seminole War fortific.ation 8ik. Tbe inv<:.sligation was clone and the r('{rllifCd t>il(jcrwom
was complcted allowing the \:ontinuation of devclopment. This resulted in a coordinated effort
on the part of s':vcml research eentcrs to try to accurately identify the previously mentioned site.
I to7
3
This in turn led to the eventual recording of 9 more sites in the area on 09/09/2008- State File Survey
#15576 thereby requiring an additional nine more Archaeological investigative studies being required
before development could proceed at any of those locations in and around the Phase 2 area and the
proposed Big Cypress Development, with at least 3 of those new sites in the northern part of the
RL5U\. This process 11:-\S he<m descrih,:d as a cycle that continually [feeds on itself] Furthermore it
was discovered that the corr;;d Wim'~ of lllG supposed Fort Doane site had already been previously
recorded w; the site ofC/llUp Ke<iis and an Archaeological survcy mil'.nt have b('{'n avoidcu. The ori?.inal
form has now been updat('{1 on the Florida Mw;ler Site Files 10 indicat(' this name change. ,'hi;; is a clear
case of how coopcf"dtion between parties would have been beneficial in concrete iinilflClaj ~.vay,. "'\s n is
cX1J'.xh.-.'-J Hkd i::;;:k,ast '-~C~Jt~ jjDssihh::: n,~\-v lo<;ath.:r[lS involving I Iistoricaf Rt;sources in the northemarea of
111<, R.L,~./\. ;\nd tn', ili"" }'lvl.labilily thut 5 or more o[tl1os<) sites have to do with Native American
Sa~red Sit,;~ lhxicnd l i i {lnauciaHy b(;ho(J\'l;S aU :andO\\'TliXS, d~veJopem, and res{;archcrs to try to
cooperate on any obstacles that would impede' any part of the fl,OW and prowinp vision. One ofthc
proposed solutions would be to bypass the past processcs that ar,c cosny and pamer ndd!n.! on (',leh end
and just agreeing to ineorpomtc a bask preset mmlber or interpretive rnarKCfS or KiOsk,; in any OJ UIC
propos,->J Tuwns, Villages, or I iamkts in any th,~ public gre.:nways or pmks. This would serve to display
tll" past I ristO! y and CuHu.." of ttl<' coullty. 111is in "m,ct is a visionary way in which cooperation can enhance
tn" vaiue and <lc;sirabili.)' of ;lny pmposcd community and fits well with illG rural chamctcr these new homes seek
to display. As the Collier County Museum already has the equipment to make these markers there would be
minimal costs associated with such a plan.
6. Se;:k to <:stablish at a minimum 011<; continuous lIislorieal and Cultural Heritage Trail unimpeded
and without any Conservation (;as';mcnt r<:strictions that stretches from the eastern corridor of the
R.L.S.A. to tllG wcs!\'rn corridoro[thG proposed R.L.S.A.
7. Seek to establish at a mininmm one continuous Historical and Cultural Heritaee Tmil unimpeded
and without any Conservation casement f('.slriclions ihat strc.Lch<,s from the southern corridor of
the RL.S.A. to the northern eorridor of lhe proposed IU ".S.A..
STATEMENT:
Although it is understood that that many of the Environmental, Wildlife, and other numerous
agencies including those thai have to do with rcprescnlinp toc Nalmal Re,,,:mrces and I ':nda.n~~ered
Species legislation have been working on poli<,ies that directly and indirectly have relaiion to the
present R.L.S.A. Proc.('.sses" Goals, and Objectives, that were stnr!c{lin )999 and hn,'(' now hem
continuing until the pres<~nt time in '7.008, on behalf of tile people and organizations that were not
includ<..'<.l !up to sp<xd] in regards to the IlislOlical and Cultural ideals that the original provisions that
were t~ltyision<..,l when th<.~ Purpose of tl1e Ruks found in D.C.A.s. guidelines came to public
attention and speaking on behalf of1hosc interests now fDimd in the capacity ofbcing a
representative of those voices would ask that a small amollnt of extra lime be given to the following
statements which most display our Imificd concerns.
A. TIlat it be rlXognized that an accurdte and up to date Historical and Cultural Resource study has
never been conducted in CoHiGr COUllty since its ine<-1'tion in 1923 until it was presented to
committee members 011 September 30, 2008.
B. That a total of 9 new Historical sites (',(lmprising a J 66 year total span of a tirndine of Collier
County's past has been for the first time oc",.cptc-d by tl1(' State ofF/oricla 32 days ago.
7bct
4
· This should be accepted as a good faith effort considering these items were presented to this
committee being specifically mentioned- Purposes of rules of the D.C.A. Objectives and Goals-
# I-Standard Options and # 2 Special Options relating to Historical and Cultural values.
Therefor<:: having established the items found on these pages 2, 3, and 4 the following comments are
added for the review now taking place on October 7, 9 am. Room 609, on Policy 5, however please find
other comments on policies that may also apply to the present meeting but nevertheless need to be
entered into the appropriate sections for public commcnt fix those specific policies when the committee
has the time.
Policy 5.4
No right of way to be relinquished by the County for Panther crossings on anywhere on
highway If 29 j f crossings block way of known I Iistorical sites. As there are a preponderance of past
known sites starting at U.S. 41 and k.llding north tOjllSt south of Irnrnokakc City {olaHn;' ] Q. they arc
protected under the F.nO.T. Cultural Resource hook.. 200& l,'!a. Statuks 'i'illc j (l.Puhlic ] .,nds HDO
Property -Chapter 267 lris10Deal Resources ')67.07]. OJ HI JiS{(,lk Property" or "J Jis,o]';c [<,'BOUlCC'
means HlW Frc.hi:;tOfi,~ Or iiistoilc I..bt'l"t. sik, building. obj<..>d or other real or personal property of
iit~{O(H;';).l, .-'\n:iljt(;Cntn.L. .vahj{; aW1 FoHdifi; fi.:~sour~{~s. T!H~SG properties or resources may include but are
not InnW.;(i to~ ~v~onUln~~tHS~ 0.'kOH..:(!.H!:'.i, iw.iiafl fh~bjtatioHS, {\.;r';111onial Sites, /\}:)<:W1Q.p.-e4..~.9tt1ements..
Sunken Ships, Engineering Works, Treasure Trove, Artifa<'1s, or othn ObJC.c.lS with Historical or
Archaeological Value, or any part thereofrclating (0 the Jlistory, Governmc.nl cJld Culture of the Slate.
267.021-(4) Preservation or Historic Preservation means Identification. Evaluation. Re-documenlation,
~lysis. Re()()1t"eJ)'JJlJPdlLretation.
? Has F.L.D.O.T. complied with Public Law 89-665, as amended regulations {36 erR Part 800-revised 1/11101
Executive Order 11593 Chapter 267 (F.S. Revised 2001), N.E.l'.A. 91.]90, D.O.T.A. ACr 1966 PuhlkLaw 89-
670
I. For all Phases of work on Highway # 29
2. For aU Phases of work on Oil Well Road
3. For all Phases of work on # 846
4. For all Phases of work on Camp Keais Road
5. For preliminary plans on 1129 Bypass Road
6. For all Phases of work on II 858
Policy 1.2
Clari fy how R. L.KA.O. interaets with the Florida Greenway and Trails Act - 2008 FJa.
Statutes title 18 Chapter ?60 .260.012 Item 1 and 2, 3B, and 6-A,D,E,F [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.6
No emphasis is put on the Historical Transportation Routes from the south to the north or the
west to the east in the present SSAs. [Naples Cultural J .andsea:pc}
Policy 1.7
Historicallnterprdatiolllllarkers, Kiosks, and Cultural Heritage should be allowed to be built
south of Oil Well Road and should have road access planned for them. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Review easement language and policies to prevent L W.e. from noldine all easemen1s. 1.11 casements
should go to the C-aunty for the. Cultural and 1 kritage Trail. (Naples Cultur&ll..andsc-llt-'X' J
71-9
5
Stewardship easements should be held by private entities -Florida Community Trust provided 630
million dollars between 2007 and 2008 and have encouraged and fostered public and private
partnerships. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
S.S.A. Credit agreements should include the Department of Community Affairs and Florida Forever
programs as the signatories. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.11
Do not remove all the layers in the matrix until a Historic and Cultural study has been done
to see how the past pioneers used the Natural Resources of the land. If a critical layer is removed in
respect to a Historic or Cultural site all future uses and activities in that layer are eliminated forever
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.12
Presently only credits for S.R.A. can be transferred for lands that meet the defined Suitability
Standard in the RL.S.A. for S.R.A.s but language needs to be established 10 encompass criteria for
Historic and past Cultural sites. [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.13
Do the procedures for the transfer of credits include language for Historical or Cul1urd.!
Resources since Stewardship credits do not rC<:lu.irc any G.M.P. amendments.
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.18
Have any studies been implemented to see whcre the highest ground available can be used for
the Instorical or Cultural Heritage Tmi! and will it bave a high enough ground elevation so that it will
not be prone to flooding? [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 1.20
Is th"t'c a jJro vision ot' a percentage allocated for any educational programs that interpret to the
public any part of a t listorical or Culturally reIat,:;d theme in the Trust. Arc there any incentives to
owners to :;dl CI12dits that wili go tor any progrmns that have to do with the county's past history?
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7_1
I f tOwn" arc d<.:serihed as baving "lndi vidllal.l<I~I)Jit(1)nd Character" to what extent will the
Interpreration in the community packs allow for Historic or Cultural values and is there a certain
pcrcenta~c in 31-'<I<;e or tim<.\:, allocated in the plans or designs and what will the towns display or
incorporate to educate the public about the county's Cultural past. [Naples Cultural LandsC'.ape]
Policy 4.7.2
!f vi Ha.,cs haw "Character" scaled to each partk'ular villagc to what extent does this parallel
extcml te; in rhe p'iTks and Green Spaces on a Ilistorical kvcl and what association does this have with
the past CUltumll h:rila'('~ of ih~ past small towns of Collier C01.mty [Naples Cultural Landscape]
Policy 4.7.3
If\)
6
To what extent will the communities in the Hamlets contribute to the Historical and Cultural
values that were a past part of the county's history and how will this be reflected in their public Green
Spaces. [Naples Cultural Landscape}
l>olicy 4. 9
Public access should be allowed on all right of ways, Stewardship easements or Conservation
easements in any area of land that is rated in AN.R.I. index of 1.2 or higher. By restricting any
Greenways or Buffer Zones the Historical and in particular the Culturdl and scenic resourCl::s of the land
will not allow for full enjoyment of any future proposed Historic.al and Cultural Heritage trail and ",<ill
limit Eco Tourism to unsatisfying scenic endeavors. Since there is only 2 % of lan(L~ that will qualify for
a 1.2 or higher rating the absolute I><;st lands must be used on the trail and an exception in the language
must be madG as it will bl; th,; County's only chance to int\::rpret to the public in the true scenic beauty of
the land. [Napks Cultural Landscape}
Polley 4.11
Where existing Agricultural activity joins a S.R.A. the design ofthc s:.R.A. should not have
more than two geographical sides connecting either in tand('ITl or opposite that wiH imJXilc any
recreationlop<.:n space for a better possibility of having a more pleasing environment.
[Naples Cultural Landscape]
Polley 4.20
For clarification all language spoken of as "Public Benefit" should include whether this
means -Public access. [Naples Cultural I..andscapcJ
llow do you quantify a percentage of Pub lie Benefit rdating to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets
and is there a certain portion of"Publh; Benctit" that has in any tangible way a reflection of any part of
Collier County's past Culture or lIel'itagc. [Naples Cultural Landscape}
It!
7
October 6, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II Policy Group 5
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Our firm, together with WilsonMiller, Inc., represents Alico, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Citrus, Priddy Farm, Half Circle L Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectively comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA").
Pursuant to the eslablished procedures for the 5-year review of the RLSA program, we
offer the following comments and recommendations for consideration by the Committee during
the Phase 2 process currently underway.
In this letter we will offer our comments and recommendations related to Policy Group 5.
,
Group 5 Policies
Policy 5.1
1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in the Habitat Stewardship
Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the
landowner participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some
permitted and conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their
participation in the RLSA. For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the
RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should
assess whether all agricultural activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentially
)'72-
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
October 6, 2008
Page 2
remove the more active agricultural uses as incompatible with protection 01 the quality,
quantity and maintenance of the nalural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5..1, for
HSAs, the only outright prohibition is for asphaltic and concrete batch making plants.
The Conservancy believes this should be reassessed, with the opportunity to expand the
prohibited uses within HSAs and FSAs. Also, Policy 3.7 specilically should be
reassessed as to the allowances within HSAs. The Conservancy believes that golf
courses, and olher impacting uses, are incompatible with all HSAs.
ECPO Comments: FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified
mix of habitat required for species and adequate land uses. The mix of land use activities within
FSAs and HSAs are necessary to enable the delineation of the large interconnected systems.
The Group 5 policies collectively provide a set of minimum land development standards that
apply only when a land owner does not participate in the RLS program. In the case of Policy
5.1, the FSA provision addresses a narrow issue of water quality wilhin regional flow ways,
where the more intensive land uses could impacl offsite areas. Of the 31,100 acres of FSA,
only 800 acres are active agriculture. Within the HSAs it has been confirmed by many biological
experts, including Darrel Land who spoke with the RLS Committee, that species are very adept
at utilizing and traversing agriculture lands.
Policy 5.4
2. Stronger language lor wildlife underpasses and a map of locations
ECPO Comments: The RLSA program provides a tremendous framework for facilitating the
establishment of wildlife underpasses, by protecting large expanses of habitat with SSA lands.
The actual need assessments, locating, design, and construction of wildlife underpasses occurs
through the efforts of state and/or federal wildlife and transportation agencies, either as part of
public works projects or as part of the regulatory process for development projects. As one
example, FWC researchers continually evaluate the need for panther crossings, and have maps
of existing and proposed panther underpasses.
3. Panther deaths on 846 are mentioned, but not those on Rte 29 or 41 east, which are
many.
ECPO Comments: Panther deaths on Route 41 East are miles south of the RLSA, as are
incidents on SR 29 south of Ihe Sunniland mines. The panther-vehicle collisions on CR 846 east
of lmmokalee were considered when designating the FSA and HSA stewardship overlays in that
area. SSA 3 and SSA 4 were later designated along that segment of CR 846 specifically to
provide opportunities for luture panther crossings.
FWC has documented the location of all known panther-vehicle collisions in a GIS database.
This information, in conjunction with FWC's least cost path modeling of panther movements,
has been and will be used to identify promising sites for additional panther crossings. The RLSA
program facilitates the establishment 01 these wildlife underpasses by preserving existing land
uses in the vicinity of the crossings.
Policy 5.6
4. The actual ability to develop in the RLSA under the standard zoning did not include an
analysis of what amount of non-jurisdictional lands could actually be permitted. This
773
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
October 6, 2008
Page 3
produced a false sense of urgency to protect environmentally sensitive land that in
reality may never have been allowed to be improved. Even as 5 or 10 acre homesites,
the ability to infringe upon wetlands is limited.
ECPO Comments; An analysis of the specific jurisdictional wetland permitting conditions of the
entire 300 square mile RLS was not within the scope of the Rural Land Study, nor is such an
analysis required for comprehensive planning. Further, as the RLSA is an optional overlay, it is
an alternative to development under the existing zoning, not a replacement.
The standard zoning of the entire RLSA is Agriculture. Under this zoning, a wide range of land
uses are permitted by right or conditional use that can have impacts to jurisdictional areas,
including the full range of agricultural activities, farmworker housing, commercial excavations,
and residential development. Under the standard zoning, land ownership can be subdivided and
fragmented in ways that compromise wetland and habitat connectivity. Once this occurs, it is
very expensive and difficult to reassemble land into manageable systems (Southern Golden
Gate Estates). The RLSA creates incentives for more sustainable and environmentally sound
patterns of protection and development on a landscape basis.
In addition, many environmentally sensitive lands within the RLSA are not jurisdictional
wetlands, yet provide important habitat for Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox
squirrel, and other listed species. Large areas of non-jurisdictional land are included in Habitat
Stewardship Areas, particularly where these occur in proximity to native vegetated areas or
flowways.
The "sense of urgency" lor protecting environmentally sensitive lands pre-dates the RLSA, and
in fact was a key catalyst that led to the establishment of the Final Order, the Rural Lands
Study, and the resulting RLSA program. The Florida Forever program (and its predecessors)
targeted the CREW lands (Camp Keais Strand) and the Okaloacoochee Slough long before the
creation of the RLSA. Various state and federal analyses projected strong development
pressures on wetlands within the RLSA before the RLSA program was created. The South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration program predicates much of its land acquisition strategy on
potential wetland losses and landscape-scale fragmentation.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and recommendations to you
and look forward 10 discussing any questions you or the Committee may have concerning them.
Very truly yours,
John M. Passidomo
For the Firm
6434-13239 #179 - Greenwood Ltr 5 ECPO responses to Group 5 comments
ill./-
Policy 5.1
To protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural water regime in areas mapped as
FSAs and lands described in Policy 3.12 surroundimz the Caron Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee SIOluzh
on the Overlay Map prior to the time that they are designated as SSAs under the Stewardship Credit
Program. Residential Uses, General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and
Recreational Uses (layers 1-4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs and lands described in
Policy 3.12. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, except those
necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed In FSAs with a Natural
Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional.drilling techniques
and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil or gas extraction in FSAs in order to
minimize impacts to native habitats. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants shall be prohibited in
areas mapped as HSAs. The opportunity to voluntarily participate in the Stewardship Credit Program, as
well as the right to sell conservation easements or a free or lesser interest in the land, shall constitute
compensation for the loss of these rights.
Policy 5,4
Collier County will coordinate with appropriate State and Federal agencies concerning the provision of
wildlife crossings at locations detemtined to be appropriate. A mao of these crossin2 locations will be
deve10ned bv Januarv 2010 and used in evaluatin2 community and transoortation planninQ: for the RLSA.
Policy 5.5
For those lands that are not voluntanly included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, non-
agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from the
listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards:
1. A wildlife survey shall be required for all parcels when listed species are known to
inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site or where listed
species are directly observed on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. The County shall
notify the FFWCC and USFWS of the existence of any listed species that may be
discovered. No local oermits shall be issued until necessarY state and federal oennits
have been obtained.
2. Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species shall be submitted for County
approval. A plan shall be required for all projects where the wildlife survey indicated
listed species are utilizing the site, or the site is capable of supporting wildlife and
can be anticipated to be occupied by listed species. These plans shall describe how
the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats.
a. Management plans shall incorporate proper techniques to protect listed species
and their habitats from the negative impacts of proposed development. Open
space and vegetation preservation requirements shall be used to establish buffer
areas between Wildlife habitat areas and areas dominated by human activities.
Provisions such as fencing, walls, or other obstructions shall be provided to
minimize development impacts to the wildlife and to facilitate and encourage
wildlife to use wildlife corridors. Appropriate roadway crossings, underpasses
and signage shall be used where roads must cross wildlife conidors.
1. The following references shall be used, as appropriate, to prepare the
required management plans:
1. South Florida Multi.Species Recovery Plan, USFWS, 1999.
2. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast
Region, USFWS, 1987.
77&
3. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) Populations found on Lands Slated for Large Scale
Development in Florida, Technical Report No.4, Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1987.
4. Ecology and Development-Related Habitat Requirements of the Florida
Scrub Jay (Apelocoma coerulescens), Technical Report No.8, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Conunission, 1991.
5. Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of the Southeastern American
Kestrel (Falco Sparverius Paulus) on Large-scale Development Sites in
Florida, Nongame Technical Report No. 13, Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Conurussion, 1993.
ii. The County shall consider any other tedmiques recommended by the USFWS
and FFWCC, subject to the provision of paragraph 3 oftrus policy.
iii. When listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence,
such as denning, foraging, or other indications, a minimum of 40% of native
vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of dearing for
agricultural purposes. The County shall also consider the reconunendation of
other agencies, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this policy.
b. For parcels containing gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), priority shall
be given to protecting the largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat with
the greatest number of active burrows, and for providing a connection to off
site adjacent gopher tortoise preserves.
c. Habitat preservation for the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) shall
conform to the guidelines contained in Technical Report No.8, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1991. The required management plan shall
also provide for a maintenance program and specifY an appropriate fire or
mechanical protocols to maintain the natural scrub community. The plan shall
also outline a public awareness program to educate residents about the on-site
preserve and the need to maintain the scrub vegetation. These requirements
shall be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) ofthis policy.
d. For the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the required habitat management
plans shall establish protective zones around the eagle nest restricting certain
activities. The plans shall also address restricting certain types of activities
during the nest season. These requirements shall be consistent with the UFWS
South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan, May 1999, subject to the provisions
of paragraph (3) of this policy.
e. For the red-cockaded woodpecker Ip~icoides borealis), the required habitat
protection plan shall outline measures to avoid adverse impacts to active
clusters and to minimize impacts to foraging habitat. Where adverse effects
can not be avoided, measures shall be taken to minimize on-site disturbance
and compensate or mitigate for impacts that remain. These requirements shall
be consistent with the UFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan, May
1999, subject to the provision of paragraph 3) of this policy.
f. In areas where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) may be
present, the management plans shall require that garbage be placed in bear-
proof containers, at one or more central locations. The management plan shaH
also identifY methods to infonn local residents of the concerns related to
interaction between black bears and humans. Mitigation for impacting habitat
suitable for black bear shall be considered in the management plan.
{l~
g. For projects located in Priority I or Priority II Panther Habitat areas, the
management plan shall discourage the destruction of undisturbed, native
habitats that are preferred by the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) by
directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. Preferred habitats
include pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks. In turn, these areas shall be
buffered from the most intense land uses of the project by using low intensity
land uses (e.g., parks, passive recreational areas, golf courses). Golaf courses
within the Rural Lands Area shall be designed and managed usmg standards
found within this Overlay. The management plans shall identify appropriate
lighting controls for these pennitted uses and shall also address the opportunity
to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-adapted preserved vegetation
communities and provide browse for white-tailed deer. These requirements
shall be consistent with the USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recover Plan,
May 1999, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) oftrus policy. The Multi-
Soecies RecovelV Plan (l999) shall constitute minimum wildlife Drotection
standards for the RLSAO.
h. The Management Plans shall contam a monitoring program for developments
greater than 10 acres.
3. The County shall, consistent with applicable policies oftrus Overlay, consider and utilize
recommendations and letters of technical assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
in issuing development orders on property containing listed species.,.. or listed sDecies
habitat caoable of suooortinll wildlife and can be anticiDated to be occuDied bv listed
soecies. It is recognized that these agency recommendations, on a case by case basis,
may elHtftgestremrthen the requirements contained within these wildlife protection
policies and any such change shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management
Plan. However. no relaxation of these wildlife orotection oolicies will be considered.
Policv 5.6 . _ _.. _ __
Any deyelooment on lands not oarticioatinlZ in the RLSA ProllTam will not be included in any oossible
Habitat Conservation Plan. Conservation AllTeement or other federal eauivalent under the EndanlZered
Soecies Act in the RLSA and are reauired to Dursue aoorooriate oermittiOll and mitieation throuQ'h the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service. No county
develonment authorization shall be issued until a USFWS ESA Section 7 or 10 authorization is issued or
deemed unecessarv for the orooosed develooment.
[** For Policy 5.16 (wetlands protections), I would like to revise the numerous references to
WRAP (delete) and use UMAM as the functional evaluation standard. I also suggest adding a
policy disallowing exotics removal counting at all as wetland impact mitigation (5.6.3.f. - add a
new "iv".) Finally, I would like to add incentives to restore wetlands and habitat through non-
RLSA tools, like Farm Bill easements, grants, tax benefit programs, etc.]
777
1 Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", First line:
0"
Policy 5.16
For those lands that are not voluntarily included in the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Collier County
shall direct non-agricultural land uses away from high functioning wetlands by limiting direct impacts
within wetlands. A direct impact is hereby defined as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely
changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This policy shall be implemented as follows:
1. There are two (2) major wetlands systems within the RLSA, Camp Keais, Strand and the
Okaloacoochee Slough. These two systems have been mapped and are designated as
FSA's. Policy 5.l prohibits certain uses within the FSA '5, thus preserving and protecting
the wetlands functions within those wetland systems.
2. The other significant wetlands within the RLSA are WRA'5 as described in Policy
3.3.These areas are protected by existing SFWMD wetlands permits for each area.
3. FSAs, HSAs and WRAs, as provided in Policy 5.3, and the ACSC have stringent site
clearing and alteration limitations, nonpermeable surface limitations, and requirements
addressing surface water flows which protect wetland functions within the wetlands in
those areas. 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 pennitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management
District.
a. The Count:Y 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:
i. The acreage requirements specified within this Overlay shall be met by
preserving wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland
functionality assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph b of this
policy. The vegetative preservation requirements imposed by Policies 5.3 and
5.5 shall first be met through preservation of wetlands having a functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater. Within one year from the effective date of this
Amendment, the County shall develop specific criteria in the LDC to be used
to detennine those instances in which wetlands with a WRAP functionality
assessment score of 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method
score of 0.7, or greater must be preserved in excess of the preservation required
by Policy 5.3.
ii. Wetlands utilized by listed species or serving as corridors for the movement of
listed species shall be preserved on site. Wetland flowway functions through
the project shall be maintained.
iii. Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table
drawdowns or diversions will not adversely change the hydoperiod of
preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall he set
to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and
project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements,
projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4.6.11 and 6.12 of
SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. Upland vegetative communities
may be utilized to meet the vegetative, open space and site preservation
requirements of this Overlay when the wetland functional assessment score is
less than 0.65.
b. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review,
applicants shall rate functionality of wetlands using the South Florida Water
77ft
Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP), as described
in Technical Publication Reg-OOl, dated September 1997, and updated August 1999,
or the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method, identified as F.A.C.
Chapter 62.345. The applicant shall submit to County staff agency-accepted WRAP
scores, or Uniform Wetlands Mitigation Assessment scores. County staff shall
review this functionality assessment as part of the County's EIS provisions and shall
use the results to direct incompatible land uses away from the highest functioning
wetlands according to the requirements found in paragraph 3 above.
c. All direct impacts shall be mitigated for pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (f)
oftrus policy.
d. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Policy 6.2.7
of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate
buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated
upland buffer abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-
foot vegetated upland buffer abutting the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in
conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by
50%. A structural buffer shall be required abutting wetlands where direct impacts are
allows~. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards:
i. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approvedjurisdiclionalline.
ii. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. 'Where native
vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and
expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted.
iii. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as
defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council.
iv. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions
and are allowed within the buffer:
(1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters;
(2) Pervious nature trails;
(3) Water management structures;
(4) Mitigation areas;
(5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is
comparable in nature with the foregoing uses.
v. A structural buffer may consist of a stem-wall, benn, or vegetative hedge with
suitable fencing.
f. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetland in order to result in no net
loss of wetland functions.
Mitigation Requirements:
i. "No net loss of wetland functions" shall mean that the wetland functional score of
the proposed mitigation equals or exceeds the wetland functional score of the
impacted wetlands. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSA's and HSA's.
ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands
shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance
capacity on site and within or abutting the impacted wetland.
iil. Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative
communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the
land in perpetuity, providing for initial exotic plant removal (Class I invasive
exotic plants defined by the FloHda Exotic Plan Council) and continumg exotic
plant maintenance, or by appropriate ownership transfer to a state or federal
agency along with sufficient funding for perpetual management activities.
/77
iv. Under no circumstances will exotics removal or maintenance be considered
accentable miti23tion for the loss of wetlands or listed snecies habitat.
wy. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (f) i, ii, and iii of this
policy. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this
policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional
agencies.
g. Wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas shall be identified or platted as
separate tracts. In the case of a PI armed Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be
depicted on the PUD Master Plan. These areas shall be maintained free from trash and debris
and from Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council. Land uses allowed in these areas shall be limited to those listed above (3.e.iv.) and
shall not include any other activities that are detrimental to drainage, flood, control, water
conservation, erosion control or fish and wildlife habitat conservation and preservation.
4. All landowners shall be encouraeed to consider particinatinll in anv Droerams that Drovide incentives
fundinll or other assistance in facilitatinll wetland and habitat restoration on nrivate lands includinll but
not limited to federal farm bill arncultural conservation nrollTams. nrivate or nubHc lZrants tax incentives.
easements. and fee or less than fee sale to conservation prolITams.
Policv 5.8 _ _ _ _... _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ ... _ . . _ _ ... ._
Anv develonment on lands oot narticinatioll in the RLS orOllram shall be reauired to assure comnatibilitv
with surroundinQ' land uses. Outdoor liQ'htinll shall be reasonablv manaQ'ed to nrotect the nillhttime
environment conserve enenlV. and enhance safety and security. Other comnatibilitv elements to be
addressed include but are not limited to annTOoriate buffers smoke easements. and acmcultural neillhbor
alZI'eements.
700
1 Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2008
Ron Hamel, Chair
MEMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
N eno Spagna, V ice Chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name
E-mail! Affiliation
Phone #
(f)(~S G,-'~ ~)'\~(~ ~ovv.&J(r'Q('Y\~"oc,{""'~ili""3 cu. nf.>i- ~S;:-2-Z3<3
. bl" ti1:'Z:: cJt: /:;;~" r~:~7t:c:lt5fnACA e:t; - ~ ~f _ '/301
Jft./J1.e 5 I-t4M/J2",A/f> ////;;:;/'<>5' t},v-kfrn"?A/.. N;.,vJ,5C/l/J", ,;l?3-o/(Pr
'T h s .1 i(nNSifJl/t{so~/(j)
/ltVS './0 rJ J,v HMUIi1J~ PIJf3L!C CoM<:~strr-e-f 877-g/.IJ6
efl.AJ tI{uLk~j ---Z/vt...")<,.i,, (;(/1 .2:>>.. J-5-<(f
({ UJ 0
U;f{ 1},5~/' C,,/}~<- C'/tI7'<0t!//?n,c' 5 2C,,/- YYSS
c7J,f7J ~/9S.s",DOA7(> r:~; ~S. 'A.N\O L?.%' -/~
Ch("~~\~o.^ 5-~)\...~ Ce>//"e,f' C"kl"fll/c;e::> ;JG,J-l./I/S.5
'Df1tJc SC()ricLD 1-1t4L.F ~Mr:a: 1... tfrliVCIf ..253 -51>"0)
/\L0 ",.Js;~ ~ {< ,,-t..,(,..,j r I ~(I; ~
,.;11 'T.C'_,7 ~,Lr-, ,....:..,=_ ~_..
, '5
^lD1.J 2/J,8JJ
c:.. c::. , >r::::>
"Z3"1 . ~..QS Ib9"t
'1]1'Yl D Uyh4f'YJ W//5on/il/f(
8ibE-tpk, !1 E:#Vll ~ ~> ~
\;-vi Ld- Ii+- ~
~tjq. '10'10
h::;-- - ?Z-j-?,~
7gZ-
4/
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES] Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; September 30, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN, Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
Bill McDaniel
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr. [left meeting at 9:30am]
ALSO PRESENT: CDES staff members Heidi Ashton, Joseph Schmitt, Thomas Greenwood, Michael
DeRuntz, Mac Hatcher and approximately 20 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:03AM by Chairman Ron HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 9 of 12 members were present.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Mr, Farmer.
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minutes of the September 23, 2008 Meeting
Mr. Thomas moved and McDaniel seconded to approve the minutes as distributed. Mr. Hamel
pointed to a name error on page 4 which was acknowledged and directed for correction by staff.
Voice Vote -The Minutes were approved as corrected by unanimous vote.
V. Presentations. Chairman Hamel asked Tom Greenwood to review several items related to Committee
follow-up on items from previous meetings.
A. Establishment by Committee of the "Maturity" or "Build-out" of the RLSA Overlav Area
under the Existinl! RLSA Overlav. Mr. Greenwood requested that the Committee establish
what it considers the "maturity" or "build out" under the current Credit system. Mr. Greenwood
stated that Wilson Miller presented its estimates of maximum Credits under the current Credit
system as well as under the revised system aod a recommendation for Credit recalibration dming
the September 23 meeting based upon its September 18, 2008 report reviewed with the
Committee. Mr. Greenwood stated that staff presented its estimate of "maturity" or "build out"
IIPage :d
c 1<S.3
under the current Credit system during the September 16 meeting. The estimates of Credits and
SRA acres comparisons are as follows:
. Staff report.. .316,761 Credits and 41,040 SRA acres
. Wilson Miller report.. ..315,000 Credits and 43,312 SRA acres
Mr. Thomas stated that both estimates appear reliable, but that he would favor the use of the
Wilson Miller estimates because Wilson Miller will be providing data and analysis and
additional information regarding the comparisons between the current and revised Credit system.
Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to accept the estimates provided by Wilson
Miller dated September 18, 2008. Upon vote, the motion canied 9-0.
B. Discussion of need to set aside dates for additional meetines. Mr. Greenwood stated that the
last scheduled meeting is October 7 and that it is likely that additional meetings will be required
to finish the Phase II Report. Mr. Eidson moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to add the
following possible meetings to the Committee schedule all in CDES Rooms 608/609 October
14, October 21, and October 28. Upon vote, the motion carried 9-0.
C. DCA Obiections Recommendation and Comments Reeardine RLSA Lack of Definition of
"Open Lands". Mr. Greenwood stated that this was brought to the Committee's attention on
September 16. The Committee discussed recommendations by Mr. Greenwood and by Mr. Al
Reynolds of Wilson Miller regarding proposed additional language in Policy 2.2 [in addition to
language previously approved by the Committee on September 2. After discussion, Mr, Eidson
moved and Mr. Thomas seconded to revise the Committee's action taken on September 2 to
read as follows. Upon vote, the motion carried 9-0.
Policy 2.2
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as
Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measUres for
SSAs are set forth in Policies 1.6. 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture
activities in SSAs within FSA. HSA, and WRA. as fUl1her described in Policies 3.1. 3.2 and 3.3.
additional incentives are desired to retain agricultme within Open Lands as an alternative to
conversion of such lands using Baseline Standards as described in Policy 1.5. Open Lands are
those lands not designated SSA, SRA. WRA. HSA. FSA, or public lands on the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay Map. Open Lands are those lands described in Policy 4.2. Therefore,
in lieu of using the Natural Resomce Index on land designated Open, these lands shall be
assigned two (2.0) Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State Concern
(ACSA), and two and sixth tenths (2.6) Credits per acre within the ACSC. All non-agriculture
uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to agriculture Land Use Levels 5, 6
and 7 on the Land Use Matrix. Each layer is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and
cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix. If a layer is removed, all uses and activities in
that layer are eliminated and no longer available. Following approval of an Agricultural SSA,
Collier County shall update the RLSA Zoning Overlav District Map to delineate the boundaries
of the Agricultural SSA.
D. Discussion of John Passidomo letter dated September 19.2008, on behalf of the Eastern
Collier Property Owners fECPOl Reauestine an amendment to Policv 1.6 to make
Stewardship Easements created upon approval of a SSA conditional for a period of 5
vears.. .
Mr. Greenwood pointed out that the Committee was aware of this letter [attached hereto] at the
September 23 meeting but that it was not discussed due to a lack of time. He stated that the
Assistant County Attorney's initial review is that the GMP language be drafted broadly and that
it should not include the details of the conditional SSA. An LDC amendment will formulate the
details and the mechanics. Mr. Thomas stated that the detail of the language should be in the
21 Page
'7R4-
LDC. Mr. Jones stated that he supports the concept and would like to refer this request of Mr.
Passidomo to the County Attorney to work out the language. Mr. Farmer stated that he supports
the concept and Mr. Russ Priddy stated that this is "huge" and very important, to both the large
and the smaller property owners in the RLSA. Mr. Jones moved and Fred Thomas seconded to
refer this item to the County Attorney to work out the language. Upon vote, the motion carried,
9-0.
VI. Old Business
A. Phase 2... Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship. inclndinl!
Issues. Concerns. and Ouestions [concentration on Groups 4 and 5 Policies! as welI as data
and analvsis with respect to proposed revisions to the RLSA Overlav
The following is a summary of discussions and Committee actions taken on Policies 4.3 through 4.21 on
September 30, 2008.
Policy 4.3
Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such
designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall
include a SRA mastet plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of
consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein,
compliance with the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will
acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. Within ene year frel'H tfie effoetiye
date sf this BRleB8meftt, Callier CSH8ty shall a8sf't LDC amea6fBeflts 1a estahliaB the }3fE1eeBur8s BHa
sahmittal refluiremeHts far tlsaigaatisR 8S 8 8a'\, 18 ia.ehule pFs",isisBB fer eef1sisef8tis8 sf imf'aets,
iaehuliag elWirsJUfl6Rtal BRe }3\:lhlie iBff8stmehiF6 i~8ets, BREI J3revisisRB fur )3uhlie Relies sf BREI the
8f'J3SRumty far fn:lhlie f)8ftieiJ3stie8 in 8HY 8sRsiaeFBtis8 by the Bee sf sHeR 8 aesignatiefl.
Public discussion on SeDtember 30.2008
Mr. McDaniel stated that he is not comfortable with setting a maximum acreage cap/or SRAs in Policy
4.2. Mr. Eidson and Mr. Russ Priddy stated that there has to be some certainty as to what is going to
happen in the RLSA Overlay area.
Pnblic Input: none
Staff Comments: The language proposed was submitted on behalf of ECPO for deletion and is no longer
needed.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Eidson to amend
Policy 4.3 as shown. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0.
Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate the boundaries of each approved SRA. The
county. in coordinatiomwith the land owners witltn the RLSA. shall develo(! a transportation network
th~t has been shown to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) throul!h the b~i1d out of the RLSA
east of CR-95 I , The build out network shall derIDe the existinl! roadways that need'io be improved and all
proposed roadways. The plan shall also include the facilitv tvoe. lane needs and provide evidence that it is
financiallv feasible, The countv. in coordination with the land owners within the RLSA shall identify and
locate the public services needed to accommodate the build out population within the RLSA that would
not otherwise be included within the individual SRAs. These services shall include but are not limited to:
government offices. iails. court houses. landfills. maintenance facilities or anv other facilities that would
otherwise reQuire travel back to the urban area. Land shall be set aside within the RLSA to accommodate
3lPage
jgS
c"tQil:u' ( 'heMlhe"
~.11~~j~~tr~~~:;a.e';
Public discussion Mr. McDaniel spoke on the VanBuskirk study prepared for the East ofCR 951 Horizon
Study and that he indicated that Mr. VanBuskirk on September 29 agreed to provide a briefing of the
study to this Committee in the next two weeks and that staff should coordinate the presentation th/'ough
Mike Bosi, the study coordinator. Nick CasalanguitUI, via an email shared with the Committee, asked the
Committee to table action on the Group 4 policies until a meeting with ECPO has been held and
discussion of the language has occurred prior to a report back to the Committee.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30, 2008 Action: The Committee tabl~d>4Cti/J7l~.periding a report back froth the
Transportation Planning Department and ECPO representatives. Mr, Passidomo stated that a meeting
was held this morning with Transportation and he stated that they may have some language to present as
early as one to tl1/0 weeks.
Public Discussion on September 30. 2008
Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this morning with Transportation he stated that they may
have some language to present as early as one to two weeks. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to
have Nancy Payton's proposal on outdoor lighting considered today as it is separate frol1/ the
Transportation language. Nancy Payton stated that the outdoor lighting language ["Dark Shy"] Should
go into the RLSA Overlay in general and more specifics would be worked out for LDC language, Nicole
Ryan stated that she supports the language and the lighting standards should be developed for the
connecting roads between the SRAs.
Public Input:
I. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric light sources,
the impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservation lands, such as Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: Lighting is a design standard that is considered during the Receiving Area (8RA)
application review,
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Cornell moved and Mr. Farmer seconded to accept
Nancy Payton's language with the proviso that the word "reasonably" be placed in front of the word
4JPage
Jf?0
"managed" and that the wording in the last 3 sentences related to transponation be tabled. Upon vote,
the motion carried, 8-0.
I:J9U~)f4.ti
?:.E_
t. ".'''.n ..... ............'en. ..Wo...........ne. Iitall. .fi..::.se....h. Si..li.v....e. '.$1. '.'e..aS. x.iii." ~.'..' ..t......c........ '....h '.' .....e....cO'fiU..c....'~..:ilbiti.... ';o.t."!jJ.' "'.' 'till. '.. .3t.~,ilfiit. "(' .iJ...~r.
pp~g,...... ~.. ...I/...""........... .,.,.,'~.....,~ ~1Wl!-g'.,...~... pJ:1l'l,,,....J.. . ..,.,~....J~l't...M....,""..*'~....
pr~iIpm~i\!ilit1y.....ttitaIf...llind~ j)s~,....an:d;pr6Vil.iillg.fof:t!:llo/ 'Co~t"#ficientF;i!iijivetY...$f :.PUl>lie.'f~"i1fti~$d
semcM.
Public discussion on SeTJtember 30. 2008
Mr. Al Reynolds stated that the transit language will likely be placed in Policy 4.14 but that Policy
language has yet to be worked out. He stated that the language does not have to be in two policies. Brad
Cornell asked about trip capture rates in SRAs. Mr. Jones stated that Ave Maria is "over the top"[on
trip capture rates]. Al Reynolds stated that the projected trip capture rate was 60% although it is now
about 90%. He stated that the trip capture rate will likely get to the 60% range when the town develops
further. Ms, Ryan stated that the internal capture rate of vehicles is very important and that provisions
for a public transportation master plan among SRAs is very important.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee SeDtember 30. 2008 Action: Ms. Nemecek moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to leave the
Policy 4.6 language unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried 8-0.
Po.Ji~:.4~7
Public Input:
I. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development
nodes, such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realistically achieve self-sufficiency to
the extent that they are compatible with the overall goals of the program. If these
small development nodes do not contain adequate levels of self coutainment or
51 Page
'7~7
self sufficiency, then their allowance under the RLSA should be reconsidered. [Conservancy]
Note: Also related to the following policies 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18
2. No hamlets or "compact rural developments" compact JUral development could be a "Coconut
Point," - no cap on size of some types of CRDs. [FWF]
Note: Also related to policies 4.7.3, 4.7.4
The following is an excerpt from a letter dated July 1, 2008 from the Conservancy of Sonthwest
Florida addressed to the Committee and received by the Committee on July 1, 2008.
******************************************************************************
The Conservancy believes that no changes in the maximum or minimum acreages of SRAs should
be allowed prior to an assessment of all components of SRAs.
"As the premise of the RLSA is to create self-sustaining communities, it is important to ensure that
sufficient infrastructure and services are required for SRAs. Towns (1,000 to 4,000 acres) are meant to
have a full range of housing types, urban level services and infrastructure, including a balance of land
uses that reduce automobile trips - the essence of sustainability. Villages (100 to 1,000 acres) are
primarily residential communities, with a mixed-use village center and services for the various internal
neighborhoods. However, villages do not provide the same extent of infrastructure and services that are
required of a towu - in other words, they are not as self-sufficient as a town.
We believe that developments over 1,000 acres should continue to be classified as towns, with all of the
associated infrastructure, goods and services and other amenity requirements, until such time as a
thorough assessment of all forms of SRAs can be completed.
Any proposed change to the SRA acreages should be substantiated by data. We ask that you require such
data plior to recommending any changes, and include as part of the assessment:
· Removal of hamlets as a form of SRA,
· The exploration of increasing the allowable size of towns to 5,000 acres, providing that modifications
be justified based on sound planning, transportation considerations, infrastructure and sustainability."
The following is an excerpt of a July 1, 2008, letter from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida
addressed to the Committee and received by the Committee on July 1, 2008.
******************************************************************************
"Greater specificity is needed regarding the location of future SRAs, including those proposed as
part of the 50% increase in the development footprint.
The proposed numbers assigned to the base credits within the proposed new Agricultural Preservation
category will be sufficient to entitle 15,000 acres of additional development. What is unclear is whether
this amount of additional development is consistent with the desired build-out of the RLSA.
Consideration of transportation, essential services, and other infrastructure must be factored into any
assessment of increased entitlement for development
The Conservancy recommends that additional specificity be provided as to where future SRAs will be
located. Such specificity would provide some of the assurance needed to determine how much additional
development would be appropriate for the RLSA, keeping in mind the need to balance uses and ensure
future sustainability.
6lPage
1 ~p
By increasing the development footprint of the RLSA, the proposal apparently includes an
expectation that new roads and transportation infrastructure will be built in environmentally
sensitive lands to serve the anticipated additional new development. As secondary impacts of the
development proposed in this plan, they need to be assessed and accounted for.
New roads should be aligned to avoid impacting environmentally sensitive areas, including areas
determined to be important panther corridors or habitat areas. In order to assess the appropriate amount of
avoidance and mitigation that will be required, and to determine whether this proposal will provide a net
benefit in the protection of panthers and other listed species, these impacts from additional roads and road
improvements need to be assessed and accounted for concurrently with this proposed plan.
The Conservancy believes that any proposed transportation plan should be based upon the principle that
good land use planning must guide transportation planning. Road networks that are created simply to
accommodate new development should not be part of the RLSA. Instead, development must be sited in
the most compatible locations, taking into account existing roads, distance to goods, services,
employment and other destinations. Such planning will not only be beneficial to protection of natural
resources, but cost County taxpayers less money in the future."
The folIowing is an excerpt from the letter date Jnly 1, 2008, from the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida to Panl Souza of the South Florida Ecological Services Office of the US Fish an Wildlife
Service as provided to the Committee on July 1, 2008.
******************************************************************************
"No Stewardship Receiving Areas should be allowed within the Area of Critical State Concern
(ACSC), which is in the immediate vicinity of the Okaloacoochee Slough panther corridor and
habitat area. Also, villages should not be enlarged in the RLSA program over their current 1,000
acre threshold.
The proposal would apparently allow stewardship recelvmg areas within the ACSC, therefore, not
entirely preserving it in its current land uses. This area has been identified for its importance for the host
of exceptional natural resource values it offers, not the least of which its function as primary critical habit
and essential movement corridors for the endangered Florida panther. The Conservancy believes based on
the exceptional natural resource value of the ACSC, that stewardship receiving areas are not appropriate
within it.
Additionally, the size of villages in the RLSA program area should not be increased to 1,500 acres (a 50%
increase over the current allowable limit of 1,000 acres), but instead remain at or below the current 1,000
acre threshold. Developments over 1,000 acre should continue to be handled as towns, which have
additional requirements for infrastructure and amenities. Villages do not provide the same extent of
infrastructure and services that are required of a town - in other words, they are not as self-sufficient as a
town so will result in additional transportation impacts, which in turn would have an adverse impact on
panthers who are routinely being killed on Collier roads by cars. Therefore, the Conservancy believes
that developments over 1,000 acres should continue to be classified as towns, with all of the associated
infrastructure, goods and services and other amenity requirements, until such time as a thorough
assessment of all forms of SRAs and proposed changes to the SRA acreages are substantiated by data. "
ECPO Comments: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and
characteristics of SRA's:
7lPage
7gq-
. Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA.
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres.
· Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres.
Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall
apply to Villages.
. Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern.
. Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research,
education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
Public discussion on September 30. 2008
Mr. Cornell stated that hamlets are too small to be self sustaining and could be seen as controlled
sprawl.
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Eidson moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to amend the
language of Policy 4.7 as shown. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8.0.
Public Input: Towns shall not exceed 5,000 acres. [submitted as part of the July 1,2008 submittal to
the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
Staff Comments:
Policy 4.15 was deleted and replaced with new Policies 4.15.1, 4.15.2, and 4.15.3. The above
amendments would harmonize Policy 4.7.1 with these three new l'olicies.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: The Committee t4kt~4'?J;tiPfiP>>.i:@.ng a report back from the
Transportation Planning Department and ECPo. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this
8lPage
I~O
morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to
two weeks.
P6li~4.1.2
'. Y; .... .
~~;:d#~op;~~.:n1th~~~~i;J~~m~~~~V~&1t~g~1a;~~~~~~~~.~r~~:
mote tJiao.l,OOllacre-g: side tb.eAre -.(;if"" 'coo 'l!mc'lin ',f '. ; est) . . de.thec'Ateli
'c.> ....co....."..,._,-..,. <'..:'''':._".;.'.,.,._.,>,_...._~...".."....,.,. ,"__"'_ .. ~.:..,..,.._.,..,_..:..:_:.,._....:.;.__.."..,.. _..... ,....:... _..,':', _.......,.,...,. .
~-? .77.... .~':-
facilities:' Desimcriteriit fOC. .1 ., :mcIur,ledln thIi LOC ~~~d$~:Dlstrict.
.. .. - .... .. ,-- .. --.... .....- ,'-.. __, ,_.___ ,_, _'_n'_' _
Public Input: Outside the Area of Critical State Concem, Villages shall not exceed 1,500 acres, Inside
the Area of Critical Concem, the current Collier County RLSA Overlay standards shall aP!ily to
Villages. [submitted as part of the July 1,2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida
Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
September 30. 2008 discussion
Nicole Ryan stated that, rather than increase to size of a village, the density should be considered tor an
increase. Mr. Eidson asked what the problem would be in increas.ing the maximum size of a village.
Christian Spilker stated that he supports the elimination of hamlets because it is difficult to develop
hamlets from an economic standpoint because there is a substantial commercial requirement if over 1000
acres in size. He stated that villages with a larger footprint are easier to develop and it also now includes
public benefit uses which were subtracted from the maximum area permissible. Mr. Jones restated what
Mr. Spilker stated. Mr. Priddy stated that he concurs with the 1,500 maximum allowable acre
amendment. Anita Jenkins state that she also agreed with this amendment, stating that open space
requirements on a 1,000 acre SRA would limit development on 650 acres which is not enough land to
justify proceeding economically with a village. Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not disagree with Ms.
Ryan about raising densities, but stated that doing such may not be feasible.
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30, 2008 Action: Mr. Eidson moved and Ms. Nemecek seconded to amend
Policy 4.7.2 as shown. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8.0.
9lPage
I cr/
Public Input: Hamlets will be eliminated as a form of SRA [submitted as part of the July 1, 2008
submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
ECPO Comments: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and
characteristics of SRA' s:
· Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA.
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres.
. Outside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres.
Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall
apply to Villages.
· Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concern.
. Compact RU1'31 Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research,
education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Ms. Nemecek moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to delete
Policy 4.7.3 as it relates to hamlets which are proposed for deletion. Upon vote, the motion carried 8.0.
PoIi~)M.7.44.7.3
C?ni~~}~~~6~~1~P~~,(~!!p)i$. ~~f<r" Qf~~t!1at,c."'
" vMiJii
Public Input:
I. Compact Rural Developments (CRDs) seem to be too loosely designated and could provide a
loophole for increased development in areas that are already built up. A CRD of 100 acres or less
10 I P age
iCZz-
seems to be a meaningless designation and it is my belief that this type of development could be
dropped. [Judith Hushon]
2. Compact Rural Development ("CRD") shall include, as a permitted use, eco tourism lodging,
recreational hunting and fishing enterprises, and family homesteads for the Rural Landowners.
