EAC Agenda 09/07/2011
EAC
REGULAR
MEETING
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 7,2011
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCil AGENDA
September 7, 2011 - 9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of August 3, 2011 meeting minutes
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
VI. Land Use Petitions
A. Lost Grove Mine Conditional Use
CU--PL2009-1412
Lost Grove Mine Excavation Permit
EXP- PL2010-1526
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18, Township 46 South, Range 28 East
VII. New Business
VIII. Old Business
(Item VIII.A. to be heard prior to Item VI.A.)
A. Phase Two of Collier County Master Mobility Plan
presented by Bob Mulhere and Tim Durham
B. Watershed Management Plan - EAC Final Recommendation
presented by Mac Hatcher, Land Development Services
C. Update members on projects
IX. Council Member Comments
X. Staff Comments
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
*******************************************************************
Council Members: Please notify Summer Araaue. Senior Environmental Specialist no later than
5:00 p.m. on September 1. 2011 if yOU cannot attend this meetina or if yOU have a conflict and will
abstain from votina on a petition (252-6290).
General Public: 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 proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF September 7th, 2011
l. NAME OF PETITIONERlPROJECT:
Petition No: Conditional Use - CU-PL2009-1412
Excavation Permit-EXP-PL20 1 0-1526
Petition Name: Lost Grove Mine
Applicant/Developer: Alico Land Development,Inc.
Engineering Consultant: WilsonMiller,Inc.
Environmental Consultant: WilsonMiller Inc.
II. LOCATION:
The subject property is located south of SR 82 and west of Corkscrew Road on
1,382.71:l: acres in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18, Township 46 South, Range 28
East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
North - AMHO RLSAO
Agricultural operations
South - AMHO-RLSAO
single- family homes
and agricultural operations
East - AMHO-RLSAO
Agricultural Operations and Corkscrew
Regional Ecosystem Watershed
West - Agricultural zoning
operations within
Lee County
Single-family homes and agricultural
Agenda Item
VI. A
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of ] 0
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The petitioners are requesting conditional use for extraction or earth mining
and related processing and production in a Rural Agricultural (A) - Mobile
Home Overlay (A-MHO) and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay
(RLSAO) Zoning District as specified pursuant to Sections LDC Section
2.03.01A.c.l and 10.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code
(LDC) on approximately 1,382.71::!: acres for a project to be known as the Lost
Grove Mine.
The petitioner proposes an allowable excavation depth from approximately 45-
feet to 145-feet to the confining layer. The proposed earth mining operation
proposes the removal of approximately 5 million tons of earth materials per
year. Approximately 683 truckloads of material per day will be removed,
based on 24.5 tons per truckload for 299 days per year to remove
approximately 5 million tons of material per year. The mine is proposed to
have direct access to both Corkscrew Road and SR 82.
The applicant proposes the following hours of operation as follows:
Mining operation - Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Rock crushing activities - Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Blasting activities - Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
The subject property, as identified on the Future Land Use Map [FLUM], is
within the Agricultural/Rural Designation, Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use
District land use designation, as well as the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
(RLSA) Overlay. On the RLSA Overlay Map, the subject property is mapped
Open and approximately 17% of the site is mapped Water Retention Area
(WRA).
~
The Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District is for those
. . . areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities
and services, are environmentally sensitive, or are in agricultural production.
Urbanization is not promoted, therefore most allowable land uses are of low intensity
in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands.
The goal of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is to:
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of ] 0
protect agricultural activities, to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses, to direct 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 development that utilizes
creative land use planning techniques.
The property owner is currently not participating in the RLSA Overlay Stewardship
Cred it System for the subject property, therefore under RLSA Group 1 Policy 1.4, the
property is subject to the Baseline Standards ofRLSA Group I Policy 1.5, below.
RLSA Group 1 Policy 1.5: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,
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 owners consent.
Relevant to this petition, the designation generally permits earthmining and related
processing. The project is reviewed within the context of the Agricultural/Rural
Mixed Use District, the RLSA Overlay, and the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
The site is zoned Rural Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO), which allows
extraction or earthmining, and related processing and production not incidental to the
agricultural development of the property through a conditional use (CU) approval.
The present use of the site is agricultural/citrus.
The following standards contained within the "Agricultural/Rural Designation," the
RLSA Overlay, and provisions of the FLUE are relevant to this conditional use
application. Staff comments and analysis are shown in bold.
11. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION--The following uses and
densities are generally permitted under this Designation:
I. Earthmining, oil extraction and related processing;
The applicant has requested a conditional use for extraction or
earthmining and related processing, including a processing facility and
scale house to be constructed on site. The proposed conditional uses will
be contained on the RLSA Overlay Open mapped area of the subject site.
In view of the above listed allowable conditional uses in the
AgricuItural/Rural Designation, this proposed conditional use may be
found consistent with item i above.
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of]O
In general, to protect water quality and quantity and maintenance of the natural
water regime and to protect listed animal and plant species and their habitats
due to impacts of non-agricultural development, the applicant is responsible for
adhering to the requirements of RLSA Group 5 Policy 5.3, Policy 5.5, and Policy
5.6, for areas mapped WRA, for "listed species and their habitats" and for "high
functioning wetlands", respectively.
The following address other policies contained within the FLUE. Each policy below is
followed by staff analysis in bold print.
FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with. and complementary
to, the surrounding lands uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code.
It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff
as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the
compatibility analysis.
Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication,
Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County,
Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing
development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be
implemented ./br new development and redevelopment projects, where
applicable.
Policy 7. 1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to
connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where
no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing
requirements of the Land Development Code.
As depicted on the Site Plan and provided in the application, this project
could have two ingress/egress points on Corkscrew Road, a collector, and
SR 82, an arterial. Direct access is provided to Corkscrew Road and
indirect access to SR 82 via a perpetual access easement through the
applicant's adjoining properties. Therefore, this proposed conditional use
may be found consistent with this policy.
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an
effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads
and minimize the need for traffic signals.
As provided in the application, internal site improvements will safely
accommodate the employees, vehicles, and any emergency vehicles. Due to
the nature of this project, this policy is not applicable.
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of]O
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect
their local streets and their interconnection point with adjoining
neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.
The proposed mining operation does not have local streets and does not
adjoin other developments. Due to the type and size of this project and the
absence of local streets, connection of local streets is not feasible.
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide
walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic
facilities and a range of housing prices and types.
As this is a non-residential project and due to the specific type of use
proposed, this policy is not applicable.
FLUE EVALUATION CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis,
staff concludes that the proposed conditional use may be deemed
consistent with the FLUE.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element:
The project site is an active citrus grove, in operation since the 1970's, located
within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) overlay. This project is
consistent with policy 1.3.2 since the majority of the proposed project is
designated as "open lands" in the RLSA and no Flowway Stewardship Areas
(FSA's) or Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA's) exist on site. Also, there are
no impacts proposed to native vegetation within the existing Water Retention
Areas (WRA's).
This project is consistent with policy 2.2, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. The proposed mine
will not adversely impact the County's water resources and is not located in
close proximity to any estuaries. The 1989 South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) surface water management permit (Permit No.11-00128-S)
currently demonstrates that the onsite detention areas provide the required
flood attenuation and water quality treatment for the existing citrus groves. A
new Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) permit will be obtained through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to address the
land use changes, and will adhere to Federal, State, and local requirements. No
modifications to existing WRA's are proposed and no untreated water will be
discharged offsite as part of the excavation activities. The reclamation plan
required by FDEP will be submitted for their review and approval prior to the
initiation of mining activities. FDEP will review the proposed reclamation
plan concurrently with their review of the project's ERP application. Mine
reclamation will be done in accordance with specific requirements FDEP
places on the reclamation plan. The excavation permit will not be issued by
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of]O
the County until all required agency permits are obtained and provided for staff
reVlew.
This project is consistent with objective 3.1 regarding the protection of the
County's groundwater resources to ensure the highest water quality
practicable. The confining layer has been identified and is located
approximately 45 feet below ground surface in the northern portion and 145
feet in the southern portion. There will be no excavation occurring below the
confining layer. Monitoring wells have been installed and monitored and no
alterations to existing groundwater characteristics are proposed.
This project is consistent with policy 6.1.1 regarding the selection of preserves.
Consistent with LDC section 4.08.05 Baseline Standards, a minimum of 40%
of the existing native vegetation shall be preserved (EIS exhibit I).
As required by Policy 6.1.1, the preserve area will be placed under a
pem1anent conservation easement dedicated to Collier County, prior to the
approval of the site development plan for the mine processing area.
As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from
the site and maintained in perpetuity.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by Policy 6.1.8 has been
prepared and is supplied as part of the review packet for this submittal.
As required by Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, wetlands have been verified by the
SFWMD.
As required by Policy 6.2.8, remnant wetlands remaining have been previously
permitted and mitigated for under SFWMD Permit No: 11-00128-S and are no
longer jurisdictional. No additional wetland impacts within the project site are
proposed.
As required by Policy 7.1.3 and 7.1.4, a listed species survey was conducted in
accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines on the
property and is contained in the EIS (Section F). Development of the proposed
project will require an ERP from FDEP and a Section 404 permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Coordination with FFWCC concerning
state listed species will occur during the ERP process while coordination with
the USFWS concerning federal listed species will occur during the USACE
permitting process.
