Loading...
CCPC Backup 11/01/2012 SCCPC MEETING BACKUP DOCUMENTS NOVEMBER 1, 2012 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -September 20, 2012 and September 28, 2012 "Special AUIRICIE" meeting 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTE. This item has been continued by the CCPC from the September 20, 2012 meeting: A. PL20110000769 /CPSS- 2011 -2: A Petition requesting a Small Scale Amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series by amending the "Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict ", to add a 2.8 f acre parcel of land; add Senior Housing, including Independent Living Units, Assisted Living Facilities, Congregate Care Facilities, Continuing Care Retirement Communities, Skilled Nursing Facilities and similar uses, not to exceed a maximum F.A.R. of 0.45; retain medical office use, not to exceed a maximum of 5,000 square feet; revise setback and buffering standards; remove requirement for an outdoor patio; and revise the Subdistrict name to "Golden Gate Estates Commercial and Institutional Infill Subdistrict ". The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] B. PL20120000371/CP- 2012 -1: A petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban -Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict to Conservation Designation for the County -owned Gordon River Greenway Park property located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 123.60+ acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] C. PL20120001213CP/2012 -3: a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to change the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay by expanding the area subject to the density bonus for mixed use development, adding allowance for residential -only development to qualify for the density bonus, adding an explanation of the density bonus calculation, and deleting the development standards — all without increasing the total density allowed within the Overlay; and, to add cross references to other FLUE provisions. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] D. PDI- PL20120001345: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to the Master Plan in Ordinance Number I I -18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, to move the location of the required on -site native vegetation from the north to the south and move water management areas. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12f acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS NOTE: This item was continued at the Planning Commission hearing on September 6, 2012 to the October 4, 2012 hearing date. On the October 4, 2012 agenda, this item was continued to the November 1, 2012 Planning Commission hearing date. This item has been further continued to the December 6, 2012 Planning Commission hearing date. A. LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle 1 [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] 11. NEW BUSINESS A. To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) accept a schedule to review past staff clarifications of the Land Development Code and to forward a recommendation to accept the selected Staff Clarifications to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] NOTE: This item is a Time Certain to be heard at 9:00 AM: B. Consideration of proposed Settlement Agreement regarding Case No.: 08- 6933 -CA, Hussey et al vs. Collier County et al. The Agreement is applicable to 966 acres located north of I -75, 3 miles east of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) in Sections 29, 32 and 33, T49S, R27E; and, 2,576 acres located on the east side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), 2 miles north of Oil Well Road (CR 858) in Sections 35 & 36, T47S, R27E, and Sections I & 2, T48S, R27E. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp ie ------------ - --- ---- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY: BUILDING COLOR LEGEND' Ot 01A(A- ACKWA - I -e, ACNSS Acm FN11LWf^ 5S ---------- --------------- -- ----- SUILDING SUMMARY: iIf t: nent fm If* UIWI "alp • III 2VUWW-S-F..?ACN VII UWfS*iNV F-C- ROW S, J r C7LDEN GATE PARKWAY ----- --------- - ----- ............ - ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY conceptual site plan �kpkSTUDFF✓S T Al A5515TED LIVING FACILITY conceptual site vicinity plan October 8, 2012 /Jjpk UDI is R39 d]a 50 W,IFFR]9.4]I.OZf101owwr�.P Ida ud'as3com a. 20 4, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY honk conceptual site plan T: 239t.� I F: 239.—.M8 1 .. .Pkl April 20, 2012 PkSTUDIOS T N ....... ea za9.94z— COLDEN CATE ESTATES GradyMinor —.— wa �o9m. 239.690.4300 l0.Y19WVFYm ®Nu N Port 941.426.5050 Nnpiee 239.444.2397 COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT row Civil Rngineeis . Lana In—y— . Pm.— . lmlwape Ambitem 2012 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH uw.G edyMlnpr ro0m0'Grfiyv Minot and Aeaoelxlee.PA.1�'� DATE AERIAL FLOWN: DECEMBER 2011 . mrmt' t or t III 111, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 30 ZONING: E. ESTATES EXISTING USE: RESIDENTIAL e I 753.97' 1 9700' 11 1 • •t -rY - - - PRESERVE 9 - � _� ___ y . I /7 SFR.E sE. 13 TRACT 98, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, ` A RI < 1 I' UNIT 30 AREA ZONING: E, ESTATES I� m EXISTING USE: RESIOENTAL s h 0 0 < h j OFFICE 0 OFFICE /)� i E E 3 Q m OFFICE e e j< z 1 311 I MWda�P - - - - - - - 25 TPL W - G Pa e- dN E- AN= R aN TYPE R ' III I , II n 5 Wide AA —It PoM ----- - - - --- �� i) —= o-- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- - - -- �_, - -- - - - - - - -- - - ------------------------------- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- ------------------ - -- -W, E - - - -- - - - - -- , nEE of Pe•ament 10• Ceunty Right-ol -Way Ec�sment M21n �cuntY Dreinepe, Utility, g• 50' ROPBNey Eo•ament (Per PIeU• (O.R. BoaF 1040, Pp. 1840) 0 once ontl Road _ _ ight_of_Wey Easement• Edgs of PO•ament - G.R. BOak 1948. 6q. T$ 8' 1J___ ________— ___________ ___________ ___________ _______________________________ ?___________________ -- �-COn rata MIOntl c Gave Medlen N.89'40'50 "W. 848.98' Edpe of Povement GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AREA CALCULATIONS OR SITE AREA: 8.833 AC PUBLIC ROAD ROW 2.883 AC NET SITE AREA: 4.154 AC PRESERVE AREA PROVIDED 0.253 AC REQUIRED 4.8 X .15 - 0.723 AC 1 1 1 1 LAND USE SUMMARY PROPOSED UBES: PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE EXISTING USE VACANT COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: GOLDEN GATE COMMERCIAL IN -FILL SUBDISTRICT MAXIMUM LEASABLE AREA 35,000 SQ. FT m TRACT 113. GOLDEN CATS ESTATES, UNIT JO ZONING: PU EXISTNG USE PARKWAY CHURCH OF CHRIST NOTES 1. PLEASE SEE CDLONADES PLO, SECTON 2.17 FOR SPECIFIC BUFFER PLANTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. BUILDING CONFIGURATONS AND LOCATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SHALL BE FINALIZED AT THE THE OF SOP APPROVAL. S. THE OU1000R PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY PATIO AREA IS CONCEPTUAL AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 4. PROPOSED ROW TAKING IS BASED ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS AND IS SUBJECT TO FINAL ROW TAKING BY COLLIER COUNTY. GOLDEN GAIE UNIT 7 ZOLNING: C -4 EXISTING USE: SANTA BARBARA SOIARE SHOPPING CENTER Legal Description Tract 112. G— Gets Eepatas -t No. 30, as Ree —d Plet Boots age 58 of the Public R -1 of Collier County. mAf-1 DESIGNED BY: SJU CRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES' P.A COLONADES AT SANTA BARBARA ORAIIN BY: SJU GINEERS .LAND SURVEYORS • PLANNERE EXHIBIT A -1 Ohm •� " • • CONCEPTUAL CPUD MASTER PLAN AND JOB CODE: GGGPUD D• m m TRACT 113. GOLDEN CATS ESTATES, UNIT JO ZONING: PU EXISTNG USE PARKWAY CHURCH OF CHRIST NOTES 1. PLEASE SEE CDLONADES PLO, SECTON 2.17 FOR SPECIFIC BUFFER PLANTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. BUILDING CONFIGURATONS AND LOCATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SHALL BE FINALIZED AT THE THE OF SOP APPROVAL. S. THE OU1000R PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY PATIO AREA IS CONCEPTUAL AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. 4. PROPOSED ROW TAKING IS BASED ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS AND IS SUBJECT TO FINAL ROW TAKING BY COLLIER COUNTY. GOLDEN GAIE UNIT 7 ZOLNING: C -4 EXISTING USE: SANTA BARBARA SOIARE SHOPPING CENTER Legal Description Tract 112. G— Gets Eepatas -t No. 30, as Ree —d Plet Boots age 58 of the Public R -1 of Collier County. mAf-1 DESIGNED BY: SJU CRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES' P.A COLONADES AT SANTA BARBARA ORAIIN BY: SJU GINEERS .LAND SURVEYORS • PLANNERE EXHIBIT A -1 APPROVED: DWA --o VIA DBL BEY rL CONCEPTUAL CPUD MASTER PLAN AND JOB CODE: GGGPUD BONrfA SPRINGS, FTDRIDA 04104 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PRDNE: (_1 941 -1144 FAX: (299) 947 -G.S DATE: FILE NAME: SCALE 1" 40' JANUARY. 2003 MCPrev I -7J -M DRAWING NUMBER 2 or 3 A3D0 m 3rrn n 0 �M n 0 3 a zpco rnM M- M m �m -q r �z v m D G C, 3 ° --j z O O Z z Dz _ mo =o M m r- N -I m rn03o r w r-��'w Z. r M Z �> G M O <m c rn� z o M X O, C;0p0 0 0 moo O z -I 3 m Z> M z OcM a�zo ozo Z 3 0 Al z "' 7D C: 3Z O m --I , 3 -I Doo 0 0 a ooh p m -I m 0;0 �rn Mo � 2 O �(r'� -V V = m 3 M IM m w rn> m op 70 n 03 mcc -(f)-I v 'a V rr' 0 a G) m M C m �3 m a v° m o t rr n m m 1� i U2 C � 0. Imm C � S O 'a UP a ce rt m Z G) m i v r rn a rn H Z n rn a u rt m 0 9.1 Criteria for Conditional Uses Can you make the following determinations or findings? 1. [That a] Grant of conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. 2. [That] Specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met by the petitioner. 3. [That] Satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters: 04 -bee- 01199/436 a. Consistency with this Code and growth management plan. b. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. C. The effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. d. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Consistency with comprehensive plan (includes analysis of impact on public infrastructure) Consistency with land development code (includes a compatibility analysis) Review of data and analysis to support the proposed amendment November 1, 2012 CCPC, PL- 20120000317/CP- 2012 -1 (FLUM) & PL- 20120001213/CP- 2012 -3 (FLUE) 2012 LDC Thursday, November 01, 2012 CCPC Public Hearing G Advertising Requirements Please publish the following Advertisement and Map on Friday, October 12, 2012 and furnish proof of publication to Marcia Kendall, Land Development Services, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. The advertisement must be `112" page advertisement, and the headline in the advertisement must be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement must not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Please reference the followinq on ALL Invoices: DEPARTMENT: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES [Comprehensive Planning Section] FUND & COST CENTER: 111 - 138317 - 649100 -00000 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500122420 Account Number: 068778 NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday, November 01, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the Transmittal of the 2012 Cycle Growth Management Plan amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The resolution title and petition titles are as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. ➢ PL20120000371/CP- 2012 -1, A petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban -Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict to Conservation Designation for the County -owned Gordon River Greenway Park property located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 123.60± acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND ELEMENT RELATING TO THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DENSITY BONUSES, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. ➢ PL20120001213CP/2012 -3, a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to change the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay by expanding the area subject to the density bonus for mixed use development, adding allowance for residential - only development to qualify for the density bonus, adding an explanation of the density bonus calculation, and deleting the development standards — all without increasing the total density allowed within the Overlay; and, to add cross references to other FLUE provisions. [Coordinator: David C. Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] [INSERT MAP] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, November 01, 2012, will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Melissa G. Keene, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission R 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 26 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E HENDRY COUNTY � n z � I 0 z (% A LT IMM ALES N C.R. 846 L Collier County Florida C.R. 846 o W V) LEE COUNTY S n C.R. BSB A C.R. 848 m N o z HENDRY COUNTY N l Oa G.C. BLVD. vi C I � PINE RIDGE RD. � vi "� CP- 2012 -1 m OLDEN I N G.G. GATE PKWY, S.R.- 84 1 -75 S.R.- 84 1 -75 DAMS BLVD. z 0 r+ CITY OF NAPLES CP -20123 ; tr 0 CD m N O n GS N 1 2' c4 v CITY OF MARCO N ISLAND O$ O 6 � � EVERGLADES ---CITY c1TY U.S.- 41 o o —1 0 2 AM. 4 MI. 8 MI. 8 All. SCALE (1j V� q W G1 y PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING DEPARTMENT MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION GATE: 10/2012 FILE: CP- 2012 -1 and 3.DWG Martha S. Veraara From: Martha S. Vergara Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:43 PM To: Naples Daily News Legals Subject: 2012 LDC (CP- 2012 -1 & CP- 2012 -3 CCPC) Attachments: LDC 2012 CP- 2012 -1 (FLUM) CP- 2012- 3(FLUE 9 -1 -12 CCPC).doc; 2012 LDC - CP- 2012 -1 & 3 (FLUM FLUE 9 -1 -12 CCPC).pdf Legals, Please advertise the following attached ad Friday, October 12, 2012 (display ad w /map). Please forward an ok when received, if you have any questions feel free to call me. Thanks, Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Minutes and Records Dept. Clerk of the Circuit Court & Value Adjustment Board Office: (239) 252 -7240 Fax: (239) 252 -8408 E-mail: martha.vergara a, collierclerk.com Thursday, November 01, 2012 CCPC Public Hearing Advertising Requirements Please publish the following Advertisement and Map on Friday, October 12, 2012 and furnish proof of publication to the Minutes and Records Department, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401, Naples, FL 34112. The advertisement must be a "1/2" page advertisement, and the headline in the advertisement must be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement must not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Please reference the following on ALL Invoices: DEPARTMENT: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES [Comprehensive Planning Section] FUND & COST CENTER: 111 - 138317 - 649100 -00000 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500122420 Account Number: 068778 NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday, November 01, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the Transmittal of the 2012 Cycle Growth Management Plan amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The resolution title and petition titles are as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. ➢ PL20120000371/CP- 2012 -1, A petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban -Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict to Conservation Designation for the County -owned Gordon River Greenway Park property located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 123.60± acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND ELEMENT RELATING TO THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DENSITY BONUSES, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. ➢ PL20120001213CP/2012 -3, a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to change the Bays h ore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay by expanding the area subject to the density bonus for mixed use development, adding allowance for residential - only development to qualify for the density bonus, adding an explanation of the density bonus calculation, and deleting the development standards — all without increasing the total density allowed within the Overlay; and, to add cross references to other FLUE provisions. [Coordinator: David C. Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] [INSERT MAP] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, 4th Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401 Naples, FL 34112, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, November 01, 2012, will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Melissa G. Keene, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission R 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E HENDRY COUNTY N I U A N J IMA1 ALEE CID N �\ C.R. 846 �J Collier County Florida A C.R. 848 U V o w H LEE COUNTY x 1 n C.R. 858 i A _ C.R. 848 m Vf o rc HENDRY COUNTY 5 I a G.G. BLVD. ,A ¢_ � PINE RIDCE RD. � N � A CP- 2012 -1 m OLDEN I N G.G. GATE � U PKWY. S.R.- 84 I -75 S.R.- 84 1 -75 DAMS BLVD. z (� CITY U --4 OF NAPLES CP- 2012 -3 o 3 t71 O 0 m N O °--ti 1� a GSA N C71 N CA O �N i CITY v OF MARCO 4r N ISLAND yy 0� z O EVERGLADES /CITY U.S.- 41 U c o -4 0 2 A4. 4 ML 0 NI. 6 All. SCALE V V Q Cfl CJ N ny Gb PREPARED BY: GIS /CAD MAPPING DEPARTMENT MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION / PLANNING AND REGULATION DATE 10/2012 FILE: CP- 2012 -1 and 3.DWG Martha S. Vergara From: Legals NDN <legals @napiesnews.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:00 PM To: Martha S. Vergara Subject: RE: 2012 LDC (CP- 2012 -1 & CP- 2012 -3 CCPC) OK, ordered From: Martha S. Vergara Lmailto: Martha.Vergara @collierclerk.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:43 PM To: Legals NDN Subject: 2012 LDC (CP- 2012 -1 & CP- 2012 -3 CCPC) Legals, Please advertise the following attached ad Friday, October 12, 2012 (display ad w /map). Please forward an ok when received, if you have any questions feel free to call me. Thanks, Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Minutes and Records Dept. Clerk of the Circuit Court & Value Adjustment Board Office: (239) 252 -7240 Fah: (239) 252 -8408 E- mail: martha.vergaraCaa collierclerk.com Please visit us on the web at www.collierclerk.com This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helodesk @collierclerk.com quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing, Martha S. Vergara From: Green, Amy <AGreen @Naplesnews.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:26 PM To: Martha S. Vergara Subject: 240194964 Attachments: NDN240194964[1].PDF Please provide approval ASAP for publication. The total ad cost is $1,265.40. Thank You, Naples News Legals (239) 263 -4710 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday, November 01, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the Transmittal of the 2012 Cycle Growth Management Plan amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The resolution title and petition titles are as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 13- A Resolution OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Proposing Amendments to the Collier County Growth Manage- ment Plan, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, Specifically Amending the FUTURE LAND ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, AND Furthermore Recommending Transmittal of the Amendments to the Florida Department of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. PL20120000371/CP- 2012 -1, A petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban -Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict to Conservation Designation for the County -owned Gordon River Greenway Park property located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 123.60+ acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] RESOLUTION NO. 13- A Resolution OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Proposing Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, Specifically Amending the FUTURE LAND ELEMENT RELAT- ING TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DENSITY BONUSES, AND Fur- thermore Recommending Transmittal of the Amendments to the Florida Department of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. PL20120001213CP/2012 -3, a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to change the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay by expanding the area subject to the density bonus for mixed use development, adding allowance for residential -only development to qualify for the density bonus, adding an explanation of the density bonus calculation, and deleting the development standards - all without increasing the total density allowed within the Overlay; and, to add cross references to other FLUE provisions. [Coordinator: David C. Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] z 5 Q Collier County Florida e s CP- 2012 -1 ro T w. 5 CP•2012J s s 0 a All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, 4th Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401 Naples, FL 34112, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, November 01, 2012, will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Melissa G. Keene, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No. 240194964 October 12 2012 ►nsibility Israel var. The Israeli planes en the sound barrier then places as a show of :cently after the drone it today is a claim of re- e Islamic resistance for )eration" of dispatching ilah said in a televised •sday. e uncovering a small abilities, and we shall hidden;' he said. "It is o send other reconnais- Ie occupied Palestine.... •st time and will not be ,ach any place we want" ircraft was launched !rritory and flew "tens rer sensitive Israeli in- it was discovered and Israeli air force near [ear reactor in Israel's n Israeli military state - .n tracking the aircraft -anean but waited until pty desert area to bring Isualties on the ground. ied the group had more Auld not hesitate to use e war with Israel. drone was a rare and by the Lebanese mili- F soaring regional ten - Syria and Iran under Inal pressure. the aircraft was made bled by Hezbollah, add - iore sophisticated than ore. attempted to send un- over Israel on several back to 2004. Nasral- he group's drones were ig explosives and strik- el. ,LE ------- TNOW &SAVE ■ O/0 1 1 1 1 OFF ERGY EFFICIENT PACKAGE 1 EXP:10/31/12 1 ct Windows Available N A P L E S D A I LY N E W S a Friday, October 12, 2012 c 19A PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday, November 01, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) the Transmittal of the 2012 Cycle Growth Management Plan amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The resolution title and petition titles are as follows:. RESOLUTION NO. 13 A Resolution OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Proposing Amendments to the Collier County Growth Manage- ment Plan, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, Specifically Amending the FUTURE LAND ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, AND Furthermore Recommending Transmittal of the Amendments to the Florida Department of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. PL2012000D371/CP- 2012 -1, A petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban -Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict to Conservation Designation for the County-owned Gordon River Greenway Park property located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 123.60+ acres. [Coordinator. Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] RESOLUTION NO. 13 A Resolution OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Proposing Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, Specifically Amending the FUTURE LAND ELEMENT RELAT- ING TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DENSITY BONUSES, AND Fur- thermore Recommending Transmittal of the Amendments to the Florida Department of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. PL20120001213CP/2012 -3, a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to change the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay by expanding the area subject to the density bonus for mixed use development, adding allowance for residential -only development to qualify for the density bonus, adding an explanation of the density bonus calculation, and deleting the development standards - all without increasing the total density allowed within the Overlay; and, to add cross references to other FLUE provisions. [Coordinator. David C. Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] aa a Collier County Florida I a nano A All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8!00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, 4th Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401 Naples, FL 34112, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clark to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, November 01, 2012, will be read and considered at the Public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidlence upon which the appeal is to be based. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting_ Assisted listening devices for the hexing impaired are available in the Board of Cotynty Commissioners Office. Melissa G. Keene, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No, 240194964 October 12 2012 N A P L E S D A I LY NEWS(( Friday, October 12, 2012 (( 19A PUBLIC; NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday, November 01, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) the Transmittal of the 2012 Cycle Growth Management Plan amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. The resolution title and petition titles are as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 13- A Resolution OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Proposing Amendments to the Collier County Growth Manage- ment Plan, ORDINANCE'89 -05, AS AMENDED, Specifically Amending the FUTURE LAND ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK TO THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, AND Furthermore Recommending Transmittal of the Amendments to the Florida Department of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. - - PL20120000371/CP- 2012 -1, A petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban -Mixed Use District/Urban Residential Subdistrict to Conservation Designation for the County -owned Gordon River Greenway Park property located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South., Range 25 East, consisting of 123.60+ acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] RESOLUTION NO. 13- A Resolution OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Proposing Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, Specifically Amending 'the FUTURE LAND ELEMENT RELAT- ING Te THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DENSITY BONUSES, AND Fur- thermore Recommending Transmittal of the Amendments to the Florida Department of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. PL20120001213CP/2012 -3, a petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), to change the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay by expanding the area subject to the density bonus for mixed use development, adding allowance for residential -only development to qualify for the density bonus, adding an explanation of the density bonus calculation, and deleting the development standards - all without increasing the total density allowed within the Overlay; and, to add cross references to other FLUE provisions. [Coordinator: David C. Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager] � s s ColliCr County Florida a � g "^^° CPJp13J o s All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, 4th Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401 Naples, FL 34112, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday, November 01, 2012, will be read and considered at the public hearing. _ If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing; he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 - 5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Melissa G. Keene, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No. 240194964 October 12, 2012 EXHIBIT V.A. JAZA- 6Un111 3prtllgs 299.690.4,IHO Grady Minor Fortrlyem 239.990.43a0 id Cl Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners • Landscape Architects Gt:Kr. Ur IUM IM00051. 1 cla, .0, lm. 1.6 0005151 e1:51N1.1s IL INMM06 ana'.1:raAY9ailor.com 0.G,.kM(norandAs —law. P.A. — A— A 4 4 0 GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK f EXHIBIT V.A. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH DATE AERIAL FLOWN: DEC 2010, CC PROP APPRAISER oe moss anwyon a.s I;,,��°," Ew vnf lrv0 2 SHEET 7 OF t Page 2 of 2 7 ■ my ■ of ■ Naples EXHIBIT "B" l� RMFA (c-y i y.. t�•ii_I f ��T�� MUDiAXO � PUO 9C. MH CL( — aMUO•ft7',(1ai1) Bayshore Mixed Use District Overlay ® APZ Accessory Parkty Zone ® BMUD -NC NeighboTOod Comme2ial SUbdiSbkl ,s� C� BMUD -W Waterfront Subdistrict SMUD.Rt Residential Subdistrict 1 F-6) s sre ' ex�awa r BMUWU Residential SubdisM 2 t BMUD -R3 Residential SOdistrkt3 BMUD -Rd Radd -11.1 SUt1llstr1d4 tgaxusvArs arvy _ (XX%) Under lying Zoning •�� �! L-EILHILAILU Gateway Triancle Mixed Use DisBrict Overlay BN o�rd RwF ', F, �1111Bdup, I I GTMUD -MXD Meted Use Sub&W, GDAUD-R Residential Sebclisaict _.._._ SMUD -8t (RSF -3) (XXX) Lindarly'mg Zoni9 ' �� Mini Triangle aawt tswa x ee •�cutorxeuo- aMU (RSF Future Land Use ® Activity Center 16 • ..... CRA Boundary ■ x,nueo.n.u�c.»aw -- Overlay Boundary rmo+nl Mixed Use Potential ��ra swstwn -nwa RSF -3 RSF -3 PDI- PL2012 -1345 11/1/12 Grace Romanian Church Teresa L. Cannon From: GundlachNancy <NancyGundlach @colliergov.net> lqic Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:48 PM To: Minutes and Records Cc: Bosi, Michael; Bellows, Ray; Patricia L. Morgan; Ann P. Jennejohn; Rodriguez, Wanda; Neet, Virginia; Serrano, Marlene; Wells, Laura Subject: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request Attachments: Naples Daily News Ad 9- 28- 12.docx; PDIPL121345(2X3).pdf Good afternoon, Attached please find a "Request for Legal Advertising" for Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI, which is to be processed for the upcoming November 1, 2012 CCPC hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA Principal Planner Land Development Services Growth Managment Division 2800 North Horeshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 (239)252 -2484 NancyGundlach @colliergov.net Under Florida t.aw, e -mail addresses are public records. It you do not want your e -mail address released in respo €ise to a public records request, do riot send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing, 1 September 28, 2012 Collier County Planning Commission Public Hearing Advertisinq Requirements Please publish the following Advertisement and Map on Friday, October 12, 2012, and furnish proof of publication to the attention of Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner in the Land Development Services Department, Zoning Services Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. The advertisement must be two columns wide x 10 inches long in standard size, and the headline in the advertisement must be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement must not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Please reference the following on ALL Invoices: DEPARTMENT: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Zoning Review Section FUND & COST CENTER: 131 - 138326- 649100 -00000 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500131207 Account Number: 068779 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 900 A.M. Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., to consider: PDI- PL20120001345, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to the Master Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, to move the location of the required on- site native vegetation from the north to the south and move water management areas. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12± acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] (insert map) All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organization should limit their presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Thursday, November 1, 2012, in order to be considered at the public hearing. All materials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Mark Strain, Chairman LEE COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY Q MEDITERRA TUSCANY RESERVE QUAIL O r (DRI) WEST fN0 12 PEZZETINO 7 $ Z DI CIELO 2 MEDITERRA SANDALWOOD VETERANS MEMO IAL BLVD. PROJECT RAND ROSA ROSA LOCATION GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST OUAIL CHURCH PELICAN STRAND CREEK 17 ROYAL PALM 1J INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY ✓ (DRI) w t8 < � m r C w'yU M` AISEA Z IL MADEIRA U u Teresa L. Cannon From: RodriguezWanda <Wanda Rod riguez @colIiergov.net> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:49 PM To: Gundlach, Nancy; Ashton, Heidi Cc: Minutes and Records Subject: re: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request Attachments: Naples Daily News Ad 9- 28- 12.docx; PDIPL121345(2X3).pdf Nancy, The title text is correct and the dates are fine; however, Mark Strain is listed at the bottom of the a, and he is currently not chairman, nor even on the CCPC at this time. I'm not sure whose name should be here... Heidi, Please advise re Strain issue. Thanks, -'aatd a Rodrigzaez, -ACP - Advanced- Certified Paralegal phone: (239) 252 -8400 fax: (239) 252 -6300 New address as of November 1. 2010: Collier County Office of the County Attorney, 3299 Tamiami Tr. E., Suite 800, Naples, FL 34112 -5749 From: GundlachNancy Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:48 PM To: Minutes and Records Cc: BosiMichael; BellowsRay; Trish L. Morgan; Ann P. Jennejohn; RodriguezWanda; NeetVirginia; SerranoMarlene; WellsLaura Subject: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request Good afternoon, Attached please find a "Request for Legal Advertising" for Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI, which is to be processed for the upcoming November 1, 2012 CCPC hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA Principal Planner Land Development Services Growth Managment Division 2800 North Horeshoe Drive Cc: BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request But we will have a new chair on Thursday. If you can wait, you should use the new chair. -We.6i 4jlir. -6lc4 Heidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8400 From: GundlachNancy Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:16 AM To: RodriguezWanda Cc: AshtonHeidi; BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject: FW: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request Hi Wanda, I just spoke to my manager Ray Bellows and director Mike Bosi and they said to use Melissa Ahern, as she is the vice chair. Sincerely, Nancy Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA Principal Planner (239)252 -2484 From: RodriguezWanda Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:49 PM To: GundlachNancy; AshtonHeidi Cc: Minutes and Records Subject: re: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request The title text is correct and the dates are fine; however, Mark Strain is listed at the bottom of the ad, and he is currently not chairman, nor even on the CCPC at this time. I'm not sure whose name should be here... Heidi, Please advise re Strain issue. Thanks, 411ar04 Roy, riguez, JU.-P _A vancec Certif:iect -Pa -rate al p(oite: (213.9,) 252-8400 fa : 252 -6300 2 Teresa L. Cannon From: RodriguezWanda <WandaRodriguez @colliergov.net> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:07 PM To: Minutes and Records Cc: Gundlach, Nancy Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request OK to proceed. Waridcz 1Zodrigicez, .ACT' di,anced Certrf led'Paraletgat (23�)) 2-52-8400 From: GundlachNancy Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 2:06 PM To: Minutes and Records; Trish L. Morgan; Ann P. Jennejohn Cc: BellowsRay; BosiMichael; KendallMarcia; WellsLaura; AshtonHeidi; RodriguezWanda; NeetVirginia Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Baptist Church PDI - Advertising Request Importance: High Good afternoon, Attached please find a copy of the revised Naples Daily News ad for Grace Romanian Baptist Church. This ad replaces the ad sent to you last week. I have entered the interium chair's name: Melissa G. Keene. Please process this ad. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA Principal Planner Planning and Zoning Growth Managment Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 (239)252 -2484 NancvGundlach @colliergov.net From: AshtonHeidi Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:20 AM To: GundlachNancy; RodriguezWanda I September 28, 2012 Collier County Planning Commission Public Hearing Advertising Requirements Please publish the following Advertisement and Map on Friday, October 12, 2012, and furnish proof of publication to the attention of Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner in the Land Development Services Department, Zoning Services Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. The advertisement must be two columns wide x 10 inches long in standard size, and the headline in the advertisement must be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement must not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Please reference the following on ALL Invoices: DEPARTMENT: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Zoning Review Section FUND & COST CENTER: 131 - 138326- 649100 -00000 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500131207 Account Number: 068779 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M., Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., to consider: PDI- PL20120001345, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to the Master Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, to move the location of the required on- site native vegetation from the north to the south and move water management areas. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12± acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] (insert map) All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organization should limit their presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Thursday, November 1, 2012, in order to be considered at the public hearing. All materials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Melissa G. Keene, Interim Chair #068779 October 4, 2012 Attn: Legals Naples News Media Group 1100 Immokalee Road Naples, Florida 34112 Re: PDI- PL2012 -1345, Grace Romanian Baptist Church (w /MAP) Dear Legals: Please advertise the above referenced notice Friday, October 12, 2012, (w /the attached map) and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Teresa Cannon, Deputy Clerk P.O. #4500131207 October 1, 2012 Collier County Planning Commission Public Hearing Advertisinq Requirements Please publish the following Advertisement and Map on Friday, October 12, 2012, and furnish proof of publication to the attention of The Minutes and Records Department, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #401, Naples, FL. 34112. The advertisement must be two columns wide x 10 inches long in standard size, and the headline in the advertisement must be in a type no smaller than 18 point. The advertisement must not be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Please reference the following on ALL Invoices: DEPARTMENT: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Zoning Review Section FUND & COST CENTER: 131 - 138326- 649100 -00000 PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: 4500131207 Account Number: 068779 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M., Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., to consider: PDI- PL20120001345, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to the Master Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, to move the location of the required on- site native vegetation from the north to the south and move water management areas. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12± acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] (insert map) All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organization should limit their presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Thursday, November 1, 2012, in order to be considered at the public hearing. All materials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to partic ipate 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 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Melissa G. Keene, Interim Chair LEE COUNTY COWER COUNTY Q MEDITERRA 2 TUSCANY RESERVE WAIL O (DRI) WEST ur w 12 PEZZETINO 8 Z DI CIELO 2 MEDITERRA SANDALWOOD VETERANS MEMO IAL BLVD. PROJECT DELLA RAND ROSA LOCATION GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST QUAIL CHURCH PELICAN STRAND i CREEK 17 ROYAL PALM 13 ^ INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY (DRI) W K w�U VILASA MADEIRA Z Uv Teresa L. Cannon From: Sent: To: Subject: OK, ordered. Thank You, Naples News Legals (239) 253 -4710 Legals NDN <legals @naplesnews.com> Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:51 PM Teresa L. Cannon RE: PDI- PL2012 -1345, Grace Romanian Church From: Teresa L. Cannon [mailto:Teresa.Can non @ colIierclerk.coml Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:19 PM To: Legals NDN Subject: PDI- PL2012 -1345, Grace Romanian Church Legals, Please advertise the attached Display Ad w /Map on Friday, October 12, 2012. Thanks Teresa L. Cannon, BR Clerk III Minutes and Records Department 239- 252 -8411 239- 252 -8408 fax Teresa.Cannon@collierclerk.com Please visit us on the web at www.collierclerk.com This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helpdesk@collierclerk.com quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Teresa L. Cannon From: Green, Amy <AGreen @Naplesnews.com> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:43 AM To: Teresa L. Cannon Subject: 240194963 Attachments: NDN240194963[1].PDF Please provide approval ASAP for publication. The total ad cost is $912. Thank You, Naples News Legals (239) 263 -4710 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M.. Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Board of County Com- missioners meeting room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., to consider: PDI- PL20120001345, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to the Mas- ter Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, to move the location of the required on -site native vegetation from the north to the south and move water management areas. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Sec- tion 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12t acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gund- lach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] LEE COUNTY COWER COUNTY TUSC NY MEDITERRA Z ESERW WAIL 0 (DRI) MST U' 12 PEZZETIND 7 9 _ DI CIELO 2 MEDITERRA SANDALWOOD 11V MEMO IAL BLVD, DELLA BRAND PROJECT ROSA LOCATION GRACE R.—AN BAPTST QUAI CHU CH L R CREEK PE CAN NA' AC3 RAN INERTDHL DMY o ^ (DRI) 17 B wed MARSILEA MADEIRA i VILLAS All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Indi- vidual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Ex- pert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organiza- tion should limit their presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Thursday, November 1, 2012, in order to be considered at the public hearing. All ma- terials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presen- tation to the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accom- modation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assis- tance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Manage- ment Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Com- missioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Melissa G. Keene, Interim Chair No.240192963 Octoberl2 2012 Teresa L. Cannon From: RodriguezWanda <WandaRodriguez @colliergov.net> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:45 AM To: Teresa L. Cannon; Gundlach, Nancy Subject: RE: 240194963 Ok to proceed. lva.fzda Rodriguez, 1C1' Ad cvicedCertPied llco-ategaC (23.9) 252 -8400 From: Teresa L. Cannon rmailto: Teresa . Cannon (5colIierclerk.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:44 AM To: GundlachNancy; RodriguezWanda Subject: FW: 240194963 Please review asap. Thanks From: Green, Amy [mailto:AGreenC&Naplesnews.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:43 AM To: Teresa L. Cannon Subject: 240194963 Please provide approval ASAP for publication. The total ad cost is $912. Thank You, Naples News Legals (239) 263 -4710 Please visit us on the web at www.collierclerk.com This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helpdesk@collierclerk.com quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing, Un,def Ro?ida f.ar;, r7 ai a drosses are Oublif, rx .,�Ordh, If you d,,,,, no aYan. yoaf e n it addrd.ss re;easr.d € r 'espouse to a public, request. do , sOt send e:eciron.c wall to th;s t n'Nty, instead, contact this owiht,e by le le t}I one, ar €n kr' firsi_ #. Teresa L. Cannon To: Green, Amy Subject: RE: 240194963 Looks good, ok to run. From: Green, Amy [ mailto:AGreen(cbNaplesnews.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:43 AM To: Teresa L. Cannon Subject: 240194963 Please provide approval ASAP for publication. The total ad cost is $912. Thank You, Naples News Legals (239) 263 -4710 �u es, hon- helping ,act the we been workers samples tests to nal cord ag brain ne good ( poten- ted, and were not aeningi- ases are day. Pa- ns for up id injec- ,ve were lay and hief dis- ed up its then the )lated to er states. staining om vari- up at the earchers pest fun- , was ac- rganism, i in regu- that's the Drug Ad- Tforming ie Massa - is ceased asteroids. o this story. )NE WC. tractor NO Ideling 15 i NTMNF 118, Estero o WD . ICCINES' PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M.. Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Board of County Com- missioners meeting room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., to consider: PDI- PL20120001345, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to the Mas- ter Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, to move the location of the required on -site native vegetation from the north to the south and move water management areas. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Sec- tion 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12t acres.. [Coordinator: Nancy Gund- lach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 4��ANY OWER CWNTY MEDIiERRA WM NEST 3 12 �ZCKLO R MEDITERRA SAHDAEYMOD VETERANS WW CT ROSA N GRACE RWANIAN SARRST_ WME CNCREEK OYK PAIK AlNNRRNATMK AC D Y ^ �� NAME. �j d 8 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Indi- vidual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Ex- pert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organiza- tion should limit their presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Thursday, November 1, 2012, in order to be considered at the public hearing. All ma- terials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presen- tation to the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any, matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accom- modation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assis- tance. Pleaswcontaetthe Collierf0ountyFacilltles Manage- ment Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite " AVI, Naples, FL: 34112-5366, 86 feast t ditys prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Com- missioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Melissa G. Keene, Interim Chair No. 240192983 October 12, 2012 �r . US! WE CAN HELP! Eye Associates Fort Myers . Naples 25 Evans Ave. R. Myers 239.936.7685 Airport Pulling Rd., Naples 239.593.7747 ,E s tephen E. Smith, M.D. 1 � a { N A P L E S D A I LY N E W S (( Friday, October 12, 2012 (( 17A PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commissiom(CCPC) at 9:00 A.M.. Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Board of County Com- missioners meeting room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., to consider: PDI- PL20120001345, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to the Mas- ter Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18, The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, to move the location of the required on -site native vegetation from the north to the south and move water management areas. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Sec- tion 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12t acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gund- lach, AICP, FLA, Principal Planner] E COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY K TUSCANY QUAIL MEOITERRA RESERVE µpsi OORI) (7 t2 PEZZETINO 7 E DI CIELO >_ MEDITERRA SANDALWOOD VETERANS MEMO I- BLVD. DELL A BRAND PROJECT ROSA LOCATION GRACE ROMANIAN QUAIL BA-ST CREEK CHURCH PELICAN u, STRAND o INTERNARONRL ACADEMY (DRI) 18 Q 1� ✓ � u � mU MARSILEA MADEIRA ° NLLAS All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Indi- vidual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Ex- pert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized to represent a group or organiza- tion should limit their presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Thursday, November 1, 2012, in order to be considered at the public hearing. All ma- terials used in presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presen- tation to the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accom- modation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assis- tance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Manage- ment Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Com- missioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County, Florida Melissa G. Keene, Interim Chair No 240192963 October 12. 2012 1;'rom WIG d05h CV: I1ane�j OlMdlaeh, prineipal plannar l;mcu`l: xtctxte��u�tdlaehCeolli�r�ov :n�� 239 - 252 -2484, Collier Counr';& Oo,rarnmant planning & coning Dapartment 2800 11orth HorsUshCO Drive 11aplUs, 1?lorida 34104 Date: November 15, 2012 To: Minutes and Records Message: Enclosed please find a copy Resolution # 12 -09 adopted by the CCPC for the Grace Romanian Church. Please record this resolution. Please send me an email at the above address once this is done. Thanks, Nancy ' Co er County CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE MASTER PLAN IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 11 -18, THE GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD, TO MOVE THE LOCATION OF THE REQUIRED ON -SITE NATIVE VEGETATION FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH AND MOVE WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF LEARNING LANE AND LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 12f ACRES. [PETITION PDI - PL201200013451 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of the proposed insubstantial change to the Master Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18 to move the location of the required on -site native vegetation from the north to the south in the RSF -4 zoning district for property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission at a public hearing, and the Commission has considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number PDI- PL20120001345, filed by Timothy Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., be and the same is hereby approved for an insubstantial change to the Master Plan in Ordinance Number 11 -18 pursuant to Section 10.02.13.E.1 of the Land Development Code. The Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved as a modification of the original Master Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. Grace Romanian Baptist Church Page 1 of 2 PDI- 20120001345 —Rev. 11/02/12 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of V 04 e v1 , 2012. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (I fX1 /"�" - - � z Y�) 5V Y�� I�A, ­_ Nick Casa a gu' a, in' rator M lissa Keene, Chairman Growth Manavzem ' Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 4 A6t �-- o0 H idi Ashton- icko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — Revised Master Plan CP \12- CPS - 01181\21 Grace Romanian Baptist Church Page 2 of 2 PDI- 20120001345 —Rev. 11/02/12 SITE SUMMARY ® UNDEVELOPED ZONED A - PRESERVE 1.8 AC. AGRICULTURE LAKES /H20 MNGMNT 1.0 AC BUFFERS 0.8 AC CF 7.1 AC ® 10'TYPE'A' ROW 1.3 AC BUFFER TOTAL 12 AC +/- CF EXIST NATIVE VEG. = 12 AC Z ® FUTURE CHURCH w EXPANSION AND w w f NATIVE VEG. REQ. = 12 AC X 15% = 1.8 AC RELATED USE, l OPEN SPACE REQ.: 12 AC X 30% = 3.6 AC Q Q PARKING AND ` OPEN SPACE CF RECREATION PROVIDED: 3.6 AC MIN. I AREA. FUTURE CHURCH EXPANSION AND RELATED USE, RESIDENTIAL: 1 UNIT PARKING AND OUTDOOR U CHURCH: 500 SEATS RECREATION w PRE - SCHOOL: 150 SEATS AREA. ® CF D D CHURCH & RELATED USE DEVELOPMENT ® 10' TYPE'A' Q BUFFER i UNDEVELOPED ZONED A - JURISDICTIONAL AGRICULTURE I ® WETLAND LINE PRESERVE 1.8 AC TOTAL PRESERVE TO SERVE AS REQUIRED BUFFER NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATIONS DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. <�L \� w 20 Q N0 il � O 2 �w wW Fw ¢O �z WATER MANAGEMENT AREA ROYAL PALM ACADEMY PUD Exhibit A In 0 _ 15' TYPE BUFFER ZONED A - AGRICULTURE PRESERVE N 0 2500 SCALE IN FEET f 4 �W z°a ¢z z v5 ¢° !a 0: x x� OV W¢ UU � r 8`f'Sgg 1 of 1 O ® CF CHURCH & RELATED E 7111 INCC LUDING DAYCARE WATER MANAGEMENT AREA ROYAL PALM ACADEMY PUD Exhibit A In 0 _ 15' TYPE BUFFER ZONED A - AGRICULTURE PRESERVE N 0 2500 SCALE IN FEET f 4 �W z°a ¢z z v5 ¢° !a 0: x x� OV W¢ UU � r 8`f'Sgg 1 of 1 V a n m n 3 T r- m rn X 0 z m a W r- m r m m --I m v N N z 2 m W a X O 3 V N O 2 m c V m m M z G) a X O c m r try y m v O 2 m m w z c m T 0 c n 3 m z z v X m O v 7D m z m n 2 X ncnn 3D0 U) rn 0T0 0 rn rn z �rn:� z0 M D � rn �G,)o z rn " z 7° z m D z z O r ry =0000° M 0o w n L'I r- � > Lnn 093 '<� z 2 a 01-1 L D z 0r- 0 2 z D rn,z 0crn D N C0� 3j0 C3z M LO M 0 N O up 'v M o- 0orn X rn O �N" �zrn M U-) �M z0> � > r �O n W 0 (n C z i �o c� m W V (D n r, rt z z m S s a °v m U) U) 'J c� a m z a 3 r m C� 's 3 m z m A_ � 3 c 0 } Z O W C CL m rt ma r m m ma X Z n r m rm m C. lu tD O } � F- .a O Lr) Z m ,t Lf) O ✓ j U m W O 0 O s Jp CL O Q O ~ Z M W I- Q U M (D W G7 �� LU V)p O' W m �z0 N Q j:t� 4 ® ' S °o ~¢z (D N LU V) I- 0 QEz cn O J H QGl U m m i Z &LU 2 L UM Q � J D 0 U M 0 � co < a pLm ° LU �z F-I= ce W >� Q Q <o �aace W r► MZ-j LU ` Ln } U V om= Lu r� C:) 0 N J = Z V oZ H u�w ce a c z —1 .0 + ck� Q LU W �'. '"' O z .: H ~ a �W� Q o F- _ =oz W 1-4 = Ow0 iWi .