[submitted as part of the July 1,2008 submittal to the Committee entitled, "Florida Panther
Protection Program" dated June 30, 2008]
ECPO Comments: The Eastem Collier Property Owners propose the following relative to forms and
characteristics of SRA's:
. Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA.
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres.
. Outside the Area of Critical State Concem, Villages shall not be more than 1,500 acres.
Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay Program shall
apply to Villages.
. Towns shall not be located within the Area of Critical State Concem.
· Compact Rural Development (CRD) primary uses shall be associated with research,
education, tourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
Staff Comments: The language amendments were provided by ECPO via Wilson Miller.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Eidson moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to amend
current Policy 4.7.4 as shown.
f()li~;*~
Irllif~I~!~t~~t:~~&~~r~i'!tj~f~l"_i~~
Public Input:
1. Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances that did not adequately
address hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacts of aglicultural uses are far
different than the uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood
to assure no impacts to surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations
should be compared for compatibility with changes brought on by development. [Mark Strain]
Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13
ECPO Comments: We are not aware of any data that supports the opmlOn that buffers are
inadequate. Buffers were included within the RLSA program as a land use planning technique to
provide a transition between receiving areas and natural areas, primarily for the benefit of water
quality ~Id wildlife. The state and federal wetland pennitting procedures meticulously review
existing 'wetland hydroperiod data, proposed surface water management designs, outfall control
elevations, etc., with the expressed purpose of preventing hydrologic impacts to sUlTounding
wetlands. The SFWMD Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Pennits details these
procedures. Pennits are not issued until the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed activity does
not hydrologically impact these wetlands, regardless of the buffer location or distance. As part of the
Environmental Resource pennitting process, control elevations a.re detennined based on average wet
season water table elevation as typically determined by hydro-biological indicators, soil types, ground
water well monitoring data, and surrounding permitted control elevations.
llJPage
I 93
2. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the
five-year assessment. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13 [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments: The most current peer-reviewed research on panther habitat utilization
concluded, "[Our] results indicated that forests are the habitats selected by panthers and generally
support the current United States Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat ranking system." (Land,
Shindle et. al., 2008). This research employed GPS collars to characterize panther habitat selection
during nocturnal and diurnal petiods, and compared GPS data to standard diurnal VHF radiotelemetry
data. As such, this research does represent "the best available FlOlida panther science" and does not
support the Conservancy's contention that the RLSA panther habitat methodology needs to be
revised.
3. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water
management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of utilizing WRAs
as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated,
especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland f10wways and would
benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for
storm water treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's
storm water treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be
included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like
to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies. Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12
and 4.13 [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on September
16,2008 to Policy 3.13.
Staff Comments:
Buffer requirements for FSAs and HSAs for adjacent SRAs allow open space uses such as required yards
and lakes immediately adjacent to them. There should be a minimum buffer with no area of impact.
[Engineering and Environmental Services Department] Note: Also relates to Policy 4.12 and 4.13.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to leave Policy
4.8 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0.
1>>.. .<c'":~~
. .9Ji~_..
12/ P age
17Y-
Public Input:
Staff Comments: Listed species that utilize uplands are not adequately protected by the NRI score. It is
thought that this need is limited. However, the designation of the Ave Maria SRA did identify a caracara
nest and habitat areas that did not score greater than 1.2. There were numerous listed species in farm
ditches, fallow fields, and marshy areas within pastures. The only native habitat with protected species
was some small remnant marshes within the pastures. The SSAs created to enable this SRA removed the
development rights (except for agriculture and essential services) from approximately 13,352 acres of a
mixture of pasture and row crop fields. Staff is uncertain whether the increase in NRI score would result
in more on-site preservation of habitat. [CDES Environmental Services]
Public discussion on Seotember 30. 2008
Mr. McDaniel stated that the environmental provisions being advanced could be put into the NRI and/or
LDC. Mr. Cornell stated that the language seems focused so that one does not have to use credits and is
persuaded that it is something that should be considered. Mac Hatcher stated that the NRI scores will not
protect these nests as the bald eagle is no longer a listed species. Mr. McDaniel asked if there could not
be and adjustment to the NRI. Mac Hatcher stated that adjustment to the NRI score would be very
complicated and difficult to do. Mr, Jones stated that he is opposed to the language proposed because
we might be looking at protecting nests in ditches and because the RLSA program is not set up to address
aI/listed species and that he is not comfortable with the language proposed. He further stated that Policy
4.9 is not broken and because these concerns are addressed through the Federal and State permit
processes. Mr. Eidson asked if there is enough protection.. . Mr. Jones says yes and the county says no.
He stated that he feels the DCA looks at agricultural protection first and environmental projection second
and, because of that, he would not Javor adding the environmental language. Tim Durham stated that
the environmental protections are already in place and that he could not see where the added language
would add value or solve a problem. Mr. Jones stated that he would like to keep in the sentence which
provided exemptions for infrastructure necessary to serve permitted uses. Nancy Payton asked why one
would construct a road through a critical habitat areas. Mr. Jones stated that the language referring to
critical habitat area should be striken as it has not been defined. Anita Jenkins stated that the "WRA"
also needs to be removed.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to keep the
language amendment in the second sentence and the additional sentence exempting infrastructure
necessary to serve permitted uses from the restriction and that all the other language provided by
Environmental Services not be included in the amended Policy 4.9. Upon vote, the motion carried 7-1
with Brad Cornell voting against the motion.
Policy 4.10
Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private
conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and
management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore,
open sPllce adequate to serve the.fo,recasted population an<yyses wiQ1in the SRA is wovided. To
ensure that SRA residents have .such areas proximate to their ho,mes, open space shall also
comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acrea.ge ofari individual SRA Town. or
Village. , er tllese CRDs elleeetlia,g ) 99 aere9. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with
Index values of greater than ),2 shall be retained as open space: ex~t for the allowance of uses
described in Policv 4.9. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA.
leeatetl elit9itle ef tile f,C8C, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to
consume Stewardship Credits.
13IPage
79S
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Jones moved and Mr, Comell seconded to provide an
amendment to Policy 4.10 as outlined above which amendments were advance by ECPO. Upon vote,
motion carried, 8-0.
PpJicyA.ll
~::~~t~t;eO:~~9~~~t::tij;:J~~J:~::~~rn%6~~t~?:;~#~~~
be welldeliil.ed aiid4esi edtI'! ~:CQ 'lInble wfthlbe cb3Joa~'[mna:"" ". ..' TecbrifUliS h
~~~ ..
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Ms. Nemecek moved and Mr. Jones seconded to leave Policy
4.11 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-0. Mr. Farmer temporarily stepped outside the roOm.
'p(jli:,4.12
Wji~~SRA adjoins a F~1,;,HSA, '~oreJlj.stingpl1bp.C"l>r 1>Ii.V~;9oil:>e~!lti9fi lap.d},!t
th' tWetla Map best ~ent and"~~~n1ri'. ilicrices. sh'811 re ., . 'Hedtii ' ., . roJ;ze '.
-~--
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30.2008 Action: Mr, McDaniel moved and Mr. Jones seconded to leave Policy
4.12 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-0. Mr. Farmer temporarily stepped outside the room.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
141 P age
19b
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Ms. Nemecek moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to leave
Policy 4.13 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-0. Mr. Farmer temporarily stepped outside the
room.
Public Input:
1. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result separate developer
contribution agreements are being created that provide excessive development rights beyond
those contemplated in the original SRADCA's should not be allowed until an SRA is approved in
order to better understand the impacts from the SRA. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: Policy 4.14 of the RLSA Overlay subjects all SRAs to the County's adopted
Concurrency Management System. Developer Contribution Agreements are used throughout
Collier County as a mechanism to address concurrency issues through public-private partnerships
to improve the transportation network. All such agreements are subject to Board of County
Commissioner approval and must be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and
Land Development Code. In order to assure the impacts of an SRA (or any development) are
addressed and mitigated, Developer Contribution Agreements are approved either prior to or
concurrent with approval of the development. DRI's, such as Ave Maria, are thoroughly
analyzed because of the Regional Planning Council staff and other reviewing entities analyses
and the transp0l1ation and other impacts are well understood prior to approval of the SRA.
15 I P age
7~7
2. An analysis is needed to determine how is the long range transportation plan is coordinated with
the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially feasible plan for this area. Using
the 5-year modeling of the GMP is inadequate for an area the size of the RLSA and we should be
analyzing the SRA's on their impact to the 3D-year build out study.[Mark Straiu]
ECPO Comments: The coordination of long range transportation planning with future land use
planning is a continuous process. Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning
horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Given that the future population projections of a full-build
condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a planning
horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that, in the past,
neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation
planning. To address this need, three separate efforts are underway today that will provide a better
understanding of the future transportation needs of the RLSA. The County is beginning to develop a
County-wide Interactive Growth Model and an updated Long-Range Transportation Model. In
addition to the two County studies, the Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) have undertaken the
task of developing a long-range conceptual plan for the RLSA that depicts one possible scenario of
how environmental and agricultural lands, and lands suitable for development can fit within the
program. While the areas with the highest environmental value were clearly defined in the current
RLSA Program, lands that would be most suitable for long-term agriculture and likewise those lands
most suitable for long-range development potential were not clearly understood. ECPO has identified
one potential development concept plan that quantifies and locates the amount of development
envisioned at a build-out horizon. While it is only one possible configuration, it does allow for a
conceptual roadway needs analysis to be performed, and allows for a basis of establishing viable
corridors that can be further explored through regular County and State transportation planning
channels. ECPO is working closely with the County in an effort to bring all three of these studies into
alignment. All of these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation needs of
the County. Now, five years after inception, we have a better understanding of how the RLSA will
"grow up" and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more appropriately
identify and evaluate the transportation system of the future.
Staff Comments:
I. Provide for direct connections between traffic-generating developments so as to reduce travel
time, travel expenses, improve interconnectivity, and to keep the use of county arterial roads to a
minimum when traveling between developments in the RLSi\. . [Tr~nsportation Division]
Committee September 30. 2008 Actiou: The Committee t@~tt~~f/e7ttliif.g a report back from the
Transportation Planning Department and ECPO. Mr. Passidomo stated that a meeting was held this
morning with Transportation he stated that they may have some language to present as early as one to
two weeks.
Dkl~ii:JI:;'K'l
!ig~~Ee,k.l~,":
~~,
161 P age
7qt
i!!i~~i!~~llt:~rlf~~~ltJ~~,l~'tt~~~t::~~:;
Public Iuput:
Staff Commeuts:
Committee September 30.2008 Action: Ms. Nemecek moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to amend
Policy 4.15.1 as shown to harmonize with the elimination of hamlets as an SRA. Upon vote, the motion
carried, 7-0. Mr. Farmer temporarily stepped outside the room.
p()lj~y,,~U$.2
1~~}~9!U')tQf ~PlJ!,\ty'S8~,')}t"~9~~J~~>i~~~,l\S<llfP~~~~~P!~Ry~~g;~np,tj~';i)k~<$~
dWel& menffe u 'te t1iaf';$1l1Uib~'~lIS"iF:;arkS "schOol ',iand'j)lMT;'jjbJit.f1icilitie~llie./set' ..... ide
ilI1l?fIi~~a~~;~aid~AA~;'f?F;~U,~~rm~.~~~~;~~'~~q;f~~'" . ,. ':~~"&et,~4~'16f~i9f~~f~
pup]ic,f:lIeilitles,the set ~1~~hll)l,~,,$,~D)~\1'tPJlle$am~'f!~qYl:., , ,. Q lhe LbO as are)l.pplic~le_to
puI>liQ(a~ility d~ditati()ri$~mr(:~~.apli~c#tigli fOr Pup~fQjJfng:
Public Input:
Staff Commeuts:
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Ms. Nemecek moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to leave
Policy 4.15.2 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-0. Mr. Farmer temporarily stepped outside
the room.
Polic~'4.15~'3
~~~=tidJ~~::~j8ji~~b ....' ~;r:~~~~~~=oo~:::~:~:~~~~r P:~~
......;S1L\\'i\=1.c;iti"":'. . -~s"""'hl! it6Vil\ed:
~ '. !'!''t' ..Y^"., , _ _ ~ _ p ,
I. Number i>~~Mii'liiiiijbft&Pe;
2. Ail e~ti1f,~~Qf1he,AAmp~~'9}f$hQ01~eit:~hi.idfph fQF;~litype 'Qfschpol
i1ll.ffiic~{mMieittll1Y;~\l1jgb:sl\~i-lU1d
3. Th~pOt~pii~~1ii9~tmi\~~f_:~di.i@~~ii1:Y.'1m.fllQjJi$s!&Jt1ljt!1l1!:
SRA,ai),ii,i1ie. ~'qE~YS!te~;thl\tmay.;~j} t!e~~i6d~<if:QtMrm~ema:dJ:
ljv~i{;;ol'iilil#it^pu~~.el:lifl:ilti;ena). facll#Y:.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30.2008 Actiou: Mr. McDaniel moved and Ms. Nemecek seconded to leave
Policy 4.15.3 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7,0. Mr. Farmer temporarily stepped outside
the room.
(1ll1lf$4lrtfi.
77i
N~Ji(Jiiil!#i
I. Impacts on certain elements of regional infrastructure were not given adequate analysis.
Hurricane evacuation and shelters space, health care facilities and affordable housing as example,
were not adequately addressed and minimum standards should be considered as guidelines for
SRA approval. [Mark Straiu]
ECPO Commeuts: Infrastructure is defined by Collier County as drainage (water management),
roads, potable water and sanitary sewer facilities pursuant to the Code of Laws and Ordinance of
Collier County, Section 106-32. RLSA Policy 4.16 requires that infrastructure be analyzed with each
Stewardship Receiving Area application, and also includes irrigation water and solid waste. It states:
"A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development,
or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of
infrastructure provided will depend on the type ()f development, accepted civil
engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure serving the
SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process in accordance with the
Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA
designation. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water,
wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. "
While hurricane shelter space, health care facilities and affordable housing are each important
types of facilities, they are not defined as infrastructure and not subject to concurrency
management. However, every Town or Village in excess of 2000 units will be required to
undergo DRl review, where regional issues such as hmric~ne evacuation, health care, and
affordable housing are addressed in accordance with State Law.
With respect to hurricane evacuation, the RLSA is the least vulnerable part of Collier County as
demonstrated by the fact that no paJ1 of the RLS falls within a Landfalling Storm Category 1-4
map zone. Accordingly, it is the area least likely to require evacuation. In implementation, Ave
Maria provided hW11cane shelter for coastal residents within the university buildings, and in
cooperation with Emergency Services, provided storage space for emergency supplies that can be
used throughout the county.
18 I P age
&00
Planning for health care can only be properly addressed once specific SRAs are proposed.
Hospitals must go through a separate state needs analysis before any new hospital can be
built. These items are addressed by SRA and DRI review procedures.
The need for affordable housing was contemplated during the formation of the RLSA. The GMP
policies, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics chart, and associated LDC standards state
that the densities associated with a town, village, hamlet or CRD can be increased beyond the
base density through the affordable housing density bonus. Section 2.06.0I.C of the LDC
specifically addresses the affordable housing density bonus within the RLS. Specific affordable
housing conditions for a paJ1icular project aJ'e determined during the review and approval process
for an SRA (similar to the PUD and/or DR! review/approval process). Affordable housing was
provided at Ave Maria in a ratio well in excess of any other large scale community in Collier
County. All infrastructure is carefully analyzed and consider throughout the public hearing
process.
2. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural pumpage and not
permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agricultural uses do not use water
12 months a year so their actual use is not consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation.
This change in withdrawals over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the
aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a reduction
applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when analyzing water resources for
new SRA's. [Mark Strain]
3. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages and hamlets, a
comparison of water consumption proposed for the new development versus actual agricultural
pumpage (not just a comparison of new consumption to permitted volumes) when reviewing
consumptive use impacts. [Conservancy]
ECPO Commeuts: Applicants aJ'e required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD staJldards
during water use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to
development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding
wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture
to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage. Climate
conditions vary from year to year, therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change
significantly.
4. As it is universally recognized that the wide-scale use of septic systems as a long term solution to
wastewater treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAs should be required to have a plan for
conversion to a private or public sewer system. While development may initially be on septic
systems, the plan, with timelines, for conversion to sewer should be in place at the time of
development approval. [Couservancy]
ECPO Comments: RLS Policy 4.16 indicates that interim septic systems are permitted within
towns, villages and CRD's greater than 100 acres, and individual septic systems are permitted
within hamlets and CRD's less than 100 acres. The conversion of septic systems to centralized or
decentralized community wastewater utilities is managed through the permitting process and
additional provisions in the GMP are not necessary.
5. New roads and road improvements including potential 1-75 interchange must be included [FWF]
19 I P age
,qt))
ECPO Commeuts: Proper planning for new roads and road improvements including a potential
1-75 interchange is the product of coordination between long-range transportation planning and
future land use planning. Historically, the County's long-range transportation planning horizon
timeframe has been 20 years. Future population projections of a full-build condition of the urban
areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a planning horizon or
transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear that neither the urban areas
nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to transportation planning. The County is
beginning to develop a County-wide Interactive Growth Model and an updated Long-Range
Transportation Model. The Eastern Collier Property Owners have prepared a Concept Plan that
demonstrates one (of many) possible land use scenarios, Additionally, ECPO has prepared a
preliminary transportation network analysis that supports that Concept Plan, and will be working
closely with the County planners to achieve a consistent and comprehensive analysis of the future
potential of the RLSA. Together these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the
transportation needs of the County. Today, there is a better understanding of how the RLSA is
likely to mature over time and with the new tools currently being developed, planners can more
appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system improvements of the future.
6. Each new development should have to identify traffic contributions, water usage and other
resource requirements at the time they are being planned. You may want to consider the changes
in these variables from agriculture to increased density. [Judith Hushou]
ECPO Comments: See response to number I above.
Staff Commeuts:
I. Interconnectivity between traffic generating developments in SRAs is consistent with Policy 7.3
of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan which states: "All new existing
developments shall be encouraged to connect their streets and their interconnection points with
adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [Trausportatiou]
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to amend
Policy 4.]6 as shown by leaving in the ECPO proposed addition and strikethroughs to harmonize the
language with language related to hamlets and CRDs previously approved and not to include anv of the
staff-recommended lanl!ual!e pendinl! further report from Transportation. Upon vote, the motion carried,
8-0.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Jones moved and Ms. Nemecek seconded to leave Policy
4.17 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8~0.
20lPagc
~02
Public Input:
I. Fiscal impact analysis model (flAM) mimmum standards should be no less than mimmum
county wide standards as a conservative approach until historic data is acquired. This will provide
the maximum protection to the taxpayers. The analysis needs to be re-visited and the
development provided corrections made every year and include accurate absorption rates, traffic
capture rates and sales demographics, all of which have significant effects on the outcome of the
flAM. [Mark Straiu]
ECPO Comments: FlAM was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 24,
2007, as the official model for review of DRl's, and projects within the RLSA. Since the County
has adopted FlAM, it is advisable for the County to keep the calibrated items up to date with the
most current data available and meeting County-wide standards, such as current budgets, persons
per household, millage rates, etc. Similarly, when an applicant prepares a flAM for a specific
project, the FlAM will be populated with the initial data projected for the project and
subsequently with the most current data available at the five year interval or phasing dates to
reflect adjusted development plans including sales prices, absorption rates, etc.
Policy 4.18 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District CRLSAO") and Section
4.08.07.L of the Collier County LDC both require an SRA applicant to submit a FlAM as a part
of the application for SRA approval, and each 5 years after approval. An annual fiscal analysis
and review would not be appropriate as it would not account for the dynamics of the land
development process, the cyclical nature of the economy, nor would it account for the period of
time necessary for a community to reach a point in its growth where a stabilized balance of
population, facilities and services are reached. The LDC specifically requires that the project
demonstrate fiscal neutrality every five years as noted below:
" Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall
submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report") every five (5) years
until the SRA is ninety (90) percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact
analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined above."
The five year or phase measurement was determined to be an appropriate timeframe by all parties
participating in the creation of the RLSA program due to the above mentioned reasons and the
fact that there are significant fiscal variations from year to year. This timeframe allowed for the
project to stabilize and to account for economic cycles.
211 P age
RD3
In cases where a project does not meet its estimated absorption schedule, then it may not generate
the projected revenues, however, there will also be a cOlTesponding reduction in the cost of public
services. Therefore, any measurement must be in terms of net fiscal imoact, not just revenue
shortfall.
2. Water storage areas that SFWMD allowed for Ag are allowed to be used for development storm
water as well, yet these areas were not required to be included in development acreages nor
analysis provided to determine effects of this additional nse. This occurs for many uses within the
developmental areas, thus making it appear as though development is using less acreage when in
fact the impacts from development may cause changes to the water quality and quantity in land
that is not part of the SRA. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on
September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13.
Public discussion on Seotember 30. 2008
Mr. Greenwood stated that the staff proposed language is intended to following the annual fiscal
budgeting which the county does, both for operating and capital expenditures and revenues and proposes
a fiscal neutrality check every year rather than every five years. This would be consistent with the A VIR
and the Capital Improvements Element done each year and the CIE must show committed revenues for
projects during the firsl 3 years of the C1E, stating that showing impact fees as a major source of
committed revenues may be misleading as impact fees are very difficult to predict lately due to the decline
in construction in recent years. Mr. Farmer stated that 5 years may be too long, but that one year may
be too short. Russ Weyer stated that Fishkind and Associates developed the FlAM used by the County
and that the 5 years review was chosen because it allows the SRA to get established and stabilize. He
stated that 50% for transportation purposes were paid up front for the Town of Ave Maria. He r~ferred
to the Developer Contribution Agreement as providing for other sources of private contribution. Mr.
Eidson stated that he feels the language in this policy should be reflective of the language in the LDC. He
wondered who makes up the financial gap and what happens if revenues are not available. Mr.
Greenwood stated that some projects may be delayed or scaled back to fall within available revenues.
Mr. Weyer stated that the revenues fall into two categories...operating and capital. He stated that when
a project is not developing as fast as planned the operating costs of the county are not as high as they
would be if development were occurring faster. Mr. Jones stated that he has an issue with a FlAM on an
annual basis. He stated that the first few years is not a good measure for fiscal neutrality. He stated that
he prefers the existing Policy 4. 18 language. Mr. Al Reynolds stated that he feels the existing language is
appropriate.
Staff Commeuts:
This Policy language should be modified to reflect the language which is already included in LDC
Section, 4.08.07 K.L.2 and LDC Section 4.08.07 K.L.3 as copied below from the LDC. [Comprehensive
Planniug Departmeut]
· LDC Section. 4.08.07 K. L. 2. - "Monitoring requirement, To assure fiscal neutrality, the
developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report")
every five (5) years until the SRA is ninety percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal
impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined above."
. LDC Sectiou. 4.08.07 K. L. 3. .. "Imposition of Special Assessments. If the Report identifies a
negative fiscal impact of the project to a unit of local government referenced above, the
landowner will accede to a special assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the
22lPage
g,oy-
alternative make a lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value
of the estimated shortfall for a period covering the previous phase (or five year interval). The
BCC may grant a waiver to accommodate affordable housing."
Committee September 30.2008 Actiou: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to eliminate the
proposal to require a FlAM annually. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0. Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr.
Jones seconded to leave the remaining language in Policy 4.18 unchanged. Upon Vote, the motion
carried, 7-1 with Mr. Eidson voting against.
Public Iuput:
!. The conversion ratio used to create Stewardship Credits should have been reviewed and applied
in a model as the maximum scenario for development. The averages that were used understated
the growth potential. Future adjustments should be based on a maximum impact analysis to
assure a conservative approach for taxpayers. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Commeuts: See the memo to Tom Greenwood from WilsonMiller dated September 18,
2008 [Appeudix H].
Staff Commeuts: In the third line of Policy 4.19 the reference to Policy 4.19 needs to be corrected to
reference Policy 4.20. Policy 4.15 was deleted and Policy 4.15.1 is now the correct reference.
Committee September 30. 2008 Action: Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to amend
Policy 4.19 as shown which is consistent with previous actions taken by the Committee. Upon vote, the
motion carried, 9.0.
~-Qli~~1)
23lPage
eos
Public Input:
I. In order to ensure that the maximum size of a town is limited to 4,000 acres, the
Conservancy believes that all town uses, including schools and universities,
should be incorporated into the maximum 4,000 acre footprint. [Couservaucy]
2. Why is acreage for "Public Benefit" not included within the overall acreage calculation for any
SRA [CCPC]
ECPO Comments: ECPO recommends a revision to Policy 4.20 to include the acreage of a
public benefit use towards the maximum acreage limits of a SRA.
Public discussion Al Reynolds stated that the word "not" in the first sentence should be stmck through.
Staff Comments:
Committee September 30. 2008 Actiou: Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to approve the
amendment to Policy 4.20 as shown. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0.
Public Input:
Staff Commeuts:
Committee September 30, 2008 Actiou: Mr. Spagna moved and Mr. Jones seconded to approve the
amendment to Policy 4.21 as shown. Upon vote, the motion carried, 8-0.
VII, New Business [none]
VIII. Public Comments. James Hammond, Director of Historical Resources of Naples Backyard
History, stated that he would like to present and discuss the study "Naples Cultural Landscape" and how
it may ielate to what the Committee is currently studying. The Committee invited Mr. Hammond to make
a presentation during its October 7 meeting when it will have more time to review the report with him.
Ms. Payton asked that Attachment C be revised.
IX. Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on October 7, 2008, in Rooms 609/610 of the
CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, in Naples, Fl. from 9:00 A.M. - 12 Noon and will be to
hear a presentation from Mr. Hammond, review Group 4 Policies where action was tabled and Policy 1.6
language [ifready], and complete the review of Group 5 Policies.
241Page
gob
X. Adjournment
Mr. McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Eidson with the motion approved
unanimously with adjoumment at l2:05PM.
Review Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on
amended
, as presented
or as
25lPage
gri)
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
aOMO CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LlT1GATK)N ATTORNEY
JOHN M, PASSIDOMO
BOARD CEfITlFIEO REAL. ESTATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
BOARD CEflTtFIEDwILLS. TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
F. EDWARD JOHNSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN D, KEHOE
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO
BOARD CERTIFIED APPELlATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZULlAN
KEVIN A. DENT!
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTIFIED WilLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
CHE.FFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
ArroRNEYS AT LAw, LLP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE, (239) 261.93DO
FAX: (239)261-9782
EMAIL: CPWJ@napleslaw.com
LOUIS W. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED REAl ESTATE ATIORNEY
LISA H. BARNETT
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
WilLIAM J. DEMPSEY
BOARD CERTIAED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
MICHAEL W. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON
MICHAEL s. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. LOWE
M. FRANCESCA PASSERI
OF COUNSEL
GEORGE L. VARNAOOE
DIRECT DIAL, 1239) 436.1529
DIRECT FAX: (239) 261-0884
September 19, 2008
Mr, Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Our firm, together with WilsonMiller, Inc., represents Alico, Inc" Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Citrus, Priddy Farm, Half Citcle L Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectively comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA"),
In that capacity, we have observed that a lack of certainty that stewardship credits can
be utilized to entitle a SRA and that the SRA can thereafter receive all necessary permits
required to commence construction can undetmine the incentive for property owners to create
and sell stewardship ctedits which, in turn, can weaken the system for protecting natutal
resources and agriculture in the RLSA.
We therefore respectfully propose the attached policy to make stewardship easements
created upon approval of a SSA conditional for a period of 5 years or until one of the following
events occurs at which time the easement becomes permanent:
credits from the SSA are utilized to entitle a SRA and the SRA receives all
necessary permits to commence construction;
the SSA owner irrevocably sells the credits to another person; or
go~
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 19, 2008
Page 2
the SSA owner receives other compensation in exchange for creation of the SSA
easement.
If none of the foregoing events occur during the 5 year conditional period, the owner of
the SSA lands may thereaftet tevoke the easement
Upon revocation of the easement.
. the SSA lands revert to base zoning,
. the credits generated by the SSA cease to exist,
the tights and obligations created by the easement become null and void, and
. if credits from a SSA are used to obtain one or more SRA approvals. the SRA
approvals also terminate.
During the 5 year conditional period, the owner of the SSA lands shall abide by all
conditions and restrictions contained in the stewardship easement regarding maintaining
property conditions and performing management obligations.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to you and look forward to
discussing any questions you or the Committee may have concerning it.
f~
6434-13239 #163.- Greenwood ltr 2 ECPO responses to Group 3 commenls
Iloq
SSA REVERTER POLICY PROPOSAL
Prooosed revision to last sentel1&.e. ofPolicv 1 6:
Once land is designated as a SSA, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship
Sending Area Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such propel1y unless the SSA is terminated as provided
elsewhere herein.
------_.._----_._----~---~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
proDosed new orovislon:
Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, upon initial approval of a Stewardship Sending Area
("SSA"), the Stewardship Easement shall be established for a tenn of five years ("Conditional Period") and
shall be deemed a Conditional Stewardship Easement. All conditions and restrictions of the Stewardship
Easement related to maintaining the existing property conditlons, including all management obligations of the
owner of the SSA lands, shall be in full force throughout the Conditional Penod. If at any time dming the
Conditional Period any of the following events occur, then the Conditional Stewardship Easement shall
become a Permanent Stewardship Easement which shall be final, perpetual and non-revocable in accordance
with the terms set fmih therein:
]. Stewardship Credits from the SSA have been assigned to entitle an approved Stewardship Receiving
Area ("SRA"), and the SRA has received all necessary final and non-appealable development orders,
pennits. or other discretionary approvals necessary to conunence construction. If Stewardship Credits
from the SSA have been assigned to more than one SRA, then the receipt of all necessary final and
non-appealable development orders, permits, or other discretionary approvals necessary to commence
construction of any SRA shall automatically cause the Conditional Stewardship Easement to become a
Permanent Stewardship Easement;
2. The owner of the SSA lands has irrevocably sold or transferred any Stewardship Credits to another
person or entity, including a Stewardship Credit Trust as described in Policy 1.20, and received the
consideration due from such sale or transfer, but not including a sale or transfer of the Stewardship
Credits ancillary to the sale or transfer of the nnderlying fee title to the land; or
3. The owner of the SSA lands has received other compensation as described in Policy 1.18 in exchange
for the creation of the Stewardship Easement Agreement.
In the event that none of the foregoing events has occurred during the Conditional Period, then the owner of
the SSA lands may within] 80 days after the last day of the Conditional Peliod record a Notice of Termination.
In addition, if a challenge and/or appeal of a necessary development order, permit or other discretionary
appro va] is filed, the owner of the SSA lands may elect to extend the Conditional Peliod until the challenge or
appeal is finally resolved. If the challenge or appeal is not resolved sllch that the construction may commence
under terms acceptable to the owner of the SSA lands, the owner of the SSA lands may within ]80 days of the
final disposition of the challenge or appeal record a Notice of Temlination. Upon the recording of such Notice
of Termination. the Stewardship Easement Agreement and corresponding Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement shall expire and terminate, the Stewardship Credits generated by the SSA shall cease to exist, the
rights and obligations set forth in the Stewardship Easement shall no longer constitute an encumbrance on the
property, and the SSA Memorandum shall be revised accordingly. The owner of the SSA lands shall provide a
copy of the Notice of Tenn;nation to the County.
In the event that the Stewardship Credits from an SSA have been used (0 obtain one or more SRA approvals,
but none of the foregoing events has OCCUlTed during the Conditional Period, then the Notice of Temlination
shall also provide for temliuation of any SRAs that have been assigned credits fi'olI1 the SSA, llnless the SRA
owner has obtained sufficient Stewardship Credits from another source and such Stewardship Credits have
been applied to the SRA. In the event tllat a Notice of Temlination does terminate an SRA, the owner of the
SRA lands shall joinlI1 the Notice of Termination.
era
In the event that a Conditional Stewardship Easement is temunated, all benefits, rights, privileges, restrictions
and obligations associated with the SSA shall be null and void, and the land shall reve11 to its underlying
zoning classification, free and clear of any encumbrance from the Conditional Stewardship Easement and SSA
Credit Agreement. If requested by the owner of the SSA lands, Collier County and the other grantees under the
Stewardship Easement Agreement shall provide a written release and termination of easement and credit
agreements for recording in the public records within 15 days of request from tlle owner of the SSA lands.
Collier County shall update the overlay map to reflect the tenlllnation of any SSA or SRA.
This policy shall be implemented in the LDC within 12 months after adoption hereof.
F:\\vpdocs\RE\ECPO\Eastem Collier Issues (13239)\Rcversio118.doc
~ LI
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
BOARD CERTIFIED eUSINESS lmGATION ATTORNEY
JOHN M. PASSIDOMO
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
BOARD CERTlFIED WilLS. TRUSTS & ESTATES AnORNEY
F. EDWARO JOHNSON
BOARD CEFlTIFIEO WillS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN D. KEHOE
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO
BOAAD CERTIFIED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZULIAN
KEVIN A. DENTI
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTIFIED WillS. TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
ATTQRNEYS AT LAw. ilP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE: (239) 261.9300
FAX; {2391261.9782
EMAIl: CPWJ@napleslaw.com
I
LOUIS W. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED nEAl ESTATE ATTORNEY
USAH. BARNETT
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
WILLIAM J. DEMPSEY
BOARD CERTiFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
MICHAEL W. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON
MICHAEL S. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. LOWE
M. FRANCESCA PASSERI
OF COUNSEL:
GEORGE L VARNADOE
DIRECT DIAL: (239) 436.1529
DIRECT FAX: (239)261.0884
September 22, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Deparfment
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II Policy Group 4
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Our firm, fogether wifh Wilson Miller, Inc., represenfs Alico, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidafed Citrus, Priddy Farm, Half Circle L Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectively comprise the "Easlern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA").
Pursuant to the established procedures for the 5-year review of the RLSA program, we offer
fhe following comments and recommendations for consideration by the Committee during the
Phase 2 process currently underway.
In this letter we will offer our comments and recommendations related to Policy Group 4. In
subsequenf correspondence we will address Policy Group 5.
Group 4 Policies
Policy 4,2
1. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agriculfural pumpage and not
permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts. Agriculfural uses do not use
water 12 months a year so their actuai use is not consisfent with the impacts of residential
irrigation. This change in withdrawals over differenf periods of fime should be reviewed for
-g tz-
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 2
impacts on the aquifers. Also, when SFWMD converts agriculfural water use to landscaping
there is a reduction applied fhat reduced maximum availability should be used when
analyzing waler resources for new SRA's.
ECPO Comments: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD
sfandards during water use permitting 10 provide assurances that fhe conversion from
agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater
resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the
conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumption of groundwater
by a significant percentage. Climate condifions vary from year to year, therefore actual
pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. The facf that a farm operation may
not pump its maximum rate in any given year, depending on climate cycles. does not limit
fheir legal righf to do so when the demand diclates.
Regarding seasonal agriculfural consumption, there is a large acreage of perennial crops
(e.g. citrus) in the area whose temporal irrigation demand matches that of lawn and
landscape. Seasonal row crops are generally grown in the dry season and use substantiai
quantifies of water when impacts to the aquifer are most critical. Typical landscape demand
associated with future development should ameliorate rather than further impact the
groundwater resource.
2. The Conservancy sfrongly supports further delineation of potenlial areas appropriate for
SRAs within the plan. While the mapping of the FSAs and HSAs are prohibifed from being
allowed designation as SRAs, fhere is a large area (almost 100,000 acres) thaf could
potentially be used as SRAs. Further refinement of areas where development should be
direcfed, based on infrastructure and environmental compafibility, should be reviewed. For
example, additional provisions should be included that further directs development and of her
incompafible uses away from the Area of Crifical State Concern (ACSC). A maximum
number of towns, villages, hamlefs and CRDs within the RLSA should also be explored.
ECPO Comments: RLS Policy 4.16 requires that an SRA have adequate infrastrucfure
available to serve the proposed development. Infrastructure includes fransportafion, potable
water, wasfewater, irrigafion water, stormwater management, and solid waste. SRA
applications are required to include several components including a natural resource index
assessment, an impact assessment report (relative to Infrastructure), and an economic
assessment report. These components are thoroughly considered during the review
process, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the size, location, and land use
components of a particular SRA. One town has been approved since adoption of the RLS
program and it does nof appear fhat the existing regulations have caused a proliferalion of
development in fhe area. The timing and location of future SRAs will be guided by existing
market conditions and the ability of an applicant to prove that the necessary infrastructure
can be provided and that the project is fiscally neutral or positive.
3. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance separations
between SRAs. If SRAs are allowed to be located back-to-back, withouf any true
separation, mega-towns could result in areas where rural character should be maintained.
ECPO Comments: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other
uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging
g t3
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 3
development that utilizes creafive land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11
requires the perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a fransilion from higher density
and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property.
The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character
of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA to have direct access to a County
collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no
SRA shall be approved unless fhe capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the
SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,OOO-acre
town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or
pending.
4. There should be more guidance on where towns and villages can be located. As it is written
now, it Is possible to locate towns near each of her with only a small buffer between which
encourages sprall. Without planning, all the density will be located on the western portion of
the RLSA. Ideally the towns should be spread out, with large agricultural areas between
them. Maybe a maximum number of towns needs to be agreed upon (3?) and lhe general
areas where these can be located indicated on a map. Af a minimum, there needs to be
more guidance provided as to where towns can be localed and their buffering requiremenls,
This will facilifafe all types of future infrastructure planning by the County.
ECPO Comments: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is fo enable conversion of other
uses In approprlafe locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging
development fhat utilizes crealive land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11
requires fhe perimeter of each SRA be designed to provide a transition from higher density
and intensity uses wlfhin fhe SRA fa lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property.
The edges of SRAs are fa be well defined and designed to be compatible with lhe character
of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an SRA fo have direcf access fa a County
collector or arterial road or Indirect access via a road provided by the developer, and that no
SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving fhe
SRA is demonstrated fo be adequafe. Since approval of the RLS program, one 5,000-acre
town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or
pending.
5. Provide maps of build out scenarios. Furfher, just as natural resources are mapped, so
should the areas most suifable for development.
ECPO Comments: Areas suitable for development are currently mapped as "Open" on the
RLSA Overlay Map. The RLSA policies and implementing Land Development Code provide
locational and suitability criteria as well as design sfandards to guide development.
Policy 4.5
6. Concentrated centers of development will produce a night time glow from electric light
sources, the Impacts of which should be considered on nearby conservafion lands, such as
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
ECPO Comments: Lighting is a design standard that is considered during lhe Receiving
Area (SRA) application review.
8Llj-
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 4
Policy 4.7,4.7.3, and 4.7.4
7. A feasibility study needs to be conducted to determine if the smaller development nodes,
such as 40-100 acre hamlets, can realisticallY achieve self-sufficiency to the exfent fhat they
are compatible with the overall goals of the program. If these small development nodes do
nof contain adequate levels of self confalnment or self sufficiency, fhen their allowance
under the RLSA should be reconsidered.
8. No hamiets or "compact rural developments" compacl rural development could be a
"Coconut Poinf," - no cap on size of some types of CROs).
9. Compact Rurai Oevelopmenfs (CROs) seem to be too loosely designaled and couid provide
a loophole for increased development in areas fhaf are already built up. A CRO of 100
acres or less seems to be a meaningless designation and it is my belief fhat this type of
development could be dropped.
ECPO Comments: The Eastern Collier Property Owners propose the following relafive to
forms and characteristics of SRA's:
. Hamlets are not a permitted form of SRA.
. Towns shall not be more than 5,000 acres.
. Oufside the Area of Critical State Concern, Villages shall not be more than 1,500
acres. Within the Area of Critical State Concern, the existing Collier RLSA Overlay
Program shall apply fo Villages.
. Towns shall not be located within the Area of Crifical State Concern.
. Compacf Rural Oevelopmenl (CRO) primary uses shall be associafed with research,
education, fourism or recreation and shall not be more than 100 acres.
Policy 4.8
10. Buffers from wildlife habitat were established at distances thaf did nof adequately address
hydrologic impacts. The hydrological impacls of agricultural uses are far different than the
uses of a town or village and these need to be better understood to assure no impacts to
surrounding wetlands. Agricultural control elevations should be compared for compatibility
with changes brought on by development.
ECPO Comments: We are not aware of any data that supports fhe opinion that buffers are
inadequate. Buffers were included within the RLSA program as a land use planning
technique 10 provide a transition between receiving areas and natural areas, primarily for the
benefit of water quality and wildlife. The stafe and federal wetland permitting procedures
meticulously review existing wetland hydroperiod data, proposed surface wafer
managernenf designs, outfall confrol elevations, etc., with fhe expressed purpose of
preventing hydrologic impacfs to surrounding wetlands. The SFWMO Basis of Review for
Environmental Resource Permits details fhese procedures. Permits are nof issued until the
applicanf can demonstrate that the proposed activity does not hydrologically impact these
wetiands, regardless of the buffer location or disfance. As part of fhe Environmental
Resource permitting process, control elevations are determined based on average wet
season water table elevation as typically determined by hydro-biological indicators, soil
types, ground water well monitoring data, and surrounding permitted control elevations.
8L-S
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 5
11. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention
Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during fhe five-year assessment.
ECPO Comments: The most current peer-reviewed research on panther habitat utilizafion
concluded, "[Our] results indicated that forests are fhe habitats selected by panthers and
generally support the currenf United States Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat ranking
sysfem." (Land, Shindle et. aI., 2008). This research employed GPS collars to characferize
panther habitat selection during nocfurnal and diurnal periods, and compared GPS data to
sfandard diurnal VHF radiofelemelry data. As such, lhis research does represent "lhe best
available Florida panther science" and does not support the Conservancy's contention that
the RLSA panther habitat methodology needs to be revised.
12. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the wafer management
system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes fhe appropriafeness of utilizing WRAs as part
of stormwater management should be reevaluated, especially for those WRAs fhat are part
of hisloric wetland f10wways and would benefif from restoration. However, if certain WRAs
are deemed acceptable for stormwafer treatment and are incorporated as part of the
development's stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should
be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like to see
this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.
ECPO Comments: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendment made on
September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13.
Policy 4.14
13. Vesting issues and concurrency were not adequately addressed and as a result separate
developer contribufion agreements are being created that provide excessive developmenf
rights beyond those confemplated in the original SRA. DCA's should not be allowed unlil an
SRA is approved in order fo better understand the impacts from fhe SRA.
ECPO Comments: Policy 4.14 of the RLSA Overlay subjects all SRAs to the County's
adopted Concurrency Management System. Developer Contribution Agreements are used
throughout Collier County as a mechanism to address concurrency issues through public-
privafe partnerships to improve the transportation network. All such agreements are subject
fo Board of County Commissioner approval and musf be found consisfent with fhe Growth
Management Plan and Land Development Code. In order to assure the impacls of an SRA
(or any development) are addressed and mitigated, Developer Contribution Agreements are
approved either prior to or concurrent wifh approval of the development. DRl's, such as Ave
Maria, are thoroughly analyzed because of the Regional Planning Council staff and other
reviewing enfities analyses and fhe transportation and other impacts are well understood
prior fo approval of the SRA.
14. An analysis is needed to determine how is the long range transportation plan is coordinated
wifh the transportation needs plan and the transportation financially feasible plan for this
area. Using lhe 5-year modeling of the GMP is inadequate for an area the size of the RLSA
and we should be analyzing the SRA's on their impact to the 3D-year build out study.
SIb
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 6
ECPO Comments: The coordination of iong range transportation planning with future land
use planning is a continuous process. Historically, the County's long-range transportation
planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Given that the future population projections
of a full-build condition of the urban areas and RLSA may nof occur for 50 or more years,
and absent a planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe,
it is clear fhat, in the past, neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed
wilh respect to transportation planning. To address this need, three separate efforts are
underway today that will provide a better understanding of the future transportation needs of
the RLSA. The County is beginning to develop a County-wide Inferactive Growth Model and
an updated Long-Range Transportation Model. In addition fa the two County studies, the
Eastern Collier Property Owners (ECPO) have undertaken the task of developing a long-
range concepfual plan for the RLSA that depicts one possible scenario of how
environmental and agricultural lands, and lands suifable for development can fit within the
program. While the areas with fhe highest environmental value were clearly defined in the
current RLSA Program, lands that would be most suitable for long-term agriculture and
likewise those lands most suitable for long-range development pofential were not Clearly
understood. ECPO has identified one potential development concept plan that quanlifies
and locates the amount of development envisioned at a build-out horizon. While if is only
one possible configuration, it does allow for a conceptual roadway needs analysis to be
performed, and allows for a basis of establishing viable corridors that can be further
explored through regular County and State transporlafion planning channels. ECPO is
working closely with the County in an effort to bring all three of fhese studies into alignment.
All of these tools should help in the long ferm evaluation of fhe transportation needs of the
Counfy. Now, five years after inception, we have a better understanding of how the RLSA
will "grow up" and with lhe new tools currently being developed, planners can more
appropriately idenfify and evaluate the transportation system of the fufure.
Policy 4.16
15. Impacts on certain elemenfs of regional infrastructure were not given adequate analysis.
Hurricane evacuation and shelters space, health care facililies and affordable housing as
example, were not adequafely addressed and minimum sfandards should be considered as
guidelines for SRA approval.
ECPO Comments: Infrastrucfure is defined by Collier County as drainage (water
management), roads, potable waler and sanifary sewer facilities pursuant to the Code of
Laws and Ordinance of Collier Counfy, Section 106-32. RLSA Policy 4.16 requires that
infrasfructure be analyzed with each Sfewardship Receiving Area application, and also
includes irrigation water and solid waste. It states:
"A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed
development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the
demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the type of
development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The
capacity of infrastructure serving the SRA must be demonstrated during the SRA
designation process in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency
Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. Infrastructure to be
analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water,
storm water management, and solid waste. "
917
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 7
While hurricane shelter space, health care facilities and affordable housing are each
important types of facilities, they are not defined as infrastructure and not subject to
concurrency management. However, every Town or Village in excess of 2000 unifs will be
required fo undergo DRI review, where regional issues such as hurricane evacuafion, health
care, and affordable housing are addressed in accordance with State Law.
With respect to hurricane evacuation, fhe RLSA is the least vulnerable part of Collier County
as demonstrated by the fact that no part of the RLS falls within a Landfalling Storm Category
1-4 map zone. Accordingly, it is fhe area least likely to require evacuation. In
implementation, Ave Maria provided hurricane shelter for coastal residents within the
university buildings, and in cooperation with Emergency Services, provided storage space
for emergency supplies that can be used throughout the county.
Planning for health care can only be properly addressed once specific SRAs are proposed.
Hospitals musf go fhrough a separafe state needs analysis before any new hospital can be
built. These items are addressed by SRA and DRI review procedures.
The need for affordable housing was contemplafed during the formation of fhe RLSA. The
GMP policies, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics chart, and associated LDC
standards sfate that the densities associated with a town, village, hamlet or CRD can be
increased beyond the base density through the affordable housing density bonus. Section
2.06.01.C of fhe LDC specifically addresses the affordable housing density bonus within the
RLS. Specific affordable housing conditions for a particular project are defermined during
the review and approval process for an SRA (similar fo the PUD and/or DRI review/approval
process). Affordable housing was provided at Ave Maria in a ratio well in excess of any
other large scale community in Collier County. All infrastrucfure is carefully analyzed and
consider throughout the public hearing process.
16. Collier County should require, as part of the evaluation for new towns, villages and hamlefs,
a comparison of water consumpfion proposed for the new developmenl versus acfual
agricullural pumpage (nof just a comparison of new consumption to permitted volumes)
when reviewing consumptive use impacts.
'~
ECPO Comments: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD
standards during wafer use permitting to provide assurances that the conversion from
agriculture use to development uses will not cause adverse impacfs to groundwater
resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding property owners. In most cases, the
conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the consumpfion of groundwater
by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year fo year, fherefore actual
pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly.
17. As it is universally recognized that the wide-scale use of sepfic systems as a long-term
solution to wastewater treatment in Florida is problematic, all SRAs should be required to
have a plan for conversion fo a private or public sewer system. While development may
initially be on septic systems, the plan, with timelines, for conversion to sewer should be in
place af the time of development approval.
ECPO Comments: RLS Policy 4.16 indicales that interim sepfic systems are permitted
within towns, villages and CRD's greater than 100 acres, and individual septic systems are
~le
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 8
permitted within hamlets and CRD's less than 100 acres. The conversion of septic systems
to centralized or decenfralized community wastewater ufilities is managed fhrough the
permitting process and additional provisions in the GMP are not necessary.
18. New roads and road improvements including pofential1-75 interchange musf be included
ECPO Comments: Proper planning for new roads and road improvements including a
potential 1-75 interchange is fhe product of coordination between long-range transportafion
planning and future land use planning. Historically, the Counly's long-range transportation
planning horizon timeframe has been 20 years. Future populafion projections of a full-build
condition of the urban areas and RLSA may not occur for 50 or more years, and absent a
planning horizon or transportation model capable of analyzing that timeframe, it is clear lhat
neither the urban areas nor the RLSA have been fully addressed with respect to
transportation planning. The Counly is beginning fo develop a County-wide Interactive
Growth Model and an updated Long-Range Transportation Model. The Eastern Collier
Property Owners have prepared a Concept Plan thaf demonsfrates one (of many) possible
land use scenarios, Additionally, ECPO has prepared a preliminary transportation network
analysis that supports fhat Concept Plan, and will be working closely wifh the County
planners fo achieve a consistent and comprehensive analysis of the future pofenfial of the
RLSA. Together these tools should help in the long term evaluation of the transportation
needs of the County. Today, there is a better undersfanding of how the RLSA is likely to
mafure over time and wilh the new fools currently being developed. planners can more
appropriately identify and evaluate the transportation system improvements of the future.
19. Each new developmenf should have to idenlify traffic contributions, water usage and other
resource requiremenls at the time they are being planned. You may wanf to consider the
changes in these variables from agriculture to increased density.
ECPO Comments: See response to number 15 above.
Policy 4.18
20. Fiscal impact analysis model (FlAM) minimum standards should be no less than minimum
counfy wide sfandards as a conservafive approach until historic data is acquired. This will
provide the maximum protecfion to the taxpayers. The analysis needs to be re-visited and
the development provided corrections made every year and include accurate absorption
rates, traffic capture rates and sales demographics, all of which have significant effects on
lhe outcome of the FlAM.
ECPO Comments: FlAM was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October
24, 2007, as fhe official model for review of DRI's, and projects within the RLSA. Since the
County has adopted FlAM, it is advisable for the Counfy fo keep fhe calibrated items up to
date with the most current data available and meeting County-wide standards, such as
current budgets, persons per household, millage rates, efc. Similarly, when an applicant
prepares a FlAM for a specific project, the FlAM will be populated with the initial data
projected for the projecl and sUbsequently with fhe mosf current data available at the five
year inferval or phasing dates to reflect adjusted development plans including sales prices,
absorption rates. etc.