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 10
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater
Lost Grove Mine is towards the Northern Boundary of the Cocohatchee River
Canal Basin. The project is on the Northeast side of Corkscrew Road. The
existing land elevations drop from a high at the Northeast of about 29 NGVD
to a low of 25 NGVD at Corkscrew Road. The pits are segmented and staged
to approximate existing ground elevations in order to mimic existing
groundwater profiles. The discharge for the mining pits is directed through
water retention areas to allow for recharge and water quality treatment prior to
discharge at two locations under Corkscrew Road. Discharge will be limited to
0.04 CFS/ Acre in this area during the reclamation period; but will be designed
for zero discharge during the life cycle of the excavation phase. The discharge
under Corkscrew Road finds its way to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed (C.R.E.W.) where it continues its route to the Southwest and flows
either to Corkscrew swamp or Flint Pen Strand.
Environmental:
Site Description:
The majority of the site contains previously cleared agricultural lands currently
used for citrus production. The property site contains 1382.7 acres of which
202.3 acres remains as native vegetation on site according to the definition in
the GMP and LDC. On site native vegetation communities are described in the
EIS (pages 15-18) and shown on the FLUCCS map under Exhibit B.
Wetlands:
There are currently five WRA's containing wetlands on the project site totaling
232.6 acres as shown in the EIS (Exhibit I). In general, these wetlands are a
mix of cypress, willow, freshwater marsh, cypress/pine/cabbage palm, wetland
prairie, and wetland shrub with varying degrees of exotic infestation.
The wetlands that existed and those that currently exist, including those within
the WRA's, have been permitted and mitigated for through the 1989 SFWMD
permit process. Mitigation to offset these permitted wetland impacts was
completed and 466 acres of upland hardwoods were preserved south of County
Road 850. In 1990, ownership of the mitigated lands was transferred to the
SFWMD for inclusion into the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed
(CREW) land acquisition area. Although some remnant wetlands will be
removed within the mining footprint, none of the wetlands located within the
existing WRA's are proposed for impacts.
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 10
Preservation Requirements:
The property site contains 202.3 acres of native vegetation on site. The native
vegetation preservation requirement for this project in the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA) utilizing baseline standards is 40% of the existing
native vegetation. The project shall preserve and place under conservation
easement to Collier County three of the five existing WRA's which contain a
total of 82.6 acres of native vegetation as shown in Exhibit I of the EIS. The
minimum required native preservation amount is 80.9 acres.
Listed Species:
During August and September 2009 and October 2010, listed species surveys
(LSS) were conducted on the project site. The listed animal species' observed
on the project site included the American alligator, tricolored heron, little blue
heron, snowy egret and white ibis. None of the observed listed species nest on
the project site. The closest breeding colony is located approximately eight
miles from the property within the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Minimization
of impacts to wading birds includes minimal impacts to existing wetlands,
enhancement of wetlands on-site by exotic removal, the creation of three
excavated lakes providing shoreline/wading habitat and taking appropriate
protective measures during project construction and operations. A
management plan for wading birds (as well as the American alligator, Black
Bear and Eastern Indigo Snake) is included in the EIS (Attachment A).
Two listed plant species, the cardinal airplant and the inflated wild pine, were
also found on site. Listed plant species individuals will remain in their current
locations as they were found within the proposed preserve locations.
Florida Panther
The site is located within the Florida Panther Focus Area. Although no
Florida panthers (Felis conca/or cory) were observed on the project site, a total
of 123.3 acres fall within the secondary panther zone. It is anticipated that
mitigation will be required by the USFWS for the proposed impacts during the
permitting process. The project will comply with all future required permitting
and mitigation requirements for panther habitat impacts.
Florida Black Bear
During the LSS, no Florida black bears (Ursus americanus jloridanus) or signs
or tracks were found on the project site. Although the bears may occasionally
roam or cross the project site, there is very limited foraging on the project site
and the likelihood of possible future dens is anticipated to be very low. A
management plan for the Florida Black Bear is included in the EIS
(Attachment A).
EAC Meeting
Page 9 of 10
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use - CU-PL 2009-1412 and
Excavation Permit-EXP-PL 2010-1526 with no conditions for approval.
PREPARED BY:
il~--
~K MCKENNA, P.E.
~~iGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
"'~'~,
DATE
~. .d~
CIIIUS D'ARCO
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
V)I)J
DATE
~~
K1\ ~ELEM
PRINCIP AI. PLANNER
~Ilfr:./ /I
DATE
EAC Meeting
Page 10 of to
REVIEWED BY:
JJ,JJ fh. 1~
C;LRALD KURTZ
S10RMWATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
DEPARTMENT MANAGER
, V LLIAM D. LO' 'NZ, Jr.. .E.
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL,
Ce)lVIPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING
~_ .w
STEVE WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT' COlJNTY ATTORNEY
011'ICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
~~.
~'A .~ ' ~7. u-
NICKCASL Nl1I~ -~4-2.
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR-PLANNING AND REGULATION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
"2 - I~ -II
DATE
o 2..- If:, loll
DATE
:J. /17/"
DATE
7-i~/J
DATE
September 7, 2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, September 7, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and
for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM
in a REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon (Excused)
VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman
Michael Sorrell
David Bishof
Gina Downs
Gary McNally
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist
Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist
Jack Mackenna, County Engineer
William Lorenz, Director, Environmental Services
Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist
1
September 7, 2011
I. Call to Order
Mr. Dickman called the meeting to order at 9:00AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
The Council approved the Agenda noting Item VIILA was to be heard prior to item VLA.
IV. Approval of the August 3,2011 meeting minutes
Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the August 3,2011 meeting. Second by Mr.Sorrell. Carried
unanimously S—0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
None
VII. Old Business
Item VIIIA was heard before item VI.A
A. Phase Two of Collier County Master Mobility Plan
Presented by Bob Mulhere and Tim Durham
Bob Mulhere of Mulhere and Associates provided an informational update on the Collier
County Master Mobility Plan. The following was highlighted:
• It is the intent to develop a County`.Mobility Vision Plan to address land use, mobility and
the environment with the principal objective of reducing vehicle hours of travel (VHT) and
vehicle miles of travel (VMT).
• It would apply to new development and retrofitting of existing developments.
• Updated information on the Plan is available at (www.colliergov.net/mastermobilityplan).
• There are III Phases associated with developing the Plan,
o Phase I -Data Collection.
o Phase II -Data Analysis and Development of Recommendations (current Phase).
o . Phase III - Development of Policy Language.
• The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan has been used as a base guideline for the
modeling associated with the Plan.
Under Council/Staff Discussions the following was highlighted:
1. Consideration should be given to incorporating existing examples of land use into the Plan
(i.e. Mercato, Naples Boulevard).
2. Concern on the timing required for construction of any infrastructure/land uses under the
standards identified in the Plan. An example was cited where a developer constructed and
sold all the housing units (4500) in a multi use project without completing the commercial
uses associated with the project increasing VMT and VHT on area roadways.
3. Concern on the marketability of potential standards identified, especially retrofitting (i.e.
the preference/existence of gated communities).
2
September 7, 2011
Speaker
Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida supports the Plan, however stressed the
Policies developed will be the key to an implementing an effective Plan. The planning horizons
in existing plans need to be incorporated into shorter term policies. She submitted a copy of an
email to her from Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division, dated
September 1, 2011 which addresses concerns the Conservancy has identified.
VI. Land Use Petitions
A. Lost Grove Mine Conditional Use
CU -PL2009-1412
Lost Grove Mine Excavation Permit
EXP- PL2010-1526
All persons testifying were sworn in.
Donald R. Schrotenboer, President Alico Land Development, Inc. provided an overview of the
project highlighting:
• The project is located northerly of Corkscrew Road abutting Lee County on the west.
• It is 1382 acres in size with approximately 50 percent of the property to be mined.
• It is zoned agricultural with mining as an allowed use.
• It is currently in citrus production.
• The project has received a Florida Department of Environmental Protection/
Environmental Resource Permit(FDEP/ERP).
• The US Army Corps of Engineers have stated they have no jurisdiction over the project.
John English, Wilson Miller Stantec provided an overview of the surface water management
system highlighting:
• The existing reservoirs designated Water Retention Areas under the Rural Land
Stewardship Area(RLSA) will be preserved.
• There are two accesses, SR 82 and Corkscrew Road
• There will be 50 foot buffers from adjacent property lines, 10 foot landscape buffers along
Corkscrew Road and 20 foot buffers along adjacent property lines controlled by the
applicant.
• There are 82 acres of native vegetation preserved meeting all Collier County requirements.
• The existing surface water management system was permitted in 1980 by South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD).
• The water currently flows primarily from the northwest to southeast with final discharge
into the CREW wetlands.
• There are 2 phases: mining operation and reclamation.
• During the mining operation phase stormwater will be retained 3 feet above a 25 year
storm event with no discharge from the lakes.
• During the reclamation phase, discharge will be controlled as required in current Collier
County Ordinances.
• The FDEP/ERP states "the results of the preliminary well water testing have shown that
the site may be mined without adverse affects to the regional groundwater quality" and
3
September 7, 2011
"the eventual replacement of that portion of the citrus grove with reclaimed quarry lakes
should result in net improvements in water quality and quantity for the CREW lands
through decreases in agricultural discharges and ground water pumping.CR,
Dennis Roza,Roza and Associates provided an overview of the mining operations highlighting:
• In order to limit disturbed areas, the mining will initiate in the northerly portion of the
property and progress southerly,then easterly.
• The mining is to be completed in "cells."
• The maximum amount of product removed is anticipated at 5 million tons per year.
• Hours of operation - Monday through Saturday, 6 am to 6pm.
• Blasting permits will be required by the State Fire Marshall's Office with seismographs
placed as required.
• The blasting will occur between 9 am and 5pm, 1 to 2 times per week.
• Dust control will be in accordance with "Best Management Practices." The entrance road
and loading area will be paved.
• Water quality monitor wells will be installed throughout the site.