__i W W e. �Q� a z OR 0V)° w U W 2 F- J Z W ce in in 0 W a O z F- z W E U 0 0 W z M u W W ce 0 C W H W ce a 0 D Q W 2 (9 Z N W m U W n CO W N 0 0 ce CL 0 arc 0 a m° W 2 I-- z H a W F- LL 0 LL W J W -J m H W z i O in H W J a U W U .ad IL �1 H m a �1 a W J V Z H ce IL W U) a W J CL u O .a m Q. O s Y L O _- �U a L am fl. 01 I O L U W a D c� z H W LU LY J N f" LY 0 z W a W a z i a I= z U-) 0 U 0o U- O 0 J ce J Q ~ Q0w CO uj 2 2 I:e I— I— Q w (D W o Gi O U N Q w o °o O N F- w QOM Ln J ti ,1-00 0 oz wm0 a(= � � Q 0U m �O V) m W wj 4t E 4W m �1 a �1 J a W J V Z H a W W J O0 OAo s 0 � cC a JOE F— G1 a � c U Q ,7 r. 6A y J L 0_ W c� a 3 s LU ~ a W D N !Nn � a F— Z W W W i Q z W N v 'J +J dl 0 a C a r cn z (/) O U m LL m 0 OD J Q Z Q0w m 2 = � F— F— Q W W �Ln o OW' L �QO LLJ N Q C :) F— Q W � J � C) umm z z l�- IQ 0Uo CO O o cn m Lu W > ¢�jF- Q¢ry cYj Z LU u� U O m = N JO F- 2 0¢ w W (D (D Oz W cj z � W ::DOz ow o UJ 020 V to U w N a U W 2 F— J Z W D D Q O W a Z a Z W U 0 O LL Ln W F— Z N M W W 2 F- O W J W ce 0 D Q W Z N W m U W m W 2 F- O ce O a O 0 0 m W F— Z N H W 2 F— LL. O LL W W .J OO H W 2 F— Z O 0 a W F— W J a O V W U a Z) Lf) O j U m LL m O i J Q ~ Q0w m 2 2 � W U W � � D �-' (n (n D(np LU of 0 O C) LLJ U N Q 0 o ~Q z ~ Q� Lr) J H 1-00 0 C) U m m z z Q 0 U 0 mZ o UJ LLJ� � m � � 2 2: '-4 O < t — Q Q � c� �MHJ Ln } U Lu c) � o� 2 O Q LU U ,.Z.., � zaL4 0 0 V 0 (D oz ?77W z�w ::D z o °o �mU) H J r-i 020 U cn U w a 2 U W 2 F- J z W D a° O W a z F- z W O U 0 0 W F- z H M W W 2 F- 0 G P- H z W D W C7 z W m F- U W n m W F- O O Ix IL O °e a w a m0 W F- z a N W F- LL O F- LL W J W -i co W F- z O ae 0 in LU W IL 0 U W U a 4J a) cn "a Ln Q O s Y L E L to 4 W H� 3 ^ CL L F�4 o 1� a G7 � � U � W oC ce a W a V z c IL W O W � au a W o U = W a u W Z LLJ W W L CL x a z w Z) Lf) O j U m LL m O i J Q ~ Q0w m 2 2 � W U W � � D �-' (n (n D(np LU of 0 O C) LLJ U N Q 0 o ~Q z ~ Q� Lr) J H 1-00 0 C) U m m z z Q 0 U 0 mZ o UJ LLJ� � m � � 2 2: '-4 O < t — Q Q � c� �MHJ Ln } U Lu c) � o� 2 O Q LU U ,.Z.., � zaL4 0 0 V 0 (D oz ?77W z�w ::D z o °o �mU) H J r-i 020 U cn U w a 2 U W 2 F- J z W D a° O W a z F- z W O U 0 0 W F- z H M W W 2 F- 0 G P- H z W D W C7 z W m F- U W n m W F- O O Ix IL O °e a w a m0 W F- z a N W F- LL O F- LL W J W -i co W F- z O ae 0 in LU W IL 0 U W U a I Z 0 U mU- m 0 00 re J Q ~ Qmw 2 2 � ui GHQ W UO U W '-4 U) Cn ZD U) C) aLU � �pQO N Q C) O O Q p w ¢2:M Ln J H O O z� Umm Zzl- � M Q 0UM M � O 0 cn m Lu Q QQ af C� (vj H J i.n�U CO ui CD CO oN O H °Q U Uj zz� 0, < W � wV) z,w � z 0 °0 � m (Ul)) LU J J � 0 2 0 U to U Q U W 2 F- J z O W D O W Q z F- z W O U O ce U. W F- z M W W O F- 0 W F- N .J W a W 2 z W m U W n m W H O CG 0 ce a i O O O m W F- z a N W 2 LL O Y~. W J W J m H W 2 z O 0 D W W J a 0 U W U a O 'c O m CL O t Y L O 3 CL ) 3 ch ^ � O W Im d i ui G �1 J � Q c a ICY� LU V � � H ce � G7 W O W W H ~ d a W o u �K Im a �~. z W (1) u W LLI x W a z L fl. ce I Z 0 U mU- m 0 00 re J Q ~ Qmw 2 2 � ui GHQ W UO U W '-4 U) Cn ZD U) C) aLU � �pQO N Q C) O O Q p w ¢2:M Ln J H O O z� Umm Zzl- � M Q 0UM M � O 0 cn m Lu Q QQ af C� (vj H J i.n�U CO ui CD CO oN O H °Q U Uj zz� 0, < W � wV) z,w � z 0 °0 � m (Ul)) LU J J � 0 2 0 U to U Q U W 2 F- J z O W D O W Q z F- z W O U O ce U. W F- z M W W O F- 0 W F- N .J W a W 2 z W m U W n m W H O CG 0 ce a i O O O m W F- z a N W 2 LL O Y~. W J W J m H W 2 z O 0 D W W J a 0 U W U a 4) H a OOM1 J tie a W J V Z H ce m W U) Q W J CL `o 41 W -a 0o CL 0 s L 0 fQ .4) CL L R CL p Im Q) U W D D Q W s 0 �z c~n 0 j U m LL m0 o° -Ja� Q0w Co QW I—�a d W z W ° D V) C) (yL �QO Lu N Q ° N ° Q W U') W Q� 4-o CD wZ)0 U m m C7 z I- Q 0U m �0 ° cn om WWW °zP= W > Q 6O Qa�e Mzui to } U CO m W oo F- _ Z Q U " a (D c~n '� C7 � ((D W Z w W 0LL0 LU 0=0 U(nU d U W J Z o U) W D °a 0 W a c z a H z W O U O d O LL V) W F- z M u W W ce O I— W N 0 0 W J � ±+ LU � W x � W a 0 a W Q z a cn a C7 a �z c~n 0 j U m LL m0 o° -Ja� Q0w Co QW I—�a d W z W ° D V) C) (yL �QO Lu N Q ° N ° Q W U') W Q� 4-o CD wZ)0 U m m C7 z I- Q 0U m �0 ° cn om WWW °zP= W > Q 6O Qa�e Mzui to } U CO m W oo F- _ Z Q U " a (D c~n '� C7 � ((D W Z w W 0LL0 LU 0=0 U(nU d U W J Z o U) W D °a 0 W a c z a H z W O U O d O LL V) W F- z M u W W ce O I— W N 0 0 4w H a op'\ ce a W mi V Ch 'a 3 m CL 0 s L 0 R CL th G1 9 aj a H G1 G7 U _4..0 m ct- III Q-) _ Gl s O W D Q z O U m LL o° 0 < 6. M Q W � F" Q W z W D U) U) o' W ° Mo ce 0o LLJ N Q ° Z O Q N W U) cl W Q� Lr) J C) Z CD V m m Z�� Z) F<- O c) r) m �O ocnm W W 0 W _ w >� Q�jOO Qa� u "vj z J Ln j U M m W C:) 0 1z- zap U" W Z z iii r) C7w �a� W zW � L °z O W O wm� J Q 020 UcnU ce �+ 1� uj C]1 0 J r H ++ LU Q CJ a C1 a N C W Z Q - a LU Z LU W CL `/ uu i 0 Q Q z � oC z O U m LL o° 0 < 6. M Q W � F" Q W z W D U) U) o' W ° Mo ce 0o LLJ N Q ° Z O Q N W U) cl W Q� Lr) J C) Z CD V m m Z�� Z) F<- O c) r) m �O ocnm W W 0 W _ w >� Q�jOO Qa� u "vj z J Ln j U M m W C:) 0 1z- zap U" W Z z iii r) C7w �a� W zW � L °z O W O wm� J Q 020 UcnU W H m a n J Ice a W V z H CL W a W J a� M� W a 0 s Y U CL L R G1 o�C a. U W Q o cD z H W W ►M 0 V) CA W a D a qQlk W ''ft J H �l W a z W Lij a z t G. a� s 0 G7 0 a G1 a� L CL Uz H O V m u. m0 00 Q m w Q W wzw �U)C) aL°� QO Lu N Q z °o Q N 0 LU LO LU Z H F-- Q�� Le) J r) H d- O 0 Z � W�0 U m m C7 °0a OUP m a0 oLm LU W >� ab° Qa� M�LU in } U M CO w N 0 I- OZ Z Q V QUt~ OUP �wu � w z =0z 0Wo � � m O =O U cn U a Q U W J z W ce a a 0 H W a z Q z W O U _ O OC 0 U. W F- _ z M W W ce I-- 0 a W N W ce Q 0 W 2 z W m H U W r1l m _ W O 0 a 4J O a co W M O Y L O I � �U O a AE W � H � r FE a QGl U a W mi V Z H a W W W a C9 z I-' W W ►j J t O l.9 LU W Q lV � a � �J W J W H 0 z W a r� W Q z C Ira a G1 C 1p C i C: ■ �z D Ln H O m � m p O ry ¢mw Q W E�-- Q W z W 7) U) C) aL ° Q u uj N Q C� c)Oo Q CD N 0 W W Q Z Ln J H o� oz° w�0 U m co LU C7 z � H C,� 0 Q 0U� m �Q o 0W W m co � H 2 LU H < b Qa� Mz-1 Ln 5 U rV m W oo= Q U Ly Q U V) z�H o�w OUP W ru Z � �pz OUw0 W m H O m O U cn U oG N a U W H J z W °a O W Q D z a H z W x FE O U m 0 0 W F- n z M W W 2 I- O D W H f J W C: 0 D a W /_ V z W m U W rl m W i- O 0 a O C: a m W 2 i- z w N a W LL O W J m Fa - W H z O LL a W H W J a O U W U J M DAVID SHINDLE Citizenship: USA Birthplace: San Antonio, Texas 12/20/1969 Contact Information: 568 107 AVE N. Naples, FL 34108 (239) 438 -2056 David.Shindle @comcast.net CAREER To provide sound and objective wildlife research expertise to both private and OBJECTIVE public natural resource managers for the purpose of promoting conservation of wildlife resources based on the best available science. QUALIFICATIONS Certified Wildlife Biologist® with extensive professional field research experience involving the survey, capture, and handling of endangered species in sub - tropical regions including over 17 years of field research supporting the management, conservation and recovery of 2 endangered felids: Florida panther and ocelot. EDUCATION Master of Science Texas A &M University- Kingsville Kingsville, TX 1993 -1995 Major: Range and Wildlife Management Minor: Statistics ■ 4.0 GPA ■ 69 Semester Hours Bachelor of Science Texas A &M University College Station, TX 1988 -1992 Major: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Ecology Option ■ 3.75 GPA (Major); 3.32 GPA (Overall) ■ 138 Semester Hours ■ College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Dean's Honor Roll ■ Distinguished Student of Agriculture Award PROFESSIONAL Biologist IV EMPLOYMENT Conservancy of Southwest Florida Naples, FL 2005- Present Senior biologist serving under the direction of the Environmental Science Director. Responsible for providing expertise pertaining to the Florida panther and developing research projects on Threatened and Endangered mammals in southwest Florida. • Awarded contract as an independent Florida panther expert providing scientific and technical support to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) for the Picayune Strand Restoration Project (PSRP). • Designed and implemented a monitoring study establishing a pre - construction benchmark based on present Florida panther use and indices of Florida panther prey (white - tailed deer and feral hog) densities that will serve as a basis for future evaluations of the PSRP impacts on and benefits to Florida panther habitat. • Managed all transactions and oversight of $347,000 project budget. • Hired and supervised wildlife technician for the PSRP Panther project. • Provided technical assistance to the USACE to develop educational outreach materials related to Florida panthers and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. • Provided Florida panther capture, handling, and survey assistance to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute through a multi -year Cooperative Agreement with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). • Assisted FWC Panther Capture Team on an annual basis with panther captures and radiocollaring efforts, Florida panther tracking surveys, remote camera surveys, locating denning Florida panthers, handling neonate Florida panther kittens, and investigating suspected Florida panther depredations on domestic livestock and wild prey. • Awarded contract with FWC, in collaboration with USFWS and USGS- Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, to establish remote camera survey designs and protocols for monitoring Florida panthers and their prey. • Awarded contract with USFWS to establish remote camera survey protocol for monitoring long -term trends of Florida panther and white - tailed deer populations on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. • Served as invited member to the USFWS Florida Panther Recovery Team. • Served as an invited, independent expert on the Technical Review Team for the Florida Panther Protection Program, a collaborative effort between conservation organizations and small and large farmers and ranchers in Eastern Collier County to implement a landscape -scale Habitat Conservation Plan. • Provided expert consultation to South Florida Water Management District staff on Florida panther issues relative to Everglades Restoration projects. • Designed and implemented pilot project assessing non - invasive survey techniques for Everglades mink. • Designed and implemented field research project assessing the feasibility of using intraperitoneal - implanted transmitters to monitor free - ranging Everglades mink. • Served as an invited member on the FWC Biological Status Review Teams for the Everglades mink, Sherman's short- tailed shrew, and the Homosassa shrew. • Awarded contract with FWC as the Black Bear Response Agent for Collier County to assist with resolving nuisance black bear complaints. • Served as co- investigator on project assessing mangrove tidal creeks in southwestern Collier County as developmental habitat for game fish species (e.g., snook, tarpon, and redfish) and identifying the factors influencing their habitat use. • Assisted Conservancy Science Team with various fish, wildlife, and plant surveys including: gopher tortoises, aquatic invertebrates, and mangroves. • Analyzed and disseminated field research on Florida panthers and Everglades mink in professional society oral and poster presentations, and peer reviewed scientific publications. • Conducted educational outreach on the Florida panther with oral presentations to various civic groups, homeowner associations, nature clubs, lecture series events, and non -profit conservation fundraisers. • Applied for and renewed State Threatened and Endangered species research and collection permits. • Conducted interviews on issues pertaining to the Florida panther with local and national print and broadcast media outlets. • Ad- hoc /invited reviewer for Journal of Wildlife Management, Southeastern Naturalist, Mammalia, Camera Traps in Animal Ecology (book), Felina's New Home: A Florida Panther Story (book), Florida Panther: A guide to recognizing the Florida panther, its tracks, and sign (Defenders of Wildlife), Ocelot Recovery Plan ( USFWS). Supervisors: Kathy Worley, Co- Director, Environmental Science, Conservancy of SWFL kathvw(aD-conservancy.org (239) 403 -4237 Dave Addison, Co- Director, Environmental Science, Conservancy of SWFL davea0conservancv.ora (239) 403 -4223 Biological Scientist III Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Naples, FL 1998 -2005 Field leader responsible for coordinating Florida panther captures and field surveys for Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FWC) panther section. Responsible for independently conducting biological research primarily associated with the Florida Panther Genetic Restoration and Management Project. • Designed, implemented, coordinated, and supervised Florida panther field research under the direction of FWC's Florida Panther Project Leader. • Coordinated and supervised the safe capture of treed juvenile and adult Florida panthers on public and private lands. • Handled, marked, and collected biomedical samples from 2 -4 week -old Florida panther kittens. • Routinely conducted low -level aerial telemetry surveys on radiocollared Florida panthers. • Designed and implemented studies examining feasibility of non - intrusive survey techniques (e.g., infrared - triggered remote cameras) for Florida panthers. ■ Designed and implemented studies examining feasibility of Global Positioning System telemetry collars on Florida panthers. ■ Analyzed and disseminated field research on Florida panthers in internal agency reports, professional society oral presentations, and peer reviewed scientific publications. ■ Received and maintained license and authorization from U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Florida Department of Health for purchasing, storing, and dispensing Schedule III Controlled Substance and other prescription drugs for the purpose of immobilizing Florida panthers and other wildlife. ■ Conducted interviews on issues pertaining to the Florida panther with local and national print and broadcast media outlets. ■ Courteously assisted FWC constituents to resolve problems related nuisance wildlife, including Florida panthers and Florida black bears. ■ Supervised and coordinated the capture and immobilization of injured or nuisance Florida panthers and black bears. Supervisors: Jeffery Gore, Ph.D., Terrestrial Mammal Research Leader, FWRI, FWC Jeff. Gore(cDMyFWC.com (850) 265 -3677 Darrell Land, Panther Team Leader, Imperiled Species Management, FWC Darrell. Landa..MyFWC.com (239) 417 -6352 Research Associate Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Texas A &M University - Kingsville Kingsville, TX 1996 -1998 Designed, implemented, and analyzed field research for the Feline Research Program with emphasis on the Endangered ocelot. • Surveyed for ocelots and bobcats on private ranches in southern Texas using live -traps and remote cameras. • Solicited interest from, gained cooperation from, and maintained relations with private landowners for politically sensitive studies involving the survey of Endangered species. • Captured, sedated, radiocollared, collected blood samples, and measured morphological characteristics of ocelots and bobcats. Monitored radiocollared ocelots and bobcats using radiotelemetry. Trained and su ervised raduate students in the above procedures. • Assisted with the design and implementation of a study investigating the impacts of a federal highway expansion on ocelots and bobcats and the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures. • Assisted private landowner with a proposed endangered species project plan for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Landowner Incentive Program. • Assisted with doctorate student project investigating the ecology of wild felids in Thailand. • Conducted educational outreach on the ocelot with oral presentations to various civic groups, Rotary clubs, nature clubs, and university classes. • Conducted interviews on issues pertaining to the ocelot with local and national print and broadcast media outlets. • Organized and managed the Feline Research Program's library and database. • Applied for and renewed state and federal endangered species research and collection permits. Supervisor: Michael Tewes, Ph.D., Feline Research Program Coordinator, CKWRI michael.tewes cDtamuk.edu (361) 593 -3922 Graduate Student Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Texas A &M University - Kingsville Kingsville, TX 1993 -1995 Designed, implemented, and analyzed field research on the habitat use of ocelots in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico. • Quantified and drew statistical inferences on structural characteristics and vegetative species composition of habitats used by ocelots. • Analyzed ocelot habitat preference and avoidance with Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software. Designed and implemented a trapping survey for unidentified populations of ocelots on public and private lands in southern Texas. • Solicited interest from, gained cooperation from, and maintained relations with private landowners for politically sensitive studies involving the survey of Endangered species. • Captured, sedated, radiocollared, collected blood samples, and measured morphological characteristics of ocelots, jaguarundis, and bobcats. Monitored radiocollared ocelots using radiotelemetry. • Prepared and submitted written reports to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and cooperating private landowners. • Applied for and renewed state and federal Endangered species research and collection permits. Graduate Advisor: Michael Tewes, Ph.D., Feline Research Program Coordinator, CKWRI michael.tewes ()tamuk.edu (361) 593 -3922 Biological Science Technician (Volunteer) USFWS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Hawai'i Research Group Hawai'i National Park, HI 1992 Assisted Hawai'i Research Group with studies of factors limiting the distribution and abundance of Endangered Hawaiian forest birds. • Captured Palila and other dry- forest birds in mists nets, measured morphological characteristics, leg- banded, and collected blood samples from captured birds. • Developed and searched belt transects for active nests. • Monitored flower and seed pod production of principal food supply of Palila. • Conducted variable circular plot count surveys for Hawaiian forest birds. Supervisor: Steven G. Fancy, Ph.D. Wildlife Biologist No longer in position (Current position: Chief of Inventory and Monitoring Division, National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO steve fancy(a')_nps.pov (970) 225 -3571) PROFESSIONAL Project Jaguar Paraguay 2004 CONSULTING Assisted with the survey, capture, handling, and radiocollaring of jaguars. Eco- Logical Systems International Argentina 2009 Implemented remote camera survey for wild felids (jaguar, puma, ocelot, margay, jaguarundi, and oncilla) PUBLICATIONS and Master's Thesis PRESENTATIONS Shindle, D. B. 1995. Habitat use of ocelots in the Tamaulipan Biotic Province. M.S. Thesis. Texas A &M University- Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 90 pp. Peer Reviewed Publications Shindle, D.B., and M.E. Tewes. 2000. Immobilization of wild ocelots with tiletimine and zolazepam in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36(3):546 -550. Shindle, D.B., and M.E. Tewes. 1998. Woody species composition of habitats used by ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Tamaulipan Biotic Province. The Southwestern Naturalist 43(2):273 -279. Cunningham, M.W., M.B. Brown, D. B. Shindle, S.P. Terrell, K.A. Hayes, B.C. Ferree, R.T. McBride, E.L. Blankenship, D. Jansen, S.B. Citino, M.E. Roelke, R.A. Kiltie, J.L. Troyer, S.J. O'Brien. 2008. Epizootiology and management of feline leukemia virus in the Florida puma. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44(3):537 -552. Cunningham, M.W., D.B. Shindle, A.B. Allison, S.P. Terrell, D.G. Mead, and M. Owen. 2009. Canine distemper epizootic in Everglades mink. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45:1150 -1157. Janecka, J.E., M.E. Tewes, A. Caso, L.L. Laack, L.I. Grassman, A. Haines, D. Shindle, B. Davis, W. Murphy, and R.L. Honeycutt. 2011. Reduced genetic diversity and isolation of remnant ocelot populations occupying a severely fragmented landscape in southern Texas. Animal Conservation 14:608 -619. Johnson, W. E., D. P. Onorato, M. E. Roelke, E. D. Land, M. Cunningham, R. C. Belden, R. McBride, D. Jansen, M. Lotz, D. Shindle, J. Howard, D. Wildt, L. M. Penfold, J. A. Hostetler, M. Oli, and S. J. O'Brien. 2010. Genetic Restoration of the Florida Panther. Science 329:1641 -1645. Land, E.D., D.B. Shindle, R.J. Kawaula, J.F. Benson, M.A. Lotz, and D.P. Onorato. 2008. Florida panther habitat selection analysis of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(3):633 -639. Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, D.B. Shindle, O.L. Bass, and T.S. Hoctor. 2002. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106(2):187 -197. Pence, D.B, M.E. Tewes, D.B. Shindle, and D.M. Dunn. 1995. Notoedric mange in an ocelot ( Felis pardalis) from southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31(4):558 -561. Professional Society Presentations, Posters, and Invited Panelist 2012 IVth International Wildlife Management Congress, Durban, South Africa 2011 Annual Meeting of The Wildlife Society, Kona, HI. 2010 Big Cypress Research Symposium, Big Cypress National Preserve, Ochopee, FL. 2010 Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (GEER) Planning, Policy, and Science Meeting, Naples, FL. 2008 9th Mountain Lion Workshop, Sun Valley, ID. 2008 Annual Meeting of The Wildlife Society, Miami, FL. 2008 Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (GEER) Planning, Policy, and Science Meeting, Naples, FL. 2008 The Everglades Coalition Annual Conference, Captiva Island, FL. 2004 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians and Wildlife Disease Association Joint Conference, San Diego, CA. 2001 Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting, Hilo, HI. 2001 Annual Meeting of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Sacramento, CA. 20006 th Mountain Lion Workshop, San Antonio, TX. 1998 International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation, Ft. Myers, FL. 1997 Annual Meeting of the Wildlife Society, Snowmass, CO. 1997 Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Association of Naturalists, Fayetteville, AR. 1997 Annual Meeting of the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Beaumont, TX. 1997 International Small Felid Workshop, Las Vegas, NV. 1996 Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Association of Naturalists, McAllen, TX. 1995 USFWS Refuge Biologists Workshop, Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, TX. 1995 Annual Meeting of the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Kerrville, TX. 1995 Listed Cats of Texas Meeting, Brownsville, TX. 1995 U.S. /Mexico Border States Conference on Recreation, Parks, and Wildlife, Brownsville, TX. 1994 The Nature Conservancy (Rio Grande Valley, TX). PROFESSIONAL Wild Felid Research and Management Association SOCIETY The Wildlife Society MEMBERSHIPS PROFESSIONAL Certified Wildlife Biologist® (The Wildlife Society, Inc.) TRAINING and ArcGIS II: Tools and Functionality 2012 (ESRI) CERTIFICATION Chemical Immobilization of Animals (Safe Capture International, Inc.) 1998 San Antonio, TX), 1999 Orlando, FL), 2009 Kissimmee, FL COMPUTER Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), Microsoft Outlook, ArcGIS SOFTWARE SKILLS OTHER Elected to Board of Directors for Friends of the Fakahatchee Strand PROFESSIONAL Preserve State Park, Inc. (2008- 2010), a Citizens Support Organization for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Served as Chairman for ACTIVITIES Governance and Elections Committees. PROFESSIONAL Chris Belden AND PERSONAL Florida Panther Recovery Coordinator South Florida Ecological Services Office REFERENCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 133920 th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 (772) 562 -3909 ext. 237 Chris Belden(a)fws.gov Mark Cunningham, DVM, MS Florida Panther Veterinarian Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 1105 SW Williston Road Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 955 -2231 ext. 105 Mark.Cunningham _MyFWC.com Kim Dryden Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 3860 Tollgate Blvd., Suite 300 Naples, FL 34114 (239) 353 -2873 Kim D den fws. ov Dennis Giardina Everglades Region Biologist Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Rookery Bay NERR 300 Tower Road Naples, FL 34113 (239) 229 -5403 Dennis.Giardina(cDMvFWC.com Darrell Land Panther Team Leader Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 298 Sabal Palm Road Naples, FL 34114 (239) 417 -6352 Darrell.Land(cD MvFWC.com Roy McBride Owner, Florida Panther Houndsman Rancher's Supply, Inc. — Livestock Protection Company 26690 Pine Oaks Road Ochopee, FL 34141 (239) 289 -1988 work cell (239) 289 -4558 personal cell (239) 695 -2287 home Dave Onorato, Ph.D. Associate Research Scientist Florida Panther Project Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 298 Sabal Palm Road Naples, FL 34114 (239) 417 -6352 Dave. Onorato(cDMyFWC.com Michael Tewes, Ph.D. Coordinator, Feline Research Program Research Scientist and Regents Professor Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Texas A &M University- Kingsville 700 University Blvd., MSC 218 Kingsville, TX 78363 (361) 593 -3922 michael.tewes(otamuk.edu Kathy Worley Co- Director, Environmental Science Division Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1450 Merrihue Drive Naples, FL 34102 (239) 403 -4223 kathvw(a)conservancv.or4 RKSCREW REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM WA(i ERSi- 1 Z,3 U ` UNEA t e i r�Y�'`G-ii4fiT[� AERIAL WITH NORTH BELLE MEADE OVERLAY AND NRPA LANDS l LEGEND 13 NORTH BELLE MEADE OVERLAY PROPOSED RECEIVING LANDS RF- NEUTRAL RF- RECEIVING RF- SENDING N w- 0 4,000 8,000 Feet NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY 2009. COUNTY INFORMATION AND ROADWAY E SE NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY ID WEBSITE. COLLIER FLU WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY GIS WEBSITE HTTP: / /WWW. COLLIERGOV. NET/ INDEX. ASPX ?PAGE =2713 JANUARY 2011. Y F u �Qf II �1 im m s TH EVE W �s AERIAL WITH NORTH BELLE MEADE OVERLAY AND NRPA LANDS l LEGEND 13 NORTH BELLE MEADE OVERLAY PROPOSED RECEIVING LANDS RF- NEUTRAL RF- RECEIVING RF- SENDING N w- 0 4,000 8,000 Feet NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY 2009. COUNTY INFORMATION AND ROADWAY E SE NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY ID WEBSITE. COLLIER FLU WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY GIS WEBSITE HTTP: / /WWW. COLLIERGOV. NET/ INDEX. ASPX ?PAGE =2713 JANUARY 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS of LAND SWAP Total Acres Exchanged Total Wetland Acres (FLUCKS) Wetland UMAM Panther Primary Zone Acres Panther Secondary Zone Acres PHU Value 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 5 C ■ Hussey LEGEND S.R. 846 LAND TRUST (2,576 Ac. ±) APPROXIMATE SENDING LANDS BOUNDARY (945.00 AC. +) r WETLAND AND OSW PROJECT ,�.`� LOCATION _, ..Em N NV E S 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet AERIAL WITH APPROXIMATE SENDING LANDS OVERLAY S.R. 846 LAND TRUST i t t� f iV, NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF JANUARY 2012, G )O' SE POND RD RE f _SVI -LE RD mom 'I A' -1) zz 1zo 87, ST t� I J 0 1 (n ------- LA N a: 1 i RD LAKE PL' L 0 ACID I i LU 0. Z 7 RD LAKE z z< �z <i .3 0 Z U, of SAnASOTA -CC NTER RD, OLD VENUS RD j : -T m Lake -BE fNA6, ------ - — - - ------------ BER-MONT RD Okeechobee 4 E AM� LI( ITLi -T— u, "z L'4 HOOKER HWY > A TV 1>0 m T ------ 'i O-R !�YERS f -, P�A Y' � R -, - A LEEiBLVD tiA PA 14 IN] 9 1 KERI RD "0 L) o 'T ALIC i O'RD r7 0 S.R. 846 LOCATION LEGEND NAPLES S.R. 846 LAND TRUST LU HUSSEY > CITIES PANTHER Focus AREA SA ,pRlg ti E 0 10 20 Miles Gulf of NOTES. Mexico COUNTY INFORMATION AND ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. PANTHER FOCUS AREA WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE USFWS FTP SITE MARCH 2007. PANTHER FOCUS AREA MAP S.R. 846 LANDS TRUST AND HUSSEY PARCEL Ill A)MI-DA 0 xi LU UJ > -Z' Pol DII 11\ N BY DAIE F.L. 10/30/12 Rl,"EWED BY DATE PASSARELLA A.W. tOD/A 3 I 0h — C 1n I SSOCIATES" } 1 1 PROJECT LOCATION LEGEND S.R. 846 LAND TRUST PANTHER ZONES PRIMARY ZONE SECONDARY ZONE N W — — G ti 0 2,000 4,000 a Feet i F NOTE: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ZONES WERE ACQUIRED FROM (KAUTZ ET AL. 2006). Dlt�% Y Tar naTi_ s F.L. 10/30/12 PANTHER ZONES MAP RL 't" "` ° ^T" "ASSARELLA 3 A.W. 10/30/12 S.R. 846 LAND TRUST Vc-sulting & ASSOCIATES Titc1�eu uerc uylsrs i • i • li • _i • I / I I ,lou-IE9 / I I I • I • ♦, i PROJECT LOCATION i 46 J / m w / DI , I Cc 1 w) > wl / / i ■ 1 I �I OILVALL*FD .�.�.�..�_• :.•mot- :- l :- !_� -� - - -- FLORIDA PANTHER TELEMETRY POINTS WITHIN 2 MILE RADIUS SR 846 LAND TRUST LEGEND '!f SR 846 LAND TRUST FLORIDA PANTHER TELEMETRY - SINCE 2007 159 86 s� 5✓ S 0 1 2 Miles NOTES: PANTHER TELEMETRY WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE FWCC AUGUST 2012 AND IS CURRENT TO JUNE 2012. PINE RIDGE RD GREEN BLVD GOLDEN GATE l;t>i,L,j�Z 951 DAVIS BL f f I � I � • '• .•• f; PROJECT �• • • '� LOCATION • 1 I 1 I I / 1 / • •i ••0 s• • • , s 1 s • • • ,• ,•y• 0 so M • , "F• %q • • • • • • • „ .• • • I �# • • •I • r • ♦ % . • w ♦� m1mimimil 010110 FLORIDA PANTHER TELEMETRY POINTS WITHIN 2 MILE RADIUS HHH RANCH LEGEND IF HHH RANCH PANTHER VEHICULAR COLLISIONS - SINCE 2007 FLORIDA PANTHER TELEMETRY - SINCE 2007 146 • 147 148 • 56 • 174 N NA - -- 1. Miles �)g�FT NOTES. PANTHER TELEMETRY WAS ACOUIRED FROM THE FWCC AUGUST 2012 AND IS CURRENT TO JUNE 2012. PANTHER VEHICULAR COLLISIONS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FWCC AUGUST 2012. RURAL FRINGE SENDING LANDS PROPOSED SENDING LANDS -gg wig -9,15 A r Vol ' 148 IF S.R. 846 LAND TRUST PROPERTY BOUNDARY 7 I Y_ .r..- . .:R .H}•.. .AA PROPOSED SENDING LANDS i • , ,e S.R. 846 LAND TRUST AERIAL WITH NRPA, SENDING BOUNDARIES, AND WETLAND OVERLAY S.R. 846 LAND TRUST (2,5776 AD.3) PROPOSED SENDING LANDS BOUNDARY (945.00 AC.!) WETLAND AND OSW RURAL FRINGE SENDING LANDS NRPA N W E S 0 2,000 4,000 Feet NOTES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACOURED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WIT. A FLIGNT DATE OF JANUARY 2012. COUNTY INFORMATION AND ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACOUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. COLLIER FLU WAS ACOUIRED FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY GS WESSITE n: /AW9uER0a.KT /IxoE% Avx +ra02.2TD AUGUST 200 2009. f1 A z U O N 7 w w N CR SR 84 RRDD i OAKU IND -,IGO LAKI WAL-K'CIR UPOL - -. LN BUR OAKS LN _NGLISH OAKS Cl GREEN LN loR GRIFFIN C% /oal- 5TH AVE I 3RD AVE 1ST AVE I 1STAVE: 3RD AVE 1 15TH AVE 7TH AVE CR 896. 11TH AVE — 13TH AVE VR 5i m l 51 m l w 4)I il) 45TH AVE NE 45TH AVE NE SHADY HOLLOW BLVD W = F F F F F F Z o N v o m 43RD AVE NE 41 ST AVE NW 41ST AVE NE 39TH AVE NW 39TH AVE NE 39TH AVE NE 37TH AVE NW o 37TH AVE NE QUARRY DR �� 35TH AVE NW m FAIRMONT LN 35TH AVE NE 33RD AVE NW Z N G VIE DR VERM OIL WELL RD R 66 p t`�TLN 31STAVENE m m ? F RO a� 29TH AVE NE 29TH AVE NE CFO -� HERED m m O = x x ° R 27TH AVE NE 27TH AVE NE STODR -0 00 3 H e N 25TH AVE NE RL ~ w �e m RANDALL BLVD w O 3 i R 84 2 4T AVE NE 24TH AVE NE z 24TH AVE NE 24TH AVE 3C, ANA WAY I N cx-i Z � 22ND AVE NW z _ 22NDVE NE y 22ND AVE NE 22ND AVE NE IL� O x m �5p X w p p 20TH AVE NW _- 20TH�A�VEENNE 20TH AVE NE o X x 18TH AVE NW I 18TH AVE NE m �J5 o xo JUN JUN O A � -16TH-AVE-NW 16TH AVE NE r c' SHADY LN 14TH AVE NW o 14TH GAVE 14TH AVE NE z 14TH AVE NE w co q ■1,}��yl— ^�I�11 \l i_ 12TH AVE NW ;_ 12TH NE 12TH AVE NE z 12TH AVE NE ° cn IL I J 10TH AVE NW 10TH AV� 10TH AVE NE N 10TH AVE NE 10TH AVE NE NDERBILT BEACH RDA 8TH AVE NE w 8TH AVE NE 3 3 3 w w w w w z z . —�- p z F z z z Z z o z z z z z z z z z r r 6TH AVE NE c� 6TH AVE N z z z z z r r I- r m r r r r r r r r m m m w m m r r 0)� uri w w ai u~i h co = p 4TH AVE NE W 4TH AVE N� Z F F ro N e 1� 2ND AVE NE 2ND AVE NE m r r r r r r r w N N N N E L TEB GOLDEN GATE trr DI w w w 2ND SE 2NDAVElSE ai N y 3 y tAVE w w w m m m m m w w m m vi rn N m w m r w r r m w 4TH �(E SE 4TH AVE SE ar m U) vri r r F r r r r r m y m m m x x x N N x 6TH ESE 6TH~ F x x ° r ° 2 2 x o N a � m x ° N e m m '- � 8TH ESE BTH�HITE BLVD N FRANGIPANI AVE 10TH�1(E SE 10TH AVE SE TH AVE SW o 12]�AVESE 12TH AVE SE Arr"r' AVE SE 14TH�E TH AVE SW N 16SW c7 > 1 HAVE SE 16TH AVE SE 7TH AVE SW N En N O rn _ N o 1 AVE SE ° n 9TH AVE SW x N rn <92 2 AVE SE m 1ST AVE SW O g C� 2I AVEg sE r 3RD AVE SW z w �� 2 AVERSE w 5TH AVE SW U KEANEAVE •p ° Y ° BENTON RD 0 2 AVE SE 7TH AVE SW 2 AVE SE 28TH AVE SE 29TH AVE SW g -W 30][I� AVE SE 30THE j 31 STAVE SW ¢ ? 32 AVE SE 32ND AVE SE f GATE BLVD N t7 MARKLEY AVE �- 34 AVE 34TH AVE SE D DR 36 AVE E SE 36TH AVE SE 296 x 38 AVE SE 38TH_ AVE_ x r 407W AVE SE 40TH AVE SE J 1 WHITE LAKE BLVD m In+�cR 84 Il_ CKBURN RD 175 42ND AVE SE v K) K U) ° 48TH AVE SE 48TH AVE SE 48TH AVE SE LL J r LL LL 50TH AVE SE 50TH AVE SE 50 H AVE SE 10��n m w U 52ND AVE SE BERSON BLVD L p� m TH AE SE V 541 H AVE SE 54TH AVE SE 5 LL TH AVE SE 56TH AVE SE SNgKE RD 58TH AVE SE SETH AVE SE 58TH AVE SDR C9j SUTH AVE: SE WIHAVLof "'Tn AVE 3E 62ND AVE SE o 62ND AVE SE _ 62ND AVE SE Vj 64TH AVE SE m 64TH AVE SE 64THE 66TH AVE SE w 66TH AVE SE 66TH AVE SE 68TH AVE SI E 68TH AVE SE —69TH AV DCK RD 70TH AVE SE W 70TH AVE SE 70TH AVE SE 72ND AVE SE �u 72ND AVE SE F- 72ND AVE SE 74THAVE SE 74TH AVE SE 2 j G Z 76TH AVE SE 76TH AVE SE m �p0 SABAL PALM RD 7 m y 78TH AVE SE 78TH AVE SE w x z O\ 9� 80TH AVE SE 80TH AVE SE rn P z � 82ND AVE SE 82ND AVE SE _ H n 84TH AVE SE 86TH AVE SE -m m 88TH AVE SE _w 90TH AVE SE 92ND AVE SE 94TH AVE SE- 94TH AVE SE 95TH AVE SE 96TH AVE SE 96TH AVE SE 96TH AVE SE OQ 98TH AVE SE 98TH AVE SE 98TH AVE SE STEWART BLVD N 1026 AVE SE 102ND AVE SE 102ND AVE SE _E'RD O 104TH AVE SE 104TH AVE SE 104TH AVE SE J `W C3 W 106TH AVE SE w w 106TH AVE SE 106TH AVE SE m m w g 108TH N N 108TH AVE SE 108TH AVE SE �� O �-Dj� (9 ° 110TH AVE SE 110TH AVE SE 110TH AVE SE ° >DRJ 4 VI qR, O a I 112T1H AVE SE 112TH AVE SE 112TH AVE SE m CIR Oe Z 114TH AVE SE 14TH AVE SE 114 AVE SE LL 5G , OJ I? X w O 116TH AVE SE 116TH AVE SE m w v�RUNAWAY'L'N ° m g g 118TH H AVE SE 118TH AVE SE x - t -i m T m 120TH AVE SE 120TH AVE SE 0 120TH AVE SE z -ilk 122ND AVE SE 122ND AVE SE y 122ND AVE SE R O <F 124TH AVE SE ° 124TH AVE SE �O�p(099 126TH AVE SE 126TH AVE SE LYNCH BLVD S4 130TH AVE SE 2035 HIGHWAY NEEDS PLAN LEGEND 2 LANES 4 LANES 6 LANES PROPOSED I STUDY CORRIDOR N 0 2,550 5,100 10,200 Feet COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION PLANNING AND REGULATION - GISICAD MAPPING FILE: HUSSEY -2035 NEEDS.MXD 9/2012 . a _y 7�v®lQE� e c o t o n e OCTOBER 29, 2012 `► environmental ratlmCa W�Wq. Nepro, R X108 ecotone own '',A �ncim'oTnmcnrtl zn reap camw vmr waac si xiae OCTOBER 29, 2012 Geologic Model Units Holocene Sediments Aq Pliocene limestone Aquifer Bonita Springs furl Aquitard nchopee limestone Aquifer Upper Peace River Confining Clays Aquiitard Peace River Sandstone Aquifer, Basal Peace River Confining Clays Aquitard! Arcadia Limestone (Mid-HawthomAquifer) u Aquifer; Basal Arcadia Confining Clays Aquitard Lower Hawthorn Aquifer' s1x SERIES FORMATION LITHOLOGY AQUIFER PLEISTOCENE PAMLICO SAND, OFTEN WITH SHELL, SANDSTONE OR MINOR CLAY WATER - 20 Fr, THOMPSON FORMATION LIMESTONE, GRAY, SANDY, HIGH SECONDARY POROSITY FROM FOSSIL MOLDS TABLE AQUIFER .. PINECREST AND CASTS UMES70NE 40 T MARL, INTERBEDDED 60 PLIOCENE a MARL a BONITA SPRINGS T L i - �T SILTY CLAY WITH LIMESTONE, QUARTZ SAND AND SHELL, LIGHT GREEN TO GRAY CONFINING BEDS 80 T ' LIMESTONE, GRAY, SANDY, GOOD MOLDIC OCHOPEE POROSITY pp LIMESTONE LOWER TAM IAM I LIMESTONE, WHITE AQUIFER TO LIGHT GRAY, 120 i A (1 z a: 0 �=�- 34 = LEHIGH ACRES SANDSTONE EXCELLENT MOLDIC POROSITY, SANDIER WITH DEPTH MIOCENE .-- LIMESTONE, SOFT, VERY SANDY i El 0 O ■ Collier County Soils with Lime Rock Substratum Lime Rock Substratum Existing Hard Rock excavatfd'hs — l Soft Rock excavations 81'40' W 4 W 14 ,-7 - -- _..VA HHH Ranch °` sy °see LEE ( nITNTTV 'ark North 4 .. H 36` � 6 _ o 2 � a 4 p, z 2 .7 — x T 48 a S u L+' SURVEY IS T 5 r 49 S 0 7 F v, c, r— ` SUBJECT SITE ter? j '�•. RUCiCEKY CRY � �/. �tk:p+ti emus � . Y 4e 0 9t1iN5Y'A1X m:'I'9 tS R. M� .... BIG CYPRESS SIAM NA'nONAL PRESERVE DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED: "COLLIER COUNTY RURAL S AGRICULTURAL MIA �A4•EE AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" •. •. xiy`x uFPUSw - -.wSFn eca tup3 F v, c, r— ` SUBJECT SITE ter? j '�•. RUCiCEKY CRY � �/. �tk:p+ti emus � . Y 4e 0 9t1iN5Y'A1X m:'I'9 tS R. M� .... BIG CYPRESS SIAM NA'nONAL PRESERVE ~ ( « / = ria ~ ------------ ' �`- `- IV HHH Ranch LEGEND {+ CCst Vol IL.AADS 0 : :£ I CIJdTED WULAHE:+ f ! e I '57.152 :+: "rs 2-, n-; rc':a iT-j a-4 i +i +11 I It Y t /iYleE ItLliYii! ,EGEW> e11t1 I)w.94 Ac zi COE ISOLATED WETLAUX ■ t Y 1�1�1�i�1 (SO.Ot Act) 1 1 Y 1 1 0 20 At.*] YIYtI /YI LAws MST tmLU*b W PAOJKT /dot IOItN hum DM to"" �ICI pzm :�.tlsg FLORIDA ROCK ,EGEW> I)w.94 Ac zi COE ISOLATED WETLAUX ' 2 (SO.Ot Act) COE 'WATERS Of 'PC Oi` 0 20 At.*] x+ LAws MST tmLU*b W PAOJKT /dot VJNEPEO ■lTLMI) LtE COE "En AND 4*, AUIFAGE —T$ — 0.71 AYd Id PtlAu n P #f ACY 8 1.21 A &t 20 iJf Aat 27 AN An1 21 7.77Ane 21 T1 M-. se P1YAeA !1 dP7 AS• Td 4VAY: JIM CQE 1YNTEF6 7 L+7 Ao t y d.16Aas ka7 Ae• d clam WE ISOLATED WETLAND W. ACMAIJ09 1 13U ft t 2 0Q A; 2 0 ®Az.a � P21 ACi 5 2b2i M.1 131. Ac.Y 0*04f 1 D27ACA t 0NA.1 rO d7GA&t 1t 1U-ml 12 a=A & TA ad2AYt a oaa as a N 137 A4t u MAC- Y 0D1ACa 31 VIM, 25 025ACi Z 023++151 21 12-ml a +10Aet Qde Att MUM rXQrtHTY dCLNDANY IT* LADLE MONTES Cf.AWwr. NO.a6P4W&SELDYIG —� OWED 2123 -ad. MAP WTT' AYC UP&S FER MILE HOWTVS �.:,.. CRAWK w UCTIOMWItTaWH2T.. AND UCTICN2t C+AC S OAT® .IGVll1R! 211 2002. i DRawH BY; J.i. C6-]316 00 -2601 S. SE S. 35 7ASS -R26E Sw , S.. 35 TAUS -R.26E CL w 112'NM 0.w 17 Y x.0. »' I A., 3 1.5 0 3 Approximate Scole in Miles R. 25 E Lei — I I • (tnemxxu aet 1pOro.nnal.) 7Z- R. 26 E R. 27 CO -12366 CO-7060 c0_2]61 CO-t7n SE SW S.e. 34 1.665 -a26E SE WE S-10 131S -R26E S— 33 TXS -R S. 26E S. 6 t.022 -R26E OE - 1' NGW 0. - S' NM 0. - 6' N" OL . 6' "M E R. 28 E T. 48 E T. 49 E 0- 50 50 8G 80gµ Il 50 0-237 237-240 Depth (ft bls) 0 -10 10 -20 T. 50 E 20-30 T. 51 E 30 -40 T. 52 E A' South Legend ® Confining Bed ® Sandstone 1 0 2 4 1 Horizontcl: Approximate Scale in Miles Vertical: as shown Water Table Aquifer V Tamiami Confining Beds Lower Tamiami Aquifer 122TMIM Tamiami Formation 122HTRN Hawthorn Group Lithologic Description limestone; grayish brown to light gray 15% porosity: intergranular, moldic grain type: crystals, calcilutite 10% allochemical constituents grain size: microcrystalline range: microcrystalline to medium, good induration cement type(s): calcilutite matrix, sparry calcite cement accessory Minerals: quartz Viand-35% fossils: mollusks as above with less sand (10 %) limestone; very light orange 18% Porosity: intergranular, moldic grain type: biogenic, crystals, calcilutite 30% allochemical constituents grain size: microcrystalline range: microcrystalline to coarse, good induration cement type(s): calcilutite matrix, sparry calcite cement accessory minerals: quartz sand- 05% fossils: mollusks, fossil molds, echinoids dolostone; moderate light grav 18% porosity: intergranular. mold is possibly high permeability: 50 9G%;altered :, eurdral grain size: very fine range: very fine to microcrystalline, good induration cement type(s): dolomite cement, sparry calcite cement accessory minerals: quartz sand- 04% fossils: mollusks, fossil molds MAP '1 Hussey Settlement Parcels and Natural Resources MAP 2 Hussey Settlement Parcels and RCWs 10 I B 9110 en A E Active Wood Stork Colonies - A Wading Bird Rookeries - 1999 X Panther Mortality Roadkills X Bear Mortality Roadkills 1m Bear Telemetry 1983 -2000 110 PantherTelemetry 1981 -2012 Secondary Panther Zone T Primary Panther Zone Jones Mine ® Proposed Sending Proposed Receiving - Protected Lands E i� A �. 68k Sl- P CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida @ c ,_ OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. A r 68k Sl- P CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida @ c ,_ OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. 21 PFUNd" rW% Legend Mom VMS Wo- .I Kr, ® A M SR 846 Hussey . .r WRI Section Roads •' ' FE Conservation Fringe Rural Neutral WIN, •- Rural Fringe Sending • Primary Panther Habitat Secondary Panther Habitat ri/`y 0664 ffl to 0 ! � � �:• � � � °" • . �� , '' i. mil` IF y �• f 6 • • • • i ( ! •. P • e s • `� • • • ••'�, et ! , 32 0 3 13 .. —/ � ! i • •••• ♦f i -• � � �' �/. ! • is ,t •r • • i g .... f / %/ Legend r10 11 1 08 I Hussey Property - /� 17 SR 846 Land Trust `' 15 14 1 Roads 24 `20 I� MMMOC L R R 84 Section Numbers . 25! 30 29 Conservation __- 4— Rural Fringe Neutral 36 131 32 Rural Fringe Receiving Rural Fringe Sending GOLDE' unctional Wetlands �� o "1 ' 13 23 24 O—Mil— 26 1 25 "AI CONSERVANCY m 16 15 1 C' Priority 1 - HIGHEST + L�1 da w _ __� 1 _ T - -- 14 13 ? - - Priority 2 RSoRtnWeW WILDLIFE, lo 0 F -24 - - -' 20 ( ?1 22 i 23 24 11 w 0 Pnont 3 _ -, 25 i 30 29 28 1 27 26 25 0 20 1 - -- w 36 31 32 33 34 - 35 36 w 01 06 -- i 05 04 i1 03 02 /KKz 29 O 12 07 08 09 10 11 1 2 v 13 18 17 16 15 LL 0 LLJ 1 24 " 19 1 20 21 22' 1 23 J �_, -- - T- - -- - 25 30 29 1 28 27 26 36 31 1 32 33 34 35 L• o I 05' 4 I 03 02 J > 8 9 i 10 I 11 e" m ? i +� w ;'17 16 15 14 J k O 19 , 20 1 22 23 : Z — - -- Rural Frin e Plannin FNAI Fu ctional W lands Few La 36 01 Legend 10 Hussey Property 15 SR 846 Land Trust 20 I Roads IMM CKALE RD R 84 Section Numbers 25 + 30 ! 29 Conservation 4 .1' d 36 31 32 Rural Fringe Neutral *� •:.. "; " Q x 1 �- v 13 CONSERVANCY o 2 of Southwest Florida J OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. _� 25 -3¢ K� 1 � � 1 ds m w 17 16 j J 19 20 1 22 ` U Rural ' F °- - Planning FNAI oI 'gieal Lin ges 23 1 24 28 25 01 WE RD 1 13 j J m LU i 2018 Rural Fringe Receiving roc Rural Fringe Sendingti;�t Ecological Greenway : m LEGEND - FNAI ° ! ' `' W Priority 1 Critical Linkages - HIGHEST p r 24 Priority 1 0 Priority 2 / Q Q x 1 �- v 13 CONSERVANCY o 2 of Southwest Florida J OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. _� 25 -3¢ K� 1 � � 1 ds m w 17 16 j J 19 20 1 22 ` U Rural ' F °- - Planning FNAI oI 'gieal Lin ges 23 1 24 28 25 01 WE RD 1 13 j J m LU i 2018 November ol, 2012 CCPC Agenda 11. New Business B. Proposed Settlement Agreement regarding Case No.: o8- 6933 -CA, Hussey et al vs. Collier County et al. Court Reporter Copy f Memorandum TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION /PLANNING & REGULATION, PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION DATE: October 18, 2012 RE: HUSSEY ET AL VS. COLLIER COUNTY ET AL — PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - -- additional documents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Materials were previously provided to you at your 9/28/12 special meeting (on the AUIR/CIE) so as to allow abundant time for review. Also, an excerpt from BCC discussion on 10/9/12 received from the County Attorney's Office was previously forwarded (emailed) to you on 10/11/12. In response to CCPC member request, an inquiry from the Plaintiffs team, and further staff consideration, the following additional (or revised) documents are provided: 1. Excerpt of 10/9/12 BCC Minutes on Item 7B (formatted to fit on 2 pages) 2. REVISED Table 2 (attachment to the previously provided Analysis & Summary prepared by staff) 3. REVISED Aerial — SR 846 Land Trust wetlands and proposed Sending Lands 4. CCPC Staff Report for petition CP- 2005 -12, GMP amendment submitted by Hussey to establish North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict (Transmittal Hearing) 5. Executive Summary for 2005 Cycle of GMP Amendments (Transmittal Hearing) — relevant to petitions CP- 2005 -12 and CPSP- 2005 -14 only 6. Petition CP- 2005 -12, North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict 7. CCPC Staff Report for petition CPSP- 2005 -14, proposed re- designation of Sending Lands based upon data submitted by property owners for various properties (Transmittal Hearing) 8. 1 -page Spreadsheet of Hussey parcels as part of petition CPSP- 2005 -14 AND companion Map depicting Hussey parcels (and others) 9. Hussey data submitted as part of Petition CPSP- 2005 -14 10. Resolution 2012 -15, excavation on SR 846 Land Trust site Prepared by: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager Collier County Government, Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation Planning & Zoning Department, Comprehensive Planning Section September 27, 2012 Memo to CCPC - Oct. 2012 GACDES Planning Services \Comprehensive\David\Bert Hams claim - Hussey\CCPC 2012 review dw/10 -18 -12 EXCERPT TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 9, 2012 EXCERPT OF PUBLIC COMMENT LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta (via speakerphone) Donna Fiala Georgia Hiller Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager Mike Sheffield, Business Operations - CMO (The following is the requested excerpt of proceedings.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was my motion that passed unanimously, so let me clarify it. During the meeting David Weeks stated this is a, essentially, Growth Management Plan amendment, and those actions are viewed by the Planning Commission. That was my intent for them to look at it as an application of a Growth Management Plan amendment. Furthermore, in the settlement it talks about a conditional use. The Planning Commission gives recommendations to the Board of Commissioners of conditional uses. That was my intent, to look at the overall settlement and not limit it to just the settlement. They are our planning agency. That planning agency or that -- I should say that settlement agreement is all about planning or land use. So they need to take a look at it that way and give us recommendations. I know the Florida law allows us to do this under Bert J. Harris Act; however, without it being publicly vetted, I don't think we'll be doing justice to this proposed settlement agreement. I want as much information from our staff and the planning agency, which is the Planning Commission, on that. And they have to have the history of it. So can you assist the Planning Commission, County Manager -- County Attorney? (The requested excerpt of proceedings concluded.) STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, Terri L. Lewis, Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page hereof, that the foregoing computer- assisted transcription is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 10th day of October 2012. TERRI L. LEWIS, Court Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida; My Commission No. DD 909558 Expires: August 23, 2013 Modified from original document by reducing font size so as to fit on two pages. Excerpt Item 713 10 -09 -2012 BCC — modified GAMES Planning Services \Comprehensive\David \Bert Hams claim - Hussey \CCPC 2012 review dw/10 -17 -12 Table 2 HUSSEY SR 846 TRUST 966 acres total 2,576 acres total RFMUD Sending Lands RFMUD Receiving Lands with CLI for excavation OVERALL 3,542 acres SUM Category Existing Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Difference Dwelling Units 24 526 502 5,576 4,916 -660 5,600 5,442 -158 Commercial /R &T Park Acres 0 0 0 117 163.1 46.1 117 163.1 46.1 Excavation Acres 0 378 378 1080 878 -202 1,080 1,256 176 Eligible TDR Credits 579.6 260 -319.6 1 0 756 756 1 579.6 1,016 436.4 Preservation /Restoration Acres - without TDRs 773 457 -316 364 666 302 1,137 1,123 -14 Preservation /Restoration Acres - with maximum TDRs 966 519 -447 364 945 581 1,3301 1,4641 134 Donations /Offers - Proposed for the Hussey site donation of road rights -of -way; donation of fill dirt for roads; provision of stormwater treatment & storage; provision of rock & fill @ discounted price; 2 potable water well sites (lease) Donations /Offers - Proposed for the SR 846 Trust site donation of road right -of -way; provision of stormwater treatment & storage NOTES: 1. RFMUD = Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 2. CU = conditional use 3. R &T Park = Research & Technology Park Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element 4. TDR = transfer of development rights 5. SR 846 Existing DUs: 1,500 acs. in Rural Village X 3 DU /A = 4,500 DUs + 1,076 acs. at maximum of 1 DU /A = 1,076 DUs 6. SR846 Proposed DUs: 1,631 acs. in Rural Village or PUD X 3 DU /A = 4,893 DUs + 945 acs. /40 = 23DUs 7. SR 846 commercial /R &T Park: Existing acres based on Rural Village standards (Com'I and R &T Park), assuming 4 neighborhood centers; Proposed acres based on allowance for 10% of a Mixed Use PUD acreage (Com'I only) [Rural Village alternative: 127 acs. of Com'I and R &T Park] 8. Hussey excavation: Assume 50% (263 acs.) of Receiving Lands excavated and balance used for preserve, access road, future residential development around the resulting lake 9. SR 846 excavation: Existing acres based on CU approval and FDEP (Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection) permit 10. Hussey Existing TDRs (not eligible for 25 years due to clearing): 966 acs. X 0.6 (base, environmental restoration & maintenance (ERM), conveyance TDRs) 11. Hussey Proposed TDRs: 440 acs. Sending "Special" - 115 acs. excavation area = 325 acs. X 0.8 DU /A (base, early entry, ERM, conveyance TDRs) 12. SR 846 Proposed TDRs: 945 acs. X 0.8 DU /A (base, early entry, ERM, conveyance TDRs) 13. SR 846 Existing (1) preservation: All related to CU for excavation Table 2 Hussey settlement agreement - comparison REV 10 -18 -12 GAGOES Planning Services\Comprehensive0avid\13ert Harris claim - Hussey1CCPC 2012 review dwi9-20- 2012 -18 -2012 7 A T ES vl� PROJECT LOCATION ira r ZA N NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED LEGEND THROUGH THE IS COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY AP RAER*S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE W E OF JANUARY 2012, S.R. 846 LAND TRUST (2,576 Ac.±) APPROXIMATE SENDING LANDS BOUNDARY (945.00 AC t) WETLAND AND OSW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet DRAWN BY DATE F.L. 6/27/12 5 AERIAL WITH APPROXIMATE SENDING LANDS OVERLAY REVIEWED BY DATE A.W. 6/27/12 t V,„ „,�;,�* PASSARELLA S.R. 846 LAND TRUST REVISED DATE &-AS S 0 C I AT ES.�-, Agenda Item 4M +Corr Co�t�.ytt y STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -12, NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS: Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Agent: John G. Vega 201 Eighth Street South, Suite 207 Naples, FL 34102 Applicant and Owner: Francis D. and Mary Pat Hussey, Jr. 1350 Spyglass Lane Naples, FL 34102 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property contains 950 acres more or less and is located approximately four miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), lying north of 1 -75. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The subject property is commonly known as the HHH Ranch. (See Attachment "A ") -1- Agenda Item 4M REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to [change the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District designation in order to] establish the North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrict where earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch plants and their related activities, oil extraction and related processing could be conducted or operated in Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, plus allowing other land uses permitted by right, other conditional uses, and other rights permitted on lands designated as Sending Lands, all as permitted uses — so as to accommodate a future rezone to allow such operations. The proposed text change adds new Subdistrict language in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District [showing the petitioner's proposed amendments in strike - through /underline format, while current Growth Management Plan language appears in plain text] as follows: CP- 2005 -12 (part 1 of 3) [page 69] II. Agricultural /Rural Designation B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict The North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrict comprises approximately 950 acres located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49, Range 27 East. The North Belle Meade Special Use Area represents a transitional area located between lands designated sending and those designated Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) on the Future Land Use Map. The North Belle Meade Special Use Area does contain environmentally sensitive lands: however, historic development and drainage due to development of Golden Gate Estates and I- 75 have lessened the environmental sensitivitv of these lands. The North Belle Meade Special Use Area contains significant deposits of hard limestone, which provides source material for road construction and building materials. The intent of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area is to permit all uses permitted and conditional and rights permitted on lands designated as sending lands, as well as earth mining, oil_ extraction and related processing, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, and related uses as permitted uses. A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present on -site shall be retained in accordance with Policy 6.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. 4-5. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards -2- Agenda Item 4M The proposed text amendment revises acreage figures for the North Belle Meade Overlay, as follows: CP- 2005 -12 (part 2 of 3) B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General [page 75] The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises +--24 ±22.5 sections of land 2 ± 14.602 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The ... [unchanged to end of entry.] This petition also seeks to amend the GMP's Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) to reduce the amount of native vegetation retained specifically for land inside the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict. CP- 2005 -12 (part 3 of 3) [page 17] [CCME] Policy 6.1.2 For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards: a. Receiving Lands: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. C. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future -3- Agenda Item 4M Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under - story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. h. North Belle Meade Special Use Overlay: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The subject property is currently zoned A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District, Sending Lands - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District. The property contains 950 acres more or less located approximately three to four miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), lying north of 1 -75. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The subject property is commonly known as the HHH Ranch. The current Future Land Use Designation is Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, and North Belle Meade Overlay. Surrounding Lands: N - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - MHO, Mobile Home Overlay District - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District DESCRIPTION: Undeveloped, Vacant & Residential Land Uses FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, and, North Belle Meade Overlay S- ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District — NRPAO, Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay DESCRIPTION: Blackburn Road, the north -side frontage road along 1 -75; 1 -75 roadway; then undeveloped & vacant lands -4- Agenda Item 4M FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands; Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA), beyond E - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District DESCRIPTION: Undeveloped & Vacant Lands FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands, part, and North Belle Meade Overlay; Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, part, and North Belle Meade Overlay; North Belle Meade NRPA, beyond W - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - MHO, Mobile Home Overlay District - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District DESCRIPTION: Agricultural, Residential and Undeveloped Vacant Land Uses; The stub ends of Markley Avenue and Washburn Road meet the subject property, while Inez Road appears to run along a segment of its westerly boundary FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, and North Belle Meade Overlay STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the -5- Agenda Item 4M responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Natural Resources: The Environmental Analysis of Alternatives to Rock Mining in Collier County submitted by Synecological Analysts, Inc. with this petition is dated November 2004 — is subtitled, Analysis of the Practicability of Non -Lee County Alternative Sources to Supply the Area's Demand for Basic Construction Materials (see application packet Exhibit V.D.5, part). The analysis reports that, "[t]here are only a few locations in the State with geological formations that produce coarse crushed stone that meets FDOT specifications. The availability of Florida's limestone deposits is diminished by urbanization, environmental restrictions, and public opposition to mining. All available deposits in Florida are presently being mined. From the standpoint of quality and yield per acre, Collier County is the most productive mining area locally. Alternative locations in the State could not economically replace Collier County production ". The Analysis points out that, "[a]t this time, we know of no practicable technological alternatives to Collier County rock, and none have been suggested" and draws a lengthy conclusion. Their summarizing comments say that, "[p]remature curtailment of Collier mining would cause extreme disruption of southwest Florida's construction industry and would vastly increase the cost of essential public and private infrastructure ". In their Limerock Mining Resources in Collier County (see application packet Exhibit V.D.5, part), the petitioner provides an overview of `what -if scenarios for sources and availability of these materials. Application materials include a map series illustrating the distribution of mines and mine -able materials, planning and zoning constraints, and other supporting data. Environmental: In their Mining Fact Sheet (see application packet Exhibit V.D.5, part), the petitioner lists the "positive effects of mining without development" as opportunities to: ► Ensure sufficient water supply for future generations ► Restore hydrology ► Create aquifer recharge areas ► Can reestablish historic natural sheet flow ► Protect land from development ► Create conservation lands, and ► Create habitat and food sources for all species This Fact Sheet provides an overview of the supply and demand story for these materials. Application materials include a map series illustrating the distribution of mines and mine -able materials, planning and zoning constraints, and other supporting data (see application packet Exhibit V.D.5, following fact sheets). Agenda Item 4M Listed Species: The Protected Species Survey (PSS) submitted by Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. with this petition is dated May 2006 (see application packet Exhibit V.C.1), representing field time logged from May 2004 to present. Particular attention was given to the presence or absence of wading birds, gopher tortoise, red cockaded woodpeckers, and Big Cypress fox squirrels. Species observed on the subject property included: Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, White Ibis and Wood Stork, among wading birds; Red - Cockaded Woodpecker and American Kestrel among other birds; Big Cypress fox squirrels and Florida Black Bear (not directly observed) among mammals; Gopher Tortoise among reptiles; Common Wild Pine and Butterfly Orchids among plants. Listed Species were observed utilizing the subject property, as follows: Red - Cockaded Woodpecker cavity trees and foraging habitat, with additional data collected on nesting activity and fledging; Gopher tortoise in an upland area; and, listed wading birds in the deeper wetlands. FLUCCS communities identified on the site are: - Approx. 53 acres of Hydric Unimproved Pasture - Approx. 54 acres of Saw Palmetto - Approx. 169 acres of Pine Flatwoods - Approx. 25 acres of Pine Flatwoods with Cabbage Palm - Approx. 45 acres of Dead Pines with Cabbage Palm - Approx. 10 acres of Pop Ash & Willow Slough - Approx. 12 acres of Hydric Melaleuca - Approx. 144 acres of Cypress - Approx. 88 acres of Cypress /Unimproved Pasture -Approx. 19 acres of Brazilian Pepper Invaded Cypress - Approx. 2 acres of Cypress with Cabbage Palm - Approx. 301 acres of Pine - Cypress- Cabbage Palm - Approx. 13 acres of Melaleuca Invaded Pine - Cypress- Cabbage Palm - Approx. 1 acre of Freshwater Marsh - Approx. 1 acre of Mixed Wetland Forest - Approx. 4 acres of Disturbed Lands - Approx. 6 acres of Hydric Disturbed Lands (Fence Lines) These community acreage totals indicate only the quantity or distribution of habitat — and may not be indicative of the quality, or value, of certain habitat. Environmental Services Department staff conducted an exhaustive review of the PSS (Exhibit V.C.1) along with its associated map set, the EIS (Exhibit V.C.2, part), the Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan, and the Animal Response (to mining activities) Considerations report (Exhibit V.C.2, part), provided by the petitioners, and commented on the most relevant aspects, as follows: The parcels included in this petition link the western North Belle Meade Sending lands with the eastern North Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Sending lands. The site represents approximately 9% of the North Belle Meade Sending Lands (NRPA and non -NRPA) and contains the largest undeveloped parcels in them. -7- Agenda Item 4M Rural Fringe Sending Lands were designated as such because of their environmental sensitivity. From the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan: "Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. Sending Lands are located entirely within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.... Based upon their location, Sending Lands are the principal target for preservation and conservation." Objective 3 of the FLUE states, "Land Development Regulations have been adopted to implement this Growth Management Plan pursuant to Chapter 163.3202, F. S. in order to ensure protection of natural and historic resources,..." In order to implement that, Policy 3.1 states "Land Development Regulations have been adopted into the Land Development Code that contain provisions to implement the Growth Management Plan through the development review process and include the following provisions: b. Protect environmentally sensitive lands and provide for open space. This shall be accomplished in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District through various Land Use Designations that restrict higher intensity land uses..." CCME Policy 6.2.3(4) "Incompatible land uses are directed away from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands through an incentive based Transfer of Development Rights Program that allows land owners within these Sending Lands to transfer their residential density out of the Sending Lands to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands. Incompatible land uses are also directed away from Sending Lands by restricting allowable uses. (Reference FLUE Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.) Finally, allowable uses within these lands are also subject to native vegetation retention and preservation standards of 80% to 90 %. (Reference CCME Policy 6.7.1)" Parcels included in this petition contain some of the largest tracts of wetlands remaining in the North Belle Meade which provide foraging habitat to many species of protected wading birds including wood storks. The vital uplands surrounding the wetlands are home to two active red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) clusters, the last of five left in the North Belle Meade. Many other listed species also utilize the site including Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel and Florida panther. A total of eleven protected species of plants and animals are known to utilize the property. Most of the additional uses requested (earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, and related uses) are only allowed in Industrial and Rural Agricultural zoned areas throughout Collier County. These are highly intensive uses not suitable for environmentally sensitive areas. Among other concerns, there has not been much research, which staff is aware of, as to the effects of blasting near listed species. Also, Florida slash pine trees, which the red - cockaded woodpeckers depend on for nesting and foraging, are highly sensitive to disturbance. Exhibit IV.B of the petition states "... historic development and drainage due to development of Golden Gate Estates and 1 -75 have lessened the environmental sensitivity of these lands." According to the EIS provided, the majority of this site is native habitat and the amount of wetlands on site has not been formally determined by the permitting agencies, only the petitioner's consultants. Therefore, without validation by State and Federal permitting agencies, Agenda Item 4M Comprehensive Planning staff point out that the exact impact on wetlands and associated habitat for certain species has not been ascertained with absolute certainty. This project will impact approximately 250 acres of wetlands, if the consultant's evaluation is accurate. The petitioner plans on restoring the site to its natural condition, but two lakes totaling approximately 350 acres will remain which will offer little habitat benefit to the protected species currently utilizing the site. Comprehensive Planning staff adds that the lack of specificity lends itself to a high degree of discomfort when reviewing the totality of the petition and potential deleterious impacts on wetlands, habitat and species of concern. The proposal does not confine the mining use to any specific area or limit its size. The environmental sections of the submittal discuss wildlife benefits but do not identify any specific preserve areas. Reducing the Preservation requirement by half, as the petition proposes, would be closer to the Preservation requirements for Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving lands which were designated for more intense uses in less environmentally sensitive areas; hence a smaller amount of Preservation was required. The trucks hauling the excavation material [are proposed to] be traveling west through the southern portion of the Sending lands, which will require expansion of existing roadways to accommodate the over 400 trips per day expected for the operation. The increase in traffic of large trucks to the south would most likely adversely impact the RCWs. The north -south traffic of large trucks would also likely reduce the habitat value of the lands to the west of the project that are designated primary habitat by USFWS to panthers. The proposal shows locations of hard rock in Collier County, but the S.R. 846 mine has supposedly found hard rock on their site and this location is not represented on the graphics showing location of hard rock in the county. There could be other sources of hard rock in the county outside of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. (Environmental Services) [s]taff recommends denial of this Growth Management Plan Amendment since it is in direct conflict with the creation and purpose of the Sending Lands designation and sections of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Please note that the Environmental Services staff recommendation is based, in part, on the general premise that CCME Policy 1.1.6 specifies an equitable balance based on benefits and cost to public and private sector. There does not appear to be a balance of public and private interests in this proposal. The private interest of the gained use of mining does not seem to be offset by the permanent preservation and management of the un -mined portions of the property and potentially slightly less expensive source limestone for construction activities. This can only be viewed as a minor benefit to the public. It is directly of benefit in construction. This is not the only potential source, but is a practical source. Upon submittal of an updated RCW habitat management plan, the Environmental Services Department staff review added: Although it [management plan] will not be finalized until the time of development order issuance, The following comments for the resubmitted RCW habitat management plan are germane at this time, in consideration of CP- 2005 -12: Agenda Item 4M E. Mid -story control- This should include County prohibited exotics and the FLEPPC Category 1 list at a minimum. G. Roads- This section should specify that roads shall not go through a cluster and that roads will not be built during nesting season. H. Noise Control (2) No longer prohibits clearing within 400 feet of cavity trees. Otherwise, the plan meets the GMP requirements for consistency with the USFWS South Florida Multi- Species Recovery Plan, May 1999 as required by CCME Policy 7.1.2(2)(e) and also meets the requirements of the latest USFWS Recovery Plan for RCW, Private Lands Guidelines and slightly exceeds them by providing artificial nesting cavities. Traffic Capacitv/Traffic Circulation Analvsis: The petitioner employed the firm of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed amendment. The subject property is located three to four miles east of Collier Boulevard, north of 1 -75, and proposes a hard rock earth mining operation. The project will produce an estimated 930 thousand cubic yards of excavated materials per year, during 250 days per year, hauled in trucks capable of holding 18 cubic yards per load. This calculates out to 414 daily gross new trips (2 -way) and 10 PM Peak Hour gross new trips. The findings concluded that the impact of project traffic volumes on the roadway network surrounding the project site is not significant ( "significant impact" is defined in Capital Improvement Element (CIE) Policy 1.1.2 as any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will generate a volume of traffic equal to or greater than 3% of the LOS of the impacted roadway). Additionally, all segments will operate at LOS standard or better and have excess peak hour capacity greater than the projected trip generation for the subject property. The TIS concludes that the roadway links analyzed, as part of the analysis, will not be significantly or adversely impacted by the resultant change to the Growth Management Plan and the Level of Service will not be degraded below acceptable standards for the roadway links analyzed. However, Transportation Planning staff provided the following Consistency Determination: Transportation Element Consistency Determination: Transportation planning staff has reviewed this petition's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). The TIS indicates that the project's impacts are not significant on Collier Boulevard, both northbound and southbound at 0.6 %. All links within the radius of development influence for the project will be below the significance test. (Significance test or significant impact is used as those terms are defined in the GMP.) For the purpose of this analysis, Transportation staff focused on the segment of Collier Boulevard CR -951 from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Pine Ridge Boulevard in order to determine significance since this segment fronts and provides for the project's only access point. - 10- Agenda Item 4M Transportation staff has determined that Petition CP- 2005 -12 is consistent with Transportation Element Policy 5.1 of the Growth Management Plan. Public Facilities Impact: The North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict property is not in the Collier County Water & Sewer District. Potable water and sanitary sewer services will not be provided by the District's systems. This project will not impact the County's existing Levels of Service Standards (LOSS). Development would use a private water well and on -site treatment system. Application materials did not provide information regarding the existing Level of Service Standards (LOSS), or document the impact(s) the proposed GMP amendment will have on that Standard, for drainage, solid waste and community and regional parks. Facilities review specialists with the Collier County Public Utilities Services reviewed application materials and provided the following comment: The Subdistrict is outside the Collier County Water and Sewer District current and future service areas in the Rural Fringe sending area, and therefore has no impact concerns. Appropriateness of Change: APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES AND RULE 9J -5, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Chapter 163.3177(6)(d) states, "[a] conservation element for the conservation, use, and protection of natural resources in an area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, waterwells, estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood plains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals, and other natural and environmental resources. Local governments..." [Emphasis added.] Chapter 163.3177(11)(a) states, "[t]he Legislature recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies which will address the anticipated demands of continued urbanization of Florida's coastal and other environmentally sensitive areas, and which will accommodate the development of less populated regions of the state which seek economic development and which have suitable land and water resources to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Legislature further recognizes the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and to provide for the cost effective delivery of public facilities and services. [Emphasis added.] Chapter 163, is implemented by Florida Administrative Codes, and particularly Rule 9J -5. -11- Agenda Item 4M CP- 2005 -12 Rule 9J -5 Analvsis The administration of Chapter 9J -5 is set forth in Section 9J- 5.002, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Section 9J- 5.002(2) pertains to the application of Chapter 9J -5. Section 9J- 5.002(2) acknowledges the varying complexities associated with local governments in Florida. The section enumerates a number of factors to assist local governments when applying the entirety of Chapter 9J -5 to specific situations, while taking into consideration the detail of the data and analyses, and the content of the goals, objectives and policies. In essence, the factors set forth provide local governments with some objective criteria without providing any weight for the factors in arriving at a final conclusion regarding a local government's comprehensive plan or a proposed plan amendment. Instead, Section 9J- 5.002(2)(h) states "[w]hether the provision at issue constitutes substantial progress over existing provisions regarding consistency with and furtherance of Chapter 163, Part II [Florida Statutes] ...." Section 9J- 5.002(2)(h) might appear to be a subjective balancing litmus test; however, arguably a provision at issue must be supported by adequate data and analysis. The primary factor under consideration in CP- 05 -12, the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict (Hussey), land use petition, involves natural resources in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( RFMUD) Sending Lands. More specifically, Section 9J- 5.002(2)(c) requires a local government to evaluate "[t]he existence of natural resource features such as groundwater recharge areas, waterwells, wetlands, wildlife habitat, costal areas, areas subject to coastal flooding, and living marine resources." The language "such as" is not all encompassing which warrants further analysis of the entirety of Chapter 9J -5 to determine what other natural resources can be considered under this provision. Section 9J- 5.006(4)(b) indicates which natural resources must be included in a comprehensive plan's future land use map series. In addition to the natural resource features enumerated in Section 9J- 5.002(2)(c), Section 9J- 5.006(4)(b) requires a local government to include minerals and soils in its future land use map series. Furthermore, Section 9J- 5.013(a)(3) pertaining to a local government's conservation element requires a local government to identify and analyze "known sources of commercially valuable minerals." Section 9J- 5.003(71) defines minerals as "all solid minerals, including clay, gravel, phosphate rock, lime, shells (excluding live shellfish), stone, sand, heavy minerals, and any other rare earths, which are contained in the soils or waters of the state." A sound and viable argument can be made that the lime rock deposits situated under the Hussey property fall under the definition of what constitutes a mineral in the State of Florida. Therefore, the subject (Hussey) property has two competing natural resources. The first is habitat for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) and Florida Panther. The second competing natural resource is the large lime rock mineral deposits located beneath the subject property. Guidance in Chapter 9J -5 pertaining to what could be construed as competing natural resources is not provided with absolute certainty. Instead, Section 9J- 5.006(2)(b) pertaining to land use analysis requirements, requires the future land use element to include an analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant and undeveloped land in order to determine it suitability, including where available, natural resources. Therefore, sound data and analysis is required to ascertain the proper land use for the subject property. The possibilities are as follows: RFMUD Sending Lands with no changes — Retains habitat for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker and Florida Panther. - 12- Agenda Item 4M 2. RFMUD Sending Lands with lime rock mining as either a permitted or conditional use. 3. RFMUD Sending Lands with a hybrid solution negotiated between competing interests. A sound argument can be made that any of the three aforementioned possibilities could be feasible if supported by substantive data and analysis. If sound data and analysis exists between competing natural resources, it is well within the authority of the Board of County Commissioners to make a policy decision as to which possibility best serves the interests of Collier County. Please note that this is a balancing test that is subjective and would be open to interpretation by reviewing agencies and any possible party that is adversely affected. Therefore, it is highly likely that any change to the existing RFMUD provisions would result in a challenge and an administrative hearing would follow. An Administrative Law Judge would then make the determination if the county's proposed change to the RFMUD was consistent with Chapter 9J -5, FAC. Section 9J- 5.013(1)(a)3 pertains to identifying and analyzing natural resources, where present within the [County], including "known sources of commercially valuable minerals ". Subsection (1)(a)5(b) indicates that "the potential for conservation, use or protection" of these natural resources are to be identified. Section 9J- 5.013(2) pertains to conservation requirements for these natural resources. Subsection (2)(b)3 indicates that [the County] shall "conserve, appropriately use and protect minerals ", and Subsection (2)(c) requires [the County] to address implementation activities for the "conservation, appropriate use and protection of areas suitable for extraction of minerals" and for the "restriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife ". [ Emphasis added.] A thorough evaluation of the appropriate use and protection of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict (Hussey) property for extraction of minerals must consider restricting activities which would adversely affect endangered and threatened species' survival. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: CP- 2005 -12 seeks to combine new site - specific Subdistrict planning provisions with select provisions of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, particularly those pertaining to Sending Lands. This combination would reintroduce certain now - prohibited land uses as they were permitted before Collier County adopted the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, District — including mining operations for extracting earth materials. Of particular interest is that part of the proposed amendment language which would allow all Sending Lands uses — whether previously allowed either as permitted uses by right or by conditional use — as permitted uses in the new Subdistrict. Of similar interest is the part of the proposal which adds earth mining and related uses — as permitted uses. This arrangement is a significant departure from present planning provisions. Though not presently allowed in Sending Lands, these uses require conditional use approval where they are allowed (e.g. RFMU Receiving Lands). [Emphasis added.] Whether the subject property remains eligible to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, should be considered. Both earth mining as a conditional use and - 13- Agenda Item 4M subsequent residential development (at 1.d.u. /5 ac.) when mining ceased would have been allowed before Rural Fringe Mixed Use provisions were adopted. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, now allows the transfer of that residential density thru the TDR program, but no longer allows the earth mining. If left undeveloped, a maximum of 190 Base Severance TDR Credits could be derived from the 950 ace subject property, plus another 190 Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits. Then, up to 190 Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credits could be generated by applying a Restoration and Management Plan (RMP) to the property. Finally, up to 190 Conveyance TDR Bonus Credits could be generated by conveying land to a federal, state or local governmental agency. These TDR credits would be available to transfer to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands or lands within the Urban Designated planning area according to the County's Density Rating System. Current Rural Fringe Mixed Use, Sending Lands provisions limit permitted uses to those most conducive to the degree of environmental value and sensitivity for significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species: • Agricultural land uses consistent with Florida's Right to Farm Act • Detached single - family residences at a one per forty -acre density • Habitat preservation and conservation areas • Passive parks and recreational uses • Sporting and recreational camps • Essential services necessary to ensure public safety, and to serve the other permitted uses • Oil and gas exploration. Conditional Uses which may be approved in Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands include: • Other public facilities and essential services not permitted by right • Commercial uses accessory to permitted uses • Oil and gas field development and production Conditional land uses must be planned with adequate protection of wetlands, listed species and their habitat. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands provisions further limit permitted uses where residential density is transferred away according to the TDR program to: • Agricultural land uses consistent with Florida's Right to Farm Act • Detached single - family residences at a one per forty -acre density (for portions not participating in TDR program) • Habitat preservation and conservation areas • Passive parks and recreational uses • Essential services necessary to ensure public safety, and to serve the other permitted uses • Oil extraction, and related processing, excluding earth mining CP- 2005 -12 seeks to remove the 950 acre Subdistrict area from the North Belle Meade Overlay, as reflected by the proposed revisions to the In General section, repeated below: -14- Agenda Item 4M B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises #-24 ±22.5 sections of land (.i1 5,552 ± 14,602 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The... [unchanged to end of entry.] If approved, this revision would be a clear matter of inconsistency. Staff finds that other subsections of the North Belle Meade Overlay will require similar acreage adjustments, if the In General section is amended. Subsection 4, Sending Areas, includes acreage figures, stating "[w]ithin the NBM Overlay are ± 4,598 acres of land that are identified as Sending Areas...". These NBM Overlay "Sending Areas" are generally coterminous with RFMU District "Sending Lands ". Removing acreage from the NBM Overlay would effectively remove the subject property from RFMU District — including the rights and privileges associated with Sending Lands. Given the construction of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the North Belle Meade Overlay components of the FLUE, staff believes it is unnecessary to revise these acreage figures. Staff also believes that the unintended consequence of severing the subject property's connection to Sending Lands provisions was not anticipated. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: CP- 2005 -12 seeks to reduce the amount of native vegetation retained and preserved on the 950 acre property from 80% to 40 %. Neighborhood Information Meetina Svnoasis: The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was conducted January 24, 2007, after the agent/applicant duly noticed and advertised the meeting. Approximately 35 people attended the NIM, held in the Oakridge Middle School cafeteria. Wayne Arnold from Q. Grady Minor represented the petitioner, giving an overview of the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment as well as the process. Attendees heard the following information: Mining earth materials would have been allowed on the subject property as a Conditional Use before the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district was created. Petitioners are well aware of the issues regarding Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW), Florida Panthers and other species, as well as the wetlands found on this property. Trucks will haul loads westbound, onto CR 951 via the landfill frontage road [Utilities Drive/White Lake Drive /Blackburn Avenue]. When asked whether a "Subdistrict" can be sunsetted, the petitioner's agent indicated the property would revert back to Sending Lands after being mined. -15- Agenda Item 4M When asked whether any parts of the property could be used as retention areas, to help relieve the flooding problem in North Belle Meade, the petitioner's agent was noncommittal. General information about the mining operation was given including: Total yield will be in the area of 45 million tons; anticipated number of truck trips per day is about 45 — ranging from zero trips on some days to as many as 300 on busier days. Petitioner commented that 90 % of the rock used in Collier County comes from mining sites located outside the County. Many of those in attendance strongly supported the proposed amendment. [Synopsis prepared by L. Koehler, Public Information Coordinator, and C. Schmidt, Principal Planner] [Staff notes that one item of correspondence concerning CP -05 -12 was received following this Neighborhood Information Meeting, with a copy attached hereto.] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The petitioner has provided data and analysis in order to conduct the evaluation noted above, and staff review of these materials is reported herein. Based on our consideration the following factors are restated from above and summarized here: • Unsupportive Factors to Consider: • It is in direct conflict with the creation and purpose of the Sending Lands designation and sections of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). • The Subdistrict would reintroduce certain now - prohibited land uses as they were permitted before Collier County adopted the RFMU District while no information establishes justification for allowing all land uses as permitted uses. • Species observed utilizing the subject property [included] red - cockaded woodpecker cavity trees and foraging habitat, ...gopher tortoise in an upland area, and listed wading birds in the deeper wetlands. • Parcels included in this petition contain some of the largest tracts of wetlands remaining in the North Belle Meade which provide foraging habitat to many species of protected wading birds including wood storks. The vital uplands surrounding the wetlands are home to two active red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) clusters, the last of five left in the North Belle Meade. Many other listed species also utilize the site including Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel and Florida panther. A total of eleven protected species of plants and animals are known to utilize the property. • The increase in traffic of large trucks to the south would most likely adversely impact the RCWs... also likely reduce the habitat value of the lands to the west of the project that are designated primary habitat by USFWS to panthers. -16- Agenda Item 4M • Supportive Factors to Consider: • [Petitioners' study of alternatives to mining in Collier County indicates] there are only a few locations in the State with geological formations that produce coarse crushed stone that meets FDOT specifications. • [The same study states] from the standpoint of quality and yield per acre, Collier County is the most productive mining area locally. Alternative locations in the State could not economically replace Collier County production. • At this time, we [the Petitioners] know of no practicable technological alternatives to Collier County rock, and none have been suggested. • Premature curtailment of Collier mining would cause extreme disruption of southwest Florida's construction industry and would vastly increase the cost of essential public and private infrastructure. • CCME Policy 1.1.6 specifies an equitable balance based on benefits and cost to public and private sector. • The "positive effects of mining without development" are opportunities to: - Ensure sufficient water supply for future generations - Restore hydrology - Create aquifer recharge areas - Reestablish historic natural sheet flow - Protect land from development - Create conservation lands, and - Create habitat and food sources for all species • The traffic generated by the proposed land use does not significantly impact Collier Boulevard and adjacent roadway segments. • Chapter 163, F.S....recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies which will address the anticipated demands of continued urbanization of Florida's coastal and other environmentally sensitive areas, protect environmentally sensitive areas... and provide for the cost effective delivery of public facilities and services. • Section 9J -5, F.A.C....indicates that [the County] shall conserve, appropriately use and protect minerals, and areas suitable for extraction of minerals, and [restrict] activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. • The appropriate use and protection of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict property... must consider restricting activities which would adversely affect endangered and threatened species' survival. • Particular attention was given to the presence or absence of wading birds, gopher tortoise, red - cockaded woodpeckers, and Big Cypress fox squirrels. - 97- Agenda Item 4M • The RCW habitat management plan should include [mid -story control of] County prohibited exotics, roads [that do] not go through a cluster and [will not] be built during nesting season, and [noise control by prohibiting] clearing within 400 feet of cavity trees. • The [RCW habitat management] plan meets requirements for consistency with the... Florida Multi- Species Recovery Plan... and the latest USFWS Recovery Plan for RCW, Private Lands Guidelines and slightly exceeds them. • The exact impact on wetlands and associated habitat for certain species has not been ascertained with absolute certainty. • Sending Lands provisions limit permitted uses to those most conducive to the degree of environmental value and sensitivity for significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. • Conditional land uses must be planned with adequate protection of wetlands, listed species and their habitat. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of CP- 2005 -12 as proposed. Sound planning principles and practices however, indicate that a proper balance of appropriate uses could be achieved between an earth mining operation and the sensitive natural areas and habitat it would impose upon, provided with the appropriate set of revisions, stipulations and conditions. If the Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation for approval to transmit the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, staff recommends the following revisions and stipulations: Staff Report revision on 5118107: As reported at the CCPC hearing, certain stipulations were prepared before the EAC considered CP -05 -12 but were not included at that time as they addressed non - environmental matters, or, other stipulations were written by staff in consideration of EAC discussions and their recommendation. This resulted with the staff recommendation of the earth mining operation being presented to the CCPC with additional stipulations lettered "f" through `j ", as shown below. The revised text amendment [showing the staffs revisions in double strike - through /double underline format], to read as follows: (part 1 of 3) II. Agricultural /Rural Designation B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - 18- [page 69] Agenda Item 4M 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict The North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict comprises approximately 950 acres located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Ranqe 27 East. The ubdistrict represents a Sending Lands transitional area located between lands designated Ssendinq and those designated Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) on the Future Land Use Map. The Subdistrict does contain environmentally sensitive lands; however, historic land uses and drainage due to development of Golden Gate Estates and 1 -75 M--ay have lessened the environmental sensitivity of these lands The Subdistrict contains significant deposits of hard limestone which provides source material for road construction and building materials. The inteM purpose of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict is to q&FfP4 allow ag uses permitted by right aiW by conditional se and rights permitted on lands designated as $-sending Utands_=a&vie6s& The Subdistrict also allows earth mining oil extraction and related processing asphalt and concrete batch - making plants and related uses as conditional uses, aNative vegetation ppeseRt On &ite shall be retained and mitigated for. in accordance with Policy 6.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Earthmining, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants in this Subdistrict shall be subiect to the following requirements and limitations: a. All residential development shall be prohibited in the entire Subdistrict b. Participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program shall be prohibited C. At the time of Conditional Use submittal, specific details shall be provided as to the areas to be mined. areas to be preserved, and listed species management plans (including the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker(. d. The area utilized for mining and mining- related activities, and any other land use requiring conditional use approval, shall be limited to 350 acres total. e. During the conditional use review. the County shall consider: 1) regulatory limitations which inhibit minina operations in some manner — such as providing methods to allow limited and controlled mining of desirable materials that underlie the standard, wide, undisturbed buffer strips lying equidistant from propert y boundaries where sianificant wetlands. uplands or habitat for listed species will not be disturbed. (2) requiring over - mitigation and over - restoration and better than no- net -loss results, with focus on minimizing both short-term and Iona -term impacts of mining operations. (3) requiring innovative operating strategies, such as: choosing and using haul routes carefully: prohibiting night hauling [no to or from, empty or loaded, trips before sunrise or after sunsetl; requiring additional "shelf' at mine edges preserved for eventual littoral -19- Agenda Item 4M zone when excavations become lakes: reauirina provision of artificial cavity structures to encourage continued /additional nesting opportunities for the red - cockaded woodpecker. (4) requiring innovative restoration strategies, such as: requiring operators to introduce and re- introduce increased populations of prey species, where displaced species will be encouraged to return to altered mine areas: requiring oversized littoral zones to be established when excavations become lakes: requiring the stocking of certain fish or other food sources where birds and mammals will eventually return to feed /forage requiring the planting of certain food sources /foraging opportunities as returning wildlife attract ors. (5) requiring introduction of innovative mitigation strategies: requiring operators to introduce and re- introduce increased populations of prey species, where off-site mitigation occurs: same for other elements of mitigation such as roosting and nesting_. bedding, foraging or feeding, habitat and structure. (6) requiring introduction of Regional or Countywide strategies and practices aimed at reducing the impact of such mining operations such as: reduce speed limits on roadways wherever nocturnal species range: providing incentives for operators to establish projects and provide earth materials for other environmentally significant projects, such as sand appropriate for beach re- nourishment: providing incentives for operators to establish projects and provide otherwise to- be- recycled materials for other environmentally significant projects, such as concrete bridge or building components appropriate for artificial reefs, off -shore fishing structure. shrimp & crab habitat. and hurricane protection devices & barriers: providing incentives for operators to provide earth materials, final product or otherwise to- be- recycled materials appropriate for other proiects. such as bridaes, weir. locks. dams. inland storm shelters. park -n -ride transfer lots, shallow water ports and rail bed f. A blanket reservation and use easement shall be applied to the subject property for the purpose of reserving a number of small - acreage sites around the propertv_perimeter for eventual County water wells to be established and operated, and for providing full accessibility to these well sites for County and County- employed personnel. (Recommended at CCPC) a. Inbound and outbound mining vehicle traffic shall be prohibited during a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods for Collier Boulevard /CR 951. This prohibition shall apply until such time roadway improvements result with adequate capacity to accommodate mine traffic. (Recommended at CCPC) h. Speed limits for vehicles maneuverjng inside the subject property and along haul routes closer than Collier Boulevard /CR 951 shall be reduced for the period of time beginning one (1) hour before sunset and ending one (1) hour after sunrise. The maximum speeds will be determined as part of wildlife mitigation planning and made part of the Mitigation Plan approved by the County, and be posted and enforced as a condition of the Conditional Use permit. (Recommended at CCPC) i. Adequate land area shall be reserved for the purpose of developing a north -south roadway located generally along the easterly edge of the subject property. This land area shall be dedicated to public use (by easement, deed, or other acceptable method to Collier County or other accepting agency). All yards, setbacks, mining areas and -20- Agenda Item 4M mining- related activity areas will be measured from this line of reservation not from the property boundary. (Recommended at CCPC) i Carrying out retention preservation restoration mitigation and other activities reauired as part of this GMPA and or Conditional Use shall not be necessarily reliant on dependent on or solely funded from monies through the "endowed fund" proposed by i i per. (Recommended at CCPC) Note: If the CCPC considers recommending limited participation in the County's TDR program, instead of staffs recommended prohibition [paragraph b., above], staff suggests an alternate paragraph b., as follows: b. Participation in the Transfer of Development Riah (TDR) grogram shall be prohibited where mining or mining- related activities occur. F: b. Participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program shall only be allowed where mining or mining- related activities do not occur. 45. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards (part 2 of 3) [page 75] B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General [removed double s -t of entire entry & made applicable only to petitioner's text] The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises ± 24 sections of land (± 15,552 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The... [unchanged to end of entry.] (part 3 of 3) [CCME] Policy 6.1.2 [page 17] For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards: a. Receiving Lands: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. -21- Agenda Item 4M b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. C. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under - story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict: (1) For earth mining, with or without related uses: asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, with or without related uses; or a combination of earth mining and asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, with or without related uses: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present and an additional 40% shall be mitigated off -site according to a mitigation plan approved by the County, and which must equal or exceed — both in quantity and quality — the site area where habitat or native vegetation is disturbed and would otherwise be retained or preserved. (2) All other uses: As required for Non -NRPA Sending Lands in Policy 6.1.2c. -22- Prepared By: Reviewed By: Reviewed By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Corby L. Schmidt, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department David C. Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Randall J. Cohen, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Marjorie M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Agenda Item 4M Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO.: CP- 2005 -12 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, Chairman -23- Agenda Item 4M ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) considered CP- 2005 -12 on March 7, 2007. EAC members voted (5 -2) to recommend approval with revised stipulations, generally: • Night hauling is not prohibited • 80% minimum native vegetation retention requirement total, with 55% on -site • 400 ac. maximum total mined area • Land uses limited to 3 permitted uses — earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants • Allow full participation in the TDR program, provided all proceeds go to an endowed fund specifically for vegetation and habitat preservation and improvement both on -site and off -site, as otherwise required • Areas not affected by earthmining are to be placed in a conservation easement • Oversized littoral zones, of no less than fifteen percent (15 %) of each lake's surface acreage, are to be established when excavations become lakes • Reduce noises produced by mining and mining - related activities, including truck traffic, and hauling, especially during RCW nesting seasons • No residential development is allowed on the entirety of the subject property • No road building activities will occur during RCW nesting seasons • Earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants are allowed without Conditional Use approval, as permitted uses in the Subdistrict • TDR credits may be derived from excavated (lake) areas STAFF UPDATE: Staff's recommendation for denial has not changed. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation of approval to transmit the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in accordance with the EAC recommendation, staff has incorporated the EAC's revisions into staffs previous recommended stipulations and revisions to the petitioner's text. The revised text amendment [showing the staffs revisions in double strike - through /double underline format, and EAC recommendation -based revisions in bold], to read as follows: (part 1 of 3) [page 69] II. Agricultural /Rural Designation B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict The North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict comprises approximately 950+ acres located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East. The Subdistrict represents a Sending Lands transitional area located between lands desianated Ssendina and those desianated Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) on the Future Land Use Ma -24- Agenda Item 4M The SubAisat is does contain environmentally sensitive lands: however, historic dowelow land uses and drainage due to development of Golden Gate Estates and 1 -75 may have lessened the environmental sensitivity of these lands The Subdistrict contains significant deposits of hard limestone which provides source material for road construction and building materials The iptsi# purpQ5e of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict is to pofwA ALlgw I# .. .. ,.0 ..., TL., c+..L.d:..avna* . Ron - n_..._ earth mining asphalt and concrete batch - making plants and related uses as permitted go da:......1 uses, and rights permitted on lands designated as Ssending Llands. oNative vegetation oFesent an &" shall be retained and mitigated for in accordance with Policy 6.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Earthmining. asphalt and concrete batch - making plants in this Subdistrict shall be subie_c_t_ to the following requirements and limitations: a All residential development shall be prohibited in the entire Subdistrict L. n...a:..: .,a:,... :.. tho T..- -.efop ..i riguinig .w.-ni Oughic (T11121 n ..h..11 L... c. At the time of Condimfienal I Extraction Permit submittal, specific details shall be provided as to the areas to be mined. areas to be preserved and mitigated, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), listed species management plans )including e Red - Cockaded Woodpecker) and other materials needed to address all requirements and limitations. d. The area utilized for mining and mining- related activities Whop land=uss&s4' shall be limited to M 400 acres total e. During the Extraction Permit review— includina formal consideration and approval by the Environmental Advisory Council — the County shall consider: (1) regulatory limitations which inhibit mining operations in some manner — such as providing methods to allow limited and controlled mining of desirable materials tha underlie the standard. wide, undisturbed buffer strips lying equidistant from property boundaries where significant wetlands, uplands_ or habitat for listed species will not be disturbed. 2) requiring over - mitigation and over - restoration, and better than no- net -loss results. with focus on minimizing both short-term and long -term impacts of mining operations. (3) requiring innovative operating strategies, such as: choosing and using haul routes carefully: prohibiting oluM dawn, dusk and twilight hauling rno to or from, empty or loaded, trips from one -half hour before to one -half hour after sunrise or one -half hour before to one -half hour after sunset — or during longer crepuscular periods)• prohibiting houkoo=sod on -site road buildina activities while RCWs are nesting: tilizing operating practices resulting with reduced hauling noises rincludina the -25- Agenda Item 4M installation of truck tail -sate dampers. prohibiting Jake- or engine- braking on all haul routes, additional noise - reducing muffler apparatus on trucks, loaders. conveyors. crushers and other engine driven machin ery_. and other techniaues_l; requiring additional "shelf' at mine edges preserved for eventual littoral zone when excavations become lakes: requiring provision of artificial cavity structures to encourage continued /additional nesting opportunities for the red - cockaded woodpecker. (4) requiring innovative restoration strategies, such as: requiring operators to introduce and re- introduce increased populations of prey species, where displaced species will be encouraged to return to altered mine areas: requiring oversized littoral zones, of no less an fifteen percent (15%) each lake's surface acreage, to be established when excavations become lakes: requiring the stocking of certain fish or other food sources where birds and mammals will eventually return to feed /forage: requiring the planting of certain food sources /foraging opportunities as returning wildlife attractors: placing areas not mined into a Conservation Easement. (5) requiring introduction of innovative mitigation strategies: requiring operators to introduce and re- introduce increased populations of prey species, where off -site mitigation occurs: same for other elements of mitigation such as roosting and nesting, bedding, foraging or feeding, habitat and structure. (6) requiring introduction of Regional or Countywide strategies and practices aimed at reducing the impact of such mining operations such as: reduce speed limits on roadways wherever nocturnal species range: providing incentives for operators to establish proiects and provide earth materials for other environmentally significant projects, such as sand appropriate for beach re- nourishment: providing incentives for operators to establish proiects and provide otherwise to- be- recycled materials for other environmentally significant projects, such as concrete bridge or building components appropriate for artificial reefs. off -shore fishing structure. shrimp & crab habitat, and hurricane protection devices & barriers: providing incentives for operators to provide earth materials, final product or otherwise to- be- recycled materials appropriate for other projects, such as bridges, weir, locks, dams, inland storm shelters, park -n -ride transfer lots, shallow water ports and rail bed. milli r.47 4-5. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards -26- Agenda Item 4M (part 2 of 3) [page 75] B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General [removed double s -t of entire entry & made applicable only to petitioner's text] The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises ± 24 sections of land (± 15,552 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The ... [unchanged to end of entry.] (part 3 of 3) [CCME] Policy 6.1.2 [page 17] For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards: a. Receiving Lands: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. C. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be -27- Agenda Item 4M considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under - story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict: (1) For earth mining, with or without related uses: asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, with or without related uses: or a combination of earth mining and asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, with or without related uses: A minimum of 40-0/6 55% of the native vegetation present and an additional 40% 25% shall be mitigated off- site according to a mitigation plan approved by the County. and which must eaual or exceed — both in quantity and quality — the site area where habitat or native vegetation is disturbed and would otherwise be retained or preserved. 