~ J 1
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 9
Policy 4.18 of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Oisfrict ("RLSAO") and Section
4.08.07.L of the Collier County LOC bofh require an SRA applicanl to submit a FlAM as a
part of the application for SRA approval, and each 5 years after approval. An annual fiscal
analysis and review would not be appropriate as it would not account for the dynamics of the
land developmenf process, the cyclical nature of the economy, nor would it account for the
period of fime necessary for a community fo reach a point in its growth where a stabilized
balance of population, facilities and services are reached. The LOC specifically requires
that the project demonstrate fiscal neulrality every five years as nofed below:
" Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA
shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ("Report'~ eve!}' five
(5) years until the SRA is ninety (90) percent built out. The Report wili provide a
fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined
above. "
The five year or phase measurement was determined to be an appropriate timeframe by all
parties participating in the creation of the RLSA program due to fhe above mentioned
reasons and the fact that there are significant fiscal variations from year to year. This
timeframe allowed for the project to stabilize and to account for economic cycles.
In cases where a project does not meet its estimated absorption schedule, then it may not
generate fhe projecfed revenues, however, there will also be a corresponding reductiDn in
the cost Df public services. TherefDre, any measurement must be in terms Df net fiscal
impact, not jusl revenue shortfall.
21. Water storage areas that SFWMO allowed for Ag were allDwed to be used for development
storm water as well, yef these areas were not required to be included in development
acreages nor analysis provided to determine effects of this additional use. This occurs for
many uses within the developmental areas, thus making it appear as though development is
using less acreage when in facf the impacts from developmenf may cause changes fo the
water quality and quantity in land that is not part of the SRA.
ECPO Comments: ECPO supports the RLSA Review Committee amendmenf made on
September 16, 2008 to Policy 3.13.
Policy 4.19
22. The conversion ratio used fo create Stewardship Credits should have been reviewed and
applied in a model as the maximum scenario for development. The averages thaf were
used understated the growth potential. Fulure adjustmenfs should be based on a maximum
impacf analysis to assure a conservative approach for taxpayers.
ECPO Comments: See the memo tD TDm Greenwood from WilsonMiller dated September
18, 2008.
~ L.O
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
September 22, 2008
Page 10
Policy 4.20
23. In order to ensure fhat the maximum size of a fawn is limited to 4,000 acres, the
Conservancy believes that all town uses, including schools and universities, should be
incorporated into the maximum 4,000 acre footprint.
24. Why is acreage for "Public Benefi!" not included within the overall acreage calculation for
any SRA?
ECPO Comments: ECPO recommends a revision to Policy 4.20 to include the acreage of a
public benefit use towards the maximum acreage limits of a SRA.
25. Tie transportafion planning to conservation goals
ECPO Comments: Agreed.
We appreciate the opportunify to present this proposal to you and look forward to discussing
any questions you or fhe Committee may have concerning it.
I
(
D
!~
I
6434-13239 #165 - Greenwood Ur 3 ECPO responses to Group 4 comments
CJz-;
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: SEPTEMBER 30.2008
Ron Hamel, Chair
MEMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
V
/
~
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
./
~
David Farmer
Jim Howard
/
/
V
/
/
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name
E-mail / Affiliation
Phone #
"':;;"_.tI..(n U€.A ;2s.;.. s-s-'ff
17,q.I')f.5 (/.. )rvA4) J- A,vf> (-"1'" d 0/ ? - {] I ~ J
C (} '^~, ~'s+n)-u.d I~SP('JArJ" (fMt... ~ l.j.Cf -4 3l
\
2. >). - H.>f
3
-26W
I-I.} '1:;-..5
~:5
-;Iff; {)// r
i
6 '1'1. //,)~ ()
,
JiII>v/4SS,. /)o/Vt{) VJb - /S'02CJ
~ ~?6(r~OC-(Z 150 -2-5-:38
~ vi ljpf/VL L-f U'S-vJJ 0
~. '\ II '/'Y
~....S 5 ~ ~y€YZ- crs,--y- g'')O S-
"?> /TIv' ~ ,Xo H E Le~ ;;;.. 5 3 - 5"5 0 J
.'.~
~Jh~
~/~
P2.3
/J
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES) Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; September 23,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
Bill McDaniel
Zack Floyd Crews
Tom Jones
Fred N. Thomas, Jf.
ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Director of the Transportation PlaIllling Department, Thomas
Greenwood, Principal Planner and Michael DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Department; Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist, Environmental Services; and approximately
25 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM by Vice-Chairman Neno Spagna who chaired the
meeting in the absence of Chairman Ron HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of 12 members were present.
III, Approval of Agenda
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Mr. Thomas.
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minntes of the September 16,2008 Meeting
Mr. Thomas moved and McDaniel seconded to approve the minutes as distributed. Mr. Eidson stated
that the language on page 3 at the beginning of the fIrst paragraph needs to be added onto to read that
Transportation is wanting the Committee to understand the planning and fIscal needs of the County.
Mr. Thomas and Mr. McDaniel agreed to fhis clarifYing language. Voice Vote - Unimimously
approved.
V. Presentations None.
VI. VI. Old Bnsiness
I/Page r224-
As a preface to today's discussion, Mr. Greenwood stated the following:
. Primary focus today will be upon review of the Group 4 Policies [distributed version includes
all proposals advanced to date, including those from Eastern Collier Property Owners [ECPO]
dated September 18 and those referred from the Transportation Planning Department received
by staff on September 18th
. Review of Wilson Miller September 18, 2008 Stewardship Credit Estimates under Existing
and Revised RLSA Program
Also referred to were ECPO comments dated September 19 on Group 4 policies from John Passidomo
and September 19 proposal from John Passidomo on behalf of ECPO to revise Policy 1.6.
A. Phase 2... Review of Grouo I-Grouo 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardshio Overlay
r continuationl and Stewardshio Credit Estimates under Existinl! and Revised RLSA
Prol!ram. Mr, Greenwood stated that whatever action the Committee takes will appear in the
DRAFT Phase 2 Report and will be subject to a second overall review by the Committee prior to
its issuance of its final recommended report.
1. Review of Wilson Miller September 18, 2008 Stewardship Credit Estimates under
Existing and Revised RLSA Program. The Committee elected to review the attached
September 18, 2008 memo from Wilson Miller with the discussion and review led by Al
Reynolds of Wilson Miller with summarized as follows:
a. Assumptions include that 100% of the property owners will voluntarily participate in the
program over time, but will likely be less; numbers in the September 18 memo are rounded;
did not include any assumption of any of the Open land participating in the existing
program because it would likely be very minimal because of the low credits available on
such lands;
b. The existing RLSA Program could generate credits sufficient to entitle approximately
43,312 Stewardship Receiving Area [SRA] acres;
c. The proposed RLSA Program with revisions would generate 421,000 credits or 57,888
SRA acres but, with a modification of the credits needed to entitle 1 acre of SRA from 8
credits to 10 credits and reduce the SRA acreage to fall within the proposed cap of 45,000
acres;
Bill McDaniel stated that there needs to be an economic balance between the potential credits
produced and the potential of using those credits so that the credit value is not diminished to the
point where it is not economically feasible for the property owners to participate voluntarily in
the RLSA program. Mr. Reynolds stated that there would be a new supply of credits under the
proposed revised system and that there needs to be made corresponding adjustments to increase
the number of credits for SRAs and that it is impossible to predict demand 50 years into the
future and that the system will need to be looked at again in 5-7 years for possible adjustment.
Mr. Reynolds stated that the 128,000 base credits calculated uses the existing RLSAO is very
close to those projections prepared 7 years ago when the program was just being adopted. Mr.
Reynolds covered the Restoration Credit and Early Entry Bonus Credit analyses, stating that the
analysis is based upon 5 years of data of SSAs 1-13 and more reliable than data available when
the existing RLSA program was first adopted. Mr. Jones pointed out that the Wilson Miller
analysis of RLSA maturity under the existing RLSA program is very close to that developed by
County staff [and Van Buskirk through the East of CR 951 Infrastructure Study] which are both
independent of the Wilson Miller projections. Mr. Reynolds stated the proposed credit system
is based upon additional possible credit generation from Agriculture Credits, Panther Corridor
Credits, and Tiered Restoration. Mr. Jones stated that the proposed credit system is based upon
preliminary actions taken by the Committee on Group 2 and 3 policies and that the program is
voluntary and needs to be economically feasible or the property owners will not participate. Mr.
2lPage
gL-,5;
Farmer asked ifthere is the possibility for owners of existing SSAs to come back to the county
for more credits. Mr. Reynolds stated that there would probably be fewer credits possible under
the proposed system for SSAs already approved. Mr. McDaniel stated that he has a problem
with the 45,OOO-acre cap. Mr. Cornell stated that credit system needs to be balanced. Mr.
Eidson stated that the system needs to be balanced and government, including transportation,
needs to have some predictability to future development in the RLSA. Mr. Farmer stated that
he favors a cap of 45,000 acres of SRA and that it seems reasonable based upon the calculations
he made. Mr. Jones spoke in favor of the 45,000 acre cap and that there cannot be too many
credits or the system will not work. Nicole Ryan encouraged to Conunittee to start with the
45,OOO-acre cap and work backwards, rather than changing from 8 credits/ace to 10 credits/acre
for enabling one acre of SRA. She also encouraged the Conunittee to see more emphasis on
preservation. Russ Priddy stated using the system suggested by Ms. Ryan would not be an
incentive for small property owners of which he estimated there are about 175 to 180 owners of
land having 5 to 10 acres of land and that most of these tracts are carve outs of larger properties
and have homes on them already. Al Reynolds completed his presentation by stating that the
RLSA Program is a proactive voluntary approach to conserve enviromnentally sensitive lands
and agricultural lands while allowing limited well-designed compact urban development to
occur. He stated the 45,000 acre cap for the proposed system is intended to keep the SRA
development in the future at a level close to what is now allowed under the existing system. He
stated that the Horizon Year being lookcd at is 20] 5, based upon conversations with the
Comprehensive Planning Department staff.
B. Phase 2... Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship Overlav
[continuation] The Conunittee discussed the following policy langnage with Nick Casalangnida,
Director of the Transportation Planning Department:
Policy 4.4
Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineafe the boundaries of each approved SRA. The
conntv, in coordination with the land owners within the RLSA. shall develop a transportation network
that has been shown to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) through the build out of the RLSA
east of CR-95]. The build out network shall define the existinl! roadwavs that need to be improved and all
proposed roadwavs. The plan shall also include the facilitv tvpe. lane needs and provide evidence that it is
financiallv feasible. The county. in coordination with the land owners within the RLSA shall identifY and
locate the public services needed to accommodate the build out pooulation within the RLSA that would
not otherwise be included within the individual SRAs. These services shall include but are not limited to:
government offices. iails. court houses. landfills. maintenance facilities or anv other facilities that would
otherwise require travel back to the urban area. Land shall be set aside within the RLSA to accommodate
these services so thev can be constructed as thev become needed based on develooment absorption. Such
updates shall not require an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively
incorporated into the adopted Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it
periodically occurs.
Mr. Casalanguida stated that the County is short on cash and bonding capacity for transportation
improvements as follows:
· $50,000,000 commercial paper interest rate increased from 5% to 12%
. Gas tax is depleted
. Cannot defer costs
31Page
g7(=
,-
He stated that deferring language is not good planning. He stated that the County will have a updated
network plan within 6 months which will refine the horizon year network. No action was taken by the
Committee on Policy 4.4 deferring a rewrite of the language proposed to Nick Casalanguida and John
Passidomo [see discussion under Policy 4.14].
Policy 4.14
The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road
provided by fhe developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in
accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. An SRA proposed to adioinland desie:nated
as an SRA or lands desie:nated as Open shall provide direct vehicular and pedestrian connections to said
areas so as to reduce travel time, travel expenses, improve interconnectivitv. and keep the use of countv
arterial roads to a minimum when traveline: between developments in the RLSA. Public or private roads
and connecting signalized intersections within or adjacent to an SRA shall be maintained by the primary
town or community it serves.No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial
road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County
Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact
assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be
prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. The countv, in coordination
with the land owners within the RLSA. shall develop a transportation network that has been shown to
maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) throue:h the build out of the RLSA east of CR-95 1. The
build out network shall define the existine: roadwavs that need to be improved and all proposed roadwavs.
The plan shall also include the facilitv tvoe and lane needs. SRAs shall provide mitie:ation credits in a
bank. for species. wetlands or anv other impacts which would require mitie:ation to expand the existine: or
proposed roadwav network. These credits would be made available at no cost to the countv if it can be
shown that there are insufficient funds via impact fees or other revenue streams to cover the cost of the
mitie:ation requirements. The construction and pennittine: of wildlife crossine:s and flow wavs that are
identified within the RLSA shall be the responsibilitv of the SRA that is adiacent to or near the identified
locations. SRAs that are adiacent to existing roadwavs that must be expanded or proposed roadwavs shall
provide rie:ht of wav, water manae:ement and fill material at no cost to the countv for mitie:ation of their
transportation impacts and if it can be shown that there are insufficient funds via impact fees or other
revenue streams to cover the cost of the roadwav proiect.
Mr. Thomas stated that he believed the County should move forward with its existing road construction
plans and he further add that the owners should be responsible for their proportionate share ofthe impact
of an SRA upon the County intfastructure and that the County pay its share. Mr. Casalanguida stated
that is OK as long as the Counfy has the funds to pay for the balance of the infrastructure costs required to
keep the infrasfructure at a level of service consistent with the Growth Management Plan. He stated that
the Panther Protection Plan will add additional costs to infrastructure. Mr. Spagna asked if a special
assessment wouldn't be a partial solution. Mr. Eidson stated that this conversation needs to occur now
rather than later. Mr. McDaniel stated that Policy 4.14 language proposed is putting the onus on property
owners due to someone else's mismanagement of funds. Mr. Thomas referred to private property owners'
contributions of fill, right of way and impact fees as examples of private contributions related to SRAs.
Mr. Casalanguida stated that there needs to be checks and balances and that impact fees have dried up.
Mr. Jones, referring to language proposed in Policies 4.4 and 4.14, asked how property owners could
predict 50 years in advance where facilities will be needed and set them aside; that the 45,000 cap SRA
footprint is definable; and that landowners cannot identify something that may not occur for 50-75 years.
Mr. Casalanguida referred to big ticket items such as jails, government center, etc. which are not
triggered in whole by one SRA, but by a combination of several SRAs over many years. Mr. McDaniel
stated that there is much long-range planning going on and referred to the Interactive Growth Model
developed by Van Buskirk and the East of CR 951 lntfastructure Study as excellent examples of long
range looks at infrastructure needs for the entire area of the County east of CR 95 I, including the RLSA
41Page
~~7
as well as Immokalee. Mr. Casalanguida stated that he agrees with Mr. Jones, but there is a need to get
the RLSA property owners together and agree upon a plan. Mr. Jones stated that he is not opposed to
long-range planning, but that he cannot predict 50+ years out. John Passidomo, speaking on behalf of
ECPO, stated that he would work with Mr. Casalanguida to formulate some revised language related to
Group 4 policies based on established state guidelines and guiding principles and bring them back to the
Committee when it next meets. Elizabeth Fleming, of Defenders of Wildlife, asked Transportation not to
show the two roads being "punched through" conservation lands as shown on the map displayed by
Transportation during the September 16th meeting and encouraged the County to move forward with
requirements for corridor crossings.
[at 11:30am Fred Thomas left the meeting leaving a quorum of7 members]
No action was taken by the Committee on Policy 4.14 deferring a rewrite of the language
proposed to Nick Casalanguida and John Passidomo.
The committee took action on the following Policies as follows:
Policy 4.1
Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of
the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative
land use planning techniqnes and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population
growth by the establislunent of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage and
support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations,
expedited pennitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC
Stewardship District.
Public Commeut: none
Staff Commeuts:
Committee Action taken on September 23. 2008: Mr. Eidson moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to
leave Policy 4.1 unchanged. Upon vote, the motion carried, unanimously, 7-0.
Policy 4.2
All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for
designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a
Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criferia and
other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay,
extending to a horizon year of 2025, and in accordance with the guidelines established in Chapter
163.3177(11) F.S., the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be
predetennined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs
generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agriculture lands which have
been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA
designation include approximately ~ 72.000 acres outside of the ACSC and apProximately ~
15.000 acres within the ACSC. Total SRA designation shall be a maximum of 45.000 acres.
'^4"prOltimalely 2% af these lands achieve an Hulen scare greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires
SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and
infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to detennine development suitability are
51Page
22t
not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the pHaeiples of
the Rllral LaRds Stewanlshil' .'.ct as further described procedures set forth herein and fhe adopted RLSA
Zoninl! Overlav District.
Public Comment:
Public Iuput:
1. Evaluation of water consumption must be compared to actual agricultural
pumpage and not permitted volumes when reviewing consumptive use impacts.
Agricultural uscs do not use water 12 months a year so their actual use is not
consistent with the impacts of residential irrigation. This change in withdrawals
over different periods of time should be reviewed for impacts on the aquifers.
Also, when SFWMD converts agricultural water use to landscaping there is a
rednction applied that reduced maximum availability should be used when
analyzing water resources for new SRA's. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: Applicants are required to provide an analysis meeting SFWMD standards during
water use pennitting to provide assurances that the conversion from agriculture use to development
uses will not cause adverse impacts to groundwater resources, surrounding wetlands, or surrounding
property owners. In most cases, the conversion of land from agriculture to SRA uses reduces the
consumption of groundwater by a significant percentage. Climate conditions vary from year to year,
therefore actual pumpage rates and volumes can change significantly. The fact that a farm operation
may not pump its maximum rate in any given year, depending on climate cycles, does not limit their
legal right to do so when the demand dictates.
Regarding seasonal agricultural consumption, there is a large acreage of perennial crops
(e.g. citrus) in the area whose temporal irrigation demand matches that of lawn and
landscape. Seasonal row crops are generally grown in lhe dry season and use substantial
quantities of water when impacts to lhe aquifer are most critical. Typical landscape demand
associated with future development should ameliorate rather than further impact the
groundwater resource.
2. The Conservancy strongly supports further delineation of potential areas
appropriate for SRAs within the plan. While the mapping ofthe FSAs and HSAs
are prohibited from being allowed designation as SRAs, there is a large area
(almost 100,000 acres) that could potentially be used as SRAs. Further
refinement of areas where development should be directed, based on
infrastructure and environmental compatibility, should be reviewed. For example,
additional provisions should be included that further directs development and
other incompatible uses away from the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). A
maximum number of towns, villages, hamlets and CROs within the RLSA should
also be explored. [Conservancy)
ECPO Comments: RLS Policy 4.16 requires that an SRA have adequate infrastructure available to
serve the proposed development. Infrastructure includes transportation, potable water, wastewater,
inigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. SRA applications are required to include
several components including a natural resource index assessment, an impact assessment report
(relative to infrastructure), and an economic assessment report. These components are thoroughly
considered during the review process, and it is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the size,
location, and land use components of a particular SRA. One town has been approved since adoption
6lPage
f2G(
of the RLS program and it does not appear that the existing regulations have caused a proliferation of
development in the area. The timing and location of future SRAs will be guided by existing market
conditions and the ability of an applicant to prove that the necessary infrastructure can be provided
and that the project is fiscally neutral or positive.
3. The Conservancy believes that there should be specific guidelines for distance
separations between SRAs. If SRAs are allowed to be located back-to-back,
without any true separation, mega-towns could result in areas where rural
character should be maintained. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other uses in
appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes
creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA
be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity nses within the SRA to lower
density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and
designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an
SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided
by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or
arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program,
one 5,OOO-acre town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or
pending.
4. Establish distances between villages and towns; and distance from Immokalee. [FWF]
ECPO Comments: The goal of the RLS Group 4 Policies is to enable conversion of other nses in
appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes
creative land use planning techniques. Specifically, Policy 4.11 requires the perimeter of each SRA
be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower
density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs are to be well defined and
designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Also, Policy 4.14 requires an
SRA to have direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided
by the developer, and that no SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or
arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate. Since approval of the RLS program,
one 5,OOO-acre town has been approved, while approximately 55,000 acres of SSAs are approved or
pending.
5. There should be more guidance on where towns and villages can be located. As it is written now,
it is possible to locate towns near each other with only a small buffer between which encourages
sprall. Without planning, all the density will be located on the western portion of the RLSA.
Ideally the towns should be spread out, with large agricultural areas between them. Maybe a
maximnm number oftowns needs to be agreed upon and the general areas where these can be
located indicated on a map. At a minimum, there needs to be more guidance provided as to
where towns can be located and their buffering requirements. This will facilitate all types of
future infrastructure planning by the County. [Judith Hushon]
ECPO Comments: Areas suitable for development are currently mapped as "Open" on the
RLSA Overlay Map. The RLSA policies and implementing Land Development Code provide
locational and suitability criteria as well as design standards to guide development.
7lPage
F?"3a
6. Provide maps of build out scenarios. Further, just as natural resources are mapped, so should the
areas most suitable for development. [Defenders of Wildlife]
Seotember 23. 20008 Discussion
. Brad Cornell stated that he would like to have the 45,000 acre cap proposed in the RLSA be
reduced by an acreage amount each time a property is developed under the base zoning of
Agriculture in amount equivalent to such acreage.
. Mr. Jones stated that he likes the 45,000 cap and that we need to keep away from baseline zoning
as such a mechanism will hurt the credit system.
. Russ Priddy stated that one must understand that there are about 240 smaller property Owners in
the RLSA and that about 175-180 of these property owners own 5 to 10 acre properties. He stated
that most of these properties have homes on them and, if there is 0% participation in the Rl,SA
program by such owners, then there will be maybe 8,000 acres at a density of I unitl5 acres which
is equivalent to about 1,600 units which is negligible. He stated the proposal of Mr. Cornell is
not warranted and could cause more harm than good to the RLSA Overlay.
Staff Comments: Staff pointed out that the proposed additions and deletions were presented by ECPO
via a communication dated September 18, 2008.
Committee Action: Motion Eidson and seconded by Mr. Farmer to accept the proposed amendments as
shown. Upon vote, the motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Cornell voting in opposition.
VII. New Business [none]
VIII. Public Comments [none]
IX. Next Meeting
Mr. Spagna stated that the next meeting but that it will be held on September 30, 2008, in Rooms
609/610 of the CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. in Naples, Fl. from 9:00 A.M. - 12 Noon.
X. Adjournment
Mr. McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr, Eidson with the motion approved
unanimously with adjournment at I 2:00PM.
These minute~proved by the
amended
Rura~ l,jl)Ids Stewardsh' Are
\ V UVVLo . 'X'-.c. /jA-d.--
Neno Spagna, Vic ba~rm,
Committee on 9- ...:::t:::r-06' , as presented
or as
81Page
8~}
WiI.,Mille,"
New Directions fn PlBnninQ, Design & fnglneering
:5t,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Tom Greenwood
Wilson Miller
September 18, 2008
Estimates of Stewardship Credits under the current and
revised RLSA Program and recommll~ation for Credit
calibration
As requested, we have reviewed the RLSA ~n9t11[ System to estimate and
compare the potential credits that can be- p'-'hl.erated under the current RLSA
Program and under the RLSA as it m,a~ Il.., revised in accordance with the Collier
County Rural Lands Stewardship Area'\<eview Committee's (CCRLSARC)
discussions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Jhe"Ctl~~ec1 RLSA Program is estimated to produce a total of
315,000 Stewardship Credits ;\ssuming 100% pro~ owner
i>artfc~ ::fnQse Cr'&cIHs.wbuld entitle a maximum ot 43,J17SRA
acres, including allowance for public benefit uses. ApproJ<lfffilm1y 43,700
acres of Open designated land would remain with baseline rights, and
some or all of this land could potentially be converted from Agriculture to
development at 1 unit per 5 acres (or other permitted baseline uses).
B. Three proposed modifications to the RLSA Program have been
conceptually approved by the CCRLSARC, including Agriculture Credits,
Panther Corridor Credits, and Tiered Restoration. Should the three
modifications described above be adopted without further changes, and
again assuming 100% property owner participation, including all Open
designated land outside of SRAs being placed into Agriculture SSAs, the
program is estimated to produce 421,000 Credits and 57,888 SRA acres.
C. With certain recommended adjustments to the RLSA Credit system further
detailed in this report under Section 3, including a change from 8 Credits
per SRA acre to 10 Credits per SRA acre, the RLSA Program would
produce a total of 404,000 Credits. All remaining Open designated land is
assumed to be within Agriculture SSAs. This number of Credits would fall
within an appropriate range to comply with the proposed cap of 45,000
SRA acres, as further detailed below.
D. Conclusion: The proposed modifications to the RLSA Program, coupled
with recommended adjustments set forth herein, will meet the Goal and
Objective of the RLSA and will reduce the potential total development
footprint by nearly 50%.
8'32
2
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
The methodology and results for this analysis are described below and all Credit
estimates have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. Please note that we have
used a different methodology (described in detail below) than the County to
arrive at an estimate of potential Credits and development acres at maturity
under the current program, but the results are comparable (315,000 Credits
compared to 316,761 Credits).
1. CURRENTLY ADOPTED RLSA PROGRAM
Base Credits
Base Credits are the Credits generated by use of the Natural Resource Index
and Land Use Layer System. They are created from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and
Open lands that are designated as SSAs by the property owners. To estimate the
total potential Base Credits, we performed a model run of the NRI values and
current mapping of AG1 and AG 2 land uses as recently adjusted during the
Stage 1 process. We have assumed that all FSAs, HSAs and WRAs become
SSAs with land use layers removed down to current AG1 or AG2 use. We have
applied this model to all of the FSAs, HSAs and WRAs lands regardless of
whether they are in approved SSAs or not. We then compared the modeled
credits to actual SSA Base Credits generated from SSAs 1-13, and this analysis
shows that actual Base Credits in these approved SSAs are approximately 15%
greater than the model due to the inclusion of more site specific data, such as
listed species surveys which have enabled a greater level of accuracy in
calculating NRI values. However, we expect this variance will be less going
forward based on the composition of future SSAs being more heavily weighted
toward WRAs. Therefore we applied an adjustment factor of 10% to the model
derived Base Credits (116,329). The rounded total estimate is 128,000 Base
Credits.
Restoration Credits
Restoration Credits are generated by application of Policy 3.11. Because these
Credits are dependent on site specific conditions that require detailed evaluations
and restoration planning and permitting by each property owner, as well as
successful implementation, it was not possible to estimate these Credits at the
inception of the RLSA Program. We now have 5 years of actual data from 13
SSAs that we can use to estimate the use of the restoration program.
Notwithstanding, the same variables of site specific conditions, owner decisions,
and permitting requirements will still apply to future restoration. For this estimate,
the following approach has been used:
Total acres of FSA, HSA, and Restoration Zone within RLSA: 73,000
Acres of planned restoration, SSAs 1-13: 12,000
Acres deemed not suitable for restoration. SSAs 1-13 21.000
Maximum eligible acreage for future restoration: 40,000
B"..2S3
3
For SSAs 1-13, approximately 29% of the total acreage is proposed for
restoration. Assuming that the same percentage applies to the 40,000 acres that
are eligible for future restoration, 11,600 additional acres would be restored
(40,000 x 0.29 = 11,600). The projected additional restoration credits generated
under the current system would be approximately 78,000 credits, as shown in the
table below:
System Potential Estimated Restoration Estimated
Restoration Restoration Credits Credits
. (Acresl . (Potential acres x 29% ). (credlts/acrel .
Camp Keals 15,000 4,350 8 34,800
OK Slough 25,000 7,250 6 43,500
TOTAL 40,000 11,600 N/A 78,300
The total estimate for restoration credits under the current system is:
Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11): 28,000
Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10, 12, 13): 54,000
Estimated future restoration credits (rounded): 78.000
Total restoration credit estimate for current system: 160,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits
RLSA Policy 1.21 provides for a maximum of 27,000 Early Entry Bonus
Credits. These Credits are available until January 2009, at which time they are
no longer available.
Potential Credits and SRA acres under currently adoDted RlSA Proaram
Base Credits: 128,000
Restoration Credits: 160,000
Earlv Entry Bonus Credits: 27.000
Total Credits: 315,000 Credits
SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre:
Public Benefit Acres estimated at 10%:
Total SRA Acres:
39,375 Acres
3.937 Acres
43,312 Acres
Remainina Baseline deyeloDment Dotential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
ACSC Open Land
Non ACSC Open Land
Total remaining Open land
15,000 Acres
28,700 Acres
43,700 Acres
~ ?; t.{.
4
2. PROPOSED RLSA MODIFICATIONS
Three proposed changes to the RLSA Program have been conceptually
approved by the CCRLSARC that would change the Credit estimates described
previously. Two are new credit categories that resulted from the Florida Panther
Protection Program, and the third is a proposed modification to the Restoration
Credit system.
Aariculture Credits
These Credits result from a property owner agreeing to eliminate non-
agricultural uses from Open designated land and are an alternative to
development under baseline zoning rights. Our estirnates are calculated based
on the acreage of privately owned Open designated land in the ACSC not
already included in approved SSAs (approximately15,OOO acres) at 2.6 Credits
per acre yielding 39,000 Credits, and privately owned Open designated land
outside of the ACSC (approxirnately 72,000 acres), less the amount of potential
SRA acres proposed under the Florida Panther Protection Program (45,000) and
less the acreage of a potential Panther Corridors on such Open Lands
(approximately 1,300 acres) and miscellaneous land (700 acres). This results in
an estimated 25,000 acres of Agricullure outside of the ACSC at 2.0, or 50,000
Credits. Therefore, the rounded total estirnate is 89,000 total Agriculture
Credits.
Panther Corridor Credits
Panther Corridor Credits result from a property owners agreeing to designate
land and construct improvements to implement the north and south Panther
Corridors referenced in the Florida panther Protection Program. These corridors
will require the use of both Open Lands and WRAs. We currently estirnate
approximately 1,300 acres of Open land and 1000 acres of WRA land in the
north and south corridors would be required for a total of 2,300 acres at 10
Credits per acre, or 23,000 Panther Corridor Credits. It is possible for these
acreages to be more or less, and the viability of these corridors is currently under
review by the Florida Panther Protection Program Scientific Technical Review
Committee.
Tiered Restoration Credit Estimates
The proposed tiered restoration system is a modification to the current prograrn
to better define the type and relative value of different restoration types. For this
estimate, we assume that 11,600 acres within future SSAs are suitable for
restoration activities as previously described, with 600 acres dedicated for x
panther habitat restoration, and the remaining 11,000 acres split equally between
the four other restoration types (caracara, exotic removal/burning, flow way, and
native habitat restoration). For this analysis, we also assume that approved and
pending SSAs will be considered as vested under the current program, and that
future SSAs will use the tiered system. The calculations are as follows:
Q~s::
Credits per Restoration
. ~estoration T~pe . Acres Acre Credits
Panther Habitat 600 10 6,000
Caracara 2,750 4 11,000
Exotic Control/Burnina 2,750 6 16,500
Flow Way 2,750 6 16,500
Native Habitat Rest. 2,750 8 22,000
Total 11600 NIA 72 000
The total estimated restoration credits with implementation of the tiered system
for future SSAs are shown below:
Approved restoration credits (SSAs 1-9, 11):
Pending restoration credits (SSAs 10,12,13):
Estimated future restoration credits:
Tiered Restoration Credits:
28,000
54,000
72.000
154,000
These restoration estimates are subject to variation based on site specific
analysis for restoration suitability, decisions made by the property owner,
approval by the County and permitting agencies and successful restoration
implementation.
Potential Credits and SRA acres under a revised RLSA Proaram
Should the three modifications described above be adopted without further
changes, there would be the following resulting Credits and SRA acres:
Base Credits: 128,000
Restoration Credits: 154,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits: 27,000
Agriculture Credits 89,000
Panther Corridor Credits 23.000
Total Credits: 421,000 Credits
SRA Acres at 8 Credits per acre:
Public Benefit Acres at 10%:
Total SRA Acres:
52,625 Acres
5.263 Acres
57,888 Acres
Remainina Baseline develoDment Dotential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs 0 Acres
S;;~b
5
6
3. ADJUSTMENTS TO ACHEIVE 45.000 ACRE SRA CAP
The Florida Panther Protection Program has called for a cap of 45,000 SRA
acres in the RLSA, and should this cap be reflected in the revised RLSA
Program, certain adjustment will be necessary so that the RLSA Credit System
will produce sufficient Credits to entitle a potential 45,000 acre SRA scenario,
without leaving a substantial number of excess Credits. The following items are
recommended:
1. The cap of 45,000 SRA acres will include public benefit acres.
2. The proposed Tiered Restoration System will be used for all future SSAs.
3. No extension of the Early Entry Bonus Program beyond January 2009.
Approximately 7,000 EEBs not included in approved or pending SSAs will
be eliminated.
4. A change in the SRA Credit Ratio from 8 Credits per SRA acre to 10
Credits per SRA acre for Credits generated from any future, non-vested
SSAs.
5. SSA vesting will be applied as follows:
a. All approved SSAs (1 -9, 11) would be vested at the 8 Credit per
SRA acre ratio and in accordance with the restoration programs set
forth therein. This represents a total of 73,488 credits. Any SRA
acres entitled with these Credits will be computed at the current 8
Credit per acre ratio. This includes Credits and SRA acres already
approved for and applied to the Town of Ave Maria.
b. Proposed SSAs 14, 15, and 16 would be vested at the current 8
Credit per SRA acre ratio to the extent required to entitle the
proposed Town of Big Cypress DRI/SRA. These SSAs will include
restoration designation credits at the current rate of 4 per acre in
the Camp Keais Strand. Total restoration credits per acre will not
exceed the level provided under the new tiered system as
approved. This represents an estimated total of 24,000 Credits and
3,000 SRA acres.
c. Proposed SSAs 10, 12, and 13 will continue to be processed and
approved under current adopted standards (8 Credits per SRA acre
and non-tiered restoration). Should all of the proposed
modifications be approved, the owners of these SSAs will agree to
subsequently amend these SSAs to adjust to the 10 Credit per SRA
acre ratio and tiered restoration system following approval and
adoption of these new standards. This would reduce the estimated
restoration credits by 10,000. Should the proposed modifications
not be adopted, these SSAs will not be amended.
6. All new SSAs will conform to the new adopted standards.
g~?
7
With these adjustments, the following table shows the resulting number of
Credits and potential SRA acres:
Estimated Credits lassumina full orooerty owner oarticioationl:
Base Credits from all NRI based SSAs 128,000
Early Entry Bonus Credits (upon phase out) 20,000
Restoration Credits 144,000
Agriculture Credits (40,000 acres) 89,000
Panther Corridors (assumes 2.300 acres) 23.000
Total Estimated Credits 404,000
Proiected SSA suooly of Credits
SSAs 1-9, 11 Vested Credits (approved)
SSAs 14-16 Vested Credits (estimated)
SSA Credits vested at 8 Credits per SRA acre
Remaining SSAs at 10 Credits per SRA acre
73,488 credits
24.000 credits
97,488 credits
306,512 credits
Proiected SRA acres assumina all Credits are used:
SRA acres entitled at 8 Credits per acre
SRA acres entitled at 10 Credits oer acre
Subtotal of Credit entitled SRAs
Public benefit acres estimated at 10%
Total potential SRA acres
12,186 acres
30.651 acres
42,837 acres
4.283 acres
47,120 acres
Remainina Baseline deyelooment ootential
Open Land not included in SRAs or SSAs
o acres
Credit estimates and excess Credits
The total supply of Credits entitles less than 45,000 acres of SRAs, but estimated
public benefit acres must also be considered. Because the RLSA is a voluntary,
market based system and these estimales assume 100% property owner
participation in the RLSA Program, and each category of estimate has a range of
assumptions built in to the estimated number, it is advisable to allow for some
variance. The above estimates result in sufficient Credits that, together with
public benefit acres, provides for an approximate 5% variance in total potential
SRA acres. There are a number of factors that could offset this potential "excess"
including but not limited to: less than 100% participation by all property owners in
the RLSA, less than 10% public benefit acres, purchase of land and/or Credits by
a publicly funded conservation program, less than 100% success rate in
restoration implementation, and lack of market demand for all of the potential
Credits.
gi3f/
8
4. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The following three tables illustrate the land use summaries at full utilization
using the current and revised and recalibrated programs. With the proposed
revisions, the acreage of potential SRAs increases nominally from 43,300 acres
(Tables 4.1 and 4.2) to 45,000 acres (Table 4.3). However the potential
development footprint of Open Land converted to baseline development could be
reduced dramatically, depending on the use of the new Agriculture Credit. Table
4.1 shows 100% of Open Lands converted to baseline uses under the current
program and Table 4.3 shows 100% of Open Lands placed in Agriculture SSAs
under the revised program.
We do not expect that all of the Open land outside of SRAs would be converted
to baseline development under the current program. Market incentives that favor
well planned, compact, mixed use communities with a wide range of housing
options served by high quality infrastructure and services would satisfy most of
the demand for new homes in the RLSA. In addition, Golden Gate Estates
already offers a significant supply of 2.25 to 5 acre lots without such services for
those that prefer this alternative.
Table 4.2 shows a more realistic scenario for comparison, where 10% of ACSC
Open lands are converted (based on ACSC regulations limiting site alterations to
10% of any site) and 25% of non ACSC Open Lands are converted. Comparing
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 still demonstrates that the potential development
footprint is reduced by approximately 7,000 acres using the revised RLSA
system.
Table 4.1: Current RLSA Land Use
Summary at full utilization with 100%
baseline conversion --- Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs .--------- 92,000
SSA Subtotal .'---.-- 92,000 ~i:o%
Open Land conversion to baseline rights 43,700
SRAs 43,300 -~ 44.40;';-
Potential Development Footprint 87,000
Public Land and Miscellaneous -~----- 16,846 8.6%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
gZ7
9
-
Table 4.2: Current RLSA Land Use
Summary with partial baseline
conversion Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000
SSA Subtotal 92,000 47.0%
ACSC Open Land conversion at 10% 1,500
Non ACSC Open Land conversion at 25% 7,175
SRAs 43,300
Potential Oevelo oment F ootorint 51,975 - 26.5%
Ooen Land remaining in Agriculfure 35,025 17.9%
--
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,846 8.6%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
Table 4.3: Revised and recalibrated RLSA
Land Use Summarv at full utilization Acres % of Total
NRI based SSAs 92,000 47.0%
Agriculfure SSAs 40,000 20.4%
Panther Corridors -- 2,300 1.1%
SSA Subtotal 134,300 68.5%
Potential Oevelooment ISRAs) 45,000 23.0%
Public Land and Miscellaneous 16,546 8.5%
Total RLSA 195,846 100.0%
Under the revised and recalibrated RLSA, in addition to agricultural uses retained
on the majority of 92,000 acres of NRI based SSAs, 40,000 additional acres of
agricultural land are protected as Agriculture SSAs. Two important Panther
corridors are also incentivised.
It should also be noted that current RLSA Policy 4.10 requires a minimum of 35%
of each SRA to be open space. As a result, a minimum of 15,750 acres of the
total 45,000 acres of SRA will be open space, and a maximum of 29,250 acres
will be developed land. This results in a net developed footprint equal to 15% of
the total RLSA acreage.
c6L}D
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: SEPTEMBER 23.2008
Ron Hamel, Chair
MEMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
~euS6-D
~
/"
~~
V
/
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
7
----L
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
~/-
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
E-mail / Affiliation
a./
c
Phone #
(; N (;. tv;) /\.d f
J., l.f 75' .2J)
c; )(".CJ1
,
AI ~'t':>(,)) (}Io Lv"".I~.
(/i:(mJ~s t~(j (h7-y yP4.s:.s,.' r~<o1vt{,
o 'j G ~b~? 'V'\4;f f-e) O~~ )\.1~u.h--
t;Jl~ Ffe?7V~ ~ J~ 0(2 0/Jlt/k
~2 ~~ C;;Y~r ~7
z:(c:luU&
])MJ E.~ ~C{J H/!{j2 0/<((0. LM7vc c-;:
~1J~
---;-, 11rh q p1
//07 VI
lc>w-t{ ~~
w~~-
{A~'kMIt~/ I
\)e~oUr5 b f v-X Wik..
gy~
"
{~j
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Community Development and Environmental Services ICDES) Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; September 16, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
David Fanner (left at l2:00pm)
Gary Eidson
Bill McDaniel (arrived at !0:30am)
Zack Floyd Crews
Tom Jones
Fred Thomas
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner and Michael DeRuntz, Principal
Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department; Laura Rays, Senior Environmental Specialist,
Environmental Services; and approximately 20 members of the public. .
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 AM by Chairman Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 8 of 12 members were presenf initially
with Bill McDaniel arriving at approximately !0:30am.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Mr. Crews. .
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minutes ofthe August 5, 2008 Meeting
Mr. Spagna moved and Mr. Farmer seconded to approve the minutes as distributed. Voice
Vote - Unanimously approved. Mr. Hamel pointed out that page 2 of the minutes states that
there will be complete review by the Committee of the entire draft report, so that there will be
a second chance to review the entire document
V. Presentations
A. Mr. Greenwood referred to and made a part of the minutes the following as emailed and as
provided in hard copy and discussed at today's meeting:
~Lt3
· Committee tasks by meeting dates for September 16, 23, 30 and October 7 and EAC
meeting of November 12, CCPC on December I, and BCC on January 29, 2009.
[attached to minutes]
· Potential RLSA.. ..Potential Maturity under the existing RLSA Credit System.
[attached to minutes]
With respect to the Committee tasks, the attached was reviewed by the Committee and it was
stated that the goal today is to finish the Group 3 Policies and hear from the Transportation
Planning Department at II am regarding transportation issues related to development and the
RLSA, in particular.
Mr. Greenwood reviewed the September, 2008 version of the "Potential Maturity under the
exisfing RLSA Credit System" stating the following:
· It is based upon the existing system and the experience in the RLSA Overlay during
the first 5 years.
· It assumes that 100% of the owners of the environmentally sensitive lands will
participate in the RLSAO.
· It assumes that the average household size would be 2.5 personslhousehold and the
average gross density would be 2.5 unifs/acre which is similar fo Ave Maria and the
proposed Big Cypress DR!.
· Other assumptions are provided on the spreadsheet.
· The number of dwelling units calculated is very close in number to the calculations
provided by Van Buskirk and Associates for the East of951 Infrasfructure Study.
He stated that he would like to have fhe Committee endorse this or a similar document for
inclusion in the Phase 2 Report, but that no action was required today. There were a number
of questions and answers generated by the Committee and the public and, at the end of the
discussion, Tom Jones thanked and complimented staff for the preparation of this document.
B. Presentation of Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation Planning Department
[presented at 11am following action taken on Policy 3.11]
Norman Feder, Director of the Transportation Division, stated that:
· the Committee meetings conflict with the Tuesday BCC meetings;
. Transportation in the 1990's and before dealt mainly wifh providing transportation in
the urban area but now needs to concentrate in the rural lands area as well;
· There is a need to share information between the public and private sectors if the
planning for public infrastructure and services in the RLSA is to be III a
comprehensive and meaningful way.
· Most of what he knows about the RLSA is what he has read in fhe newspaper.
Nick Casalinguida, Director ofthe Transportation Planning Department, stated the following:
. The East of 951 Study group is looking at rural design roads rather than urban
standard roads.
· Van Buskirk, the consultant on the East of 951 Infrastructure Study, has developed
dwelling unit and population projections by Transportation Analysis Zones for the
RLSA and other major geographies east of CR 951.
. The county does not have the funds to build the roadway network.
gL}-lf-
2
· There must be some agreement on a transportation network and alternative
transportation modes for the build-out in the RLSA.
· There must be funding methodology made available in the RLSA to allow for the
fiscal neutrality of the public infrastructure upon the County. A memorandum of
agreement needs to be developed between the county and the developer to identifY
where the toads will be located and how the roads will be funded.
· Need to address panther crossings and how to fund them.
· Need to address who is going to pay for what.
· Must be a unified roadway network meeting the water management plan standards.
· He stated that 2/3 of the projected county population at build out is expected to be
east of CR 951.
· Need a check and balance for public improvements. An analysis needs fo be done.
The transportation department will have one done in about 6 months.
· He stated that impact fees cannot provide all the needed improvements, but t~i~ has.~
be looked at as a three legged stool where land owners, county and the s~,.? ~
participating. ~b ~O~J,r
Mr. Eidson stated that Transportation is asking the Committee to do something. Bill McDanieT tYr::J
stated that the interactive growth model developed by Van Buskirk will provide an on.going~
guide as to infrastructure needs as times and developments change in the East of CR 951 area. ~
Mr. McDaniel asked what additional sources of funding would be available for future roadway
construction other than the sources currently available. Mr. Casalanguida stated that an increase ~
in the sales tax, transfer fees, a raise in the millage rates, and the proposed Panther fees are
examples. Mr. Jones stated that there is some coordination going on between transportation
planning and it needs to continue and that coordination may get to about 80% of what Nick is
asking for by mid-October. He referred to the possible limit of a 45,000 acre SRA footprint in
the RLSAO. He stated that a model can show where land uses could go, but that it is a long-term
model and it will change over fime. Mr. Farmer stated thaf he feels that the population and
dwelling units are important in the RLSAO planning in that they can translate into lane miles and
other governmental services. Norman Feder stated that the data and analysis do not have to be
cast in stone, but the data and analysis need to address the big picture of what could happen in
this geography [the RLSAO]. Bill McDaniel stated that he would like the Transportation
Division's review of the RLSA Overlay, in particular Group 4 policies which relate to SRAs and
with the transportation-related policies. He would get Dr. VanBuskirk to address the Committee.
Mr. Greenwood stated that one of the functions of the RLSA Review Committee is to educate
and promote the RLSAO and stated that there have been about 15-20 articles relating to the
RLSA in fhe NDN since the November, 2007 inception of the Committee; that there have been at
least three Transportation Department employees on the participant emaillist; and that the Group
4 policies in the on-going report include commenfs from Mike Greene and that any other
Transportation Comments should be received this week for referral to the Commitlee on
September 23rd when it goes through Group 4 SRA policies. Mr. Jeff Perry of Wilson Miller
stated that his firm has been doing work with the Eastern Collier property owners over the years.
At the time the original RLSA Overlay was adopted there was an absence of data and analysis.
He will be meeting with Van Buskirk and the County to provide the necessary data and analysis
to clearly indicate what infrastructure will be needed to support future developments in the
RLSA.
g4-S
3
VI. Old Business
A. Phase 2... Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship
Overlay [continuation). Mr. Greenwood stated that whatever action the Committee
takes will appear in the DRAFT Phase 2 Report and will be subject fo a second overall
review by the Committee prior to its issuance of its final recommended report.
Policy 3.8
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the following mechanisms:
creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation easements, acquisition of less
than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of land or interest inland through a willing seller
program.
Public Inout on Seotember 16. 2008
Mr. Dane Scofield stated that he would like to broaden the language to allow other avenue.s to use credits.
Staff Comments: Staff suggested adding the words, "such as, but not limited to Conservation Collier" to
the end of Policy 3.8. After Committee discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Eidson with a second by
Mr. Thomas. Upon vote, the motion failed by a vote of 7-1 with Mr. Spagna voting in favor of the
motion to strike the proposed language.
Committee Action on September 16. 2008: Motion by Mr. Eidson with a second by Mr. Thomas to not
change Policy 3.8. Upon vote, the motion carned, 8-0.
Policy 3.9
I. Agriculture will continue to be a pennitted use and its supportmg achvrl1es will continue to be
pennitted as conditional uses within FSAs and HSAs, pursuant to the Agriculture Group
classifications described in the Matrix. The Ag I group includes row crops, citrus, specialty fanus,
horticulture, plant nurseries, improved pastures for grazing and ranching, aquaculture rIimited to
Open Land designation onlvl and similar activities, including related agricultural support uses. In
existing Ag I areas within FSAs and HSAs, all such activities are pennitted to continue, and may
convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits allowed by applicable
pennits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives compensation as
previously described, no further expallSion of Ag 1 will be allowed in FSAs and HSAs beyond
existing or pennitted limits within property subject to a credit transfer, except for incidental clearing
as set forth in Paragraph 2 below.
2. In order to encourage viable Ag 1 activities, and to accommodate the ability to convert from one Ag I
use to another, incidental clearing is allowed to join existing Ag I areas, square up existing fann
fields, or provide access to or from other Ag I areas, provided that the Ag 1 Land Use Layer has been
retained on the areas to be incidentally cleared, and the Natural Resource Index Value score has been
adjusted to reflect the proposed change in land cover. Incidental clearing is defined as clearing that
meets the above criteria and is limited to I % of the area of the SSA. In the event said incidental
clearing impacts lands having a Natural Resource Index Value in excess of 1.2, appropriate mitigation
shall be provided.
Public Input:
I. Review of the SSAs currently designated indicates that out of the approximately
23,000 acres that are in SSA easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to
their conservation land use. The Conservancy believes that Collier County should
be more active in securing lands that will be maintained for conservation
f'?y-k,
4
purposes. While grazing may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses,
more active agricultural activities may not, especially ifthe environmental value
of the land would benefit from restoration activities. Collier County should
revisit the SSA Group 3 policies to require more SSAs be taken down to
conservation through incentives or regulations. A better understanding of the uses
removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was required to go
through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval. [Conservancy]
Note: Also related to policy 3.10
ECPO Comments: The Conservancy's statement does not acknowledge that of the 24,124 acres within
approved SSAs, 19,034 acres (79%) are designated as Ag-2 lands. Of the 19,034 acres under Ag-2 land
uses, 16,334 acres exist under native vegetation, and an additional 1,781 acres are comprised of pastures.
These Ag-2 land uses retain only grazing rights and other low-intensity agricultural uses that are entirely
compatible with listed species conservation. Lands within approved SSAs "maintained for conservation
purposes" are therefore more accurately quantified as the sum of Ag-2 and Conservation land uses
(19,684 acres), or 82% of all approved SSA lands.
The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes private
property rights, reduces the residual land use valne of their property, and provides a public benefit by
permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring publicly funded
compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an SSA are clear, straightforward, and are not
subject to the imposition of condifions and sfipulations. RLSA incentives are designed to minimize
obstacles to property owners in implementing the program. Multiple public hearings are costly and time
consnming. Members of the public, including advisory board members, are not precluded from
commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing.
2. Provide incentive for organic farming for ag remaining in FSAs and HSAs [FWF]
3. Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP)
standards, at a minimum.
ECPO Comments: The RLSA agricultural areas have been farmed for decades, utilizing standard
agricultural operations that are covered by existing state agricultural regulations. Additional restrictions
could potentially render these agricultural operations unprofitable, counter to the goals of the RLSA. The
prescription of BMPs could also create disincentives for land owners to include agricultural areas within
SSAs, thereby fragnnenting landscape mosaics that would otherwise be protected as large, interconnected
blocks of land.