Ron Talone,David Plummer and Associates provided an overview of the traffic/transportation
aspects highlighting:
• The Traffic Impact Statement was,approved by Collier County Staff with copies provided
to Lee County and adjacent jurisdictions.
• The mine will generate approximately 700 daily round trip truck trips and will not have a
significant impact on any road segments.
• Only 10 percent of the mine traffic is anticipated to utilize Corkscrew Road, primarily
during daylight hours.
• One dollar per truckload will be donated to Collier County for road maintenance in the
areas the County deems appropriate.
• The market for the product is anticipated to be north and northwest of the project.
• There are planned improvements for SR 82 including widening and resurfacing.
Scott Manahan, Schlumberger Water Services provided an overview of the
hydrogeology highlighting:
• Pre design considerations included analyzing soil borings and ground water monitor wells
(approximately 20).
• The confining layer is varies between 45 feet to 145 feet below existing grade.
• The site will be mined to a depth 1 foot above the confining layer with lakes comprising
the finished mined areas.
• Groundwater flovv models indicate groundwater levels will increase due to the decreased
agricultural irrigation currently occurring on site.
• The land use change from agricultural to mining will create a reduction in on site water
usage.
• With respect to impacts on CREW lands, there will be an increase in groundwater levels.
Tim Durham, Wilson Miller Stantec provided an overview on the wildlife aspects of the project
highlighting:
4
September 7, 2011
• The site was originally permitted by South Florida Water Management District for citrus
operations.
• As part of the citrus operation application, the wetlands impacted on site were mitigated
(via CREW) with no additional mitigation required under the current proposal.
• The property is subject to 123 acres of primary panther zone and 1259 acres of secondary
panther zone.
• Off site mitigation is proposed for the impacts on the Florida Panther including
conservation easements and a perpetual management fund for the site.
Chris D' Arco, Environmental Specialist addressed the Council noting Staff has submitted
"Environmental Advisory Council Staff Report, Meeting of September 7, 2011" for their review.
Staff recommends the application be approved with no stipulations.
Break: 10:30am
Reconvened: 10:40am
Speakers
Marilyn Edwards,Estero Council of Community Leaders(ECCL)
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on Lee County residents, blasting activity is not compatible
with the existing land uses,potential negative impacts on the Lee County DRGR
(Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource) area, potential impacts on CREW lands,
potential negative impacts on area flood control.
Donald Eslick, ECCL
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the Lee County DRGR, the current lack of demand for
the product to be mined, Lee County has denied mine applications in the area.
Roger Stvelow, The Brooks/himself
Concerns:The current lack of demand for the product proposed to be mined, potential negative
impacts on the Lee County DRGR(Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource) area,
potential negative traffic impacts due to the operation (90 trips/hour) and potential
negative impacts on the character of the area.
Phil Douglas, Brooks Concerned Citizens
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the Lee County DRGR, the current lack of demand for
the product to be mined, potential negative impacts on the character of the area,
potential negative impacts on Corkscrew Regional Estuary Watershed (CREW) lands.
Matt Noble,Lee County Government
Concerns: The proposed use is incompatible with surrounding land uses (agriculture, CREW lands
and residential with residences a near as 100 feet from the property line, 450 residences
directly affected by the application), potential negative impacts on the Lee County
DRGR (Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource) area and associated groundwater
resources, potential negative impacts on area roadways with no mitigation proposed,
insufficient setbacks from residential properties for mining activity (cited a
recommendation from another Agencies of 1000' buffer),potential negative impacts
5
September 7, 2011
from blasting to area residents, potential negative surface water impacts, potential
negative impacts to existing drilled wells.
Documentation entered: Map showing the location of residences in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
Becky Sweigert,Lee County Government
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on Florida Panther habitat, potential negative impacts on
Wood Stork habitat without proposed mitigation, potential negative impact on onsite
and offsite wetlands, potential negative impacts on Lee and Collier groundwater
resources, lack of demonstration by the applicant the project will not have an adverse
impact on ground and surface waters including private water supplies, lack of a
remediation plan should any water resources in the area be negatively affected.
Documentation entered: Panther Telemetry Map; Lost Grove Mine—Conditional Use—Exhibit
K- (2 of 2) Bear and Panther Telemetry, GPS Mortality Data
Alvin Block, Lee County Government
(He noted Lee County Staff conducted a review of the application with a report asindicated in the
document provided).
Recommendations: Requiring increased non mining activity setbacks from property lines;
additional monitoring requirements for ground and surface waters; requiring
increased areas of littoral shelves;prohibiting direct access to Corkscrew road
(in order to protect listed species).
Documentation entered: Letter dated May 6,2011 from Frank Mann, Chairman, Lee County
Board of County Commissioners to Fred Coyle, Chairman, Collier
County Board of County Commissioner—Re: Lost Grove Mine
Conditional Use(CU-PL-2009-1412 and EXP-PL-2010-1526).
Lee County Staff reported the for applications submitted to Lee County, Staff conducts an
independent review of the applicant's groundwater studies to ensure compliance with County
regulations (and/or a requirement of obtaining County permits as necessary).
Neal Ott, Corkscrew Settlement
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on area public and private water supplies, potential negative
impacts on the character of the area.
Joe Staiger, Corkscrew Settlement
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on private water supplies (numerous wells in the area are
shallow wells), potential negative impacts on the character of the area.
Hugh Starnes, Adjoining Landowner
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the Lee County DRGR area, potential negative impacts
on the character of the area, previous determinations by Lee County Government that
6
September 7, 2011
due to environmental considerations mining activities should be prohibited in the area,
potential negative impacts on CREW lands including public activities.
Kim Staiger, Corkscrew Settlement
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the character of the area.
John Ban, Corkscrew Settlement
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the character of the area, potential negative impacts on
historic settlements and heritage, potential negative impacts on Lake Trafford, potential
negative impacts on area public and private water supplies.
Kevin Hill, ECCL
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the Lee County DRGR area, potential negative impacts
to Florida Panther including increased potential for road kills, Collier County Staff did
not conduct independent reviews of the technical information provided and deferred
these reviews to other Agencies(USACE, FDEP, etc.).
Ellen
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the Lee County DRGR area.
Documentation entered: Letter from Terry and Deborah Gomes dated September 6, 2011
outlining concerns on the application,
Brenda Brooks,Executive Director, CREW Water and Land Trust
Concerns: Inadequate non mining activity buffers from adjacent properties, potential negative
impacts on area roadways, potential negative impacts existing ground and surface
waters resources and watersheds, lack of stipulations proposed by County Staff.
Patty Whitehead, Estero Resident
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on CREW lands, potential negative impacts on the character
of the area,potential negative impacts on wildlife habitat and activity.
Nicole Johnson
Concerns: Lack of coordination between Lee and Collier County given Lee County Staff
comments today, lack of an independent review of issues associated with the
FDEP/ERP application by Collier County Staff, inadequate non mining activity buffers
from adjacent properties, potential negative impacts on wildlife habitat including
roadway activity of the Florida Panther, approval of the application is premature given
the issues raised by Lee County Staff and others.
Document entered: Copy of email from James Golden, SFWMD to Alan Whitehouse, FDEP
dated April 1, 2011 — Subject: FW: Lost Grove Mine ERP Application -
which states "It appears that there would be more ecological benefit from
preserving a substantial restored buffer (approximately 1000 feet wide) along
the perimeter of the mine where it abuts existing natural areas and CREW,
rather than preserving wetlands internal to the mining operation. "
7
September 7, 2011
Phyllis Sanderson,ECCL
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on area public and private water supplies.
Beverly MacNellis, ECCL
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the Lee County residents.
Lena Boles, ECCL
Concerns: The current lack of demand for the product proposed to be mined.
Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, Calusa Group
Concerns: Public information concerns regarding lack of record for Neighborhood Information
Meetings, deficient Staff Report with respect to the review on the impacts of the use in
relation to the FLUE (Future Land Use Element), potential negative impacts on CREW
lands.
Documents entered: Package from the Sierra Club
Bruce Williams
Concerns: Potential negative impact on wildlife habitat, the proposed use is incompatible with the
residential use of the area,potential negative impact on property values.
Carl Veaux,Responsible Growth Management Coalition
Concerns: The proposed use is incompatible with the residential use of the area, potential negative
impacts on area roadways, potential negative impacts from blasting activities, potential
negative impacts on groundwater and area water supplies, potential negative impacts
on area roadways (the proposed application for the Troyer Bros. mine was denied in
Lee County due to negative impacts on SR82).
Sharon Kurgs,Collier County Resident, adjacent property owner
Concerns: Potential negative impacts on the existing character of the area, potential negative
impacts on ground and surface waters resources and watersheds, economic benefit to
the County is not worth the environmental "cost," potential negative impacts on
CREW lands.
Break: 12:58pm
Reconvened: I:34pm
Mr. Schrotenboer,Alico Land Development,Inc. stated:
1. The project is not in subject to requirements of the Lee County DRGR area, it is within the
Rural Land Stewardship Area with mining as permitted conditional use.
2. The project has been issued a FDEP/ERP permit which addresses surface and groundwater
impacts.
Mr. English stated the project will provide a net benefit to groundwater in the area with increased
storage and decreased discharges. Upon completion the mine will potentially discharge less
surface flow waters than currently exists under the citrus operation.
8
September 7, 2011
Scott Manahan stated dewatering will be limited to a depth of 10— 15 feet below existing grade,
with a dewatering permit required from SFWMD. The concern for area shallow wells supplying
water to individual homes is unfounded as modeling indicates an increased storage groundwater
potential for the area.
Mr. Talone noted the current MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Plan incorporates
widening substantial portions of SR82.