2) All other uses: As required for Non -NRPA Sending Lands in Policy 6.1.2c. -28- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public Hearing for the 2005 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments. (Transmittal Hearing) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2005 cycle of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and consider approving said amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth Management Plan. • The 2005 cycle of GMP amendments consists of ten (10) private sector petitions and two (2) County- initiated petitions; another four private sector petitions are excluded as they were withdrawn by the respective applicants (CP- 2005 -1, -3, -4, -8). • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for these petitions on March 5, 2007, and continuation hearings March 22, 2007 and March 29, 2007. • This Transmittal hearing considers amendments to the following Elements of the Plan: 0 Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series 0 Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) text and Future Land Use Map Series 0 Transportation Element; and 0 Conservation and Coastal Management Element Note: Because this hearing is for the sole purpose of considering GMP amendment petitions, the number of petitions is large (12 total) and the support materials so voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the Novus system is not used. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is included in the binders provided to the BCC and is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Department office. Also note that correspondence received is included in the binder containing the Executive Summary. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of these amendments since final action is not being taken at this time (these amendments are not being considered for adoption at this hearing). If approved for transmittal, these amendments will subsequently be considered for adoption at hearings to be held later in 2007. The cost to process, review, advertise, etc. the private sector petitions is borne by the petitioner via the application fee. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office. These Growth Management Plan amendments are authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by local Resolution #97 -431, as amended. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of these amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty -day (60) review process and ultimately return these amendments to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2007. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: For some of the private sector petitions, listed plant and /or animal species have been observed or are known to be on site, and some of the sites are known to contain jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations. HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None of the private sector amendments to the Growth Management Plan contain lands identified on the County's Historical /Archeological Probability Maps as being in areas of historical or archaeological probability. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will again be subject to review for historical /archeological probability. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: Growth Management Plan amendments such as most of these are not reviewed by the EAC. However, the EAC did review petitions CP- 2005 -12 and CPSP- 2005 -14, both of which pertain to properties within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands designation. Petition CPSP- 2005-14 was reviewed on February 7 and March 7, 2007, and forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA per staffs recommendation. Petition CP- 2005 -12 was reviewed on March 7, 2007, and forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA per staff's recommendation with modifications as noted in the CCPC Staff Report. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. Note: For most petitions, regardless of staff recommendation, staff prepared text revisions to the petitioner's proposed text so as to provide clarity, proper format, correct grammar, etc. This staff modified text is what appears in the Resolution Exhibit A's unless the CCPC recommended other language. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: CCPC's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below 1. PETITION CP- 2005 -2, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series (GGAMP /FLUM) to expand "Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center", to allow neighborhood commercial of approximately an additional 60,000 square feet, for property located at the southeast comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and 1St Street SW, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 7± acres; Rural Estates Planning Community. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -2 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CP- 2005 -2 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 710). Speakers: Eleven persons spoke. One person was in favor; nine persons were opposed (stated reasons included: proposal is premature; favor the isolation from commercial development — willing to drive miles to nearest commercial; Golden Gate Estates is intended to be rural in character and this petition is incompatible with that; piecemeal approach to commercial siting is inappropriate; sets a precedent for similar requests in future); and, one person stated more opportunities for public input were needed. Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner proposed to significantly revise the petition; rather than allowing C -1 through C -3 commercial uses per the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict (office, personal service, retail, etc), uses are now proposed to be limited to urgent care center, medical offices, medical - related uses such as wellness or physical therapy center, and professional offices. Additional data and analysis submitted includes a revised TIS, and a market study prepared for a GMP amendment submitted in the 2006 cycle directly across Golden Gate Blvd. (CP- 2006 -2 proposing 34± acres of mixed use development including 225,000 s.f. of commercial uses, of which 8 acres and 54,000 s.f. are for office development). Also, the petitioner purports to have sent a letter with post card survey "to approximately 2800 Golden Gate Estates residents who reside within the immediate service area for our client's ... proposed GMP amendment, CP -2005- 2" and that as of May 16, 488 post cards (17.5 %) were received with 96% of those favoring commercial development at the subject site. Staff is concerned that such a significant revision to the petition after the NIM has been held, and after the CCPC hearing has been held, subverts the public input process and the role of the CCPC. Nonetheless, staff reviewed the revised petition and support materials. As a result of that review, staff's findings, conclusions and recommendation are not changed; the issues raised for the original petition are still valid for the revised petition. One specific point about the market study is that it apparently fails to include 16.3+ acres within the NW, SW and SE quadrants of the subject Neighborhood Center that are zoned E, Estates (the complete parcel inventory was not provided). This is especially relevant since the study shows such a small deficit (unmet need) of office space in the trade area - -- 22± acres in 2005 and 27± acres in 2010. Further, since the preferred use is medical office and urgent care center, staff suspects the trade area should be larger then the stated 2 miles; enlarging the trade area would increase the population, thus demand, but would also increase the available supply of land zoned - or designated so as to allow zoning - to allow these uses. 2. PETITION CP- 2005 -5, Petition requesting amendment to Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series (GGAMP /FLUM) to amend the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, to expand the Subdistrict by 13 acres, allow up to 115,000 square feet of intermediate commercial and general office uses, and allow residential uses at 15 dwelling units per acre, for property located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18t acres; Golden Gate Planning Community. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -5 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CP- 2005 -5 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/0). Speakers: Seven persons spoke. One person was in favor (of commercial, but stated reservations about the residential component); six persons were opposed (stated reasons included: proposal is out of character with the area; commercial is available nearby /lack of need for more commercial; traffic concerns; Golden Gate Parkway corridor should be preserved from commercial development; proposal is contrary to uses allowed in the existing GGAMP Subdistrict and Colonnades PUD that were negotiated between land owner and civic association). 3. PETITION CP- 2005 -6, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series (GGAMP /FLUM) to create the "Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict ", to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and the Church of God, and to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically, Tracts 43, 50, 59 and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3± acres; Golden Gate Planning Community. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -6 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -6 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/0) subject to two stipulations: (1) petitioner to submit to staff, for review prior to adoption hearings, a needs analysis pertaining to expansion of the David Lawrence Center uses [this needs analysis has been submitted; staff has reviewed it and finds that it adequately demonstrates a need for uses provided by the DLC]; and, (2) petitioner to submit a conceptual site plan for review and consideration at adoption hearings. Speakers: Two persons spoke. One stated no objection to water management and preserve area on the added easterly five acres, and no objection to expansion of David Lawrence Center but only to account for development lost to road widening; the other person stated objection to expansion of David Lawrence Center only. Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner has revised the petition to limit uses to the existing uses and those related to existing uses, thus has remove some of the proposed uses (libraries, government offices, civic and cultural facilities, and medical offices associated with group care facilities). The issue of expanded list of uses was raised by staff and discussed by CCPC, but staff does not believe the CCPC motion included elimination of these other uses. 4. PETITION NO. CP- 2006 -04, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) to modify the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Transitional Conditional Uses provision, to allow a church as a Transitional Conditional Use for the subject site abutting a residential use, for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road and ±300 feet east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.6± acres; Urban Estates Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2006 -4 to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2006 -4 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, per staff recommendation (vote: 8/0). 4 Speakers: None. 5. PETITION CP- 2005 -7, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to modify "Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict ", to add retail uses and increase maximum building square footage from 40,000 to 70,000 square feet, for property located at the northwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 10.47± acres; North Naples Planning Community. [Coordinator: Marcia Kendall, Senior Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -7 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -7 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff (vote: 6/3). Speakers: None. 6. PETITION CP- 2005 -9, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUM) to create the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands, to allow up to 90,000 square feet of retail, office and personal service uses, for property located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road, in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 8± acres; Corkscrew Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmitt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -9 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CP- 2005 -9 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/2). Speakers: One person spoke, in opposition, stating concern for impact upon tranquility of the neighborhood and wildlife in the area, and questioning the petitioner's report as to the amount of opposition by the Big Corkscrew Island Civic Association (believes there was more opposition than reported). 7. PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -10, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUM) to establish the "Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict ", to allow up to 88,110 square feet of general and heavy commercial uses, consistent with the C-4 and C -5 zoning districts of the Land Development Code, for property located at the northwest corner of US-41 East and Trinity Place, in Section 17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 9.79± acres; Royal Fakapalm Planning Community. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -10 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CP- 2005 -10 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 5/1, with 1 abstention). During the course of the hearing, the petitioner proposed the following revisions: change text stating the Subdistrict "is intended to accommodate commercial development primarily associated with adjacent commercial lands to the west (zoned C-4 and C -5) under common ownership with the subject property" to a maximum of 10% will be associated with the adjacent commercial lands [emphasis added]; lower total allowable building area from 88,110 s.f. to 75,000 s.f.; limit allowable uses from C -4 and C -5 zoning district uses to C -3 and C-4 uses; and, add a requirement to provide 9 GAP housing units via the Transfer of Development Rights process. The CCPC declined to entertain these revisions. Speakers: One person spoke, in opposition, expressing traffic concerns. 8. PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -11, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUM) to change the designation of the site from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands to "Rural- Industrial District ", to allow for approximately 500,000 square feet of building space for warehouse and manufacturing uses, for property located on the north side of US -41 East and 1,000' west of Trinity Place, in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 42.5± acres; Royal Fakapalm Planning Community. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -11 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -11 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 5/1, with 1 abstention). Speakers: None. 9. PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -12, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUM) to create the "North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrict ", for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands and North Belle Meade Overlay, to allow earth mining, oil extraction and related processing, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants and their related uses, and all Sending Lands permitted uses, conditional uses and rights as permitted uses, and requesting an amendment to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element C( CME) to reduce the Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards from 80 percent to 40 percent for this Subdistrict, for property located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 950± acres; Rural Estates Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -12 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CP- 2005 -12 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/1). The CCPC specifically expressed concerns for the impact upon wetlands, lack of hydro geologic study, and lack of conditional use process. Speakers: Five persons spoke. One person was in favor (stated the County would benefit by having needed materials for road construction, the environment would benefit from post excavation dedication to conservation, and the property owner would benefit by having reasonable use of property); one person did not state opposition but expressed concerns (increased traffic through Golden Gate Estates, more trucks in GGE at residences with the accompanying noise and pollution from truck maintenance at the residences); and, three persons were opposed (stated reasons included: the land owner would be adequately compensated through the TDR program; there would not be a hydrologic benefit, contrary to what petitioner stated; potential water pollution; loss of water through evaporation; negative impact to the environment; negative impact to the TDR program; contrary to intent and purpose of Sending Lands designation to protect environmentally sensitive lands through the TDR program — proposal allows habitat destruction and generation of TDR credits; an independent evaluation of rock inventory is needed. 10. PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -13, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUM) to create the "Collier Boulevard Community Services Subdistrict ", for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church - sponsored institutional and residential uses, and allow non - church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, up to 296 market rate of Essential Services Personnel Housing units, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR -951), one - half mile north of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69± acres; South Naples Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -13 to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -13 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff (vote: 8/1). Speakers: None. 11. PETITION NO. CPSP- 2005 -14, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUM) to re- designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands, for 90 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and in Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 11, Township 48 South Range 26 East, and Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 13, 14, 22, 27, 29 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 15 and 21, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 3,606± acres; Corkscrew, Rural Estates and Royal Fakapalm Planning Communities. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP- 2005 -14 to the BCC with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs 17 of the 90 properties requesting re- designation, as reflected on the spreadsheet attached to the CCPC Staff Report [parcels 1, 2 (portion), 36 -41, 43, 56, 61, 70, 79, 91 (portion), 92 (portion), 95, 96]. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP- 2005 -14 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, per staff's recommendation except not to include the five parcels [43, 56, 61, 70, 79] listed at that time as represented by Don Lester /15,000 Coalition (vote: 4/3). A few weeks prior to the CCPC hearing, staff received a letter of authorization from a local land use attorney for Parcel 43 (Hideout Golf Course); however, this was not noted on the spreadsheet provided to CCPC — Don Lester /15,000 Coalition was still listed. That attorney did speak at the CCPC hearing. Speakers: Four persons spoke. Three were agents for property owners and supported re- designation of their clients' property; one person expressed concerns about the properties listed as represented by Don Lester /15,000 Coalition. 12. PETITION NO. CPSP- 2005 -15, Petition requesting amendment to the Transportation Element (TE) to add new Policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8, introducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPs), Transportation Corridor Preservation Maps (TCPMs), and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. [Coordinator: Don Scott, Transportation Planning Manager] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP- 2005 -15 to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CPSP- 2005 -15 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 6/0). Speakers: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendations for the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments are as reflected above following each petition. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held their required public hearing on March 5, 2007, and continuation hearings on March 22, March 29, and April 19, 2007. The CCPC forwarded the 2005 cycle of GMP amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations as reflected above following each petition. Prepared BY: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department Note: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE BCC UNDER SEPARATE COVER. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO VIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS MAY CONTACT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE. EX SUM Transmittal 2005 Cycle GMPAs — REVISED for 7 -24 -07 BCC G: Comprehensive\Comp. Planning GMP DATAIComp. Plan Amendments12005 petitions dw17 -11 -07 r Q.- GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ sand Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects MARK W. MINOR, P.B. TORMAN.J. TRESLLCOCK, A.I.CP., P.E. DEAN SMTTK P.E. June 2, 2006 DAVID W. SCI-II M, P.E. MICHAEL, J. DELATE, P.E. MICHAEL T. HMRERA, P.E. WILSON A. GARCIA, P.B. Mr. David Weeks Comprehensive Planning Manager Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Department of Comprehensive Planning 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Petition # CP- 2005 -12, North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict Dear Mr. Weeks: D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.LC.P. ROBERT "BOB" TAIAINES, A.LCp. STE IEN V. BURGESS, PSI L JUAN A. ARAQUB, P.S.M. KENNME W. PAHUIM ALAN V. ROSEMAN JEFFREY S. CURL, ASLA, RL.A IVY WYLIE, P.E. We have prepared this letter with attachments in response to the County's insufficiency comments. Our responses are noted in bold type print. 1. Exhibits V.C.1 to V.C.3: The required environmental data, although complete, dates from 2003. Please update all data, including but not limited to: listed species surveys, FLUCCS map, wetland data and aerials. Response: Updated environmental data is enclosed for your review. 2. Exhibit V.E.1: The traffic information submitted requires additional information to review: • The TIS should contain a detailed map of the project traffic distribution. It should outline the traffic on the existing roadway network and outline any proposed future roadways that would be considered in the distribution (if applicable). The roadways defined in the distribution should be classified and detailed as to the condition, width and cross- section (e.g.., rural 18' wide, no sidewalks open drainage, condition- good/fair %poor /paved/unpaved, etc.). • The project lifetime/build -out. • Does the volume indicated assume maximum production and will this be the benchmark for future zoning requests. • Is the Traffic Statement considering any other or subsequent land use? Response: The TIS has been revised to include a traffic distribution map and details regarding the roadways within the distribution area. The volume indicated is intended to be. the maximum production volume. The ITS does not consider any future Iand use other than the use requested. (239) 9471144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via DeI Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 Mr. Kris Van Lengen Re: Petition # CP- 2005 -12, North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict May 23, 2006 Page 2 3. Exhibit V.F.1: Please submit a copy of the Flood Zone panel map as identified in the application response. Response: A copy of the Flood Zone panel map is enclosed for your review. Please contact either Richard Yovanovich at 435 -3535 or me if there are any questions. Very truly yours, � -- - D. Wayne Arnold, AICP cc: John G. Vega Richard Yovanovich VVW9771. BWGW I it. HU, APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 29, 31, AND 32 TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH RANGE 27 EAST PREPARED FOR: Francis D. Hussey, Jr. And Mary Pat Hussey 1350 Spyglass Lane Naples, Florida 34102 -7741 Kw D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 I:�J Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PETITION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT PLANNER ASSIGNED: COMMISSION DISTRICT: [ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF] This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Section,. 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Phone: (239) 403 -2300; Fax: (239) 643 6869. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97 -431 (attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239 -403 -2300. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant(s) Francis D. and Mary Pat Hussey Jr Company Mailing Address 1350 Spyglass Lane City Naples State FL Zip Code 34102 -7741 Phone Number Fax Number B. Name of Agent *Rich Yovanovich Esg * THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company/Firm Goodlette Coleman and Johnson P.A. Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239 - 435 -3535 Fax Number 239 -435 -1218 Email Address rryovanovichAgeilaw com 02/2002 B. Name of Agent* Wayne Arnold * THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company/Firm Q Grady Minor and Associates P.A. Mailing Address 3800 Via Del Rey City Bonita Springs _ State FL Zip Code 34134 Phone Number 239 -947 -1144 Fax Number 239 - 947 -0375 Email Address warnold ,gradyminor com B. Name of Agent* John G Veda * THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company/Firm Mailing Address 201 8h Street South, Suite 207 City Na -les State FL Zip Code 34102 -6141 Phone Number 239 - 659 -3251 Fax Number 239 - 659 -3427 Email Address 2 02/2002 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record Francis D. and Mary Pat Hussey, Jr. Mailing Address 1350 Spyglass Lane City Naples State FL Zip Code 34102 -7741 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Please see attached list. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Francis D. and Mary Pat Hussey, Jr. 100% 1350 Spyglass Lane Naples, Florida 34102 -7741 B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest 3 02/2002 D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LBUTED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired (1990) leased (): Terms of lease yrs /mos. If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date H. NOTE: Should any changes of ownership or charges in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final ublic hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 4 02/2002 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. Legal Description Please see attached legal description B. Section: 29, 31 and 32 Township: 49 Range: 27 C. Tax I.D. Number (Folio #) 00338240008, 00342040003, 00341960003 00328560002,00328640003 and 00331320006 D. General Location 2 miles east of Collier Boulevard, immediately north of Interstate 75 (I -75) and south of Golden Gate Estates in the area commonly referred to as North Belle Meade. E. Planning Community Royal Faka Palm F.TAZ 196 G. Size in Acres 950± H. Zoning A, RFMUD - Sending Lands - NBMO I. Present Future Land Use Map Designation (s) Sending Lands IV. TYPE OF REQUEST A. Growth Management Plan Element(s) OR Sub - Element(s) to be amended: ✓ Future Land Use Immokalee Area Master Plan Transportation Coastal & Conservation Intergovernmental Coord. Sanitary Sewer Drainage Golden Gate Area Master Plan Capital Improvement Housing Recreation & Open Space Potable Water Solid Waste Natural Groundwater Aquifer B. Amend Page(s) N/A of the N/A Element As Follows: (Use s to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: Please see attached newly proposed Future Land Use Element text C. Amend Future Land Use Map(s) designation, FROM: R_ ural Fringe Mixed Use District — Sending Lands District, Subdistrict TO: North Belie Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict District, Subdistrict [If new District and/or Sub - district proposed, include Future Land Use Map with legend depicting it]. D. Amend other Map(s) and Exhibits as follows: (Name & Page #) 5 02/2002 E. Describe additional changes requested: N/A V REQUIRED INFORMATION Note: All Aerials must be at a scale of no smaller than 1" = 4001. At least one copy reduced to 81/ x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE 1. X Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI' S, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. 2. X Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. 3. X Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 500 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION 1. X Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. X Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT - FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. 2. X Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.) 3. Yes Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. Provide copy of County's Historical/Archaeological Probability Map and correspondence from Florida Department of State. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J- 11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. NO Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 97- ll.006(1)(a)7.a,F.A.C.) If so, identify area located in ACSC. 2. NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S.? 6 02/2002 3. NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1)(c), F.S.? (Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) 4. NO Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. 5. YES Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district/subdistrict identified (commercial, industrial, etc.), or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district/subdistrict? (Reference Rule 9J- 5.006(5)F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and compatibility of use with surrounding land uses, and as it concerns protection of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J- 1.007, F.A.C.). E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. YES Provide the existing adopted Level of Service Standard (LOS, and document the impact the proposed change will have on that Standard, for each of the following public facilities: a) N/A Potable Water — property served by well b) N/A Sanitary Sewer — property served by septic c) X Arterial & Collector Roads: Name of specific road and LOS C.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) Please refer to Exhibit V.E.Ic — Traffic Impact Statement d) X Drainage e) X Solid Waste f) N/A Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1. 1.2 and 1.1.5). 2. X Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools, and emergency medical services. 3. X Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. 7 02/2002 F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: 1. D Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM),Wommunity Number 120067, Panel Number 450D, June 3 1986). 2. N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). 3. N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable. 4. N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable. 5. N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1. X $16,700.00 non - refundable filing fee, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. 2. N/A $9,000.00 non - refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. 3. Plus Legal Advertisement Costs (Your portion determined by number of petitions and divided accordingly. 4. X Proof of ownership (Copy of deed). 5. X Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (see attached form). 6. X 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments, including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 15 copies of the complete application will be required. Additional copies may be required. * Maps, aerials, sketches shall include: North arrow; name and location of principal roadways; shall be at scale of 1" = 400' or at a scale as determined during the pre- application meeting; identification of the subject site; legend or key, if applicable. All oversized documents and attachments must be folded so as to fit into a legal-size folder. For all oversized exhibits, at least one copy must be submitted at 8 -1 /z x 11 inches. All exhibits and attachments to the petition must include a title and exhibit # or letter, and must be referenced in the petition. 8 02/2002 in; D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. 1. C. Dean Smith, P.E. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3$00 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone: 239 -947 -1144 Fax: 239 - 947 -0375 Dsmith(@,ULd3mkor.com dyminor.com 2. Brown Collins Synecological Analysts 2159 Morning Sun Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34119 Phone: 239 -514 -3998 Fax: 239 -514 -0955 brownna,synecol.com 3. Jodi B. Pracht Archeologgi�c�al Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240 4. James L. Schortemeyer Certified Wildlife Biologist 34815 Avenue Southwest Naples, Florida 34117 Phone: 239 -455 -5847 SchortfireAa-ol.com 5. Jeremy Sterk Hoover Planning and Development, Incorporated 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -1 Naples, Florida 34105 Phone: 239 -403 -8333 Fax: 239 -403 -9009 jeremyC ,j oovgplanning.com 6. Roy S. DeLotelle, M.S. DeLotelle and Guthrie, Inc. 1220 Southwest 96th Street Gainesville, FL 32607 Phone: 352- 332 -3500 7. Maureen S. Bonness 7390 Rookery Lane Naples, Florida 34120 Phone: 239 - 348 -8178 Fax: 239 - 238 -8998 bonness( .infionline.net 10 02/2002 Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners MARK W. MINOR, P.E. D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. JORMAN J. TREBILCOCY, A.I.C.P., P.E. ROBERT "BOB" n -ENNFS, A.I.C.P. C. DEAN SMITH, P.E. THOMAS J. GARRIS, P.S.M. DAVID W. SC MITT, P.E. SrEPHEN V. BURGESS, P.S.M. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. ALAN V. ROSEMAN MICHAEL T. H RRERA, P.E. JEFFREY S. CURL, ASLA, RLA WILSON A. GARCIA, P.E. IVY WYL.IE, P.E. Professional Qualifications Name: C. Dean Smith, RE Education: University of Pittsburgh Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering, 1982 Masters of Business Administration, 1985 Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, Florida Professional Affiliations: Institute of Transportation Engineering Professional Experience: Since joining Q. Grady Minor. & Associates, P.A. in 1989, Mr. Smith has served as Project Engineer responsible for design and permitting of land development projects in both Lee and Collier counties. Projects completed have included residential, commercial, industrial and municipal developments. Mr. Smith's experience and expertise include transportation engineering studies, traffic signal design, roadway design, water and sanitary sewage design, surface water management system design, and site design and permitting. Prior to joining Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., Mr. Smith gained experience in project management, quality control systems, technical auditing, and applied research and development. A representative list of projects for which Mr. Smith has provided professional services include: Land Development Projects Audubon Country Club Arroyal Mall Baypointe at Naples Cay Bernwood Business Park Bernwood Courtyards at Pelican Landing Bernwood Place at Pelican Landing Bonita Fairways Citrus Park (239) 947 -1144 ■ PAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ E -Mail: engineering@gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 ■ EB /LB 0005151 Professional Qualifications - C. Dean Smith, P.E. Page 2 Land Development Projects - continued Las Brisas Legends Golf and Country Club Morton Grove Midwood Planned Development Pelican Landing Golf Maintenance Facility Spanish Wells Tidewater Island Villages of Bonita Vanderbilt Lakes Wiggins Lakes Water & Wastewater Projects Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. Phase I Regional Sanitary Sewage System Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. East Terry Street 18" Water Transmission Main Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 8" Sewage Force Main, West Terry Street Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 12" Water Transmission Main, West Terry Street Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. East Bonita Beach Road, Dual 8" Sewage Force Main Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 18" Water Transmission Main, Section 31 & 36 Transportation Projects Arroyal Mall Traffic Impact Statement Falling Waters Traffic Impact Statement Las Brisas Traffic Impact Statement Spanish Wells Drive & Bonita Beach Road Traffic Signal Spanish Wells Traffic Impact Statement Sterling Oaks Traffic Impact Statement Villages of Bonita Traffic Impact Statement srco�LaL ANALYSTS Environmental Evaluation and Advocacy BROWN COLLINS EDUCATION B.S., Range Science, Texas A &M University, 1969 M.S. Range Science (Plant Ecology /Soils), Texas A &M University, 1972 SUMMARY Brown Collins has a graduate degree in ecology and more than 30 years of southwest Florida experience. He brings realism founded on a firm technical base to the process of environmental evaluation and permitting. He has permitted hundreds of projects with many degrees of ecological complexity. Recent projects relevant to this proposal include RMC South Florida Materials Corkscrew Road Mine, University Lakes, University Lakes West, Southwest Florida Rock and Corkscrew Woods. All these projects are in the Alico- Corkscrew corridor. Historic projects include the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Miami Jetport and IMC Phosphate Mine, Phase I. Other projects of interest include mapping several thousand acres in the ST A 3/4 Area of the Everglades Restoration Project, State Road 29 improvements from 1 -75 to Copeland and all Florida Department of Transportation mitigation site monitoring from Polk County to Collier County. Mr. Collins has following accomplishments. Obtained over 400 permits and approvals for projects impacting wetlands. Mapped more than 250,000 acres of Florida plant communities, primarily wetlands. Sampled and quantitatively analyzed more than 50,000 acres. Mapped more than 100,000 acres of soils and technically edited NRCS county Soil Surveys As president and founder of Synecological Analysts, Inc., his focus has been primarily with wetland determinations, project permitting and wetland mitigation and enhancement. Suite 200,2159 Morning Sun Lane, Naples, FL 34119 239 -514 -3998 Fax: 514 -0955 brown @synecol.com < James L. Schortemeyer 3481 5th Ave. SW Naples, F134117 941 -455 -5847 Schortfire @aol.com 12 June 2003 Education and acquired skills: BSF University of Florida 1969: Major, Wildlife Ecology MS University of Florida 1976: Major, Wildlife Ecology Certified Wildlife Biologist, The Wildlife Society, 1978 Certified Prescribed Burner, Florida Division of Forestry, 1990 Instructor /Coordinator, Florida Interagency Prescribed Fire Training, 1991 Work Experience: 1983 -2000 District Wildlife Administrator Southwest Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Responsible for agency wildlife management programs in Southwest Florida including all or parts of Lee, Collier, Hendry, Dade and Monroe counties. Duties include design, implementation and evaluation of a wide array of programs including habitat management, population monitoring, public use regulation, permitting, emergency responses to critical wildlife problems, nuisance wildlife, employee supervision, volunteer programs and cooperative agreements. Served as the lead biologist on the Big Cypress area including Big Cypress National Preserve. Developed new program for monitoring recreational hunting on an. extremely large (560,000 acres) area with unlimited access. Conducted deer surveys and recreational use studies with emphasis on issues related to Florida panther survival. Instituted systematic aerial wading bird surveys in cooperation with Everglades National Park and others to document interior South Florida populations. Conducted habitat management programs including prescribed burning, exotic vegetation control and planting native woody vegetation on the Jetport unit. Participated in workshops and served on a variety of interagency teams providing input on enhancing panther habitat. Proposed and evaluated new regulations designed to improve prey management for the panther. 1970 -1982 Everglades Recreation Project Leader/Wildlife Biologist, Everglades Wildlife Management Area. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Worked with the Everglades Recreational Planning Board to develop a recreational use and access plan for the Everglades with emphasis on the three Water Conservation Areas. Developed recreational access on the fringes of the Everglades and instituted interior habitat management programs including prescribed burning, construction of artificial wildlife islands, enhancement of spoil banks, and exotic vegetation control. Resolved wildlife issues throughout the Everglades region and served as the Division and agency representative at a variety of meetings and functions_ 1970 -1972 Wildlife Biolo is Everglades Wildlife Mana ement Area. Florida Game d Fresh Water Fish Commission an Designed and implemented wildlife programs on the 725,000 acre Everglades Wildlife Management Area. Wildlife studies included work on deer, wild hogs, and alligators. Habitat management activities include investigations on the impact of off road vehicles and fie ecology. Habitat management programs included prescribed burning, exotic vegetation control, and restoration and management of natural and artificial upland sites. Accomplishments Early work focused on wildlife responses to water management practices in the Everglades. Evaluated fawn rescue attempt during 1970 high water event. Low survival rate for fawns captured and subsequently restocked in the Everglades demonstrated the failure of this management technique. Designed and evaluated programs to construct artificial wildlife islands and improve upland habitat values on canal spoil banks. Program included planting these sites with a variety of woody plant species. A major focus of these studies was the documentation of wildlife responses to water management Practices in the central Everglades (Conservation Area #3). This work and subsequent agreements led to the construction of the first "ecological water control structures" known as 5 -339 and 5 -340 on the Miami canal in CA3. Later work focused on the Big Cypress region of South Florida. Deer management has been a major project for the Big Cypress field station and several new strategies have been developed for monitoring and managing deer both as a primary food source for Florida panthers and an important game animal. The "five inch" antler rule, restrictions on ATV's, extended quota periods, and additional regulations on private lands were established as part of this program. Other prey management issues have focused on managing wild hogs as an important panther food and implementing habitat management programs for prey species. Planned, executed and evaluated prescribed fires in a variety of Florida habitats beginning in 1970. Since 1990 Jim has been actively involved in Florida's Interagency Prescribed Fire training program. He has served as an instructor, session coordinator, and steering committee member for this nationally recognized training program which is designed to improve prescribed burning in Florida's rapidly changing landscape. 2 Lift_ of Publications: Schortemeyer, J. L. 1972. Destruction of alligator habitat in Florida. American Alligator Council Symposium, Lake Charles, La. 71 -76 Schortemeyer, J. L. 1980. An evaluation of water management practices for optimum wildlife benefits in Conservation Area 3A. Florida Game and Fresh Water Comm Lauderdale, Fl. 74pp. Schortemeyer, J. L. 1994. Habitat management for panthers in South Florida - an overview. Pages 450_466 in D. B. Jordan ed. Proceedings of the Florida panther conference. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Schortemeyer, J. L., R. E. Johnson and J. P. West. 1980. A preliminary report an wildlife occurrence in Melaleuca heads in the Everglades Wildlife Management Area. 75pp. ades National Schortemeyer, J. L. and P. Rosendahl. 1983. The Conservation Areas d Eve Pars. Handbook on the Biscayne Aquifer: Water Conservation and Health and Cost of Drinking Water. 20 -31. Schortemeyer, J. L. and S. L. Beckwith. 1971. Chemical control of pigeon reproduction. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conferences. 35:47 -55. Schortemeyer, J, L., D. S. Maehr, I. W. McCown, E. D. Land, and P. D. Manor. 1991. Prey management for the Florida Panther: a unique role for wildlife managers. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:512 -526. Schemnitz, S. D. and J. L. Schortemeyer. 1973. The influence of vehicles on Florida Everglades vegetation. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 74pp. Schemnitz, S. D. and J. L. Schortemeyer. 1973. The impact of halflracks and airboats on the Florida Everglades environment Proceedings of the 1973 snowmobile and off road vehicle research symposium. Kushlan, J. A. and J. L. Schortemeyer. 1974. Glossy ibis nesting in southern Florida. Fl. Field Naturalist. 2:13 -14. aehr D. S., J. L. Schortemeyer, E. D. Land, and D. K Jansen. 1988. An Unusual nest site for M, purple martins. Fl. Field Naturalist. 16:35 -37. Flemming, D. M., J. L. Schortemeyer, and J. Ault. 1994. Distribution and abundance of white tailed deer in the Florida Everglades. Pages 247-- ,21751 i5 D. B. Jordan ed. Proceedings of the Florida panther conference. U. S. Fish and `d HOOVER PLYING & DEVELOPMENT, INC, Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B-1, Naples, Florida 34105 Jeremy C. Sterk Education St C-, loud State University, B.S., Magna Cum Laude, Aquatic Biology, 1994. Professional Affiliations National Association of Environmental Professionals Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Work History December 2002 to Present Environmental Consultant \ Land Planning Consultant Hoover Planning & Development, Inc. Naples, Florida September 1994 to December 2002 Environmental Consultant Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. Ft. Myers, Florida professional Exnedence ■ Vegetation & Habitat Mapping ■ Environmental Assessments ■ Protected Species Surveys ■ Species Management Plans ■ Wetland Delineation ■ Wetland Jurisdictional Determinations ■ Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) ■ Mitigation Planning & Design ■ Wetland Monitoring ■ Post Permit Compliance • GIS / GPS Mapping • Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) • Environmental Land Use Planning • Site Planning • Native Vegetation Restoration Plans • Gopher Tortoise Relocations • Incidental Take Permitting • PUD Submittals • Conditional Use Requests • Rezone Requests Experience in Lee, Collier, Cbarlotte, Glades, and Hendry Counties. Other Professional Experiences 1994. Wrote & published commercial computer software for the rapid identification of freshwater algae, Computer Assisted Algal Recognition (CAAR). 1996. Headed a field research project using telemetry tracking to study the swimming speed of lemon sharks in the Bahamas. 1998. Wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water Management District as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. Land Plaaniing: (239) 403 -8899 Fax: (239) 403 -9009 Environmental: (239) 403 -8333 HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, IP C. Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -I, Naples, Florida 34105 JEREMY -STERK Current Responsibilities Environmental assessments, protected species surveys, wetland flagging, jurisdictional determinations for the South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Impacts Statements (EIS), wetland monitoring, permit compliance, vegetation and habitat mapping, species management plans, mitigation planning & design, GIS /GPS mapping, environmental permitting, environmental land use planning, site planning, PUD's submittals, conditional use requests and re- zonings. Education St. Cloud State University, B.S., Magna Cum Laude, Aquatic Biology, 1994. Professional Affiliations National Association of Environmental Professionals Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Work History December 2002 to Present Environmental Consultant \ Land Planning Consultant Hoover Planning & Development, Inc. September 1994 to December 2002 Environmental Scientist Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. Ft. Myers, Florida Relevant Experience Mr. Sterk has acquired substantial environmental experience conducting field work and producing reports and applications for wetland and wildlife surveys, wetland monitoring, species management plans, mitigation design, environmental land use planning, and environmental permitting. Ile has over 9 years of full time experience in Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Glades, and Hendry Counties:. In the process, he has worked with a wide range of clients and agencies. In 1996, during a leave o' absence from Boylan Environmental Consultants, Jeremy headed a field research project w ing telemetry tracking to study the swimming speed of sub -adult lemon sharks. He has extensity e computer experience and is proficient in many computer applications, including AutoCAD. ArcView, ArcCad and GPS /GIS applications. In 1994, Jeremy commercially published a c )mputer program for rapid identification of freshwater algae. In 1998, Jeremy wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water Management District that was part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. Land Planning: Environmental Planning: Phone: 239 -403 -8899 Phone: 23 � 403 -8333 Fax: 239403 -9009 Fax: 231403-9009 email: bill @hooverplanning.com email: jeremy@hooverplrnning.com Roy S. DeLotelle, M.S. DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. Environmental Permitting & Endangered & Threatened Species Qualifications: ✓ 27 years experience in conducting surveys on wildlife communities. ✓ Supervised and conducted reserarch for mitigation alternatives for wildlife species from the panhandle to the Florida Keys on thirty different species. ✓ A member of the Red- cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Team. ✓ Completed five different Habitat Conservation Plans for the FWS. ✓ Extensive experience in the south and central Florida region including the vicinity of the study area. ✓ Completed other Mitigation Plans for. endangered species. ✓ Prepared Draft Safe Harbor Agreement for TM- Ranch. . Professional History: DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. 1992 - Present, President Aiverez, Lehman, & Associates, Inc. 1987 -1992, Senior Scientist Environmental Science &. Engineering, Inc. 1976 -1987, Senior Scientist Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. 1975 -1976, Biologist U.S. Marines. 1968 -1972, Captain - Helicopter Pilot Relevant Experience: Project Scientist for development of a draft Red-cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor agreement for the TM Ranch Mitigation Bank in Orange County, Florida. Studies Included population inventory, banding, reproductive monitoring, and plan development. 1999 to Present. Project Scientist for development of Mitigation Plan and Draft Biological Assessment for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers along the Proposed Alafaya Trail Extension in Orange County, Florida, 2001 to present. Project Manager for development and implementation of a Red - cockaded Woodpecker Enhancement Plan for Picayune Strand State Forest near Naples Florida. Florida Department of Forestry, 1999 to Present. Project Scientist for survey of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers along CR 951. 2000 -2001. Project Manager for development and implementation of Red - cockaded Woodpecker Enhancement Plan, St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve, Project Number 97B341, St. Johns River Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1997 to Present. Project Manager for developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on development site in Brevard County, Florida. Included cluster creation, translocation, banding, reproduction monitoring, and habitat analysis. 1994 to 1999. Project Manager and Scientist for demographic assessment and population expansion for a Red - cockaded Woodpecker population (Hal Scott Preserve) in south-central Florida. St. Johns River Water Management District. 2001 -2003. Project Manager for DRI permits, take permits, and development of HCPs for Red- cockaded Woodpecker and HCP for the Florida ScxutHay and Eastern Indigo Snake on a development site (13,500 acres) near Ocala, Florida. Red - cockaded Woodpecker studies included banding of adults and nestlings, translocation of young, artificial cavity installation, and evaluation of habitat. Other work for the HCP included population studies on Florida BunmMng Owls, Gopher Tortoises, Eastern Indigo Snakes, Southeastern Kestrel and Sherman Fox Squirrel. 1984 to present. HCPs for RCWs and ScruNay and incidental Take Permits were approved in 1996 and 1999, respectively. Project Manager for developing a draft iTP and an HCP for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on lime rock mine, Crystal River, Florida. Created clusters and moved birds. 19941999. Project Manager for developing a draft ITP and an HCP for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on a logging site in Alachua County, Florida. Moved birds. 1994 -1999. Project Manager, responsible for endangered species studies on south Florida power plant site (FPL). Endangered species Issues focused on Sandhill Cranes, Gopher Tortoise and Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. A management plan for the Florida. Grasshopper Sparrow was developed after discovering a small on -site population. 1992. Endangered species assessment of a rural highway on a small population of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in Orange County, Florida 1985 -1989. Project Manager for wildlife assessment of the Lake George Basin near Ocala, Florida for the St. Johns River Water Management District. Study focused on endangered and threatened wildlife species within a 783 square mile area. 1990 -1991. Project Scientist for surveys of wildlife communities along proposed High Speed Rail Corridors in central/south Florida. Listed upland and freshwater semi - aquatic species were the focus of these surveys including Southern Bald Eagles, Crested Caracara, Florida Scrub jays, Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, and others. During these surveys over 31 protected species were encountered and evaluated In central Florida. 1998 -99. Project Manager for assessment of affects of power plant (OUC Stanton 1 & 2) development and operation on Red - cockaded Woodpeckers and Florida Scrub-jays. Duties included development of habitat management plans in 1982 and 1992 for Red - cockaded Woodpecker and upland and wetland mitigation plans in 1991 for Water Management Districts and DER Conducted evaluation of transmission lines. Monitoring studies on Red - cockaded Woodpeckers included banding of all adults and nesSings, home range, habitat use, reproduction, and populations .dynamics. 1980 to present. Endangered Species Scientist for a routing study (FPC) for proposed transmission line through the largest Red - cockaded Woodpecker population on private lands near Thomasville, Georgia. 