Discussion durinl! Sevtember 1 fl" Meetinl!.
Mr. Jones stated that he was not in favor of the Best Management Practices language because it will lead
to more confusion as to who will verify it is being done, which BMP to use and for what use. Laura Roys
stated staff suggested the BMP because SSAs should have higher standards and that the BMP language
could be added to the Stewardship Credit Agreements. Dane Scofield stated that all his uses of land
generate BMPs. Who will decide which BMP to use and how. He stated that he is opposed to the
proposed BMP language. Brad Cornell stated that we should find a way to incentivize BMPs. Mr.
Farmer stated that the incentives are already in place such that the property owner is not found in
violation [SFWMD requires BMPs for developments of 10+ acres and DEP requires as well). Nicole
Ryan stated that her organization would support BMPS in that the property owners are receiving SSAs.
Mr. Eidson stated that we do not need more laws as we are short of staff to enforce the ones we have. Mr.
Standridge stated that the BMPs are not regulatory. Mr. Farmer disagreed stating that property owners
must use BMPs for 10+ acre developments approved by SFWMD and DEP. Russ Priddy stated that he
~Y--7
5
takes special care of his lands over the years and is opposed to BMPs being placed in the RLSA Overlay
and that such is a huge disincentive to participate in the RLSAO.
Staff Comments:
1. Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Management Practice (BMP)
standards, at a minimum. (Engineering and Environmental Services Department]
Committee Action on September 16. 2008: Motion by Mr. Thomas to add Best Management Practice
to Policy 3.9 and second by Mr. Jones and, upon vote, the motion failed 8-0. Motion by Mr. Thomas
and second by Mr. Jones to not amend Policy 3.9 and, upon vote, the motion carried 8-0. Brad Cornell
stated that he would like to see aquaculture addressed in the LOC.
Mr. McDaniel, having not been present when Policy 3.9 was discussed above, asked to consider having
the language, "limited to Open Land designation only", added after the word "aquaculture" in line fourth
line of Policy 3.9. After discussion, Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Thomas seconded to insert the
language in policy 3.9 in the first paragraph to allow aquaculture in Open Lands only in the RLSA.
Upon vote, the motion carried 7-0 [Mr. Farmer left the meeting at 12:00pm and did not vote].
Policy 3.10
Ag 2 includes unimproved pastures for grazing and ranching, forestry and similar activities, including
related agricultural support uses. In existing Ag 2 areas within FSAs and HSAs, such activities are
pennitted to continue, and may convert from one type of Agriculture to another and expand to the limits
allowed by applicable pennits. Once the Stewardship Credit System is utilized and an owner receives
compensation as previously described, no further expansion of Ag 2 or conversion of Ag 2 to Ag I will
be allowed in FSAs or HSAs beyond existing or pennitted limits within property subject to a credit
transfer.
Public Input:
I. The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are proffered as such
in subsequent development analysis. This then supports arguments to completely remove
wetlands within the areas where development was to take place when in reality the ratios of
natural set aside preservation lands were much smaller in comparison to the wetlands being
destroyed if the Ag2 lands were excluded. While some A2 lands are in more natural states, the
fact they are not truly conservation lands is misleading. [Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: The majority of SSA lands designated as Ag-2 consist of native vegetation
communities and unimproved pastures and rangelands that contain both wetland and upland land cover.
Once an SSA easement is placed on such property, the residential, earth mining, recreation, and intensive
agricnlture land use rights are removed and no further intensification of these natural areas is allowed. As
a result, there is little difference between "preservation or conservation lands", and Stewardship Sending
Area lands at the Ag 2 level, other than the fact that the land owner is obligated to continue to manage the
land in accordance with the Stewardship Easement Agreement, rather than the public incurring this
obligation and cost for public preservation land. One critical land use that is retained by the Ag-2
designation is the right to graze cattle, which is an important land management tool. In natural forest
communities within the RLSA, grazing of cattle enhances forest function by suppressing exotic
vegetation and controlling overgrowth in the understory. Ultimately, these Ag-2 lands do provide
conservation benefits similar to those provided by public lands within and adjacent to the RLSA.
With respect to wetland impacts in SRAs, the RLSA is a plaI1lling tool that works in a complimentary
fashion to wetland and wildlife regulatory programs, not as a replacement. Any proposed wetland impacts
and mitigation requirements are assessed and approved by the regulatory agencies for each SRA
<6 ct. c;?
6
independently of RLSA process, using standard methodologies such as the Uniform Wetland Mitigation
Assessment Method (UMAM). The RLSA program addresses the issue on a major system basis, which
regulatory programs do not, and protects vast acreages of regional flow ways and larger high-quality
wetland systems that greatly exceed the wetland mitigation ratios typically required by SFWMD and the
US Army Corps of Engineers. This is one reason why the Collier County RLSA is held in high regard by
the SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Staff Comments:
Committee Action on SeDtember 16. 2008: Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. Jones seconded to not amend
Policy 3.10. Upon vote, the motion carried 8-0.
Policy 3.11
L In certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration. Examples
include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or otherwise
impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife corridors.
Priority shall Be giveR to restoratioR withiR the Camp Keais Stfafld PSf. or eORtiguoliS HSAs.
Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA or
HSA the Camp Keais Strand PSi\ or cORtiguOIiS HSf,s, four two additional Stewardship Credits
shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. AR additiElRal two StewBfdohip credits shall
Be assigRed fer each acre Elf land dedicated for restElratiElR activities withiR other PS.^,s and
HSf,s. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to
receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or
private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration
improvements, this shall be rewarded with fetir additional Credits for each acre of restored land
upon demonsfration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the
permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for either
caracara restoration at 2 Credits per acre. or for exotic controllburning at 4 Credits per acres. or
for flow wav restoration at 4 Credits per acre. or for native habitat restoration at 6 Credits per
acre. Within the area proposed for restoration. Land Use Lavers 1-6 must be removed. The
specific process for assignment of additional restoration Credits shall be included in the
Stewardship District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations. as generallv illustrated in the RLSA Overlav Map. there mav be
opportunities to create. restore. and enhance a northern panther corridor connection and a
southern panther corridor connection. Should a propertv owner be willing to dedicate land for the
purpose of establishing and maintaining the northern or southern panther corridor. 2 additional
Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. Should an owner also
effectivelv complete the corridor restoration. this shall be rewarded with 8 additional Credits per
acre.
3. In order to address a significant loss in Southwest Florida of seasonal. shallow wetland wading
bird foraging habitat. restoration of these unique habitats will be incentivized in the RLSAO.
Dedication of anv area inside an FSA. HSA. or WRA for such seasonal wetland restoration shall
be rewarded with 2 additional Credits per acre. Should the landowner successfullv complete the
restoration. and additional 6 Credits per acre shall be awarded.
Onlv one type of restoration shall be rewarded with these Credits for each acre designated for
restoration.
~ Ll-- 1
7
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restorafion which may be
addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution
agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved. Also not precluded are
various private and publicly funded restoration programs such as the federal Farm Bill
conservation programs. The specific process for assignment of additional restoration credits shall
be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
Public Input:
1. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a
variety of activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination.
These uses include cattle dipping, petrolewn spillage from wells and even solid
waste disposal areas from hunting or remote camps. Since the SSA's are given
credit for their environmental value a requirement for a clean environmental audit
prior to the SSA's credit issuance on all property within the SSA should be
mandatory. (Mark Strain]
ECPO Comments: Cattle grazing (and its related uses), is a pennitted use throughout the RLSA, and
may be allowed to continue when property is voluntarily placed within an SSA by its Owners depending
upon the land nse layers removed. Land within an SSA that has been cleared or altered for agricultural
snpport activities will be scored accordingly. SSA lands normally remain in private ownership and the
property owner retains the obligation for land management, including compliance with regulatory
requirements associated with agricnltural practices. Environmental Audits are typically reqnired only in
conjunction with a change in ownership. Requiring an environmental audit to be performed on thousands
of acres of land ~ould be an extraordinary expense and is therefore a disincentive for property owners to
consider placing their property within an SSA.
Cattle dipping vats were constructed throughout the State of Florida as a result of local, state, and federal
programs conducted from 1906 through 1961, for the prevention, suppression, control, or eradication of
the disease commonly known as tick fever by eradicating the cattle fever tick. Most vats were
constructed with public funds and operated under local, state, and Federal Government supervision and
control, and participation in the eradication program was mandated by state law and not voluntary.
Chapter 376.306(2), Florida Statutes states:
Any private owner of property in this state upon which cattle-dipping vats are located
shall not be liable to the state under any state law, or to any other person seeking to
enforce state law, for any costs, damages, or penalties associated with the discharge,
evaluation, contamination, assessment, or remediation of any snbstances or derivatives
thereof that were used in the vat for the eradication of the cattle fever tick. This provision
shall be broadly construed to the benefit of said private owner.
Any potential oil spills are closely scrutinized by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
and should there be an occurrence, immediate action is required. DNR maintains records of all petroleum
spills and the action taken to address said spills. When wells are abandoned, oil companies and property
owners are required to plug the wells and clean up the site under the direction of DNR.
Hunting camps are handled via written leases with the property owner. The stipulations of these legal
leases include the requirement for any lessee to properly dispose of all solid waste and also include annual
inspection by the property owner to insure the terms of the lease are being met. Private property owners
g~o
8
take great care in the protection of their land when allowing others to use their property for hunting or
camping purposes.
2. The Conservancy believes that retention of AG I or AG2 uses on lands where
credits are generated for restoration activities creates the potential for
incompatibility. Even lower-impact agricultural uses, such as unimproved
pasture, may present conflicts to replanting and management for lands based on
the restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that on lands where stewardship
credits are generated for restoration plans and actual resforation activities, all land
use layers should be removed down to the conservation use. Itl addition,
appropriate fencing should be required to provide a sufficient separation between
agricultural uses and restoration areas. [Conservancy)
ECPO Comments: The process for restoration credits requires the removal of AG 1 uses, so there is no
potential for incompatibility between restoration and AG I uses under the RLSA program. Cattle grazing
is a proven land management tool. When properly managed, cattle grazing limits under brush from
becoming an extensive fire hazard, keeps exotics from more rapid proliferation, and requires more
continuous oversight of the land. Removing all agricultural uses from the land would be a disincentive to
restoration because there is a cost associated with land management. There must be a mechanism
available to ensure that restoration and conservation remain viable options in the market.
3. The Conservancy believes Policy 3.11 should be reexamined as to the ability for
additional Stewardship Credits to be obtained for dedication of land for
restoration. The Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands
dedicated for restoration, where restoration has been implemented. [Conservancy)
ECPO Comments: In the RLSA, restoration is a two step process. First land is dedicated for restoration,
and then the restoration is completed. The RLS program assigns credits for each step. By assigning credits
for the first step, dedication, the program sets aside and protects lands for a future restoration activity.
When viewed in a regional contexf this dedication process is useful to other entities, such as Conservation
Collier, when prioritizing which lands to protect and restore. To eliminate the dedication step from the
credit system would be a disincentive to property owners to dedicate any restoration land until the
restoration is to be completed, thereby depriving those other entities of knowing what the true regional
restoration plan is.
4. Incentives for restoring fann fields in receiving [Open] areas [FWF)
ECPO Comments: This comment is apparently referring to the potential for restoring fann fields within
the "Open" overlay designation. The RLSA program was designed to achieve a balance between
agricultural sustainability, enviro1l11lental protection, and economic development. As noted in the previous
response, ample opportunities for farm field restoration already exist within the FSA and HSA overlays.
While restoration within the FSA and HSA overlays can occur within a landscape matrix of native
vegetation communities, restoration within the Open overlay lacks a landscape-scale context, and should
not be a priority.
5. Better handle on potential credits and restoration credits that can be generated - too many credits.
[FWF)
ECPO Comments: Both Collier County staff and ECPO are preparing more accurate estimation of total
potential stewardship credit generation, including restoration credits.
~s)
9
6. Why have credits been established to be awarded just for preparing a restoration plan that does
not have to be implemented? [CCPe]
ECPO Comments: (See response to 3 above).
7. Restoration credits: credit should be generated only for actual restoration work, this could be a
two step scale involving the start of restoration and meeting specified success criteria. [Defenders
of Wildlife]
ECPO Comments: The purpose of providing restoration designation credits is two-fold. One, the
restoration designation credits can provide a source of capital necessary to initiate the restoration work,
including the costs of pennitting, detailed restoration planning, etc. Secondly, there are sitnations where a
land owner may be amenable to allowing a local (such as Conservation Collier), state or federal agency to
perform restoration work on their land. The restoration designation credits provide an incentive for land
owners to cooperate with agencies where they otherwise may have declined to participate, and the
agencies can implement the restoration program.
Staff Comments:
I. Any level of restoration or maintenance receives the same amount of credits. The credit value
should be tied to the functional lift and there should be levels of credit that could be earned.
[Engineering and Environmental Services]
2. The management plan should include more than the I exotic plants listed by County Code
(FLEPPC Category I). Various other exotics have been observed. [Engineering and
Environmental Services J
3. The LDC should define more specific requirements on what management plans entail.
[Engineering and Environmental Services]
4. Restoration should be to a native habitat. [Engineering and Environmental Services]
ECPO Comments: ECPO agrees that a tiered system of restoration credits, tied to the restoration
functional lift, the difficulty of restoration, and the cost of restoration would be beneficial. An approach
will be provided to the RLSA Review Committee in the near future.
Management plans are currently incorporated into Stewardship Credit and Easement Agreements, so
enforceability is already present in the system. We agree that it is appropriate to include the 12 Category I
exotic plant species identified by FLEPPC in future management plans. The SSA restoration management
plans submitted to date have included sufficient specificity to ensure the achievement of restoration goals,
bnt we will work with the RLSA Review Committee and staff if a standardized checklist will provide
clarity for all parties while preserving flexibility in restoration implementation.
We disagree that restoration should be limited to native habitats. Emphasis on pasture-dependent species
higWights the need for inclusion of pastures as potential restoration habitat. Caracaras, for instance, prefer
properly managed pastures over any other habitat, including native dry prairie. Restricting restoration to
native habitats could potentially compromise recovery efforts for these species.
Public Discussion on Seotember 16. 2008
Mr. Greenwood stated that there was a proposal submitted on September 2 to provide for amendments
to Policy 3.1 I prepared by Wilson Miller and intended to the provide language to accommodate the
Panther Protection Program. Mr. Cornell prepared and distributed at the beginning of to day's meeting
a revised Policy 3.11 [attached] which was aired by those present as follows:
. Mr. Farmer stated that he was concerned about unintended consequences.
CZ S; L-
10
. Mr. Jones stated that he thinks the breakdown is covered well and covered under the habitat
language.
. Mr. Farmer stated that he will vote in favor of the amendment, but wants to know how we are
going to spend all the extra credits.
. Tim Durham stated that Brad has the right idea.
. Judy Hushon stated that caracara restoration is easy to do and that there may be too many credits
being proposed for this restoration.
. Mr. Jones stated that this language would go into the management plan for R-I and R-2 credits.
. Russ Priddy stated that this language would go into the management plan for R-I and R-2 credits.
. Laurie McDonald stated that she supports elimination of oil wells as permitted uses certain land
use categories of the Land Use Matrix and that the words, "restore, and enhance" should follow
"create" in the second line of paragraph 2 and that the words "and maintain" should be inserted
directly after "establishing" in the fourth line of paragraph 2.
. Laura Roy.. stated that it should be made clear that the credits will not be cumulative.
. Russ Priddy stated that he has an oil well with a location that is in some of the best habitat for
bear, etc. and that there is no science that shows that oil wells are degrade the habitat.
. Nancy Payton stated that there is a map which has been circulated which shows the panther
corridors.
. Noah Standridge asked if there had been consideration given to bonding out panther credits for
up front dollars.
Committee Action on September 16. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to amend
Policy 3.11 as shown with Brad Cornell's recommendations including the recommendations of Laurie
McDonald and Laura Roys above. Upon vote, the motion carried 9-0.
Motion to extend meetinl! end time to 12:30pm
Mr. Hamel stated that he would like to finish Group 3 policies today, but would need Committee
approval to continue the meeting beyond the advertised time. Mr. Thomas moved and Gary Eidson
seconded to extend the end time for today's meeting from 12 pm to l2:30pm to provide time for
completion of the Group 3 Policies. Upon Vote, the motion carried, 9-0 with Mr. Farmer stating that he
had to leave for another appointment.
Policy 3.12
Based on the data and analysis of the Study, FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and eXlstmg public/private
conservation land include the land appropriate and necessary to accomplish the Goal pertaining to natural
resource protection. To further direct other uses away from and to provide additional incentive for the
protection, enhancemenf and restorafion of the Okaloacoochee Slough and Camp Keais Strand, all land
within 500 feet of the delineated FSAs that comprise the Slough or Strand that is not otherwise included
in a HSA or WRA shall receive the same natural index score (0.6) that a HSA receives if such property is
designated as a SSA and retains only agricultural, recreational and/or conservation layers within the
matrix.
Public Input:
I. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water
Retention Areas (WRAs) should be required and should be examined during the five-year
assessment [Conservancy)
2. More upland buffers for Camp Keais Strand & OK Slough [FWF]
ECPO Comments: The need for more upland buffers adjacent to existing FSA and HSA areas has not
been demonstrated or supported by any data and analysis. Aside from that fact, Restoration Zone overlays
were already designated in 2002 along key portions of both regional flow ways, and comprise over 2,000
<6~3
II
acres of potential buffers. These 500-feet wide Restoration Zones create incentives for restoration of
buffers, and can work in conjunction with SRA buffers as well.
Staff Comments:
Committee Action on September 16. 2008: Mr. Jones moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to not
amend Policy 3.12. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-0.
Policy 3.13
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for this
purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or conveyance,
in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each
WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the
Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management functions for
properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if
the WRA provides water treatment and retention exclusivelv for a SRA. the acrea~e of the WRA shall be
included in the SRA. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinement in
accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Public Input:
I. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of the water
management system for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of
utilizing WRAs as part of stormwater management should be reevaluated,
especially for those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would
benefit from restoration. However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for
stormwater treatment and are incorporated as part of the development's
stormwater treatment system for a development project, their acreage should be
included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The Conservancy would like
to see this changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies. [Conservancy]
ECPO Comments: The comment refers to Water Retention Areas or WRAs, which are one of three
types of SSA classification. Two Policies are relevant to the comment:
Policy 3.13
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted for
this purpose and will continue to jUnction for surface water retention, detention, treatment and/or
conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits
applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new uses of
land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide
water management functions jar properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated
as a SRA in such instances. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to
refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or
desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water
pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed
subject to review and approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices.
Such additions and modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of
habitat junction within the WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other
areas of the Overlay that will provide comparable habitat junction. Compensating mitigation or
{3 SLj
12
restoration for an impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee
Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.
The SFWMD will encourage or require that storm water continue to be directed into these reservoirs,
even after converting adjoining land uses from farm to development. This is anticipated by RLS Policy
3.13 and 3.14. There will be many cases where on-going agricultural operations continue to use the WRA
simultaneously with the developed land. In these cases, there is no purpose served by trying to
distinguish how much of the WRA is serving the farm, and how much is serving the development, as the
overall acreage of the WRA will not change.
Continuing to use these systems for water retention is efficient and beneficial to the environment, and
results in land use patterns that are more compact and cost effective. Eliminating water flows would
negatively impact hydrology and hydroperiod and would cause detrimental changes to the habitaf values
of these reservoirs. These reservoirs are typically large (over 100 acres), and often are located between
the developable land and ultimate outfalls to flowway systems.
In instances where a WRA is permitted to function solely for SRA water quality treatment and detention,
it may be appropriate to include this acreage in the SRA acreage calculation.
Public Discussion on September 16. 2008
Mr. Jones stated that he supports the proposed change as outlined above because the water treatinent has
to be done on-site and gives the developer the ability to use the remaining lands in the SRA. He stated
that they were criticized with the Town of Ave Maria SRA because they were not counting the WRA as
part of its SRA.
Staff Comments:
Committee Action on SeDtember 16. 2008: Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. Eidson seconded to add the
additional language to Policy 3.13. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-0.
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be required or desired,
including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge rates, storm water pre-treatment,
grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and modifications shall be allowed subject to review and
approval by the SFWMD in accordance with best management practices. Such additions and
modifications to WRAs shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the
WRAs unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that will
provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an impact to a WRA
contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall be provided within or contiguous to
that Strand or Slough.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
Committee Action on September 16. 2008: Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to not
amend Policy 3.14. Upon vote, the motion carried, 7-0.
VII. New Business [none]
VIII. Public Comments [none]
ess
13
IX. Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated thaf he will not be able to attend the next meeting but that it will be held on
September 23, 2008, in Rooms 609/610 of the CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, in
Naples, Fl. from 9:00 A.M. - 12 Noon. Mr. Greenwood stated that there is a meeting scheduled
for this room between 7:30am and 9:00am and that the RLSA Review Committee meeting start
may be delayed slightly.!
X. Adjournment
Mr. Thomas moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. McDaniel with the motion
approved unanimously with adjournment at !2:25PM.
Neno Spagna
These minutes approved by the Committee on 7- Z 3- 0 ~ as presented
amended
t
or as
!4
8f;;J=;
Committee Tasks by Meeting Date
Report II Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Review
September 16th
. Group 3 Policies
· Transportation presentation
September 23rd
. Group 4 Policies
· Full Stewardship Credit Analysis (existing program vs. proposed revised program)
September 30th
. Group 5 Policies
. Data and analysis review
October 7th
. Review of full Preliminary Phase II Report
October 14th [if required]
· Review of final Phase II Report and acceptance by Committee and recommendation
November 12th .............. ...Environmental Advisory Council meeting
December 15t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Planning Commission meeting
January 29, 2009............. ..Board of County Commissioner meeting
~ ~)
>
<:
'"
=>
I-
<
:IE>:,
~~
zlli
~:>o
lrO
J~
::!<(
<II.
e:5:
"'Ill
"'Cl
iilll:
U
1-,.
~1Il
a III
zCl
:5"=
:;!=3
",...
=><(
"'II:
~~
i11!l
~~
. III
>5(
!i:1l.I
=>.....
o
u
'"
'"
:i
...l
o
U
c
o
f
" 0
o ~
c 0
,0
0: ~
_ .S
o c
~c
u~
C~
If ~
0:-;;;
S2ID
<~
o
-o~
g g <:0
~ug
o ~N
e"E<ri
" ' "
o 0
.U~
~ '- E
o~2
J:8~
~
"
t5s~
.
z
,.
w
~
'"
ZC
.."
~
~
a
~
..
~,.
:l
0:0:
<~
ZO
-..
f!~
wo:
~!i!
iJiF
0'"
o:X
..I!!
~
I-
~
"
Z
F
'"
~!
u~
-
o
i
o .
t. :l
8 ~
t:! .s:!
:= ~
~ .s
o ~
Ir
. ~
[ ~ !
i ;
:: !
.
~
~
~
'0
~
!
~
~
~
~
.
"
u
o
~
~
"
o
"
"
o
~
..
c
.
~
c
g
.
~
..
~
o
o
E
~
u
.
C
"
o
11.
;;;
~
~
o
"
~
.
E
u
~
~
~
K
..
c
.
~
"-
:'l
~
,;
N
~
:l
;!
-
..
4
.~
o
~
.
>
<
~
!
"
~
!
.
:l
~
.
~
~
~
~
~
0:
,
.~
~
i
~
in
,..,j M
.,;
'"
8
'"
o
w
..
o
u
o
~
.
..
c
~
~
~
~
&
.
~
..
~
~
w
~
~
~.
o
..
;0;
~
1
I
~
~
;!
M
.
..
Ii
~
cIi
o .;
;e; ~ ~
l: 0 ~
1 ~ "'~.~
.. Ql . b
:iC' 1:;: & iIi.
:J: 2 ~~)o,~
... (") V) ~:fv)
~h'.~;:;2U
!i:;::;lt;~io.c!
-= Q.~~.w~ (02'
!Ii ~<:t_~~ ~
_ i-~Hj H
"0 M~:W =U.
ui:w.;.;.KP
~~~~j;Vl~
1iar:::~;:::-sl!ii
~'Ooo;-::e:~lIl
_8~~~i!~i
_;ggg I! .
1!2.!!!.!l! ~uo
a<llllll\l ~~...,
D.D-O .0'"
(7.j~~ ~':....
...;.........:.:5:
N
;
M
~
o
.
~
o
~
o
.
~
~ ~
""it: ~
~ 'l: c:
~ f .~
. .
'0
~ %
. "'~
-5.a
~ .!!!
i~ u
u
H
~ 0
!!;;:
..~
_:lo. e
~~
H
. 0
Id
~~
~lil
~
~
..
~
':.
~
~
o
~.
~
~
0:
.~o '"
-~
-~
'M
ON
~
I: ~
"
-
M
~
~
N
"
"'I
5;:,18
WUl "!.
~ ~
u
.
~
e
u
,
J!
jj
o
~
~
o
~
~
e
.
"
~
~
I ! ~ ~
~
N
~ ~ ~
N
I i'l 0 ~
~
0 "
i :;, "
~I ::l <I :!
~~ ~
0 o. i
u~ ~ ;
~
I ~
M ;;; ~
:;, ~
Ii 'i u
N ~ ~
:!
~
- .
~ 8-
ii~= :
j.. a i
'61,.. ii
!:lu ,Q
Ii'>::'
H.e
,; oilll'
i 'E8.....
'. !.. i
:.. ~ll.
';9~ii
11~~'
.!~~s~
Ui=i~~
'~~ ~ !i
~ j!! j
.. -n ..
J 0 U :l
_ U.i'~ fi!l
JSjioj
~I 1 J 1
~ i fli~
III _.::1_
.gt~O
· l~ ~d'
0( GI ! I =
"ilI ii'",..~
~-PH
:-H~iH
tl.,j ,Qu"Ci
.
~
~
~
..
!
~
j,
'0.
~ ~
~o
II
:;::!.!i
~~
- -
~o
N,
o ~
~-
-~
1 ~
o~_
'! S.ld
Hi
.0 ~ ~
!~!
.- - ii
l)(g
o:!~
!~ g
j!N~
0-0
J~.ll!
EI~i
.
8, S7
J "
~ ~
'u
i .D.!2' W
~ ~~ I
i '~J ~
. ~: ~
~ h ii
"'[ .
~ & Q. .!!.~
~!i Ii
~ -!in
; 1:1 ~ ~
~ !l a
. ~ 0 ill ~
~ H ~:
c '! I- '0 ':
e =>.! c..
i n ~J
i !l t)
1 d !
~Hh
.c'; "Ci
>
~
I
]
u
.
e
o
..
f
!
t
~
> .
. -;
0-
. ~
H
. .
~ I
~l
8. .5 >
::11 .~t
P.d
05 - I
12 ~~
';~:H
i I> ~.o
&:; Xl;
,H ~o:
..... .1>
liElH
~mPI~
~.. ~.s
I J UlZ
l!:::>~cC
0:
~
'.
j
S
~
I
.
1
~
>
~
o
..
o
.
~
~
~
0:
.
,;
"
o
.
.
~
~
n
I ~..
i :t~l
:i ~H
.~~ o~~;
- &. "'! l!;
00 It'> g "3
~l ~e8
~.;$ e !.~
'. i ~.tt ~
~ <' gll==S
U'l ~!!:I-;
] ~ :e:=
~jg, '"ill"
11 ~ ~ ~ ~
'0 II) tn..;!1I'l
"':'.5 -g ~ ~
..! 'E ftI ~ ::I",
~ ~ 0
~f ~1i:5
<') QI .51
jj-i :l~
~ & :2Z~
... -= ,f! e.~
~~J 5i~
~ j ~
~K i~~
~f jii!'~
~ I 'a:e:
H llsf
:," ~ 4j ::I
'1 ~ 1
~I) ti
as u
. ~
2H~~.c
:ili:j
:;::!~'E~
~~i'!5
:';~~
ji~!
III ~ . Ql
.- ~/)
~~.!!.<
III >."211)
GI.Q!.J
100:
, ..!! 0
0-
q~
.~ III;
.... -
"iH
""
~o
o lf1.~
,!i1!.
.S: i.! ::
.ole"
hH
o! i 1!
~z h.
~~~!!~
i g ! ~ '"
Hi!~
~ o'2D~
~ jl:J~!!
.g "'1! ~ ;:
C,filll_&l
j 0 g'lij
U_N~.
==j~=
.Q c: :; c
::l 0 .-
.1".~
... .....Q ='j
ci
~ L Sft 0
foll"-::' -re..'IJCu" J tJ.Co;-i'4-ll
Policy 3.11
Lln certain locations there may be the opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration.
Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been
constricted or otherwise impeded by past activities, or where additional land is needed
to enhance wildlife corridors. JRf ,Ii,' '~j'"i :48-r' &te!,; I -G; "1'.1- ;e; .
f;kric~ c,,'3PrE"-€Bh!"~i '31 '3-";:; ~8~Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for
restoration activities within a .C:SA or HSA ""....(;.;'" i ,)- "'" "C-;';ii' l-d- ~S -'r9r'-€BI,i'0i ""
, :;;/1 ,'3tH'twO additional Stewardship Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so
dedicated.---AJ:i-;:" '-fK':~~ J~-~ ;-r:{ . f-f:;j:r.: ,t,--s-h~ "..f:;f= d-fBF-e-:: _:::: _;_ !;fi- -Gq~i-G
eEl-iG;-" '~k -f-st ,H- ,,' 1----1: ,- -CS!~,_; -H SA&c The actual
implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the owner to receive
such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental agency or
private entity undertaking the restoration, Should an owner also complete restoration
improvements, this shall be rewarded with f-Gl-additional Credits for each acre of
restored land upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as
determined by the permit agency authorizing said restoration. The :'jdition;,i Crea!:s
shcjii be i"e',,<trc\::d for cara.cr:_.'-a resto(( [.ion ..; 2 crel:j;s rJ(~r ; ere, -1-01 excLG
control/burninq :,t ,'~ credii,S r. 'or i' ';1'8. for flow Wa'! reslOki.ion Ii 4 crec'its per acres c'lld
for native h"dJitc,', resLOl'atioll ;-t b crec'iis per acre, Ni',hin :"I-e3. prC']osed for restor; iiol',
Land Use '.aeers 1-6 must be removed. The ,!)ecltlc .Ql"Ocess for ;!ssilinment of
additional restoration credits shad be included in ti' '" Stewal'dshi') District of .he LDC.
2. : I certc!in locadons, al~"neri ';y illustrated on the RLS/\ Overla\f lVI,'), there ma\, be
cJPolildli;jes to create 2 northern [);.~r.U.~er CUi'Tic1or connec~il)n and a souche,n iJ;-1ther
cOITidor connection. Should a IAC;Jert\' owr,er be w!'i1nq to dedic, ie Ic,-,d for the pur'Jose
of este !Jlishinq the norti ~rn or southern P,;,-I,hel' corridor, two addiiion:.lI Stewardshir~
Cridits she 'I be assic'led fOl' e:. ::h acre of kild so "",dice,ed. Should ,n ownel' also
eiiectlvelv COITJJ'ate the cgrridol- restor,tion, this sh",!: be re\':/I"=d With 8 allditlon:.d
crer'its [ler :.ccre.
3. In order cO :,',dc.:ress a Sic!ilr,lcant loss 'n sOUlllwest Flori, a of se,;50nal, shc,'!ow
wetl"Wtd wadinq bird fOI"".:,;;lq hi bitet, re~'CI', lion of these urique '-'Cli:iiats Will bc
incenllvized in the RLSAO. Dedicc,lion of L,n\, dea insiti,= ail FS,A" : ,SA, or VVRA f(JI
such seascna! \/ielianc restor".ion she II Lie rewc'd'I'ed WiLli 2 c!dc.iitl'Jni,1 creel its per acre.
Shouldehe IcmcJowner' successfu!!v cOITpHe the restorcltiol1, :.:n z:dC!i,;Ciilc': 6 credils per
acre sh:'di be awarcled. -
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be
addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer
contribution agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved, Also
not precluded are vc,,'ious priv;ite ,,!!ld pulJIicGllV funded restoration proqrams such as
the federal l-arm Bill conserv, lion :HO(j,'C1IllS. The specific process for assignment of
additional restoration credits shall be included in the StewardShip District of the LDC.
g,0u
SIGN IN SHEET
Brad Cornell
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16.2008
,0,}i\ lVIE~BERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
Ron Hamel, Chair t"ift1
I " .~;;/
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair ~
-/
/
V ~ /C:~;
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
~ '
(v.-'--:;jlk I~J //Of 30
Co /?;C lief rn~ -e-!-;1!J
~%:7#-~
~7
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Ir.
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name
J/-.cc:; f/r{9-S ~re~
rl/~5' 1/ /I. f{<~(
'\-..1, Ii .
E-mail! Affiliation
Phone #
Cou.I\~ C~
~fiCJ
2 52- 2323
& ~7 Ys.y-C
<1:"<7~ l 10 'i '7
o }- cj I
t. V
J~Uh"tc I~, c
Bi~C~/^5
l
( U- '0.
c t[)f S
^
, t".,.,.J' .~
' ,,- _'<--. <.,,\,c'L--
])d~{^.rI(71/\ .1P. Vvrlrllrle.
.,q:1€fh' .0 d
/AdA
~~ :5:-oPteL?>
c1Pfrhv ~$'/~O
I7r/j f) [, rA tJit1/
gb!
r QjC
(/41? -- .s.--sY
fflu=:- OtecU::. L Mtvdf. c;.S7- ~'l-O(
VNa 1I1-~J' ~1i""O <!,.gt)/J c.<:,f' lA IN. CcJ,.., t;'~z.;
!,1/l';1??j!/;'JiY -ti9. Lj(]LJ iJ
o
AL fC6y,J;)u).J
1.,.;, L 5 ,J ~ M I I- L lC'L ) '\.J:::' .
LQ~Yl{y ~(chyY~d. ~Pf~"<;; L,( LNllcl~(~'
Un,: Sv~ d3~ a/~~-~7
If/ ^ C? pC:f<--> /v'lZ
/'Jc c~ S~Jf'r~s~
C \"'(t.~i'-JC~ ~ \~ I\LS~L i3/5 f w~
~ttt~ ~ ~1.1JVL- 2~ C.
(;1, I '
~r-1v~ W~'~
r A:!~
. J1~ 1-~?/k
/(~d t~/~
~-kSh~r()ooJ )(rlsta.-SherlAJDod & IlpSjol f3rc V
f:b, Z-.
9-16-08
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMI'ITEE ROLL CALL
/ bf1& rl 1/-<> JJ ~ /0,' ~O/MJ) "
\(~BillMcDanid-----. tf b-,~ j ~E'- cdt-jU.~ ~ ~ f //(
/ ./
V' '.G~-EidseR-'-"~---'
~/-B~ad-CQm"'ll ~.
~~:-~--
, < -B;rytcrrantl~;;' ~f (;A"""-i:J- 0+
/
/v"'_RGB-l+.tmeJ--~-
0--..JL.~:V
J ~frJ.irYS
/2/1 UO-V )
Jim Howard D
1='atllluieNemeLLk B !0C7 - e.e::;r>-f (I (+i~ ~2r'
v/ Neno$J*!gttlr- =----.:a~---
Fred Thomas ~ J _
. ~t- ~ t~^J cO'D--- TO
Dave Wolfley [J--o ~ ~ ;: UY/'€' ~
0omJones ~
Attested by ___ -~J
/ t">vr--,
eb-a
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
o,~1
Community Development and Environmental Services [CDES] Building; 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Rooms 609/610, Naples, Florida, 34104; September 2,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES Building, Rooms 609/610
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner and Michael DeRuntz, Principal
Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department; Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist,
Environmental Services; and approximately 15 members of the public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:02 AM by Chairman Hamel
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established as 10 of 12 members were present.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Wolfley moved to approve the agenda as presented and seconded by Mr. McDaniel.
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved
IV. Approval of Minutes of the August 5, 2008 Meeting
Mr. Hamel pointed out an error on page 1 under approval of the minutes [should read
"minutes" rather than "agenda" while Mr. Cornell stated that the minutes on page 2 under
panther discussion should show that the motion he made did not receive enough support to
cause the motion to be approved. Mr. McDaniel moved and Mr. Cornell seconded to approve
the minutes as amended.
Voice Vote - Unanimously approved.
gb~
I
V. Presentations
Mr. Greenwood referred to and made a part of the minutes the following as emailed and as
provided in hard copy and discussed at today's meeting:
· Revised Committee schedule dated August 5th [including presentation by Nick
Casalinguida of the Transportation Planning Department on September 16th] and
possibly someone from VonBuskirk, the consultant which is assisting the county with
the East of CR 951 Infrastructure Study.
· Phase II Report Preparation Schedule and Report Format
· Policy 3.2 related to proposed amendments to update certain acreage numbers
· Possible Policy 3.8,3.] 1, and 3.13 language amendments
· Land Use Matrix from Section 4.08.06B.4.b of the Land Development Code [8 land
use layers in the RLSA Overlay]
. Letter dated August 26th from Cheffy Passidomo Wilson & Johnson regarding Eastern
Collier Property Owners comments on certain Group 3 policies.
He stated that these documents will be referred to during today's meeting and are available on
the table in this room. There was no discussion from the Committee except that David
Wolfley expressed reservations about moving forward with Group 2 and 3 Policies without
appropriate data and analysis. An example is the Panther Protection Program for which there
is no data and analysis.
VI. Old Business
A. Phase 2... Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship
Overlay [continuation). Mr. Greenwood stated that whatever action the Committee takes
will appear in the DRAFT Phase 2 Report and will be subject to a second overall review by
the Committee prior to its issuance of its final recommended report.
Group 2 - Policies to proteet agrieulturallaRds from premature eORversioR to othcr uses fHKI retain
land for al!ricultural activities throul!h the use of established incentives in order to continue the
viability of agricultural production through the Collier Couuty Rural Lauds Stewardship Area
Overlay.
Public Iuput: No additional public input was presented to the Committee.
Sentember 2. 2008 Committee Preliminarv Action:
Mr. McDaniel moved and Tom Jones seconded to approve the language amendment as provided above.
Comments from the public: None
Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Policy 2.1
AgricnltureaI landowners will be provided with laRds ,,:ill Be l'reteeted ffeffi l'reffiatufe eenversieR to
ether HSCS BY ereatiRg incentives that encourage the voluntary elimination of the property owner's right to
convert agriculture land to non-agricultural uses in exchange for compensation as described in Policvies
1.4 and 2.2 and by the establishment of SRAs. as the faflfl af eeHlj3act rural develol'meBl in the RLSil.
Overlay. .^.l1alysis has sRe7;n that SR.,'.s '::ill allaw the l'rejected l'al'HlatioR of the RLS.'\. in the HorizeR
year af 2025 to Be aceoffiffiodated OR llfll'raJlimately IO~~ af the acreage atheR'. ise re'l"H-ed if sHeh
gb-l;
2
eempaet rural ae'lclapmefll were Rat ellewea alie te the tls)[ieility afferaea fe saeh ae'lelepmeRt. The
eemlliRatieR ef stewaraship iReeflliveB !lflalaRa effieiefll eeffil"aet rural ae'lelel"ffiefll will miRimize twe of
the primary ffl8i"ket faelers that C8Hse premature caRversioR af agrioolture.
Mr. Greenwood stated thaf the language proposed to be eliminated by the Committee simply states that a
typical compact urban development in the RLSA Overlay would have a density approximately 10 times
that of the underlying zoning which is I dwelling unit per 5 acres of land and this was explained by Al
Reynolds during fhe April I meeting.
Nicole Ryan stafed that the 10% footprint for SRA should be recalculated. Do not eliminate this language,
but simply update it. Mr. McDaniel stated the credits and the SRA footprint needs to be quantified dnring
the Group 3 and 4 discussions and that he favors the removal of this language as it misleads the reader as
to what the intent of the language means. Brad Cornell stated that we need to get onr arms arollI1d the
projections of credits and SRAs under the existing RLSA Overlay versus the proposed RLSA Overlay.
Mr. Farmer stated that approximately 85,000 acres of open lands could all be developed either under the
underlying AG zoning or the RLSA as SRAs. There was general discussion, in particular by David
Wolfley, about the number of credits increasing too much where the credit value would be diluted, as
discussed by Tom Jones and Gary Eidson and that a proper balance would have to be achieved. DCA
also pointed this out in the ORC letter relative to the Half Circle Ranch GMP amendment proposal which
has been withdrawn. Mr. Farmer pointed out that all 85,000 acres of Open land is available for
development, either under the underlying zoning or through the RLSA Overlay. Tammie Nemecek
referred to the cap of 45,000 credits proposed lII1der the summary of July I, 2008 of the Florida Panther
Protection Program. Gary Eidson questioned how we incentivize the Open Land owners to reserve their
lands in perpetuity for agricultnral uses. Mr. Jones stated that Policy 2.2 is proposing to incentivize Open
Areas and provide a disincentive to underlying zoning development at I dwelling unit per 5 acres. Al
Reynolds stated that the language needs to be removed from Policy 2.1 and deal with the SRAs in Group
4 policies. The RLSA Overlay is voluntary, an option, and the language really just points out the
difference is development density between the underlying zoning and the RLSA Overlay.
September 2, 2008 Committee Preliminarv Action: The above draft amendments were approved by the
Committee upon motion by Mr. McDaniel and second by Ms. Nemecek by vote of 9 to I with David
Wolfley voting against.
Policy 2.2
Agriculture lands protected through the use of Stewardship Credits shall be designated as Stewardship
Sending Areas (SSAs) as described in Policy 1.6. The protection measnres for SSAs are set forth in
Policies 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, and 1.17. In addition to protecting agriculture activities in SSAs within FSA. HSA.
and WRA. as further described in Policies 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. additional incentives are desired to retain
agricultnre within Open Lands as an alternative to conversion of such lands usinl! Baseline Standards as
described in Policv 1.5. Therefore. in lieu of usinl! the Natural Resonrce Index on land desil!I1ated Open,
these lands shall be assil!I1ed two (2.0\ Stewardship Credits per acre outside of the Area of Critical State
Concern (ACSA\, and two and sixth tenths (2.6\ Credits per acre within the ACSC. All non-agricultnre
uses shall be removed and the remaining uses are limited to al!ricultnre Land Use Levels5, 6 and 7 on the
Land Use Mafrix. Each laver is discreet and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order
presented in the Matrix. If a laver is removed. all uses and activities in that laver are eliminated and no
lonl!er available. Following approval of an Agricultnral SSA. Collier Countv shall update the RLSA
Zoninl! Overlav District Map to delineate the boundaries of the Al!ricultnral SSA.
Discussion:
. David Wolfley suggested putting all credit reference in Group 3 policies.
. Tom Jones stated fhat the proposal is intended to creafe a new incentive for agricultnral
preservation and he felt the credit reference should be in Group 2 policies and this was discussed
~b~
3
initially by the Committee in April and is attempting to address the criticism of DCA about not
doing enough to protect agricultural lands. He stated that the 2.0 credits per acre outside of the
ACSA is an incentive to the property owners to retain agricultural lands, as the current average
NRI in Open lands would generate approximately just 0.2 credits per acre. He stated that the 2.6
credits per acre is an added incentive to maintain agricultural lands in the ACSC and is close to
the 2.65 average credits per acre generated by lands classified as HSA, WRA or FSA in SSA 1-9.
He stated that the Group 2 and Group 3 credit generation will need to be balance with SRA
entitlement potential to be addressed in Group 4 policies.
· Mr. Wolfley stated that all credits should be discnssed and reviewed in one area and not in several
Groups of policies.
. Mr. Jones stated that ifthere are too many credits, then we will have to pull back on the number
of credits being generated and too many acres of SRA. He stated that a potential maximum
45,000 acres of development footprint under SRAs was proposed in the summary of the Panther
Protection Program presented on July I, 2008 to the Committee.
. Nancy Payton spoke in support of the language proposed under Policy 2.2 as it encourages
keeping agriculture land in agriculture or similar uses.
. Mr. Farmer asked about the acreage classified as Open in the ACSC.
. Mr. Jones stated that the 15,000+ acres of Open land within the ACSC can become SSAs but
there is also a limit of 10% of clearing limitation in the ACSC.
. Mr. Farmer questioned whether we will have too many credits. Mr. Jones confirmed that the
proposal of 2.6 credits per acre in the ACSC is about a four-fold increase in credits in the ACSC.
. Mr. Farmer stated that he is concerned that Ag incentivization might trump restoration credits
and disincentivize restoration. Mr. Jones stated that restoration is only possible in HSA and
WRA.
. Nicole Ryan stated that the Committee should provide an incentive in the ACSC land for panther
habitat protection; that the NRI values need to be updated; and passed out a color map showing
[in yellow] areas where panthers habitat could be in conflict with Open lands where SRAs might
be allowed.
. Mr. McElwaine, representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, encouraged the Committee
to vote against the proposed amendments to Policy 2.2 and raised questions about DCA's caution
of not using the existing RLSA Overlay authorization, adequate infrastructure, justification and
whether there is a need based upon shortage of existing development.
. Brad Cornell stated that agricultural stewardship credits will need to be calculated and still wants
an incentive for the preservation of agricultural lands. He suggested adding to the lasf sentence
the words, "Agriculture" before SSA in the two locations in thaf sentence and that there be
language placed that would disallow returning to the AG-I land use layer after the land has been
volUl1tarily taken down to AG-2.
. Mr. McDaniel stated that he could support the first part, but not the second part.
. Dave Wolfley stated he agrees with the added language but not with the numbers.
Seotember 2. 2008 Committee Preliminarv Action: Brad Cornell moved and seconded by Bill
McDaniel that the word "agricultural" be inserted before "SSA" in the two locations found in the last
sentence of Policy 2.2. Upon vote, the motion carried 9-1 with David Wolfley voting against.
After considerable discussion and a brief recess, Brad Cornell moved and seconded by Tom Jones that
the following language be added just prior to the last sentence of Policy 2.2: "Each laver is discreet and
shall be removed seuuentiallv and cumulativelv in the order presented in the Matrix. If a laver is
removed. all uses and activities in that laver are eliminated and no longer available. " Public Comments
included Laurie McDonald who stated that she supported the amendment. Christian Spilkor stated that
he does not to be held to a restriction where the agricultural practices would be limited and rotating in and
g;, to 7
4
out of placing the land in a fallow or grazing status would be permanent. Laura McDaniel questioned
how this is related to Policy 1.6. Tom Jones stated that it should be the same rules. Dane Scofield stated
that if a landowner elected to take the land uses down to Ag-2 those restrictions would occur.
Upon vote, the motion carried 7-3 with Bill McDaniel, Gary Eidson, and David Wolfley voting against.
Paliey 2.3
'.VithiH OHe (1) year frsm the effeeti'?e aate ef these ameRameHts, Collier C8\fflty will eotalllish an
f.grielfllure f.e'iioery C8\iHeil eoml"risee ef Het less than five Her mere thuH HiHe "!ll"eiHtee
repreoeRlatives ef the apiNlltme iftElliotl)', te aeyise the BCC eH _Item relatiHg te f.grielilture. The
f.griculmre f.evisoTY COliReil (.^~^.C) 'Nil! werk te ieeftlify el"peflliflities aRti prepare strategies tB
cnlla"ee aRa I"r-emBte the cBetiRlllmee, ellpaf!sioH aHe eiyersifieatioR of agrielilture iH CBllier Couety. The
/\.^.C '.vill alsB ideetif)' Barriers te the eoetiooanee, e)(pllflsioH aad aivemifieatieR Bf the agrieliltliffll
indlistl)' aHa 7;il!prel"are reeofl11ReaeutiBns to elimiRate or minimize slieh l3arrieFs if! Collier Couety. The
f~\C will alse aosess whether elleeptions frem slandareo for I3lisiRess lisen relatee to agriculture sholild Be
allowed Imder aR admilliotmtive l"ermit pfBeess and malee FOeBmrneRflatioflS to the BCC.
Public Input: None
Staff Comments:
September 2. 2008 Committee Preliminarv Action:
The Committee discussed the fact that the Agriculture Advisory Council was never created; that there was
no overt interest to date to establish the AAC; and that there are many agricultural interest groups and
organizations already established which can initiate discussions and actions before local, state, and federal
agencies and elected bodies relative to their agricultural interests. Mr. McDaniel moved and Brad
Cornell seconded that Policy 2.3 be deleted from the RLSA Overlay. Upon vote, the motion carried 10-0.
Paliey 2.1
The BCC will eensider the reeBfl11RefleatieRn of the /\f.C and faeilitate tho implemeRlatioH Bf strategies
and reeoflll1lcneatioRn identified BY the ACC that are eetemHRee te Be 8ppFol"riate. The BCC ~' adopt
amendments te the LDC that implemeet pBlieies that s"I"port agrieultme aetiyifies.
Public Input: None
Staff Comments:
September 2. 2008 Committee Preliminarv Action: See discussion lIIIder Policy 2.3. Mr. McDaniel
moved and David Farmer seconded that the Policy 2.4 language be stricken. Upon vote, the motion
carried 10-0.
Policy 2.S J.
Agriculture is an important aspect of Collier County's quality of life and economic well-being.
Agricultural activities shall be protected from duplicative regulation as provided by the Florida Right-to-
Farm Act.
Public Input: None
Staff Comments:
IF Policies 2.3 and 2.4 are recommended for deletion by the Committee, then current Policy 2.5 would
become Policy 2.3.
September 2. 2008 Committee Preliminarv Action: Mr, McDaniel moved and David Farmer
seconded to renumber Policy 2.5 to 2.3. Upon vote, the motion carried 10-0.
C2rof?
5
Policy 2.6- ~
Notwithstanding the special provisions of Policies 3.9 and 3.10, nothing herein or in the implementing
LDRs, shall restrict lawful agricultural activities on lands within the RLSA that have not been placed into
the Sfewardship program.
Public Input: None
Staff Comments: IF Policies 2.3 and 2.4 are recommended for deletion by the Committee, then current
Policy 2.6 would become Policy 2.4.
September 2. 2008 Committee Preliminarv Action: Mr. McDaniel moved and David Farmer
seconded to renumber Policy 2.6 to 2.4. Upon vote, the motion carried 10-0.
Group 3 - Policies to protect water quality and quantity and maintain the natural water regime, as
well as listed animal and plant species and their habitats by directing incompatible uses away from
wetlands and upland habitat through the establishment of Flow way Stewardship Areas, Habitat
Stewardship Areas, and Water Retention Areas, where lands are voluntarily included in the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area program.
Public Input:
Staff comments: Mr. Greenwood suggested that all of the documents received by the Committee at its
July 1 meeting related to the Florida Panther Protection Program be placed in the appendices at the back
of the report in their entirety. No action was taken on this suggestion by the Committee.
September 2. 2008 Committee action: The Committee discussed, at the suggestion of Brad Cornell,
adding reference to restoration activities to the Group 3 statement above with the Committee consensus
that this is covered later in the Group 3 policies and need not be placed here. Mr. McDaniel moved and
Brad Cornell seconded to leave the existing language for Group 3 without change. Upon vote, the motion
carried, 10-0.