Tim Durham stated the area of primary panther zone on the property is a"300 foot buffer zone"
from the areas identified as primary habitat. The applicant will be subject to the US Fish and
Wildlife Service requirements for negative impacts on listed species.
Mr. English stated the recommendation for a 1000 foot wide buffer was generated during the
FDEP/ERP review process. The applicant subsequently addressed the issue and satisfied the
concerns of the FDEP.
Bruce Anderson,Roetzel and Andress, Attorney for Applicant noted the project is located in
the RLSA with mining allowed in the area. The evidence provided in the application and
testimony indicates it meets all Collier County and FDEP requirements.
Under Council Discussion, the following issues were discussed with Staff and the applicant's
representatives:
• Concern the operation may create a negative impact for the Florida Panther given the
anticipated truck traffic generated before sunrise and after sunset.
• Concern the surface water management plan may have a negative impact on surrounding
wetlands.
• Concern blasting activity may have a negative impact on area drinking water wells and
structures.
• The ramifications of a 1000 foot wide non mining activity buffer from the property lines.
• The potential for soil contamination from the fueling of vehicles/equipment on site.
• Concern the project may negatively impact surface and groundwater flows in the area.
• Concern County Staff has not reviewed the technical data associated with ground and
surface water issues associated with the application.
Other issues were raised such as future traffic planning, funding of roadway improvements, etc.
Steve Williams,Assistant County Attorney stated the Council is to restrict their review to the
environmental aspects of the application.
The Applicants representatives confirmed:
• A third party, independent firm will conduct a pre-blast inspection (for any property owner
who agrees) of water wells, structures and/or any other applicable features of a property
owner(the intent is to identify a list of qualified consultants, where a property owner can
select the consultant with the inspection to be completed at the expense of the applicant).
If damage occurs, the applicant will resolve the issue with the landowner. Blasting is
9
September 7, 2011
subject to State Fire Marshall requirements (including the installation of seismographs and
bonding by the applicant and the company conducting the blasting).
• On site fuel tanks are intended to be double wall and placed in containment bunkers to help
prevent fuel spills from entering the soil.
Staff stated:
• Issues related to wetland permitting, impacts on surface and subsurface water flows, etc.
are addressed by State Agencies with the County requiring the applicants obtain those
permits as necessary. Agencies determinations are relied upon by Collier County for
satisfying any requirements.
The applicant agreed to submit to Staff, the MSDS(Material Safety Data Sheets)for any
hazardous materials to be used or stored on site.
The Council (with input from Staff and the applicant's representatives)deliberated on the
concerns identified and conditions which may be imposed to address the concerns.
Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Lost Grove
Mine Conditional Use application(CU-PL2009-1412)and Lost Grove Mine Excavation Permit
(EXP-PL2010-1526) subject to the following conditions:
1. The property maintains a 1000(one thousand)foot wide, "non mining operations"buffer
parallel to the following locations as depicted on Addendum A, a map titled "Lost Grove
Mine—Conditional Use—Exhibit K-(2 of 2)Bear and Panther Telemetry, GPS Mortality
Data—EAC 9-7-11."
a. Along the northerly edge of Corkscrew Road as it runs in a northeasterly direction until
its intersection with the easterly edge of the "primary panther zone."
b. Beginning at the southwest corner of the property and running northerly along the
westerly property line a distance of approximately 4120 feet**.
c. Beginning at the northwest corner of the property and running southerly along the
westerly property line a distance of approximately 2060 feet**.
**Said distances were "scaled"from Addendum A, if conflict exists, the physical
features depicted on the Addendum shall govern.
2. The hours of operation to be restricted to 30 minutes after sunrise to 30 minutes before
sunset. Daily hours of operation to be numerically identified by signage at the entrance of
the project conforming as close as possible to the time of operation required for that day.
3. In order to protect off site wetlands, the project to meet the "pre-mining discharges"up to
the level allowed by current Collier County regulations.
4. Exterior lighting to be shielded downward, directed toward the center of the site in the area
of operation and not to exceed twenty feet in height.
10
September 7, 2011
5. The installation of signs (in Spanish and English) on the entrance road educating drivers
on the potential of panther activity on area roadways with requests to prohibit such
nuisance activities as the use of the `Jake brakes,"etc.
6. All trucks associated with mine operations to be "cued"onsite.
7. No on-site activities associated with any aspects of the mining operation between 10:00pm
and `/z hour before the mine is scheduled toopen the following morning(morning activity
hour before opening is to be "Administrative"in nature to complete the activities necessary
to open the site for operations).
Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5—0.
Break: 5:01 pm
Reconvened: 5:10pm
VIII. New Business
None
IX. Old Business
B. Watershed Management Plan—EAC Final Recommendation
Presented by Mac Hatcher, Land Development Services.
Moris Cabezas, WS Atkins was also present.
Mac Hatcher provided the Collier County Watershed Management Plan for consideration.
Discussion occurred on:
• The concern specific language in some areas of the Plan may not contain the necessary
detail for a"proactive plan."
• How to move forward if an EAC member does not agree with the exact language in some
areas of the plan, but agrees with the language in others areas.
Mr. Hatcher noted the Plan is conceptual in nature. It will be used as a guideline for Staff to
develop"binding" documents such as Ordinances, Codes or Policies, etc. necessary to implement
the Plan. At that time, the EAC will have input on the detailed language and standards developed
(for document language under the purview of the EAC).
Mr. Dickman noted the Plan is a dynamic document, available to future changes and recommend
it be moved forward through the approval process.
Mr. Bishof moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed
Collier County Watershed Management Plan. Second by Mr. McNally.
Mr. Bishof amended the motion to include the following conditions:
11
September 7, 2011
1. Staff to review and comment on the conformance of the Plan with respect to any
environmental applications presented to the Environmental Advisory Council for
consideration.
2. Staff to provide an annual update to the Environmental Advisory Council on the status of
implementing the Plan.
3. Staff to begin the process of developing a Low Impact Development(LID)Manual.
Second by Mr. McNally.
Speaker
Nicole Johnson,Conservancy of Southwest Florida reported she met with Mr. Hatcher today
and Staff she has reached an understanding that:
1. The title of the Functional Assessment Map will be revised.
2. Collier County will develop its own LID manual (as opposed to adopting another jurisdiction's
manual).
3. The best available data and technology will be used for reviews of the Plan.
Discussions continue on pollution loading benchmarks.
Marcia Cravens, Sierra Calusa Group, stressed the importance of developing a Public Outreach
Program for the Plan. All parties involved should be assured the Plan is to be continually
reviewed and modified as necessary.
Motion carried unanimously S—0.
C. Update members on projects
None
IX. Council Member Comments
A. Asphalt Discussion
Continued
X. Staff Comments
A. Update members on projects
None
XI. Public Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the
order of the Chair at 6:21 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
12
September 7, 2011
Vice Chairman, Andrew Dickman
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on
as presented , or as amended
13
)
(
$
.W-11"'-1111. t i
1 4
o
op
W4'44-1,74
to.
Air3,
,;.-
,
0 ,
,..-,' . :,.
.1
/4
-,
.,„
I
__
-C1
: t
,,--
t
,-,-1 ...,,
t .02
_it'll
....._ = i,
,.. , .
1...
....,
1..
oP1111 yami
,
AS/Na = '
tt
C LL. ' te
4,1
= 0.)
.„:
,..
0 lc;
Li) I;
i
,
W 4'..t 1
- 6,*‘'
ao) t 1
....•
„„.„... - •.,. )
it-- ,*--.-..i.;7fi /
_I co ,
- ,Aft- 0,---) 0° ,1
4.0 . -4.2,. ,, 4,,,,--
t''''' .4' ,, -i' .1
'-i--''
(1,) 4. ,,,,....,..,,— 41., %. .,r-I .-
/,..ots,..-°`' se
.-,
":-_,e ' 4 4
CC
i
N-4,,,,,,,t,"
„'„,,,„'? m
J IW
&MI
Ayr
e '44
a)
„. .
,,,...:_,... -
,...„5„. .,,,,,,,
_...,
;,1:;'4 '
.•••• ,
st,
, ji ti:,
-...t,
C)
, ....,
C9
V ,,,
- 1
t..Fsig,t
-
t ---4,
...,_ .,_
-- a..... .›,
4.f.v;e.
co •i, ,
a, ii/
.4.
C '‘, g 5 = E 1 ° ' .'i- .•,' ;A",,11:6
.6. 6
I:)
r
i ,--
it- - -
, - •
u...
,-,„
I
i
t
i t
t
t
i
t t
CI i
a
5w
t
4 B 1`
1
m 3
i
: t
a
F
e
d
J — ._�__—
__
CL) t
C — 0 s�
t
V '19
L i,,,-;".4:?'" y'
k
INN= 4 ii..:rt-sx#s
�� _ -
cz t
U t % -
t
t
[ ," a1"
IIMI
(11111$ 1 is. i ; , , ,,,# , ,,:*:°'
Son
I fir: a h't, s a i
t ; ,
Cc
t9LU
x
V
a 1
w
tt
��
EB g a
P .n ilii
ii"M>
fA in da"
7
a LL i St
.,fi ,: *.W
•
'''. '... '°: •!: —- . '--—.77-:' ...' . ' ';',7,<:''....**.,:**H.:;':°..,;:1:::'.A;Sii .1..1R:''''''::::%tr11., ' .......::::1:-..
•
° A •
i
i ,O .