1992. Project Scientist for route selection of proposed pipeline through major Red - cockaded Woodpecker population in southwest Georgia. Additional studies included other protected species and important wildlife areas such as sinks. 1996. Project Manager and Scientist, responsible for biological assessment on Red - cockaded Woodpecker population for several small road and transmission line projects in western Orange County, Florida. 1985. Project Manager, biological assessment on Red-cockaded Woodpecker for a gas drilling operation on D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge in Monroe, Louisiana. Conducted surveys of habitats potentially used by Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. Provided impact assessment and testimony for hearing in civil action suit brought by an environmental organization against the client. 1986. Task Manager, conducted endangered species evaluation and wildlife inventory for proposed development site near Wilmington, North Carolina . Seven colonies of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers were found on -site and in surrounding habitats. Conducted inventory of colony resources including cavity trees and potential cavity trees. Also conducted inventory to determine the quality of foraging resources including age and class distribution and density of pine stands. Developed management plan. 1984. Task Manager, conducted biological assessment on large farming operation (wetland impacts) for Southern Bald Eagle, American Alligator, and Red - cockaded Woodpecker in North Carolina. Located one colony of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers and several potential nest sites of the American alligator in pocosin habitat on inland coastal swamps. 1986. .Project Scientist, conducted endangered species surveys for corridor certification for Florida Power & Light. The line was 175 miles in length and included surveys for Bald Eagle nests, Red - cockaded Woodpeckers, and Scrub�ays. Because of the presence of several Bale Eagle nests and Red - cockaded Woodpecker colonies on the proposed line, the proposed line was moved to avoid harming the better quality habitat and reducing mitigation requirements. 1987. Project Manager, biological assessment of endangered species (Florida Panther and Red-cockaded Woodpecker) conducted for Exxon Company, USA, in the Big Cypress National Preserve. 1983 -1984. Project Scientist for assessment of endangered species (Florida Panther, Red - cockaded Woodpecker, and others) for oil exploration operations in the Big Cypress National Preserve, Near Naples, Florida. Evaluation included literature and agency review, aerial, and ground surveys. 1997.. Work Related Experience: Studies for development and industry projects on endangered and. threatened wildlife species including 31 biological assessments covering 30 different state and federally listed species. These . species ranged from the Florida Panther, the Florida Black Bear to the Southeastern Kestret, Gopher Tortoise, and others (See above). I recently completed an intensive banding and nesting survey of adults and nestling Scrub�ays. These studies have included work with nesting heron and egret populations in various habitats of the southeast. Incidental take permits were obtained for federally and state protected species. Organization Review: Organized and conducted Red- cockaded Woodpecker workshop. 1986. Reviewed and commented on endangered species guidelines for state and federal agencies. 1990 -1991. Member of the 1996- Present Red - cockaded Woodpecker recovery team. Publications and Reports: DeLotelle, R. S. 1976. A Surrey of the Herpetofauna of Standing Stone State Park, Tennessee. Masters Thesis, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee, 64 pp. R. S. 1978. The Current Status of the Endangered Colonial Pocket Winchester, w (GeornyDeLotelle, onus). Oriole. Winchester, B. H., DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and McClave, J. T. 1979. Ecological Management of the Colonial Pocket Gopher: A Progress Report: Proceedings Rare and Endangered Wildtife Symposium, August 3-4,1978. University of Georgia. DeLotelle, R. S., Fletcher, S. W., and Arcud, A. N. 1981. Pattems of Wading Bird Utilization natural and Altered Freshwater Marshes: Causes and Management implications. SymPosi Wetlands Management and Restoration. Kissimmee River and Taylor Slough Coordinating Council, Tallahassee, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S. 1982. Endangered Species Mitigation - Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Florida Field Biologist, Gainesville, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S. and Newman, J. R. 1983. Possible Factors 106 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium it Colony Abandonments: A case study Pp. 104 - Proc. (Wood, D.A., ed.). Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S. Tallahassee, Florida. Newman J. R, and Jerauld, A. 1983. Habitat Use by Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in DeLotelle, R. S., um ii Prot. (Woad, D.A , ed.). Central Florida. Pp. 59-67 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S. Tallahassee, Florida. Jerauid, A., DeLotelle, R. S., and Newman, J. R. 1983. Restricted Red - cockaded Woodpecker Clan Movement During Reproduction. Pp. 97 -99 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II Proceedings. Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S.. (D. A. Wood, ed.). Tallahassee, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and Epting, R. J. 1987. Habitat Use and Territory Characteristics of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers In Central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 99(2) 202 -217. DeLotelle, R. S., and Epting, R. J. 1988. Cavity Tree Selection by Rte- cockaded Woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:48 -52. DeLatelie, R.S., and Epting, R.J. 1992. Reproduction of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 104 (2) 285 -294. DeLotelle, R.S. 1992. issues and Conflicts Associated with the Red - cockaded Woodpecker. Western Systems Coordinating Council, the Edison Electric Institute Act C�encePLakcev Power Colorado. Association. Reauthorization of the Endangered Species DeLotelle, R.S., Epting, R.J. and DeMuth, G.A. 1995. A 12 -year Synopsis of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in Central Florida. Pages 259 -269 in D. L Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa. Red- cockaded Woodpecker Symposium III: Species Recovery, Ecology, aNa� Texas. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, R.S., and Beaty, T. 1995. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Territory and Habitat Use Epting, R.J., DeLotelle, in Georgia and Florida. Pages 259 -269 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium III: Species Recovery, Ecology, and Management- for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, DeLotelle, R. S., and D.L. Leonard, Jr. 2000. Population enhancement for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers at the St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve. Project Number 978341. St. Johns River Water Management District. Palatka, FL. 50pp. DeLotelle, R.S., Epting, R.J. and Leonard D., 2003. Management Strategies for Recovery of Fragmented Red-cockaded Woodpecker Populations: a Metapopulation Approach. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. DeLotelle, R.S., Leonard D., and Epting, R.J. 2003. Hatch Failure Rates and Brood Reduction in Three Central Florida Red - cockaded Woodpecker Populations. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Epting, R.J., DeLotelle, R.S., and Leonard D. 2003. Fledgling Sex ratios and Demographics of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Epting, R.J., DeLotelle, R.S., and Leonard D. 2003. Forest Stand Selection by Foraging Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker; Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Leonard D., DeLotelle, R.S., and Epting, R.J. 2003. Factors Contributing to Variation in Fledgling Production in central Florida Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker; Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Expert Testimony: 1982. Provided testimony as an endangered species biologist at the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) hearings for site certification of Stanton I, Favorable Ruling by Hearing Office; 1984. Provided expert testimony on the potential impacts on a local RCW population in Louisiana from a gas field expansion at a civil action suit brought by an environmental organization, Favorable Ruling; 1984. Assisted in deposing Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission biologist on the Florida panther for issues related to road development in the Big Cypress National Preserve; 1985. Same as 1984 Louisiana - hearing listed above, Favorable Ruling; 1988. Provided expert testimony on wetlands impacts and endangered species for landfill sighting (Administrative), County obtained their permits; 1991. Provided expert testimony as a wildlife ecologist for continued development by OUC with respect to wetlands and endangered species for Stanton II, OUC obtained their permits; 1992 -1994. Provided expert testimony on RCWs issues at interagency meetings on a proposed road extension through a RCW habitat management area. Client obtained permits. FROM Maureen Bonness PHONE NO. : 2393488998 Apr. 05 2005 03:15PM P2 MAUREEN S. BONNESS 7390 Rookery Lane Naples, FL 34120 QUALIFICATIONS PH (239) 348 -8178 FAX 239- 238 -8998 bonness@infionline.net • Seven years experience in southwest Florida monitoring vegetation and conducting wildlife surveys. Natural areas manager for preserves in- Collier and Charlotte counties. • Environmental consultant for permitting of EDUCATION B.S. 1982. University of Wisconsin - Madison, Botany Department Ph.D. 1992: The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Botany Dissertation Title: "Pokeweed Antiviral Protein Inactivates Pokeweed Ribosomes; Implications for the ,Antiviral Mechanism" PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Environmental Consultant in southwest Flow 1997 to present. Natural Areas Manager for Willow Run Preserve (225 acre private preserve). Supervise restoration and maintenance of preserve. Conduct field work, write environmental monitoring reports, and assist in acquisition of permits from government regulatory agencies. 'Willow Run Preserve is the first applicant in Collier County for an RCW Safe Harbor agreement. Held techniques: vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, vegetation sampling, removing invasive plants, prescribed burns_ (South Belle Meade) 2003 to present_ HHH Ranch environmental surveys. Vegetation mapping, wildlife surveys, RCW habitat analyses (pine basal area plots), RCW foraging and cavity surveys, RCW banding, create RCW .Habitat Management Plan_ (North Belle Meade) 2003 to present. Supervisor of a recipient site for 50 relocated gopher tortoises. Conduct burrow surveys, trap tortoises, frequent monitoring of site and tortoises. (South Belle Meade) 1997 to present. Environmental consultant for or several small preserves (ranging from 2 to 90 acres) associated with fill pits or lime-rock mines. Write FROM : Maureen Bonness PHONE NO. : 2393488998 Apr. 05 2005 03:15PM P3 Alucreen Bonness page 2 environmental monitoring reports, remove invasive plants, vegetation sampling, and assist in acquisition of permits from regulatory agencies. Shady Hollow (northern Collier County), 'Winchester Lakes (eastern Collier County), and Coral Rock (southern Charlotte County). Adjtwgt Professor; Instructor 2000 -2003. Florida Gulf Coast University 1992. The Universiry of Texas at Austin Field Research Assistant 2001 to present Frog Listening Network_ Collier County, FL. Group Ieader for Big Corkscrew Island transect. 2000. Ted Center, USDAIARS Invasive Plant Research lab, Fort Lauderdale, FL Determine melaleuca weevil distribution from Picayune release site. 1998 -1999. Mary Carrington, Univ. of Florida, Immokalee, FL Assist in determining effect of harvesting saw palmetto berries on bear foraging behavior, and investigating pollination biology of saw palmetto. 1985 -1996. Dennis Cornejo, University of Texas at Austin Collection of field data for two projects: a) morphological evolution and biogeography of Mexican columnar cacti, and b) larval community structure in four species of Sonoran Desert toads. Lecturina Naturalist 1986 -1996. Unblad Expeditions, Inc., New York, NY Naturalist on. small cruise ships specializing in natural history expeditions to remote areas of the globe including Baja California, Alaska, Greenland, Amazon and Orinoco Rivers, Central America, and Papua New Guinea. Postdoctoral Research Assistant 1996 - ,1997. Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, The University of Texas at Austin_ Supervisor -, Jon D_ Robertus. Several genes for ribosome - inactivating- proteins were isolated and cloned from Phytolacca rivinoides. 1995 -1996. AgBiotech Center, Rutgers Universityl Supervisor. Nilgun E. Tamer ,Determine mechanism of action for pokeweed antiviral protein through the use of transgenic plants. 1992 -1995. Department of Botany, The University of Texas at Austin/ Supervisor. Tom J. Mabry. Investigate biosynthetic pathway of phytoalexins from cactus cultures, and the physiological role of antiviral proteins from ,Phytolacca. FROM Maureen Bonness PHONE NO. : 2393488998 Apr. 05 2005 03:16PM P4 Maureen Bonness page 3 RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 2002 to present. Frequent participation in public meetings concerning environmental issues in North Belle Meade, including meetings of the Rural Fringe Advisory Board, North Belle Meade Stakeholders Group, and Collier County Listed Species Stakeholders Group. 2004. " Fellow" of the Collier County Audubon Society, granted for "outstanding achievement that has benefited the natural world" 2004,2(X)3- Participant in annual meetings of the South and Central Florida Recovery Unit for RCWs. 2004 to present. Book reviewer for Ray Ashton & Patricia Ashton books on gopher tortoise natural history and management. 2000 to present_ Licensed commercial pesticide applicator (forestry) ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES (recent) Seminar OrZanizer 1998 — present. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Organize a bi- monthly seminar series. 2001. Plant Biologists of South Florida Primary organizer for the annual meeting (70 attendees). iblic Presentations 2002 to 2005. "Bioprospecting for Medicinal Plants" presented to many groups, including the Florida Native Plant Society (annual meeting 2004), Tampa chapter of Native Plant Society (Nov_, 2004), The Conservancy of Southwest. Florida (2002), garden clubs, social clubs, etc. 2001 and 2000. Discover Corkscrew Program "Natural Area and Wildlife Management" 1999_ Calusa Nature Center "Plants at Cal usa Nature Center" 1998 Corkscrew Seminar Series "Saw Palmetto and the Herb Industry" Volunteer 1997— present Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Supervise interns' independent research projects. Conduct workshops to teach volunteers about plants. Assist with prescribed bums. FROM : Maureen Bonness PHONE NO. : 23934BB99B Apr. 05 2005 03:16PM P5 Maureen !annex, [k3yc 4 CURRENT AFFILIATIONS Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council Society for Economic Botany American Botanical Council Friends of Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve PUBLICATIONS Turner, NE, DJ Hwang, M Bonness. 1997. C- terminal deletion mutant of pokeweed antiviral protein inhibits viral infection but does not depurinate host ribosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94,3866-3871. Bonness, MS, NE Turner, TJ Mabry. 1997. Potential Agents for the Commercialization of Virus - Resistant Transgenic Plants. Pages 293 -300 IN (eds. WW Cooper, S Thore, D Gibson, F Phillips) Impact. How IC2 Research Affects Public Policy and Business Markets IC2 Institute. Austin, Texas. Par6, PW, Q Liu, MS Bonness, M Liu, RA Dixon, TJ Mabry. 1996. Cephalocereus senilis (old -man- cactus): In vitro cultures and the elicitation of flavonoids. IN (ed_ 'YPS Bajaj) Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, vol 37. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants IX_ pp. 97 -107. Springer- Verlag. Hartley, MR, JA Chaddock, MS Bonness. 1996. The structure and function of ribosome - inactivating proteins. Trends in Plant Sciences 1, 254 -260. (invited review) Koch, PE, MS Bonness, H Lu, TJ Mabry. 1996. Protoplasts from Phytolacca dodecandra L'Herit (endod) and P. americana L. (pokeweed). Plant Cell Reports 15, 824 -828. Pan, M, NS Bonness, TJ Mabry. 1995. Nonprotein amino acids from Gymnocladu.s dioica_ Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 23, 575-576- Liu, Q, MS Bonness, M Liu, E Seradge, RA Dixon, TJ Mabry. 1995. Enzymes of B- ring deoxy flavonoid biosynthesis in elicited cell cultures of "old man" cactus (Cephalocereus senilis). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 321, 397 -404. Bonness, MS, MP Ready, JD Irvin, TJ Mabry. 1.994. Pokeweed antiviral protein inactivates pokeweed ribosomes; Implications for the antiviral mechanism. The Plant Journal 5,173-183. Bonness, MS, PW Pare, TJ Mabry. 1993. Novel callus and suspension cultures of the "old man" cactus (Cephalocereus senilis). Cactus and Succulent Journal 65, 144 -147. Bonness, HIS, TJ Mabry. 1992. Tissue culture of endod (Phytolacca dodecandra L'Herit): growth and production of ribosome- inactivating proteins. Plant Cell Reports 11, 66-70. Roiaitess, MS_ 1990_ Promising new drugs from plants: poisons that heal. Herbarist 56, 59-68. MOM : Maureen Bonness PHONE NO. : 2393488998 Apr. 05 2005 03:17PM P6 BOOK Maureen Bonness page 5 Mabry, TJ, HT Nguyen, RA Dixon, MS Bonness (Editors). 1994. Biotechnology for Aridland Plants. IC2 Institute. Austin, Texas. PAPERS PRESENTED (selected) Bonness, MS. 2002. Recent Trends in Botanical Drug Discovery. Plant Biologists of South Flodda annual meeting. Bonness, MS, TJ Mabry. 1996. Pokeweed antiviral protein throughout a growing season: Hints for the endogeouns function. Annual meeting, Amer. Soc. Pl. Physiol. San Antonio, TX, July 28 -31. Bonness, M, N Turner, DJ Hwang, A Chiang, O Zoubenko, P Wang. 1996. Antiviral proteins from plants and their therapeutic applications. Monroe Wall Symposium, New Brunswick, NJ, June 2 -5. Seradge, E, Q Liu, NIS Bouness, RA Dixon, TJ Mabry. 1995. Cell cultures and elicitation of the cactus species Cephalocereus senile: Novel flayonoids from elicited cultures. International Bioflavonoid Symposium. Vienna, Austria, July 16-19. Bonness, MS, TJ Mabry. 1993. Pokeweed antiviral protein —An antiviral agent for plants and people. Annual meeting, Amer. Sac. Pharmacognosy. San Diego, CA, July 18-22. ITT a. ....... ...... ALL - T 'loti pi NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT III.A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF SECTIONS 29, 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE N. 02'22'14" E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 2,654.82 FEET TO THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE CONTINUE N. 02022'14" E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET; THENCE N. 86 °23'47" W., A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET; THENCE S. 02022'14" W., A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE N. 86 °23'47" W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1,320.00 FEET; THENCE N. 02022'14" E., A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET; THENCE N. 86 °23'47" W., A DISTANCE OF 990.00 FEET; THENCE S. 02 022'14" W., A DISTANCE OF 660.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE N. 86° 23'47" W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1,802.71 FEET; THENCE S. 01 036'40" W., A DISTANCE OF 1,351.06 FEET; THENCE S. 86 040'29" E., A DISTANCE OF 679.17 FEET; THENCE S. 01 °42'52" W., A DISTANCE OF 673.82 FEET; THENCE N. 86 °48'55" W., A DISTANCE OF 677.90 FEET; THENCE S. 01 °36'46" W., A DISTANCE OF 675.52 FEET; THENCE N. 86 057'22" W., A DISTANCE OF 676.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29, THE SAME BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE S. 02 003'23" W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/ OF SAID SECTION 32, A DISTANCE OF 2,645.17 FEET TO THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE S. 01'54'41" W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32, A DISTANCE OF 1,979.06 FEET; THENCE N. 86 003'44" W., A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET; THENCE S. 01 °55'45" W., A DISTANCE OF 559.93 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE 100.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE S. 85'59'11" E., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 330.19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE CONTINUE S. 85059'11" E., ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 5,394.34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE N. 02 012'42" E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 32, A DISTANCE OF 5,275.57 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 41,806,139 SQUARE FEET OR 959.74 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LESS AND EXCEPT A PORTION OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE N. 86 °57'22" W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 2,368.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N. 86 °57'22" W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 676.60 FEET; THENCE N. 01'52'46" E., A DISTANCE OF 671.29 FEET; THENCE S. 86 °48'55" E., A DISTANCE OF 677.90 FEET; THENCE S. 01'59'15" W., A DISTANCE OF 669.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 453,961 SQUARE FEET OR 10.42 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOTAL PROPERTY CONTAINING 41,352,178 SQUARE FEET OR 949.32 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND /OR RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING N 02-22'14" E (ASSUMED). wIT i T LCB- E-;:. � - 7_ G_� "� i Wi I T H- IPI 'N- TEXT ,-- A EXHIBIT IV.B COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Add Number 5 on Page 76 of the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (X111) 11. AGRICULTURAL /RURAL DESIGNATION (IX) B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict The north Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict comprises approximately 950± acres located in Sections 29 31 and 32 Township 49 Range 27 East The North Belle Meade Special Use Area represents a transitional area located between lands designated sending and those designated Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) on the Future Land Use Map The North Belle Meade Special Use does contain environmentall sensitive lands; however, historic development and drainage due to development of Golden Gate Estates and 1 -75 have lessened the environmental sensitivity of these lands. The North Belle Meade Special Use Area contains significant deposits of hard limestone, which_ _provides source material for road construction and building materials. The intent of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area is to permit all uses permitted and conditional and rights permitted on lands designated as sending lands, as well as earth mining oil extraction and related processing asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, and related uses as permitted uses. A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present on -site shall be retained in accordance with Policy 6.1.2 of the conservation and Coastal Management Element. (IX) 45. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards — The requirements of this District shall not apply to, affect or limit the continuation of existing uses. Existing uses shall include: those uses for which all required permits were issued prior to June 19, 2002; or projects for which a Conditional use or Rezone petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, land use petitions for which a completed application has been submitted prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing uses. Hereafter, such previously approved developments shall be deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Objectives and Policies and for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and they may be built out in accordance with their previously approved plans. Changes to these previous approvals shall also be deemed to be consistent with the Plan's Goals, Policies and Objectives for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as long as they do not result in an increase in development density or intensity. EXHIBIT IV.B COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Amend Page 81 of the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT b. Minimum lowest floor elevation permitted for structures shall be at or above the 100 - year flood level, as established by the Administrator of the Federal Flood Insurance Administration. The construction of any structure shall meet additional Federal Flood Insurance Land Management and Use Criteria (24 CFR 1910), as administered by the appropriate local agency. c. This rule shall not apply to structures used or intended for use in connection with the agricultural use of the land. All Development Orders issued for projects within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern shall be rendered to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for review with the potential for appeal to the Administration Commission per Chapter 9J -1, Florida Administrative Code, "Development Order Requirements for Areas of Critical State Concern". (IX) B. North Belle Meade Overlay The North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay is depicted on the FLUM. Uses shall be as provided for in Receiving, Neutral, NRPA and non -NRPA Sending Lands. Development and preservation standards within this Overlay shall be as provided herein. (IX)(XIII) 1. IN GENERAL The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises ±24 -22.5 sections of land (± 15�52-14,602 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The NBM Overlay area is unique to the Rural Fringe area because it is surrounded by areas that are vested for development on three sides. Because this area is largely undeveloped and includes substantial vegetated areas, the Sending Lands can and do provide valuable habitat for wildlife, including endangered species. Within the NBM Overlay area are also areas that have been previously impacted by canal construction and past clearing and agricultural practices which have altered the natural hydroperiod. The challenge for the NBM Overlay area is to achieve a balance of both preservation and opportunities for future development that takes into account resource protection and the relationship between this area and the Estates developing around the NBM Overlay area. Accordingly, a more detailed and specific plan for the NBM Overlay is set forth herein. Unless otherwise specifically stated, no other Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element, other than those relating to density and allowable uses, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, or Public Facilities Element in the Growth Management Plan or implementing LDRs, including specifically but not limited to wetlands and wildlife protection, shall be applicable to the NBM Overlay Receiving Lands other than this NBM Overlay Plan and its implementing LDRs. On Receiving Lands any development shall comply with the non - environmental administrative review procedures of Collier County for site development plans and platting. Within the NBM Overlay there are four distinct areas, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and Map series, that require separate treatment based on existing conditions within this area. These areas include the Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA), the Receiving and the Sending Areas for the transfer of development rights, and a Neutral area, which is neither a Sending nor a Receiving Area comprising two sections of land. It is the intent to perform the physical planning of the NBM Sending Lands within twelve (12) months after the effective date for Red Cockaded Woodpeckers, Greenways and Wildlife Crossings. EXHIBIT IV.B COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Amend Policy 6.1.2, Page 17 of the CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (11)(111) Policy 6.1.2 For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, as designated on the FLU M, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards: a. Receiving Lands: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. (V) c. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; (V) d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under -story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. h North Belle Meade Special Use Overlay: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present . (1) For the purpose of this policy, "native vegetation" is defined as a vegetative community having 75% or less canopy coverage of melalueca or other invasive exotic plant species. The F G E Vvlrs� Ami 7AL Ni 2�i �%t d U 'E i �, �a KK �, t. M io 0 0 v m v o_ f Q a K x 2 J NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT LOCATED IN SECTION 29, 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 27 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA p I PPAAR_RO BY Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. CIVd ENGINIM . LAND SURVEYORS . PIAMR9 3800 WA 0EL AET .=A 3PAA133. Tt 4A 34194 PHOXA : E93<EeEN2l�n a1 ♦VUp�e6ui0 iun irao cunmcen a 4unomawe EXHIBIT V.A.1. LOCATION MAP N.T.S. INDEX OF DRAWINGS DWG. No. DESCRIPTION 1. COVER SHEET AND INDEX OF DRAWINGS — EXHIBIT V.A.1 2. LOCATION MAP — EXHIBIT V.A.1 3. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH / EXISTING LAND i USE AND ZONING— EXHIBITS V.A.1, V.A.2 AND V.A.3 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES — V.E.2 DJ=N DE S.J.U. DRA11N Dr S.J.U. APPROVM'' O.W.A. DATE APRIL 2009 RsVMN DAM P68 NAYS OMPA SET ((H(APA) DR4111NO ARIMBM 1 .1 4 > GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD °w 6 9 10 11 12 7 g 7 z a J 9 ) 15 14 73 18 17 16 16 17 16 GREEN BOULEVARD ° > z > 19 w 20 a 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 7 z GOLD N SUBJECT eRE E 30 29 Ei 27 2 6 25 2B TE PARKWAY (C.R. 88CITY - 75 31 32 33 34 3S 36 )3� 33 RADIO ROAD (C.R. 856) 2 i ALLIGATOR ALL b 5 4 3 p I PPAAR_RO BY Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. CIVd ENGINIM . LAND SURVEYORS . PIAMR9 3800 WA 0EL AET .=A 3PAA133. Tt 4A 34194 PHOXA : E93<EeEN2l�n a1 ♦VUp�e6ui0 iun irao cunmcen a 4unomawe EXHIBIT V.A.1. LOCATION MAP N.T.S. INDEX OF DRAWINGS DWG. No. DESCRIPTION 1. COVER SHEET AND INDEX OF DRAWINGS — EXHIBIT V.A.1 2. LOCATION MAP — EXHIBIT V.A.1 3. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH / EXISTING LAND i USE AND ZONING— EXHIBITS V.A.1, V.A.2 AND V.A.3 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES — V.E.2 DJ=N DE S.J.U. DRA11N Dr S.J.U. APPROVM'' O.W.A. DATE APRIL 2009 RsVMN DAM P68 NAYS OMPA SET ((H(APA) DR4111NO ARIMBM 1 .1 4 - AR93.. .. 6 & tSLSC) e p �tP'� tC [t ' 'i At • A 3 fti} A .. e ,� r s �;'�� Ict wtin a ,J'"� � .1A 1 AY :. 1 aA, �,,.r � 1 ry�t a ;;r�J ! d, >. `� W,� s�' � �" � .r, a ..,'+, :�t• �J i, ° i''v'� R` � ,• ' t�r�,� ! �'R'�t''.� °ai:4�ivi4 fix" �irA• .5 IR 'SA. '#e�, f"A )Y >.5 ;:. r- ,'�r 4 �� :� � � -tz- k i�. Yi ' A°jT "i� �� ":id .� a . �':, r��,.,�•.a:;: 1 @ 9, '. Y • :3 "'g ,.- 4 �� .�'� ��e� k2 �R,Ar,� `� - F: y ygj' ,,���`fi L .f v�� S ✓:� `S;'. � ':a s�,•r,- '>�r x a °� � K�Ji{.. � ,), .a'4r „ x�y.� F % 9 f n,:: GDLDE'N BA7B;� Arm a, }'' ^,� �6 �''. �J�r,c,s si ?�raiygr°� �' �??1` r��. -<,. �1. 's. >!�a` J`• y'i ��`"� " r,�.R '�:f��y��> �.,�.,N;� Jv�'�r}l�J ;,;. • ,.,. ,.: ,,.n ,.., a >3 } x :; , <.r ,x. "..,. ,I s _s % �I <:y'. 'z�5 ,yai• �,Y � , +N. , t 7 ', ".: �al na . y. � � � r u y, k.N% a f.a6r�...dttlGr +� Ki ?4• „a ,i.• ,.. r�r ! s�'�.�' t ,%t."w E „ I • „ «., t 2,s ”, .;•., .: ;x �-�'.;: .f , .a..o., .fr rri«�” frih ",,:,.{, � .,�t,s� N nl °.,a a'*P F �;., ,<�d;AJ�' tE ";2 _ °: 7 vurcrna9s q- .L �.: .. A §3?> '. -t v F ��',.. c f „�r;114�s+r- �1 L 9":!t �5 �" z" .. ,} �G�H.r.:4A4La ti, fe �, 'i1 :?°15 �, -GA VE3 w TC$ST.4 �''��.bA ;� n$,T', i`�"'"'" U.,;IPn •.:.. 9 4P.' y, #� ,. �- :. Y°N'R a•xt'��„ --a - ,.�?�.. P't, t,n 'v. :st't>, - '�'b+.:. `R tl � ylv�N<R' �A•: � '�t•S'' " 4 � < ,d tr i; �3 RY ^¢. t�gg'SR .. -:1-<: rt k r H A,a: d ,T. )1'n'(,�i. -' ¢ '�.i' A+ 4ra y �!- ,t� d 1'.; .,F' .y �` ��' d��t Ij INiIIERI • - a1HERTncE a ,:;: �;. ,, •.., ..1 ., yq,, ":. :,; ..:1 +:,GaJEN CArc .t. .,., - ..<®,IIEN +EdiC. fETAr[Ei'nS { ,., unrt 5 G.�Y414>:'."„� d#..y eA.. `iYo ,re 'A•Wtt fk �.: tYi .q. , . ".�. >.�, ASYfdA�� r #.. "�`' � � {4xeliA.. -y.._t, .: 'l t9 ,., y,)'F,1���.,,. � .....Y�" .. X3 A � ,7i : 4 !') L1,z"f9 , ,: ?^r a0.3(Rf , . ^ t�'J.. , c3:: ; � v',a _ A'. c ?. � ,..� ,...A:n "xe• ,i.. R, f�}q; 4'. �d,- v" p.:��s' Y: 4• a, y � �: €F'''�3t11�� °.rv,�'.:� �.�a�. �.z'�Y" �.. �(': yi, i'M - X'},?t:•. s }?. �:_ 's I " ■■ GE .COaNEIU. ;: CSTA Et "x',nf r- Y S b 'B tJZ: °� .'+4a .,.�7, +`'r S i. -bm ds q yy 1 : N ,%da�i �.w. '�3 {. 1'~ »� Ui1�f♦S it "c4tx k- � �2 �S iyy � f " •� �'�,»�v+ �A"n:9 ,J 1`nl,,,. ggA!A, ^..� ;4" ,.•A. na.BE- R,1trrfST : � i t' t �Y � a t :,n k " t.e �: 11 ,,” �`.:, •r .,,'. ' .t .4sk•: .J.a• �.. ".�- :; °,,xtj' t .L ri�''t� ,ro 4^; „,,_� ��ta��;sT 't.'. � ,r-", -•a a,k,.cs. {`A ai�mAir S'F k ;.::t r-krv+R{L �.ti ':s }� : ?;R„� ,szsyi' ;aF •�•. l „!`��” b ,f fF t,�;n J'�Ae Y,. t :.17 -sit ,, � t t�9L6L'ifat4[EM3�TYS �: FVix[AIAN 13i. rvC 6l} nt, y&F .n6. xtl ,..^ :.. .: 1 - .! "a,' ''��i -t i�^n "• 5.1 mix �'x fit, U t('x C ! f i4 fS 'Hx i.d$ \' •`A .f'� *� °i„ ,<�Wf;'.., PMZA b 1 : t � ,tA3.� } {� ,.f.:.;� d k 44. z'.�`E✓" '•F'E3A+i�4 ��nw:' 9'A 'qRd "'°Fy "�K?r ��Y., i61� 3d En + d" E T.t F'�E � F�' � +� , +`�:':. 14..n� 4 � Y 1� w •' NIPPOORVII .t +f �n PINES �Ji'! A'. vAMfN'epOTNfpS 16 IP.PRORVRL vODDs f 14 1J 1 llllAGE : 24 r N, 2# t ( =HERE SUBJECT SITE 22 :J 74 y, ER4 � Af tr as �Y '� ���x� i2 ¢ '• s w 27 21 25 ... BERKSNipC K, MAGNOLIA : GOLd" GATE' LAKES NEPW COHIEPCE: :; pONO : LAKE PARK -:: :.:' OMLIER BLV IMEISSTATE -]B NEWS USE O�ugiCR `' CITYGATC 'Jtl JI ' $ :- JJ 34 y 6 31 :� ITE LAKf' 1NBUSTR VL. PARK C.—AE LAKES H[RON' PWK B ® 33 T TS/ ALIF S TOLL,4ATC JJ 38 -RADIO ROAD (C.R 05B) ::; AVB�. COXN[gC1APlAJA " ALLYGATORµLEY IB.R, N) qqq snxon ;ANDS 9� Lv000 LYE 1 TS Coub. LONI�EA GL: PLAZA - EAST CAET OL PLAZA INTFA9TATE•T6 BERKSHIRE �! ad TVELVE' LANES VESTPORT. CTJNNERCE. ENT[. CENTER R.V, a1 .(g. 9RE10 NNE PPRK_.:.'.' LAKES 6 .BfMWtOGE 4 7 .:1 1 e LAKF L.E g.W :" S SHRPPEt.. [ST E ESIA p r :. : CEBAR FOREST GLEN Or NAPLES tl 4 AT SANYA NPMHOCK J 2 :Y i'� A4). OAV13 BARBAP BOULEVARD LA:_ 3 lWIisTRIE RIE3 J xlPlEs iuPilt Eart ¢ ; :. GMP AND: COUNTRY CLOD :' Y Nf 1 AGE., fALF �'. TOARM' Sµ MARINO 7 fALLING 0 VATERS Y I ,$ CGUNTRr' CLUB HAPLCS N TIONAL GOL�Q UB11 12 7 vESt; " 0 1B CREVN P.-C11 1NC'CIUB ESTATES OWNER /DEVEIAPER JNOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A NORTH BELLE MEADS SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT 0691DN60 BY S.J.D. Ixuwx Br. S.J.U. Q. GRADY FRANCIS D. HUSSEY JR. CM IMUMM , LAND SURV6YOR9 . PLLMRS COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MARY PAT HUSSEY APPROVED: D.w.a Se9D WA On REY FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT 1350 SPYGLASS LANE SPRIN09, MMA 94134 GENERAL LOCATION MAP — EXHIBIT V. A.1 JOB BONRA 40-1u NS: 1..) B41—o3Te RR COOS HGMPA PH.-! (.1.) °1prnAn°�yp NAPLES, FL 34102 -7741 DATI APRIL 2005 P¢B NA1�' DUWM GPA S7 A NE.,R 2 ar 4 Raw.IAA D.,e1PU.n By 90ATS. N.T >9. Crmmc Yi o'r Am AUmwil u °rooefuf PAflN F F2 *S4 a a - AD D5 z o VANDERBILT BEACH R D14 a NN q05 ELEMENTAgY ° T CEJW. ®Eul.. ❑ L3 j: F14 P5 Q CL NNEYARDS I CDNM. PARK DRAWN BY. S.J.u. 1 1— O ir I MAz HASSE D10 mH6 HL6 0 F Sl * E4 E a 0 E E7 ¢ °�Sa > GOLDEN GATE ESTATES P1 Vn ® PINE MOLE I' F4 NIDDE ® -1 D7 ® PINE RIDGE RD BARROW 00 Man PINE RIDGE RD d d HGMPA BCALE: 1' -.0 SC2 RM.len SCiI D8 ar ESC26 0 H13 H SC7 ® SW� m p D13 0 A D7 C OYfNER /DEVELOPER FRANCIS D. HUSSEY JR. MARY PAT HUSSEY 1350 SPYGLASS LANE NAPLES, FL 34102-7741 a P6 D14 DESIGNED BY: S.J.U. Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A CM ENGINEERS . LAND SURVEYORS . PLANNERS ROMA..14. , °-M. sxs4 PRO", I=) 947 lI" 1": (IS) 04•••••08:6 °eo0°06ia NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT P5 x SC13 ® H3 H a P8 DRAWN BY. S.J.u. SC6 D10 mH6 HL6 0 F Sl * E4 E auBJecraiTe F5 (: D12 z ®SC8 JOB CODC ® GOLDEN GATE PARK AY HGMPA BCALE: 1' -.0 V.E.2 APRILT2005 SNAId. DRAWING NUMBER 4 er 4 RM.len SCiI D8 ar ESC26 �-� SC7 ® SW� D9 �D11 TP9 G8 owl INTERSTATE - 7 ®SW1 O H H1 F6 F RADIO RD TP7 Hil H INTERSTATE - 75 HID H E E1 Al G5 P12f L1 SID ® ®SC9 67 DAVIS BOULEVARD LEQLNU F16 1= SC140 G6< r F8 ca ■ SCHOOLS 'F PARKS *S7 E ElO � J1 `I' AIRPORTS F"-1 z G1 H H1 FIRE STATIDNS EMERGENCY MEDICAL STATIONS 0 Q D17 D15 D16 Q GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (IN V SHERIFF'S STATIONS AND io SUBSTATIONS P31' z >Tj HH12 :D `-' OU LIBRARIES J, H H7 p, WATER TREATMENT PLANTS SC15 9� l�HOSPITALSALTH SYSTEMS AND P22 P10 r'qn� RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD WATER NRETENTONFSTRUCTURES E9 *SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ATER TREATMENT F9 .% 0 L5 E PLANTS WW2 INDICATES HIGH VELOCITY ZONE S5 F + COASTAL HIGH F7 SC12 a HAZARD ZONE SCALE INI, 2ML 1' F9 tD P32 A D7 C OYfNER /DEVELOPER FRANCIS D. HUSSEY JR. MARY PAT HUSSEY 1350 SPYGLASS LANE NAPLES, FL 34102-7741 DESIGNED BY: S.J.U. Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A CM ENGINEERS . LAND SURVEYORS . PLANNERS ROMA..14. , °-M. sxs4 PRO", I=) 947 lI" 1": (IS) 04•••••08:6 °eo0°06ia NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT DRAWN BY. S.J.u. API'NOYED. o.w.A. COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP — EXHIBIT JOB CODC HGMPA BCALE: 1' -.0 V.E.2 APRILT2005 SNAId. DRAWING NUMBER 4 er 4 RM.len Dal. o.wblM,� ar :7 WOOD STORK WHITE IBIS. m VON OAF OrAl WIN NOR! ■ HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. FLUC Ram p Aiappi Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants smI= 1' 00 sa+;- zs 32 & 3785 Aixpolt Road North Spite 13-1, Naples, Florida 34105 Far ;ri�ooi T --M : I 49s Nair. 01 -0643 Rmgc. 27E HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT INC. FLUCCS h Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants six: �°-� s«a:� 29,32&33_1 covi� 3785 AiTPOrt Road Norffi, Saile B -1, Naples, Flonda 34105 ae F aeva120o2 T ass D,� gp I J.S. p C4 N 03 04 10 Oldsmar, li'n----- b".51'alurn and dania mucks, depressional (H) 18 e sand, limestone substratum Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum (H) 20 Ft. Drum and malabar high fine sand 21 Boca line sand (H) = Listed as Hydri, by the MRCS —Z U tin se V) U pz� M E ch U :� : <:�. \ ,<� R 25E R26E I R27E R28E R29E R30E R31E I R32E R33E R34E HEN DRY COUNTY URBAN DESIGNATION + nwr arrta[m mu wvrwtt FUTURE LAND USE MAP '" °"N �' p„.KaaRr„ IN— _ „m i ,� I O[[slttnTat [on trwenwesnwr ®[Ion[ r mNr aeasr,ar ® ESTATES DESIGNATION � V) CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Collier County Florida ❑ rn OVERLAYS AND (n + ')' �nenn �c„wca mrcr SPECIAL FEATURES ` FSA'S, HSA'S AND WRA'Sm^ a R„.„ m. • " tvewamt[T ❑ ALDc WILL BE ADDED TO THE „" [.ee„rw[T ❑x„„, 'I V f su,wsrnwr wrocrs Pwn varoi rnwr wsEx a,�„�,[nbilm�n'„"ms[ n Y RLSA OVERLAY AREA ' '" ! a.t ■ n' AGRICULTURAL[ / RURAL y 'DESIGNATION N -- - SP •'- „ "T' • "�'. I I .cn u a c¢r r ••tom^. E] MIRE E[ runumasrnT „[ a nw vx asrmc. Q � vri m .n A sw „emi ,� F __ vEn ❑ ®e n m vunr EMW tr '. �'. mt us[ wu sveenrnKr srn „xv [r+ros ..,, tR x,xwcwn NNPA � % LEE COUNTY � ,� [ t f [ Iv[n �rc oc„ rx[ rvt„;[ cnuntr wwm wan „rcnr „,nx —T V j xx, xww[[nrn WIPA.. P [w rWlKn e a+[ ur „c[ue[ wrr,wtnf rK r",un[ O] —11. x � HENDRY COUNTY y FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE.. r , kA. v 'v'K3�� REFUGE i.. I q T Yr O cRe K '?t' • ^ m TxA r`I r a s CRO �� "�s r • ' o : ti A. „„E IAw� •,�.J FANAHATCHEE STRAND to ,,,,., °•f STATE PRESERVE 'l t, 'L i v at ; v Ul _ OL[IC p BIG CYPRESS +• -, S1 ICE r 1 NAiIDNAL 1 N aCnRe - rt[,un,r',en V� 1 s�U J^V V 3 .�I l N CAPE RG"A71 6 iNGUSM T. ESC N I w tamairr „vROn[,r ra, txv „waenrµ PR 25 E .„.E T­ r26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E PIONROE COUNTY R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E EXHIBIT V.B. NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT „ 950t ACRES i5 M, , V -IV 2 NO VIN-TALL A- SIS O"MA *This tab includes environmental assessments which fulfills Section V.D.5 of the Growth Management Plan application. HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -1, Naples, Florida 34105 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY (PSS) Project: HHH RANCH SECTIONS 29, 31, & 32, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST APPROXIMATELY 955.22 ACRES Presented to: COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Date of Preparation: May 31, 2006 H>H RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 2 Introduction The purpose of this report is to detail results of a protected species survey update conducted on the HHH Ranch property during field time logged from May 2004 to present. The update was performed by personnel from Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. and Maureen Bonness, Ph.D. Location The subject property is located immediately north of Interstate 75, approximately 4 miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Sections 29, 31 & 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. The site is bordered on the north, east, and west primarily by undeveloped lands. The site is bordered on the south by I -75. Survey MethodolM The species survey was conducted using a methodology similar to that discussed in the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) publication "Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large -scale Development in Florida." This technique is made up of the following steps:. First, vegetation communities or land -uses on the subject site are delineated on a recent aerial photograph (Collier County 2005) using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). Next the FLUCCS codes are cross - referenced with a list of protected species (FWC- Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species & Species of Special Concern- Official Lists, Publication Date: January 29, 2004). A list of protected plant species was obtained from the publication "Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants ", Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology &Plant Pathology -Botany Section, Contribution 38, 4t' Edition- 2003). The result is a composite table that contains the names of the protected species which have the highest probability of occurring in each particular FLUCCS community. See table 1 of this report for the species list that applies to this property. With a list of the potential listed plants and animals, each FLUCCS community is searched in the field for these species. During species survey work, an intensive pedestrian survey is conducted using belt or meandering transects and 10 x 36 binoculars as a means of searching for plants and animals. If necessary, transect integrity is maintained by using a GPS in track mode. In addition, periodic "stop- look - listen" and quiet stalking methods are conducted for animals. Signs or sightings of all listed and non - listed species are then recorded. For this parcel of land, particular attention was paid to the presence or absence of wading birds, gopher tortoise, red - cockaded woodpeckers, and Big Cypress fox squirrels. The following section describes the FLUCCS communities identified on the site, followed by discussion of the species observed. G:W Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy ExcavationV &y2006_ResubminaAProtected Species Survey.doc HEM RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 3 Site Conditions During the winter surveys, the temperature ranged from the low 40's to the low 70's. Cloud cover varied from full sun to cloudy. Survey times varied from 6:00 am. to 8:00 p.m. During the summer, temperatures were in the 80's & 90's, with varying cloud conditions, and the site was visited between noon and 8 pm. In addition to the 154 man -hours that were logged in previous surveys, over 88.5 man-hours were logged on the property during the current species survey and related field work, such as vegetation mapping, RCW monitoring, and post hurricane surveys. Table 3 details time spent in the field on the property. The parcel has been used for grazing for more than a decade and cattle have access to all parts of the property. Grazing has had the greatest impact on wetland communities. In addition, wetlands on the property appear to be showing signs of altered hydrology, likely due to drainage by nearby canals such as the I -75 canal. Listed below are the FLUCCS communities identified on the site. The following community descriptions correspond to the mappings on the attached FLUCCS map. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation 1985) for definitions. See vegetation tables at the end of this report for specific vegetation species present. Hydric Unimproved Pasture FLUCCS 212H 53.18 Acres This community is located predominately in the northern portions of the parcel. These areas were given an agricultural designation due to the high levels of impact made to them by historic logging and consistent cattle grazing over the years. Vegetation is limited to those species commonly associated with heavy cattle grazing. Saw Palmetto, FLUCCS 321 54.85 Acres This community is found in scattered patches throughout the property. Canopy contains occasional slash pine. Midstory includes dense saw palmetto. Other vegetation present includes pennyroyal, rusty lyonia, southern sumac, grapevine, and buckthorn. Pine Flatwoods, FLUCCS 411 169.01 Acres This community is also found scattered throughout the property. The largest area is located near the center of the parcel and contains 3 north\south fingers. It is dominated by slash pine and cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory includes dense to scattered saw palmetto. Other vegetation present includes buckthorn, grapevine, poison ivy, beautyberry, Caesar's weed, pennyroyal, rusty lyonia and myrsine. Some pine flatwoods areas contain larger, more mature pines while others are predominately younger trees. Pine Flatwoods with Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 411/428 25.37 Acres This community is found in several areas in the northern portion of the site. It is dominated by slash pine and cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory includes scattered saw palmetto and scattered Brazilian pepper. Cabbage palm density is much higher in these areas than in other pine flatwoods communities, often to the G:W Project Fi1a1300's1336 -A Hussy Excav4tion\May2006 _ResubmitfafTrotected Species Survey.doc ffi RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 4 point of being the dominant canopy tree. Other vegetation present includes buckthorn, grapevine, poison'ivy, beautyberry, Caesar's weed, and myrsine. Dead Pines with Cabbage Palm_, FLUCCS 435/428 45.12 Acres This community is found in the northeast portion of the parcel. It appears to be a recent burn area as a result of a wildfire. The fire burned hot enough to kill a majority of the mature slash pines. It is dominated by slash pine (dead) and cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory includes scattered to dense saw palmetto and occasional Brazilian pepper. Cabbage palm are recruiting in this area heavily. Other vegetation present includes buckthorn, grapevine, poison ivy, beautyberry, Caesar's weed, pennyroyal, rusty lyonia and myrsine. Pop Ash & Willow Slough FLUCCS 616, 9.89 Acres Several of these depressional areas can be found scattered throughout the site. The two largest are located near the northeast corner of the property. They are dominated by pop ash and willow in the canopy. Most contained standing water until the beginning of February. Vegetation includes pickerel weed, flag, and buttonbush. Hydric Melaleuca, FLUCCS 619, 12.13 Acres Vegetation in these communities consists of Melaleuca, with some slash pine, cypress and cabbage palm persisting in the canopy. N idstory and ground layer vegetation is sparse or absent. Melaleuca densities in these areas approached 75 percent. Cypress FLUCCS 621, 143.85 Acres These areas generally formed fingers that ran from north to south across the property.. Vegetation consists of cypress and scattered cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory contains scattered wax myrtle Brazilian pepper, and dahoon holly. Other vegetation observed includes swamp fern, sawgrass, buttonbush and grapevme. Cypress \Unimproved Pasture FLUCCS 621/212 87.89 Acres This community appeared to be former cypress areas that had been historically logged. However, cypress tree and native groundcover density is greater than in those areas of the site given FLUCCS .212H. The FLUCCS 612 /212H areas are being actively grazed, but native groundcover has persisted to a greater degree. Vegetation observed includes cypress, cabbage palm, swamp fern, saw grass, pickerelweed, and buttonbush. Brazilian Pepper Invaded Cypress ( >50 %) FLUCCS 621/422 19.70 Acres These areas are similar to Cypress (FLUCCS 621) above, but Brazilian pepper has invaded them to a greater extent. Cypress with Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 621/428, 1.66 Acres GAHP Project Filesl3Ws\336 -A Hussy Excavadon\May2o06 ResibmittarPio ected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 5 This community is located in the northeast corner of the property and may have been part of the burned area to the south. Cabbage palms have recruited into this community heavily. Canopy vegetation is dominated by dense cabbage palm with cypress. Other vegetation present includes Brazilian pepper, swamp fern, smilax, grapevine, and wax myrtle. Pine - Cypress - Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 624 301.30 Acres This community is the largest on the parcel and is found throughout. Canopy vegetation includes slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, and dahoon holly. Other vegetation present includes swamp fern, Caesar weed, grapevine, saw grass, buckthorn, smilax, poison ivy, and wax myrtle. Melaleuca Invaded Pine- Cvnress- Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 624/619 13.28 Acres This community forms a finger extending southeast from the southern limits of the burn area. It is similar to FLUCCS 624 above, but Melaleuca has invaded it to densities approaching 50 percent. Mixed Wetland Forest, FLUCCS 630 0.88 Acres This community is found in the extreme northwest corner of the site. Canopy vegetation includes laurel oak, cypress, cabbage palm, and slash pine. Other vegetation present includes swamp fem, Caesar weed, grapevine, Brazilian pepper, smilax, poison ivy, and wax myrtle. Freshwater Marsh, FLUCCS 641 1.21 Acres This community is found in two locations within the hydric pasture areas. They are slightly deeper that surrounding areas and contain more native vegetation, especially during the rainy season. Vegetation includes maidencane, capeweed, pickerelweed, and red ludwigia. Disturbed Lands (Fence Lines) FLUCCS 740 4.30 Acres This community consists of areas cleared around the margin of the property for fence lines. Canopy vegetation is absent. Hydric Disturbed Lands (Fence Lines) FLUCCS 740H 6.49 Acres This community consists of areas cleared around the margin of the property for fence lines that are adjacent to wetlands. Canopy vegetation is absent. Species Observed The various listed species which may occur in the FLUCCS communities are shown in Table 1. Species observed on the subject parcel are detailed in Table 2. See attached drawing entitled "HHH Ranch— FLUCCS Mapping & Protected Species Survey" for specific locations of field survey results. The following species were observed on the HIIH Ranch Parcel during the previous species survey or the current survey GAHF Project Files\300'036 -A Hussy Ezcavation\May2006 ResubmittaMotected Spxies Surmy.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 6 Wading Birds Little Blue Heron A single little blue heron was observed foraging in the pop .ash slough in the northeast corner of the property. (2003 sighting) Snowy Egret Two snowy egrets were observed foraging in the pop ash slough in the northeast corner of the property. (2003 sighting) White Ibis White ibis were observed foraging in the pop ash slough in the northeast corner of the property and the pop ash area along the north property line. (2003 sighting) Wood Stork Wood storks were observed foraging in the pop ash slough in the northeast corner of the property and the pop ash area along the north property line. (2003 sighting) Other Birds Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Cavity Trees All areas of the site containing slash pine trees large enough to contain cavities were examined thoroughly using binoculars in a tree -to -tree search method. A total of 6 RCW cavity trees were documented on the HHH Ranch parcel during the previous species survey. In the time since the original species survey, there have been the following cavity tree changes: East Group: Cavity #6 Tree is dead \appears to have been struck by lightning Cavity #5 Tipped over by hurricane Wilma Cavity #9 Snapped at the cavity by hurricane Wilma West Group: Cavity #3 Snapped by wind in summer of 2004 Cavity #013 New Cavity —Very Active Updated cavity tree locations are shown on the attached map. DeLotelle and Guthrie, Inc. is actively documenting all breeding activity on the HHH Ranch property. RCW activity /observations on the property during 2004 and 2005 can be summarized by the following. In 2004 and 2005, both east and west RCW groups fledged at least one chick during each breeding season. The fledglings typically have not remained with their parents into the following breeding season. Neither of the groups currently have any "helper" birds. The breeding pair in the east group are the same individuals banded in the east group in 2003. Each group has lost one active cavity to red - bellied woodpeckers in the past 2 years. The east group lost 2 cavity trees to hurricane Wilma, although both of the lost cavity trees had been inactive for GAHP Project F7es\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \May2006_Rcsubmittal\Protected Spewes Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 7 at least 3 years. During windstorms of 2004 a tree in the west group (with a cavity that had been usurped by red - bellied woodpeckers) snapped at the cavity. One new start cavity ( #o13) was found in the west group. Other than wind damage from storms, no significant changes have occurred in the cavity clusters. Based on occasional observations, the cluster of cavity trees identified on a 15 acre parcel approximately 1600 feet west of the HHH Ranch property continue to contain active trees. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Foraging Activity Red - cockaded woodpeckers have been observed foraging on several occasions at various locations throughout the property. See attached drawing entitled "HHH Ranch — FLUCCS Mapping .