Policy 3.1
Protection of water quality and quantity, and the maintenance of the natural water regime shall occur
through the establishment of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay.
FSAs are delineated on the Overlay Map and contain approximately 31,100 acres. FSAs are primarily
privately owned wetlands that are located within the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough.
These lands form the primary wetland flowway systems in the RLSA. The Overlay provides an incentive
to permanently protect FSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and
establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all lands within the delineated
FSAs are comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to
differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis
of the Index Map Series shows that FSA lands score within a range of 0.7 to 2.4; approximately 96%
score greater than 1.2 while 4% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score of FSA land is 1.8.
Public Input: None
Staff Comments:
September 2. 2008 Committee Action: Ms. Nemecek moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to leave the
existing language for Policy 3.1 without change. Upon vote, the motion carried, 10-0.
Policy 3.2
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on the Overlay
Map and contain approximately 4ll,9OO 45.782 acres. HSAs are privately owned agricultural areas,
which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable habitat for listed species and
6
!;?b<7
areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included because they are located contiguous to
habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can augmenf habitat values. The Overlay provides an
incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination
of incompatible uses and the establishment of protection measures described in Group I Policies. Not all
lands within the delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall
be used to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation.
Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There are
approximately 13,800 15.156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The average Index
score of HAS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of the naturally vegetated
areas within HSAs is I. 5.
Public Input: Anita Jenkins questioned where the revised numbers came from.
Staff Comments: Laura Roys stated that Mac Hatcher provided the numbers as described directly below.
I. The total HSA acreage should be changed from 40,000 acres to 45,782 acres. The 13,800 acreages for
HSAs should be changed to 15,156 acres upon recalculation by the Envirorunental staff using the
SFWMD Land cover data form 2004/2005 for improved pasture, un-improved pasture, row crops, field
crops, and orchards to get a value for "cleared agriculture" of 15,156 acres, not including woodland
pasture, tree nursery, or upland shrub and brush. [Environmental staff]
2. "HAS" [resulted from a "spell check"] error and needs to be changed to "HSA". [Comprehensive
Planning staff]
Seotember 2. 2008 Committee Action: Mr. McDaniel moved and David Wolfley seconded to amend the
text of Policy 3.2 as annotated above to more closely reflect the most current information in the RLSA
Overlay. Upon vote, the motion carried, 10-0.
Policy 3.3
Further protection for surface water quality and quantity shall be through the establishment of Water
Retention Areas (WRAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. WRAs are delineated on the Overlay Map
and contain approximately 18,200 acres. WRAs are privately owned lands that have been permitted by
the South Florida Water Management District to function as agricultural water retention areas. In many
instances, these WRAs consist of native wetland or upland vegetation; in other cases they are excavated
water bodies or may contain exotic vegetation. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect
WRAs by the creation and transfer of Credits, elimination of incompatible uses, and establishment of
protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the delineated WRAs are
comparable in terms of their natural resource value; therefore the index shall be used to differentiate
higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation. Analysis of the Index
Map Series shows that WRA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.4; approximately 74% score greater
than 1.2 while 26% score 1.2 or less. The average Index score ofWRA land is 1.5.
Public Input: None
Staff Comments:
Seotember 2. 2008 Committee Action: David Wolfley moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to not
recommend any change to Policy 3.3. Upon vote, the motion carried, 10-0.
Policy 3.4
Public and private conservation areas exist in the RLSA and serve to protect natural resources. Corkscrew
Marsh and Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest include approximately 13,500 acres. Analysis shows that
they score within an Index range of 0.0 to 2.2; with an average Index score of 1.5. Because these existing
7
e7U
public areas, and any private conservation areas, are already protected, they are not delineated as SSAs
and are not eligible to generate Credits, but do serve an important role in meeting the Goal ofthe RLSA.
Public Input: None
Staff Comments:
SeDtember 2. 2008 Committee Action: Mr. McDaniel moved and Jim Howard seconded to not
recommend any change to Policy 3.4. Upon vote, the motion carried, 10-0.
Policy 3.5
Residential uses, General Conditional uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses
(layers 1 -4) as listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in FSAs in exchange for compensation to the
property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Conditional use essential services and governmental essential
services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses or for public safety, shall only be allowed in
FSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Where practicable, directional-
drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas extraction
in FSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. Other layers may also be eliminated at the
election of the property owner in exchange for compensation. The elimination of the Earth Mining layer
shall not preclude the excavation of lakes or other water bodies if such use is an integral part of a
restoration or mitigation program within a FSA.
Public Input: Noue
Staff Comments:
Sentember 2. 2008 Committee Action: Mr. Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to not
recommend any change to Policy 3.5. Upon vote, the motion carried, la-a.
Policy 3.6
Residential Land Uses listed in the Matrix shall be eliminated in Habitat Stewardship Sending Areas in
exchange for compensation to the property owner as described in Policy 3.8. Other layers may also be
eliminated at the election of the property owner in exchange for compensation.
Public Input: Nicole Ryan expressed a concern that mining and other intense land uses should be
required to be removed from the FSA and HSA.
Staff Comments:
SeDtember 2. 2008 Committee Action: Mr. Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to not
recommend any change to Policy 3.6. Upon vote, the motion carried, 10-0.
Policy 3.7
General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed
only on HSA lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. Conditional use
essential services and governmental essential services, other than those necessary to serve permitted uses
or for public safety, shall only be allowed in HSAs with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of
1.2 or less. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants are prohibited in all HSAs. Where practicable,
directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized for oil and gas
Extraction in HSAs in order to minimize impacts to native habitats. In addition to the requirements
imposed in the LDC for approval of a Conditional Use, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of
an HS Enviro1l11lental Impact Statement (ElS) which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has
been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats and
the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the
applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation
program. Golf Course design, construction, and operation in any HSA shall comply with the best
8
&7/
management practices of Audubon International's Gold Program and the Florida Department of
EnviroIlIIlental Protection. Compliance with the following standards shall be considered by Collier
Counfy as meefing the requirement for minimization of impact:
. Clearing of native vegetation shall not exceed 15% of the native vegetation on
the parcel.
. Areas previously cleared shall be used preferentially to native vegetated areas.
. Buffering to Conservation Land shall comply with Policy 4.13.
Discussion and Public Innut:
Lauri McDonald stated that mining should be kept out of the layers and dealt with separately as mines
have a greater negative impact on habitaf than most types of land uses. Nancy Payton agreed with Ms.
McDonald. Bill McDaniel stated that he does mining for a living and that mines provide a site for new
habitat once they are finished off and full of water. Mr. Wolfley stated that he felt that mines do not have
the negative impact on habitat as many other uses which are permanently intensive land nses. Brad
Cornell stated that it may be well to require HSAs to remove land use Layers 1-4. Mr. Jones stated fhat
Layers 1 -4 have been removed in the first 9 SSAs since the property owners felt it was the
enviroIlIIlentally sensible act to take in HSAs. Al Reynolds stated that the RLSA Overlay is a voluntary
program and that the earth mining is a pennitted use in the underlying AG zoning and that it would be
better to process an earth mining operation under the RLSA Overlay rather than under AG zoning.
Staff Comments:
This is a clarification for the reader who may not know what "EIS" stands for as "EIS" is used
extensively throughout this portion of the RLSA Overlay.
Sentember 2. 2008 Committee Action: Mr. Jones moved and Bill McDaniel seconded to not
recommend any change to Policy 3.7 other than to make the clarification recommended by staff Upon
vote, the motion carried, 9-1, with Brad Cornell voting against.
VII. New Business [none]
VIII. Public Comments [ none]
IX. Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on September 16, 2008, in Rooms 609/610
of the CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, in Naples, Fl. from 9:00 A.M. - 12 Noon.
X. Adjournment
Mr. Farmer moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. McDaniel with the motion
approved unanimously with adjoummenf at 12:0IPM.
Rura amis Ste
r a Review Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on 9 <~ I ~ ~o e ,as presented
amended
.. I
I>""
or as
9
872-
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
-Members, Meetings, Schedule-
Updated August 5, 2008
Members
Ron Hamel Chair
Neno Spagna Vice-chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Frcd Thomas
Dave Wolfley
Phase 1
Phase 2
[Technical Review (GMP FLUE RLSA 1.22))
Meetinl! Dates
November 20, 2007
December 4, 2007
January 18,2008 Workshop
January 22, 2008
February 5, 2008 Ave Maria University (AMU)
March 6, 2008 to the Environmental Advisory Council
May I, 2008 to the Collier County Planning Commission
May 27, 2008 to the Board of County Commissioners
[Review of Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay (RLSAO))
Meetinl! Dates
March 4, 2008, AMU
o Begin review of Group 2 policies (Agriculture)
o Fritz Roka, UF,IFAS presentation
oGene Macvoy, IF AS presentation
April I, 2008, AMU
o Group 2 Policies
May 6, 2008, AMU
o Eric Draper, Audubon (LS Habitat)
o Clarence Tears, SFWMD (hydrology)
June 3,2008 AMU
o Darrel Land, FWCC- Panther (invited)
o Defenders of Wildlife (invited)
o RLSAO.. .review of Group I Policies through Group 5 Policies
June 17,2008, CDES, Rooms 609/610
o RLSAO....... review of Group I Policies through Group 5
Policies
873
o Review of Half Circle Ranch Growth Management Plan
RLSAO Amendment application [April 29 referral to
Committee from Board of County Commissioners]
July 1,2008, AMU
o RLSAO. .... . review of Group I Policies through Group 5
Policies
July 15, 2008, CDES, Rooms 609/610
o RLSAO.... ...review of Group I Policies through Group 5
Policies
August 5, 2008, AMU
o 8RLSAO..... . review of Group I Policies through Group 5
Policies
September 2, CDES, Rooms 609/610
o RLSAO....... review of Group I Policies through Group 5
Policies
September 16, CDES, Rooms 609/610
o RLSAO....... review of Group I Policies through Group 5
Policies
September 23, CDES, Rooms 609/610
o RLSAO....... review of Group 1 Policies through Group 5
Policies
September 30, CDES, Rooms 609/610
o RLSAO....... review of Group 1 Policies through Group 5
Policies
October 7, CDES, Rooms 609/610
o Wrapup....
Present Technical Review to:
Present RLSAO Recommendations to:
EAC, March 6, 2008
CCPC, May 1, 2008
BCC, May 27, 2008
DCA, June 23,2008
EAC
CCPC
BCC
To DCA
November 12, 2008
December 1, 2008
January 29, 2009
February 27, 2009
{t7~
2
PHASE II REPORT PREPARATION SCHEDULE AND REPORT FORMAT
REVIEW COMMITTEE DIRECTION
August S, 2008
SCHEDULE
A. REMAINING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS
. September 2...RLSA Overlay Review [CDES]
. September 16...RLSA Overlay Review [CDES]
. September 23...RLSA Overlay Review [CDES]
· September 30...... RLSA Overlay Review [CDES]
. October 7... RLSA Overlay Review Wrap Up and Phase 2 Report Recommendations for RLSA
Overlay [CDES]
B. PUBLIC VETTING MEETINGS
. November 12....Environmental Advisory Council
. December 1......Planning Commission
. January 29, 2009...Board of County Commissioners
. February 27, 2009....Department of Community Affairs
PHASE 2 REPORT FORMAT AND CONTENTS
The following is format approved by the Review Committee on August 5, 2008:
. COVER
. TRANSMITTAL LETER with 2 maps: 1] "Collier County Rural & Agricultural Area Assessment
Stewardship Overlay Map; 2] "RLSA Status Map" which shows all approved Stewardship
Sending Areas and the one approved Stewardship Receiving Area, The Town of Ave Maria.
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
. COMMITTEE- RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSIP AREA
OVERLAY
a. Short Version Annotated
b. Long Version Annotated
. DATA AND ANALYSIS
. APPENDICES
8)S
Policy 3.2
Listed animal and plant species and their habitats shall be protected through the establishment of
Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), as SSAs within the RLSA Overlay. HSAs are delineated on
the Overlay Map and contain approximately 4lMlOO 45,782 acres. HSAs are privately owned
agricultural areas, which include both areas with natural characteristics that make them suitable
habitat for listed species and areas without these characteristics. These latter areas are included
because they are located contiguous to habitat to help form a continuum of landscape that can
augment habitat values. The Overlay provides an incentive to permanently protect HSAs by the
creation and transfer of Credits, resulting in the elimination of incompatible uses and the
establishment of protection measures described in Group 1 Policies. Not all lands within the
delineated HSAs are comparable in terms of their habitat value; therefore the index shall be used
to differentiate higher value from lower value lands for the purpose of Overlay implementation.
Analysis of the Index Map Series shows that HSA lands score within a range of 0.6 to 2.2. There
are approximately 13,800 15.156 acres of cleared agricultural fields located in HSAs. The
average Index score of HAS HSA designated lands is 1.3, however, the average index score of
the naturally vegetated areas within HSAs is 1.5.
Public Input:
Staff Comments:
1. The total HSA acreage should be changed from 40,000 acres to 45,782 acres. The 13,800
acreages for HSAs should be changed to 15,156 acres upon recalculation by the
Envirorunental staff using the SFWMD Land cover data form 2004/2005 for improved
pasture, un-improved pasture, row crops, field crops, and orchards to get a value for
"cleared agriculture" of 15,156 acres, not including woodland pasture, tree nursery, or
upland shrub and brush. [Environmental staff)
"HAS" [resulted from a "spell check"] error and needs to be changed to "HSA".
[Comprehensive Planning staff)
r?'7 L,
------~~-_.._---_._"~'--_.._."
,1/f'/;tJ t..
1y~r;t ~~"
CV t{l-v
Policy 3.8 I O._Ie
Compensation to the property owner may occur through one or more of the fOllowingD' ~ l~
mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition of conservation t;;,C.''t!J ~
easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, .or through other acquisition of land ~i~
or interest in land through a willing seller program, such as but not limited to Conservation .1C7 0. _\
Collier. 'i r~ o. ,
- ~W
[~;)
~r
(fl
DRAFT Group 3 Policy Revisions
Policy 3.11
L.....ln certain locations there may be lhe opportunity for flow-way or habitat restoration_.
Examples include, but are not limited to, locations where flow-ways have been constricted or
otherwise impeded by past activities, ef where additional land is needed to enhance wildlife
corridors. Priority shall bo !jivon to rGGtsration within tho CamJ3 Koais Strand ~S.^. or Gonti!juouG
HS.^.6. Should a property owner be willing to dedicate land for restoration activities within a FSA
or HSA within lhs CamJ3 Koai!) Strand ~S^ or Gontiguous HS^s, felM.-two additional Stewardship
Credits shall be assigned for each acre of land so dedicated. /\n aElditional two Stowar8ship
GroElits shall bo assigned for each acro of lanEl dodieatod for restoration aGtivitios withiR othor
~Sft.e and HSAc. The actual implementation of restoration improvements is not required for the
owner to receive such credits and the costs of restoration shall be borne by the governmental
agency or private entity undertaking the restoration. Should an owner also complete restoration
improvements, this shall be rewarded with foof-additional Credits for each acre of restored land
upon demonstration that the restoration met applicable success criteria as determined by the
permit agency authorizing said restoration. The additional Credits shall be rewarded for
caracara restoration at 2 credits per acre, for exotic control/burninq at 4 credits per acre, for flow
way restoration at 4 credits per acres and for native habitat restoration at 6 credits per acre.
Within areas proposed for restoration, Land Use Lavers 1-6 must be removed. The specific
process for assiqnment of additional restoration credits shall be included in the Stewardship
District of the LDC.
2. In certain locations, as qenerallv illustrated on the RLSA Overlav Map, there may be an
opportunity to create a northern panther corridor connection and a southern panther corridor
connection. Should a property owner be willinq to dedicate land for lhe purpose of establishinq
the northern or southern panther corridor. ten additional Stewardship Credits shall be assiqned
for each acre of land so dedicated. The specific process for assiqnment of additional panther
corridor credits shall be included in the Stewardship District of the LDC.
This policy does not preclude other forms of compensation for restoration which may be
addressed through public-private partnership agreement such as a developer contribution
agreement or stewardship agreement between the parties involved.
Policy 3.13
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been permitted
for this purpose and will conlrnue to function for surface water retention, detention, treatment
and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be permitted to provide such functions for new
uses of land allowed within the Overlay. WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to
provide water management functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be
designated as a SRA in such instances. However, if the WRA provides water treatment and
retention exclusively for a SRA. the acreaqe of the WRA shall be Included in the SRA. WRA
boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to refinemenl in accordance with
SFWMD permitting.
21'7
Single-family Family care
dwelling, incl. facilities (P)
mobile home (P)
La er 3
Earth Mining
and
Processing
Uses
Excavation,
extraction or
earthminingand
related processing
and production
(CU)
rf't9(fi f~d: jcJ \.l)~ d;\ (\&-
fO II tWO (e~~(J.YO ',(ll/FL:,C9-
se Matrix P=Permitted;(,(=Accessory; CU= Conditional Use)
--
",
a er 4 La er 5
Agriculture
ecreational Group 1
Uses
4.08.06 B.4.b Land
Golf courses
and/or golf
driving ranges
(CU)
Crop raising;
horticulture; fruit
and nut
production;
groves; nurseries;
improved pasture
(P)
Farm labor housing
(A)
Unimproved pasture
and grazing, forestry
(P)
Conservation,
Restoration and
Natural
Resources
Wildlife management,
plant and wildlife
conservancies, refuges
and sanctuaries (P)
Mobile homes
[(P)in MH
Overlay; (A) as
temporaryusej
CoUection and Asphaltic an d Sports
transfer sites for concrete batch Instructional
resource recovery making plants (CU) schools and
(CU) camps (CU)
Animal breeding
(other than
livestock), raising
lraining,stabling
r
kenneling (P)
Retail sale of fresh,
Unprocessed
agricultural products;
grown primarily on
the
property (A)
Ranching; livestock
raising (P)
Water management,
groundwater recharge
(P)
Private Veterinary clinic
boathouses and (CU)
docks on lake,
canal or
waterway lots
(A)
Sporting and
Recreational
camps (CU)
Dairying,
beekeeping;
poultry and egg
production; milk
production(P}
Retail plant nurseries Hunting cabins (CU) Restoration, mitigation
(CU) (PI
Recreational Child care centers Aquaculture for Packinghouse or Cultural,educational, Water supply, well fields
facilities integral and adullday ative similar agricultural or recreational (P); oil and gas
to residential re species (P) and non- processingoffann facilities and their exploration (P)
development, centers native species (CU) products produced related modes of
e,g., golf on transporting
course, lhe property (A) participants, viewers
clubhouse, or patrons; tour
community operations, such as,
center building but not limited to
and tennis airboats, swamp
facilities, parks, buggies, horses and
playgrounds similar modes of
and transportation (CU)
ravfi~dsIA)
Guesthouses Zoo, aquarium, The commercial Sawmills (CU) Excavation and Boardwalks, nature
(A) aviary,botanical productioo, raising or related processing trails
garden, or other breeding or exotic incidental to Ag(A) (P)
similar uses (CU) animals (CU)
Churches and Wholesale reptile Natural resources not
other places of breeding and raising otherwise listed (P)
worship (CU) non-venomous (P)
and venomous(CU)
Communications Essential services (P
towers (P)(CU) and
CUI
Social and Oil aod gas field
Fraternal development and
organizations production (CU)
-ICU)
Private landing
strips for general
aviation (CU)
Cemeteries (CU)
Schools (eU)
roup care
acitities,ALF
(CUI
Q7~
2
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
BOARD CEBTIFIED BUSINESS LITIGATION ATTORNEY
JOHN M. PASSlDOMO
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE AHORNEI'
GEORGE A. WilSON
BOARD CERTlAED WIllS, TRUSTS & ESTATES AlTOANEY
F EDWARD JOHNSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN D. KEHOE
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
lOUIS D. D'AGQSTINO
BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVAH
DAVID A. ZULlAN
KEVIN A, DENTI
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORN1';Y
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
kITOkNEYS Jcr LAw, UP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTI-I, SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE: (239) 261.9300
FAX: (239) 261-9782
EMAll: CPWJ@napleslaw.com
lOUIS W. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
USA H. BARNETT
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
CLAY C. BROOKER
ANDREW H. REISS
WllUAM J. DEMPSEY
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
MICHAEL W. PETTIT
CHRISTOPHER J. THORNTON
MICHAEl S. GROSS
JOHN C. CLOUGH
JASON O. LOWE
M. FRANCESCA PASSERl
or COUNSEL'
GEORGEl.VARNADOE
DIRECT DIAL: (239) 436-1529
DIRECT FAX: (239) 261-0884
August 26, 2008
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34105
Re: Collier County RLSA Phase II
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
Our firm, together with Wilson Miller, Inc., represents Alico, Inc., Pacific Tomato Growers,
Barron Collier Company, Consolidated Cifrus, Priddy Farm, Half Circle L Ranch, Ranch One
Coop., English Properties, and Collier Enterprises, who collectively comprise the "Eastern
Collier Property Owners" or ECPO in the ongoing review of the Collier Counfy Rural Lands
Stewardship Area ("RLSA"). In that capacity, we have been following the efforts of the Rural
Land Stewardship Review Committee in its review of fhe Goal, Objectives and Policies of the
RLSA. Our team is comprised of land use and environmental consultants, engineers,
economisfs, ecologists, wildlife experts, transportation planners and ofher professionals, many
of whom were instrumental in fhe formation of the RLSA program, and have considerable
experience in the implementation of RLSA since ifs adoption.
The Eastern Collier Property Owners own approximately 160,000 of the 195,000 acres in
the RLSA, and therefore have a vested interest in ensuring thaf any proposed changes resulting
from the ongoing review of fhe program by the Committee retain its incentive based, voluntary
orientation to achieve the goal and objecfives of the RLSA. Pursuant to the established
procedures for the 5-year review of the RLSA program, we offer the following comments and
recommendations for consideration by the Committee during the Phase 2 process currently
underway.
In this letter we will offer our comments and recommendafions related to Policy Group 3, In
subsequent letters we will address Policy Groups 4 and 5.
2?7t
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 2
Group 3 Policies
Policy 3.2
Public Input:
1. Protection of listed species and wildlife habitat from intense land uses is one of the
requirements in ttle Growth Management statutes. The HSAs were delineated to protect
listed species and their habitat. During lhe first 5 years of the RLSA program there have
been several instances of listed species in Open areas. The HSAs alone do nof provide
adequate protection to lisfed species. Additionaily the 2002 definition of panther habifat is
very limited compared 10 the habitat valuation matrix utilized by USFWS now.
ECPO Comments: The HSAs, FSAs, and WRAs coilectively comprise over 89,000 acres and
provide large, interconnected blocks of high-quality habitat for listed species and other wildlife.
These overlay areas contain the vasl majority of the native vegetation communities that occur
within privately held RLSA lands, and also include over 13,000 acres of agricultural lands. The
native vegetation that does occur within the Open overlay is highly fragmented, often impacted
by surrounding land uses, and generally of much lower habitat quality fhat native vegetation
communities with the FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs.
Staff does not provide any data and analysis to support the statement that HSAs (and
presumably FSAs and WRAs) "do not provide adequate protection fo listed species." Collier
County and DCA did conclude that listed species protection was adequate when the plan was
approved in 2002.
We dispute that the 2002 definition of panther habitaf Is "very Iimifed" compared fo the current
USFWS habitat valuation matrix. In fact, the latest published panther research (Land, Shindle,
et. aI., 2008) and a current USFWS review of multiple pubilshed studies indicates that the 2002
definition of panther habifat closely approximates the current understanding of panther habifat
utilization. In fact, the RLSA Habitat, Flow way, and Water Retention Stewardship Areas as
designed in 2002 incorporated ninety-one percent of the panther telemetry. Currently, the
panther telemefry within these same areas has increased to ninety-four percent. This
concludes that the habitat is protected.
Policy 3.6 and 3.7
Public Input:
1. The Conservancy strongly supports regulation of land uses in fhe Habitat Stewardship
Areas (HSA) and Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA), regardless of whether the landowner
participates in the RLSA program. This should include restrictions of some permitted and
conditional uses and should include all lands, regardless of their partiCipation in the RLSA.
For example, on lands not voluntarily participating in the RLSA, Policy 5.1 removes use
layers 1-4 within FSAs. However, Collier County should assess whether all agricultural
activities are appropriate for FSAs, and potentiaily remove the more active agricultural
uses as incompatible with protecfion of the quality, quantity and maintenance of the
natural water regime in the FSAs. Within Policy 5.1, for HSAs, the only outright prohibition
is for asphalfic and concrete batch making plants. The Conservancy believes this should
be reassessed, wifh the opportunity to expand the prohibifed uses within HSAs and FSAs.
-g Qo
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Augusf 26, 2008
Page 3
Also, Policy 3.7 specifically should be reassessed as to fhe allowances within HSAs. The
Conservancy believes that golf courses, and other impacting uses, are incompatible with
all HSAs.
ECPO Comments: Land owner participafion in the RLS program is voluntary and based on
markef conditions; it is not a regulatory technique, rather an incentive based program. Stripping
additional uses off lands not participating in the RLS program would reduce the market value of
lhat land and open the County to a Bert Harris claim action or violation of the Right to Farm Act.
FSAs and HSAs were purposely defined broadly enough to allow a justified mix of habitat
required for species and adequate land uses. Additional ag lands, although they did not meet
fhe specific criteria for habitat, were included in HSAs in order to provide habitat connecfivity.
Policy 3.9
Public Input:
1. Review of the SSAs currently designated indicate that out of the approximately 23,000
acres that are in SSA easements, only 650 acres have been taken down to their
conservation land use. The Conservancy believes that Collier County should be more
active in securing lands thaf will be maintained for conservation purposes. While grazing
may sometimes be compatible with conservation uses, more active agricultural activities
may nol, especially if fhe environmental value of the land would benefit from restoration
activities. Collier Counfy should revisit fhe SSA Group 3 policies fo require more SSAs be
taken down to conservation through incentives or regulations. A better understanding of
the uses removed within SSAs could be vetted if SSA designation was required to go
through the EAC, CCPC and Board of County Commissioners for approval.
,
ECPO Comments: The Conservancy's statement does not acknowledge that of the 24,124
acres within approved SSAs, 19,034 acres (79%) are designated as Ag-2 lands. Of the 19,034
acres under Ag-2land uses, 16,334 acres exist under native vegefation, and an additional 1,781
acres are comprised of pastures. These Ag-2 land uses retain only grazing rights and other low-
intensity agricultural uses that are entirely compatible with listed species conservafion. Lands
within approved SSAs "maintained for conservation purposes" are therefore more accurately
quantified as the sum of Ag-2 and Conservalion land uses (19,684 acres), or 82% of all
approved SSA lands.
The designation of an SSA is a voluntary process, through which a property owner relinquishes
private property rights, reduces the residual land use value of their property, and provides a
public benefit by permanently protecting natural resources and agriculture, without requiring
publicly funded compensation. The rules and requirements for establishing an SSA are clear,
straightforward, and are not subject to the imposition of conditions and stipulations. RLSA
incentives are designed to minimize obstacles to property owners in implementing the program.
Multiple public hearings are costly and time consuming. Members of the public, including
advisory board members, are not precluded from commenting on an SSA at the BCC hearing.
2. Provide incentive for organic farming for ag remaining in FSAs and HSAs
3. Continuing agricultural use in the SSAs should be with Best Managemenf Practice (BMP)
sfandards, at a minimum.
~<6(
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 4
ECPO Comments: The RLSA agricultural areas have been farmed for decades, utilizing
standard agricultural operations that are covered by existing state agricultural regulations.
Additional restrictions could potentially render these agricultural operations unprofitable, counter
to the goals of the RLSA. The prescription of BMPs could also create disincentives for land
owners to include agricultural areas within SSAs, thereby fragmenting landscape mosaics that
would otherwise be protected as large, interconnected blocks of land.
Policy 3.10
Public Input:
1. The uses retained on lands, such as Ag 2, are not preservation lands yet they are
proffered as such in subsequent development analysis. This then supports arguments to
completely remove wetlands within the areas where developmenf was to take place when
in reality fhe rafios of natural set aside preservation lands were much smaller in
comparison to file wetlands being destroyed if fhe Ag2 lands were excluded. While some
A2 lands are in more natural sfates, the fact they are not truly conservation lands is
misleading.
ECPO Comments: The majority of SSA lands designafed as Ag-2 consisf of native vegetation
communities and unimproved pasfures and rangelands that contain both wetland and upland
land cover. Once an SSA easement is placed on such property, the residenflal, earth mining,
recreation. and intensive agriculture land use rights are removed and no further intensification of
fhese natural areas is allowed. As a result, there is little difference between "preservation or
conservafion lands", and Stewardship Sending Area lands at the Ag 2 level, other than the fact
that the land owner is obligated to continue to manage the land in accordance with the
Stewardship Easement Agreement, rather than the public incurring this obligation and cost for
public preservation land. One critical land use that is retained by the Ag-2 designation is the
right to graze cattle, which is an important land management tool. In natural forest communities
within the RLSA, grazing of cattle enhances forest function by suppressing exofic vegetation
and controlling overgrowth in fhe understory. Ultimately, these Ag-2 lands do provide
conservation benefits similar to those provided by public lands within and adjacent to the RLSA.
With respect to wetland impacfs in SRAs, the RLSA is~ a planning tool that works in a
complimentary fashion to wetland and wildlife regulatory programs, not as a replacement. Any
proposed wetland impacts and mitigation requirements are assessed and approved by the
regulatory agencies for each SRA independently of RLSA process, using standard
methodologies such as the Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). The
RLSA program addresses the issue on a major system basis, which regulatory programs do not,
and protects vast acreages of regional flow ways and larger high-qualily wetland systems that
greatly exceed the wetland mitigation ratios typically required by SFWMD and the US Army
Corps of Engineers. This is one reason why the Collier County RLSA is held in high rl'lgard by
the SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and fhe US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Policy 3.11
Public Input:
1. Many acres within SSA's are Ag lands that have been used in the past for a variety of
activities that have the potential to cause soil and water contamination. These uses
ggL
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
Augusf 26, 2008
Page 5
include callie dipping, petroleum spillage from wells and even solid waste disposal from
hunfing or remofe camps. Since the SSA's are given credit for fheir environmental value a
requirement for a clean environmenfal audit prior to the SSA's credit issuance on ail
property within fhe SSA should be mandatory.
ECPO Comments: Callie grazing (and its relafed uses), is a permilled use throughout the
RLSA, and may be allowed to continue when property is vOluntarily placed within an SSA by its
owners depending upon the land use layers removed. Land within an SSA that has been
cleared or altered for agricultural support activilies will be scored accordingly. SSA lands
normaily remain In private ownership and the property owner refains the obligation for land
management, including compliance with regulatory requirements associafed with agricultural
practices. Environmental Audifs are fypically required only in conjuncfion wlfh a change in
ownership. Requiring an environmental audit to be performed on fhousands of acres of land
would be an extraordinary expense and is therefore a disincenfive for property owners to
consider placing their property wifhin an SSA.
Callie dipping vats were constructed throughouf the State of Florida as a result of local, state,
and federal programs conducted from 1906 through 1961, for the prevention, suppression,
confrol, or eradication of fhe disease commonly known as tick fever by eradicating the callie
fever tick. Most vats were constructed with public funds and operated under local, sfale, and
Federal Government supervision and control, and participation in fhe eradication program was
mandated by state law and not volunfary. Chapter 376.306(2), Florida Statutes sfates:
Any private owner of property in this state upon which callie-dipping vafs are
located shail not be liable fo fhe state under any state law, or to any other person
seeking fo enforce state law, for any costs, damages, or penalties associated
with fhe discharge, evaluation, contamination, assessment, or remediation of any
substances or derivafives fhereof that were used in the vaf for the eradication of
the cattle fever tick. This provision shall be broadly construed to the benefit of
said private owner.
Any potenfial oil spills are closely scrutinized by the Florida Department of Nafural Resources
(DNR), and should fhere be an occurrence, immediate action is required. DNR maintains
records of all petroleum spills and the action taken to address said spiils. When weils are
abandoned, oil companies and property owners are required to plug the weils and clean up the
site under the direction of DNR.
Hunling camps are handled via written leases with fhe property owner. The stipulations of these
legal leases include fhe requirement for any lessee fo properly dispose of all solid waste and
also include annual inspection by the property owner fo insure the terms of fhe lease are being
met. Private property owners take great care in the proteclion of their land when allowing others
to use their property for hunting or camping pprposes.
2. The Conservancy believes that retention of AG1 or AG2 uses on lands where credits are
generafed for restoration activities creates the potential for incompatibility. Even lower-
impact agricultural uses, such as unimproved paslure, may present conflicts to replanflng
and management for lands based on fhe restoration plan. The Conservancy suggests that
on lands where stewardship credits are generated for restoration plans and actual
restoration activities, all land use layers should be removed down fo the conservation use.
In addition, appropriate fencing should be required to provide a sufficienf separation
between agricultural uses and restoration areas.
g~
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 6
ECPO Comments: The process for restoration credits requires fhe removal of AG1 uses, so
there is no potential for incompatibility between restoration and AG1 uses under the RLSA
program. Cattle grazing is a proven land managemenf tool. When properly managed, cattle
grazing limits under brush from becoming an extensive fire hazard, keeps exotics from more
rapid proliferation, and requires more continuous oversight of fhe land. Removing all agricultural
uses from the land would be a disincentive to restoration because fhere is a cost associafed
with land management. There must be a mechanism available to ensure that restoration and
conservation remain viable options in the market.
3. The Conservancy believes Policy 3.11 should be reexamined as to the abilify for additional
Stewardship Credits to be obtained for dedication of land for restoration. The
Conservancy believes credit should be given only on lands dedicafed for resforation,
where restoration has been implemented.
ECPO Comments: In the RLSA, restorafion is a two step process. First land is dedicafed for
restoration, and then the restoration is completed. The RLS program assigns credits for each
step. By assigning credits for the firsf step, dedicafjon, the program sets aside and protects
lands for a future resforation acfivity. When viewed in a regional confext this dedication process
is useful to other entities, such as Conservation Collier, when prioritizing which lands to protect
and restore. To eliminate the dedication step from the credit system would be a disincentive to
property owners to dedicate any restoration land until fhe restoration is to be completed, thereby
depriving those other entities of knowing what the true regional restoration plan is.
4. Incentives for resforing farm fields in receiving areas.
ECPO Comments: This comment is apparently referring to the potential for restoring farm fields
within fhe "Open" overlay designation. The RLSA program was designed to achieve a balance
between agricultural susfainability, environmental protection, and economic development. As
noted in the previous response, ample opportunities for farm field restoration already exist within
the FSA and HSA overlays. While restorafion within fhe FSA and HSA overlays can occur within
a landscape matrix of native vegetation communities, resforation within the Open overlay lacks
a landscape-scale context, and should nof be a priority.
5. Better handle on potenfial credifs and restoration credifs fhat can be generated - too many
credits?
ECPO Comments: Both Collier County staff and ECPO are preparing more accurate estimation
of fatal potential stewardship credit generation, including restoration credits.
6. Why have credits been established to be awarded just for preparing a restoration plan that
does not have to be implemented?
ECPO Comments: (See response to 3 above).
7. Resforafion credits: credif should be generated only for actual restoration work, this could
be a two step scale involving the start of restoration and meeting specified success
criteria.
ECPO Comments: The purpose of providing restoration designation credits is two-fold. One,
the restoration designation credits can provide a source of capital necessary to initiate the
1:5<6 Y-
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 7
restorafion work, including the costs of permitting, detailed restoration pianning, etc. Secondly,
there are situations where a land owner may be amenable to allowing a local (such as
Conservation Collier), state or federal agency to perform resforafion work on their land. The
restoration designation credits provide an incentive for land owners fo cooperate with agencies
where they otherwise may have declined to participate, and the agencies can implement the
restoration program.
8. Any level of restoration or maintenance receives the same amount of credits. The credit
value should be tied to the functional lift and there should be levels of credit lhat could be
earned.
The management plan should include more than fhe 1 exotic plants lisfed by County Code
(FLEPPC Category 1). Various other exotics have been observed.
The LDC should define more specific requirements on what management plans entail.
Restoration should be to a native habitat.
ECPO Comments: ECPO agrees that a tiered system of restoration credits, tied fo the
restoration functional lift, the difficulty of restoration, and the cosf of resforation would be
beneficial. An approach will be provided to the RLSA Review Committee in the near future.
Management plans are currently incorporated into Stewardship Credif and Easement
Agreements, so enforceability is already present in the system. We agree that it is appropriate
to include the 12 Category 1 exofic plant species identified by FLEPPC in future management
plans. The SSA restoration managemenf plans submitted 10 date have included sufficient
specificity to ensure fhe achievement of restoration goals, but we will work with the RLSA
Review Committee and sfaff if a sfandardized checklist will provide clarity for all parties while
preserving flexibilify in resforation implementation.
We disagree that restoration should be IImifed fo native habifats. Emphasis on pasture-
dependent species highlights the need for inclusion of pastures as potential restoration habitat.
Caracaras, for instance, prefer properly managed pastures over any other habitaf, Including
native dry prairie. Restricting restoration to native habitats could pofentially compromise
recovery efforts for these species.
Policy 3.12
Public Input:
1. The Conservancy believes that wider buffers around HSAs, FSAs and Water Retention
Areas (WRAs) should be required and shouid be examined during the five-year
assessment.
2. More upland buffers for Camp Keais Strand & OK Slough
ECPO Comments: The need for more upland buffers adjacent to existing FSA and HSA areas
has not been demonstrated or supported by any data and analysis. Aside from that fact,
Resforation Zone overlays were already designafed in 2002 along key portions of both regional
flow ways, and comprise over 2,000 acres of potential buffers. These 500-feel wide Restoration
gg-
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 8
Zones create incentives for restoration of buffers, and can work in conjunction with SRA buffers
as well.
Policy 3.13
Public Input:
1. Currently, WRAs are allowed to be used as either SSAs or as part of fhe water
management sysfem for a SRA. The Conservancy believes the appropriateness of
utilizing WRAs as part of stormwafer management should be reevaluated, especially for
those WRAs that are part of historic wetland flowways and would benefit from restoration.
However, if certain WRAs are deemed acceptable for stormwater freatment and are
incorporated as part of the development's stormwater treatment system for a development
project, fheir acreage should be included within the maximum acreage of the SRA. The
Conservancy would like 10 see fhis changed in Policy 3.13 and other applicable policies.
ECPO Comments: The comment refers to Water Retention Areas or WRAs, which are one of
three types of SSA classification. Two Policies are relevant to fhe comment:
Policy 3.13
Water Retention Areas (WRAs) as generally depicted on the Overlay Map have been
permitted for this purpose and will continue to function for surface water retention,
detention, treatment and/or conveyance, in accordance with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) permits applicable to each WRA. WRAs can also be
permitted to provide such functions for new uses of land allowed within the Overlay.
WRAs may be incorporated into a SRA master plan to provide water management
functions for properties within such SRA, but are not required to be designated as a SRA
in such instances. WRA boundaries are understood to be approximate and are subject to
refinement in accordance with SFWMD permitting.
Policy 3.14
During permitting to serve new uses, additions and modifications to WRAs may be
required or desired, including but not limited to changes to control elevations, discharge
rates, storm water pre-treatment, grading, excavation or fill. Such additions and
modifications shall be allowed SUbject to review and approval by the SFWMD in
accordance with best management practices. Such additions and modifications to WRAs
shall be designed to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat function within the WRAs
unless there is compensating mitigation or restoration in other areas of the Overlay that
will provide comparable habitat function. Compensating mitigation or restoration for an
impact to a WRA contiguous to the Camp Keais Strand or Okaloacoochee Slough shall
be provided within or contiguous to that Strand or Slough.
The SFWMD will encourage or require that storm water continue fa be directed into these
reservoirs, even after converting adjoining land uses from farm to development. This is
anticipated by RLS Policy 3.13 and 3.14. There will be many cases where on-going agricultural
operations confinue to use the WRA simulfaneously with the developed land. In these cases,
there is no purpose served by trying to distinguish how much of fhe WRA is serving the farm,
and how much is serving the development, as the overall acreage of the WRA will not change.
Continuing to use these systems for water retention is efficient and beneficial to the
environment, and resulfs in land use patterns that are more compact and cost effective.
~R:b
Mr. Thomas Greenwood
August 26, 2008
Page 9
Eliminating water flows would negatively impact hydrology and hydroperiod and would cause
detrimental changes to the habitat values of these reservoirs. These reservoirs are typically
large (over 100 acres), and often are located between the developable land and ultimate outfalls
to flowway sysfems.
In instances where a WRA is permitted to function solely for 8RA water quality treafment and
detention, it may be appropriate to include this acreage in the 8RA acreage calculation.
In closing, we appreciafe the observations in an effort to make the RL8 program as
effective as possible, and while these comments are not intended fo be exhaustive, we hope
fhey will assist fhe Committee as fhe continue their work during stage two of the update. We
look forward to the continued progress.
//
..~.~.f)I~ yours, p \
..\b4/M~'lA
John M. bassidomo
EOf.~rm
6434-13239 Doc #58 - Greenwood Ltr ECPO responses to Group 3 comments
2g7
<I)
<I)
'"
LLa l>::J a.
>.
(])
",
N
"
<I) '"
" 0
0 i:>::
~ Q)
" 0 ro
0
, ...J ii5
>. "
'" Q)
..., <I)
.0 0
:0 a.
~ e
0
(f) Il.
<t
'"
" Q) '"
Q; ~ Q)
~
c 0 a. <( '"
"
Q) 0 :E a. Q)
E (.) <I) :E ~
" <I)
a. Q) ~ "E "
0 ro '" Q
a; ;;: '"
> ii5 Q) ;;: c
Q) Q) ii5 Q) Q)
~ " Cl CO ii5 Q)
Q) 0 ~ >.
OJ) N CO '" N i:>::
'" 1:- E '" ~ ~
.<:: (.) :a Q)
Il. '" Q) - ~
E 0 0 '"
OJ) 0 u:: :r:
OJ) 'C Il. Q) '"
'" Q) Il. ~ Q) Q) " u "
'C a. ~ .E CO ~ Q) Q) Q)
'" >. Q) 0< <I) <I) <I)
:2 (.) ,s " 0 " 0 0 0
Q) E Q) a. a. a.
Q) ,Ql " a. a. 0 0 e
> '" .E ~ ~
<( (]) Il. 0 0 Il. Il. Il.
I I ~DD[I]DDI
<(
en
...J
0::
>,
......
c
~
0
()
'-
Q)
-
0
()
c
..r.~
-
rJ)
Q)
u
'-
~
0
rJ)
Q)
0::
~
~ ...
......
CO
Z
"
Q) Q)
0..<::
0_
"u ~
.~2~
<I) '" "
0<":0
~'"
ca.- ...;
E <I) "
Q) Q)
.r::;" E .
~VJ E
m'- Q, CO
..c-o,,-
"'- '"
Q)..c Q) 0
-->l...
e-ro~o.
ii.-=: 0 <t:
..o_en
..cctJQ).....J
~..c-o::
;;:~..o
en Q) ~
m= Q)
Q) " "
~"'-
ca c.. S
;;:1:--
~cam
~.~ ro
a.
~
lXl,
. ill "
..~.
ii.,,,
Ii ~
o_
w'
~ J~ ,I,
SIGN IN SHEET
Ron Hamel, Chair
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
~ MEMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
~
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
v
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
,//
V"
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
v
Public
Name
-;)pYvyJJG ~
''1<1-; 0 A-
i . ~
~ -1-( lA~kl I (j~,4 2s-"2..S-sV/
J7ji~e ~ UJ~ ~l ~
!)6/JA FIVA (lff-eli-{It~/3~,.cOJ1'J) Y3(J-Rk')/
J u.drl:;h.l:f~ ~ ~\ul:+Lr--"XK"- <2r:n,nc...-l rze{ (;f.;7e~ ,,3?r/- 7:;.:ul
kJ.I~k.-41/\ r:: 1~1hI (1/\1 -<.+le.n1j""1 0 d:Q~QN~ -8-<-1 --J-Z"1- / fl'z.3-'3Fri?-
n.e \J\DcdtMct.~ \"'^-t\.[.d."~ J dc.+eNtev-.;,u 7)-
'C )0 t
E-mail! Affiliation
Phone #
.:>aA
z..s 2. 232:~
7<0+ -
8E:r
fVi.lrP- ,r(} lu.f.lJ' l'"'t\ll~
\:::-r-IC ~-+O(~ €vv\shu~. ~~f h'Jv\tv,,(, (ijf'l1
17 YI1 Duf A a/lrJ l\J Il>biJltJ e
l--'L-rc:; L-l W 1'>[<' \-> ~ h r 1 ~ C L--p
/-1n drew //1 ((~/&k''-''11 '€.. L. 5cv {-
? Lj 41kc
6 q ~ '0)1.l)
Z.7~""r 4<1'5' IS""] 1
.;:2. 6 ~ - 630,-/
rr~
])MlE ,X6f=/EuO II71ll-~(/;(({(; L/1kvtl1- <37-65'"7-}~q
~(.f.N ~,.,...sS/;6~~ CIkF,: '11'19..s/.s,~o V~./..$.-2..,
,4~ 6c~ f -eel, v <~ ..J <:o'Y -?<:"/(' LJ ~~<;y r7y-.;zQ4.-
Ch(';~.h';'.. SPIw<.a'l'L co\l.~r lJ'~('~\.se-,) cJG./.<lt../'S'$
f\Ja~ ~\J~ Cf'';\I(A~ PI~',~ 7?7-)~4)
Q o.k\-+~ ~;/U,. c(.
~S~~
'i )0 Sc> ") (
~~c.( CXLG~~~ ..{.so;
95sEj
gto
o
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Ave Maria University, Town of Ave Maria, Florida, August 5,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted Business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Ave Maria University Academic
Building 07 Conference Room 5, 50505 Ave Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Fred Thomas
Tom Jones
Tammie Nemecek
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AlCP, Principal Planner, and Ekna Guevera,
Comprehensive Planning Department; Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist,
Environmental Services; Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney, Land Use Section, CWef,
CDES; and approximately 15 members ofthe public.
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM by Chairman Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Ron Hamel stated that the presentation by the Transportation Division to the Committee has
been postponed to Septemh,er 2 at his request. Mr. Cornell moved to approve the agenda as
presented, with the deletion of the presentation by the Transportation Division and seconded
by Mr. Farmer. .
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved
IV. Approval of Minutes of the July 15, 2008 Meeting
Mr. Cornell moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Ms. Nemecek.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved
~,cil
V. Presentations [none]
VI. Old Business
Mr. Greenwood referred to the following documents which were emailed and are in hard
copy for this meeting: I)Staff paper dated August 5 regarding Committee direction
regarding its remaining schedule and the format for the Phase 2 Report; 2) June 8 article
in the Naples Daily News comparing the projected development of the Town of Ave
Maria SRA with the actual development; 3) the DCA July 16, 2008 ORC report
regarding the Half Circle Ranch GMPA ["open" to "HSA"]; 4) email of July 30 from
Laura Roys regarding Policies 1.8 and 4.9; 5) August 5 memo from Staff regarding the
Florida Panther Protection Program and how it could fit within the Phase 2 Report; 6)
Stewardship Credit Worksheet; and 7) a staff working paper entitled, "RLSA at
Maturity" [as opposed to "build out"] since the RLSA will not be built out due the large
amounts of lands perpetually preserved through Stewardship E<l$ements approved as part
of Stewardship Sending Area Agreements.
Committee schedule The Review Committee unanimously approved the following
revisions to its schedule by voice vote, upon motion by Neno Spagna and second by
David Wolfley:
. Cancelled the August 26th meeting at CDES;
. Added the following meetings at CDES: September 16th, September 23rd, and
September 30th Remaining meetings are now September 2", September 16th,
September 23rd, September 30th and October 7th wrap up meeting.
Format of the Phase 2 Report The Committee unanimously approved fhe format only of
the Phase 2 Report such that the main section of the report [review ofthe Goal, Objective
and Policies] would be annotated with the public input, staff input, and committee action
information placcd at the back of the report, but referenced by page number under the
goal and each objecfive and policy. Motion by Fred Thomas and second by Floyd
Crews that the document by formatted this way and upon vote, the motion was approved
unanimously.
Florida Panther Protection Program Following discussion of the FPPP within the context
of the Phase 2 Report, a motion was made by Brad Cornell and seconded by Fred
Thomas that the FPPP be included, along with possible amendments to the RLSA
Overlay, within the Phase 2 Report. After much discussion, no action was taken.
A. Phase 2... Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship
Overlay [continuation]
Policv 1.8 AUl!ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, and upon mofion by Fred Thomas and second by Tom Jones
the Committee voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.8 unchanged.
Q<t'L
Policy 1.8
The natural resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource Index
(Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by objectively
measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each characteristic. The sum
of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used and the factors assigned thereto
were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the natural resource attributes of land within
the RLSA so that development could be directed away from important natural resources. The six characteristics
measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation, Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface
Water, Restoration Potential, and Land Use/Land Cover.
Policy 1.9 AUl!ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Bill McDaniel and second by Floyd Crews
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.9 unchanged.
Policy 1.9
A Natural Resource Index Map Series (Index Map Series) indicates the Natural Resource Stewardship Index value
for all land within the RLSA. Credits from any lands designated as SSAs, will be based upon the Natural Resource
Index values in effect at the time of designation. Any change in the Characteristics of land due to alteration of the
land prior to the establishment of a SSA that either increases or decreases any Index Factor will result in an
adjustment of the factor values and a corresponding adjustment in the credit value. The Index and the Index Map
Series are adopted as a part of the RLSA Overlay.
Discussion:
. Nicole Ryan stated that she is concerned that the map is outdated and needs to be updated;
. Mr. Jones stated that all SSAs submitted must present the most current information on each
specific SSA area at time of submittal and that Darrell Land stated that the county RLSA
mapping appears to be about 95% accurate.
. Mr. Cornell stated that the natural resource index map NRls in SSA is a good balance between
science, preservation policy and private property owner rights.
Policy 1.10 AUl!ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Fred Thomas and second by Brad Cornell
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.10 unchanged.
Policy 1.10
In SSAs, the greater the number of uses eliminated from the property, and the higher the natural resource value of
the land, the higher the priority for protection, the greater the level of Credits that are generated from such lands, and
therefore the greater the incentive to participate in the Stewardship Credit System and protect the natural resources
of the land.
Discussion: No discussion.
gcr~
Policy 1.11 AUI!Ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and sfaff the Committee, upon motion by Brad Cornell and second by Floyd Crews to
provide language in Policy 1.11 to require that SSAs, as a minimum remove all LDC land use
layers above agriculture. Upon vote, the motion failed 2-9 with Brad Cornell and Floyd Crews
voting in favor of the amendment. [Policy 1.11 remains unchanged.]