;,!,, ..T',:. .,,,I,i,t1I—'''''''.'-",#- . ,,'''.'',.. , • •.. -,:•.:',.7,4:''' '''.".-i:2-5-.-7..rt?'*,..„.•,,:El.„: ii• \ 4'•
•
• '
:''-::• ', .1. ,• .•!. : .30,4:.4.0.4::',:liglilikl,41::.i.M.-•-'- - - ' ' ttlik:'' "40$.oit;'''''''tilt;.`.-•',',.• '-,1", 0
^.gaIse j. a' a
••,"
•
� a ^•
iA 1FE x NCIssf �:O� C N'- z.:•':.7.1-:
� 1 •
:
•
ti&
l
A' xo + +°,� � .,a ;�^fi .,..,...,,,:;::„...f.„,..1,•';,.;..? s,
S r r . oiliC
., . s r1` „� :A
1
N ,
;
lit
•
Ct
axtc •t " e; xO "O N N m ,.O p ca > "�
0•:-:••;:
1Fi.::::::::•.--7>::.::.. .„"ii: ....:::: ..:"`"":" .
C -:;..,',...;,.., ..,,,,•,;,;•!mliPi.il'i,,,;'--/0i,,,7:',;°''.; . ,,, „,:::::.,:;:.•:..! ,,,:t! ,i.:!.".J.i.'clifil:„-:,,,.,,„-:.•:•.,•:, •..,„...:•••,...„....!,.):1,•.1.•••,,,i.","!,'...0....::: '.,
a C C C C C fi'q
C CI3 f6 CO to t4 r .F ,*e
J "�1 A 4. ar* +rr�
•
•
rw.,,:::-.,:a:.:,...;.:::
.. '''''':::: ., , ,,,,,,:..,. , , „,,,..,,, ,,.... .....„,._, .....:„(4,,,...,, ,.4 . r. .
..
i
'C,
,,,,e
,..,
...-
..q,
-\ ,,,„
0
.„.
C.„
-, i „
C
...
Lu,..
. , „ \
- ',. / „, .i „....„,./ \\\., - „,
..,,,,,;,/
�f Q}
of
((f
� V
1 I
e
a c-,
1°
Ea0
to
_
Tji
22
*
1
+4, ', ,, P,'' ,.. , svi ., ,, ,,,„ .,...._________„_, /7,..urli,,,,,,,,te,,,,R., ,,--&-,0.1.1 II
c
�� �
�-
ve
® _ t'
,-'-''' .. ,-‘. -",i,,,,,,k,-,-----:-'7PPiro, :.- , a
•
1 ) , , ;_ ,x ,- - � .te ) , -
e 4.b "e: _ r.
L h '
x, _
rtrtpp w
G
T t
N
f . H
i. ..-W............_ ......,._..._
L
x
L
t i
99
1..., ,y C91
e
i
• }
E�
r
V.
I
.,
r ,,.
i.aFa' * r :rid '
a
�
°
ll I
0
� 0
0
N
0
Al
7 ' LEE COUNTY
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSSONEAS
Iain,E MArusing
o,"l,«One May 6, 2011
Brian$igclw+
Cusurcr Two
Ray Judah. Mr. Fred W. Coyle, Chairman
Darla Three Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Tammy Kali 3299 Tamlarni Trail East,Suite 303
Dntrrct los. Naples, FL 34112-5746
Frank Pfa ua
gym 'FrvC RE:Lost Grove Mine Conditional Use
iCar¢n B Hawcs (CU-PL_2009-1412 and EXP-PL-2010-4826)
County Monog.r
MichTol R Hwrt Dear Chairman `-ik"al t0
Cournv htterrq
Maria t1.Aarizer
Cuwmry Ktarlog Lee County would like to share our concerns with the Conditional Use application for
E"'a"`r Lost Grove Mine,which is now being reviewed by your staff, This is a very long-term
commercial mine located adjacent to Lee County off of SR 82 and Corkscrew Road
Lee County is concerned that the proposed mine will result in negative impacts on:
- nearby Lee County residents;
- the CREW property;
- groundwater and surface waters; and
- Lee County roadways due to a large volume of truck traffic(estimated at a
maximum of 1,366 two-way trips every day)for over 20 years, which would
conflict with the rural residents in this area and create safety concerns.
Because these impacts go beyond jurisdictional boundaries, we would offer our staff
to work with your staff to address our concerns,which are detailed in the attached
memorandum. Our staff will attend any public hearings, and will be available to
provide comments on the record.
We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this matter.
S
rank Mann,Chairman
. Lee County Board of County Commissioners
cc' Lee County BOCC Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Karen Hawes, County Manager
Michael Hunt, County Attorney
Chip Block, Principal Planner
PCc,Box 398,Fort Myers,Florida 13902-0398(239)533.213 I
fiiternet address lictp:/horww,le,e-county.com
AN£QUA, OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE,ACTION EMPLOYER
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DIVISION
DATE: March 31,2011
To: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alvin Block,AICP „�of
Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Lost Grove Mine,Collier County
On March 22,2011, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare a position paper on
the proposed Lost Grove Mine in Collier County. The 1, 383 acre property is located immediately
east of the Lee/Collier county line,north of Corkscrew Road and just south of S.R. 82. Staff has not
had the opportunity to conduct a substantive review of the proposal, but our initial review indicates
several issues that need to be further evaluated.
The proposal is for a very large, long-term, construction materials mining operation. This mining
operation will have significant negative impacts on the adjacent residential properties, the road and
transportation network,and numerous natural resources.
The attached position paper has been prepared to inform the Board about the impacts of this proposal.
Collier County staff has advised that written communication without participation at the public
hearings does not constitute substantial and competent evidence. As in our zoning process, if one
does not participate in the public hearing process,the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
will not accept comments or evidence at their hearing.
Staff has identified the following options and is seeking Board direction:
1. Direct staff to conduct a formal substantive review of the proposal.
• 2, Direct staff to participate in the Collier County public hearing process.
3. Have staff draft a letter for the Chair's signature outlining the Board's concerns with the
proposal.
4. Allow the proposal to move through the public hearing process without Lee County
participation.
Staff recommends that the Board take a formal position on this application as currently proposed and
pursue options 1,2 and 3.
cc: Karen Hawes,County Manager
Donna Marie Collins,Assistant County Attorney
Mary Gibbs,Director, Department of Community Development
S:ICOPPREI EA'SIPEICHARLOTTECOUNTrILOSTGROPEA//NE MEAA10 ro tio7IRn.00CX
COLLIER COUNTY
LOST GROVE MINE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN
AGGREGATE MINE
Background
The Lost Grove Mine is a proposed construction materials limerock mining operation on 1,382.7
acres. The property is located immediately east of the Lee/Collier county line,north of Corkscrew
Road and south of S.R.82(see attached map). The subject property is currently a citrus grove with
several wetland preserves.
The proposal is to excavate up to a total of 740.9 acres to a depth that ranges from 45 feet to a
maximum depth of 145 feet. The proposed operation includes: blasting (as regulated by the
Division of State Fire Marshal); rock crushing; washing; and, the sorting of materials. The
application does not propose ancillary uses such as asphalt batch plants or concrete manufacturing
plants.
The site immediately abuts Lee County to the east, adjoining the Wildcat Farms residential
subdivision, identified as a Rural Residential Community by the Southeast Lee County DR/.GR
study. •This area of Lee County is designated as Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource and
Wetlands on the Lee County Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan.
Lee County staff has not been able to determine from the application what the proposed length of
the mining operation is anticipated to be, but the size of the property and excavation area itself
would indicate a long-term operation.
The applicant has proposed the following hours of operation for the mine:
Mining Operations Monday through Saturday,6:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.
Rock Crushing Activities Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.
Blasting Activities Monday through Friday,9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.
Lee County staff has identified the following issues:
Residential Compatibility
As previously stated, the subject property is located immediately east of the Rural Residential
Community of Wildcat Farms. Currently,these properties are a mixture of large lot single family
homes and agricultural uses. Homes and agricultural buildings range from approximately 100
feet to 250 feet from the common property line. The proposed setback from the mining
operation's property line is 50 feet. This will result in setbacks from the excavation to these
structures of approximately 150 to 300 feet.
The proposed mine includes a vegetative buffer composed of a 10 foot wide planted strip with 10
foot tall.trees at 30 feet on center. Except for a small 2 foot high berm required by the water
management permit, no other shielding is being proposed or required. This setback and
vegetative buffer will not adequately protect the property owners in Lee County from the blasting
operations,as well as the dust,noise,and lighting.
Sc iCOMPREIiENS1 Nm cIMRLOTTE CO UNTl1 LOST GROVE MINE MEMO TO BOARD.DOC X
•
•
This residential community, as well as the additional residential communities located near and
along Corkscrew Road,will experience increased truck traffic along Corkscrew Road. Increased
traffic on S.R. 82 will also affect the residents of Lehigh Acres.
There is also the potential for negative impacts to the ground and surface waters in the area which
could negatively affect the residential wells of the nearby property owners.
Environmental
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed(CREW)lands are located to the east and south of the
subject property, across Corkscrew Road. Currently, the agricultural operation discharges into
existing water retention areas (WRA's) which contain wetlands. These then drain to the
agricultural ditches, which then flow under Corkscrew Road at two points. The surface water
then flows east and south into the CREW lands. The proposed mining operation will maintain
this drainage pattern.
The proposed mining operation will maintain only a 50 foot setback from existing on-site
wetlands. With a similar 50 foot setback from the perimeter property lines,there is the potential
for impacts to the on-site and off-site wetlands in this area:
Collier County staff reports that wetlands on the site were previously permitted and mitigated for
under the existing water management district permit. Mitigation to offset these permitted wetland
impacts was completed and 466 acres of upland hardwoods were preserved south of County Road
850(Corkscrew Road). Staff reports that there are 232.6 acres of existing wetlands and none of
the wetlands located within the existing WRA's are proposed for impacts.