Policy 1.11
The Land Use Matrix, Attachment B, lists uses and activities allowed under the A, Rural Agricultural Zoning
District within the Overlay. These uses are grouped together in one of eight separate layers in the Matrix. Each
layer is discrete and shall be removed sequentially and cumulatively in the order presented in the Matrix, starting
with the residential layer (layer one) and ending with the conservation layer (layer eight). If a layer is removed, all
uses and activities in that layer are eliminated and arc no longer available. Each layer is assigned a percentage of a
base credit in the Worksheet. The assigned percentage for each layer to be removed is added together and then
multiplied by the Index value on a per acre basis to arrive at a total Stewardship Credit Value of the land being
designated as a SSA
Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded to recommend that the aquaculture be addressed in the
Land Development Code. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Thomas moved and Mr. Farmer seconded to send to the Technical Committee for study the idea of
moving earth mining to the top of the list of uses to be removed in the land use layers. The motion carried
10-1 with Mr. McDaniel voting against the motion.
Policy 1.12 AUl!ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Fred Thomas and second by Bill McDaniel,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.12 unchanged.
Policy 1.12
Credits can be transferred only to lands within the RLSA that meet the defined suitability_criteria and standards set
forth in Group 4 Policies. Such lands shall be known as Stewardship Receiving Areas or SRAs.
Policy 1.13 AUl!ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Fred Thomas and second by Gary Eidson,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.13 unchanged.
Policy 1.13
The procedures for the establishment and transfer of Credits and SRA designation are set forth herein and will also
be adopted as a part of a Stewardship District in the LDC (District). LDRs creating the District will be adopted
within one (I) year from the effective date of this Plan amendment.
Policy 1.14 AUl!ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Fred Thomas and second by Bill McDaniel,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.14 unchanged, with the exception of the correction so noted
with the strikethrough and underline.
8~Lf
Policy 1.14
Stewardship Credits will be exchanged for additional residential or non-residential entitlements in a SRA on a per
acre basis, as described in Policy +.+& 4.19. Stewardship density and intensity will thereafter differ from the
Baseline Standards. The assignment or use of Stewardship Credits shall not require a GMP Amendment.
Policy 1.15 AUl!Ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Fred Thomas and second by Tammie
Nemecek, voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.15 unchanged.
Policy 1.15
Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCe) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the
residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified
in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and
intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through
the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in
the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the lmmokalee Area
Master Plan.
Policv 1.16 AUl!ust 5, 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Bill McDaniel and second by Fred Thomas,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.16 unchanged.
Policy 1.16
Stewardship Receiving Areas will accommodate uses that utilize creative land use planning teclmiques and Credits
shall be used to facilitate the implementation of innovative and flexible development strategies described in Chapter
163.3177 (J I), F.S. and 91-5.006(5)(1).
Policv 1.17 AUl!ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Bill McDaniel and second by Fred Thomas,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.17 unchanged.
Policy 1.17
Stewardship Credits may be transferred between different parcels or within a single parcel, subject to compliance
with all applicable provisions of these policies. Residential clustering shall only occur within the RLSA through the
use of the Stewardship Credit System, and other forms of residential clustering shall not be permitted.
Policv 1.18 AUl!ust 5, 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Bill McDaniel and second by David Farmer,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.18 unchanged.
Policy 1.18
A blend of Local, State, Federal and private revenues, such as but not limited to Florida Forever, Federal and State
conservation and stewardship programs, foundation grants, private conservation organizations, local option taxes,
8crS
general county revenues, and other monies can augment the Stewardship program through the acquisition of
conservation easements, Credits, or land that is identified as the highest priority for natural resource protection,
including, but is not limited to, areas identified on the Overlay Map as Flow way Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat
Stewardship Areas (HSAs), Water Retention Areas (WRAs) and land within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State
Concern (ACSC).
Policy 1.19 AUl!:ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff fhe Committee, upon motion by Bill McDaniel and second by David Farmer,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.19 unchanged.
Policy 1.19
All local land or easement acquisition programs that are intended to work within the RLSA Overlay shall be based
upon a willing participant/seller approach. It is not the intent of Collier County to use eminent domain acquisition
within this system.
Policy 1.20 AUl!:ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon motion by Gary Eidson and second by Fred Thomas,
voted unanimously to leave Policy 1.20 unchanged.
Policy 1.20
The County may elect to acquire Credits through a publicly funded program, using sources identified in Policy 1.18.
Should the County pursue this option, it shall establish a Stewardship Credit Trust to receive and hold Credits until
such time as they are sold, transferred or otherwise used to implement uses within Stewardship Receiving Areas.
Policv 1.21 AUl!:ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among Committee, the public,
and staff the Committee, upon motion by Bill McDaniel and second by Fred Thomas, voted
unanimously to leave Policy 1.21 unchanged, with the exception of the minor corrections and
addition as annotated below.
Policy 1.21
The incentive based Stewardship Credit system relies on the projected demand for Credits As as the primary basis
for permanent protection of aericultural lands. flowways, habitats and water retention areas. The County recognizes
that there may be a lack of significant demand for Credits in the early years of implementation, and also recognizes
that a public benefit would be realized by the early designation of SSAs. To address this issue and to promote the
protection of natural resources, the implementation of the Overlay will include an early entry bonus to encourage the
voluntary establishment of SSAs within the RLSA. The bonus shaIl be in the form of an additional one Stewardship
Credit per acre of land designated as a HSA located outside of the ACSC and one-half Stewardship Credit per acre
ofland designated as HSA located inside the ACSC. The early entry bonus shall be available for five years from the
effective date of the adoption of the Stewardship Credit System in the LDC. The early designation of SSAs, and
resulting protection of flowways, habitats, and Water retention areas does not require the establishment of SRA.s or
otherwise require the early use of Credits, and Credits generated under the early entry bonus may be used after the
termination of the bonus period. The maximum number of Credits that can be generated under the bonus is 27,000
Credits, and such Credits shall not be transferred into or used within the ACSC.
Policy 1.22 AUl!:ust 5. 2008 Committee Action After discussion among the Committee, the
public, and staff the Committee, upon mofion by Fred Thomas and second by Bill McDaniel,
voted unanimously to recommend amendment of Policy 1.22 as annotated below.
8 <=j.. /p
Policy 1.22
The RLSA Overlay was designed to be a long-term strategic plan with a plaI1I1ing horizon Year of 2025. Many of
the tools, techniques and strategies of the Overlay are new, Innovative, incentive based, and have yet to be tested in
actual implementation. A comprehensive review of the Overlay shall be prepared for and reviewed by Collier
County and the Department of Connnunity Affairs u~en the five j'eur annivemary of the ade~tien ef the
Ste':..ard'rn~ DiotFiet in the LDC as part of the Evaluation and ApPraisal Report process. The purpose of the review
shall be to assess the participation in and effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meeting the Goal,
Objective and Policies set forth herein. The specific measures of review shall be as follows:
1. The amount and location of land designated as FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and other SSAs.
2. The amount and location ofland designated as SRAs.
3. The number of Stewardship Credits generated, assigned or held for future use.
4. A comparison of the amount, location and type of Agriculture that existed at the time of a Study and time of
reVIew.
5. The amount, location and type of land converted to non-agricultural use with and without participation in
the Stewardship Credit System since its adoption.
6. The extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources Local, State, Federal and private
revenues described in Policy 1.18.
7. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the Stewardship Credit System since
its adoption.
8. The potential for use of Credits in urban areas.
VII. New Business. Bill McDaniel asked staff to see whether Dr. Van Buskirk, a consultant
helping with the East of CR 951 Study, would be able to address the Committee at a
future meeting. [Mr. Bosi has been contacted relative to scheduling Dr. Van Buskirk for a
future Committee meeting.]
Tom Jones asked to have the Transportation Division presentation moved back from
September 2 meeting to the meeting where the Committee will be discussing Group 4
policies. Mr. Greenwood contacted Transportation on August 5th only to be advised that
September 2nd is likely the only date available because of Transportation's commitments
for BCC meetings and other pre-arranged meetings which conflict with the Committee's
schedule.
Brad Cornell requested Committee authorization for the Technical Committee to meet on
August 26th to address the land use hierarchy issue and the Policy 1.7 SRA issue.
VIII. Public Comments [none]
IX, Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on September 2, 2008, in Rooms
609/610 of the CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, in Naples, FI. from 9:00
A.M. - 12 Noon.
X. Adjournment
-gi7
Mr. Farmer moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. McDaniel with the motion
approved unanimously with adjournment at 12:01PM.
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
.,J
These minutes approved by the Committee ~~~ ~resented
or as amended KJ . Y
B9g-'
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: AUGUST 5. 2008
Ron Hamel, Chair
MEMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
R.i.!.
-iJ5.
6C"
:z. f" C
G, 6.
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
D.~
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
-r.-:s-
6. flA.
~h~
Lr~_
JL\L-
Bill McDaniel
Tammie Nemecek
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name E-mail I Affiliation
'TC?m ~~~AU6~
f t VY'~ G I ,p V'PA "c-,
- ~:~~~ ':; '~':
) (,L ~~~A(ir, cLy
-l-a U;' ic rlc\ \ \ '
)
E,<A,j~ -"1< . /S,U!. ~1 !u I
I-c.& {
Phone #
j
.
Q?;?
(btlClt )JII/;~
17m Dv.ha/r7
?tX)
tJiJt'S ~tJ1S
(JJ/!StJlll'1i//e/
(/:>1- ~,rr
(, ~'1- J.f 010
')
/
July 15, 2008 ( )
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
CDES, Naples, Florida, July 15,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A,M. in REGULAR SESSION at the CDES
Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609 - 610, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Fred Thomas
Tom Jones
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department:Nick Casalinguida, Director, Transportation Planning Department:
Michael Greene, Planning Manager, Transportation Planning Departmen: Laura Roys,
Senior Environmental Specialist, Environmental Services; Kirsten Wilkie, Environmental
Specialist, Environmental Services: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney, CDES:
Approximately IS members of the public
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM by Chairman Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. McDaniel.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved
IV. Approval of Minutes: July 1, 2008
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. McDaniel.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved
V. Presentations [none]
VI. Old Business
9o(
July 15, 2008
Committee term extension Mr. Greenwood reported the Board of County
Commissioners, by Resolution on June 10, extended the initial one-year term of the
Review Committee 6 months or until April 24, 2009. No action was taken.
Committee schedule Mr. Greenwood reported that the Committee schedule will
need to be modified slightly as follows due to recent information received following
distribution of the July 15 meeting agenda packet:
o Aug:ust 5 meeting:: Removal of Steve Siebert of the Century Commission from
the August 5 meeting agenda as he will not be able to address the Committee
until at least October. The consensus of the Committee was to remove Mr.
Siebert from the Committee's Schedule entirely.
o August 26 meeting: [now August 5 meeting): The Transportation Planning
Department would like to make a presentation to the Committee in further
detail regarding issues on Transportafion. The consensus of the Committee
was to add this presentation to the August 26 agenda.
No further action was taken.
Technical Committee Mr. Greenwood reported that the Transportation Planning
Department [Nick Casalanguida with Michael Greene as an alternate] would like to
serve on the Technical Committee. Brad Cornell asked if he might be able to serve
on this Committee. After discussion, a motion was made by Tom Jones and
seconded by Gary Eidson to include both Nick CasalinguidalMichaele Greene on the
Technical Committee and Brad Cornell and that all meetings of the Technical
Committee be properly advertised per the direction of Jeff Wright [minimum of 72
hours notice through the public information office and no need for Naples Daily
News advertisement]. Upon vote, the motion was carried unanimously by voice vote.
A. Phase 2... Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship
Overlay
Mr. Greenwood reported that the "Phase 2 Working Paper" has been modified for
Committee review and discussion as follows:
o Julv I. 2008 data received. The approximate 24 pages of additional
information received by the Committee for the first time on July I relative the
proposed Florida Panther Protection Program, additional agricultural
protection incentives, and comments from the Eastern Collier Property Owners
(ECPO) were incorporated within the report as appropriate, under specific
policies [no data or input was left out];
o Florida Panther Protection Program. Most of the substantive information
relative to the proposed Florida Panther Protection Program was placed
directly under the Group 3 objective [there may be a need to reference the
proposed Panther Protection Program under one or more existing Group 3
policies or under a new policy] and the Committee may well want to move this
information to a series of appendices at the end ofthe Phase 2 Report when the
Committee comes to Group 3 discussions because:
~OL
2
July 15, 2008
I. The proposed Panther Protection Program will likely have a different
and later time schedule for analysis, review and approval/disapproval
than the Phase 2 Report; and
2. The Panther Protection Program will not be administered through
Collier County.
o The Committee and those present were given or had available to them the
revised 73-page document as three hole punched.
Since the Committee had already taken action on June 17 on Policies 1.1 through 1.5, but
Eastern Collier Property Owners [ECPO] comments were received on July I relative to
Policies 1.2 and 1.4, the Committee briefly reviewed the ECPO comments relative to
Policies 1.2 and 1.4 and decided not to change the June 17 action of the Committee.
Policv 1.6 Committee Action After discussion among Committee members and after
hearing from the public and from staff, the Committee approved the proposed minor text
amendments as outlined below wifh no other changes upon motion by Fred Thomas,
second by Tom Jones, and voice vote, 10-0.
Policy 1.6
Stewardship Credits (Credits) are created from any lands within the RLSA that are to be kept in permanent
agriculture, open space or conservation uses. These lands will be identified as Stewardship Sending Areas
or SSAs. All privately owned lands within the RLSA are a candidate for designation as a SSA. Land
becomes designated as a SSA upon petition by the property owner seeking such designation and the
adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), which
acknowledges the property owner's request for such designation and assigns Stewardship Credits or other
compensation to the owner for such designation. Collier County will update the Overlay Map to delineate
the boundaries of each approved SSA. Designation as an SSA shall be administrative and shall not require
an amendment to the Growth Management Plan, but shall be retroactively incorporated into the adopted
Overlay Map during the EAR based amendment process when it periodically occurs. A Stewardship
Sendin1! Area Credit Agreement shall be developed that identifies those allowable residential densities and
other land uses which remain. Once land is designated as a SSA and Credits or other compensation is
granted to the owner, no increase in density or additional uses unspecified in the Stewardship Sendinl! Area
Credit Agreement shall be allowed on such property.
Policv 1.7 Committee Action After discussion among Committee members and after
hearing from the public and from staff [see discussions below], the Committee approved
the annotated amendments as shown below and Tom Jones and/or ECPO will come back
to fhe Committee af a later date with suggested language to amend Policy 1.7 which
would provide for the possibility of a conditional easement which would be placed on the
snbjecf property until such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which the credits from
the SSA will be applied and providing no action is taken prior to permitting that diminishes the
resource values on the SSA; at which point the easement becomes perrnanenf following a motion
by Tom Jones and second by Fred Thomas, 9-1 with Dave Wolfley voting in the minority. Mr.
Woljley stated that he would like to see the Department of Community Affairs [DCA] as a
signatory to the Easement Agreements.
702
3
'-~--'-"_._'--'-~--<-""""
July 15, 2008
Policy 1.7
The range of Stewardship Credit Values is hereby established using the specific methodology set forth on
the Stewardship Credit Worksheet (Worksheet), incorporated_herein as Attachment A This methodology
and related procedures for SSA designation will also be adopted as part of the Stewardship Overlay District
in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Such procedures shall include but _not be limited
to the following: (I) All Credit transfers shall be recorded with the Collier County Clerk of Courts; (2) a
covenant or perpetual restrictive easement shall also be recorded for each SSA, shall run with the land and
shall be in favor of Collier County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
De)3ar.meflt €If En"::i:renmeatal Preteetisn, De}3artmeRt sf ~\grie1:l11:lire aHa CSRStlffier Sen:iees, SSUdl FleriaB.
Water MaRagemeRt Distriet, or a roeGgRized otatcwide laRd trust; and (3) for each SSA, the Stewardship
Sendim! Area Credit Agreement will identify the specific land management measures that will be
undertaken and the party responsible for such measures.
Discussion
o Nicole Ryan stated that she would like to see the DCA as a signatory to the
perpetual restrictive easemenf since the DCA is involved wifh land uses.
o To'm Jones stated that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is
a regulatory agency and the RLSA program is mostly about preservation of
natural resources and agricultural lands and the DCA is involved in actions which
are the basis for the RLSA program and not involved in regulatory aspects of the
program.
o Brad Cornell stated that he would like to see item #5 under Policy 1.7 referred to
the Technical Committee and his motion and second by Fred Thomas did not
pass.
o Nicole Ryan stated that all issues listed in the Phase 2 Working Paper should be
dealt and not ignored.
o Bill McDaniel stated that the Committee's "read ahead" receipt of the Phase 2
Working Paper should be an indication that the Committee members have read
the documentation. Additionally, any further discussion during the Committee
meetings will be summarized in the minutes and also recorded verbatim.
o Brad Cornell sfated that all discussion should be considered, bofh verbal and
written.
o Tom Greenwood stated that the summary minutes are intended to capture all the
major points and discussions and all meetings are recorded.
o Mr. McDaniel stated that he did not want to see rebuttal statements within the
Phase 2 Working Paper, but it is OK to have them in the Committee minutes.
o Mr. Farmer stated that he would like to see Mark Strain updated on an on-going
basis as to the responses to his issues and comments to which other members
stated that they did not agree with this and pointed out that the Phase 2 Working
Paper is on the web site for review by all.
Policy 1.8 Committee Action After discussion among Committee, the public, and staff
the Committee, upon motion by Fred Thomas and second by Bill McDaniel voted
unanimously to leave Policy 1.8 unchanged, but to have the Engineering and
Environmental Services Department Staff provide at the August 5 meeting a detailed
analysis of their comments [#16 Environmental Services comments from page 74 of the
Phase 2 Working Paper] and possible impacts on the RLSA Overlay with the
90ct
4
July 15, 2008
understanding that the Committee may change its recommendation regarding Policy 1.8
during the course of its review of the entire RLSA Overlay.
Policy 1.8
The naturat resource value of land within the RLSA is measured by the Stewardship Natural Resource
Index (Index) set forth on the Worksheet. The Index established the relative natural resource value by
objectively measuring six different characteristics of land and assigning an index factor based on each
characteristic. The sum of these six factors is the index value for the land. Both the characteristics used
and the factors assigned thereto were established after review and analysis of detailed information about the
natural resource attributes of land within the RLSA so that development could be directed away from
important natural resources. The six characteristics measured are: Stewardship Overlay Designation,
Sending Area Proximity, Listed Species Habitat, Soils/Surface Water, Restoration Potential, and Land
Use/Land Cover.
Discussion
o Brad Cornell stated that the RLSA program is doing what it is intended to
do.. .protect the environmentally sensitive lands and agricultural lands by using an
incentive based sysfem rather than a regulatory system.
Mr. Farmer stated that he somewhat agrees with Mr. Cornell's statement but has
some reservations about providing incentives [credits] on lands, because of their
nature, are not likely to be developed anyway.
Kirsten Wilkie stated that she would like to have item #16 on page 74
[Environmental comments] placed under Policy 1.8. The Committee agreed and
asked Environmental Services to provide some analysis of their suggestions
during the August 5 regular meeting. Laura Roys stated that the staff suggestions
would result in a change to the NRI scores.
Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy would like to have the Natural Resource
Index mapping updated.
Tom Jones stated that Darrell Land of fhe Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission [spoke to the Committee on June 3] stated that the NRI used for
Collier County is about 95% accurate and closely matches that in his use.
Judy Hushon stated that the NRI needs to be updated.
Tom Jones stated that each SSA and SRA application is accompanied by the most
current FLUCCS maps and listed species and prepared by licensed professionals
and are site specific.
Tim Durham stated that the Committee needs to focus on the big picture. Darrell
Land stated that Collier County mapping and NRI is 95% consistent with his
information. The GPS study of collared Panthers indicates where the cats are
traveling day and night and there is little difference between their travel habits
from day and night.
David Farmer questioned why an NRI of 1.2 was used rather than I. I or 1.3 and
whether there were ever any maps developed which showed the differences in
"Open" lands using these two alternatives.
Tim Durham stated that there were many computer/GIS runs on these and other
alternative NRI cut-off scenarios and the 1.2 seemed to be the most appropriate
score to use.
Brad Cornell made a motion and seconded by Fred Thomas to refer Policies 1.8
and 1.9 to the Technical Committee as well as the Environmental and
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 0
0
0
cros
5
July 15,2008
Transportation issues. After further discussion by the Committee, and a reminder
by Tom Jones and Neno Spagna that these items have not come to the
Committee and they felt uncomfortable about having the Technical Committee
make recommendations before the Committee has thoroughly vetted it, the
motion failed/withdrawn.
VII. New Business [none]
VIII. Public Comments [none]
IX. Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on August 5, 2008, at Ave
Maria University from 9:00 A.M. - 12 Noon.
X. Adjournment
Mr. Farmer moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. McDaniel with the
motion approved unanimously with adjournment at 12:01 PM.
eview Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on
presented I./.-.-- or as amended
Q- s ar
as
~,c~
~JhC~CLXJ
76'=
6
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: JULY 15.2008
/
~EMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
\V1I II {/
'J .
Ron Hamel, Chair
Nena Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
~o--' C DI' f If c: t-
\
O~
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
,/
Bill McDaniel
v
Tanunie Nemecek
/~
../~,< iv1
r~ i
V~ \
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
~
;.; -nPS 0a?7~
- \ (1{ (11'1 'fY\ I gud
~jlef tlucl:,!
f1 If& ~
~ . .Jt1t\ I ~?)
11M OV, 0h1
\", ,,: t ':::tOY J~\
. ~ \......... 0 v',
\Y\ l/:.f-I'\6( G- \Z.<.'-'E u c"
<!k{
E-mail / Affiliation
Phone #
~I~/l'/. Z ')2:- Zs23
, C\ ,qev, /J't!'f ,-
~^ ,C)'\H 1 ~VV'i'-,-?AlI1Pv.....' 't1J,-Z\.tJ ?,-Lj ~2S
-:e....'l., -) ,/A.J. (If-I! ::I r~- Jo<-O i 0
I j; L;-If)J1 rv1lU~
If
,f
Ci
b~)-j-/J3
Y7 ,..;;j'lrjC-.:L'=,..AH 1'1'-'\'Tr.....,rr~~t-T~ (3, .:.f<,5 ""'=-7<)
CCL.l'C.'TJ=>$ ,~
70)
It l Q 12'1;1.)o(;(O.s,
do
WI L SU, ) fA ILtvt/l
- --
90ct
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
July 1, 2008
C6
Ave Maria, Florida, July 1,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the
Ave Maria University Academic Building 07 Conference Room 5,5050 Ave
Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Floyd Crews
Tammie Nemecek
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Fred Thomas, Jr.
Tom Jones
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist, Engineering
and Environment Services Department
Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist, Engineering and
Environment Services Department
Approximately 25 members of the public
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM by Chairman Hamel.
11. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established. Nine members were present
Ill. Approval of Agenda
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the agenda as presented, Second by Mr. Farmer.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 9-0.
9/Yf
July 1,2008
IV. Approval of Minutes: June 17,2008
Mr. Eidson stated that the minutes did not properly reflect what he stated under Item 5B
which was the question of whether development determines road planning or development or
vice versa, Mr. Greenwood stated that he would review the recording and amend the minutes
appropriately.
Mrs. Roys stated that in her comments on Item VI. Old Business, RLSAO Plan - Policy 1.2,
the minutes should read: "that it was true that each development requires providing the most
current environmental data available for the analysis."
Mr. Eidson moved to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2008 committee meeting, as
amended, Second by Mr. Thomas. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 9-0,
V. Presentations
1. Proposed Florida Panther Mitigation Program and Effects Upon the Collier County
Rural Land Stewardship Area Program.
Ms. Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, introduction the proposed Florida Panther
Mitigation Program, She stated that this proposed program was developed through the
collaboration of the following organizations and landowners: Audubon of Florida, Collier
County Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Florida Wildlife Federation, Alico Land
Development Corporation, Barron Collier Partnership, Collier Enterprises, Consolidated
Citrus LP, English brothers, Half Circle L Ranch Partnership, Pacific Tomato Growers
Ltd" and Sunniland Family Limited Partnership. She added that the goal was to try to
develop an environmentally and economically balanced program, through an incentive-
based land use program. The proposed program would secure a contiguous range of
panther habitat connecting the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress
National Preserve through Camp Keais strand and the Okalaocoochee Slough with
Corkscrew Marsh and adjacent lands in the region. She stated that the proposed Florida
Panther Mitigation Program includes both suggested adjustments to the innovative
Collier RLSA program and additional components
Ms. Laurie Macdonald, Defenders of Wildlife stated that, from her experience, she has
seen a fragmentation problem on the Scientific Technical Review Committee that will be
evaluating the data behind the proposed objectives of the plan. The Scientific Technical
Review Committee will be comprised of 6 respected biologists and scientists with
expertise pertaining to the Florida Panther. She stated that the Scientific Technical
Review Committee's purpose is to evaluate whether the proposed program will
contribute to the overall protection, management and recovery of the Florida Panther.
The Scientific Technical Review Committee is expected to complete its study within six
months.
Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Partnership stated that, if consensus can be reached at
the end of the review process, the Eastern Lands Property Owners and Conservation
Organizations will enter into a binding agreement and hopefully receive a
recommendation of approval from the RLSA 5- Year Review Committee, Environmental
Advisory Council, and the Collier County Planning Commission for the adoption of
portions of the plan into the RLSA Overlay, the Growth Management Plan, and the Land
Development Code by the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that components
9/0
2
July I, 2008
of the plan consist of funding, additional mitigation, north and south panther corridors,
agricultural preservation, and other RLSA Components. The Funding component
proposes to include: $75.00 per Panther Habitat Unit (PHU) required by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, For a project on the scale of Ave Maria, which generated
45,000 PHUs, $3,375,000,00 would have been generated. A Transfer Fee is also
proposed for development within the RLSA. The amount of the fee is proposed at this
time to be $250.00. These proposed funding sources would be used for added mitigation
actions (revegetation, habitat enhancement, panther crossings, etc.) An estimated
$150,000,000,00 could be generated by 2050, which would be administered by the
Wildlife Foundation of Florida, an independent nonprofit tax exempt entity. The
Additional Mitigation component included requirements of an additional 25% mitigation
for development impact to primary panther habitat. The North and South Panther
Corridors included restoration credits to create, enhance and restore a northern cOlTidor,
which would run east-west across State Roads 82 and 29 north of Immokalee and
connecting Camp Keais Strand and Okalaocoochee Slough, and a southern corridor,
which would run north-south from Oil WeIl Road (County Road. 858) to State Road 29
and connecting Florida Panther National Wildlife Protection Area to the Okalaocoochee
Slough. The Agricultural Preservation component consisted of creating agriculture
preservation credits within the Rural Land Stewardship Area, with the goal of assuring
agricultural lands can be protected for future generations and reduce development
pressures within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC).
Other Proposed RLSA Components:
· Hamlets will be eliminated as a form of SRA,
· Towns shaIl not exceed 5,000 acres,
· Outside the ACSC, Villages shaIl not exceed 1,500 acres. Within the ACSC, the
current standards shaIl apply to ViIlages.
· Compact Rural Development (CRD) shall include as a permitted use eco-tourism
lodging, recreational hunting and fishing enterprises, and family homesteads for
the Rural Landowners,
· A concept is being discussed which would create a mechanism to ensure that
when a landowner establishes an SSA, a "conditional easement" is placed on the
subject property until such time as all permits are in hand for the SRA to which
the credits from the SSA wiIl be applied and providing no action is taken prior to
permitting that diminishes the resource values on the SSA; at which point the
easement becomes permanent.
The estimated maximum SRA development foot print would be 45,000 acres [versus
approximately 30,000 acres under the current credit system] of the total 195,000 acre area
of the RLSA. Mr. Jones stated that the property owners have been working with the
County Transportation Planning Department for the potential roadway improvements
within the RLSA, and the foIlowing projects were discussed:
· The State Road 82/29 road around Immokalee
· An Immokalee Road extension east to SR 29
· An north and south extension of Little League Road from SR 82 to Immokalee
Road (CR 858)
9tJ
3
July I, 2008
Comments from the Committee
Mr. Eidson stated that the benefits of this proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan goes
beyond just the panthers, but will be a benefit to the entire eco-system. He questioned if
the plan would reflect what the human impact would be, Mr. Jones stated that that
would be looked at and the data and analysis would be provided. At this time he stated
that the maximum development impact would be approximately 45,000 acres with a
residential density of 2-3 dwelling units per acre (90,000 - 135,000 dwelling units) with
2.38 persons per dwelling unit that equates to approximately 214,200 - 321,300 persons,
He further stated that the proposed adjustments are believed to provide the needed steps
to make the RLSA sustainable.
Mr. Thomas stated that people are concerned if there will be enough potable water to
support any new growth in this area, He stated that the developments will have to be
designed with a deep well system using reverse osmosis,
Mr. Eidson stated that the property owners with small acreage totals need to be
addressed, He is very supportive of the concept of creating a program to preserve
agricultural land.
Ms. Nemecek suggested that the transfer fees and other fees be fixed to a standard
inflation rate index. Mr. Jones agrecd.
Mr. Farmer questioned if the science would be completed within the time frame of the
completion of the RLSA 5- Year Review, Mr. Jones stated that he would hope that it
would, and that the RLSA 5- Year Review Committee would have time to make a
recommendation for the BCC.
Mr. Wolfley stated that he was in agreement of eliminating the "Hamlet" development
standards.
Mr. Hamel called for a 10 minute meeting recess at 10:40 AM.
Mr. Hamel "Called the Meeting to Order" at 10:50 AM,
Mr. Farmer stated that a lot of materials have been presented to the Committee, and that
he would recommend that these materials include a summary and that a sufficient number
of copies be available to the public,
Mr. Hamel stated that copies of the 1000 Friends of Florida letter and the letter from
DCA to Mr. Reese are available on the table, Mr. Greenwood stated that Mrs, Jenkins
had copies of the letter to him from Mr. Varnadoe,
Comments from the Floor
Mr. McElwaine, Conservancy of South West Florida, reminded the Committee is tasked
to review the existing plan's policy. He stated that although he had not had time to
review the various points in the handout that was presented today, he was concerned that
there would be a greater development footprint impact than is being suggested, He stated
that he hopes that the Committee fully assess the impact to all of Collier County by these
proposals. He urged caution.
q ,'2-
4
July I, 2008
Mr. Thomas responded that there is a need to preserve people and suggested that the
Committee consider allowing for the increase in density in SRAs.
Mr. Jackalone, Sierra Club, stated that the Sierra Club was not a part of the planning
process of the proposed Florida Panther Protection Plan. The Sierra Club agrees with
DCA that increasing the development area is not acceptable, and the impacts from
transportation have not been addressed. He stated that the Collier RLSA Plan is of
national importance. It is a model that is being looked at by other counties in Florida as
well. He suggested that the National Academy of Science review the proposed Florida
Panther Protection Plan,
Mrs. Hushon, EAC Member, stated that the Committee should require the Panther Study
to include an expanded sample to include interviews with property owners and fann
workers, and the uses of additional night sensory cameras to determine to the best of their
ability where the balance of the other 2/3 of the Florida Panther population is located.
She also suggested that the persons involved in developing the proposed FPPP work
together with the Habitat Conservation Planning Committee. She also stated that she
questioned increasing density in development in the RLSA
Mr. Hamel, asked the Committee as to their wishes in regards to the proposed FPPP?
Mr. Thomas made a motion that the staff incorporate the items raised by the materials
presented in the proposed FPPP into the appropriate Policies within the RLSA working
draft plan, Mrs. Nemecek seconded the motion. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 9-
O. Mr. Hamel directed staff to contact the County Attorney to get direction on how to cut
off materials received from the public, so that the Committee can move forward with
completing their task in the time frame that they have to work with.
VI. Old Business
None
VII. New Business
None
VII. Public Comments
None
IX. Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on July 15, 2008, at CDES, Room
609/610 at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, from 9:00 AM. - 12 Noon.
X. Adjournment
Mr. Farmer moved to adjourn the meeting, Second by Mr. Thomas. Voice Vote _
Unanimously Approved 9-0, Adjournment 12:00PM,
9/3
5
July 1,2008
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
Ron Hamel, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Committee on
as presented or as amended
9) y~
6
2'2--2 -~C)</7
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: JULY 1.2008
Ron Hamel, Chair
/ MEMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
/
/
/'
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
/
/
/
/
~/
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Tanunie Nemecek
Fred N, Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name
~;; . ;-~
,(,~l r1 lAc -
E-mail / Affiliation Phone #
''^'^~ ~-~.~
..--
.~
.~
Z-b "1
~
{ /t,~,.,t1'i. f fl4K S
~yfo-, ~~
IV 1,.l S tJ,,~y-
9/S
2-3y. (,H.~aL
Q.. v -I... 'S{",,,,,,J, vJ 2n- 76/.5
~e~&o/k~M
7d-;-8: d-Cf- g g( ) Gyf )DJ
C:'9rtvo. C LLtL
7d7~&d J~
M~'fe 2.::j--?2~--3n
- ~r')~ 1/7
c/~~S'b':rn{~ ~~'7~S'A0J" SC3?-/S.2.r
~ ~-ro~o~ t~ 0<;L~. 3&fO-'8z:z0
Ch,..':ih;.... <..'}, W<' uYL i:" Ijc.r !S-nl-c/'f''''~ ~ .:2.l.. 1- "'1....(S.5
Af2.6f(?{( /'1'C/L.., Ii, CUi) 'K.(l{(/7C 'I Vc'$' r.; _~ /{'l
/ J)/fttJE ~PI&UJ /-I;4I..F CWCu= LIefJ1JClf @3<r) GSr 34 [) (
t::.rfC (to-A/J fvO(kr D{).J.17{;V.e~ /bf- lftX U
I.' I u:- Tt' ,,12 y j,' _ 1 _ /
I l-h A W/3, ;/;lr-UJ'J?-7 239-649- olj[)
~ ~ 6\111 SvLS /UAh~ ?3Q-,;LS'J..-d.-1:?3
M~<.. l,tJ.L " '),.)2..-~'fn
7Jb
June 17, 2008 i L
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
CDES, Naples, Florida, June 17, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the
CDES Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609 - 610, Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Tammie Nemecek (10:15)
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Jim Howard
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Michael Greene, Planning Manager, Transportation Planning
Department
Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist, Engineering and
Environment Services Department
Approximately 15 members of the public
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM by Chairman HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Farmer moved to approve the agenda as presented, Second by Mr. McDaniel.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 7-0,
9/7
1
June 17, 2008
Mr. McDaniel moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to not
replace the vacant committee position created by Mr. Nance's resignation, Second by Mr.
Eidson. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 7-0,
IV. Approval of Minutes: June 3, 2008
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2008 committee meeting, as
presented, Second by Mr. Howard. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 7-0,
V. Presentations
A. Robert L. Duane, AICP. Hole Montes on behalf of Half Circle L Ranch Partnership.
Mr. Greenwood read the transcript of the Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) action
taken during the April 29 transmittal hearing for the Growth Management Plan
Amendment (GMPA) Petition CP-2006-JO, regarding re-designation of 2,431.8 acres of
land under the RLSAO from an "Open" to a "Habitat Stewardship Area" classification.
He stated the BCC requested that the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Committee
review, "as to how they see this fitting into the overall picture as a side note for us to
consider at the time of adoption."
Mr. Duane stated that this GMPA is currently under review at the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). He stated the SSA-8 was approved previously, but due to
high quality of environmental characteristics for this property, they were proposing the
re-designation of 2,431.8 acres ofland from an "Open" to a "Habitat Stewardship Area"
(HSA) classification. The re-designation not only would generate a potential of 7,306
additional stewardship credits, but will preserve the 2,431.8 acres as HSA and restrict the
use of that area to Natural Resource Index (NRI) Agricultural R-l, Agricultural R-2, and
Conservation land uses.
Mr. Wolfley inquired as to the reason for the petition, Mr. Duane stated that the property
owner is attempting to secure the most stewardship credits that his property could
generate.
Mr. Spagna questioned that part of this property is located in Henry County, to the west,
and what were the plans for the use of that property. Mr. Duane stated that Henry
County does not currently have a Rural Lands Stewardship Area Plan as Collier County
has, but the property will be continued to be used for agricultural purposes,
Mr. McDaniel inquired if property owners could come back for additional credits as is
being proposed through this petition, Mr. Greenwood stated that they can,
Mr. Schofield, Property Owner, stated that this property is their family farm, They were
not actively involved with the initial RLSAO plan in 2003. He is not sure what the future
of farming will be for is family on this property, but was very interested in securing all of
the stewardship credits available on this property,
Mr. Farmer questioned if this action was an example of premature conversion, as warned
against within the goal of the RLSAO plan, Mr. Schofield stated that his family is not
proposing any modification of the land use of this property at this time. If the
amendment was approved, and if they prepared a restoration plan, they would be eligible
for stewardship credits,
Mr. Farmer questioned why a density of 4 residential units per acre was used in the
application in determining the potential total residential load, when greater residential
densities should be associated with the compact development in the RLSAO. Mr.
9/~
2
June 17, 2008
Greenwood stated that base density for the underlying zoning is one dwelling unit per 5
acres. The RLSAO plan provides for a gross maximum density of four units per acre.
Ave Maria's density was approved at 2.2 units per acres.
Mr. Eidson questioned how this petition impacts transportation in this area. Mr.
DeRuntz stated that, based on Policy 4.14, each Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) is
required to be located on a collector or arterial road or the developer is responsible for
constructing their access road. Each SRA will be analyzed and required to meet
transportation concurrency.
Mr. Howard moved that the Committee recommend to the BCC that GMP A Petition CP-
2006-10 (Half Circle L Ranch) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the RLSAO,
and that Mr. Greenwood should prepare a memo for the BCC reflecting the committee's
action, Second by Mr. McDaniel. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 7-0,
B. Mike Greene - Collier County Transportation Development Trends in the RLSA
Mr. Greene briefed the committee on Transportation Planning's efforts with evaluating
the transportation needs in the RLSA. They have evaluated the proposed future needs
and, to meet these needs the county, it is estimated to that the cost will exceed the 10
Year plan by $2 billion dollars, Currently road construction and maintenance have
limited funding, and it is imperative the developers work with the county with
transportation impacts on existing roadways. He added that the county can react to
density (such as a new town in the RLSA), but is harder to react to sprawl (such as in
Golden Gate Estates). Interconnections between SRAs are very important, and will be
considered during each SRA application review.
Mr. McDaniel questioned, citing the state mandated reductions in revenue and the
downturn in the economy and development, where the funds are to come from for needed
improvements in the County's Roadway System, Mr. Greene reiterated the importance of
the public/private partnerships in addressing these needs.
Mr. Eidson asked Mr. Greene if roads should come before development or if the
development determines the road needs, Mr. Greene stated that development generally
determines the timing and character of the roads being developed because growth pays
for growth since so much of the cost of funding roads comes from impact fees, Mr.
Greene stated that there is a county-wide roads plan but the exact timing of construction
is based upon needs and availability of funding as compared with other projects listed in
the capital improvement element of the Growth Management Plan. There is a
requirement for concurrency with respect to new developments and, in the RLSAO
Policy 4.14 provides guidance for road construction,
Mr. Eidson asked if the Transportation Planning Department included rail transportation
in their analysis. Mr. Greene stated that rail planning falls under State and Federal
Transportation Planning Agencies. He added that the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) incorporate these issues while taking a global perspective,
Mr. Farmer stated that it is imperative that the future SRAs share the costs of roadway
improvements as well as incorporating roadway and multi-modal interconnections. He
hoped that the Transportation Planning Department would be able to provide a map
showing potential roadway networks for the RLSA. He also recommended that the
Transportation Planning Department talk with the land owners in the RLSA to initiate
those public and private partnerships.
9/9
3
June 17, 2008
Mrs. Hushon, Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) agreed that a map depicting
future roadway would be extremely helpful in helping to meet the needs for the
development ofthis area.
VI. Old Business
A. Phase 2... Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship
Overlay
Mr. Greenwood asked the committee to review the "Technical Committee Operating
Procedure" outline that he had prepared following the June 3 meeting discussion of the need
for such a committee and any additions or corrections.
Mr. Hamel asked if Ms, Jenkins and Mr. Durham, with WilsonMiller, were representing the
property owners on this committee, They indicated that they were.
Mr. Farmer stated that he would be interested in attending these Technical Committee
meetings.
Mr. McDaniel moved to appoint Mr. Farmer to the Technical Committee as the RLSAO
Committee representative, Second by Mr. Howard. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 8-
0,
Mr. Hamel called for a ten minute recess,
The meeting was called to Back of Order at 10:50 AM.
RLSAO Plan - Goal [A copy of the preliminary RLSAO changes agreed to during the
June 17 meeting are attached.]
Mr. Greenwood reviewed the public comments.
Mr. Wolfley stated that there seems to be an imbalance of area and steps for protection
between the agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas,
Mr. McDaniel moved to keep the wordage change from "premature" to "retain", to better
describe the intent of the Goal, Second by Mr. Eidson. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved
8-0.
Ms. Hushon suggested that the term "utilize" should be replaced with "employs,"
Mr. Eidson moved to confirm the committee's previous action, with the addition of the
change from "utilize" to "employs," by retaining the existing language as sufficiently
addressing the public comments, Second by Mr. Farmer. Voice Vote - Unanimously
Approved 8-0.
RLSAO Plan - Obiective
Ms. Hushon suggested some grammatical revisions to separate the description of the various
Groups into individual sentences,
Mr. McDaniel moved to accept the recommended grammatical changes, Second by Mr.
Spagna. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 8-0,
RLSAO Plan - Policv 1.1
9;;:;0
4
June 17,2008
Ms. Hushon suggested some grammatical reVISIOns to add the Letter "s" to the words
"contribute," "protect," and "enhance" to keep the same tense as the work "uses", and to
hyphenate the phrase "community-based,"
Mr. McDaniel moved to accept the recommended grammatical changes, Second by Mr.
Eidson. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 8-0,
RLSAO Plan - Policy 1.2
Mr. Greenwood reviewed the public comments.
Mr. McDaniel stated that he understood that each development was responsible to meet the
State and Federal environmental regulations.
Mrs. Roys, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Environmental Services Department,
stated that it was true that each development is required to provide the most currents
environmental data available for the analysis,
Ms. Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, questioned how the County "complementing"
existing local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs?
Ms. Nemecek moved to retain the existing language for it sufficiently addresses the public
comments, Second by Mr. McDaniel. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 8-0,
RLSAO Plan - Policy 1.3
Mr. Spagna moved to retain the existing language, Second by Ms. Nemecek. Voice Vote-
Unanimously Approved 8-0.
RLSAO Plan - Policy 1.4 & 1.5
Mr. Greenwood reviewed the public comments.
Ms. Payton expressed her concern about the development of the areas between SRAs, She
stated that development in these areas should be restricted similar to that provided for in the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use Area,
Mr. McDaniel stated that he was not supportive of taking a property owner's development
rights away. The base agricultural zoning allows for I dwelling unit per five acres.
Mr. Eidson suggested that those areas could be used as "Victory Gardens" outside the SRAs.
This could be something that could be facilitated with the establishment of agricultural
incentives for open classified areas.
Ms. Hushon stated that she agreed with this concept and emphasized the importance of trying
to keep these areas as buffers,
Mr. Standridge stated that there is lack of a vehicle by which small acreage property owners
can participate in the RLSAO Plan, He suggested that the County could serve as a "clearing
house" for the small acreage property owners,
Mr. Eidson stated that this is something which the Committee may want to take into
consideration when they look into the "Agricultural Policies."
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve Policies 1.4 and 1.5 with the staff corrections, and to
reconsider the recommendations for the County serving as a "clearing house" for the small
acreage property owners and establishment of agricultural incentives for open classified areas
7:2/
5
,une 17.2008
when the Committee is reviewing Group 2 policies, Seconded by Mr. Eidson, Voice Vote-
Unanimously Approved 8-0
VI. New Business
None
VII. Public Comments
None
IX. Next Mt'ding
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will bc held on July 1, 2008, at Ave Maria from 9:00
A.M. - 12 Noon.
X. Adjournment
Mr. Farmer moved to adjourn the meeting, Second by Mr. McDaniel. Voice Vote _
Unanimously Approved 8-0. Adjournment 12:01PM
Area Review Committee
These minutes approved by the committe~
as presented or as amended ,
Z -j-a{
Attachment: RLSAO Plan 6/17/08 preliminary RLSA Overlay revisions
7;;)'~
6
June 17,2008
Attachment
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlav
Goal
Collier County seeks to address the long-term needs of residents and property owners
within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural
Area Assessment. Collier County's goal is to proteet retain land for agricultural activities,
to preyeHt tile premature eOHversioH of agrieulturallaHd to HOH agrieultural uses, to direct
incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat
connectivity. to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations,
to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utilizes emplovs creative
land use planning techniques and throul!h the use of established incentives.
Public Input:
I, The Governor's order was aimed at creating a balance between Agriculture, development and
environmentally sensitive land. What ended with up is a plan that can create an imbalance as the
program is geared to produce more environmentally set aside land and development and greatly
reduces agriculture. This will result in Agriculture being pushed further out and destroying more
pristine systems under the auspices of the Right to Farm Act.[Mark Strain],
Staff Comments:
I, This is considered a major amendment. The elimination of the word "premature" from the
goal may seem like an innocuous change, However, this proposed deletion of "premature" raises
a flag because the existing phrase has its genesis in the Final Order No, AC-99-002 of the
Administrative Commission and is the basis for the current RLSA Overlay which was initiated
prior to the enactment of the State RLSA Program, Any step perceived as undoing the Final
Order-based GMPAs (established in the RLSA and RFMUD) might cause issue at Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), especially if DCA is leaning towards trying to make Collier County's
RLSA subject to compliance with statutory RLSA provisions,
June 17. 2008 Committee Action:
The above proposed draft amendments are based upon an email received from Review Committee
member Tom Jones on March 28, 2008, distributed to Committee members on March 28, and
preliminarily approved during the April I, 2008 Committee meeting, The Committee position is that the
word "premature" cannot be defined for use in the RLSA Overlay and should be stricken, Additionally,
there was one granunatical correction to the Policy, The Committee revisited the staff's comments and
that the proposed amendments would strengthen rather than weaken the RLSAO.
Objective
To meet the Goal described above, Collier County's objective is to create an incentive based land
use overlay system, herein referred to as the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay, based on the principles of rural land stewardship as defined in Chapter 163.3177(11),
F.S, The Policies that will implement this Goal and Objective are set forth below in groups
relating to each aspect of the Goal. Group I policies describe the structure and organization of
the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Group 2 policies relate to agriculture.
Group 3 policies relate to natural resource protection, and ~ Group 4 policies relate to conversion
9~
7
June 17, 2008
of land to other uses and economic diversification. Group 5 are regulatory policies that ensure
that land that is not voluntarily included in the Overlay by its owners shall nonetheless meet the
minimum requirements of the final Order pertaining to natural resource protection,
Public Input: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown.
Staff Comments: no comments
June 17. 2008 Committee Action: Proposed grammatical recommendations as shown were approved by
the Committee,
Group 1 - General purpose and structure of the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay
Policy 1.1
To promote a dynamic balance of land uses in the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA)
that collectively contribute~ to a viable agricultural industry, protect~ natural resources, and enhance~
economic prosperity and diversification, Collier County hereby establishes the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay (Overlay), The Overlay was created through a collaborative community:based planning
process involving county residents, area property owners, and representatives of community and
governmental organizations under the direction of a citizen oversight committee,
Public Input: Minor grammatical recommendations are shown.
Staff Comments:
June 17. 2008 Committee Action: Proposed grammatical recommendations as shown were approved by
the Committee.
Policy 1.2
The Overlay protects natural resources and retains viable agriculture by promoting compact rural mixed-
use development as an alternative to low-density single use development, and provides a system of
compensation to private property owners for the elimination of certain land uses in order to protect natural
resources and viable agriculture in exchange for transferable credits that can be used to entitle such
compact development. The strategies herein are based in part on the principles of Florida's Rural Lands
Stewardship Act, Chapter 163,3177(11) F,S, The Overlay includes innovative and incentive based tools,
techniques and strategies that are not dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing
local, regional, state and federal regulatory programs.
Public Input:
I, The intent of Policy 1.2 is to create, "techniques and strategies that are not
dependent on a regulatory approach, but will complement existing local, regional,
state and federal regulatory programs." The compatibility of the RLSA to
regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, must
be assessed during the five-year review and changes made where necessary to
ensure compatibility, In addition, if new agency data is obtained or new
regulations are enacted, the RLSA should be reassessed and amended at that time,
not waiting for another five-year review process.[Conservancy], Laura Roys stated that the most
recent available data is required and usually is less than one (I) year old and Environmental Services
checks for this as well as all required federal and state pennits,
2. Clarify how RLS interacts with state and federal permitting agencies [FWF]. The Committee was
informed that all pennits must be obtained regardless of whether or not a project is in the
RLSAO.
/ ;;;. 'f
8
June 17,2008
Staff Comments: No comments,
June 17. 2008 Committee Action: To retain the existing language which sufficiently addresses the
public comments,
Policy 1.3
This Overlay to the Future Land Use Map is depicted on the Stewardship Overlay Map (Overlay Map)
and applies to rural designated lands located within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier
County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment referred to in the State of Florida Administration
Commission Final Order No. AC-99-002. The RLSA generally includes rurallands in northeast Collier
County lying north and east of Golden Gate Estates, north of the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve, south of the Lee County Line, and south and west of the
Hendry County Line, and includes a total of approximately 195,846 acres, of which approximately
182,334 acres is privately owned, The Overlay Map is an adopted overlay to the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM),
Public Input: No public discussion was held,
Staff Comments: No comments.
June 17. 2008 Committee Action: The Committee recommended no change to this policy.
Policy 1.4
Except as provided in Group 5 Policies, there shall be no change to the underlying density and intensity of
pennitted uses of land within the RLSA, as set forth in the Baseline Standards, as defined in Policy l.s,
unless and until a property owner elects to utilize the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System. It is
the intent of the Overlay that a property owner will be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and
protection of important agricultural and natural resources. Compensation to the property owner shall
occur through one of the following mechanisms: creation and transfer of Stewardship Credits, acquisition
of conservation easements, acquisition of less than fee interest in the land, or through other acquisition of
land or interest in land through a willing seller program.
Public Input:
I, What happens to baseline density . should disappear as in Rural Fringe TDR program [FWF]
Note: Also related to policy 1.5.
Staff Comments: No comments.
June 17, 2008 Committee Action: The Committee position is that property owners must have the ability
to use their properties and that the baseline density should not disappear but that the Committee would
study providing incentives for retaining agricultural uses,
Policy 1.5
As referred to in these Overlay policies, Baseline Standards are the pennitted uses, density, intensity and
other land development regulations assigned to land in the RLSA by the GMP Growth Manal!ement Plan
(GMP1, Collier County Land Development Regulations and Collier County Zoning Regulations in effect
prior to the adoption of Interim Amendments and Interim Development Provisions referenced in Final
Order AC-99-002. The Baseline Standards will remain in effect for all land not subject to the transfer or
receipt of Stewardship Credits, except as provided for in Group 5 Policies. No part of the Stewardship
Credit System shall be imposed upon a property owner without that 0'.VHers owner's consent.