The subject property is identified as being in both the"Primary"and"Secondary"panther habitat
zones. The operation of the mine in this location could disrupt the movement of panthers and
increase mortality on the roads due to the increased truck traffic. The project is also located
within the Wood Stork core foraging area and the impacts to the agricultural ditches will result in
less foraging areas during the mine operation. Also,the reclamation plan does not include littoral
shelves designed for optimum wood stork foraging areas.
Transportation
The Applicant's traffic study estimates removal of up to 5 million tons of material per year. This
equates to 683 truckloads of material per day(Note;truck trips would be double this,equating to
1,366 daily truck trips). There are two proposed means of access to the mine, direct access to
Corkscrew Road and a vehicular easement north to S.R. 82. The application indicates SR 82 is
projected to receive 75% of the trucks (approximately 512 truck trips or 1,024 daily truck trips),
while 25% is projected to use Corkscrew Road (approximately 171 truck trips or 342 daily truck
trips), There is no assurance that the truck trips will actually follow these presumed percentage
splits. This number can also vary daily depending upon the ultimate destination of the excavated
materials.
The application proposes no mitigation to the impacts of the truck traffic on roads within Lee
County. There will be impacts to the rural residential communities due to the increase truck
traffic related to the project. This large increase in truck trips will bring additional safety issues
along both of these roadways.
•
•
S.ICOMPREHENSIVL1CHARLOTTE COUNTYILOSTGROVeHMS MEMO TO BOURD.DOCX
Natural Resources
There is the potential for impacts to the natural resources by the proposed mining operation, but
the application lacks sufficient information to determine those impacts. The surface waters from
this site flow to Estero Bay, an Outstanding Florida Water, and the proposed use could adversely
impact Estero Bay.
The existing surface water drainage pattern for both on-site and off-site was not provided. Also
not provided were groundwater levels, quality, and gradients which should be submitted for
review. Also,local on-site and off-site groundwater gradients should be provided for evaluation
to determine groundwater flow direction(s) of the surfrcial aquifer. Understanding the local
groundwater gradient is important in evaluating potential mining impacts because the proposed
mine lakes will likely "flatten" the existing groundwater gradient. In Lee County, the Wildcat
Farms area is hydraulically connected to the project site and impacts cannot be fully determined.
There is potential for intermixing of different aquifers if this mining operation is approved.
Neighborhood Meeting and Public Hearings
The applicant conducted a required neighborhood information meeting in Collier County. This
informational meeting was not advertised to any adjoining Lee County resident because this is not
required by the Collier County Code. The applicant filed a continuance of all hearings in order to
hold a second neighborhood meeting, this time with interested parties from Lee County,to hear
and address their questions and concerns.
As of the preparation of this paper, Lee County staff is not aware of any scheduled information
meetings or of any scheduled public hearing on this proposal.
Conclusion
According to Collier County Zoning & Land Development Review Department staff and the
Collier County Attorney's office, written communication without participation at the public
hearings does not constitute substantial and competent evidence. In order to be considered in the
Conditional Use permitting process one must participate in the public hearings. As in our zoning
process, if you do not participate at the hearing, the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners will not accept comments or evidence at their hearing.
In order to protect the Lee County residents who will be affected by this proposal and to assure
protection of the natural resources, staff recommends the Board take a formal position on this
application and instruct staff to further evaluate this proposal and to participate in the public hearing
process to communicate issues of concern.
•
S:ICOAIPRL•HENS/ EICIfi1RLOTTE COUNT 11 LOST GROVE A•IINI;MEMO TO BOARD.DOC 1
_______—_-__ _- �' _ -_ _ _ _--_ � -
- —_ � __ _ _
[ -
tovp^v�
1.E. 2007 Aerial Pilo
' ���C�UMTY
~.. to, `. ...`"/v` " Lo�tGroV� K _i_ g ___ :m^�m".",moom~�*v�°m � Printed Mar,zn11
.,,,, (1
i • .....,, ,461,411,;,, ,,, .! .,,..1 i, i - 4,-,.;,:.7p,,, ,..- ;041, ,.',, ... -;to
t,
1 i
‘illii," ' • .,0 • '','1;''lli,;• .:',"•*#.1t, "''.".'.:i.'''''liV",;,;.*:-.,,:",:i ''''1;',1.1T....6",4ty'V7,.. . ' ',Ai'l .1-L:1•17:4,4*.*;.trtillII)i '
,-7';',' .t'..l•h. '",*., l'i",t '1 l',1"'",;-4-'''.wt*t :,,,,,j .t'.. ..oq, •,
At.. ' *.:-‘-''‘'''V...,,,'''''',..:.,,,i:.,,,.;,,a 1,,trA ':..•,','„,tiih.„--,;'!:4, ,';', t,-.1'-',";.r..,,',,?$‘.t.',,,h".,,4k,... '4.4,14,ii:;:"l"..._,;$"4...;t:41,411.i-t*I.V.,.'‘. '',„'",.7'"*''';,‘Ap:',:.,f,-**,‘.!:',..?,*„:*;;!k",,..,h
,,b.,i:...:-0: '''''".'" ';—.i -1.1". ,....14,00-1 r.? ,.,..0)04 *..,_ ..:' ..-• .*,^-,-- ."."toifv`trrio' ttait'4,:',00 t :4„..:'!" -. '•," ''4 .* tt,,,' 'ti '',,t't"I•1,4'i',.""tr..,,t0it"AZ .• ' '
4$1.6„.1,,, gl,:.,-:,,oi,t,!),,t,-,q,`, ,:. . „"',:ir*,,,,i,o:„..*. :: ,".......,,,,:; ttlt.'...;kt3 kT,,,:.,;.:,:e;',",;:,4*YrfA46*" !*,:l•tk.,ft'ir,,t'.?•,..:**-h t, ',•"*.r"."; t:„!,,....s,!„..,:c...litill.,i..„,,..1,„..::„„.
..... ..._ , , , . c.,,.. . ., ,,„„,,:, ,...,....,,,. r ,,,,„„,..,„,,, ..1,,t.,,,,,,,„„r044,14,,,,.., ,,.....„3;1,,„4•„,..„,,,,,,a.:i... . „, *:„.„,,,,.. ,„„„„:„.:._ , ...,..:„..r,c., ,,,,4....1.;.,,,,,,,,„..,. =
' -'''' .' ' ' 4-. 'p li''''':';'4' .'iagin41.1 ''.14)111,0 l'i--`e;:f*::',.:.,..-''...."-„•,,:.. 'it-'01,g.,,, gi,k*,84. ,:.,4;1.,„,•„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,... 1,,___=,L,,,,,._._.,,:,..,., .,,,,:44,..,.,
il•-, ,'..•:-'2,•?;',,,,' ii t,';:,„.4, ', ,,,,,•• 0'6 . __ „sr,71- -, ;' :•••.,'''"e.,,,;-:.q•,.----,-4,1',Ic•t•Vt-,::'•.';'1•4.32i, .•-, ...4"v.e.,..-......4...,,..,4- -,..,;.,,,i -s,...- .. .,,,,,,,4
i.,?„..,...,,-...:,,,i.:1_.-,—,co,,..,,,-ki,.,s, ,R,E.vy,,,,,7,....,14,114.,-,,,,,!;::. c;- ., i„.-0:7!-„ir'''..,..,'xi,, ,,,!,:igtz,'_,„ .°',.%*,.e.,,.:5,,,:;_*..4,4' '.i.,,,.'.1.t''',*i7."''• l'''''.1::' : '*.r.."4%.'44'‘•:!.."'" ''.11:6*''' '''!
-.*:. -,.-- ,,t,i1,,- : : 'r.4" '' ''' ttAt '2',", '' •. ":0 41' tri.';'...2 iirkihr*-", . ',. .t"'r i''',-"I'*... '''' A., . .r41,. .,-,,,,,..1 . . -4,,*,..
r.,...,,,,,,;,..,-.....,,,,,,,,,,„„, ..,,,,,,,,„.,,,,,,,,,,...*,,,..„,,,,,,,,.,,,,,;,,,t,::!:,,,,,,,,,„,,,_,,,,,,,.....-.:.-..-•!:::;.4..1:7.1,$. 71..,:::;?1,.!,,',.,,„:,':::,,,;),.';,•.' t, ,,''''-',.•"`.,;;1/4,n, ,'.7;.'r'-',. _ - . ' '
___- ____'_ ' _ _
r
Conditional Use Boundary
0 FWC Panther Telemetry 6-22-2011 '
0 USFWS Additional GPS Panther Data ',''',t
0 USFWS GPS Data FP 188
Panther Mortality 2011 .
Panther Zones
.. :f` E '"° y, ED Primary
r
44.
Secondary
l
- L A ,
--..........„.:.. ,
. .. ,„. ..;i.1
;., ,,... .. .,,,lz
3/5/2011 at.i
i
4&1
w
03/5/2011
� . I . _ 6 ,t� �
itn:
h
t
3/1I2011 3'212/1/2 1 3td,201` r ar ';
: 3/1/211 •' r fi '•`�a"w�r. �tN v r, v4 '.:
31/2011 e.i
� � • �� a r
,' 62!28 2;11 °� s g ,,,,,,16...„., --,,,,,A,,,,-.,..„....,,,,,,,90,4-„,,,,� � ,
02128/20,111'c r rt y1jt t 'a..�3(2/201G1. &f mit I 1 {
z"x, 1l,., .
� �: i � 2,011 • r �5 - -'
r i 3/7 .11 ,r. a :. '},i ""
", 317/2011 1I,
4111,L ',,•., 011 s' hz:x s
3/6/2011 4:' •• v _m kt --n
` ° 1,?1
�' � ,117 ,1.. a, a,l w 1gr`R%.