Public Input: None,
Staff Comments: Minor correction and amendments for clarification purposes only,
9';;6;
9
June 17, 2008
June 17. 2008 Committee Action: The Committee approved with staffs correction and to study
agricultural incentives when the Committee reviews Group 2 policies regarding agriculture.
"
c;-;;)t
10
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: JUNE 17.2008
Ron Hamel, Chair
V'MEMBERS (PLEASE INfTIAL)
/"
./f3:;~
/fZ3?6"Wf
~
~
v'/
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
/
'R .ss/~
It)} !2--
.
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Tanunie Nemecek
Fred N, Thomas, Jr.
-7
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name
E-mail/ Affiliation
Phone #
M',~\ G:,(€<2M.e. B0..0\\',U-:::JW'v..J.. --r'(~"o r\"~~'~:::J
DMO ~ ~Ce.AlZ.lloloJrrllllE:ll.. ....r>Io4
r::
ego 73
~f'~ ~4l. ~ ~Q>>--~ ~+-.C2 ~~;, ,q t(~.. (.).~ 6 C). ~ /1,,J
~'..r^-- e..:~J:;' I tLL. (.c..~~(Ctll ' ')"0' '" ~ .;):.:,.) -}..C( 3; .l~
~Jtfr-/J;.dU)v ) ~hv:;hOYl(fJ t,U) ,~I'1V
6> a 7l!.bM ~
A.S,,-S')i,-\.,,\
?,h,2. - UitCO
5'7-3({O(
o If 3 -!o;2.di;L
.;1(p1.
5;
rIM (Jps.
~~.af:(3..
5~9
(!PI3~
~d..)
-(1m. DlJr Altn'\ Wj~rn11,'II~r 23q 'I.'I~ -ljfJ'10 1r.lv(tJ1'4 t
wiStJI'J,,;/I.r. C6
tJL~c;~-( N 1)1\1 7->'1- )-L.? -~'1B D fMS+Qo..t"@
.v~ ,A V'6..~(e<;V\-ell\lf.cJfV\.
c IJ fV !J 7J1f-Sit9
7;;)g
June 3, 2008
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
'[
Ave Maria, Florida, June 3, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM. in REGULAR SESSION at the
Ave Maria University Academic Building 07 Conference Room 5,5050 Ave
Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Tammie Nemecek
David Farmer
Tom Jones
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Fred Thomas, Jr.
Jim Howard
ALSO PRESENT:
Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist, Engineering and
Environment Services Department
Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist, Engineering
and Environment Services Department
Approximately 20 members of the public
CJ ;;;l.H
I
June 3, 2008
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9: lOAM by Chairman Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Hamel requested that due to the current audio-visual technical problems which are
occurring, that some of the items on the agenda may be discussed out of order in the agenda,
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the agenda as presented, Second by Mr. Crews,
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0,
IV. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2008
Mr. Farmer moved to approve the minutes of the May 6, 2008 committee meeting, as
presented, Second by Mr. Thomas. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0,
VI. Old Business
A. Revised Schedule of the Review Committee and Discussion its Functions, Powers
and Duties per Resolution No. 2007-173
Mr. Greenwood reviewed the revised meeting schedule for the committee. He also
reviewed the intent of Board of County Commission (BCC) Chairman Henning's letter
which requested that all committees and commissions of County government review their
roles, powers, and functions. Mr. Farmer moved to approve the revised committee
meeting schedule as presented, Second by Mr. Wolfley. Voice Vote - Unanimously
Approved 12-0.
Mr. Farmer commented that within the enabling ordinance for this committee, he
believed that committee members were entitled financial reimbursement for travel
expenses. Mr. Greenwood stated that he would look into this issue and try to report to
the Committee prior to the June 17'h meeting.
Ms. Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, commented that one of the directives of the
committee's enabling ordinance is to pursue public participation, She stated that she
observes that most of the committee, staff, and public participants reside in the coastal
area of the County, and that it would be much more efficient to hold some of the
committee meetings in the coastal area,
Mr. Farmer moved to pursue travel expense reimbursement, Mr. Wolfley. Voice Vote-
Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Mr. Jones stated that he reviewed the committee's function and was concerned if the
committee had done something to spur the letter from BCC Chairman Henning. Mr.
Greenwood stated that all of the advisory committees received this letter. The letter was
not directed at this committee, but an informational reminder to each of the advisory
committees as to their mission.
B. Phase I-Technical Review
Chairman Hamel stated that the BCC review the Phase I-Technical Review and
approved the report, Mr. Greenwood stated that the Phase I-Technical Review was
93::>
2
June 3, 2008
forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review through
Joseph Schmitt's cover letter.
C. Phase 2".Review of Group I-Group 5 Policies of the Rural Land Stewardship
Overlay, including Issues, Concerns, and Questions
Mr. Greenwood stated that, per the direction of the Committee at its May 6 meeting, the
following met on May 15 to decide under which policy the particular comment and/or
concerns should be associated with. Comments and/or concerns were received from the
following groups and individuals: Mark Strain (Collier County Planning Commission),
Nancy Payton (Florida Wildlife Federation), Tim Nance (RLSAO Review Committee),
Judy Hushon (EAC), Laura Roys (Environmental Services), Nichol Ryan (Conservancy
of S.W. Florida), Laurie Macdonald (Defenders of Wildlife).
Mr. Greenwood requested that the Review Committee discuss permitting the following
to act as a Technical Sub-committee: Nancy Payton, Anita Jenkins (WilsonMiller), Tim
Durham (WilsonMiller), Judy Hushon, Laura Roys, Nichol Ryan, Michael DeRuntz
(Comprehensive Planning) and Thomas Greenwood (Comprehensive Planning).
Mr. Cornell thanked those individuals for their efforts with organizing these comments
and concerns with the RLSAO plan policies. He stated it is very helpful. He suggested
that the committee proceed with Phase 2 by reviewing each group in order, and have
these individuals serve as a technical committee to continue to assist the RLSAO Review
Committee with the language for any amendments and/or recommendations which the
RLSAO Review Committee may propose. He further added that this technical committee
should be lead by staff. Mr. Greenwood stated that staff would only act as a facilitator at
these meetings and to memorialize the recommendations of the RLSAO Review
Committee only where the Committee has made preliminary recommendations to amend
the RLSA Overlay.
Ms. Payton thanked the committee for their comments, She also thought that it would be
a good idea to keep this technical committee functioning, to assist the RLSAO Review
Committee, and she stated that she would be glad to serve on this technical committee.
Mr. Purdy stated that the committee needs to stay on track.
Mr. Jones expressed his concern that the RLSAO Review Committee recommendations
may not be adhered to, because the technical committee could change the intent through
their revisions.
Mr. Hamel stated that it is the staffs responsibility to prepare any amendment or
recommendation directed by the RLSAO Review Committee, and that the technical
committee would assist the staff. Any amendment and/or revision would be coming back
to the RLSAO Review Committee for its approval.
VII. New Business
A. Request of Board of County Commissioners Input Regarding Review of the Half
Circle Ranch Growth Management Plan RLSAO Amendment Application
Mr. Greenwood informed the Committee that Commissioner Coletta requested the
RLSAO Review Committee to take a look at the Half Circle Ranch GMP A during the
BCC action already taken to transmit this RLSAO amendment to the Department of
Community Affairs. Input from the Committee, if any, would be available to the BCC
prior to its adoption public hearing on this amendment
9 ;;3/
3
June 3, 2008
Mr. Jones questioned whether review of this GMPA by the Committee would put the
Committee in violation of the Committee's enabling ordinance. Mr. Greenwood stated
that this request from the BCC is on the agenda for the committee's June 17, 2008
meeting for discussion.
V. Presentations
A. Darrel Land, State of Florida Panther Team Leader, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FFWCC) (The Power Point presentation is on the County's
Comprehensive Planning web site.)
Mr. Land stated that the goal of the FFWCC is to protect the breeding core of the Florida
Panther. He reported that that the FFWCC estimated that there is an 80-100 stable
population of Florida Panthers that are basically south of the Caloosahatchee River.
Ideally, a stabile panther population goal of 240 panthers has been established to maintain
a healthy gene pool for the Florida Panther. The existing Florida Panther habitat south of
the Caloosahatchee River is insufficient to support that goal total population, due to the
panther's territorial demands, and is at a saturation point. The FFWCC is hoping
counties north of the Caloosahatchee River will follow Collier County's example in
establishing RLSAOs in their areas. He emphasized that the area of the RLSAO in
Collier County is a significant link between the primary habitat area of Big Cypress
National Preserves and the habitat area in Lee County. He is very supportive of how
Collier County established the RLSAO with the Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSA) and
Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA). From their records, the areas identified in the
County's FSA and HSA are also the primary areas for panther habitat. In the FFWCC
studies, the FFWCC has recommended that wildlife crossings are a very valuable
component in the protection of these panthers. The establishment of wildlife crossings on
roadways that intersect with habitat corridors are imperative. FFWCC recommends that
wildlife crossings along Oil Well Road (CR-858) and Immokalee Road (CR-846) at the
Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacochee Slough be provided, They would also
recommend wildlife crossings along SR 29 north of Oil Well Road (CR-858), as well as
providing a habitat corridor north of Immokalee to connect the Camp Keais Strand and
the Okaloacochee Slough and the Okaloacochee Slough.
Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Land believed the County's RLSAO plan was too complicated,
Mr. Land responded that there are many variable to be taken into consideration, and that
the County did a very good job developing a plan to bring the many variables together to
make a plan that works for everyone including the Florida Panther.
B. Dr. Timm Kroeger, Defenders of Wildlife Washington, DC Office: Economic Values
of Conservation and Agricultural Lands (The Power Point presentation is on the
County's Comprehensive Planning web site,)
Dr. Kroeger stated that there are economic benefits for protecting the natural environment
and agricultural area. He stated that he is studying those benefits for five areas within the
continental United States. One of those areas being studied is right here in Southwest
Florida (Collier, Lee, and Hendry Counties). These five study areas were selected based
upon the high priority Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCAs). SHCA consist of
the following variables: uplands and wetland areas that are important habitat and are
currently not protected, contain several of the highest-priority significant landscapes
932-
4
June 3, 2008
including linkages and conservation corridors and high and highest-priority rare species
habitat conservation lands. In addition, vegetation in the area is predominantly
characterized as very high threat status in Florida's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy (CWCS), and mostly prime recharge lands and unprotected
recharge lands in natural condition. The study identified that there are direct, indirect,
and passive uses that have economic benefits for protecting the natural environment and
agricultural area. While the study is not completed, millions of dollars can be attributed
to the economic benefits attributed to protecting the natural environment and agricultural
area.
VII. Public Comments
None
XI. Next Meeting
Mr. Hamel stated that the next meeting will be held on June 17, 2008, at CDES in Rooms
609/610 from 9:00 A.M. - 12 Noon.
X. Adjournment
Mr. Thomas moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Mr. Jones.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0. Adjournment 12:03PM
7n~ Ste ardship Area Review Committee
These minutes a~.p:ved by the Committee on
as presented or as amended
~ - /7-0),
'/ -:i32
5
SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: JUNE 3. 2008
~EMBERS (PLEASE INITIAL)
Ron Hamel, Chair
Neno Spagna, Vice Chair
Brad CorneIt
"./
---
..,//
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Fanner
/
V
v/
"./
/
Jim Howard
Tom Jones
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
0./'
Tammie Nemecek
/
,/
/'
Fred N. Thomas, Jr.
Dave Wolfley
Public
Name
E-mail / Affiliation
Phone #
011, n El.. L (hJ () J)crH ~ I\.L,...,.J f} 1M. d F'u Ie (' nVlA
No~L '5./-~ rt'dy ~
XU<;.-<;,o-I/ flt.,diy '2..8'9'-006 C(
?:::!::: ~~ ~L ~ ~lt^AA. .~l\ 6~) -)'/s3
~ M \' , ''''''-N\'..'\V\~ ~Q""i~-;l;.{ ,
O'!\.'l\\e \\\C\.6f ~ ",-~\.L.O"" -.,.J/,)M,J.'(o. v,)iH':, G"f6-qI3~
,\ 't" r 1'1\.16 Ib,,\ \.5-\' cs,
\'\,c........."P ':::'<2e--l; e "ol'c-O,"" Sq(,-qI3S-
M. G<l., li..J.. 0v- """'... "'..\(\__oV'~ u> \\ir.,s'OJ. "J- (.LESt> .:l ~~ - ?.'7S~y
tau,^-- ~\ /"L.tt1<('V~$@Co{I,~ov.M.+- CCt~SD ),S)--:NJ"?
(::),f,'5-h..",. , !-;lI<.I,cfPZ.. ~ 5PIULt-;K i!. Go /l"''--3,r~;-j}(lr'~ .<,0 ""'1. ~ Co \- 4Cl S.5
/wA
239, r,.l{r ,<(220
~.~
(Q -3 --fo'2.:Z-Z..-
~ -r.tlft
^iDo ~ ~dO
935L
CG'i()0~
f:jL~ Vt~"^r ~e4'S of?- wptdtN'e- ~2-::;/?'2-3- 3?o-?,
eMef/nt~Q d~s.~
M l~ l.J l-JLI.r::..i-Jc:..~IT CC L1"" "i:-""':,"t. ~005 .. 16/1
!-{Wu;1=W=~b ~
~I l- - I T~ C-.c..L.fc:.l('lZlJ~.(..>
~r\ L )TClOir Nf)~ J-G 1-Y 7StJ (,1'\II)tQo.rr@l~It's n-€V\/)
c0r'Vl
~ S~___---,-~oe
Pv~,! P \tC It r..
~Gkl Svvw/,'.,sk,'
J;'(1,L. vc-t') ~
Jve ~o^-'l0e.s ~
J:lrl [)urft,m
725
~~--.' =7'.-<>-~
I~"'=c-o co 3"t"3 -'O"Z.-2..._';;
~"-'~<::f""'-">__~
.,,-_.....c~~~~,..
lo'!:-\""~
I
,
I .,
i"11 r;~,vLc: '-
,
-lw.M"r~"- gJJ~1. rC{~hx./. 5/rlc/'''' J k, G av-erl1.
Volcl1\&r vV /
f3,uJ COJr€L{ ;23<1-776 -c,3 <r 7
"
(A ...I 8w IVtVl
UN5&11 MIIe/
.1 ~N Joe ~@ 14
-h"ld~~hAJTI ~
wiIS!7hm,ller.. U>>
~3't 'i?2.<)<"1~2.1
269, 849"'I(lfo
May 6, 2008
~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Ave Maria, Florida, May 6,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the
Ave Maria University Academic Building 07 Conference Room 5,5050 Ave
Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Tom Jones
David Woodley
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Fred Thomas
ALSO PRESENT:
Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department
Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist, Engineering and
Environment Services Department
;30
1
May 6, 2008
Approximately 20 members of the public
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 AM by Chairman Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Hamel requested that Item IX be move up in Font of Item VI.
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the agenda as amended, Second by Mr. Farmer.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: February 5, 2008
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2008 committee meeting, as
amended, Second by Mr. McDanieL Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0.
V. Presentation - Mr. Draper was on his way
B. Clarence Tears, Jr., South Florida Water Management District
Mr. Tears stated that the most important thing that needs to be accomplished from the
South Florida Water Management District's perspective for the RLSA Program would
be to help keep and improve the flow way of the Kamp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee
Slough open and flowing. He stated that local utilities are using reverse osmosis for
their supply of potable water and it is becoming increasing important to provide all
means to recharge aquifers, He added that the RLSA program in Collier County has
been a huge success in establishing SSAs within the Kamp Keais Strand, and to a lesser
degree the Okaloacoochee Slough,
One of the District's goals is to work with property owners to develop "Regional Land
Stewardship Flow Restoration." The District, at the request and support of the property
owners in the Kamp Keais Strand, completed modeling for the Kamp Keais Strand
drainage area. Through this model, restrictions to the flowway were identified and
plans for the reduction and elimination of restrictions and environmental restoration
were developed, Those plans included structural improvements, the enhancement of the
CR 846 bridge, new CR 858 bridge, replacement of existing culverts, and the removal
of old railroad grade. Non-structural measures were also included such as the
eradication of non-native vegetation through a grant sponsored by the Soil & Water
Conservation District.
Mr. Tears added that the District is working with property owners in the
Okaloacoochee Slough to try to re-introduce natural seed sources in existing grazing
areas.
Mr. McDaniel asked if Mr. Tears could share his definition of disturbed, and what
could this Committee do to work together to find answers to the many water resource
issues that exist within the RLSA. Mr. Tears stated that soil data and remnant
~ 37
2
May 6, 2008
vegetation provide clues of historic fIowways. From that information they look at the
human impact to the area to distinguish the extent of flowway alterations. The
continuation of this program and the cooperation of the land owners will be a
tremendous aid to improving water quantity, water quality and environmental
conservation.
Gary Eidson questioned whether the potential build out of this area will impede natural
fIowways. Mr. Tears stated that, with each development that occurs in the RLSA, the
developer will be required to identify the watershed, flowways, the proposed impervious
area, and provide storm water detention, structural and non-structural improvements to
an extent that no net impact occurs and, where possible, provide for the enhancement of
the existing storm water system,
Mr. Thomas suggested that the committee consider the general location of roadway
corridors during this review to lessen the impact to the flowways, the environment, and
agricultural activities.
Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Tears could cite further examples of successes of how the
RLSA program has furthered the District's goals. Mr. Tears stated that, with the
establishment of each of the SSA's, conservation easements are established which
contain preservation and management plans, Through this process, the unique flowway
area is captured, and as these are linked together, the slough flowway area is preserved.
Mr. Hamel asked if Mr. Tears would be kind enough to remain for further questions,
and asked Mr. Draper of the Audubon Society to begin his presentation.
A. Eric Draper, Florida Chapter of the Audubon Society
Mr. Draper stated that his presentation will focus on the State's perspective on the
Collier County's RLSA program, The State Chapter is very supportive of any
furtherance of wildlife species protection. Funding for land acquisition is becoming
tighter with constraints on the State Budget, but the Florida Forever Bill did pass, which
included a continuation of $300,000 for land acquisition and land use easements over
agricultural land for conservation and preservation, While the list of identified lands
targeted for acquisition far exceed the funding that is available, programs such as Collier
County's RLSA further the objectives of the Audubon Society and support compact
development, watershed restoration, wildlife conservation, recreation, transportation,
and food and agricultural production,
Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Draper could provide any suggestion to the Committee. Mr,
Draper stated that the loss of agricultural lands should be taken very seriously, and that
the area of development should be compressed to the greatest degree possible.
Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Draper to provide some perspective on the land use easement
initiative for agricultural properties, Mr. Draper stated that this type of program is
much more cost effective than buying the property outright, and that several states have
733
3
May 6, 2008
similar programs. He had heard some discussion that this may not be well received by
the land owners in Florida, but time will tell.
Mr. Hamel stated that the Committee would be recessed for 5 minutes.
IX. Next Meeting/future extra meeting to meet Committee schedule
Mr. Greenwood informed the Committee that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
appointed this Committee for a one year term, which will end on September II, 2008
[actually October 24, 2008]. He stated that with the present schedule and issues to be
addressed, he suggested that the Committee may wish to recommend to the BCC that the
sunset date be extended. He also suggested that the Committee may wish to consider having
meetings twice a month to address the many policies in the Phase II Report
Mr. McDaniel made a motion to double up the Committee meetings, with the first meeting
taking place at Ave Maria and the second meeting to take place at the CDES Building in
Naples. The meeting time would remain at 9 AM. to 12 Noon, The Committee also
recommends that the BCC approve a 6 month extension to the Committee. Mr. Thomas
second the motion, Voice Vote: 10 - Yes, I - No. APPROVED. Mr. Neno opposed the
extension because he believed that the tasks could be completed within the allotted time
frame,
Mr. Jones stated that hoped the staff would be able to provide a listing of the received
comments and suggestions with the related policies for the Committee to review at the next
meeting.
VI. Old Business
A. Phase I - Technical Review
Mr. Hamel thanked the six Committee members that attended the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) for the presentation of the Phase I - Technical Review
on May I, 2008. He stated that the presentation made by the staff was well done,
I. Mr. Greenwood stated that the CCPC recommended approval of the Phase I _
Technical Review with a stipulation that the nine page list of comments and
suggestions be addressed by the Committee during the Phase 11 review. This list was
distributed during the meeting.
Mr. Neno also thought that the staff's presentation was very good,
Mr. McDaniel questioned if the Committee was required to address the list of
comments. Mr. Greenwood stated that the Committee should try their best to address
this list of comments and suggestions, but the supporting data and analysis needs to
be provided to justify any substantial changes,
2. Mr. Greenwood reviewed the "Working Paper," which summarized the build-out
potential for the RLSA with the existing regulations.
937
4
May 6, 2008
Mr. Cornell thanked staff for the overview ofthe "Working Paper." He requested the
staff to prepare an analysis of the program incorporating agricultural preservation
credits.
B. RLSA Review Committee. Phase II rGroup 2 Al!ricuIturall
1. Ms. Payton stated that she was not expecting to speak, but she would like to have an
opportunity to meet with staff to help in the coordination of the "Comments and
Suggestion" with the RLSA policies. Mr. Greenwood stated that he would
coordinate a meeting with the authors of the "Comments and Suggestions."
2. Mr. Nance stated that his comments were provided to ask the question: "How would
the Committee address comments from DCA's "RLSA Report to the State
Legislation." If particular comments are not identified by any existing policies, how
should the Committee address them? Mr. Greenwood suggested that the Committee
focus on addressing policy related comments first, and then unrelated policy
comments at the end of the report if the Committee desires.
Mr. Jones stated that the format for addressing all the comments and suggestions
should consist of the Committee's recommendation being stated first, and then the
staff's recommendation would follow.
Mr. McDaniel commented that the County's RLSA program may not be perfect but it
is working.
VII. New Business
A. RLSA Review Committee, Phase II.. .Review of Group 3 and 5 Policies of the Rural
Land Stewardship area Overlay [Environmental]
Laura Roys stated that the copy of the concerns from the Environmental Services
Department that was provided in the agenda was an early draft and a comprehensive
report of the Department's concerns will be provided.
VIII. Public Comments
Mr. Reynold stated that 5-Year Review requirement by the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP) applied only to the Phase I Review.
The review was to provide a measured assessment of the program. He reviewed a memo that
he prepared (See Attachment) in which he shared some observations and suggestions.
Ms. Ryan stated that the Conservancy had provided comments to the County when the RLSA
program was enacted and were told that there would be time to address their concerns when
the review process occurred, During the Phase I Review the Conservancy was told that their
concerns would be addressed during the Phase II review, She added that the Conservancy
would be glad to meet with County staff to coordinate the positioning the concerns with the
specific policy for the Committee's review.
IX. Staff Comments
7 1f-o
5
May 6, 2008
Mr. Greenwood stated that he would contact those interested parties to coordinate a meeting
date and time to facilitate the positioning of concerns with the related RLSA policies.
X. Adjournment
Mr. McDaniel moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Mr. Jones.
Voice Vote- Unanimously Approved 11-0. Adjournment 12:02PM
Rural Lands ,StewardShi\)Area Review Committee
.,~
011 Ham I, Chairman
These minutes aPHroved by the Committee on to - 3- -2. 0 0 q ,
as presented 2l<': or as amended .
Attachment: WilsonMiller memorandum May 6, 2008
941
6
Wil.nMiller
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee Members
Alan Reynolds, AICP 111. .
May 6, 2008 ;W-
RLSAO Five-Year Review Process - Phase 2
First, my compliments to the Rural Land Stewardship Review Committee and County
Staff for preparing a comprehensive Phase 1 Technical Report that is has been well received
and accepted by both the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council and the Collier County
Planning Commission.
As the Committee begins subslantive work on the second phase of the 5-year review
process, I would offer a few observations and suggestions on the process going forward. My
pOint of reference is my role as the Principal Planner involved in the Immokalee Area Study that
led to the creation of the RLSAO, and as one of the primary authors of the actual RLSAO
implementing language. I have also been closely involved in the majority of the actual
implementation of the program on behalf of participating property owners since it was adopted,
so I have both delailed knowledge and experience to support my perspective.
Policy 1,22 was very specific regarding the purpose of the Five Year Review: "to assess
the participation in and the effectiveness of the Overlay implementation in meetinq the Goal.
Obiective and Policies setforth herein, The specific measures of review shall be as follows..."
The Phase 1 Technical Report has documented each of the 8 specific items required and
demonstrates both a level of both participation and effectiveness that is far beyond expectations
for such a new and innovative program. In my thirty years of experience as a profeSSional
planner in Florida, I cannot point to any other such program in the State that has come so far, so
quickly, in accomplishing its stated goal and objective.
As an example, the implementation of the RLSAO was expected to take approximately
25 years to protect the estimated 89,300 acres of agricultural and natural resource lands
depicted on the Overlay Map as FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs. At this five year anniversary,
approximately 27% of such land is now within approved SSAs, and an additional 36% of such
land is included in pending SSA applications, Clearly the level of participation in the RLSAO is
exceeding its goal.
With respect to effectiveness, one need only to look at the maps contained in the Report
to recognize the significant progress that has been made toward permanently protecting the two
major environmental systems in the region, the Camp Keais Strand and the Okaloacoochie
Slough. In addition, the approval of the Town of Ave Maria SRA has enabled lhe realization of
another major goal, accommodating growth and economic diversification within the RLSA in a
more innovative, sustainable, mixed-use pattern.
9'fCJ.-..
5/51200e.2024Bl-Ver1_AReYllOld
00011-OO0-000-ACOfl_21856
While some have criticized the provision of the RLSAO lhat protects a property owner's
baseline zoning rights as an alternative to use of the RLSAO, it must be noted that since its
inception, not a single new platted lot or rural subdivision has been proposed or approved in the
entire 300 square mile area,
Phase 2 is not a required part of lhe GMP mandated process; it was proposed prior the
beginning of the Five Year Review in anticipation that there would be certain changes that may
be necessary and appropriate to correct issues "in the DarticiDation and effectiveness of the
Overlay" that may become evident based on the factual data from Phase 1, As the Committee
considers and deliberates on the ever increasing amount of public input in lhe form of
comments, questions, and suggestions for changes, I would suggest the following approach be
used:
1, All comments, queslions and suggested changes should be referenced to a
specific policy in the adopted RLSAO, to facilitate effective discussions and
decision-making by the Committee. County staff can facilitate this process.
2. The old axiom "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" should be used as a qualifier for
making substantive changes to the RLSAO, Recommendations for changes
should cite specific data and analysis in Phase 1 Technical Report, or
documented examples from approved SSAs and SRAs that support the need for
such change,
3. Whenever possible, specific language should be proposed and alternatives
explored that best target the specific issue in question and cause the least
amount of collateral changes to the overall program. This will hopefully prevent
unintended consequences from disrupling the program.
4, As has been pointed out by several property owners and committee members,
lhe RLSAO program relies on a voluntary, incentive-based approach and a
balance between competing uses of land, It also requires a sound basis in
market based economics and deference to private property rights. There is a
point at which regulatory changes could compromise the acceptance of the
program, and the Committee should be mindful not to disrupt the careful balance
that has been realized by the proven utilization of the currenl program.
5, Finally, bear in mind that a collaborative process extending over three years and
involving thousands of hours of meetings, hearings and deliberations was
needed to create the adopted RLSAO. At lhe end of this process, there was
unanimous approval by lhe County Commission and universal support for the
adopted program by the stakeholders,
We must also keep in mind that the RLSAO does not operate in a vacuum; it does not
supplant any of the myriad regulatory procedures and requirements that apply to land
development activities. Proposed development in the RLSAO must obtain the same permits that
all olher development must, inClUding Development of Regionallmpacl review, jurisdictional
wetland permitting, surface water management and groundwater resource permits, site
development plan approvals and plats, and other local, state and federal requirements.
9Lf3
5/5/2008-202<l<l1_Ver '-AReYlJOld
00011-0()O.{)OO-ACOR.21856
While some have made reference to the Department of Community Affairs - 2007
Annual Report to the Leqislature, and the need to respond to specific points of criticism about
the Collier Counly RLSAO therein, I would point out the following:
1. The Collier County RLSAO is not subject to the State RLS Statute (although it is a model
for it).
2. The DCA Report was prepared prior to the Collier County Phase 1 Technical Report.
3, The DCA Report was prepared without any substantive input from the stakeholders and
organizations that participated in the creation of the RLSAO, or the participating land
owners in the RLSAO. DCA never sought out input or factual information from those
most familiar with lhe program.
4, The DCA found the Collier County RLSAO in full compliance with all applicable Growth
Management Laws upon its final adoption in 2002.
5, Until the recent change in administration, DCA strongly promoted RLS and hailed Collier
County for its innovative approach to good planning,
6. The Collier County RLSAO has won numerous recognitions and awards from Statewide
organizalions including:
a. 1000 Friends of Florida
b, Council for Sustainable Florida
c. Florida Chapter American Planning Association
d. Florida Planning and Zoning Association
In closing, I would urge the Committee to continue with its thoughtful and measured
evaluation of the RLSAO, and to continue to encourage broad-base participation by interested
citizens. Part of the value of this review is to further lhe level of understanding and awareness of
the program, and to that end, the process of receiving input and responding to questions and
comments is healthy. I am convinced that the more people understand about this innovative
program, the more supportive they will be.
The challenge for the Committee will be to identify lhose specific changes that are
essential to maintaining and improving the effectiveness of the RLSAO without compromising its
effectiveness, and separating out well-intended suggestions for changes that are not essential.
CJ4-Y-
5/5/20oa-202481-Var: 1-AReynold
0OO11-000-000-ACOR_21856
!p
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW
COMMITTEE
Ave Maria, Florida, April 1, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM. in REGULAR SESSION at
the
Ave Maria University Academic Building 07 Conference Room 5, 5050 Ave
Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
Gary Eidson
David Farmer
Tom Jones
David Woodley
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Fred Thomas, Jr.
Tammie Nemecek
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner,
Comprehensive Planning
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning,
Approximately 18 members of the public and staff
0'f 5-
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM by Chairman Hamel.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the agenda as amended, Second by Mr. McDanieL
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: March 5, 2008
Mr. McDaniel stated that his name was misspelled in the minutes.
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the minutes of the March 5, 2008 committee
meeting with the correction, Second by Mr. Thomas. Voice Vote - Unanimously
Approved 11-0.
Mr. Hamel presented Mr. Noel Standridge with a "Certificate of Appreciation" for his
work with the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee. Mr.
Standridge accepted this certificate and expressed his appreciation to the committee and
looks forward to working with them in the future.
V. Old Business
Mr. Thomas Greenwood discussed Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, and
Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Departments, interpretation of the DCA's
Report to the Legislature on the State's Rural Land Stewardship Programs, and
proposed legislation relating to the Rural Land Stewardship Program,
Mr. Jones stated that Collier County's Rural Land Stewardship Program was
developed and approved by the State independent of the State's Rural Land
Stewardship Program, They are independent of each other, and should not be affected
by any changes in legislation.
A. Phase 1 - Technical Review Report
Chairman Hamel reviewed the dates of the upcoming, Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC), Board of County Commissioners (BCC) public hearings at
which the Phase I - Technical Review Report will be reviewed and the process
by which additions, corrections and comments will be addressed with this report,
He stated that that all additions, correcti.~ns and comments will be forwarded to
the committee for their review.
B. RLSA Review Committee - Review Phase 2
Mr. Hamel requested that the committee discussed how they would like to
proceed with their review process. A lengthy discussion followed.
Mr. Thomas moved to keep the process similar to Phase 1, second by Mr.
McDanieL Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0.
2
VI. New Business
A. Dr. Stuart Van Auken and Dr. Howard Finch of FGCU presentation of a
June 6, 2007 report entitled, "AG Business in SW Florida: Present and
Future".
Dr. Van Auken and Finch provided an overview of their report. They stated that
they interviewed 25 person of high agriculture stature about the present and
future condition of agricultural business in southwest Florida, They review the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to agricultural business in
southwest Florida. In summary the study reflected a very strong and positive
future for agricultural business in southwest Florida.
Gary Eidson stated that the agricultural area in Collier county needs to be
protected, as well as, becoming an integrated part of our community. He stated
that as Mr. Jones has proposed, possibly this could be accomplished by
establishing credits to retain agricultural productive lands.
Brad Cornell stated that as coastal development is possibly impacted by
projected rising waters, attributed to "Global Warming," there will be greater
pressures to develop the existing interior agricultural areas.
Tim Nance added that it is very important to retain the county's agricultural
productive lands due to factors related to the globalization of the economy,
Chairman Hamel called for a 10 minute break
Adjourned 10:30 am.
Resumed 10:40 am.
B. Group 2 - Review of RLSA Overlay Policies
Mr. Jones suggested that this plan should include a process to incentivize
keeping lands for agricultural activities. He suggested that 2.0 credits be
identified for land outside the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) and 2.6
credits for lands within the ACSC. He stated that he derive the level for these
credits by paralleling what level of credits were achieved for environmentally
sensitive lands. He further stated that Items 2,3 and 2.4 should be removed from
the plan since the committee identified in those items was never developed, and
there does not seem to be a need for it.
Mr. Cornell stated that he also believes that agricultural lands need to be
protected. He suggested that the goal for Group 2 include language for
protecting agriculture. He stated that Policy 2.2 should be modified to reflect
that there should not be an intensification of agricullural activity, and that aqua-
culture be prohibited. He also suggested that all SSA's be required to remove all
land uses above agriculture.
Mr. McDaniel recommended that all suggestions relating to Group 2 be directed
to Mr. Greenwood and he would forward to the committee for their review and
consideration,
CfcJf-
3
Mr. Thomas moved to modifY the Goal of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay Policy with the following language: "Collier County seeks to address
the long-term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee
Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area
Assessment. Collier County's goal is to retain land for agricultural activities
using establish incentives, to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands
and upland habitat, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, to enable
the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, to
discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utilizes
creative land use planning techniques", second by Mr. Eidson. Voice Vote _
Unanimously Approved 11-0.
Mr. Eidson moved that the words, "and through the use of established
incentives" end the Goal for the RLSAO District.; second by Mr. Thomas.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0.
Mr. Standridge expressed his concern that by modifying the program the
county may be jeopardizing the "Final Order" language that this plan was
approve upon.
Group 2 Policy
Mrs. Nemecek moved to modify the Group 2 Policy by removing the existing
language "protect agricultural activities for prevent the premature conversion
of other uses and" and not to add the proposed language: "to retain land for
agricultural activities and to retain agricultural lands, and continue the
viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay incentives" second by Mr. Jones. Voice Vote _
Unanimously Approved 11-0.
Mr. Thomas moved to approve Policy 2.1 as amended, second by Mr.
McDaniel. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0.
Mr. Greenwood stated that it was the intent that some percentage of the area of
the RLSA be provided to cap the amount of non-agricultural development.
Mr. Farmer stated that the committee may want to keep this language to
emphasis "compactness."
Mr. Nance stated that DCA might have a concern with not identifying a limit of
non-agricultural development.
Ms. Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, stated that ten percent and
compact development need to be retained In Policy 2. I.
M~. Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation, stated that the Federation supports
agricultural preservation. The Federation opposes aqua-culture and mining, and
9~7
4
the intensification of agriculture in the FSA, HAS, ACSC. She was also
supportive of moving the meetings to the CDES facility,
Ms. Ryan stated that for Policy 2.2, the committee should make sure what the
added credits would create, and what impacts would be associated with those
added credits,
Mr. Cornell recommended that any language changes be sent to staff, so they could
distribute the recommended changes to the committee for their review,
Mr. McDaniel stated that the committee would need to have data and analysis to consider
creating credits for the preservation of agricultural lands.
Mr. McDaniel moved to extend the meeting thirty minutes, second by Mr. Farmer.
Voice Vote 10 - yes, 1 - no (Mr. Thomas). Approved
.11F. JO:les Chairman Hamel asked Al Reynolds, planner for Wilson Miller, who worked
on the original RLSAO Plan, to clarifY the reference to 10% in Policy 1.2. Mr. Reynolds
responded that the 10% cam from an analysis that compared the amount ofland required
to accommodate projected population growth during a 25-year period using the baseline
zoning of one unit per five acres and the alternate of compact communities at an average
density of 2 units per acre. This comparison showed that the equivalent population could
be accommodated in compact communities with a development footprint of IIlOth the
size of the baseline zoning,
Mr. Nance questioned as to what type of farming activities or farmlands that would
qualifY for credits.
Mr. Jones moved to approve Policy 2.2 as amended, Second by Mr. Eidson. Show of
hand: 8-yes 3-no. Approved
Mr. Cornell suggested that that the agricultural land use credits be developed by two
groups: Agricultural Type and Agricultural Intensity, He added that the credits should be
linked to a stipulation where the intensification of agricultural uses would not be allowed,
as well as, the aquaculture would be prohibited.
Mr. Eidson moved to table further discussion for Policy 2.2, second by Mr. Farmer.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0.
VII. Public Comments - None
VIII. Committee Comments - None
IX. Staff Comments - None
?+7
5
X. Adjournment
Mrs. Nemecek moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Mr. Eidson.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 11-0. Adjournment 12:25 pm.
Committee
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented or as amended C><..:,.
~- ~-a?
9CfY
6
March 4, 2008
cr
;J
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Ave Maria, Florida, March 4, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the
Ave Maria University Academic Building 07 Conference Room 5,5050 Ave
Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
David Farmer
Tom Jones
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Fred Thomas
Tammie Nemecek
Jim Howard
ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning,
Jeffrey Wright, Assistant County Attorney
Approximately 14 members of the public and staff
Cj !;;O
1
March 4, 2008
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9: lOAM by Chairman HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Wolfley moved to approve the agenda as presented, Second by Mr. Farmer.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: February 5, 2008
Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the minutes of the February 5,2008 committee meeting,
Second by Mr. Wolfley. Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
V. Old Business
Chairman Hamel stated that before the committee begins with Item A. the Phase I _
Technical Report, he would like to thank Noah Standridge for his work with the committee.
Mr. Spagna made a motion to have a "Certificate of Appreciation" prepared for Mr.
Standridge. Mr. Wolfley seconds the motion. Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Mr. Standridge stated that he appreciated working with this committee, and having the
opportunity to work on such an important and dynamic element in Collier County. He hopes
to have an opportunity to work with members of the committee and those in attendance in the
future.
A. Phase 1 - Technical Review Report
Mr. Greenwood reviewed the dates of the upcoming Environmental Advisory Council
(EAC), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Soard of County Commissioners
(SCC) public hearings at which the Phase 1 - Technical Review Report will be reviewed
and the process by which additions, corrections and comments will be addressed with
this report. He stated that that all additions, corrections and comments will be
forwarded to the committee for their review,
Mr. Hamel asked to see by a show of hands what committee members would be able to
be in attendance at the EAC meeting. Five members indicated that they would be able
to attend the EAC meeting,
B. RLSA Review Committee - Review Phase 2 Meeting Dates and Tasks
Mr. Greenwood reviewed the dates for the future meetings for the Phase 2 review and
analysis of the Goal, Objective, and Policies for the RLSA Overlay. He stated that the
meetings are scheduled to be held at Ave Maria University,
Mr. Cornell suggested that the committee needs to be specific on any changes, in
particular, providing the data and analysis to support these changes.
Mr. Nance stated that the committee needs to review DCA's "Evaluation of RLSA
Program", He believes that the committee needs to be aware of DCA's comments and
concerns.
Mr. Greenwood stated that Collier County's RLSA plan was approved through a
settlement agreement with DCA prior to the States Statues RLSA enactment and has
previously made a Request for Legal Services for an evaluation of any implications that
9.5j
2
March 4, 2008
report and pending state legislation to amend the Rural Lands Stewardship statute might
have on this committee's Phase 2 review and recommendations,
Mr. Cornell requested that the committee receive a copy of the DCA's report and any
responses that the County may have provided,
Mr. Greenwood stated that he will provide the Committee with hard copies of the
DCA's report and County letter responses.
VI. New Business
A. Dr. Fritz Roka, Agriculture Economist, University of Florida Institute of Food and
Agricultural Services (IF AS)
Dr. Roka provided an overview of agricultural economics. He stated that increases in
production costs cause the margin of profit to decrease. He further stated that that
challenges to local agricultural production are: disease (citrus green), regulations, water
and land allocation, rising land prices, and a gap of knowledge (re-education). He stated
that the advantages for agricultural production in this area are: good climate, easy access
to the Eastern u.S. Market, technology, Best Management Practices (BMP), new
agricultural varieties, and innovative land management practices (RLSA). He
emphasized that flexibility will be the key to long term success for the local agricultural
economy.
David Wolfley questioned if the IFAS had identified any specific replacement crop,
possibly bio-fuel.
Dr. Roka stated that they have not and that bio-fuel has been studied and it was not
found to be equitable and not a "magic bullet" crop,
Bill McDaniel asked if Dr. Roka could help the committee with his explanation of what
the term "premature conversion "ofland would mean to him,
Dr. Roka stated that meaning of this term in agricultural economics would reflect the
decision to change the land use from permeable land use to a non-permeable land use
had not detailed all the cost of development.
Mr. Farmer inquired how one would determine the values associated with agricultural
and natural habitat land uses.
Brad Cornell inquired if agriculture is important to society, is it appropriate to subsidize
the keeping of prime agricultural lands,
Timothy Nance stated that the goals of the RLSAO is to provide for reasonable use of
land and to ascribe values to properties whose owners are voluntarily agreeing not to
develop parts or all of their lands with permeable developments. Agricultural land has
not been protected and this country is about to become a net importer of fruits and
vegetables.
Mr~ Jones suggested that the committee should consider creating an incentive based
credit system for agricultural production, The cUlTent program has done a very good job
for providing incentives for preserving areas of high ecological value, but not so much
for land being used for agricultural production, such as row crops. He stated that the
primary produce grown in Collier County over the years continues to be tomatoes,
peppers, and citrus,
Mr. Priddy stated that if the RLSA plan does create credits for retaining agricultural
land uses, the RLSA plan needs to identify a place to use those credits.
~
7 S2.,.
3
March 4, 2008
B. Gene MeA voy, Regional Extension Agent, University of Florida IF AC
Mr. McAvoy informed the committee about local vegetable production. He stated that
vegetable agricultural production was both dynamic and volatile with agriculture
production moving east into Hendry County. Southern Florida has experienced shifts in
volume of vegetable production over the passed decades. There has been a trend of
consolidation of ownership of agricultural acreages. Other trends observed in southern
Florida were: cost of production and labor costs are increasing, production in variety of
products, diversity of vegetables (ethnic foods) are increasing, agricultural
entertainment is increasing, roadside markets are increasing, bio-fuel is being tried, and
environmental solutions to adverse impacts are being addressed,
Mrs. Hushon questioned the sizes of the local organic farms, and asked if IF AC has
seen shifting uses or lands being left fallow,
Mr. McAvoy stated that organic farms range from 150 to 5,000 acres. He also stated
that he ha~q)e2!.ljnds being left fallow.
Mr. Mc~.IIsKecf if there is a typical percentage of land that is allowed to go fallow,
Mr. McAvoy stated the amount of acreage that is left fallow is based on economic
conditions not to allow the land to rejuvenate. He also stated that leasing rural lands for
recreational uses is very popular.
Mr. Hamel asked Mr. McAvoy to provide some of the statistical data that he was
referencing.
Mrs. Laurie McDonald, Defenders of Wildlife, stated that her organization has staff
which includes a Natural Resource Economist who has data that they could provide
related to wildlife and scenic values.
Mr. Jones stated that he would entertain hearing a speaker from the Defenders of
Wildlife organization address these activities and their values,
Mr. Thomas stated that high-end eco-tourism is a viable use in this area.
Mr. Jones stated that he also is concerned about the meaning of "premature
conversion".
Mrs. Nemecek stated that the committee should refer to the States' report for
determining agricultural land value,
C. Policy 2 - Review of RLSA Overlay Policies
Mr. Greenwood provided an overview of the five Groups and the policies of the RLSA
from the Growth Management Plan (GMP),
Mr. Hamel reviewed the policy review process, and asked if the Group I policies
should be reviewed. The committee agreed to review Group] ,
Mr. Jones stated that based on Policy 2.] he is satisfied with the term "premature
conversion".
Mr. Nance stated that DCA's RLSA Report questioned Collier's RLSA plan does not
identify which lands were best for agriculture, conservation and development.
Mr. Jones stated that it is his opinion that Collier County's RLSA program should
remain as voluntary participation,
Mr. Thomas stated that the committee should look at the areas were potential
development could occur and the potential infrastructure interconnection that should be
considered.
QS3
4
March 4, 2008
Mr. Nance agreed with the principle that the RLSA program should be maintained as a
voluntary participation involvement.
Mr. Daniel stated that the committee should evaluate creating credits for preserving
agriculture land uses.
VII. Public Comments
Mrs. McDonald stated that the plan should provide a mechanism for the continuing Group II
agricultural activities. She also stated that wetland and uplands should receive additional
values that promote continuing wildlife connectivity.
VIII. Committee Comments - None
IX. Staff Comments
Mr. Greenwood stated that a presentation will be provided at the April I meeting by two Gulf
Coast professors whose report was distributed today to those present. He will coordinate with
Mrs. McDonald for scheduling a speaker from the Defenders of Wildlife organization. He
reiterated that he would provide a copy of DCA's RLSA Review and response letters. He
would also provide a copy of the Florida State University's RLSA Study, He further stated
that the Committee should be prepared to review the Group 2 policies [Agriculture] during the
April I meeting.
X. Adjournment
Mr. Jones moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Mr. DanieL
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0. Adjournment 11:52 a.m.
lJIA
on Hamel, Chairman
4-~ j- ()~
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on . '
as presented 1-1-0 {(or as amended ,
75Lj
5
February 5, 2008 c,
)
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, February 5, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM. in REGULAR SESSION at the
Ave Maria University Academic Building 07 Conference Room 5,5050 Ave
Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
David Farmer
Gary Edison
Tom Jones
David Woodley
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Fred Thomas
Tammie Nemecek
Jim Howard
ALSO PRESENT: Noah Standridge, Senior Planner, Comprehens~ve Planning
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning,
Thomas Greenwood, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning,
Approximately 20 members of the public and staff
7~5
I
February 5, 2008
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:14 AM by Chairman HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken, and a quorum was established. Chairman Hamel noted that the entire
committee was in attendance.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Farmer moved to approve the agenda as presented, Second by Mr. Thoma~~
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: January 22,2008
There was a discussion as to the validity of the minutes if the persons that "second" motions
were not noted in the minutes, Mr. Standridge checked with the County Attorney's Office
and reported that having only the motion maker noted was acceptable, Some of the
committee stated that they had not received a copy of the January 22, 2008 minutes.
Chairman Hamel circulated a copy of his minutes to those members that had not received
their copy. Action for approval of the minutes was temporally tabled.
V. Old Business
A. Technical Review
Item 1. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes.
o Mr. Edison stated that the website for the study should be identified in
the footnote.
o Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of South West Florida, suggested that in
addition to the web site, the data sources for the study be listed.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item I with the changes and to add the
website for the study in to the footnote, second by Mr. Edison.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
Item 2. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes.
o Timothy Nance suggested that the definitions for Rl and R2 reflect the
language stated in the text.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 2 with the suggested edited
changes, second by Mr. Farmer.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
Item 4. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes.
o Mr. Hamel stated that "Ave Maria: 2002 Land Use Breakdown, Exhibit
Table 4-C" be spelled out and displayed in the study,
o Nancy Patton, Florida Fi~'h and Wildlife Federation, suggested that
Table 4-A should reflect additional land uses that would bring the total
RLSA acreage into balance.
2
9!;~
February 5, 2008
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 4 with the suggested changes to
Table 4-A and Map 4-C, second by Mr. Crews.
Voice Vote- Unanimously approved 13-0.
Item 5. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 5 with the suggested changes,
second by Mr. McDaniel.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
Item 6. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes.
o Mr. Cornell suggested that the reference to other agencies that have
acquired properties within the RLSA.
o Mr. Cornell moved to approve Item 6 with the suggested additions,
second by Mr. McDaniel.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
Item 7. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve Item 7 with the suggested changes,
second by Mr. Edison
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
Item 2A. Mr. Standridge reviewed the changes.
o Mrs. Nemecek moved to approve Item 2A with the suggested changes,
second by Mr. Nance.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
Mr. Thomas moved to approve Phase I Technical Review Evaluation as amended, with the
additional changes, and the minutes of the January 22, 2008 meeting, second by Mr.
Crews.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0
Mr. Jones moved to forward the corrected draft of the Phase I Technical Review
Evaluation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a cover letter signed by the
chairman, second by Mr. Thomas.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0.
Mr. Cornell suggested that staff try to coordinate speakers such as Daryl Land and Fritz
Rocka, who have various expertises that could speak to the committee.
Mr. Hamel requested that Mr. Standridge provide copies of the corrected Phase I Technical
Review Evaluation Report to the committee members for their review prior to sending the
copies to the BCe.
Mr. Thomas moved that the committee respond to staff with their corrections before
February 10, 2008.
3
9$7
February 5, 2008
Mr. Standridge requested that the committee review the goals of the RLSA program in
relationship to the completed Phase I Technical Review Evaluation Report, discussion
followed
Mr. Edison moved to proceed to New Business, second by Mr. Jones.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0
VI. New Business
A. Policy Review Schedule
o Mr. Standridge reviewed upcoming meeting schedule.
o Mrs. Nemecek requested that the review should include the policies of the GMP
relating to the RLSA program.
o Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Mc1voy would be a good speaker about leaf vegetable
farming for the March 4, 2008 meeting.
o Mr. Edison moved to meet on March 4, 2008 to set the agenda for the Phase II
Policy Review Report with the recommendations, second by Mr. Thomas
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 13-0
o A round table discussion occurred whereby each committee member expressed
their perspective of objectives, successes and concerns of the RLSA program.
o Mr. Hamel added that the two professors from Gulf Coast University, who just
completed a study on "Agricultural Activities in Southwest Florida" should also
be added as future speakers for the committee,
VII. Committee Comments
o Mr. Hamel stated that Mr. Standridge may not be assisting the committee in the near
future, He stated that he believed that Noah had done a very good job.
o Mr. Thomas concurred with Mr. Hamel's statements. He added that he hoped that
continuity in a committee is very important in an activity such as this, and he hoped that
Noah would be allowed to stay until the completion to this 5-Year Review.
o Mr. Spagna suggested that Mr. Hamel and he speak to Noah's director about this
situation.
o Mr. Thomas rnoved for Mr. Hamel and Mr. Spagna make an appointment to speak to
Noah's director about Noah's importations to the present and future success of the RLSA
5-Year Review,
o Mr. Cornell suggested including Group 1,6, and 8 Policies in the agenda as welL
o Mr. Jones suggested that the committee send a list of speakers, which they believe would
be advantageous to the committee completion of Phase II Policy Review, to Noah as soon
as possible so this compiled list could be presented at the next meeting.
VIII. Staff Comments
o Mr. Standridge stated that the next meeting will occur on March 4, 2008 in the Academic
Hall at Ave Maria, He stated that lunch is available for purchase in the cafeteria at the
Student Union Building, and after lunch there will be a guided tour of Ave Maria.
IX. Public Comments
951
4
February 5,2008
.:. Nancy Patton suggested that a speaker on "Climate Change" would be very important
She also suggested that Dr.'s Dan Smith, Reed Noss and Marty Main, who published the
"Eastern Collier Wildlife Crossing Study" should also be invited to speak to the
committee,
.:. Nicole Ryan stated that the Conservancy of South West Florida is requesting that the
committee review their comments and DCA's comments which were prepared about this
plan in 2002, and the Conservancy's concerns with the program over the past couple of
years. She provided copies of those comments to each of the committee members and is
attached,
.:. Dan Scolfield stated that this program has been voluntary for the property owners in the
RLSA overlay area, and the RLSA program has experienced a lot of acceptance and
successes, He recommended that if the committee would like to see this program
continue to succeed, the committee needs to keep the property owners in mind. He also
suggested that the word "term" needs to be defined.
X. Lunch (at university cafeteria) Adjournment
o Mr. Hamel stated that the meeting will be "Suspended" for a lunch break,
Meeting suspended at 11 :54 AM.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the chair at 11 :54AM for lunch.
XI. Tour of Town of Ave Maria
XII. Adjournment. Adjournment of the RLSA Review Committee meeting occurred following
lunch and a tour of the Town of Ave Maria,
ewardship Area Review Committee
3h/o1
/ /
These minutes aRProved by the Board/Committee on
as presented 'K or as amended ,
9S?
5
/
January 22, 2008 ~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, January 22, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the
Collier County Community Development & Environmental Services
Room #609/610,2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews(absent)
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
Tom Jones
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Fred Thomas
Tammie Nemecek
Jim Howard
ALSO PRESENT: Noah Standridge, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney
Michael J. DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning,
Approximately 20 members of the public and staff
9~D
1
January 22, 2008
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 AM by Chairman HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Eidson moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: December 4, 2007
Mr. Wolfley moved to approve the minutes of the December 4,2007 meeting.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0
V. Old Business
o Chairman Hamel expressed his appreciation to all those who helped in putting
together the January 18, 2008 Public Information Workshop and making it so
successful.
o Gary Eidson stated that he hopes that the significance of the values in the GIS
polygons area is dynamic and can emphasize in this 5- Year Review Report.
o Fred Thomas expressed his interest for the report to not only consider water and
endangered species flow but also consider human activity flow.
VI. New Business
A. Robert's Rules Presentation - Sue Chapin
This item was not discussed per the action taken by the committee at the January
18,2008 Public Information Workshop.
B. Phase I Technical Review Evaluation
I. Policy 1.22, Item 1-8
Mr. Tom Jones moved to focus specifically on Policy 1.22, Item 1-8.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Question #1 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
o Mr. Cornell stated that the commission should be focusing on the
question "is the plan accomplishing the goals that were identified for the
RLSA of Collier County,
o Mr. Eidson moved to proceed through each table and map,
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
o Mr. Spagna questioned the number of total credits that have used to
date. Mr. Standridge stated that 11,000 have been used,
Questions Ji'om the Floor
7~f
2
January 22,2008
.:. Niccole Ryan suggested that the sources for the base natural
resource data be referenced.
.:. Nancy Payton stated that natural resource data is reviewed with
each SSA and SRA application submittal, but she suggested that a
pre-RLSA map be included within the study.
.:. Russell Priddy Sated that the property owners in the area
designated as RLSA have taken a "Leap of Faith" to participate in
this program and are banking that the credits that could and have
been generated on their property will be there in the future. He
also stated the current GMP/LDC regulations relating to the
"Review Process" for the RLSA only call for an initial 5-Year
Review process, and that the committee may consider
recommending a future "Reoccurring 5-Year Review Process,"
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve the technical materials for Question # I
with the addition of noted recommendations from the public to the
Question I 's reference materials,
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Question #2 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
o Mr. McDaniel suggested that the uses and the acreage that have removed
through the SSA approval process be provided within the review
materials,
Questions from the Floor
.:. Judy Hushon stated that the environmental enhancements within
the SSA and the SRA should be detailed within the review
materials.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve the technical materials for Question #2
with the addition of noted recommendations from the Committee and the
public to the Question 2's reference materials.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Question #3 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
Questions from the Floor
.:.Judy Hushon suggested that the descriptions of R-I, R-2,
Agricultural Types, and Early Entry Credits be added to the
Definition Section.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve the technical materials for Question #3
with the addition of noted recommendations from the public to the
Question 3's reference materials,
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Question #4 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
9~2
3
January 22,2008
o Mr. McDaniel suggested to breakout the loss of agricultural acreage for
both the designated SSAs and SRAs.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve the technical materials for Question #4
with the addition of noted recommendation from the committee to the
Question 4's reference materials,
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Question #5 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
Questions from the Floor
.:. Michael DeRuntz recommended that the verbiage should be
changed to state "Ave Maria SRA was approved for and may be
developed to."
.:. Nancy Patton suggested that the acreage should be included.
.:. Russell Priddy stated that the development of a quarry in the
RLSA not only changes the land uses that could possibly occur
on that site, but restricts the potential number of credits which
could be generated from that property.
.:. Nancy Patton stated that those properties converted from
agricultural activities to conservation need to be identified and
included in the review materials,
o Mr. McDaniel moved to approve the technical materials for Question #5
with the addition of noted recommendation from the public to the
Question 5' s reference materials.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Question #6 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
o Mr. Cornell stated that the Natural Resource and Conservation Service
(NRCS) and Conservation Collier should be referenced in the review
materials,
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve the technical materials for Question #6
with the addition of noted recommendation from the committee to the
Question 6' s reference materials.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
Question #7 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
o Mr. Cornell suggested that a map of the designated "Restoration Areas"
be added to the review materials.
o Mr. Farmer moved to approve the technical materials for Question #7
with the addition of noted recommendation from the committee to the
Question Ts reference materials.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
9?3
4
January 22,2008
Questiou #8 - Chairman Hamel read the question and Mr. Standridge
reviewed the data.
o Mr. Thomas moved to approve the technical materials for Question #8.
Voice Vote - Unanimously Approved 12-0.
VII. Public Comments
.:. Laura McDonald Defenders of Wildlife suggested that the Natural Resource and
Conservation Service, Conservation Collier, and other Environmental Agencies and
Organization would be an excellent source to assist the committee with their Phase II
Review and Analysis.
VIII. Committee Comments
o Mr. Thomas stated that the study needs to focus on the need for the interconnection for
potential Human Habitat Conservation Areas (HHCA),
o Mr. Cornell stated that he believed that the Committee needs to have Technical Advisory
input from the Phase II Review.
o Mr. Thomas inquired into the comment that he heard, that this was Noah's last meeting.
o Mr. Hamel stated that he also would like to know more about this situation. Mr.
Standridge stated that he would need to speak with his Director.
IX. Staff Comments
o Mr. Standridge stated that the next meeting will occur on February 5, 2008 in the
Academic Hall at Ave Maria. He will be emailing directions to the commission. At this
meeting, the committee will be reviewing the revisions to the Phase I Review and making
a recommendation for approval.
o Mr. McDaniel suggested that at the next meeting, and after the Phase I Review, he would
suggest that the committee begin the Phase II Review.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order ofthe chair at 12:20 P.M.
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
Ron Hamel, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented or as amended
90Y
5
--"---------
December 4, 2007 _ S
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, December 4, 2007
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Review Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
Business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the
Collier County Community & Environmental Development Services Conference
Room #609/610,2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: Ron Hamel
VICE CHAIRMAN: Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell(absent)
Zach Floyd Crews
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
Tom Jones
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel
Timothy Nance
Fred Thomas
Tammie Nemecek
Jim Howard
ALSO PRESENT: Noah Standridge, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney
70S
December 4, 2007
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:04 AM by Chairman HameL
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the agenda subject to the following change:
Item VLB - postponed
Second by Mr. McDanieL Carried unanimously 12-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: November 20, 2007
Mr. Eidson moved to approve the minutes of the November 20,2007 meeting subject to the
following change:
Page 2, item 2, paragraph 4, Mr. Spagna is "not retired".
Second by Mr. Nance. Carried unanimously 12-0.
V. Old Business
A. January Meeting Date
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the next scheduled meeting date as January
22,2008. Second by Mr. Crews. Carried unanimously 12-0.
B. Meeting Location
Mr. Spagna moved to approve Collier County Community Development Services
Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive as the location for the next
meeting. Second by Mr. McDanieL Carried unanimously 12-0.
VI. New Business
A. BCC Rural Lands Presentation
Al Reynolds, CEO of Wilson Miller appeared before the Committee to provide
an overview of the Rural Lands Stewardship program. His overview consisted
of 2 phases:
I) The presentation of a video regarding the "lmmokalee Area Study Stage I"
that was shown to the Board of County Commissioners' in September of 200 1.
2) A power point presentation on the details of the program that was originally
shown to the Board of County Commissioners in June of 2002 when the
program was originated.
Both these presentations are available from the County and Mr. Reynolds will
provide copies to the Committee.
Following the presentation detailed questions were posed on exactly how the
program works, how much a credit is worth, specific acreages used in
calculations, restoration requirements and credits, how land use layers are
removed, etc,
9~
2
December 4, 2007
Chairman Hamel noted that the purpose of the Committee was to determine if
the Goals ofthe Rural Lands Stewardship Area are being met, not to change the
details of the programs implementation, These goals were adopted in the
Growth Management Plan.
Mr. Thomas suggested that the Committee study Ava Maria in detail as it is the
only project that has been approved through this program to date. Big Cypress
is the only other proposal that is processing through the program, but is not yet
approved,
It was noted that some of the Committee members have an in depth knowledge
ofthe program, while others is limited,
Noah Standridge, Senior Planner suggested any Committee members that need
a detailed overview ofthe program meet with him one on one.
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney stated that this is an acceptable practice
under the requirements of the Sunshine Law.
Public Sneakers
Nicole Ryan of the Nature Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Committee
regarding the Technical Review and noted the following:
· Town of Big Cypress has not yet been approved and should be removed from
the report
. More research should be conducted on the Agriculture data on page 4
· An appendix should be included with updated data on MERIT maps of Panther
habitats, Fish and Wildlife least cost pathways report, potential generation of
Stewardship Sending Area Credits, etc,
· She has data that will be provided to Noah Standridge
· The Technical Review be completed as soon as possible
Chris Straton representing the League of Women Voters addressed the Committee and
noted the following:
· The length of the meetings should be more than 2 hours to conduct the necessary
business
· Opposition to a Committee member meeting one on one with Noah Strandridge,
the public needs an understanding ofthe background and knowledge of the
Committee members; said understanding should be gained through the public
forum.
Mr. Thomas stated that the Committee should investigate an overall land use plan for
the Stewardship area with considerations given to locations of future infrastructure.
Mr. Standridge noted it was determined in the first Committee meeting; the
Committee should address the Technical Review in Phase I and Policy Review in
Phase II. Phase II would be the place to address this concern.
9&7
3
December 4, 2007
He further noted that in response to meeting times, ample time will be allotted for the
Committee to address all the issues, there was a time constraint of 9- I I AM today for
the meeting.
Mr. McDaniel welcomed the public participation and noted the Committee will spend
the necessary time to complete a proper review of the program,
Mr, Jones left the meeting at 10:45 AM
Elizabeth Fleming, Florida Defenders of Wildlife addressed the Committee and noted
the following:
. Several Counties are poised to adopt a similar program as Collier County's
. There is updated data available to the Committee (regarding wildlife, etc.)
. Build in a monitoring aspect of this program to judge its future success
Chairman Hamel noted the time constraint advertised and if it had to be adhered to.
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney noted that the Committee is limited to the time
advertised, with a vote they could extend the time but this could face future scrutiny
regarding notification for public participation.
Mr. Thomas moved to extend the meeting for an additional 10 minutes. Second by
Mr. Eidson. Carried unanimously 11-0.
B. Collier Rural Land Program vs. State Statute
Postponed
C. Technical Review
I. Success Criteria
Ms. Nemecek recommended that 2 weeks prior to the next meeting a
detailed outline be provided on the subjects to cover in the Technical
Review.
Mr. Eidson noted that some of the data in the Technical Review appeared
to be outdated and wanted to ensure that all data provided in the Technical
Review is accurate and up.to-date and requested any parties such as Ms.
Ryan forward any data of interest to the Committee.
Mr. Standridge noted that some of the updated information does not exist
at this point and any updated data will be provided to the Committee as it
becomes available, He wanted to ensure the Committee focus on the
specific items in the Technical Review. He will provide an outline of the
Technical Review for the next meeting,
VII. Public Comments
None
VIII. Committee Comments
None
9kg
4
December 4, 2007
IX. Staff Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 11 :20 A.M.
Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee
,:r.....,
. y;?,> .,# '. -'" ~~~.,'''' I .
Ron Hamel, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented or as amended
709
5
November 20, 2007
~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA
REVIEW COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 20, 2007
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610 in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental
Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice-Chairman:
Ron Hamel
Neno Spagna
Brad Cornell
Zach Floyd Crews
David Farmer
Gary Eidson
Jim Howard
Tammie Nemecek
Tom Jones
David Wolfley
Bill McDaniel (Excused)
Timothy Nance (Excused)
Fred Thomas (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Noah Standridge, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Laura Roys, Senior Environmental Specialist
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney
770
November 20,2007
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 AM by Noah Standridge, Senior Planner,
Comprehensive Planning.
2. Staff and Committee Iutroductions
Noah Standridge announced that he would be the Staff Liaison for the Committee and
stated future meetings will be held on the first Tuesday of each month at 9:00 AM, and
the last meeting is scheduled/or October 7, 2008.
He explained the Committee had been established by the Board of County
Commissioners in October, 2007, He reviewed the Attendance Policy: if a member
misses two meetings on an unexcused basis, the Committee may nominate other
individuals to serve on the Committee, subject to confirmation and appointment by the
Board of County Commissioners.
He introduced the Staff members: Laura Roys, Senior Envirorunental Specialist, and
Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright.
The Committee Members introduced themselves:
. David Wolfley - former member of the Collier County Planning Commission
. Ron Hamel- with Gulf Citrus Growers Association and a former member of the
initial Rural Lands Study Commission
. Zach Crews - resident of lmmokalee and a Fire Commissioner for District #5
. Jim Howard - with Wachovia Bank and a former member of the initial Rural
Lands Study Commission
. Tom Jones - Barron Collier Company
. David Farmer - Engineer and Planner, and resident of Golden Gate Estates
. Gary Eidson -- N, Naples resident - member of Citizens Transportation Coalition
. Neno Spagna - retired, was Collier County's first Planning Director
. Brad Cornell- Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida
3. BCC Resolution 2007-173 creating the RLSA Review Committee
Packets containing information concerning the Board of County Commissioner's
Resolution and applications of the Members were distributed to the Committee, The
Committee will elect its Chair and Vic-Chair during the meeting,
4. Overview of Committee Scope and Pnrpose
The Committee is mandated to:
. Review the data concerning the effectiveness of the RSLA Overlay in meeting the
goal, objective, and policies of the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the Growth
Management Plan ("GMP")
. Make recommendations to the BCC to increase the effectiveness of the Overlay;
. Assist in determining the most effective dates and venues to hold public
presentations;
. Aid and assist in promoting public interest in the Review process.
The Rural Land Stewardship Area ("RLSA") is 300 square miles, approximately
2
~7/
November 20,2007
200,000 acres, located in northeastern Collier County.
The goal is:
. To address the long-term needs of the residents and property owners within in the
lmmokalee Area Study boundary of the Rural Land Stewardship Area;
. To protect agricultural activities, preventing the premature conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses;
· To discourage urban sprawl;
. To direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitats;
. To enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations;
. To encourage development that utilizes creative land use management techniques.
Noah Standridge gave a presentation which eXplained the various land designations,
Presentations were made by Nancy Peyton of the Florida Wildlife Federation and by
AI Reynolds of Wilson Miller, Inc" which provided a history of the RSLA and Collier
County's efforts to protect wetlands, wildlife and its natural resources. Items discussed
included the data gathering process concerning identification of the rural lands, wildlife
corridors and panther crossings in addition to the Growth Management Plan and long-term
"smart" community development.
(9:50AM - Tammie Nemecek arrived)
5. Sunshine Law Presentation - Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright
He stated the Sunshine Law applies whenever there is a meeting of two or more members
of the Committee because the Committee is an advisory board of Collier County
govemment.
. A "meeting" may take place via phone or intemet/email communication, as well as in
person,
. Whenever a meeting takes place, it must first be "noticed" (or publicized), (b) it must
be open to the public, and (c) minutes must be taken.
· The County Attorney's Office cautions all members to not discuss the business of
their Committee or Board outside of the formal meeting environment.
· Penalties: for a non-criminal infraction, the member may either be a fined up to
$500.00 or removed from elected office
Assistant County Attorney Wright advised the members he is available ifthey perceive
of a potential conflict of interest concerning any item before the Committee, He stated he
would explain the appropriate procedure to abstain for that Member. He also suggested
the Committee members should keep their notes and materials for one year and to give
them to Staff at the end of the Committee's term,
6. Elections
Nominations were made by various Committee Members and a vote was taken. Ron
Hamel was elected as Chairman and Neno Spagna was elected as Vice Chairman by
majority vote,
3
97~
November 20, 2007
Mr. Hamel accepted the nomination and expressed his desire to work with the Members.
Mr. Spagna also accepted and thanked the Members.
7. New Business
Chairman Hamel asked the Members for their input.
Gary Eidson asked if a map could be produced that defined the property of the six
landowners who comprised 84% of the land within the RLSA.
Mr. W oltley suggested the map could present public versus private ownership without
identifying specific owners,
Chairman Hamel stated this information was already available and the Committee
should focus on the global picture..
8. Committee Comments
The date for the January meeting was discussed,
Noah Standridge will poll the Committee members for their availability via ernail and
suggest a mutually convenient date in order to achieve a quorum.
Chairman Hamel suggested that AI Reynolds present the 30-rninute program that had
previously been made to the Board of County Commissioners at the next meeting. He
stated the program would give a good overview for the new Members and assist them
with the review of the technical report.
Mr. Farmer asked for specific guidance as to which items in the information packet
provided should be reviewed in preparation for the next meeting.
Noah Standridge suggested reading the following topics:
. the BCC Resolution;
. the Sunshine Law requirements;
. the Technical Review (under a separate tab);
. the original Rural Lands Study, located under "Support Documentation,"
He also mentioned the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code
policies were also contained in the packet.
It will be the determination of the Committee as to whether or not the participation to
date has been successful.
9. Public Comments
Speakers:
Russell Priddy, one of the six large landowners, suggested holding meetings at various
locations rather than just at the County's offices.
Zach Floyd Crews supported this suggestion.
Noah Standridge stated he was in the process of evaluating other possible locations
such as the University Extension Office, as well as potential space at A va Maria. He
stated options would be presented to the Committee for its consideration.
Judy Hushon - Vice Chair of the Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee -
offered her Committee's services as part of the Review process,
4
9)3
November 20, 2007
Laurie MacDonald - Florida Director for Defenders of Wildlife - stated she hoped the
new data would also be made available to the public,
Noah Standridge stated everything except the Technical Review was already on the
website.
Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation - stated the Technical Review, even though
it was a "working document," should also be available on the website.
10. Next Meeting
Chairman Hamel announced that the next meetin~ will be held at the County's office at
2800 N, Horseshoe Road on Tuesday, December 4' at 9:00 AM,
Tammie Nemecek moved to adjourn. Second by Dave Wolfley. Carried
unanimously, 8-0.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chair at 11:15 AM.
RURAL LAND STEW ARDESHlP AREA
REVIEW COMMITTEE
~>? .' ~/".'o~
></~ 't,,;)',~,_..
Ron Hamel, Chairman '
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on
presented , or as amended
, as
77y:
5
JCJHNS N
A 1""PB./ ~I k
N
SINCE 1946
ENGINEERING
TO:
Tom Jones, V,P. Government Affairs
Barron Collier Companies
DATE: reviseq March II, 2009
Eastern Collier County Water Resource
Availability
FROM: David L. Hoffman, P.G,
RE:
Introduction
This paper provides an overview of water supplies available to meet future residential
development and agriculture demands in eastern Collier County. This assessment was made
using assumptions provided by the Barron Collier Companies and information contained in the
Phase I Technical Report, including: a projected population of234,572 persons at build-out, a
conversion of approximately 45,000 acres of existing agricultural land to residential development
to accommodate the projected population, and approximately 40,000 acres of agricultural lands
remaining under cultivation. The intent ofthis assessment is to enable the user to visualize the
"big picture" of present-day and future water supply demands and availability in eastern Collier
County.
This assessment discusses the surplus of traditional water supplies (i.e., shallow fresh
groundwater from the Surficial Aquifer System) made available by conversion of 45,000 acres of
agriculture to residential development, documented neutral water resource impact of residential
development, as well as the use of alternative water supplies (i, e" brackish groundwater,
reclaimed water, and storage) to serve future residential developments. This assessment assumes
that future water supply approaches will be subject to present-day South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD, 2007) rules and regulations.
Existing Agricultural Water Supply Use
Consumptive water use in agricultural irrigation is that water consumed by the crop through
evapotranspiration (ET) and through harvesting (removal of fruit and vegetable), The Modified
Blaney-Criddle irrigation model (SFWMD, 2003) was used in this assessment to approximate
consumptive use through irrigated crop ET. The volume of water removed through harvesting is
considered minimal (<I % of consumptive use) and not quantified in this assessment. The
Modified Blaney-Criddle irrigation model is used by the SFWMD to establish irrigation
allocations in water use permits based on irrigated acreage, crop type, evapotranspiration,
effective rainfall, irrigation system efficiency, under I-in-IO drought conditions (a drought with a
return frequency of once in JO years). Based on the Phase I Technical Report there are
approximately 90,000 acres of agricultural land of which approximately 65,000 acres is irrigated
(citrus, vegetable, and specialty crops) and 25,000 acres is not irrigated (fallow land and
pasture/rangeland). The 65,000 acres of irrigated acreage consists of approximately 38,233 acres
of citrus, 25,035 acres of vegetables, and 1,201 acres of specialty crops, If full conversion to the
potential Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) footprint of 45,000 acres were to occur we would
estimate approximately 40,000 acres of irrigated agriculture (20,000 acres of citrus and 20,000
acres of vegetable) to remain. Therefore, approximately 24,469 acres of agriculture will no
longer be irrigated including 18,233 acres of citrus, 5,035 acres of vegetable, and 1,201 acres of
specialty crop,
97.5.
2158 Johnson Street . Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550
(239) 334-0046. Fax (239) 334-3661
.
.
..
MEMO To:
DATE:
PAGE:
Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies
revised March II, 2009
-2-
Based on the irrigation model and parameters given, irrigated ET for 18,233 acres of citrus,
5,035 acres of vegetable, and 1,201 acres of specialty crop cultivation is approximately 68, II,
and 5 mgd, respectively (84 mgd total). Two growing seasons, each four months in length, were
used to estimate irrigated ET for vegetable crops. Turf was used for the specialty crop. Based
on the Blaney-Criddle irrigation model, the average effective rainfall (that portion oftotal
rainfall that is used by the plant to meet ET demand) is approximately 25, 12, and 26 inches for
citrus, vegetable, and specialty crops, respectively, at the Immokalee rain station. This average
effective rainfall equals approximately 34, 5, and 2 mgd for citrus, vegetable, and specialty crop,
respectively (41 mgd total). Therefore, the total irrigated ET demand met by supplement
irrigation is approximately 43 mgd (84 mgd - 41 mgd).
Irrigation water to serve existing agricultural uses in eastern Collier County is withdrawn from
traditional supplies, mainly shallow aquifers located within the Surficial Aquifer System (i,e"
water-table and lower Tamiami). These shallow aquifers yield larges volumes of good quality
groundwater, provided the production wells have been constructed properly. There have been no
documented occurrences of significant impacts to other existing legal users, wetlands, or the
resource from historical (>50 years) withdrawals from these aquifers.
The SFWMD established maximum developable limits (MDLs) for semi-confined aquifers in
Section 3.2.4 of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications (SFWMD, 2007) to
provide reasonable assurances that the proposed withdrawals will not cause harmful drawdown.
The MOL are aquifer specific and represent an elevation above which corresponding aquifer
water levels must be maintained. The SFWMD set the MDLs at 20 feet above the top of the
uppermost geologic strata that comprises the aquifer at any point during a I-in-I 0 drought
condition, The point of compliance for the MDLs is 50 feet from a pumping well. For example,
if the uppermost geologic strata (i.e., permeable limestone) marking the top ofthe aquifer is
located at 75 feet below land surface (bls), the MOL would be set at 55 feet bls. There are no
reported exceedances of the MDLs in eastern Collier County, thus indicating an adequate water
supply is present that historically has supported agriculture.
A good explanation of why water levels in the water-table and lower Tamiami aquifers have
exhibited a statistically significant lack of change or slight increase in southwest Florida is
provided by Maliva and Hopfensperger (2007). The authors indicate that the II-fold population
increase (1960 to 2004) in southwest Florida and concomitant increase in water use had an
overall neutral impact on water levels in the water table aquifer because ET of residential
communities is comparable to that of native vegetation and less than that of most agricultural
land uses. The authors present evidence supporting their findings using United States Geological
Survey (USGS) recorded water levels located throughout southwest Florida. The evidence also
shows that water levels in local aquifers recover to near background levels each summer wet
season because rainfall exceeds ET during the wet season,
The Surficial Aquifer System consists of the water table and lower Tamiami aquifers (primary
sources of irrigation water in eastern Collier County), An existing agricultural water use demand
of 43 mgd for 24,469 acres of crop ET is equivalent to yield 1,1 rngd/square mile from Surficial
Aquifer System, This yield/area is documented to be sustainable by lack of impacts on water
levels.
97Y:>
2158 Johnson Street .Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550
(239) 334-0046. Fax (239) 334-3661
MEMO To:
DATE:
PAGE:
Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies
revised March II, 2009
-3-
Present day SFWMD (2006) regulation requires the storage of storm water runoff on-site and
thus prevention of over drainage of the developed land. Storage is accomplished through
interconnected lake systems (e,g., wet detention). The result is storm water flow across
impervious surfaces to the lake systems, minimization ofET consumption, and increase in water
table water levels. Johnson Engineering, Inc. is actively engaged in the study oflong-term
discharge of storm water management systems in existing residential developments throughout
southwest Florida. Preliminary results indicate that discharge from some storm water lake
systems can be considerably lower than anticipated and that significant recharge to the water
table aquifer occurs.
Future Residential Water SUDr1v Demands
Residential water supply demands will include potable and irrigation water. According to the
Collier County 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (CDM, 2007), the Ave Maria Utility
Company, LLLP (AMUC) level of standard service includes a per capita water demand standard
of 110 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Ave Maria has a centralized irrigation water (reuse)
system that eliminates the need to irrigate with drinking (potable) water. It is assumed that
future residential developments will also have a similar standard. The average annual daily
demand for finished water based on a projected population of 234,572 persons each using 110
gallons per day amount to approximately 26 mgd.
The irrigated acreage of a typical residential community in southwest Florida is approximately
30% of the total acreage. Using the Modified Blaney-Criddle irrigation model and assuming
13,500 irrigated acres of turf grass, the irrigated ET is 59 mgd. Based on the Blaney-Criddle
irrigation model, the average effective rainfall is approximately 26 inches at the Immokalee rain
station. This average effective rainfall equals approximately 27 mgd. Additionally,
approximately 90% of the potable water supply (23 mgd) will be treated and reused for irrigation
of the turf grass. Therefore, the total irrigated turf grass ET demand met by supplement
irrigation is approximately 9 mgd (59 mgd - 27 mgd from effective rainfall- 23 mgd from reuse
water) .
Another potential consumptive water use of residential communities is evaporation from
constructed lakes. Approximately 15% of typical residential communities are constructed as
lakes and evaporation is approximately 53 inches per year (FSU, 1984), which from 6,750 acres
of lakes is approximately 27 mgd. The average rainfall is 50.46 inches at the Immokalee rain
station, which is equal to approximately 25 mgd when applied to the lake area. Thus, the net
evaporative loss from the constructed lakes is approximately 2 mgd (27 mgd - 25 mgd).
The net consumptive use of water for future residential is approximately 37 mgd (26 mgd
potable + 9 mgd for supplement irrigation + 2 mgd for evaporation), which is roughly equivalent
to 0.5 mgdlsquare mile from Surficial Aquifer System. This is yield/area is less than that of
existing agriculture, thus further demonstrating sustainable traditional sources of water.
The following is a summary of average residual irrigation requirements (that supplemental water
needed for irrigation in addition to rainfall) needed to meet the 24,469 acres of agricultural crop
ET demands. The summary also provides net consumptive use for future residential
development, which includes potable water use and evaporation from the surface water
2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550
(239) 334-0046. Fax (239) 334-3661
7'77
--,-_..."'._-,...._---"'~-,.._-".,-"""'''-~^~
MEMO To:
DATE:
PAGE:
Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies
revised March II, 2009
-4-
management lake system, Finally, the reduction in consumptive water use resulting from the
conversion of agriculture to residential land use is shown. The results demonstrate that
consumptive water use (ET) will decline when agriculture is converted to residential land use,
Converted Irrigated Agriculture (24,469 acres)
Avera e Residual Irri ation Re uirement
. Annual Average Daily Demand (mgd)
Annual Demand (million gallons)
T 15,6:~ I
Net Consumptive Use for Residential Development (45,000 acres)
Potable, Lake Evaporation, and Average Residual Irrigation
Re uirement
Annual Avera e Daily Demand(mgd)
Annual Demand million allons
13,5~
I 2,]9~ I
Alternative Water Supplies
Another abundant source of water is referred to by the SFWMD as alternative water supplies.
The alternative water supplies that can meet the future residential demands in eastern Collier
County include brackish groundwater, reclaimed water, and storage. The Floridan aquifer
underlies all of Florida and is characterized as moderately to highly productive in southwest
Florida. This deep, brackish aquifer occurs beneath the shallow freshwater aquifers typically
utilized in eastern Collier County. The Floridan aquifer is primarily recharged in central Florida
(e,g., Polk County). The Floridan aquifer is prolific and stores a tremendous volume of moderate
to poor quality water that is available for withdrawal but requires advanced treatment, at
increased cost, such as reverse osmosis. The SFWMD points out that other than some water
quality deterioration associated with pumping of the Floridan aquifer, no other environmental
impacts have been identified in association with use of this resource (SFWMD 2005-2006 Lower
West Coast Water Supply Plan). Water quality deterioration associated with Floridan aquifer
withdrawals is localized near the wellfield and is not a regional issue. The SFWMD raises
concern about water quality deterioration so that the utility can design its treatment works in
anticipation ofthe change.
The SFWMD (2002) initiated a hydrogeologic study of the Floridan aquifer near ]mmokalee to
support future water supply planning, The study consisted of exploratory well construction,
aquifer testing, and long-term monitoring of water quality and aquifer water levels. According to
the SFWMD, a long-duration (7].6 hours) aquifer performance test was conducted to determine
the hydraulic performance of a test zone (1,050 to ],160 feet bls) ofthe upper Floridan aquifer at
the test site. A high transmissivity value of268,000 gallons/day/foot was calculated by the
SFWMD for the test zone. After nearly 3 days (7\.6 hours) of continuous pumping at ],]00
gallons per minute (gpm: 1,6 mgd), only 3 feet of aquifer water level drawdown was observed in
2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550
(239) 334-0046. Fax (239) 334-3661
q7t
MEMO To:
DATE:
PAGE:
Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies
revised March I I, 2009
-5-
the Floridan aquifer at a distance of240 feet from the pumping well, Based on the SFWMD
information, withdrawals of I mgdlsquare mile from the Floridan aquifer is feasible, which totals
approximately 70 mgd on the 45,000 acres converted from agriculture to residential.
Withdrawals of I mgd can also occur from the 40,000 acres remaining under agricultural
production to provide an additional 63 mgd water supply for future residential use. The total
available water supply for future residential use from the Floridan aquifer is in excess of I 33
mgd. The SFWMD promotes the use of the Floridan aquifer and provides funding from its
alternative water supply funds to encourage its use. There are few competing users of the
Floridan aquifer in eastern Collier County since traditional supplies are abundant and meet
existing demands.
uifer Withdrawals
d
133
48,545
Use of reclaimed water for residential irrigation is an alternative water supply that further
reduces the overall irrigation water use demand from traditional supplies for future residential
developments. Approximately 90% ofthe average annual daily demand for potable water is
returned to a wastewater treatment plant and treated for use as irrigation, Therefore,
approximately 23 mgd of reclaimed water is available for residential irrigation.
While traditional supplies, brackish groundwater and reclaimed water will be readily available to
meet future irrigation ET losses, storage represents one of the greatest solutions for future water
supply needs. Southwest Florida gets upwards of 65% of its total rainfall during a four month
(June - September) rainy season when most ofthis water is quickly lost to evapotranspiration
and surface water flows to tide. At the same time, agriculture and residential (potable and
irrigation) water use are correspondingly at their lowest. The solution is multi-year storage of
water during the rainy season until times of demand (i.e" dry season) or prolonged demand (i.e.,
drought).
Aquifer storage recovery (ASR) is the storage of water (i.e., drinking water, storm water, and/or
reclaimed water) in a deep aquifer during times of excess and withdrawal (recovery) during
times of demand, ASR has proven successful in southwest Florida due to the limited land
surface area (< I acre) required to store hundreds of millions of gallons and thus minimized land
costs and environmental impacts as opposed to a large surface water reservoir. Furthermore,
water stored in a confined aquifer is not subject to evaporative losses. Existing ASR programs in
southwest Florida include Bonita Springs Utilities, Lee County Utilities, Collier County Utilities,
and City of Cape Coral. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD: 2004)
prepared a position paper in support of ASR that discusses recovery efficiency of ASR wells.
Recovery efficiency is an indication of the amount of mixing that occurs between the stored
water and native groundwater in the aquifer system. Acceptable recovery efficiency ranges
between 70 and 100 percent. SJRWMD (2004) indicates that ASR recovery efficiency in Florida
generally improves with successive operating cycles due to the freshening of the storage zone
and that virtually all ASR wells operating for five years or more have reached acceptable and
economically viable levels of recovery efficiency, Permitted daily storage in a single ASR well
977
2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550
(239) 334-0046. Fax (239) 334-3661
MEMO To:
DATE:
PAGE:
Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies
revised March 11, 2009
-6-
in Florida typically ranges between I and 3 mgd. The spacing of ASR wells is dependent on
aquifer characteristics and stored water volume. Thirty ASR wells each storing 3 mgd during the
120 day rainy season (storage cycle) would result in the storage of approximately 10,800 million
(10.8 billion) gallons, An ASR recovery efficiency of 80% will result in approximately 8,600
million (8.6 billion) gallons or 35 mgd if withdrawn over the remaining 245 days ofthe year
(recovery cycle).
Summarv
Historical agricultural water use from traditional sources is significant with no documented
impacts. Conversion of land from agriculture to residential will result in a decrease in water use
due to decreased ET. The traditional sources have served agriculture well and their continued
use should be pursued in the future, Studies of USGS measured water levels indicate a neutral
water resource impact of residential development not only because residential irrigation ET is
less than agriculture, but also that residential ET is similar to that of natural systems. Also, water
levels are maintained each year as rainfall exceeds ET during the wet season.
Alternative water supplies are proven and promoted by the SFWMD in southwest Florida. A
large sustainable volume (113 rngd) of brackish groundwater is available from the Floridan
aquifer from land area (I mgd/square mile) referenced in this paper. A large reclaimed water
volume of approximately 23 mgd would be available for residential irrigation, Finally, capture
of abundant water during the wet season and storage via ASR wells represents a sustainable and
drought-proof technology, Recovery from thirty ASR wells during a 245 day recovery cycle
would provide approximately 35 mgd, In summary, the abundance oftraditional and alternative
water supplies discussed in this paper clearly demonstrates that future land uses are not limited
by water supplies in eastern Collier County.
\\\\\\11111111(111/
,,\\\ '--( 'MA N It 111//
...,\ ^ \.- ....... 0,.<-- //...
",v.,,- -". ~ ~
.$ ~ .,,- ~CEN8A... ~ ~
...~ "'v' ""." 7"-
go l No.2164 \ -z. ~
=*: * :*=
- " " -
~ ~ \ STATE OF : f;;; ~
... r-:. " " ':'J....
~ 0 .... ~OR\Op.. ....0& ~
"" ^'-.. "" ,," ...
~I' <'-& ......... ov \,'"
///// SIONA L G€ "\,,
11111"11111\\\\\\\\\
2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Port Myers, Florid
(239) 334-0046. Pax (239) 334-3661
v":::':<~
3-11-09
11D
""''''''''~",","",,-,~,.,
MEMO To:
DATE:
PAGE:
Mr. Tom Jones, Barron Collier Companies
revised March II, 2009
-7-
References
Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM), 2007, Collier County IO-Year Water Supply Facilities Work
Plan, prepared for Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department, October 2007.
Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, Phase I-Technical Report,
February 2008.
Florida State University (FSU), 1984, Water Resources Atlas of Florida, Average Annual Lake
Evaporation (p.23), editors, Fernald, B.A. and Patton, DJ.
Maliva, R.G., and Hopfensperger, K,P., 2007, Impacts of Residential Development on Humid
Subtropical Freshwater Resources: Southwest Florida Experience, Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, Paper Number J06022, Volume 43, Number 6,
December 2007, p 1540-1549.
SFWMD, 2002, Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Floridan Aquifer System, Immokalee Water
and Sewer District Wastewater Treatment Plant, Collier County, Florida, Technical
Publication WS-14, prepared by Michael Bennett, May 2002.
SFWMD, 2003, Part B, Water Use Management System Design and Evaluation Aids, V.
Supplement Crop Requirements and Withdrawal Calculation, South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, 12 pp.
SFWMD, 2005-2006, Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan Update.
SFWMD, 2006, Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the
South Florida Water Management District
SFWMD, 2007, Basis of Review for Water Use Applications Within the South Florida Water
Management District, Amended April23, 2007.
St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), 2004, Aquifer Storage and Recover
(ASR) Issues and Concepts: A Position Paper Prepared by the St. Johns River Water
Management District, in Association with R. David G. Pyne, ASR Systems LLC,
September 15, 2004.
2158 Johnson Street. Post Office Box 1550. Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1550
(239) 334-0046 . Fax (239) 334-3661
9g1
.(J~
MEMORANDUM
Date:
April!7,2009
To:
Commissioner Donna Fiala, Chainnan
Commissioner Fred Coyle, Vice Chainnan
Commissioner Frank Halas
Commissioner Jim Coletta
Commissioner Tom Henning
Through: James V. Mudd, County Manager
Leo E. Ochs, Deputy County Manag
From: Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager
Subject: Proposed Collier County Transportation Reauthoriz.ation bill projects
Due to an upcoming deadline of Friday, April 24 to the offices of both Congressman Mario
Diaz-Ba!art and Congressman Connie Mack, the County Manager's Office and Transportation
Division staff are presenting to you for your consideration [or approval six (6) projects for the
Transportation Reauthorization Bill at the beginning of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) Review Committee presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday,
April 21 at 9 a.m.
Commissioners Fiala, Halas and Henning were in attendance at a Transportation Roundtable
hosted by Congressman Diaz-Balart on Apri! 15 at Edison State College, Lely campus, in which
the six projects were discussed with county statT and representatives of other interests in the
community, including developers, the EDC, Naples Chamber and Wildlife Florida. Those
projects include the following:
1. 1.75 and Everglades Interchange
2. 1-75 and Collier Boulevard Interchange
3. SR 29 Bypass including SR 82 ISR 29 Intersection
4. SR.95 I and US -41 Interchange
5. Camp Keais Roadway Improvements
6. Immokalee Airport
It should be noted that while funding for the tive road projects will be pursued in the next major
federal transportation reauthorization legislation named MAP 21 (Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21" Century), funding forthe Immokalee Airport will be sourced in Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) appropriations.
Attachments: Public Notice o[ April 16,2009
Congressman Diaz-Balart correspondence
Congressman Mack correspondence
2
Collier County Government
Communication &
Customer Relations Department
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
(239) 252-8848
April 16, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2009
WITH A CARRYOVER DATE OF
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009 [IF NECESSARY]
9 A.M.
The Board of County Commissioners will hear a presentation from the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Review Committee. The meeting is 10 be held on Tuesday, April 21, at 9
a.m., [wi1h a possible carryover date of Wednesday, April 22, 2009 a1 9 a.m.] in the Board of
County Commissioners Chambers, 3rd floor Administration Building (Bldg. F), 3301 E.
Tarniami 'frail, Naples, FL 34112.
The agenda includes, but is not limited to, a presentation by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
Committee of its Five Year Review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program and proposed Collier
County Transportation Reauthorization bill projects and accompanying Resolution.
One or more members of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee, the Immokalee Master
Plan and Visioning Committee, the Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County Planning
Commission, and the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee may be present at this meeting.
The meeting is open to the public
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the
Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112,
(239) 252-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County
Commissioners Office.
For more information, contact Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive
Planning Department at (239) 252-2323 or email:
-End-
Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
High Priority Project Submission Form
This form is required for your transportation project to be considered by Representative Mario
Diaz-Balart as a High Priority Project in the next surface transportation bill. Representative
Diaz-Balart will prioritize projects that are of regional importance to the 25th Congressional
District and South Florida. Please complete this fOrol in its entirety. Incomplete forms will not be
accepted.
Accompanying this form, please include one letter of support from the state Department of
Transportation or a regional or county transportation agency. This letter must contain an explicit
statement of support for the project, discuss the merits of the project, specify the process to
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the project, and identify the other sources
of Federal, state, local or private funding that will be used to complete the project or project
phase. If you are requesting less than 80 percent of the total estimated cost of the spccific
segment or activity, the letter must identify other specifically designated Federal, state, local Or
private funding sources that, combined with the request amount, equal at least 80 percent o[ the
total estimated cost. Please use boldface font to highlight the statement of support and the 80
percent funding source in the letter.
This form and the support letter should be submitted together via e-mail to
f125hpp(@,mail.house.l!ov by Friday, April 24, 2009.
If you have any questions, please eontact Lauren Robitaille in our Washington office (202) 225-
2778.
Organization Contact Information
Requested by:
Contact:
Street Address:
E-mail:
Phone Number:
Washington representative (if applicable):
E-mail:
Phone Number:
Page 1 of 1
wight_d
From: Krug, Sarah [Sarah.Krug@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:01 PM
Cc: Wright, Kara; Gibbs, Francis; Krug, Sarah
Subject: Surface Transportation Authorization Bill Info
Attachments: Surface Transportation Authorization Questionnaire.doc
As many of you already know the Surface Transportation Authorization bill is coming up this year. I want to
give you notice of our office's process and deadline [or suhmitting project requests.
Our internal deadline for requests suhmitted to our office is Friday, April 24th, at 5:00pm.
Additionally, there are several other requirements I want to bring to your attention. Please [eel free to
contact me anytime throughout this proeess with any questions you may have.
I. Deadline: Again, our deadline is Friday, April 24th, at 5:00pm.
2. Eligibility Requirements: The committee requires .all projects to meet eligibility criteria
under Title 23 (Highways) or Chapter 53 of Title 49 (Public Transit) to ensure that High Priority
Projeets comply with highway and transit program objectives. In addition, the Committee
specifically prohibits project funding for non-surface transportation projects, such as funding of
transportation museums, horse trails, parks. and other non-transportation projects.
3. Letter of Support: The Committee requires Members to provide at least one letter of support
for the project for the State Department of Transportation or affected local government of
government agency. However, our office would like to promote projects that are widely
supported throughout the community and we welcome additional letters of support.
4. Completed Questionnaire: The committee requires a completed questionnaire for every
project submitted. I am attaching an outline form for you to review and fill out.
In order to have your projects eligible for submission you must have a completed
questionnaire along with any letters of support sent to mc by 5pm April 24th.
Thanks again for your interest and we look forward to working with you. If you have any questions, please
give me a call at (202) 225-2536.
Best,
Sarah Krug
Kr:1'.~
4/17/2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to review and approve the five (5) proposed Collier County
Transportation Reauthorization Bill projec1s and a request for appropriations for the
Immokalee Airport through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which will be
presented to Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart and Congressman Connie Maek by
their April 24, 2009 deadline for federal funding consideration by the House
Transportation and Infrastrueture Committee, and also approve the aceompanying
Resolution
OBJECTIVE: To review and approve the five (5) projects recommended by County
staff for submission to Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart and Congressman Connie Mack
for consideration in the next federal Transportation Reauthorization Bill being named
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP 21), which is being crafted by the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to replace the current Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), that expires September 30, 2009. In addition, the Board is being asked
to approve to include on the list a request for appropriations for the Immokalee Airport
through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Also. the Board is asked to approve an
accompanying Resolution.
CONSIDERATION: The County Manager's Office received notification April 6, 2009
from the County's federal lobbyist, The Ferguson Group, that the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee had contacted House Member offices with a call for
projects for inclusion in MAP 21. Subsequently, the County Manager's Office was
contacted by the office of Rep. Diaz-Balart to invite Commissioners and County staff to a
Transportation Roundtable held on April 15, 2009 at Edison State College, Lely campus,
along with other representatives of interests in the community, to discuss countywide
transportation project priorities to submit for MAP 21 consideration. Collier County's
proposed six projects were discussed and met with positive response from those in
attendance.
Both Congressmen Diaz-Balart and Mack's deadline for project submission to their
offices is Friday, April 24, 2009.
Upon an evaluation of the transportation funding needs, and visioning for the present and
future, County statr recommends that the following tive (5) transportation projects
comprise the Collier County MAP 21 candidates:
Collier County Transportation Reauthorization Bill Proiects:
I. 1-75 and Everglades Interehange
2. 1-75 and Collier Boulevard Interchange
3. SR 29 Bypass including SR 82 /SR 29 Intersection
4. SR-951 and US -41lnterehange
5. Camp Keais Roadway Improvements
6. Immokalee Airport
Regarding the #6 project, it should be noted that while funding for the five road
projects will be pursued in the next major federal transportation reauthorization
legislation, also known as MAP 21, funding for the Immokalee Airport will be sourced
in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) appropriations.
According to the original correspondence dated April 2, 2009 and signed by House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, "The Committee
will accept requests from Members of Congress to designate funding for High Priority
Projects (HPP's) to ensure that the diverse transportation needs of our districts - urban,
suburban, and rural - are addressed with the investment provided in this legislation."
Once approved by the Board of County Commissioners, The Ferguson Group will
proceed with the application documents and submission to the offices of Rep. Diaz-Balart
and Rep. Mack. The Resolution will be transmitted as soon as it's executed.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this executive summary.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMP ACT: There is no growth management impact
associated with this executive summary.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the
County Attorney's Office, is not quasi-judicial and requires no ex parte disclosure,
requires only a majority vote for approval, and is otherwise legally sut1icient for Board
action.-SRT.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners reviews and
approves the list of five (5) proposed Collier County Transportation Reauthorization (MAP
21) bill projects, and a request for appropriations for the Immokalee Airport through the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), which will be presented to Congressmen Diaz-Balart and
Mack for federal funding consideration by thc House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and also approves the accompanying Resolution. In addition, that the
Chairman is hereby authorized to revise and execute any and all documents necessary to
seek funding for the County's high priority transportation projects under the MAP 21
authorization legislation, including but not limited to executing grant applications,
assurances, certifications, and accepting any such funds received on behalf of the County.
Prepared by Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager
RESOLUTION 2009-
RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN
SUPPORT OF SUBMISSION OF HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR
CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING IN THE UPCOMING UNITED STATES
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BILL TO BE COMMONLY KNOWN AS
"MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21sT CENTURY."
WHEREAS, the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure (the "Committee") is in the process of drafting new surface transportation
authorization legislation to replace the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59), which expires on September 30, 2009, to
be called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Ccntury (commonly rcfcrred to as "MAP-2l;" and
WHEREAS, the Committee is seeking to ensure that the surface transportation needs of all
communities represented by Congress arc adequately served, a small percentage of the overall
investment funds available under MAP-2l will be dedicated for House Member-designated, High
Priority Projects ("HPPs"); and
WHEREAS, HPP's refer to worthwhile projects critical to a House member's district that
will promote the diverse transportation needs for which funding will be available under MAP-2];
and
WHEREAS, all HPP projects submitted for consideration must meet the eligibility criteria
under Title 23 (Highways) and Chapter 53 of Title 49 (Public Transit) of the United States Code to
comply with highway and transit program objectives; and
WHEREAS, all HPP projects submitted by House Members must include specific
information on the type, location, total cost, percentage of total cost that the request would finance,
and the benefits of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, each House Member otTering HPPs for consideration shall include at least one
letter of support from the affected local government agency that will benefit from the project; and
WHEREAS, the deadline to submit proposed HPPs to Collier County's United States
Representatives, Mario Diaz-Balart and Connie Mack, for consideration under MAP-21 is April 24,
2009; and
WHEREAS, recognizing extenuating circumstances associated with the short time line for
Federal consideration of the Collier County area's proposed HPPs and being desirous of fair
consideration of said projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners that:
1. Collier County's High Priority Projects for submission of funding under
the new surface transportation authorization legislation commonly known
as MAP-2l shall consist of the following five road projects:
a. 1-75 and Everglades Interchange
b. 1-75 and Collier Boulevard Interchange
c. SR 29 Bypass incuding SR 82/SR29 Intersection
d. SR-951 and US-41 Interchange
e. Camp Keais Roadway lmprovcmcnts
Funding for a sixth transportation project, involving the Immokalee
Airport, will not be submitted for funding under MAP-21 but rather
additional funding will be sought through Federal Aviation
Administration appropriations.
2. Its Chairman is hereby authorized to prepare a letter of support in favor of
the County's HPPs to Congressmen Mario Diaz-Balart and Connie Mack
that includes any and all supporting documentation required to
sufficiently identify all five of the HPPs for consideration consistent with
the criteria established by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
3. Its Chairman is further hereby authorized to revise and execute any and
all documents necessary to seek funding for the county's high priority
transportation projects under the MAP-21 authorization legislation,
ineluding but not limited to executing grant applications, assurances,
certifications, and accepting any such funds received on behalf of the
County.
This Resolution PASSED and duly adopted by the Collier County Board of Commissioners
after majority vote on this 21 st day of April, 2009.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:
By:
DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Scott R. Teach,
Deputy County Attorney
2