4 i71 `' �4..n, R a �,r `Srmr�" ''-aJ ':,�. a°' 8,akr
� >�* _ Awa � -x 5 ri "�"%'Y" a w 1d �a* k �.
L'Lf
lift ei 4-f .~,< pie"v �l >.+T"i 'i„SS; `� jdt �' �it v -� i'.wit aa ii iti
t_ °
n
tr
Stantec Consulting N nommo. Feet t3
3200 Bailey LaneLost Grove Mine- Conditional Use o 500 1,000
'I The information on this map has been compiled
��
Suite 200 by Sfemec gafl from a wrby ot.ources end a
' Naples,FL 34105 Exhibit K-(2 of 2) Bear and Panther Telemetry, a sW,ecttochange vnYnutnotice atentecmakes
n.dt .........,____..._ tel 239.649.4040 no opraseno on.or wens tI,,,..prees a Inq 0d,
Starlet fax 239.263.6446 GPS and Mortality Data e,.e ��. ci:)-Ii asroHearsay rompeaneesArrrelm.s.an9h5
b the uee o1 suM Mkrm.tbn.
Ono Tcanr Irt(uiite Solutions'
If '1 -, i?e?r-?i,.i .c,rrt,1v" /.,+' i r= 0 l'e't vb8 irk t' tl c llev'< ``t 0Vt
From: Whitehouse,Alan [Alan.Whitehouse@dep.state.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:37 AM
To: amber crooks
Subject: FW: Lost Grove Mine ERP Application
The Department of Environmental Protection values your feedback as a customer. DEP Secretary
Herschel T. Vinyard Jr. is committed to continuously assessing and improving the level and quality of
services provided to you. Please take a few minutes to comment on the quality of service you received.
Simply click on this link tic the DEP Cr+stomer$urvev`. Thank you in advance for completing the survey.
From: Golden, James Laid ..c* ., LgslyJ
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:53 AM
To: Whitehouse, Alan
Subject: Lost Grove Mine ERP Application
Here are the District's comments on the above subject ERP application:
• The proposed mining activities should be preformed such that existing aquifer confining
layers are not breached.
• The proposed mining activities should he performed such that no adverse impacts will
occur to nearby wetlands.
• As this site abuts Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) lands, minimum
seasonal water discharges from the site to CREW lands must be maintained that meet
existing and/or proposed water quality standards.
• It appears that there would be more ecological benefit from preserving a substantial
restored buffer (approximately 1,000 feet wide) along the perimeter of the mine where it
abuts existing natural areas and CREW, rather than preserving wetlands internal to the
mining operation. A conservation easement should be placed upon the buffer area to run
with the land in perpetuity. As the site is currently in citrus production, restoration of the
entire buffer area should be completed in phases, based upon percentages of mining
activities completed. This will allow the landowner to continue citrus farming/production
activities within the buffer area as mining activities progress. Upon completion of 50
percent of the mining activities for the site and 100 percent of the restoration activities, a
land management plan for the buffer area should be created. If appropriate, mitigation
credits should be granted for preservation of the buffer area, as the restored buffer area
will likely result in creation of wildlife habitat, a wildlife corridor, and a natural flow-way
beneficial to the region.
• Creation of a littoral zone should be required for all open pits, upon completion of mining
activities for each pit. The littoral zone should be sloped at 4:1 to a minimum of 8 feet
below the mean high water table aquifer stage for the project site. Please note that
additional grading may be necessary to create a sloped transition area between the littoral
zone and the existing ground surface. If appropriate, mitigation credits should be
considered for creation and planting of the littoral.
IIS
1
r x �
.„....... • Vit-xi_X,: -
-� X
(s �' y6
a.
R� ryV ,'
�C' :7-.,,
.k . » r� am+ g jS ' " %gg „'P-1-4).0. . •Yn "9" • „,17-, • •.'W EC
il
t— d
ill
Re:41w
1 ” ($ ::
•
_ ,���,.E . Nur3j` ase" - f" � } • /,
~ fit i a� 4
Q f` R Y d
Z (111.copy } Z .° •
co 0 (�
Z k 0 1•
uJ J a � • it&t.
x'q� M
a111
, '- 4° 4 1 i
0
,.
c
ui
2,.-i.
.— O
, .,::,,V4"ite'„ .„:,:.:4';
Z a> N r " a a.
rt
z 1 ,F-
C .Z W ' .'V C . '!"-',2,XL �W -s R ry a,t Cc c �c c
cr
U.
Q.
•
`..' sah
A
" .",' -fi °T f" dy
W
W
H
H
,,,,... „jell! /4 1111 ,,
';. OR t o w 531 * s: :
acc
cc
} o. . x ,;� 4 pc. ,t a .. ti , % 'art.
} H 's` a C r t. • �„ r ,• .p s �' t =C
H Z 10 1U ill d 4 ** .*. 4114° •440 -"4 * ' 1 S• Is?
c
w iii
W r� '.
4 IN
•
.,,,, N't
-cc Uj
CC
Q Q ' ? :,,.j Ktak :fly,p^ • -v
L.L. o �
QZ ?e ,t°'�•,;� o,.. E -r , ,,e o • sYaEa¢x{Ri.+a�
*--
w
t_ O /�'� .y� ",y"., '''i
awl; w.L�y i .y. h•�F,e, � , 5.
v/ Cc i . \Y aki'^R" ', ((,,.. Y v ,t Y • ''' e.
W ` `i?� A R ria'". 1 • ';.
Q ; '4 ' ^� s .x ,E, F •d �yhr4 An a.s:.„-, 'e ikILI ,p. '••••;•"4, . ' — '--- t'' .
0 ."""
S � r
4 it
Lf,_�� ♦tV:.�� ..-
4 t x • , a:° y ----outgo
3 i ', P .'". , + T,7tf k 4k.d, e 4.4"4'%NU Wy= ' iZ _ �4..4. $W a
X 111
W
le'*- ' A '
aj .. '.*v. At:, ...,..„.
1....
Q
i ' ' s'''' ' c ' 1
--c2 .,‘ _ A.', ,'`' ‘-', "- - ,
W
....
11.1W
I ` " a
tr
5
Z
Z
Q U O
p � w `; fi
o r ,:
CC) (i)2 t f a
ren
7- ` Oco 5
`yam '< b.,v k ij" Il k
'r
'`W 111 � `�c * �
:. ° of —+ a. va � a aU
4' $!
449.11
From: CasalanguidaNick [NickCasalanguida@colliergov.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:35 PM
To: nicole johnson; 'Perry, Jeff
Cc: ArmstrongDebbie; 'Nancy Payton'; bcornell@collieraudubon.org; 'Elizabeth
Fleming'; 'Laurie Macdonald'; cagm, Growth Management; BosiMichael;
LorenzWilliam; Durham, Tim; Robert Mulhere; Elisabeth Schuck;
stindale@tindaleoliver.com; ckeller@tindaleoliver.com; ArnoldMichelle
Subject: RE: Meeting on MMP
Hi Nicole,
We can briefly touch on this at the upcoming team meeting. I know this will
not require much time as I can elaborate now and avoid this becoming a
debated issue. As was stated earlier today:
You noted below...."However, I still believe there is confusion
regarding the MMP's use of the 2035 Needs Plan as the model baseline, how the
Needs Plan roads will or won't be "justified" through the MMP process, and how
any potential policy recommendations will or won't be based on the model's use
of the Needs Plan road network."
• Needs Plan roads will or won't be "justified" The MMP is not intended
to justify the addition or deletion of any new capital projects or the
adopted 2035 LRTP.
• The use of the adopted 2035 LRTP is for modeling purposes only to
test concepts and tools that lower VMT and/or VHT.
• how any potential policy recommendations will or won't be based on the
model's use of the Needs Plan road network."
Projects identified in the 2035 LRTP may show a benefit to mobility but the
MMP will not be specifically reference these projects in the
recommendations that go forward to the BCC. (Bridges connecting
already existing roads excluded)
• It is not the intent of the MMP to include new facilities nor should it
be the intent of the stakeholders to eliminate identified facilities in
the adopted 2035 LRTP. It is only a modeling tool.
• Discussions over the merits of existing or proposed capital projects
should be handled outside of the MMP through the LRTP update or
permitting process.
• In order to develop policy recommendations a metric must be used
to test the concepts that will be proposed to lower VMT and VHT.
• The only adopted measuring tool (metric) is the 2035 LRTP needs
plan; anything else would be arbitrary.
I believe Staff, consultants and stakeholders should remain focused on
the primary objective of the MMP: reducing demand and thus lowering
VMT, VHT and subsequently greenhouse gases. Neither staff, consultants
or stakeholders should use the MMP todebate specific existing or
proposed capital projects.
We look forward to everybody's continued participation.
Thank you,
Nick
GO WITH THE FLOW
Comments based on review of the May 2011 Collier County Watershed Management Plan—DRAFT
By W.James Flanagan III,concerned citizen
September 7, 2011
In a big-picture look at the Watershed Management Plan, I would hope to see a graphic representation
of the comprehensive above-ground and below-ground water flows within each of the defined
Watersheds.With such graphic representation showing flows, clearer perspectives could be provided
with a focus on the larger concerns of where impairments exist or are potential and the resultant
remedial needs as water flows across the watershed. Differentials of impairments over flow and time
would produce a functional analysis of both loads and flows. The methodology of sampling used may or
may not have allowed for this, but without it, it may or may not produce results that are more
specifically defining in the approach to mitigate the impairments of the watersheds.Such a graphic
representation of these would be more helpful and user friendly to the reader and the general public as
well,and may be more understandable to political leaders who ultimately will approve such a plan.
Such representation needs to be comprehensive and conceptual so the focus is on the big picture vs.
small spot-fixes that may have only a negligible effect in the individual watershed or on the Big Cypress
Basin as a whole. Regardless of available funding(or lack thereof)for any large or small projects,the
approach should be comprehensive and conceptual.A series of structural projects are indicated across
the various watersheds, but it is unclear how these projects interface/interact/address the concerns
beyond diverting flows.
'Parameters of"Potential Concern"' needs to be defined for the layperson and addressed relative to
policy and how the process evolves, both in time,function parameters and money, into a "Concern",
"Serious Concern"and "Critical Concern". This should be incorporated into the study with relative
potential problems, solutions, and costs.
In-Stream Water Quality
- From the studies that are identifying"impairments" in the In-stream Water Quality, graphic
representations across the watersheds indicating loads vs.flows might give clues to sources of
impairments by mapping levels and differentials of impairments as/where the water flows along with
identifiable source potentials of human and natural kinds.
Pollutant Loads
-Gross pollutant loads would identify intensity and locations and could be mapped across flows to
create potential focus-locations for pollutant removal.
- It is also noted on page 12 that"Further wet weather sampling is necessary to better define areas of
agricultural nutrient concern", so I would expect that there would be a proposal and recommendation in
Page 1
the conclusions that would evaluate and quantify the needs to achieve such additional work necessary
for providing a complete Collier County Watershed Management Plan.As well,Source-Identification
studies are recommended to evaluate Iron sources among other factors that are likely to cause
impairments.
Figure 1-9. In-Stream Water Quality,Color
From the graphics, In-stream water quality appears in most watersheds, but is not located in detail as to
the measures and where the concentrations are, both across the watershed and across the Big Cypress
Basin.
Figure 1-10. In-Stream Water Quality, Dissolved Oxygen
- From the graphics, In-stream dissolved oxygen is identified in watersheds, but not located in detail as
to the measures are or where the concentrations are, both across the watershed and across the Big
Cypress Basin.
Table 1-3. Average Functional Values of Non-Urban Lands, by Watershed.
-This chart might include as a matter of reference and comparison a column with "Total Watershed
Acres"
Measured Functional Values should define the methodology used in detail as the recommendation on
Page 32 suggests that the functional values presented here provide performance measures for later
evaluation of proposed projects. One would expect a very detailed explanation of the methodologies
and provide for an independent analysis and vetting of their function prior to creating any binding
performance measures and criteria.
Within the annual pollutant loads discussed in 2.2: Quality of Discharge, I would expect that there would
be peak and low values within the annual pollutant load data, and would hope that such would be
analyzed across flow, volume and season for each watershed and for basins within the watershed.As
well, results should be incorporated into this report indicating the duration and magnitude of an
impairment of"potential concern"as a matter of reference and measure, and defining the time period
of"potential concern" represented within the annual pollutant load data.
* In general,graphic representations in the report are barely if not legible—especially the legends within
the figures.
Given that the Collier County Watershed Management Plan is a comprehensive plan, a comprehensive
conceptual program plan, conceptual timeline,and conceptual but realistic funding plan should be
spelled out within the conclusions and recommendations.Without timelines and funding sources, a plan
can never be realized.A prioritization of capital projects should be functionally and schematically
proposed,and a functional project plan should also be functionally and schematically proposed.
Page 2
Regulatory-based non-structural component and incentive programs have not been provided in the
draft document.On page 61, "Evaluation and Recommendations for Regulatory and Policy Changes"
states that"This section will be completed pending full evaluation of the comments received from the
stakeholders during the week of May 12.
At a minimum,a policy should be established for mitigation and reconstruction of wetlands lost to
development within the Big Cypress Basin which should require such mitigation to be done within the
Big Cypress Basin, not outside the County.The benefits of wetlands preservation are lost to wetlands
mitigation banks outside the functional Big Cypress Basin watershed.
Policies analysis and issues such as re-use water(for irrigation of for potential future potable water
source with appropriate treatment)are not apparent within 1.2.2:Water Uses.Although the County's
reuse water system currently may not produce enough irrigation water to make a significant impact on
the water budgets, some consideration and discussion for alternative water sources should be part of
the analysis.
As well,consideration should be made to address the existence and long-term functionality of on-site
septic systems in the most of the rural areas of the County, and as such, policies for arbitrarily raising
groundwater levels and/or incorporating temporary water storage via control of canal structures must
be made with science and understanding of the consequences, both on a system-wide basis as well as
potential impacts on individual septic systems/homeowners.
Future populations and transportation projects will have a significant impact on the flows and water
controls.Given the future populations in the Eastern Lands east of Desoto Blvd and the lack of a future
transportation plan for this area of the County, much attention should be afforded and accounted for in
this plan. No mention of future populations or long-term perspectives is provided in either the Potential
Structural Improvement Projects or as a look forward for planning and conceptualizing the future.
The Recommendations provide for 27 "Structural Improvement" Projects.The description of these
projects and their affect on each other need to be discussed further, and a comprehensive approach to
the entire watershed must be conceptualized so that the next level of watershed functions and projects
can be focused.Without a timeline and an inter-relation of proposed project and a complete watershed
plan vision,these 27 projects are just 27 projects with an estimated cost of$25 Million, with no
overlying conceptual far-reaching plan beyond. If it does not exist,there should be a Drainage Area
Master Plan, a recommendation made at one of the stakeholder meetings.A comprehensive Surface
Water Plan should incorporate storm water and include surface water approaches.
An explanation of what comes after these 27 projects is warranted, unless these 27 projects complete
the entire watershed management plan.
Page 3
t acrd
III udeueld sawef•M
'Alin}laadsaa
•uolidope ao}ueld luawa8eueIN paysaaleM a Suizileui}
of aolad anssl siyi uo uoissnaslp pue ly8noyl aaylan}allonoad of pue anSolelp ayl anulluo3 oi'Alunoj
ayi}o luawaaiiaq ayl ao}sivawwoa Aw aaeys I •algenalyae pue allslleaa '/ueuolsln'anllaa}}a aq IIIM lag
ueld luawa8euet paysaaleM anlsuayaadwoa pue alisileaa e dolanap pue anoadwl of lao}}a ue ul uazllla
pawa3u03 a se mainaa pue sluawwo3 Aw 8ulaq I `suaaauoa pue suollesaanuoa`s8uliaaw ayi 8ulmollo}
ui aanamoH •salauaSe leluawwano2}o uolieaislulwpe ul leuolssa}oad e aou 'aaau!Sua ue lou we I
•suaaauoa A111enb aalem pue 'Alddns aalem'saOanosaa aalem'luawa2euew
paysaalem of Sululeiaad sanssl pue swa3uo3 Aliunwwoa;}ulssnaslp uollelaossy alnD eaay salels3
ales uaplog a4140 saolaaa14}o paeoa ayi pue saagwaw uolle!Dossy a!A!J lskowe uolssnDslp Suloauo
e}o iced uaaq aney pue'sSu1laaw leuo1lewao}ul deal poo13 vW3d ul paiedpnied 'lauisla luawaaeuej
aaleM epuold Limos ay;}o ulse8 ssaadAD$l8 ayi aao}eq uallods anal 'dnoa2 aaployalels e}o laed
se sluellnsuoa ayl yllm iaW 's2uliaaw aalilwwoo ueld luawa;}eueiN paysaaleM leaanas ul paledlallaed
•Alunoj aaliloo pue saleis3 ales uaplog yloq
}o ll}auaq waal;uol ayi ao}saSueya anlllsod pue 'ivalal}}a 'anli3a}}a awos dolanap oi'siseq$uinulluoa e
uo pue 'ile}slyl salaua2e Ile yilm aayiaSol laom of anuliuoa of agog aM •salepdn ueld vs-oi pUe anima
Aue aae osie lealilao •ueld aaiselN salels3 ales uaplog atop Apnisaa Sulwoadn ay1 pue '(saaploy
a8e21aow ao}aDuearisul pool}Aaolepuew yllm)salepdn dew pool}VW3d :eaJv salels3 ales uaplog
ayl ul spaaaoad luawa2euew aalem moy laaje ApeaiS!pm waal aeau ayl uI salllnllae lue3l}lAs oml
uolslnlpgns e se salels3 ales uaplog ao}ueld luawa8euew
aalem anlsua4aadwo3 e dolanap of'aalemwaolS Alunog Jam pue'3DvSn 'd3a 'u!Se8 ssaadAj S1a
'8dM/a WMdS$ulpnpul 'salaua8e AaolelnSaa pue`8ulieaado '2ullllwaad}o uolieulpaooa panoidwl *
Alunog aallloj pue salels3 ay1 ao}Alddns aalem algelod pallwll ayl}o uollaaload *
walsAs aSeuieap Aaewiad pallwll aylJo A3ua!Dl}}a ayl'azlwlxew pue 'ivawildwoa
of sldaauo3 pue sanssl uo1lelpaw poold pue luawaSeuew Jae aae}ans}o uolleaapisuog *
salels3 ayi Sullaedwl pue of luaaefpe suolieaildde llwaad luawdolanap}o s!sAleue pue uolienien3
ulseq a8euleap leuonoun}ano ulyllm uolieSmw pueliam Jo}paau ayl *
:ueld luawaSeueIN paysaaleM Alunog aalllos ayi
pue luawaSeuew pagsaalem o1 Sululelaad saagwaw ano Aq paslea}o sanssl pue suaaauoa'sluawwoa
alelsaa lou pp 1}l sslwaa aq pinom I 'uolielaossy alms salels3 ales uaplog ayl 40 aagwaw a se 'All eu13