& Protected Species Survey" for specific locations. American Kestrel A single kestrel was observed in the unimproved pasture area located in the north central portion of the property. Mammals Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Big Cypress fox squirrels have been observed on several occasions. They were most often observed in or at the margin of FLUCCS 624 habitat. Florida Black Bear Not directly observed, but in 2002 a cypress tree was found along the east property line where it appears a bear ripped into it in order to get to a beehive inside. Reptiles Gopher Tortoise A small population of tortoise was identified in one upland patch along the eastern property line. The area has been intensively surveyed for tortoise with 9 active, 7 inactive, and 2 abandoned burrows identified. See attached maps for specific locations. Based on these results, upland areas of similar habitat throughout the property were re- surveyed for tortoise. Gopher tortoise or burrows were not observed in any other areas of the property. Plants Common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) and butterfly orchids (Cyrtopodium punctatum) were observed in trees on the parcel. Cr V P Project Resl300's1336 -A Hussy Excavation\May2DO0 _ResubmittaAProtected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page S Discussion Listed Species Listed species were observed utilizing the parcel. Red - cockaded woodpecker cavity trees have been documented and RCW have been observed foraging on several occasions. Data is actively being collected on RCW nesting activity and fledging. Gopher tortoise have been documented in. one upland area. Listed wading birds were observed utilizing some of the deeper wetlands. For site planning purposes it will be necessary to be sensitive to those areas of the parcel that contain the best quality habitat for listed species. G:\HP Project Filesl3WO336 -A Hussy Excav alion\May2oo6_R=bmittal\ProtecW Species Survey.doc EMH RANCH Protected Species Survey Table 1. Protected species list according to FLUCCS category. Page 9 FLUCCS Potential Listed Species Scientific Name Designated Status FWC or FWS FDA 212H Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Florida Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis pratensis T _ 321 Audubon's Crested Caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T T Beautiful Pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus E E Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia SSC - Curtis Milkweed Asclepias curtissii E - Fakahatchee Burmannia Burmanniaflava E - Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T - Florida Coontie Zamiafloridana C _ Florida Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis pratensis T _ Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SSC - Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corals couperi T T Southeastern American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus T _ 411 Beautiful Pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus E E Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Sclurus niger avicennia T _ 411/428 135/428 liQJl.G1LL MLUgU JnaKe Fakahatchee Burmannia Florida Black Bear Florida Coontie Florida Panther Gopher Frog Gopher Tortoise Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Satinleaf Southeastern American Kestrel Twisted.Air Plant Beautiful Pawpaw Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Eastern Indigo Snake Fakahatchee Burmannia Florida Black Bear Florida Coontie Florida Panther Gopher Frog Gopher Tortoise Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Satinleaf Southeastern American Kestrel Twisted Air Plant Southeastern American KP.ctrnl Drymarchon corais couperi Burmannia flava Ursus americanus floridanus Zamia floridana Felis concolor coryi Rana capito Gopherus polyphemus Picoides borealis Chrysophyllum oliviforme Falco sparverius paulus Tillandsia flexousa Deeringothamnus pulchellus Sciurus niger avicennia Drymarchon corals couperi Burmannia flava Ursus americanus floridanus Zamia floridana Felis concolor coryi Rana capito Gopherus polyphemus Picoides borealis Chrysophyllum oliviforme Falco sparverius paulus Tillandsia flexousa Falco sparverius naulus T E T C E SSC SSC T E T E E T T E T C E SSC SSC T E T E T T E E E T E E G:W Project Res\300'036 -A Hussy Exoavati- ,Xfty2006 Resubmitt"rotected Species Survey.doc ' HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 10 Table 1. (Continued) Protected species list according to FLUCCS category. FLUCCS Potential Listed Species Scientific Name Designated Status FWC or FWS FDA 616 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S /A) Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T - Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Limpkin Aramus Guarauna SSC Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - Twisted Air Plant Tillandsia flexuosa E - Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E 619 NONE 621 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S /A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T - Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E 621 /422 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S /A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T - Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E 621 /428 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S /A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T - Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E GAHP Project FileA3001s1336 -A hussy ExcavationMey2006 _RembmimaMrotected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 11 Table I. (Continued) Protected species list according to FLUCCS category. Abbreviations: A encies FWC= Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS= United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E= Endangered T= Threatened T(S /A)= Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC= Species of Special Concern GAHP Project Files%300'sU36 -A Hussy Exca"t ionu4ay2o06_Resubmit"rotected Species Survey.doc FLUCCS Potential Listed Species Scientific Name Designated Status FWC or FWS FDA 624 & 630 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S /A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T _ Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T _ Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E 624 /619 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S /A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T _ Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T _ Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricoiored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E 641 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S /A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Florida SandhilI Crane Grus canadensis pratensis T - Lilltle Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens SSC - Snail Kite Rorstrhamus sociabilis E E Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E 740 Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia SSC - Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SSC - 740H Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia SSC - Gopher Tortoise Gopherus oly hemus SSC - Abbreviations: A encies FWC= Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS= United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E= Endangered T= Threatened T(S /A)= Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC= Species of Special Concern GAHP Project Files%300'sU36 -A Hussy Exca"t ionu4ay2o06_Resubmit"rotected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 12 Table 2. Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Listed Plants Observed on the HHH Ranch Property. Rime Common Name Scientific Name Observation Type Listed? Status American Kestrel Falco s arverius DV Y T American Robin Turdus migratorius DV N - Barred Owl Strix varia HV N - Belted Kingfisher Ceryle al on DV N - Black Vulture Cora gyps atratus DV N - Blue Jay C anocitta cristata DV N - Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher Polio Lila caerulea DV N - Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum DV N - Brown- Headed Cowbird Molothrus ater DV,HV N - Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis DV N Common Ground -Dove Columbine asserina DV N - Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor DV N - Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens DV N - Eastern Towhee Pi ilo thro hthalmus DV N - Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis DV,HV N - Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias DV N - Great Crested Flycatcher Mparchus crinitus DV N - Great E et Ardea alba DV N - Great Homed Owl Bubo vir inianus DV N Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus DV N - Little Blue Heron E retta caerulea DV Y SSC Little Green Heron Butorides virescens DV N - Mouming Dove Zenaida macroura DV, HV N - Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis DV N - Northem Flicker Colaptes auratus DV N - Northem Mockingbird Mimus polyglouos DV,HV N - Pahn Warbler Dendroica almarum DV N - Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus DV N - Pine Warbler Dendroica inus. DV N - Red- Bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus DV,HV N - Red- Cockaded Woodpecker Pleoides borealis DV,HV,C Y T , E S Red - Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus DV N - Red- Tailed Hawk Buteo 'amaicensis DV N - Snowy Egret E retta Chula DV Y SSC C Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura DV N - White Ibis Eudocimus albus DV Y SSC WC White-Eyed Vireo Vireo griseus DV N - Wild Turkey Melee is gallopavo DV N - Wood Stork M eteria americana DV Y E FWC,FWS Yellow - Bellied Sapsucker S hyra ices varius DV N - Yellow -Rum ed Warbler Dendroica coronota DV N - G:W project Fles\300'036 -A Hussy Excavation\May2oD6�_ FmbmittaM'rotected Species Suevey.doc HI�I RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 13 Table 2 (Continued). Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Listed Plants Observed on the HHH Ranch Property. Mammals Common Name Scientific Name Observation e Listed? Status _Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Sciurus ni er avicennia DV Y T Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagusfloridanus DV N - Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis DV N - Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus oridanus MT Y T Nine - banded Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus OH N - Raccoon Procyon lotor DV N - White - tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus DV N - Wild Hog Sus scro a OR N - Common Name I Scientific Name I Observation I Listed? I Status Gopher Tortoise Go herus polyphemus DV,OH Y SSC Brown Anole Anolis sagrei DV N - Eastern Garter Snake Thamno his sirtalis sirtalis DV N - Southern Black Racer Coluber constrictor priapus DV N - Common Name Scientific Name I Observation I Listed? I Status Cuban Tree Frog Osteo ilus se tentrionalis DV N - Oak Toad Bu o uercicus DV N - Southern Toad Bufo terrestris DV N I - Plants Abbreviations: Agencies FWC= Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS= United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E= Endangered T= Threatened T(S /A)= Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC= Species of Special Concern Observations DV= Direct Visual HV =Heard Vocalization OT= Observed Tracks OH= Observed Hole\Burrow GAFIP Project Files1300'036 -A Hurry Excavation\May2006 ResubmitWUlrotected Species Survey.doc HI3H RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 14 MT= Marked Tree C= Cavity OR= Observed Rooting Table 3. Field Time spent on the HHH Ranch Property in 2004, 2005, & 2006. Date Hours # of Personnel Man Hours Task April 29, 2004 1.5 1 1.5 RCW Monitoring May 2, 2004 1.5 1 1.5 Observe RCW in Both Groups May 19, 2004 1 2 2 Peep Nest Tree May 26, 2004 1 1 1 RCW Monitoring May 27, 2004 3 3 9 Onsite with USFWS & FWC Check RCW Cavities October 14, 2004 1 1 1 Roost RCW/Species Survey December 4, 2004 1 1 1 RCW Monitoring December 6, 2004 1 1 1 Roost RCW/Species Survey January 6, 2005 1.5 1 1.5 Roost RCW/Species Survey January 19, 2005 4.5 2 9 RCW Habitat Analysis/Mapping February 10, 2005 3.5 1 3.5 Exotics Mapping & Roost RCW February 11, 2005 7 1 7 Exotics Mapping & Roost RCW February 12, 2005 1.5 1 1.5 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey February 12, 2005 1.5 1 1.5 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey February 26, 2005 2.5 1 2.5 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey May 7, 2005 1 1 1 RCW Monitoring May 14, 2005 1.5 2 3 RCW Banding May 29, 2005 1 1 1 Observe RCW Nest July 6, 2005 2 1 2 Roost RCW/Species Survey September 7, 2005 4 1 4 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey September 9, 2005 3 1 3 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey September 15, 2005 6 1 6 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey September 16, 2005 7 1 7 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey September 18, 2005 3 1 3 Exotics Mapping/Species Survey November 2, 2005 2 1 2 Post Hurricane Survey/ Species Survey November 3, 2005 5 2 10 Post Hurricane Survey/Species Survey March 28, 2006 2 1 2 Roost RCW\S ecies Survey May 16, 2006 1 2 2 Peep RCW Nest May 19, 2006 1.5 2 3 Band RCW Nestling Total 93.5 Hours G.W Project ReOWA336 -A Hussy FamavationWay2006 ResubmittarProtected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 15 Table 4. Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the HM Ranch Parcel. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 212H - Hydric Unimproved Pasture Common Digitaria serotina dwarf crabgrass FAC ground cover Phyla nodifora Capeweed FAC ground cover Occasional gallberry UPL mid -story Lyonia ferruginea Andropogon virginicus broom -sedge FAC ground cover . Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Eupatorium spp dog fennel FAC ground cover Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 321 - Palmetto Common Ilex glabra gallberry UPL mid -story Lyonia ferruginea rusty lyonia mid -story Piloblephis rigida pennyroyal UPL ground cover Rhus copallina southern sumac UPL midstory Serenoa repens saw palmetto UPL mid -story Smilax sPP• smilax vine Spermacoce verticillata false buttonweed ground cover Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Bumelia celastrina buckthorn FAC mid -story Lachnocaulon anceps bog button FACW ground cover Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) UPL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Vaccinium myrsinites shiny blueberry UPL mid -story ? ground lichen UPL ground cover G:W Project ReA 300's\336 -A Hussy ExcavationWay2006 _ResubmittaIU4uected Species Survey.doe HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 16 Table 4 (Continued). Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the HHH Ranch Parcel. NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 411— Pine Flatwoods buckthorn FAC mid -story . Common dog - fennel FAC ground cover Andropogon virginicus broom grass FAC ground cover Aristida sp. wire grass FAC ground cover Ilex glabra gallberry UPL mid -story Lachnocaulon anceps bog button FACW ground cover Piloblephis rigida pennyroyal UPL ground cover Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) UPL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Serenoa repens saw palmetto UPL mid -story Smilax spp. Smilax vine Spermacoce verticillata false buttonweed ground cover Urena lobata Caesar weed UPL ground cover Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Bumelia celastrina buckthorn FAC mid -story . Eupatorium capillifolium dog - fennel FAC ground cover Polypremum procumbens rustweed FAC ground cover Rhus copallina southern sumac UPL midstory Yaccinium myrsinites shiny blueberry UPL mid -story ? ground lichen UPL ground cover SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 411/428 — Pine Flatwoods w/ buckthorn FAC mid -story Cabbage Palm. dog - fennel FAC ground cover Common rustweed FAC ground cover Andropogon virginicus broom grass FAC ground cover Aristida sp. wire grass FAC ground cover Piloblephis rigida pennyroyal UPL ground cover Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) UPL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Smilax spp. Smilax vine Occasional Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Bumelia celastrina buckthorn FAC mid -story Eupatorium capillifolium dog - fennel FAC ground cover Polypremum procumbens rustweed FAC ground cover Rhus copallina southern sumac UPL midstory Serenoa repens saw palmetto UPL mid -story Yaccinium myrsinites shiny blueberry UPL mid -story G:\HP Project FilesUOOI X336 -A Hussy Fxcavation\May2006 Resubn imalTrotected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 17 Table 4 (Continued). Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the HHH Ranch Parcel. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 435/428 — Dead Trees w/ blue maidencane FACW ground cover Cabbage Palm buckthorn FAC mid -story Common dog - fennel FAC ground cover Andropogon virginicus broom grass FAC ground cover Aristida sp. Flex glabra wire grass FAC ground cover Piloblephis rigida gallberry pennyroyal UPI, UPI, mid -story ground cover Pinus elliotti (DEAD) pine (slash pine) UPL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage pahn FAC canopy Serenoa repens saw palmetto UPI, mid -story Smilax spp. Smilax OBL ground cover vine Occasional COMMON STATE Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Bumelia celastrina buckthorn FAC mid -story Eupatorium capillifolium dog - fennel FAC ground cover Polypremum procumbens rustweed FAC ground cover Rhus copallina southern sumac UPI, midstory Vaccinium myrsinites shiny blueberry UPI, mid -story Jl 1�1V l it Ll COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story 616 - Pop -ash & Willow Slough pine (slash pine) UPI, canopy Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Ficus sp. strangler fig FAC mid -story Fraxinus caroliniana pop -ash OBL canopy Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Salix caroliniana coastal plain willow OBL canopy Thalia geniculata flag; arrowroot OBL ground cover Jl 1�jV 11r1C COMMON STATE NAME NAME 1.T4TRT) cTT?Arr TAX 619 — Hydric Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquevervia* melaleuca OBL canopy Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) UPI, canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy *invasive exotic GAHP Project FileA300'036 -A Hussy Excavation\]&y2006 ResubmittaMroteted Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 18. Table 4 (Continued). Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the EM Ranch Parcel. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 621- Cypress Common Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Digitaria serotina dwarf crabgrass FAC ground cover Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Phyla nodifora Capeweed - FAC ground cover Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional swamp fern FACW Common Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Smilax spp. Smilax OBL vine *invasive exotic dewberry FAC ground cover SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 621/212 — Cypress \Unimproved Pasture swamp fern FACW Common Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Occasional Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Smilax spp. Smilax vine Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine *invasive exotic G:W Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Exeavation\May2O06 ResubmittafkProtected Species Surny.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 19 Table 4 (Continued). Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the HHH Ranch Parcel. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 621/422 — Brazilian Pepper Invaded swamp fern FACW ground cover Cypress ( >50 %) false nettle OBL ground cover Common maidencane OBL ground cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover 11ex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Schinus terebinthifolius* ' Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional swamp fern FACW ground cover Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Smilax sPP• Smilax FAC vine *invasive exotic 3k_=N 11r1U COMMON STATE NAME _ NAME 1-19TF.1) cTU e TT rna 621/428 — Cypress with Cabbage Palm Common Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Ilex cassine dahoon holly. OBL mid -story Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Schinus terebinthifolius * Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Smilax sPP• Smilax vine *invasive exotic G:W Project Files\300's1336 -A Hussy Fxcavatim\May2006 PesubmkW\Protected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 20 Table 4 (Continued). Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the HHH Ranch Parcel. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 624 - Pine/Cypress /Cabbage palm broom grass FAC ground cover Common false nettle OBL ground cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Melaleuca quinquene"W melaleuca FAC canopy Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Myrsine floridana myrsine mid -story Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) OBL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Schinus terebinth folius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Smilax spp. Smilax OBL vine Spermacoce verticillata false buttonweed FAC ground cover Taxodium ascenders pond cypress OBL canopy Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy FACW vine Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Andropogon virginianicus broom grass FAC ground cover Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Cyperus haspan flat sedge OBL ground cover Eupatorium leptophyllum wetlands dog - fennel OBL ground cover Eustachys glauca finger grass FACW ground cover Lachnocaulonn anceps bog button FACW ground cover Lygodium microphyllum* old world climbing fern vine Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper vine Paspalum monostchyum gulfdune paspalum OBL ground cover Pluchea rosea Pluchea FACW ground cover Rhodomyrtus tomentosa* downy rose myrtle FAC ground cover Rhynchospora microcarpa southern beakrush OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Saccharum giganteum sugarcane plumegrass OBL ground cover Woodwardia virginica chain fern FACW ground cover *invasive exotic G:\HP Project Files\300'036 -A Hussy Excavation\May2DO6_ Resobmittal\Protected Species Survey.doc HIM RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 21 Table 4 (Continued). Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the HHH Ranch Parcel. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 624/619- Melaleuca Invaded Pine /Cypress /Cabbage palm Common Melaleuca quinquenervia* meWeuca FAC canopy Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Myrsine floridana myrsine OBL mid -story Pinus ellioui pine (slash pine) OBL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Smilax spp. Smilax vine Taxodium ascenders pond cypress OBL canopy Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy FACW vine Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape OBL vine Occasional Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover . Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Cyperus haspan flat sedge OBL ground cover Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper vine Paspalum monostchyum gulfdune paspalum OBL ground cover Pluchea rosea Pluchea FACW ground cover *invasive exotic pond cypress OBL canopy SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 630 - Mixed Wetland Forest Common Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Smilax spp. Smilax vine Quercus laurifolia Laurel oak FACW canopy Occasional Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Urena lobata Caesar weed UPL ground cover Eupatorium spp dog fennel FAC ground cover G.,W Project Fi1a1300'036 -A Hussy Excavation \May2006_Resubmftwrotected Species Survey.doc HHH RANCH Protected Species Survey Page 22 Table 4 (Continued). Representative vegetation by FLUCCS community on the HHH Ranch Parcel. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 641 -Freshwater Marsh broom -sedge FAC ground cover Common swamp fern FACW ground cover Digitaria serotina dwarf crabgrass FAC ground cover Phyla nodifora capeweed FAC ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Ludwidia microcarpa red ludwigia OBL ground cover' Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Occasional Andropogon virginicus broom -sedge FAC ground cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Eupatorium spp dog fennel FAC ground cover Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Eragrostis refracta lovegrass FAC ground cover GAIP Project Filesl300'sl' &A Hussy Excavation \May2o06_Resubmittal\Ptotected Species Survey.doc we 3 v Ii s < Nw GOLDEN A ATE BLVD_ -, I AV St� Sw 13 Fl 14 r.N -w. 12 fit.. m Ii s < 4%iw RANC.4 I AV St� '3 av 13 Fl 14 r.N -w. a T 1E m X LZ NA32 lt -14 is j, -!7:z r on _� 31i r cad i C., IL _r 4LACA -txw a 9. ju 4%iw RANC.4 Fl a T 1E m lt 4%iw RANC.4 HHH Ranch HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT INC. Protected species Survey Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants 1 S.6-- I 29.31 &32 comer : cou e 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -1, Naples, Florida 34105 IiP Fik: PSS _ _ _ To�mehi : 498 P Drawn By: Ls. Dd. 01.06-03 R.nnoe 2717 1 Rrviwllln 1 -- Protected Species Survey Legend RCVVB= Red Cockaded Woodpecker Cavity Tree ®= Active Gopher Tortoise Bwow (9) Q= Inactive Gopher Tortoise Burtwa (7) ®=Abandoned Gopher Tortoise Burrow (2) WOOD STORK ,RCM12 d �RCWoit RCVV.10 H rCWStart RCWo7 RC1No9 �9 6,Rt ,RC -I_ N �C-ft� ba�4PY��N ITa MIa�d tvl0etl by SmN C P-. M MsWmktD0tl(SKAm) M PS by � Pe k. SFVA@ at3N IMa 75 HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. HIM Ranch Protected Species Survey Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -1, Naples, Florida 34105 Scale 1"=700' Sec oa: 1 29 31 & 32 color : couier kiP Filc: PSS Towssh 4111 Dawn Hy. ].S. Date: 01 -08-03 Rmge: 276 I Revised Dn: 1 12 -08-03 HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -1, Naples, Florida 34105 HHH RANCH Collier County Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Sections 29, 31 & 32 Township 49 South, Range 27 East Approximately 950.01 Acres Date of Preparation: April 10, 2003 Revised: December 8, 2003 Page 2 of 28 3.8.5.1 Applicant information 1. Responsible owners who wrote the EIS and his /her education and job related environmental experience: Jeremy Sterk, B.S., Aquatic Biology, 9 years job related experience. A resume is attached. 2. Owner / Agent name & address: Francis D. Hussey Jr. & Mary Pat Hussey 1350 Spyglass Lane Naples, FL 34102 3. Affidavit of proof of authorized agent: See attached letter. 3.8.5.2 Development and site alteration information 1. Description of Proposed Use. The proposed use is a commercial excavation. 2. Legal Description of Site. The 950.01 acre site is made up of several parcels. See attached map detailing the location of each parcel within the HHH Ranch site. Also attached are copies of the deeds and property cards for each parcel. The legal descriptions are as follows: Parcel A The west %2 of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27. East, Collier County, Florida, less and except the following: A) Property previously condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation for the State of Florida for Road right -of -way purposes, B) All access rights to and from State Road 84 for I -75 previously condemned by the Department of Transportation for the State of Florida for road right -of -way purposes. Parcel B The east %2 of Section 32. Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, less and except the following: A) Property previously condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation for the State of Florida for Road right-of-way purposes, B) All existing rights to and from State Road 84 for I -75 previously condemned by the Department of Transportation for the State of Florida and C) All oil, mineral and subsurface rights previousl owned by the grantors. y G:\HP Project Filesoffst336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 Resubmittal \Collier County F.IS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 3 of 28 Parcel C East % of the Southeast '/4 of the Southeast '/a of the Southeast '/ of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, less South 100 feet for right -of -way. Parcel D Commence at the Southeast corner of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East; thence along the East line of Section 29 north 02'22'14" East, 2,654.82 feet; thence leaving the east line of Section 29 North 86 °2347" West, 4,772.71 feet; thence South 01 °36'40" West, 1,351.06 feet; thence South 86 °40'29" East, 679.17 feet; thence South 01'42'52" West 673.82 feet; thence North 86 °48'55" West, 675.52 feet to the South line of Section 29; thence along the South line of Section 29 South 86 °5722" East, 1691.48 feet; thence leaving the said South line North 01'52'46" East, 671.29 feet; thence South 86 °48'55" East, 677.90 feet; thence South 01 °59' 15" West 669.60 feet to the said South line of Section 29; thence along the said South line South 86 °57'22" East, 2,368.06 feet, to the point of beginning; containing 11,619,042.69 square feet or 271.33 acres, more or less. Parcel E The East '/2 of the Southeast' /4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. And the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest' /4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Parcel F The Southeast' /4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Parcel G The East '/z of the Southwest '/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast '/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Location and address description. The subject property is located approximately 4 of a miles east of Collier Boulevard, immediately north of Interstate 75, in Sections 29, 31 & 32 Township 49 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. See attached location map. 3.8.5.3 Mapping and support graphics 1. General location map. See attached Location Map. 2. Native habitats and their boundaries shall be identified on an aerial photograph of the site extending at least two hundred feet outside the parcel boundary. This does not mean the applicant is required to go on Lo GAHP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EISOec03 Resubmittal \Collier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doe Page 4 of 28 adjacent properties. Habitat identification will be consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System and shall be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the county, otherwise, a scale of at least one inch equai to 400 feet is acceptable. Information obtained by ground- truthing surveys shall have precedence over information presented through photographic evidence. Native communities were mapped according to the Florida Land Use and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) and their boundaries are depicted on the attached 2002 aerial at a scale of 1 " =300'. Also attached is an 11" X 17" sheet (1" =700') with FLUCCS mapping. Mapping is included for the 200' that surrounds the subject property. 3. Topographic map showing upland, bathymetric contours, and existing drainage patterns if applicable. Site elevations average approximately 9.0' to 10.0' NGVD. Currently drainage is to the south and southwest. The attached survey details several topographic shots taken of seasonal high water elevations throughout the site. See attached survey prepared by Rhodes & Rhodes Land Surveying, Inc. 4. Existing land use of the site and surrounding area. The existing land use for the parcel is agricultural. The entire parcel is zoned agricultural and it is being used as such. Currently it is being used as unimproved pasture for several hundred head of cattle. The surrounding landscapes include: n+/ East — Undeveloped Agricultural 7), £ �v West — Undeveloped Agricultural .Z�'� North — Undeveloped Agricultural�,,la� #tl South — Interstate 75 Agricultural 5. Soils map at a scale consistent with that used for the Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification Systems determinations. Soils have been digitized from Soil Conservation Service (SCS) maps of Collier County. A map detailing soils at a scale of i" =1000' is attached on an 8% X 1 1 sheet. 6. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow patterns, cutfall and off - site drainage. See attached Excavation Plan provided by Davidson Engineering. 7. Development plans including phasing program, service area of existing and proposed public facilities and existing proposed transportation network in the impact area. GAWP Project Files;000's1336 -A Hussy Excavation\Collier County EIS\Dec03 ResubmittahCollier County EIS- I2- 03rev.duc Page 5 of 28 See attached Excavation Plan provided by Davidson Engineering. 3.8.5.4 Impact Categories 3.8.5.4.1 Biophysical Impa--::s 1. Air quality. A. Changes in level of air pollutants as defined by current regulations. No impacts are expected from the excavation. Appropriate Dust Control methods will be utilized during construction and operation to mitigate for any adverse conditions, which might arise. B. Number of people that will be affected by air pollution resulting from the project. With no changes in air quality anticipated, no people are expected to be affected. C. Procedures that will be used to reduce adverse impacts of air pollution. Appropriate dust control methods will be utilized during construction to mitigate for any adverse conditions, which might arise. All areas disturbed during construction will be sodded or grassed and mulched at the earliest opportunity. Water trucks will be employed to abate dust production. 2. Water quality Impacts. A. Changes in levels and types of water pollution as defined by current regulations. The project will comply with the South Florida Management District (SFWMD)'s and DEP criteria regarding water quantity and quality and will incorporate Best Management Techniques during construction. No changes in water levels or water pollution are expected as a result of the project. B. Inventory of water uses that are restricted or precluded because of pollution levels resulting from this project. No water uses are restricted or precluded because of pollution resulting from this project. C. Persons affected by water pollution resulting from this project. None. No water pollution is anticipated as a result of this project. D. Project design and actions which will reduce adverse impact of water pollution. G: \HP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \DecO3 Resubmittal\C'ollier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Pa ,ge 6 of 28 The project will meet all SFWMD requirements and Collier County Land Development Code requirements for water quality. 3. Physiography and Geology A. Description of soil types found in the area. The approximate boundaries of the seven soil types found on the parcel, as defined by the NRCS, is mapped at a scale of I " =1000, on the attached 8 %" X 11 " sheet. 02 -- Holopaw Fine Sand, limestone substratum: This nearly level, poorly drained soil is typical in sloughs and broad poorly defined drainage areas. The permeability is moderately slow. Natural vegetation may include slash pine, cabbage palm, cypress, wax myrtle, and saw palmetto. 03 -- Malabar Fine Sand: This nearly level, poorly drained soil is typical in sloughs. The permeability is slow to very slow. Natural vegetation may include slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, saw palmetto and wax myrtle. 04 — Chobee limestone substratum and dania mucks de ressional: This nearly level, poorly drained soil is typical cypress swamps and marshes. The permeability is moderate to rapid. Natural vegetation may include cypress, red maple, and maidencane. 10 -- Oldsmar Fine Sand Limestone Substratum: This nearly level, poorly drained soil is typical of slough and poorly defined drainageways. The permeability is slow. Natural vegetation may include slash pine, cabbage palm and saw palmetto. 18 — Riviera fine sand limestone substratum: This nearly level, poorly drained soil is typical in sloughs. The permeability is moderate to moderately rapid. Natural vegetation may include slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, saw palmetto and wax myrtle. 20.— Ft. Drum and Malabar High Fine Sand: This nearly level, poorly drained soil is typical of ridges near sloughs. The permeability is rapid for Ft. Drum and slow to very slow for Malabar. Natural vegetation may include slash pine, saw palmetto, live oak, cabbage palm and chalky bluestem. 21 -- Boca Fine Sand: This nearly level, poorly drained soil is typical of flatwoods. The permeability is moderate. Natural vegetation may include slash pine, saw palmetto, cabbage palm and chalky bluestem. B. Areal extent of proposed topographic modifica =ion rhrouyh excavation, dredging, or filling. G:1HP Project FilesUOO's\336 -A Hussy EscavalionlCollier County EIS\I)ec03 ResubmittaRCollier County FIS- I2- 03res.doc Page 7 of 28 Modifications will be accomplished by on site excavation of fill material from proposed lakes. Fill material will be stockpiled on the property (within the delineated lake footprints) and sold for offsite use. The project proposed two lakes totaling 353.49 acres. The north lake is proposed to be 260.84 acres and the south lake would be 92.65 acres in size. In addition, the footprint for an access road is included. The access road ROW totals 4.05 acres. Total site impacts (including wetland and uplands) proposed are 357.54 acres. The proposed office trailer will be placed within the southern lake footprint. No additional impact is proposed for its placement. C. Removal and /or disturbance of natural barriers to storm waves and flooding. The project is located far from the Gulf of Mexico and-is not subject to storm waves. No adverse impacts are expected due to development of this parcel. D. Proposed modifications to natural drainage patterns. The site will be developed according to Collier County and SFWMD requirements for design of surface water management systems. Natural drainage patterns will be incorporated into the system where possible. Specific drainage patterns will be developed and submitted during the surface water management permitting with the SFWMD and DEP. See attached excavation plan provided by Davidson Engineering. E. Extent of impervious surface and percent of groundwater area to be covered. Approximately 357.54 acres of impervious area is expected (353.49 lakes & 4.05 acres of road). SITE SUMMARY North Lake Top of Bank 260.8 AC 27.4% South Lake Top of Bank 92.6 AC 9.8% Office Trailer Area (inside lake area) 2.0 AC 0.2% Access Road ROW 4.0 AC 0.4% Undeveloped Area 592.6 AC 62.4% Total Site Area 950 +/- AC 100.0% F. Annual drawdown of groundwater resulting from. use. No net annual drawdown of groundwater is expected. The site will be according to SFWMD, DEP., & Collier County criteria. G: \HP Project 1:i1cs\300's\ 336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 Resubmittal\Collier County CIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 8 of28 G. Increased siltation in natural water bodies resulting from the proposed use. The site will be developed according to SFWMD and Collier County criteria. No natural water bodies are located in the vicinity of the project, so increased siltation in natural water bodies is not expected. Best Management Practices will be incorporated during construction. 4. Wetlands A. Define the number of acres of Collier County Jurisdictional Wetlands pursuant to the Collier County Growth Management Plan by vegetation type species, vegetation composition canopy, midstory and ground cover, vegetation abundance, dominant, common, occasional, and their wetland function. There are approximately 662.39 acres of Collier County & SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands on the property. A wetland jurisdictional with the SFWMD was conducted on February 28, 2003. Information confirming the wetland jurisdictional has been submitted to the SFWMD, but their confirmation letter has not been received to date. The letter will be forwarded to Collier County as soon as it is received. A FLUCCS map detailing the limits of the jurisdictional wetlands is attached. The following are descriptions of the wetland communities found on the parcel: Hydric Unimproved Pasture FLUCCS 212H 53.42 Acres This community is located predominately in the northern portions of the parcel. These areas were given an agricultural designation due to the high levels of impact made to them by historic logging and consistent cattle grazing over the years. Vegetation is limited to those species commonly associated with heavy cattle grazing. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 212H - Hydric Unimproved Andropogon virginicus broom -sedge Pasture ground cover Blechnum serrulatum Common FAC W ground cover Digitaria serotina dwarf crabgrass PAC ground cover Phyla nodifora Capeweed PAC ground cover Occasional Andropogon virginicus broom -sedge PAC ground cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FAC W ground cover Eupatorium spp dog fennel FAC ground cover Myrica cerifera wax myrtle PAC mid -story Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL (Yround cover Taxodium ascenders pond cypress OBL canopy GAHP Project Files\300's�336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 Resubmittal\Collier County EIS- 12- 03 rev. doe Page 9 of 2R Pop Ash & Willow Slough FLUCCS 616 16 33 Acres Several of these depressional areas can be found scattered throughout the site. The two largest are located near the northeast corner of the property. They are dominated by pop ash and willow in the canopy. Most contained standing water until the beginning of February. Vegetation includes pickerel weed, flag, and buttonbush. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 616 - Pop -ash & Willow Slough Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Ficus sp. strangler fig FAC mid -story Fraxinus caroliniana pop -ash OBL canopy Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Salbx caroliniana coastal plain OBL canopy willow Thalia geniculata flag; arrowroot OBL ground cover Hydric Melaleuca, FLUCCS 619 8.00 Acres Vegetation in these communities consists of Melaleuca, with some slash pine, cypress and cabbage palm persisting in the canopy. Midstory and ground layer vegetation is sparse or absent. Melaleuca densities in these areas approached 75 percent. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 619 — Hydric Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquevervia* melaleuca OBL canopy Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) UPL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy *invasive exotic Cypress, FLUCCS 621, 144.91 Acres These areas generally formed fingers that ran from north to south across the property. Vegetation consists of cypress and scattered cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory contains scattered wax myrtle Brazilian pepper, and dahoon holly. Other vegetation observed includes swamp fern, sawgrass, buttonbush and grapevine. GAHP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation\Collier County E1S\Dec03 Resubmittal \Collier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 10 of 28 SCTNTffIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 621 - Cypress Common Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Digitaria serotina dwarf crabgrass FAG ground cover Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Phyla nodifora Capeweed FAC ground cover Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL canopy vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Smilax spp. Smilax vine *invasive exotic Cypress \Unimproved Pasture FLUCCS 621/212 89-91 Acres This community appeared to be former cypress areas that had been historically logged. However, cypress tree and native groundcover density is greater than in those areas of the site given FLUCCS 212H. The FLUCCS 612 /212H areas are being actively grazed, but native groundcover has persisted to a greater degree. Vegetation observed includes cypress, cabbage palm, swamp fern, saw grass, pickerelweed, and buttonbush. GAHP Project FilesO00's\336 -A Flussy Excavation \Collier County EISOec03 ResubinittalWollier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page I I of 28 SUIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 621/212 — Cypress \Unimproved swamp fern FACW Pasture Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle Common ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis Tcnodium ascenders pond cypress OBL canopy Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Occasional Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Smilax spp. Smilax OBL vine Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape FAC vine *invasive exotic Brazilian Pepper Invaded Cypress ( >50 %) FLUCCS 621/422, 13.26 Acres These areas are similar to Cypress (FLUCCS 62 1) above, but Brazilian pepper has invaded them to a greater extent. SCIEN'T'IFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 621/422 — Brazilian Pepper false nettle OBL ground cover Invaded Cypress ( >50 %) maidencane OBL ground cover Common pickerelweed OBL eround cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Myrica cer fera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Schinus terebinthifolitis* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Taxodium ascenders pond cypress OBL canopy Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Panicum: hemitomon maidencane OBL ground cover Pontederia cordata pickerelweed OBL eround cover Rubus .sp dewberry FAC ground cover Smilax spp. Smilax vine *invasive exotic GAFIP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation`,Collier County EISI.Dec03 ResubmittaRcollier County EIS- 12- 03 rev. doc Page 12 of 28 Cypress with Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 621/428 1.66 Acres This community is located in the northeast corner of the property and may have been part of the burned area to the south. Cabbage palm have recruited into this community heavily. Canopy vegetation is dominated by dense cabbage palm with cypress. Other vegetation present includes Brazilian pepper, swamp fern, smilax. grapevine, and wax myrtle. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 621/428 — Cypress with Cabbage OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane Palm Rubus sp Smilax spp. dewberry ground FAC ground cover Common Smilax vine *invasive exotic Blechnum serrulatum swamp fem FACW ground cover Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush OBL mid -story Cladium jamaicense Ilex cassine saw grass OBL ground cover Myrica cerifera dahoon holly OBL mid -story Schinus terebinthifolius* wax myrtle Brazilian pepper FAC FAC mid -story mid -story Taxodium ascenders pond cypress OBL canopy Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Panicum hemitomon maidencane OBL cover Rubus sp Smilax spp. dewberry ground FAC ground cover Smilax vine *invasive exotic GAFIP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 Res ubmittal \Collier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 13 of 28 Pine - Cypress - Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 624 313.92 Acres This community is the largest on the parcel and is found throughout. Canopy vegetation includes slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, and dahoon holly. Other vegetation present includes swamp fern, Caesar weed, grapevine, saw grass, buckthorn, smilax, poison ivy, and wax myrtle. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 624 - Pine /Cypress /Cabbage palm broom grass FAC ground cover Common false nettle OBL ground cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Ilex cassine dahoon holly OBL mid -story Melaleuca quinquenervia* melaleuca FAC canopy Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Myrsine floridana myrsine mid -story Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Schinus terebinth folius* Brazilian pepper FAC mid -story Smilax spp. Smilax vine Spermacoce verticillata false buttonweed ground cover Taxodium ascenders pond cypress OBL canopy Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy vine Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Andropogon virginianicus broom grass FAC ground cover Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle OBL ground cover Cyperus haspan flat sedge OBL ground cover Eupatorium leptophyllum wetlands dog- OBL ground cover fennel Eustachys glauca finger grass FACW ground cover Lachnocaulonn anceps bog button FACW ground cover Lygodium microphyllum* old world vine climbing fern Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper vine Paspalum monosichyum gulfdune OBL ground cover paspalum Pluchea rosea Pluchea FACW ground cover Rhodomyrtus tomentosa* downy rose myrtle FAC ground cover Rhynchospora microcarpa southern beakrush OBL ground cover Rubus sp dewberry FAC ground cover Saccharumgiganteum sugarcane OBL ground cover plumegrass Woodwardia virzinica chain fern FACW around cover *invasive exotic GAHP Project Files\300's \336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS;Dec03 Resubmittal\Collier County DS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 14 of 28 Melaleuca Invaded Pine - Cypress - Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 624/619 13.28 Acres This community forms a finger extending southeast from the southern limits of the burn area. It is similar to FLUCCS 624 above. but Melaleuca has invaded it to densities approaching 50 percent. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 624/619- Melaleuca Invaded Pine/Cypress /Cabbage palm Common Melaleuca quinquenervia* melaleuca FAC canopy Myrica cerifera wax myrtle FAC mid -story Myrsine floridana myrsine mid -story Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper FAC canopy mid -story Smilax spp. Smilax Taxodium ascendens pond cypress OBL vine Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy canopy Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine vine Occasional Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Blechnum serrulatum Boehmeria cylindrica swamp fern FACW ground cover Cladium jamaicense false nettle OBL ground cover Cyperus haspan saw grass flat sedge OBL ground cover Ilex eassine dahoon holly OBL OBL ground cover mid -story Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper Paspalum monostchyum gulfdune paspalum OBL vine ground cover Pluchearosea Pluchea FACW ground cover *invasive exotic GAHP Project Files\300'sU36 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \DecO3 ResubmittaRCollier County EIS- 12 -03rev.doc Page 15 of 28 Freshwater Marsh, FLUCCS 641, 1.21 Acres This community is found in two locations within the hydric pasture areas. They are slightly deeper that surrounding areas and contain more native vegetation, especially during the rainy season. Vegetation includes maidencane. capeweed. pickerelweed, and red ludwigia. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 641 -Freshwater Marsh Common Di-gitaria serotina Phyla nodifora Panicum hemitomon Ludwidia microcarpa Pontederia cordata dwarf crabgrass FAC ground cover capeweed FAC ground cover maidencane OBL ground cover red ludwigia OBL ground cover pickerelweed OBL ground cover Occasional Andropogon virginicus broom -sedge FAC ground cover Blechnum serrulatum swamp fern FACW ground cover Eupatorium spp dog fennel FAC ground cover Cladium jamaicense saw grass OBL ground cover Eragrostis refracta lovegrass FAC ground cover Hydric Disturbed Lands (Fence Lines), FLUCCS 740H, 6.49 Acres This community consists of areas cleared around the margin of the property for fence lines that are adjacent to wetlands. Canopy vegetation is absent. B. Determine the present seasonal high water levels and high water levels by utilizing lichen lines or other biological indicators. Average natural ground height on the parcel is approximately 9.0 to 10.0" NGVD. Wet season high water levels are were marked in the field using biological indicators such as lichen lines and water marks in several locations throughout the property. They are shown on the attached survey. The average of the marks is approximately 9.78 NGVD. C. Indicate how the project design improves / affects pre -- development hydro - pericds. The mining operation will be constructed in a manner that will allow the creation of some new extended hydroperiod areas and restore some sheetflow to surrounding wetlands. See attached "Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan on HHH Ranch" prepared by James Schortemeyer for details. D. Indicate proposed percent of defined wetlands to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on functions of wetland areas. G:VIP Project FilesUOO's\336 -A Flussy Excavation\Collier County EIS \DecO3 Resubmittal\Collier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 16 of 28 The project site contains 662.39 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Of these wetlands, approximately 251.17 acres are proposed for impact. This is equivalent to 38 percent of the wetlands on the HHH Ranch parcel. The result of these impacts will be conversion to open water areas with associated littoral zones. See attached wetland impact map for specific locations. E. Indicate how the project design minimized impacts on wetlands. Unfortunately, due to the nature of a mining operation with large excavation areas it is difficult to work around small areas of wetland. However, attempts have been made to keep impacts in lower quality wetlands. The mine will enhance and preserve 411.22 acres of wetlands on the property (62 %). F. Indicate how the project design shall compensate for the wetland impacts pursuant to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be in the form of onsite wetland preservation and enhancement, hydroperiod restoration and improvement, and habitat management for upland and wetland species. See attached "Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan on HHH Ranch" prepared by James Schortemeyer for details. The mitigation plan is still under development, but will be in accordance with Collier County, SFWMD, and Florida DEP requirements. Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) worksheets are attached for each wetland community proposed for impact. Also, see attached preserve map. 5-Upland utilization and species of special status. A. Define number of acres of uplands by vegetative type species, vegetation composition canopy, midstory and ground cover, vegetation abundance, dominant, common, occasional, and their upland function. Uplands make up 287.62 acres of the parcel. The uplands include the following FLUCCS communities: GAWP Project FilesgWs036 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 ResubmittaACollier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Paoe 17 of28 Saw Palmetto FLUCCS 321 54.85 Acres This community is found in scattered patches throughout the property. Canopy contains occasional slash pine. Midstory includes dense saw palmetto. Other vegetation present includes pennyroyal, rusty lyonia, southern sumac, grapevine. and buckthorn. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE LISTED STRATUM 321 -Palmetto buckthorn FAC mid -story Common bog button FACW ground cover Ilexglabra gallberry UPL mid -story Lyoniaferruginea rusty lyonia FAC mid -story Piloblephis rigida pennyroyal UPL ground cover Rhus copallina southern sumac UPL midstory Serenoa repens saw palmetto UPL mid -story Smilax spp. smilax vine Spermacoce verticillata false buttonweed ground cover Vitis rotundifolia muscadine grape vine Occasional Bumelia celastrina buckthorn FAC mid -story Lachnocaulon anceps bog button FACW ground cover Pinus elliotti pine (slash pine) UPL canopy Sabal palmetto cabbage palm FAC canopy Vaccinium myrsinites shiny blueberry UPL mid -story ? ground lichen UPL ground cover GA1HP Project Filesl300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS\Dec03 Resubmittal \Collier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 18 of 28 Pine Flatwoods FLUCCS 4l 1 169.01 Acres This community is also found scattered throughout the property. The largest area is located near the center of the parcel and contains 3 northlsouth fingers. It is dominated by slash pine and cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory includes dense to scattered saw palmetto. Other vegetation present includes buckthorn, grapevine, poison ivy, beautyberry, Caesar's weed, pennyroyal, rusty lyonia and myrsine. Some pine flatwoods areas contain larger, more mature pines while others are predominately younger trees. GAHP Project Files1300's1336 -A Hussy Excavation!ColIier County EIT'Dec03 ResubmittahC oilier County EIS- 12- 03rec.doc Page 19 of 28 Pine Flatwoods with Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 411/428 14.34 Acres This community is found in several areas in the northern portion of the site. It is dominated by slash pine and cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory includes scattered saw palmetto and scattered Brazilian pepper. Cabbage palm density is much higher in these areas than in other pine flatwoods communities, often to the point of being the dominant canopy tree. Other vegetation present includes buckthorn, grapevine, poison ivy, beautyberry, Caesar's weed, .and myrsine. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAME LISTED STRATUM 411/428 — Pine Flatwoods w/ Cabbage Palm Common Andropogon virginicus Aristida sp. Piloblephis rigida Pinus elliotti Sabal palmetto Smilax spp. Occasional broom grass FAC ground cover wire grass FAC ground cover pennyroyal UPL ground cover pine (slash pine) UPL canopy cabbage palm FAC canopy Smilax Rhus copallina vine Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Bumelia celastrina buckthorn FAC mid -story Eupatorium capillifolium dog - fennel FAC ground cover Polypremum procumbens rustweed FAC ground cover Rhus copallina southern sumac UPL midstory Serenoa repens saw palmetto UPL mid -story Vaccinium myrsinites shiny blueberry UPL mid -story GAHP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 Resubmittal\Collier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Paoe 20 of 28 Dead Pines with Cabbage Palm FLUCCS 435/428 45.12 Acres This community is found in the northeast portion of the parcel. It appears to be a recent burn area as a result of a wildfire. The fire burned hot enough to kill a majority of the mature slash pines. It is dominated by slash pine (dead) and cabbage palm in the canopy. Midstory includes scattered to dense saw palmetto and occasional Brazilian pepper. Cabbage palm are recruiting in this area heavily. Other vegetation present includes buckthorn, grapevine, poison ivy, beautyberry, Caesar's weed, pennyroyal, rusty lyonia and myrsine. SCIENTIFIC COMMON STATE NAME NAM.. T T4ZTPh CTD A'Tf r* 435/428 — Dead Trees w/ Cabbage Palm Common Andropogon virginicus Aristida sp. flex glabra Piloblephis rigida Pinus elliotti (DEAD) Sabal palmetto Serenoa repens Smilax spp. broom grass FAC ground cover wire grass FAC ground cover gallberry UPL mid -story pennyroyal UPL ground cover pine (slash pine) UPL canopy cabbage palm FAC canopy saw palmetto UPL mid -story Smilax UPL UPL vine Occasional Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum blue maidencane FACW ground cover Bumelia celastrina buckthorn FAC mid -story Eupatorium capillifolium dog-fennel FAC ground cover Polypremum procumbens Rhus copallina rustweed FAG ground cover Vaccinium myrsinites southern sumac shiny blueberry UPL UPL midstory mid -story Disturbed Lands (Fence Lines) FLUCCS 740 4.30 Acres This community consists of areas cleared around the margin of the property for fence lines. Canopy vegetation is absent. B. Indicate proposed percent of defined uplands to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on functions of upland areas. Approximately 106.37 acres (37 %) of the indigenous uplands are proposed for impact. The effects of the proposed impact are permanent conversion to mining uses. C. Indicate how the project design. minimizes imoa _s on u>✓lands. The project has been structured in a two lake format (north & south) to allow the preservation of a corridor of red - cockaded woodpecker habitat. both nesting and foraging. See attached preserve map. The corridor is structured to allow GA\HP Project Filesl300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County ElS\Dec03 Kesubmittal\Collier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 21 of 28 preservation of the best quality nesting and foraging habitat on the property in one contiguous area. RCW's will be able to move from this property to adjacent properties to the west and east. See attached Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan on the HHH Ranch, prepared by James Schortemeyer for details on management activities within preserved areas on the HHH Ranch property. Also see attached RCW Management Plan. D. Provide a plant and animal species survey to include, at a minimum, species of special status that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to these existing on site and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the FGFWFC. A species survey was conducted on the HHH Ranch property during August, December, January, & February of 2002 -2003. Additional field work was completed in September to December of 2003. A copy of the report is attached. The following summarizes results on the HHH parcel: Protected Species Survey Results: Plant: No protected plants observed. Wildlife: Wading Birds Little Blue Heron A single little blue heron was observed foraging in the pop ash slough in the northeast corner of the property. Snowy Egret Two snowy egrets were observed foraging in the pop ash slough in the northeast corner of the property. White Ibis White ibis were observed foraging in the pop ash slough in the northeast corner of the property and the pop ash area along the north property line. Wood Stork Wood storks were observed foraging in the pop ash slough in the northeast corner of the property and the pop ash area along the north property line. Other Birds Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Cavity Trees All areas of the site containing slash pine trees large enough to contain cavities were examined thoroughly using binoculars in a tree -to -tree search method. A total of 9 RCW cavity trees were documented on the HHH Ranch parcel during this species survey. Since March, one tree in the eastern cluster that we had previously classified as a possible "starter cavity" has been fully excavated and is GAHP Project Files\300's\.336 -A Flussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 Resubmittal \Collier County E15- 12- 03rev.doc Page 22 of 28 occupied. This tree is identified as cavity number 13. This makes the onsite cavity total 10. In addition, 6 cavity trees were documented just west of the property. Another cluster of cavity trees was identified on and around a 15 acre parcel located approximately 1600 feet west of the HHH Ranch property. The cavities on the property appear to be concentrated in two loose "colony" configurations. One colony is located along the west property line and consisted of 2 cavities on the property and 6 cavities approximately to the west. The other is along the east property line and consists of 8 cavities. Cavity trees on the property ranged in apparent activity level from abandoned to active. During the course of the species survey, several cavity trees were spot checked for activity by observing them for a period of time prior to sunset and waiting fora bird to return to the tree before dark.. The following details those observations. January 3, 2003 Watched vicinity of cavity #3 and two offsite cavities. No woodpeckers observed. January 9, 2003 Watched cavities #10, #11, and #12 along eastern line. RCW observed entering cavity # 10 (5:25pm). Red - bellied woodpecker observed returning to cavity #11 (5:33 pm). No. woodpeckers observed at cavity #12. January 10, 2003 Watched vicinity of cavity #3 and two offsite cavities. Red - bellied woodpecker observed returning to an offsite cavity (5:10 pm). An unidentified woodpecker was observed entering another offsite cavity (5:41 pm). January 13, 2003 Watched vicinity of RCW cavity 43 and two offsite cavities. No woodpeckers observed, but a red - bellied woodpecker was heard in the area. January 14, 2003 Watched vicinity of cavities #5 and #6. No woodpeckers observed. January 17, 2003 Watched vicinity of RCW cavity #3 and two offsite cavities. No woodpeckers observed. January 20, 2003 Watched vicinity of RCW cavity 93 and two offsite cavities. No woodpeckers observed- Febrztary 20, 2003 Watched vicinity of RCW cavity #3 and two offsite cavities. No woodpeckers observed. GAHP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Exeavation \Collier County EIS`Dec03 Kesubmittal\Collier County FIS- I2- 03rev.doc Page 23 of28 September 9, 2003 to Present Cavity that was previously thought a starter hole has been completed and is occupied. It is labeled as #13. Three RCW's have been captured and banded from 3 different cavities (# 10, # 12, 41 ). Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Foraging Activity During this protected species survey red - cockaded woodpeckers were observed foraging on four occasions at various locations throughout the property. See attached drawing entitled "HHH Ranch — FLUCCS Mapping & Protected Species Survey" for specific locations. In one of the sightings, the RCW observed was foraging alone. In the other three instances, the RCW was traveling with other woodpecker species such as red - bellied, downy, or hairy woodpeckers. Update: RCW's have been observed foraging on several more occasions. See attached field notes included in the Protected Species Survey. American Kestrel A single kestrel was observed in the unimproved pasture area located in the north central portion of the property. Mammals Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed four times during this species survey. In all four cases, they were observed in or at the margin of FLUCCS 624 habitat. Florida Black Bear Not directly observed, but a cypress tree was found along the east property line where it appears a bear ripped into it in order to get to a beehive inside. Reptiles Gopher Tortoise In the original species survey, no gopher tortoise or signs of gopher tortoise were identified on the property. In the fieldwork since March, a small population of tortoise was identified in one upland patch along the eastern property Iine. The area was intensively surveyed for tortoise with 9 active, 7 inactive. and 2 abandoned burrows identified. See attached maps for specific locations. Based on these results, upland areas of similar habitat throughout the property were re- surveyed for tortoise. Gopher tortoise or burrows were not observed in any other areas of the property. E. Indicate how the project minim zes impacts on species of special status. The project has been structured in a two lake format (north & south) to allow the preservation of a corridor of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, both nesting and foraging. See attached preserve map. The corridor is structured to allow GAHP Project Filesl300'sU36 -A Hussy Excavation\Collier County EIS\UecO3 ResubmittahCollier County MS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 24 of 28 preservation of the best quality nesting and foraging habitat on the property in one contiguous area. RCW's will be able to move from this property to adjacent properties to the west and east. Littoral zones and shallow wetland areas will be created within the excavation areas to benefit listed wading birds. See attached "Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan on the HHH Ranch ", prepared by James Schortemeyer for details on management activities within preserved areas on the HHH Ranch property. See attached RCW Management Plan for RCW specific management activities. 6. Marine and estuarine resources. A. -H. No marine or estuarine resources exist on or are adjacent to this parcel. 7. Noise A. Describe changes in decibels and duration of noise generated during and after the project (both day and night) that will exceed Collier County regulations. Noise is not expected to exceed county standards or standards imposed by the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA). B. Describe steps that will be taken to reduce noise levels during and after the project. All applicable standards for blasting and mining activities will be met. C. Project compliance with Federal Aid Highway Program Manual 7 -7 -3. No Federal Highway Aid is being requested for the project. 3.8.5.4.2 Public facilities and services 1. Wastewater Management A. Describe existing treatment facilities as to capacity, percent capacity being used, type of treatment and degree of treatment. N /A. B. If applicable, describe similar features Of proposed new treatment facilities. N /A. G: \HP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \DecO3 Resubmittal\Collier County EIS- I 2-03rev. doc Page 25 of 28 C. Describe the character and fate of liquid and solid effluents. The site will be served by an on -site septic system. Solids will be removed as necessary and disposed of in a certified solid effluent disposal center. 2. Water Supply. A. Estimate average daily potable and non - potable water demand by the project. Potable: 385 gallons per. day average. Non - potable: N /A. B. Source of raw water supply. Potable: on -site well. Non - potable: N/A C. Analysis of on site treatment systems relative to State and County Standards. None anticipated. 3. Solid Wastes. A. Estimate of average daily volumes of solid wastes. 100 pounds per day average. B. Proposed method of disposal of solid wastes. Dumpsters on site will be provided and scheduled for regular pickup at least once per week by a licensed commercial hauler. A licensed hauler will likewise dispose of recyclables. C. Any plans for recycling of resource recovery. Recycling will be in accordance with Collier County's current waste recycling program. 4. Recreation and open spaces. A. Acreage and facilities demand resulting from the new use. N/A B. Amount of public park or recreation land donated by developer. None. G: \HP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 ResubmittaRCollier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 26 of 28 C. Management plans for any open water areas if one -half acre of more within the project. Open water areas will meet Collier County requirements for littoral zones and removal of exoticlnuisance species, such as cattails. Approximately 7.07 acres of littoral zones will be required based on the surface area of the proposed lakes. D. Plans for recreational development by the developer on dedicated lands. No lands will be donated by the developer. E. Amount of public recreation lands removed from inventory by the new use. No public recreation lands are being affected by this project. F. Development and /or blockage of access to public beaches or waters. No access to public beaches or water is blocked by this project. 5. Aesthetic and cultural factors. A. Documentation form Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any printed historic or archaeological surveys conducted on the project area. The Division of Historical Resources requested that a professional Archaeological survey be conducted on the property. The survey was completed in June of this year. A copy of the report is attached. There were no archaeological or historical sites found on the property. The report was transmitted to the State and they have issued a letter of no impact for the project. See attached letter. B. Known historic or archaeological sites and relationships to proposed project. The Division of Historical Resources requested that a professional Archaeological survey be conducted on the property. The survey was completed in June of this year. A copy of the report is attached. There were no archaeological or historical sites found on the property. The report was transmitted to the State and they have issued a letter of no impact for the project. See attached letter. C. Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historical / archaeological integrity of the site. The Division of Historical Resources requested that a professional Archaeological survey be conducted on the property. The survey was completed in June of this year. A copy of the report is attached. There were no archaeological or historical sites found on the property. The report was transmitted to the State and they have issued a letter of no impact for the project. See attached letter. G: \HP Project Files\300's\336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \Dec03 Resubmittal \Collier County F.IS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 27 of 28 D. Indicate any natural scenic features that may be modified by the . project and explain what actions will be utilized to preserve aesthetic values. Approximately 357.54 acres of uplands and wetlands are proposed for mining. Remaining natural features will be preserved and enhanced through exotic removal and hydroperiod restoration. See attached "Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan on the HHH Ranch ", prepared by James Schortemeyer for details on management activities within preserved areas on the HHH Ranch property. See attached RCW Management Plan for RCW specific management activities. E. Provide the basic architectural and landscaping designs. N /A. 6. Monitoring A. Describe the design and procedures of any proposed monitoring during and after site preparation and development. Monitoring will be in accordance with South Florida Water Management District permitting and permitting through the Florida DEP. Sec. 3.8.6 Specifics to address. 1. Indicate how the proposed project has incorporated the natural, aesthetic, and cultural resources and other environmental considerations into the planning and design of the project. Foraging and nesting habitat is being preserved and managed for RCW's in an effort to help ensure their long term survivability in North Belle Meade. The remaining wetland preserves will be enhanced through exotic removal providing better habitat for wetland dependent species. Large areas of wetlands and uplands will be preserved to provide a more diverse range of habitats available to wildlife. See attached "Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan on the HHH Ranch ", prepared by James Schortemeyer for details on management activities within preserved areas on the HHH Ranch property. See attached RCW Management Plan for RCW specific management activities. 2. List the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the reasons the impacts are unavoidable and that the impacts represent the minimum impacts possible to the environmental quality of the site and surrounding area which might be affected by the proposed use. Approximately 357.54 acres of uplands and wetlands are proposed for mining. The impacts are unavoidable in order to permit such an excavation activity. The GAHP Project Files\300's1336 -A Hussy Excavation \Collier County EIS \DecO3 ResuhmittahCol Iier County EIS- 12- 03rev.doc Page 28 of 28 impacts are the minimum feasible for a project of this scale. See attached "Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan on the HHH Ranch ", prepared by James Schortemeyer for details on management activities within preserved areas on the HHH Ranch property. See attached RCW Management Plan for RCW specific management activities. These activities are designed to minimize the impacts to the environmental quality of the site and the surrounding area. 3. Provide substantial alternatives to the proposed project to that reasons for the choice of course of action are clear, not arbitrary or capricious. The proposed use for this property is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and is an appropriate use for this property. The property meets the requirements of a commercial excavation project. 4. List immediate short -term and long term impacts to the environment. Short Term: 1) Blasting and mining activity noise. Trucking activity Long Term: 1) Approximately 357.54 acres of uplands and wetlands are proposed for mining. 5. List any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of natural resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Approximately 357.54 acres of uplands and wetlands are proposed for mining. GAHP Project Files\300's1336 -A Hussy ExcavationTollier County EIS \Dec03 ResubmittaKollier Countv EIS- 12- 03rev.doc �� � term• ^-`5 � � �� WNW— to •.ft(��Y"ry'`,,� .. s _ •' mot' .. MM RANCH Impact Acreages by FLUCCS community rovided by Butch Kent, .......: , totaling 392.54 acres asp Based on lakes _ ==r x •' #1 (1`T — 281.04 acres Lake .. _ :� ��••� �:w:..�:,= Lake (Souh). _ 111.50 acres .. _ ttached 11" x 17" drawing COrange-- U * pland imp acts Green and impacts) See a Lake #1 (Northl Total Impacts for Lake #1 = 281.04 Upland Impacts _ P; 39.21 4.51 321 19.25 411 11.38 411/428 41.96 4351428 0.19 740 77 29 Total 624 Wetland Im acts _ P; 39.21 2 12H 10.85 616 5.52 619 4.45 621 59.14 621/212 0.15 621/428 70,87 624 13.03 624/619 0.53 740H 203.75 Total 3 pr 104 "A„d rwe"t- " Lake #2 (Southl Im is f o Lake #2 =111 50 ,��,. �. •,��r,�Fy,�'r' r. C: .. .'�._ �... - .r�..:-}��mm :.;1 .- }Ei {.y � ,,,yY �,..._:. ?.; r�r�.+3s „'::�- ...�.^..,r4. .i F. .`Y;s'�.'.S''°5�wti •K- WDN. �eC�J:: �.,sE,T..sM`i .- .:i•A''En�?':5+. J' i <��. Upland ;Impacts t- - 321 13.69 411 24.40 - Total 38.09 �. n ..Wetland Im acts 621 36.74 . 621/422 10.32. - 624 26.35 Total 73.41 Total Impacts for this 2 lake configuration = Uplands: 115.3 8 acres (40% of total uplands) Wetlands: 277.16 acres (42% of total wetlands) In terms of wetland quality, the following is how I would rank them from best quality to worst quality: 1 (BEST) 616, 621, 624, 621/212, 624/619, 619, 212H, 740H (WORST) FLUCCS Legend CeEO Cmlolm 1Wrb Aeon s�- 61M ♦tt ♦ttf0 PsalbamavtlnOtly.PJe 1mR ]39 � D.l Pbr WY CnlgsR4 610 fNM�T�euvblayi 16.12 iA M}dletl�e t211 tRM � C1q�f \Ydnpwal P.ln B�efgf�h,alaE G\pspYtQ �� �FMiyAOOY� P�Ye 62tpK YMMPierLPVe tiA 1� ,Mi�tlae YY�tlaW far ut f�6rW 131 Tb OW6.G Waff��U.d l01 RDImAOl WkotFOSUw) {.19 _ 0.®_._ _ RCWW.13 d Apmll l2(]Rbla AT RCIfYo4 1,A� Tm Rd1fo13 d �..,,_�aa RCWo2` RCWo xauslm 76 HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants 3785 Airpwt Road North, Suite B-1, Naples Florida 34105 P-teded Sprd- Survey Legend RCYi• Ratl CedalMNl�ad�Ce;rTwp.y RCMbaCFiSRE Rd Cod W./ Wnep�tla'O.gTw. B-• AdM eapnrTaldo. euiadpp {p. bodMa COP�KTatiM••d ®� . N�WO W 4gMTab�w,Mner (y �l HEM Ranch Protected species survey m trtiawe.a.mT em 616 h�r� im 621!428 m¢a �7tRl.om.atm. eat e,��ruy.,vr �!m 212H ti. 7m 411928 621212 is i�io. ,yue�ts �e.et�s ta.4 740H zu 624 sm 7 7 p6 4 Ole 7 2 a4e w @1 w 411/46 624 411 624 tit 624 435= as 624 621 eta 740H tm 621 is tzn @4 52 vu 4111428 e16 @1/22 a? 1 818 a�a 41 19 tm sn m @4 N @4 etn WPrCMf/udi 24 621212 aim 212H � ,am 641 212H ,em 62 621212 au m 618 i @4 4.m @1212 cs @4 m 212H — 7 LT 4111425 ati.vMm. 4ID Rtt szt @4 212H 740 am 6°l tzW u @i ,m 624819 '441 as @4 624 411 621 yi is 411 tm 321 s4s u 411 417 321 @4 7� @4 tm 621212 272H @1 sm 624 321 411 40 7� a,ti 621212 —411 m 321 aa6 a>67 vm ny c¢ V 7u¢ ae6 321 040 @ 621212 zm at nm u 4 327 740H am om @4 as 621 am nH as�i 624 740 as 411 411 321 _ ism ust ax 69 619 Rm is @4 4qi @4 am nm ant 821212 411 ohm tam 411 .321 e; r .2@ 740H 1 9 1 ase 7 ay 740 as @71422 tie 621 ' 621 the 321 7 1. oa tm s� 64. @4 i s 411 zs 41 624 1nm �1 4t1 �9 m 624 740H 411 InW.t.t� 75 HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. FLUCCSMa P Land, Environmental & Traffic Planning Consultants Sa1�: 1--6w Saes 29,32&33 coffin cows 3785 Airpo Road North, &iitr B 1, Naples Florida 34105 xr Flc T mmhi : 495 D as Ey Js. __� -- I lJ,ac I 91 -05-03 I Rmec I 27E I Raa•:e.A n..• I ntat— CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY HIM RANCH COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for: Winchester Lakes Corporation 1910 Seward Avenue Maples, FL 34101 August 2003 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED SARASOTA, FLORIDA CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY HH11I RANCH COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Performed for: Winchester Lakes Corporation 1910 Seward Avenue Naples, Florida 34101 By: Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A Sarasota, Florida 34240 Joan Deming - Principal Investigator Jodi B. Pracht - Project Archaeologist ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INC 8110 Blaikie Court, Suite A, Sarasota, FL 34240 (941) 379 -6206 Fax (941) 379 -6216 www.aci- crm.com Established in April of 1976, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) is Florida =s oldest cultural resources management company. Through more than two decades of conscientious service, ACI has become Florida =s leading cultural resource management company. ACI has gained national recognition as: •X A recipient of the U.S. Small Business Administration =s Award of Excellence in recognition of Aoutstanding contributions and service@ for work at the Kennedy Space Center on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. X A successful small business with a bare -bones management style recognized by the American Express Corporation =s Your Company magazine. Our main office is located at 8110 Blaikie Court in Sarasota, and our satellite offices are located in the Tampa Bay and Tallahassee Areas. All three offices are linked by computer, fax and 1- 800 phone service. The Tallahassee Area office is particularly useful to clients requiring our services in North Florida and consultation with the Florida Division of Historical Resources, the reviewing agency for all state and federal cultural resource permits. ACI =s main facility includes staff offices, a computerized reference library, a laboratory to process and analyze cultural materials, storage facilities on and off site, computers and printers, drafting equipment, photographic equipment, four -wheel drive vehicles, and a full complement of archaeological field survey and excavation equipment. In addition, we carry all standard insurance policies. ACI is prepared and always Aon call. @ ACI =s 28 years of successful cultural resource service is a result of our professional integrity, Aclient first@ philosophy, and knowledge and skill in navigating clients through the complex review and compliance process for local, state, and federal agencies. Selective Experience ACI's senior staff is comprised of archaeologists and historians. All architectural historians graduate with degrees in their respective fields. Each senior staff member also meets the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for professionals working in the field of historic preservation, and our Principal Investigators and Project Archaeologists are registered professional archaeologists (RPA). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment survey of the 950 acre HHH Ranch in Collier County, Florida. The purpose of the survey was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as per the Florida Division of Historical Resources (Matthews 2003). The cultural resource assessment survey was conducted in July and August of 2003. There are no historic structures located within the property. FindinV,s Background research and a review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) indicated that no archaeological sites had been recorded within or near the project area. A review of relevant site locational information for environmentally similar areas within Collier County and the surrounding region indicated a variable potential (low to moderate) for the occurrence of prehistoric sites within the project area. As a result of field survey, no archaeological sites were recorded. In addition, no historic structures were located with the project area. Based on the negative results of the archaeological survey, the proposed project will not impact any significant cultural resources. Therefore, no further archaeological or historical work is recommended. i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ ............................... 1 -1 1.1 Project Description ...................................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 Purpose ..................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................... ............................... 2 -1 3.0 PREHISTORIC REVIEW .................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Paleo - Indian Tradition .............................................. ............................... 3 -1 3.2 Archaic Tradition ...................................................... ............................... 3 -3 3.3 Glades Tradition ....................................................... ............................... 3 -5 4.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ................................................ ............................... 4 -1 5.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS ........ ............................... 5 -1 5.1 Background Research and Literature Review .......... ............................... 5 -1 5.1.1 Archaeological Considerations ..................... ............................... 5 -1 5.1.2 Historical Considerations .............................. ............................... 5 -3 5.2 Field Methodology .................................................... ............................... 5 -3 5.3 Laboratory Methods /Curation .................................. ............................... 5 -3 5.4 Unexpected Discoveries ........................................... ............................... 5 -4 6.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... ............................... 6 -1 6.1 Archaeological Results ............................................. ............................... 6 -1 6.2 Historical Results ...................................................... ............................... 6 -1 6.3 Recommendations ..................................................... ............................... 6 -1 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ........................................................ ............................... 7 -1 APPENDIX A: Survey Requirement Letter APPENDIX B: Survey Log Sheet 11 Figure Figure 1.1. Figure 2.1. Figure 3.1. Figure 5.1. Figure 6.1. LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOGRAPHS Location of the HHH Ranch Project Area ................... ............................... 1 -2 Physical Setting of the HHH Ranch Project Area ....... ............................... 2 -3 South Florida Archaeological Areas ............................ ............................... 3 -2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Zones of Archaeological Potential( ZAPs) .......................................................... ............................... 5 -2 Approximate Location of Shovel Tests Within the HHH Ranch Project Area.............................................................................. ............................... 6 -2 Table Table 2.1. Soil Types within Project Area (USDA 1990) ............ ............................... 2 -1 Photo Photo 2.1. Looking West Toward Flooded Portion of Project Area and Stand of Melaleuca..................................................................... ......... ....................... 2 -4 Photo 2.2. Looking North Along Pine Flatwoods ........................... Photo 2.3. Looking South Toward Mixed Stand of Cypress and Brazilian Pepper..... 2 -4 iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Proiect Descripti on 1 -1 The HHH Ranch is a 950 acre parcel in Collier County, Florida (Figure 1.1). The development of the parcel is a unique collaboration of private enterprise and environmental preservation. Under terms set forth in the Conceptual Plan for Wildlife. and Habitat Management on the HHH Ranch, 40% of the parcel will be mined for limerock and other minerals for use as fill material, and 55% of the parcel will be retained as natural habitat (Schortemeyer 2003). This cultural resource assessment project, which involved an archaeological survey of the HHH Ranch parcel, was required by the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR) under procedures contained in the applicable local ordinance or land development code because: Data from environmentally similar areas in Collier County indicate that archaeological and historic sites, especially the former, are likely to occur in the project area. It is, therefore, the opinion of this office that there is a reasonable probability of some proposed project activities impacting cultural resources (Matthews 2003; Appendix A). 1.2 Purpose The purpose of the cultural resource assessment survey was to locate and identify any archaeological sites and historic resources located within the project area and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility as per criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The survey was conducted in July and August of 2003. Background research preceded field survey and provided an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated to occur within the project area, as well as a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered. This report conforms to the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A -46 (revised August 2002), Florida Administrative Code. P03075 GRAS Repoit/August 2003 1 -2 ' •_fit _ -- — or�y. ft-ea —&owerw 30'. '^ 29 28 27T"__ hand -C. CURRY w _ — — _ i� • J ISLAND — _ 35 38 "�; —31 --� 32 — it 33 34 951 55 4 _ mi 3 F2 zz d. GOLDEN GATE Wh6e AIRPORT 18 15(PVT-) 14 - _ — m 24 .GOLDEN GATE 26 27 DELIMITED Po9. AREA r : j EN. 2p Lucky L T _ __ —- - 6oldm Gpb Ea1nM= ti, Er Prkwq tA!l/petw AUp1 (T _ —_ _ — — _ — — r _ — c 1 84 3 2 1 6 '4= 9 10 S1 12 7 — ae.— .�. —pa.u— - 16L = 11 12 - —__ WING SOUTH — l5 14 - -73- — ___ P _-C76�75= - 7T 76 -- _— - - — RpM-0 - :� Hammock •7 - 420. 21 • 22 _ 23 1 \ South= S'°arr= N�PHs� 27 26 .\\ � 25— — =30-'- _ _8 - -.2g _ 27 26 Mono � I 4 951 31 33 ,� =35r` 36 33 -,34 3 p 2 4 mile ..pdpHENDERSON CREEK Figure 1.1 Location of the HHH Ranch Project Area, Collier County Florida (State Topographic Office, General Highway Map, Collier County 1993). 2 -1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The HHH Ranch is located in Township 49 South, Range 27 East in Sections 29, 31 and 32 (USGS Belle Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973) in Collier County, Florida. The project area is located immediately north of Interstate 75 (Alligator Alley) and approximately four miles east of Collier Boulevard. The property is bordered to the north, east, and west by undeveloped land (Figure 2.1). Physiographically, Collier County is divided into three regions: the Flatlands; the Big Cypress Swamp; and the Southwest Coast and Ten Thousand Islands (Davis 1943). The project area is situated within the Big Cypress Swamp, an area that is less than 15 feet above mean sea level (USDA 1954:3). The Big Cypress Swamp also contains large, wet areas vegetated by cypress trees, islands of pine forests and palmetto prairies, and small depressions having no surface drainage. During field survey, much of the property was underwater (Photo 2.1). According to the USDA 1954 and 1990 soil survey reports for Collier County, the project area is comprised of poorly drained soils. The soil types are detailed in Table 2. 1, and the generally wet nature of the landscape is evident on the USGS Belle Glade NE quadrangle map (Figure 2.1). Today, the property is host to numerous vegetational assemblages including; hydric unimproved pastures, Saw Palmetto, Pine Flatwoods, Pop Ash and Willow Sloughs, Cypress, and the exotics Melaleuca and Brazilian Pepper (Hoover Planning and Development 2003; Photos 2.2 — 2.3). Table 2.1. Soil Types within Project Area (USDA 1 Boca fine sand Holopaw fine sand, limestone substratum Oldsmar fine sand, limestone substratum Rivera fine sand, limestone substratum Nearly level, poorly drained in flatwoods Nearly level, poorly drained in sloughs and drainageways Nearly level, poorly drained in flatwoods Nearly level, poorly drained in sloughs and wa Paleoenvironmental Considerations: The prehistoric environment of Collier County and the surrounding area was different from that which is seen today. Sea levels were much lower, the climate was drier, and potable water was scarce. Given the changes in water resource availability, botanical communities, and faunal resources, an understanding of human ecology during the earliest periods of human occupation in Florida cannot be founded upon observations of the modern environment. Aboriginal inhabitants would have developed cultural adaptations in response to the environmental changes taking place. These alterations were reflected in prehistoric settlement patterns, site types, site locations, artifact forms, and variations in the resources used. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 2 -2 Dunbar (1981:95) notes that due to the and conditions during the period between 16,500 and 12,500 years ago, "the perched water aquifer and potable water supplies were absent." Palynological studies conducted in Florida and Georgia suggest that between 13,000 and 5,000 years ago, this area was covered with an upland vegetation community of scrub oak and prairie (Watts 1969, 1971, 1975). The rise of sea level severely reduced xeric habitats over the next several millennia. By 5000 years ago, southern pine forests were replacing the oak savannahs. Extensive marshes and swamps developed along the coasts, and subtropical hardwood forests became established along the southern tip of Florida (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Northern Florida saw an increase in oak species, grasses and sedges (Carbone 1983). At Lake Annie in south - central Florida, pollen cores are dominated by wax myrtle and pine. The assemblage suggests that by this time a forest dominated by longleaf pine, along with cypress swamps and bayheads existed in the area (Watts 1971, 1975). Roughly five millennia ago, modem floral and climatic and environmental conditions began to be established (Watts 1975). With the onset of the modern environmental conditions, numerous micro - environments were available to the aboriginal inhabitants in the Tampa Bay area. By 4000 B.P., a shift to warmer, moister conditions resulted in the appearance of hardwood forests, bayheads, cypress swamps, prairie, and marshlands, i.e., the modern, naturally occurring, ecosystems of the region. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 II II tl ii if Pi KJ 2-3 77 7Z ............ . ... .................. ........ . ....... ... ......... . .... . ....... A If 4. 4 4� 3-� Alf, 2-3 77 7Z --7F- C4LLIGA TOR ALLEYl -4i Z 4'. -7 bu 4'. A, 7: AL 7- 0 0.5 1 mile Figure 2.1. Physical Setting of the HHH Ranch Project Area, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Sections 29, 31, and 32, Collier County (USGS Belle Meade NW, Fla. 1958, PR 1987; Ile Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973). A If 4. 4 4� Alf, --7F- C4LLIGA TOR ALLEYl -4i Z 4'. -7 bu 4'. A, 7: AL 7- 0 0.5 1 mile Figure 2.1. Physical Setting of the HHH Ranch Project Area, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Sections 29, 31, and 32, Collier County (USGS Belle Meade NW, Fla. 1958, PR 1987; Ile Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973). w . V4, g .g V,.r,-.,g-"-.,.-,-�� SW T4. 1 1, KA N-- w I A . . . . . . . . . . . SW 3 -1 3.0 PREHISTORIC REVIEW In general, archaeologists summarize the prehistory of a given area (i.e., an archaeological region) by delineating the sequence of archaeological cultures through time. Archaeological cultures are defined largely in geographical terms, but also reflect shared environmental and cultural factors. According to the classification of John Griffin (1988; 2002), Collier County is part of the Ten Thousand Islands District of the Everglades Archaeological Area of South Florida (Figure 3.1). Geographically, the District forms a rather compactly defined area. It is bordered on the north by the gap which separates it from the Caloosahatchee archaeological area, and to the south by the swamps at the mouth of the Shark River. It extends eastward through the Big Cypress, probably including all of the drainage toward the Ten Thousand Islands (Griffin 1988:278; 2002:Fig. 5.2). The sequence of cultural development for much of South Florida, which includes the Everglades Area and Ten Thousand Islands District, was pan- regional during the earliest periods of human occupation, the Paleo -Indian and -the Archaic. However, by about 500 B.C., distinctive regional cultures had developed and are often distinguished in the archaeological record by differences in ceramic styles and decorations. Thus, by 500 B.C. the prehistoric populations residing in the Ten Thousand Islands District had developed a cultural assemblage distinct from those people inhabiting other parts of South Florida (Griffin 1988:120 -121). The following summary follows closely the outlines presented by Griffin (1988) and Widmer (1988). 3.1 Paleo- Indian Tradition Current archaeological evidence indicates that the earliest human occupation of the Florida peninsula dates back some 12,000 to 13,500 years (Widmer 1988; Milanich 1994). This time, referred to as the Paleo- Indian (or Paleoindian) Period, lasted until approximately 9000 years before present (B.P.). During this period, the climate of South Florida was much drier than today. Sea level was 262 to 427 feet lower than present and the coast extended approximately 100 miles seaward on the Gulf Coast. This lowering of sea level had a direct effect on the water table, and it appears that major surface rivers and many seasonal ponds were non - existent in South Florida. Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee, Myakka, and Peace Rivers were probably dry, and the Everglades may not have existed. Because of drier global conditions, water was in short supply; thus, potable water was often obtained at sinkholes. Plant life was also more diverse around these oases which were frequented by both people and game animals (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:38 -40; Milanich 1994:40; Widmer 1988). Thus, the prevailing environmental conditions were largely uninviting to human habitation during the Paleo- Indian period (Griffin 1988:191). Given the inhospitable climate, it is not surprising that the population was sparse, with sites of this time period uncommon in South Florida. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 BELLE GLADE 3-2 Figure 3.1. South Florida Archaeological Areas (Griffin 1988). Project is in the Ten Thousand Islands District of the Everglades Area. 0 10 25 0 1020 40 KW ArlI 3 -3 The most readily available information about Florida's earliest inhabitants has been uncovered by underwater excavations at both the Little Salt Spring (Clausen et al. 1979) and Warm Mineral Springs (Clausen et al. 1975; Cockrell and Murphy 1978) sites in Sarasota County. Also, work at the Cutler Fossil Site south of Miami and near Biscayne Bay in Dade County (Carr 1986) has yielded two projectile points which were associated with a hearth area and radiocarbon dated to the Paleo- Indian period (9760 + 120 B.P.). In general, the Paleo4ndian period is characterized by a small population which relied on a hunting and gathering mode of subsistence. The scarce permanent sources of water, or "watering holes" (Neill 1964) were very important in settlement selection (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). This settlement model, often referred to as the Oasis Hypothesis (Milanich 1994:41), has a high correlation with geologic features in southern Florida, such as deep sinkholes like those noted in Sarasota and Dade Counties. Sites of this period are most readily identified on the basis of distinctive lanceolate- shaped stone projectile points including those of the Simpson and Suwannee types (Bullen 1975). The tool assemblage also included items manufactured of bone and wood and very likely leather as well as plant fibers (Clausen et al. 1975). 3.2 Archaic Tradition The succeeding Archaic tradition is divided into three temporal periods: the Early Archaic (ca. 9000 to 7000 B.P.), Middle Archaic (ca. 7000 to 4000 B.P.), and the Late Archaic (ca. 4000 to 2500 B.P.). According to Widmer (1988), the extreme aridity of South Florida during the Early Archaic period may have resulted in the abandonment of the area. Sites of this time are almost non - existent in southwestern Florida. Approximately 6500 years ago, marked environmental changes occurred. These had a profound influence upon human settlement and subsistence practices. Among the landscape alterations were rises in sea and water -table levels which resulted in the creation of more available surface water. It was during this time that Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades were created, and the Caloosahatchee and Peace Rivers flowed with fresh water. In addition to changed hydrological conditions, the Archaic period is characterized by the spread of mesic forests, and the beginning of modern vegetation communities, including pine forests and cypress swamps. The Early Archaic period is well documented in Florida, and generally recognized by the presence of Dalton and/or Bolen type projectile points (Bullen 1975). Discoveries at Little Salt Spring in Sarasota County (Clausen et al. 1979) and the Windover Site in Brevard County (Doran and Dickel 1988; Doran 2002) indicate that bone and wood tools were also used. The archaeological record suggests a diffuse, yet well - scheduled pattern of exploiting both coastal and interior resources; for example, the Early Archaic tool assemblages are more diverse than the preceding Paleo -Indian tool kits, and include specialized stone tools for performing a variety of tasks (Milanich 1998). Most Early P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 W Archaic sites are small, seasonal campsites. This type of site may suggest that small bands moved seasonally in search of food. The archaeological record for the Middle Archaic is better understood than the Early Archaic. Among the material culture inventory are several varieties of stemmed, broad blade projectile points, including those of the Newnan, Levy, Marion, Putnam, and Lake types (Bullen 1975). At sites where preservation is good, such as sinkholes and ponds, an elaborate bone tool assemblage is recognized along with shell tools and complicated weaving (e.g., Beriault et al. 1981; Wheeler 1994). In addition, artifacts have been found in the surrounding upland areas, as exhibited in the projectile points found in the upland palmetto and pine flatwoods surrounding the Bay West Site (Beriault et al. 1981). Along the coast, excavations on both Horr`s Island in Collier County and Useppa Island, Lee County ( Milanich et al. 1984; Russo 1991; Milanich 1994) have uncovered pre - ceramic shell middens which date to the Middle Archaic period. Mortuary sites, characterized by interments in shallow ponds and sloughs as discovered at the Republic Groves Site in Hardee County (Wharton and Williams 1980) and the Bay West Site in Collier County (Beriault et al. 1981), are also distinctive attributes of the Middle Archaic. At the Bay West Site (8CR200), several miles to the northwest of the project area, 35 to 40 bodies were found, some of whom had been placed on leafy biers, perhaps branches laid down in graves dug into the peat deposits. Artifacts recovered included small wooden sticks, possibly used as bow drills for starting fires, antler tools with wooden hafts that appear to be sections of throwing sticks, two throwing stick triggers, and bone points or pins ( Milanich 1994:81). In the surrounding upland areas, a concentration of stone artifacts and debitage was found. These included three projectile points as well as a scraper or blade fragment dating to the Middle to Late Archaic occupation (Beriault et al. 1981:43). These artifacts provide evidence that elevated palmetto and pine flatwoods surrounding a mortuary site may have served as a place of human habitation. Similar mortuary situations, i.e., the discovery of bodies deposited in the water or muck in shallow ponds or sloughs, have been noted at the Gauthier Site in Brevard County and at Nona's Site in Sarasota County (Luer 2002). Burials of the Middle Archaic have also been found at the Cheetum Site in Dade County where 21 or more burials, many secondary, were found in a compact concretion zone at the base of the site (Newman 1986; 1993). Pre - ceramic cultural horizons beneath tree island sites have been reported in the eastern Everglades (Mowers and Williams 1972; Carr 1979). Population growth, as evidenced by the increased number of Middle Archaic sites and accompanied by increased socio - cultural complexity, is also assumed for this time ( Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Widmer 1988). The Late (or Ceramic) Archaic Period is similar to the Middle Archaic with the exception of the addition of ceramics. The earliest pottery in the South Florida region is fiber - tempered, as represented at sites on Key Marco (Cockrell 1970; Widmer 1974). P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 3 -5 Also, during this period, pottery of the Orange series, decorated with incised lines, is characteristic. Projectile points of the Late Archaic are primarily stemmed and corner - notched and include those of the Culbreath, Clay, and Lafayette types (Bullen 1975). Other lithic tools include hafted scrapers and ovate and trianguloid knives (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Current archaeological evidence indicates that parts of South Florida were sparsely settled during this time. However, there is evidence of a number of large shell middens, which date to the Late Archaic, in southwestern Florida. For example, at both Horr's Island, just south of Marco Island (Russo 1991; McMichael 1979), and at Bonita Springs (Archaeological and Historical Conservancy [AHC] 1990:32), horseshoe - shaped shell ridges, reminiscent of the Archaic shell rings of the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, have been documented. In Sarasota County, north of the project area, another horseshoe- shaped marine shell midden, the Guptill Midden, has been well- documented at Historic Spanish Point (Almy and Luer 1993). The termination of the Late Archaic corresponds to a time of environmental change (ca. 4000 -2500 B.P.). The maturing of productive estuarine systems was accompanied by cultural changes. The time period is marked by the appearance of the earliest pottery known in the U.S. This crude pottery tempered with fiber - typically Spanish moss - sometimes exhibits incised designs. It is best. represented in South Florida on Key Marco (Widmer 1988:67 -73). Eventually, what John Goggin originally defined as the "Glades Tradition" (Griffin 1988:133) developed. Dominated by the presence of sand- tempered ceramics in the archaeological record, the Glades Tradition was also characterized by "the exploitation of the food resources of the tropical coastal waters with secondary dependence on game and some use of wild plant foods. Agriculture was apparently never practiced but pottery was extensively used" ( Goggin 1949:28). The Mulberry Midden, located west of 1 -75 and northwest of the project area, dates to the Florida Transitional period (Lee et al. 1993) and embodies evidence of the development of the Glades Tradition at the termination of the Late Archaic in Collier County. 3.3 Glades Tradition The Glades Tradition was defined by Goggin (1947) on the basis of work he conducted in South Florida in the 1930s and 1940s. Goggin noticed that the archaeological assemblage, beginning at about 2500 B.P. (500 B.C.), began to take on a distinct appearance (Weisman and Newman 1994). This appearance reflected an adaptation to the tropical coastal environment of South Florida because the estuary systems, along with their high biological productivity, were now well established. The archaeological record disclosed widespread population increases and an apparent fluorescence in tool assemblages related to the exploitation of the marine environment. Unlike much of the rest of peninsula Florida, the region does not contain deposits of P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 3 -6 chert, and such stone artifacts are rare. Instead of stone, shell and bone were used as raw materials for tools (Milanich 1994:302). Most information concerning the post -500 B.C. aboriginal populations, is derived from coastal sites where the subsistence patterns are typified by the extensive exploitation of fish and shellfish, wild plants, and inland game, such as deer. Inland sites, often referred to as special -use camps, such as those in the Big Cypress Swamp, show a greater, if not exclusive, reliance on interior resources. Known inland sites often consist of sand burial mounds and shell and dirt middens or hunting camps along water courses (Lee et al. 1993), and small dirt middens containing animal bone and ceramic sherds in oak/palm hammocks or palm tree islands associated with freshwater marshes (Griffin 1988). According to Griffin (1988:137) and Milanich (1994:301; 1998:123), the beginning of the Glades decorated ceramic sequences occurred about A.D. 500 late in Glades I, and includes the Ft. Drum, Gordons Pass, and Cane Patch ceramic complexes. The latter is best known within the Ten Thousand Islands District. Sites of Glades I are neither numerous nor deep, perhaps implying that sea level and the resulting estuarine environment had not yet stabilized (Widmer 1988:363). Carr and Beriault (1984:3) write that "during the period A.D. 200 -A.D. 800, the predominant decorated types of pottery in the Ten Thousand Islands were Gordon's Pass Incised, Sanibel Incised, and another unclassified type of linear punctate." The latter may be Turner River Linear Punctate. . Glades IIa, IIb, and IIc, an archaeological period of several centuries (A.D. 750 - 1200), is characterized by incised ceramics including Key Largo, Miami, and Sanibel Incised (Walker 1990). During this time, mound construction occurred at numerous coastal sites, perhaps reflecting the rise of a stratified society and the achievement of an effective coastal adaptation (Griffin 1988:301). Sites are most heavily concentrated along the interior chain of bays in the Ten Thousand Islands, which is also the area of most of the larger shell works (Griffin 1988:301). Griffin (1988; 2002:158) writes that at about A.D. 1100 something happened "...but it is difficult to determine... there is an obvious diminution of known occupied sites." He notes further, that the abrupt abandonment of incised ceramics also indicates disruption of some sort. Interestingly, this abrupt change "...appears to largely coincide with the twelfth century, a time of climatic change producing warmer and wetter times in Europe and drought in the American Great Plains" (Bryson, Baerreis, and Weedland 1970:64 in Griffin 2002:160). By A.D. 1200 (Glades IIIa -b), the actual coast, particularly the now- eroding keys of the Ten Thousand Islands, was heavily occupied. Griffin suggests that Glades IIlb is the culmination and the end of the prehistoric Glades ceramic sequence (1988:275). Sites of Glades IIIb contain both aboriginal and Spanish pottery which could represent contact sites, or prehistoric. Glades IIIb with later Cuban fisherman overlays, or both (Griffin 1988). No sites dating to the Glades period have been recorded within or adjacent to the project area. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 3 -7 European contact occurred early in the 16th century. Ponce de Leon would have encountered the Calusa, a group of South Florida Indians, after rounding the Dry Tortugas and moving up the southwest coast in 1513. On his second voyage in 1521, the Calusa fatally wounded Juan Ponce. After 1521, an increasing number of Spanish ships were wrecked and the survivors ended up in the hands of the Indians. Fontaneda, one of these survivors, provides us with our most comprehensive view of the South Florida Indian prior to 1565, when he was rescued by Menendez (Smith 1944). Fontaneda described a non - agricultural society which relied heavily on marine and freshwater fish, shellfish, and turtles, as well as terrestrial resources including deer, raccoon, bear and birds. Tools were manufactured from wood, shell and bone, and use of the bow and arrow was well - documented by the Europeans. According to historic accounts, the highly stratified society included a king, his nobles and captains, as well as vassals and common people (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964). Direct conflict with Europeans, and more importantly, exposure to European introduced diseases, led to the rapid decline of the Calusa in the mid- 1700s. Remnant bands may have left for Cuba, others became culturally indistinguishable from Cuban- Spanish fisherman, and still others may have fused with the Seminoles as they moved further south into the Big Cypress .and Everglades. Griffin (1988; 2002) notes that between 1763 and the 1830s there was little or no human population in southwest Florida. "Some use of the Cape and the Ten Thousand Islands by Cuban fishermen (perhaps with some Indian accomplices) is probable, and toward the end of this period, some use of the Everglades for Seminole hunting is also possible" (Griffin 2002:186). P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 4 -1 4.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW When the first Europeans arrived in coastal southwest Florida in the 16th century, they encountered the Calusa, a powerful, complex society ruled by a paramount chief. The principal town of the Calusa is thought to be the site of Mound Key in Estero Bay near Fort Myers Beach, 50 miles north of the project location. Historic documents suggest that the Calusa chief ruled over fifty towns from which he exacted tribute (Widmer 1988). By the middle of the 18th century, the Calusa population had been almost totally decimated and dispersed as a result of conflicts with the Europeans and exposure to their diseases. Spanish fishing communities, or "ranchos," were well established on Useppa and other islands in the vicinity of Charlotte Harbor and San Carlos Bay by 1765. Some remaining Calusa may have joined the Cuban- Spanish fishermen who were active here during the first half of the 18th century. Most of the ranchos remained in existence until the mid- 1830s, hindered by the onset of the Seminole Indian Wars and customs control of the fisheries (Covington 1959). Florida became a territory in 1821 but settlement was slow and scattered during the early years. The earliest serious attempts for Americans to settle what now is Collier County did not occur until after the Seminole Wars ended. However, in 1835 (Second Seminole War), military and navy patrols moved into the unchartered and unmapped wilderness. As a result, the first fairly adequate accounts of the land lying south of the Caloosahatchee River were written (Covington 1958:7). As the Second Seminole War escalated, attacks on isolated settlers and communities in southwest Florida became more common. To combat this, the combined service units of the U. S. Army and Navy converged on what is now Collier County. This joint effort attempted to seal off the southern portion of the Florida peninsula against the estimated 300 Seminoles remaining in the Big Cypress and Everglades. At least four forts, with several satellite camps and temporary supply depots, were constructed in southwest Florida as part of this and other efforts (Tebeau 1966). None of these, however, were in the vicinity of the project area (ACI 1992). Although many of the Second Seminole War military maneuvers in southwest Florida were unsuccessful in locating Seminole strongholds, they did initiate the exploration of Collier County's interior and coastal fringe before the War ended in 1842 (McCall 1974). Less than two decades later, the Third Seminole War, or the Billy Bowlegs War, began in Collier County, December 1855 (Covington 1982). Seminole Chief, Holatter- Micco, also known as Billy Bowlegs, and 30 warriors attacked an army camp killing four soldiers and wounding four others. The attack was not unprovoked. Earlier, several artillery men had deliberately, and against orders, damaged some banana plants belonging to Billy Bowlegs. This action renewed state and federal interest in the final P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 HN elimination of the Seminoles from Florida, and several regional military posts were established (Tebeau 1966). Eventually the Third Seminole War in Collier County became a series of skirmishes, raids, and ambushes which, at times, appeared to achieve impressive results. The majority of these occurred between 1857 and 1858 employing mixed units of U. S. Army regulars and short-term Florida militia mustered into federal service. Activities took place along Turner River, Chokoloskee Key, and Cape Romano, as well as Marco Island, and in the Big Cypress. By 1858, however, the U. S. Government resorted to persuasion to induce the remaining Seminoles to migrate west. Military action had not been decisive. Chief Billy Bowlegs accepted $5,000.00 for himself, $2,500.00 for his cattle, and each warrior received $1,000.00. On May 8, 1858, the Florida War was declared closed. Many of the Florida Indians left to go west in 1859 (Covington 1982). A few years later, when much of Florida was embroiled in the Civil War, Collier County was virtually untouched by the destruction although .Confederate blockade runners were active. After the war ended, southerners who faced reconstruction and rebuilding saw Florida as a frontier full of opportunity and welcome. In southwest Florida, settlers first arrived by ones or twos, drifting through the area. Many of the early arrivals, however, were apparently "squatters" (Tebeau 1966:167). In the 1870s, while the region was still part of Monroe County, settlement of Collier County evolved slowly and in isolated pockets. Immokalee, Everglades City, Chokoloskee, Marco, Caxambas, Goodland, and Naples served as the early centers for ..settlement in the existing Collier County (Tebeau 1966:96). These first permanent pioneers were farmers; the hunters and fishermen who had preceded them established only temporary camps. As the land was largely impassable, their market was Key West, a growing city which produced almost none of its own food (Tebeau 1966:233 -234). To regulate settlement, the government surveyed the land. The exterior lines of Township 49 South, Range 27 East, in which the current project lies, were surveyed in 1872 by W.L. Apthorp, in 1874 by T.S. Stearns, and in 1881 by H.S. Duval (State of Florida n.d.a). The interior subdivisions were not surveyed and field notes were not made as the land is primarily swamp. In 1881, Hamilton Disston from Philadelphia purchased a very large portion of land which included what is now Naples, and formed the Florida Land and Improvement Company. In 1886, Charles Adams bought a parcel from Disston which formed the basis for the Naples Town Improvement Company of Tallahassee. The first known plat of Naples was filed in Fort Myers on August 26, 1887. The name "Naples" is attributed to numerous Florida developers, sales schemes to romanticize the Florida peninsula into a pleasant "Italian" seaside resort. Unfortunately, the only activity for the next few years was on paper - the buying and selling of land; little construction took place (Jamro and Lanterman 1985). P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 4 -3 By the late 1880s, squatters were sufficient in numbers to protest when "their land" became the property of Hamilton Disston. Squatters could have purchased the land on which they had taken up residence and constructed improvements, for such a provision was made in the Disston contracts. But the early settlers believed they should each be permitted to homestead 160 acres of high and dry land. They had not been able to do so because the land was designated "swamp and overflowed" and title to it had been transferred to the state (Tebeau 1966:167). In 1887, the land, which today is Collier County, became part of the newly created Lee County and remained such for 36 years until July 7, 1923 when Collier County was formed with Everglades City as county seat. It was named for Barron Gift Collier, a Memphis born businessman who promoted the region's development. When John Williams and Walter Haldeman, both from Kentucky, decided "Naples" was the perfect place to develop a city, they bought the controlling interest in the Naples Town Improvement Company. They reorganized it, gave it new direction, and renamed it the Naples Company. With Haldeman directing the work, the company was ready, by December 1887, to embark into a new period of full -scale town building and improvement including a hotel, churches, and shops (Jamro and Lanterman 1985). The region surrounding Naples began to develop as well. On October 15, 1897, Sections 29 and 31 of Township 49 South, Range 27 East, were deeded to the Silver Springs, Ocala, & Gulf Railroad Company, and on July 2, 1897, Section 32 was deeded to the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (State of Florida n.d.b). From 1899 until 1914, the Naples Company struggled but the town slowly grew. In 1914, E. W. Crayton, an Ohio real estate developer with a successful track record in St. Petersburg, purchased the controlling interest in the company and renamed it the Naples Improvement Company. His direction is credited with leading Naples into the future. In 1925, Naples was incorporated and by 1927, reached by two railroad lines (Dean 1991).. A north/south connector from Tampa to Miami proposed to significantly open up Collier County. In 1915, the common name for US 41 was coined by the executive vice - president of the Tampa Board of Trade, L.P. Dickie. The name, the Tamiami Trail, was adopted officially in Orlando at the first meeting of the State Road Department. Construction slowly progressed, largely due to a lack of funding. As part of his promises for the designation of a new county, Barron Collier pledged to complete the Tamiami Trail. Collier was successful in his promotion of the Trail and the automobile route across the Everglades, which linked Tampa and Miami. The Trail was officially completed and opened by Governor John M. Martin on April 25, 1928. The construction of the railroad and the opening of the Tamiami Trail brought Naples out of isolation (Tebeau 1966:220 -222). At the same time Collier was promoting the Tamiami Trail, he and his supporters were also making an effort to open a direct highway route from Immokalee to the county seat of Everglades City. By 1923, an unimproved road from LaBelle through Immokalee, P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 M terminating at Deep Lake, was depicted on a Florida State Map (Kendrick 1964: inside front cover). This road was completed between Immokalee and Everglades City in the early 1920s and remained isolated and fairly deserted until the 1930s. Collier County also induced the Atlantic Coast Line to continue its line south to. Everglades City in 1928. The two projects linked the town with the outer area of the county and the Tamiami Trail (Tebeau 1966:200 -205). Barron Collier, who promoted the region's development and the completion of the Tamiami Trail with his personal fortune, brought modern communications, roads, and railroads. His promotions eventually opened up the area's enormous agricultural and resort potential, but modest signs of growth were halted by the Great Depression. The number of residents in 1925 of 1,256 grew only to 2,883 by 1930 (Tebeau 1966:212). By the mid- 1930s, federal programs, implemented by the Roosevelt administration, started employing large numbers of construction workers, helping to revive the economy of the state. The programs were instrumental in the construction of parks, bridges, and public buildings. However, Collier County's economy and population remained at a virtual standstill until the end of WWII when a new wave of national prosperity sent thousands of people to Florida (Dean 1991). Like many Florida communities, World War II changed the face of Naples and later added to its growth. Largely, the post -World War II development of Collier County is similar to that of the rest of America: increasing numbers of automobiles and asphalt, an interstate highway system, suburban sprawl, and strip development along major state highways. The county, like most of Florida, experienced a population boom in the 1950s. Florida's population increased from 1,897,414 to 2,771,305 from 1940 to 1950 (Tebeau 1966:431). Collier County's population grew from 5,082 in 1940 to 6,488 in 1950 (Tebeau 1966:212). After the war, car ownership increased, making the American public more mobile, making vacations more inexpensive and easier. Many who had served at Florida's military bases during World War II also returned with their families to live. As veterans returned, the trend in new housing focused on the development of small tract homes in new subdivisions. In 1949, Naples officially became a city with strict zoning laws promoting a "Naples Image" which denoted homes and lifestyles at the higher end of the scale. The county seat was moved to Naples in 1959 (Dean 1991). In the 1960s, the Golden Gate Estates property was purchased from the Collier family, the Gerry Brothers, and the Lee Tidewater Cypress Company. From the early 1960s to the mid- 1970s, draglines and bulldozers operated.on the property first as Gulf American and the GAC Properties. The end result was over 171 miles of canals and 807 miles of roads on the 113,000 -acre Golden Gate Estates development. The property was sold as "semi- improved" land in 1.25, 2.5 and 5 -acre tracts. The questionable dealings of GAC Properties were cited in the congressional hearings dealing with the passage of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act of 1968 and the development was forced to make partial restitution, amounting to over $17 million, to landowners by the Federal Trade Commission (Carter 1974). State purchase of the property began soon thereafter. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 ►. , The number of permanent Collier County residents grew rapidly from 6,488 in 1950 to 85,000 by 1980. In the 1950s and 1960s, US 41 was widened by adding limerock from nearby quarries. In 1967, SR 84 (Alligator Alley) or the Everglades Parkway, which lies immediately south of this project, was built. In 1970, FDOT appointed an advisory panel to evaluate possible routes across south Florida for the proposed I -75. The plans were prepared by 1972 and the Interstate was built thereafter utilizing existing lanes from SR 84 (Alligator Alley) for eastbound traffic. Two westbound lanes were built on the vacant strip of land between SR 84 (Alligator Alley) and the canal (Duever et al. 1985:246 -247). The Picayune Strand State Forest, located south of the project area, is composed of two major tracts of land, the South Golden Gate Estates Tract and the Belle Meade Tract. The South Golden Gate Estates Tract comprised the majority of the forest. In 1985, a plan was put into place to purchase South Golden Gate Estates using Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) funds under the "Save Our Everglades" program. This was an incredibly large undertaking as it involved acquiring land from 17,000 landowners. In 1998, the federal government gave 25 million dollars in aid to the state of Florida to help bring the land acquisitions to completion (Florida Division of Forestry 2002). Land in the general vicinity remained largely undeveloped until the late twentieth century. However, with improved transportation, Collier County has continued to develop with a population of 251,377 in 2000. P03075 CRAS ReporVAugust 2003 5 -1 5.0 RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS 5.1 Background Research and Literature Review A comprehensive review of archaeological and historical literature, records and other documents and data pertaining to the project area was conducted. The focus of this research was to ascertain the types of cultural resources known in the project area and vicinity, their temporal/cultural affiliations, site location information, and other relevant data. This included a review of sites listed in the NRHP, the FMSF, cultural resource survey reports, published books and articles, unpublished manuscripts, and maps. In addition to the NRHP and FMSF, other information relevant to the historical research was obtained from the files of ACI. No informant interviews were conducted as part of the background research. 5.1.1 Archaeological Considerations For archaeological survey projects of this kind, specific research designs are formulated prior to initiating fieldwork in order to delineate project goals and strategies. Of primary importance is an attempt to understand, on the basis of prior investigations, the spatial distribution of known resources. Such knowledge serves not only to generate an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of sites which might be anticipated to occur within the project corridor, but also provides a valuable regional perspective and, thus, a basis for evaluating any newly discovered sites. Research was initiated by a review of the FMSF, the Collier County archaeological predictive maps (ACI 1992, 1999), a county -wide synthesis by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (AHC 1988, 1990, 1992), and work in the general project area by Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (2002a) and Weisman and Newman (1994). Other investigations considered for this project include those of B. Calvin Jones, an archaeologist with the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, John Beriault, Walt Buschelman and other members of the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society. These various surveys resulted in the recording of four archaeological sites within f two miles of the project (Figure 5.1). The Bottoms Ups Site (8CR840) is a small, single episode, prehistoric lithic scatter that was redeposited during construction of Interstate 75 (ACI 2002b). 8CR840 is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the project area. The Conch Site (8CR183) is a Glades Period midden located one mile to the east of the HHH Ranch project area. The Crosby Hammock Site (8CR824), for which the FMSF has no site information, is located 1.25 miles to the southeast of the project area. Finally, the Kirkland Hammock Site (8CR825), located over one mile to the southeast of the project area, is a multicomponent Late Archaic and Glades Period campsite. None of the previously recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the HHH Ranch is eligible for listing in the NRHP. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 :A { }tli4rka ri I }xC i ii # + {f is ¢14 rti; }t 1 4 a,a,l it Jf +� #i [ ;t4 {ivt tl i -j,q, 9 fitkrt{(o${Li Yf$i { O,i(ir P'! 16 4 • IR C {}A r 1 F r ' kzs4 t +:` s Izv .# # { + }t 'I ` ,4:4; i aila`tl t {��? •' #, {dst, !, t'A� { {.F gi'`Yt�'��`t f}�F4! etI}i)4 l z' 4 �# y,{" }i.♦ f k APL� - {ir A }�"f { t� !# TfFi •k# ikt # A ! }lira ljd 34a {�! vt# {.t.#� lfi.. ,{ + } � x 2 {! + { iA 1 !�Ii I d dr `, tI a a I4, g}#_' ! t. {+ l,. k,tIk Y# a. : ' , !Ay�!F#{ ¢ a rI ¢fY ¢ ( 4 k al##a p?t4 d} k t .¢'t# lEi t }}A i{fk ° •l a'{' ;t ¢ + .� { °'r# ` r , ! k � w+l ,t I di { # : 'i j 4,1a. 1 & { s d( i s 1 Cit. yfljl : # + s 4 +iiij114 # 1 1 a t`k'A I:I 4 t ¢ { 4,ir` + r{ey*:dt! ;. t ¢ $#i �i } tY#i;i�''1 ! #L k Z ,{tp, + a I {! s!;it,,'s!t{ it,�!dai $ ta1 It P I{+;A, {4fIY1 Af St{ „q #, ¢ A' , F b Y ! a s: r, , l'•fi �}{k {i ti' :A {s^ i . i f ., ,,t_.e a Ii`s,4i :+ 'Yi,'l dt {i j t ” . N I L �{ ¢ d # { •j d { #!{ { I 1 r 06 {t 't{z , +a i P.pi+t st .'.JI *AI itPi $fi { {!¢q..1 A'ifrrF. {x. fi +..af{d +iiyl i #aI'Flalsi' I #' *f¢,jt;i¢, # �i 00 1. q i F I�f t'9 t I ¢ d: # # 4 4r. -t I. , ! ! �i a #Y + ta!dlGt'#'¢. #'i,}r, {i,'Y1k { I {z }t k'¢ # d(;4tllj d84 }'pf$ 4 } }sii 4+ A. i1{f,�I }{! .¢! }3 d + }tif { }a`d), + }•t �xi�' {1t{ f¢!p¢I' {'kt,'t,{iidli #< t !v *d� �l�:l;a,{ki'� <•� #4•' {.. +4 { {�dI {tai °il {# {il{IrI} { i ##{ #!{ifi {Ik Y{ 4i� 00 N tli 'q ti i AI ¢t # }ii A .. #{ i ¢, #4 §+—; t.s it # ti #: ti {i { {1A{ kk!ts9v� ## I$fii�o, ata+,'�..!r'¢ 1,o. ttra�ali' ` }i•:q. ei'�l} id y R { gf.;lia,l{ i## } +�.P •Y:I l}dg! 1 Ud'i1 ytifiP Ftly.�?{ ff + ifU4A ¢#'4r . } i# ¢ LppBi } 44 ita Lk i # y, s•f F , +! #! a� +:rF' V. .r JSF T.At } c fi# , GA ¢ A 'r { t t ¢¢ #�¢,e ; P I I . L i ; t yi+fi S.:b4 #iivrf!t:i - Ais,<_:.s. tlie.. !a! '4p. t.1!`; !''€ I °q + {� f i.d'ei.kp!!.1 •''�'�",: t {.i' {, YK t +'i ijld { {`k:rdl¢', male. r fit} #}i 7i }¢i y{ #14 isq.t '� I{ iP'.d{ a a fits Y ,'A'�i���'� -'� —s` t•i 1• i +r d+ ,}i:i if#� 'k { {!r #�'�t; {i }!. `..9$� I}Cr¢ { {:Pt { {' bL�I#t�!dllil i•i, t t !'¢'If',# �k', # a ii yt!.• ❑ #iiP,i +� 6l P! # 11 l¢Ite i{},� 141'>At ¢'k { {ii.44#.a i }:¢:ai'f. {t tir #t4 #P #!a, {• # #'!ri : "•� r¢:I¢Rd,+d} i' {d!y {! t }'! ;F' �!f,i.4# t. t''• #Id t {fII }t {k4t !k: i {4 'f d! ;t ttl ri #'Ijk¢s# k,`fi'I. }'! #i ry a'�.s#. d{,{!,<.I ktjf1 !{ k I•i G if RA ,414'. .,r', Y Ems NO now IN IMP ggg i� #14. 1 # } E 12P RID -k It ( k� !, allt oo _ R . ` w �u:.:1'.Y_�•,' -: ,.-- momma--- e,e+..�Tt -.� - '"'�`.. :S._._ 5 -2 O No •.� Q1 � U � c�S � 00 r� Qy Q1 �.t w O x U O 0 't1 N H ® Q1 V] cd ,--C N lV P. U U N O '3 D1 ry w CIS O U N .O O a�D a� o � 0 3 o bA U cd 5 -3 Based upon these data and soil type information from the 1954 and 1990 Soil Surveys of Collier County, Zones of Archaeological Potential (ZAPS) were identified for the project area (Figure 5.1). Although no portion of the parcel meets the criteria for a high ZAP, 17 discrete portions of the property are moderate ZAPs. The remainder of the property was considered to be a low ZAP. The moderate ZAP areas are the relatively better drained Pine Flatwoods of the property. In addition, any "tree islands" not visible on topographic maps but identified during field survey were considered to be moderate ZAPS. 5.1.2 Historical Considerations A review of the archaeological/historical probability maps for Collier County (ACI 1992, 1999) indicated an absence of historic (pre -1952) structures within the HHH Ranch. Also, no evidence of forts, homesteads, or important activities associated with the 16th through the 19th centuries was noted for the project area. No buried historic period archaeological sites or features were expected. 5.2 Field Methodolou Archaeological field methodology consisted of an initial reconnaissance whereby the project area was visually examined and checked for discrete areas, i.e., tree islands, not previously identified by the predictive model. Following this, subsurface shovel testing was carried out at 50 in intervals, as well as judgmentally, within each moderate ZAP. Shovel test pits were circular, and measured approximately 0.5 in (20 in) in diameter by at least 1 in (3.3 ft) in depth unless impeded by water or limestone. All soil removed from the test pits was screened through a 6.3 mm (0.25 in) mesh hardware cloth to maximize the recovery of artifacts. The locations of all shovel tests were plotted on the aerial maps, and, following the recording of relevant data such as stratigraphic profile and artifact finds, all test pits were refilled. Historic structures field methodology consisted of a preliminary reconnaissance survey of the area to determine the location of any historic properties 50 years of age or older, and to ascertain.if such resources within the project area could be eligible for listing in the NRHP. If structures were found, an in -depth study of the identified historic resources would be done, photographs taken, and information needed for completion of the FMSF forms gathered, including a physical description and interviews with residents and other individuals knowledgeable about the history of the area. 5.3 Laboratory Methods /Curation In the event any cultural materials were recovered, laboratory methods would include an initial cleaning and sorting by artifact class. Lithics would be divided into tools and debitage on the basis of gross morphology. If found, tools would be measured, and the edges examined with a IOx hand lens for traces of edge damage. Lithic debitage P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 5 -4 would then be subjected to a limited technological analysis focusing on ascertaining the stages of stone tool production. When present, flakes and non -flake production debris (i.e., cores, blanks, and preforms) would be measured, and examined for raw material type and absence or presence of thermal alteration. Flakes would be classified into four types (primary decortication, secondary decortication, non - decortication, and shatter) on the basis of the amount of cortex on the dorsal surface and the shape. Aboriginal ceramics, bone and/or shell tools if discovered, would be classified into commonly recognized types on the basis of observable characteristics such as surface treatment and F wear patterns. Historic artifacts, if discovered, would be subjected to a functional and typological analysis after cleaning. r Curation of project files (i.e., background research, field notes, photos, etc.) will be at Archaeological Consultants, Inc. in Sarasota, unless the client requests otherwise. 5.4 Unexpected Discoveries It was anticipated that if human burial sites such as Indian mounds, lost historic and prehistoric cemeteries, or other unmarked burials or associated artifacts were found, then the provisions and guidelines set forth in Chapter 872, F.S. (Florida's Unmarked Burial Law) would be followed. P03075 CRAS Repo&August 2003 6 -1 6.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Archaeological Results Archaeological field survey included visual reconnaissance, ground surface inspection, and the excavation of a total 92 shovel tests (Figure 6.1). The stratigraphy of the general project area can be characterized as an upper 15 cm (6 in) of gray sand, underlain by 20 cm (8 in) of tan sand, beneath which was 30 cm (12 in) of light brown sand. Water was typically encountered about 70 cm (28 in) below the surface. No archaeological resources were discovered as a result of this survey. 6.2 Historical Results The historical resources survey of the project area revealed an absence of historic structures (50 years of age or older). Thus, no structures listed or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP are located within the project area. These results were in keeping with the expectations derived from the background research. 6.3 Recommendations As a result of background research and field survey, no archaeological sites or historic resources, including sites which are listed, determined eligible, or considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, were found to be located within the HHH Ranch property. Thus, proposed mining will have no effect on any significant resources, and no further fieldwork is recommended. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 P 3 s l� X21'1... —_ i.. � - 'L:tt_ _ . . :..r^ ._.!. -.. �d.J+�� ,•\ "`" 1. k � ... Ir 0 0.25 0.5 bile `'` - ,;,! ._...," :•� Figure 6.1. Approximate Location of Shovel Tests Within the F Iii Ranch Project Area, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Sections 29, 31, and 32, Collier County (USGS Belle Meade NW, �. 1958, PR 1987; Belle Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973). All ,novel tests were negative. ACI ib- �� _ r, ,� - -ice_ t:. - T. 0. ' e _ _ ,l y _ . • mil. .... _ �. ,.,.� • • _ ._.121e.. .lam- ...5.111_ ^%1511 ": '�. .I, .. n, . I4. •.• - a��„" ..if�lc- .°; 31k... _`� NL,-. }IJ.: J__ - �1iL _rsle..- :��V+..•.�Wy^ '.� ! _ate ..�., mow.. -- -�' !i -- �.. - �"•'' =- —: �.. ,�. JL— l� X21'1... —_ i.. � - 'L:tt_ _ . . :..r^ ._.!. -.. �d.J+�� ,•\ "`" 1. k � ... Ir 0 0.25 0.5 bile `'` - ,;,! ._...," :•� Figure 6.1. Approximate Location of Shovel Tests Within the F Iii Ranch Project Area, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Sections 29, 31, and 32, Collier County (USGS Belle Meade NW, �. 1958, PR 1987; Belle Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973). All ,novel tests were negative. ACI 7 -1 7.0 REFERENCES CITED Almy, Marion M. and George M. Luer 1993 Guide to the Prehistory of Historic Spanish Point in Southwest Florida. Gulf Coast Heritage Association, Sarasota. Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) 1992 Mapping of Areas of Historical /Archaeological Probability in Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. 1999 Revised Mapping of Areas of Historical/Archaeological Probability in Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. 2002a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey East Naples Mine II Project, Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. 2002b Addendum Cultural Resource Assessment Survey I -75 PD &E Study SR 951 to the Collier /Lee County Line. Manuscript on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (AHC) 1988 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. 1990 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County: Phase I. Draft on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. 1992 An Archaeological Survey of Collier County: Phase I. AHC Technical Report #38. On file, AHC, Miami. Beriault, John G., Robert S. Carr, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and Jack Meeder 1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34:39 -58. Bryson, Reid A., David A. Baerreis, and Wayne M. Weedland 1970 The Character of Late - Glacial and Post Glacial Climatic Changes. In Pleistocene and Recent Environments of the Central Great Plains, edited by W. Dort, Jr. and J.K. Jones, Jr., pp. 53 -74. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. Bullen, Ripley P. 1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville. Carbone, Victor 1983 Late Quaternary Environment in Florida and the Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36 (1- 2):3 -17. P03075 CRAS RepoWAugust 2003 7 -2 Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault 1984 Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, Revised Edition, edited by P.J. Gleason, pp. 1 -14. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami. Carr, Robert S. 1979 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Site 14 Replacement Airport and its Proposed Access Corridors, Dade County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Federal Aviation Administration. 1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Ridge Fossil Site (8DA2001) in Southern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38:288 -301. Carter, Luther J. 1974 The Florida Experience: Land & Water Policy in a Growth State. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Clausen, Carl J., H. K. Brooks, and A. B. Wesolowsky 1975 Florida Spring Confirmed as 10,000 Year Old Early Man Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publication; Number. 7. Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science: 203:609- 614. Cockrell, Wilburn A. 1970 Glades I and Pre - Glades Settlement Patterns on Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. M.A. Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Cockrell, Wilburn A. and Larry Murphy 1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:1- 13. Covington, James W. 1958 Exploring the Ten Thousand Islands: 1838. Tequesta 18:7 -13. 1959 Trade Relations Between Southwestern Florida and Cuba - 1600 -1840. Florida Historical Quarterly 38:114 -128. 1982 The Billy Bowlegs War 1855 -1858: The Final Stand of The Seminoles Against the Whites. The Mickler House Publishers, Chuluota. Daniel, Randy and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, New York. Davis, John H., Jr. 1943 The Natural Features of Southern Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Bulletin 25. P03075 CRAS ReporVAugust 2003 7 -3 Dean, Virginia 1991 Naples on the Gulf- An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Inc., Chatsworth. Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 yr. B.P. to the Present. In Geobotany II, edited by R. C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation. Doran, Glen H. and David Dickel 1988 Radiometric Chronology of the Archaic Windover Archaeological Site (8BR246). The Florida Anthropologist 41:365 -380. Doran, Glen H. 2002 Windover, Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Period Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Duever, Michael J., John E. Carlson, John F. Meeder, Linda C. Duever, Lance H. Gunderson, Lawrence A. Riopelle, Taylor R. Alexander, Ronald L. Myers, and Daniel P. Spangler 1985 The Big Cypress National Preserve. Research Report Number 8 of the National Audubon Society, National Audubon Society, New York. Dunbar, James S. 1981 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource Availability on Site Utilization at the Fowler Avenue Bridge Mastodon Site (8HI393c /uw) in Hillsborough County, Florida. In Report on Phase II Underwater Archaeological Testing at the Fowler Bridge Mastodon Site (8HI393c /uw) Hillsborough County, Florida by Jill Palmer, James Dunbar, and Danny H. Clayton. Interstate 75 Highway Phase HArchaeological Report, Number 5. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Florida Division of Forestry 2002 www.fl - dof.com Goggin, John M. 1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:114 -127. 1949 The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Manuscript on file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. Goggin, John M. and William C. Sturtevant 1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricultural Society (with notes on sibling marriage). In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock, edited by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 179 -219. McGraw -Hill, New York. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 7 -4 Griffin, John W. 1988 The Archaeology of Everglades National Park.- A Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee. 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. 2003 HHH Ranch Protected Species Survey. Manuscript on file, Hoover Planning and Development, Naples Jamro, Ron and Gerald L. Lanterman 1985 The Founding of Naples. Friends of Collier County Museum, Naples. Kendrick, Baynard 1964 Florida Trails to Turnpikes 1914 -1964. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Lee, Arthur R., John Beriault, Walter Buschelman, and Jean Belknap 1993 A Small Site - Mulberry Midden, 8CR697 - Contributions to Knowledge of the Transitional Period. The Florida Anthropologist 46:43 -52. Luer, George M. 2002 Middle Archaic Sites. Florida Anthropology Society Publication Number 15. .McCall, George 1974 Letters from the Frontier, ed. John K. Mahon pp. 380 -398. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. McMichael, A.E. 1979 Archaeological Research on the Southwest Florida Coast: The Florida State Museum Horrs Island Survey. Revised Version of a Paper Presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Atlanta. Matthews, Janet Snyder 2003 Correspondence from Janet Snyder Matthews, State Historic Preservation Officer, to Mr. Jeremy Sterk, Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. May 22. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1998 Florida's Indians from Ancient Times to the Present. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 7 -5 Milanich, Jerald T., J. Chapman, A. S. Cordell, S. Hale, and R. A. Marrinan 1984 Prehistoric Development of Calusa Society in Southwest Florida: Excavations on Useppa Island. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by D. D. Davis, pp 258 -314. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Mowers, Bert and Wilma Williams 1972 The Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:1 -20. Neill, Wilfred T. 1964 Trilisa Pond, An Early Site in Mari on County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 17:187 -200. Newman, Chris 1986 A Preliminary Report of Investigation at the Cheetum Site, Dade County, Florida. Manuscript on file, AHC. Miami 1993 The Cheetum Site: An Archaic Burial Site in Dade County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:37 -42. Russo, Michael 1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Gulf Coast: A Case Study from Horr's Island, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Schortemeyer, James L. 2003 Conceptual Plan for Wildlife and Habitat Management In HHH Ranch, Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Hoover Planning and Development, Naples. Smith, Buckingham 1944 Memoir of Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda Respecting Florida. Written in Spain about the Year 1575. (English translation by Smith. Edited by David O. True). University of Miami and Historical Association of Florida, Miami. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection n.d.a Field Notes Master Index Page, 393. n.d.b Tract Book Volume 24:93. State Topographic Office 1993 General Highway Map, Collier County, Florida. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 7 -6 Tebeau, Charlton W. 1966 Florida's Last Frontier: The History of Collier County. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables. United States Department of Agriculture 1954 Soil Survey Collier County, Florida. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 1990 Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida (Revised). USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Maps 1958 Belle Meade NE, Fla. Photorevised 1973. 1958 Belle Meade NW, Fla. Photorevised 1987. Walker, Karen Jo 1990 South and Southeast Florida. In Florida's Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan, Draft Version. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Watts, William A. 1969 A Pollen Diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, North - Central Florida. Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin 80:631 -642. 1971 Post Glacial and Interglacial Vegetational History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 51:676 -690. 1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South - Central Florida. Geology 3:344 -346. Weisman, Brent and Christine Newman 1994 An Archaeological Inventory of the Golden Gate State Forest, Collier County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Wharton, Barry and J. Raymond Williams 1980 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of an Extension Tract of the Hardee Phosphate Complex. Manuscript on file, University of South Florida, Tampa. Wheeler, Ryan J. 1994 Early Florida Decorated Bone Artifacts: Style and Aesthetics From Paleo- Indian through Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 47: 47 -60. Widmer, Randolph J. 1974 A Survey and Assessment of the Archaeological Resources on Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series Number 19. Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Non Agricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London. P03075 CRAS Report/August 2003 APPENDIX A: Survey Requirement Letter FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Jeremy Sterk Hoover Planning & Development, Inc. 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -1 Naples, Florida 34105 RE: DHR Project File No. 2003 -3507 Received by DHR April 23, 2003 HHH Ranch Property Collier County Dear Mr. Sterk: May 22, 2003 In accordance with the procedures contained in the applicable local ordinance or land development code, we reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to cultural resources (any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object) listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical, archaeological, or architectural value. Data from.enviromnentally similar areas in Collier County indicate that archaeological and historic sites, especially the former, are likely to occur in the project area. It is, therefore, the opinion of this office that there is a reasonable probability of some proposed project activities impacting cultural resources. Since potentially significant archaeological and historic sites may be present, it is our recommendation that, prior to initiating any project related land clearing or ground disturbing activities within the project area, it should be subjected to a systematic, professional archaeological and historical, survey. The purpose of this survey will be to locate and assess the significance of cultural resources present. The resultant survey report should conform to the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code, and be forwarded to this agency to complete the our process of reviewing the impact of this proposed project on cultural resources. The results of the investigations will determine if significant historic properties would be disturbed by this project. In addition, if significant remains are located, the data described in the report and the consultant's conclusions will assist this office in determining measures that should be taken to avoid, . minifnize, or mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources listed, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical or architectural significance. Because this letter and its contents are a matter of public record, consultants who have knowledge of our recommendations may contact the project applicant. This should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement by this agency. The Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) is the national 500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 http: / /www.flheritage.com . r3 Director's Office 0 Archaeological Research E1 Historic Preservation - O Historical Museums 0.245 -6300 • FAX: 245 -6435 (850) 245 -6444 • FAX: 245 -6436 (850) 245 -6333 • FAX 245 -6437 (850) 245 -6400 • FAX: 245 -6433 0 Palm Beach Regional Office O St. Augustine Regional Office 0 Tampa Regional Office (561) 279 -1475 • FAX 279 -1476 (904) 825 -5045 • FAX: 825 -5044 (813) 272 -3843 • FAX: 272 -2340 Mr. Sterk May 22, 2003 Page 2 certifying organization for archaeologists. A listing of archaeologists who are RPA members living or working in Florida can be ed Professional Archaeologists i is cavailableat pwww.rpane oag addition, the complete RPA Directory of Certifi If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservation Planner, by electronic mail sedwards @.dos.statefd.us, or at 850- 245 -6333 or 800 - 847 -7278. Sincerely, Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director, and State Historic Preservation Officer a FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES Mr. Jeremy Sterk Hoover Planning & Development, Inc. 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B -1 Naples, Florida 34105 RE: DHR Project File No. 2003 -3507 Received by DHR April 23, 2003 HHH Ranch Property Collier County Dear Mr. Sterk: May 22, 2003 In accordance with the procedures contained in the applicable Iocal ordinance or land development code, we reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to cultural resources (any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object) listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical, archaeological, or architectural value. Data from environmentally similar areas in Collier County indicate that archaeological and historic sites, especially the former, ar�jCely to occur in the project area. It is, therefore, the opinion of this office that there is a reasonable probablllty of some proposed project activities impacting cultural resources. Since potentially significant archaeological and historic sites may be present, it is our recommendation that, prior to initiating any project related land clearing or ground disturbing activities within the project area, it should be spbjected to a systematic, professional archaeological and historical survey. The purpose of this sui --F'YWIU-Ge to locate and assess the significance of cultural resources present The resultant survey report should conform to the specifications set forth in Chapter IA-46, Florida Administrative Code, and be forwarded to this agency to complete the our process of reviewing the impact of this proposed project on cultural resources. The results of the investigations will determine if significant historic properties would be disturbed by this project. In addition, if significant remains are located, the data described in the report and the consultant's conclusions will assist this office in determining measures that should be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources listed, or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of historical or architectural significance. Because this letter and its contents are a matter of public record, consultants who have knowledge of our recommendations may contact the project applicant. This should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement by this agency. The Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) is the national 500 S. Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 . http : / /www.flberitage.com O Director's Office 0 Archaeological Research 0 Historic Preservation (850) 245 -6300 • FAX 245 -6435 (850) 245 -6444 • FAX 245 -6436 (850) 245 -6333 • FAX: 245 -6437 (85 0 Historical Museums 0) 245 -6400 •FAX: 245 -6433 0 Palm Beach Regional Office 0 St. Augustine Regional office O Tampa Regional Office (561) 279 -1475 • FAX; 279 -1476 (904) 825 -5M • FAX 8255044 (813) 272-3843 • FAX 272 -2340 z'd 6006E0fr662 .Aaa R 2uzuuetd .tanovH d6f,:i0 60 La Rew Mr. Sterk J May 22, 2003 Page 2 certifying organization for archaeologists. A listing of archaeologists who are RPA members living or working in Florida can be accessed at http : / /d`hr.dos.state. l.us /bhp /compliance. In addition, the complete RPA Directory of Certified Professional Archaeologists is available at www.rpanet.org. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservation Planner, by electronic mail sedwards @.dos.statefl.us, or at 850- 245 -6333 or 800- 847 -7278. Sincerely, - __ --A a �. (Z �-,�e J` s4Po IkJanet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., Director, and State Historic Preservation Officer 6-CI 6006E047662 - A9G I 2u i uue j d JanooH d6i' : T 0 E0 LZ Rew APPENDIX B: Survey Log Sheet Page 1 Form Date 8/19/03 Survey Log Sheet Florida Master Site File Version 2.0 9/97 Consult Guide to the Survey Log Sheet for detailed instructions. Recorder of Log Sheet Jodi B. Pracht .........- ..v,- ,vr..v,•, •..viii:, -,v- .vrr, -: v,•r,•rr vv: -,• ,•:.....•,•;r.S ^'.v;.�Ji:•: } }Y: }>i; i;;,};•i ; {:fi }ii:5•i:; {• } } }:,•:} ; {:{..:• }:•: tiff:.}}%-%!: X: Yi•:•:•:•;{:•:;: 5 {; :;: {K.ti;. ^,:Y::::,.,•: { {} }�; ........ ...�. rrr.... •;,r ..... ,..r..r r..r...,,r......,.. .......r..., ••, r•:; •: :} ..r....: n}v: ;...r•v:•rr•vr,•,•A:.•:: •rrr rrr.:vrryr.•:r,•Y . riY.:1rJ:•r`:iyb:S: }: J::.'I.: ::r:LJJY.•:•:i.•Itir : v ;,, •, r ::. r. •, }� {':i' %i?: %; %Y %: % %. %::t %: %:: is L= i:%'}.•: ?�:% r•{%%<: i{:%.%:::;'•::•} iv:::•:; : };::•:%:: % %i: %:•: },i %:L % %,,.,. }t� X "SY.'4 {r:;- ;:, %.ri4i: };:•:::4h` }::i;r: %r: X4•::••• { t%{%,•: �::% r;-::•: ivS rrrrrr ,•,•rr•rr,v.•r, } } } %;; :�:r: % {r: }:{? :•`.4: }S- : :i4ri9 }y •' :' : ' :: - - � i•i;%r: i':}::: {. }: } :• }i� }:•• }:i }:•;•:4$ } } }:;{ t} ::•::::::.:•:::: r:•::; Jr::•::• rrrr;. rrrrr:rrr.:..:<;::•:<:: { {.,,•;• ... ...............::•:......:::.: •:::.�:::.:..:.:....;:...,..... ., :�.:.,.•• Survey Project (Name and project phase) GRAS HHH Ranch, Phase I •rrJ> this a continuation of a previous project? X] No ❑ Yes lf#4'`�:� „� „•_ ,;.;};;,.,..,,:.,, .;: }..;.;:::,:,,,:,::.:.,,,,• }. Is P P � .n.: k.. rJr:.•n:.•. r. v.. rvr.:v.. rrk<,.•...�ay.rA :::' Report Title (exactly as on title page) Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, HHH Ranch Collier County, Florida Report Author(s) (as on title page - individual or corporate) Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Publication Date (month /year) 8/03 Total Number of Pages in Report (count text, figures, tables, not site forms) 45 Publication Information (if relevant, series and. no. in series, publisher, and city. For article or chapter, cite page numbers. Use the. style of American Antiquity. See Guide to the Survey Log Sheet.) Archaeological Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 5103, Sarasota, FL 34277 -5103 Supervisor(s) of Fieldwork (whether or not the same as author[s]) Lee Hutchinson Affiliation of Fieldworkers (organization, city) Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 'ey Words /Phrases (Don't use the county, or common words like archaeology, structure, survey, architecture. Put the most ,mportant first. Limit each word or phrase to 25 characters). Golden Gate, Alligator Alley Survey Sponsors (corporation, government unit, or person who is directly paying for fieldwork) Name Better Roads Address /Phone P.O. Box 9979, Naples Florida 34101 (239) 597 -2181 ........ ............................... .............. .v.•.v:xro-ro•,•.•, ro,v ;rov; x.::. n•.,•.,.v.:: x: ,•. v: x.. u,:;:::: :.,v:: ::::.,•:.Y:.,•::,::x,;;•; w•J,J. Y•::•,;m •i•,: >:::::r:•J:•.:'•:::;•: _.r:• .... , ..., . ...,.. _.. • vw:.,- .w,.,.•, wro:.•w.v:.•: •: x:,..,.......... rr. r} rr .vrc:. ^...•. {.....•,• :,•iY,•av: r:r.vkrv:r:: +r.,.• .......... ..... . ......... ....:..•:;.•: v::sn,.vm,v v;:n. n•:::;.::.......... n.. .. .., ,...rnx. rov.+.....,ro .. .n .............1.c, ...r, ....,. „•..,.....,,.,•..,. .............:n.,..,,,.......•. ,......... ......... :ro...• v.r..r..,•.. ,,. ♦,,., c,,,..,..,.......,...,,. ,, .,...•........... ..... ......... ....z....,.. ; •v: ,,.. ,..; ...::...... •.. ,v.;vrrrrvvx: •.• ;.•.•..vp,v::.::.y,•r.•,•.e <..r ....rrr.❖:.vr••.,. ,. .... ,,.. .•., . ..,. . ., &,....s.... ..4.... ..,......n... ... ............•., ....,. ..,...,,,r. ,.., r„•......., •:.•.•.v.....w::.:.,.:.vn'•.•.v .r,....:; ».v:... ..... ..., ,.......:. .. n.. vti ,.}'frY::•1r1: ^:J }.:lti? %,•:.J: ..h •rr: xr,•r.•kv.. :•JJY.: r4::id: %rd±J:•:• ?irn:'rrr: rr: rrr,• :.•:•r,•rr v .:.,.r' +.�,:.v+r. rrrr.n,....r •.•,•.vr. ..•.r,•,.,.., ., ♦....... .{��Q�.�fy - ;;.,::::.;., :;x::x:.•: ..,.; .: ..............•,..y n.:.. ,: ,,., r... ::..:............. rov::,:.• ..... r.,. ..,..rr:,•r:.:,,,,,,. v;: r: C:};:,}}} i:: v:•}}:;•% • : :.•:• ::...........n...i11F�F .•.•- .....n•.::.... •.....,... ...... •:.• rRi%::.?',%%::: • %rJ:vi:h1x;.. } ?,. {.v�.,,., }x:. }.•iv::: rr: rrr :,•r.•rrr,•,• ...k„ .............•.. , n.x,...n,..........,,. ,.... ..., ,..,,.,.,..........,,. .r .,,, ., .. .; .; ,: :r: •z n::. fir,,;: %•: %:::.i•:.,,::.� •..... .....r .........,,.,,r .. ir�cr`:,.„-:. �;::., �..::::.: uc-rJZ:.,•ry1..:•,.,,.,t.•,.r.. rrr.• rrr.: rrrAr .,rJ ::rr::,rrrr ::r :rr.:�,rrrr ..rrr..r.: ? +r ....•.:.r...•.�..r....� ,....,.....: rrr.r.r. .rr ..rr..rr. ...., .•,•..•J•:;:..:;.,..:;: a.. .r,.,• .................. ....r..........,..r.•...,..... .........rrr..rr, .. r. .r..,rr....•k•.:.•r,•rr.�r,,vr. r,r,•r..r. rxrr Counties (List each one in which field survey was done -do not abbreviate) Collier USGS 1:24,000 Map(s): Names /Dates: Belle Meade NW, Fla. 1958, PR 1987; Belle Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973 Remarks (Use supplementary sheetis] if needed) No historic or prehistoric archaeological sites or historic structures found. ................................ r..• r.•.:.: r,.....: r..,.,,•,:•.•..: r:.... r: r:::,-. rr.: vr: r..•: rr•: r,..,,:..;:•}:}::.}};{{,.,}}: r...,,;; r:}>:>::{ r.{;•}••, �:;• >;�:r.:- : }: { {•: {. } }; {:r::r. }... ..... {..,r,: � :U.x:;•:r .,...,.. ... �:::>:...,,•:....•• .... ...........rr:rr:r:rr.•r.•rr.•: :.•rrr rrr ,.....,...............,.,,,,... . ::,::,,,..,•,..,...:,,,:,•.,.., •. .,�:.�: •,:::•::>.••.....>:•;: r:.,.,. f>.. r,:,.:.:•• r.• r: r: r: r,:.;::•:.. k. h,,. r. r,.• Jrr: r:::: 1r:.::;:;'<.:.,,.:: ;::• : ::•r >::: :;: }:,::; : { >:::::, ::•. �,:::•:•:.:. :::•:•.. }...:.�::•..•.......,.. rrr• r.:: rr.,• rr: r.,• r,:, r:;:•::• >rr...rr::::•rrrr,.,,., .. • ..r...,.. :: .....:•..•...,,.. ....,,r....,,,.,...� •...,...,., ......... ....................:.......... .. ;,, ,,.,, ,......... �:•. w..<:• r::,.;::: rar;}:• x•}::{ a}} x<> r,•• x{;,:;:• x{•}:•:; s{ z{:{;,• •;s•: } } }x: }:•x•::x:.;:r:::s:•:; : r:: r�• J::<•:::•.:>: r...,,••::.: ro�rr .::•rr,v.:rrrrr.•rr,..,..,..,,, .... •. • : •. •: .. }. • .... {...,::., �::•. rrrr, ��•: rrrrr�.• r,:: rr: rrrrrrrrrrr:,,: rr ..:•rr ....:...............:.:. ..............rr.,:. rrr:•: rrk•,<• r::•:•::. rr> rrrr::.••.:.:..:. r..:}•; r,}>:•::•:: • }:•: {• >:;:•;:t. }: :,.::::,:::,: .�� „��.#��'� .,,�>= ::::,•J :rr.rrrrl.,•,.., , :•:.,•r.�r ::: ...........................:: .,,•,.:.:;::,.......,......,.•......... ,...,...............,...,r.•r:: •rrr:r•.,r ....,, .,...., .. `•.rr ....: rrrr:, �r.,: r.; { {,.•.•;,.,...,•:,.,•.:,,•:: •,., .,,.....,,.,,.........,.,. •.::::.., Dates for Fieldwork: Start 7/31 /03 End 8/6/03 Total Area Surve ed fill in one hectares 950 acres Number of Distinct Tracts or Areas Surveyed 1 If Corridor (fill in one for each) Width meters feet Length kilometers miles Types of Survey (check all that apply) ® archaeological © architectural © historical /archival [I underwater ❑other. 8E06610 -97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 Phone 850 - 487 -2299, Suncom 277 -2299, Fax 850 - 921 -0372, Email fmsfile @mail.dos.state.fl.us, Web http : / /www.dos.state.fl.usfdhr /msfl \ \C cf graydhr\ dhrshare \FSF\DOCS \FORMS\Logsheet.doe 10/03/97 11:07 AM Page 2 Survey Log Sheet of the Florida Master Site File .. +..zm;c+:•; �+ *rr : <zrr •rx• :• • ::::•r.�arr�zra :zr, nr •+ rr��rr:: SSz•" 5} } ^••- 'Sfir:. <•z:Sz. {v`.•'•R+:' n r..;arz,..�,..•+, �..;z +•ry +r�<.•rrr••x •. +rrrr :- ,:::•r.• :q.......... x, ? .....,� ns . �.. �.. v.. vrrrr�........:.; r+ rr.: r.•y*r;v;,vyY•y,.,;..vt:•:C:zrr :oxztCKC«IK :...,r.,.�..yr,}'.v}:•:�i$S;:4r . r,:z %v�,v :.vvrhr :r.•rr r ••..�vrrrrr., rvr: ........ .}:{ •b'•: {•i•X•: {r:••v:S }}}:: :Xrxr: v rtrrx... -.• vXr•:x::n -nr v {vrThv,•..nT..v.. ..nv,.v,.....,,., ,•r•.c...::.•• ?••.vvvv. •.•,•.v {•r {•n . ... ............... ... F. ^rv:r i'•TV n:... {........v.vv::: {•:r •:•:vX +{• }Xrr• }: {. }:{ {v .. ., r..v. •4 .;•- .{YlT..v ••.$� or .s. {. •.4:•.vTT •.•.•rri: r: rr.vv -..n ... ,. 'r v{v�.TS. .hr.r. rYr,". r .h.vv.•.•:.v.. .r Y�:ii .xa vi{� :••r.• �, - : }:r: •TrT, -TrrrT :•., r nor,... .., .r.. .,., k.:r,.rrr.•r .r ,•; ,,• rr •.r,r, r,•.,•:r,{.rrT;{•,•r: :; :•:•:•r,.,:•:.,,{•:: Tr }.r;: {•.� „•r- .�rvTTr:..-- .ra•:r .. .. ...r. .. . <..: }.2:•rrr» % +•,•...•: :r.•: T•.. rrTh- .,•.{.vr.,•rrr: :..v . -,{v.. }.. ,,.•°.,; :.. : {:;.,:xs,•;•;r,,s }• :: :sT::•rYra >x:T }•a• .nar...%.•... •:;. r: Yrxrrrrxro;• :e;�•xroYOxaz?rr ::rTr,.;.;ra... .i., . �?, {•v.�.:vrv.• ::•vr.•.•r... t.....i, T: r, r.. 1,.�} 4r r:•r.•: rr .•rr.•.r.2• ..t..k %::Ir. 'i• {•ti:•' :,Jivi}v�iii;•4'4'•i Xi { {rv. x- }'v.,........ /�.�(��' .: ,�i:; ��'+}{.�� ,v.:rac.- :.,:•rvs.,�h .... ..,n ...., r... r., v',: ti?:,} v.•^ vrrr:•• r' r:: o:.,.; r,:;: R` r,: r,•••.••. s, {:r. ❖.:S } }rv`• %r`••:•Y- •rT..A ........Y1'�:SFW.�iF � .r :�. ,++'• 5,:....T.. r.,.�.,.. , '•{ +: YY:; S: v�:..;;. 2Yr•.- X�'}`.{ { { <as' {rr- •x {4:,'• }xi:i3::hoxc{ ,•.{ ir;.' s}:{•:, tv„y.{ v., x•., xxa >.•rrr..,,vvvv.•.xvnrTT.vvrrrrr ...vnxyT.,n.�.,.x�sr...v v...» y: yru,,• TT.{ T.. ,.�{,xrTT.r.{,vnvvvxrrTrx:r::.; �•:T:i.Tar .,•:.vx {ssvT. -,> -. Preliminary Methods (Check as many as apply to the project as a whole. If needed write others at bottom). E] Florida Archives (Gray Building) [–]library research - (local public) F] local property or tax records ® windshield survey Florida Photo Archives (Gray Building) F_� library- special collection- (non local) newspaper files ® aerial photography ® FMSF site property search ® Public Lands Survey (maps at DEP) ® literature search ® FMSF survey search local informant(s) Sanbom Insurance maps other (describe) Archaeological Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as "None. ") F( -ew: 0 -20 %, S( -ome: 20 -50 %); M( -ost: 50 -90 %); or A(-II, Nearly all: 90- 100 %). If needed write others at bottom. El Check here if NO archaeological methods were used. _surface collection, controlled _other screen shovel test (size: ) _block excavation (at least 2x2 m) _surface collection, uncontrolled _water screen (finest size: ) _soil resistivity A shovel test -1/4" screen posthole tests _magnetometer —shovel test -1/8” screen auger (size: ) —side scan sonar _shovel test - 1/16" screen _coring _unknown shovel test- unscreened test excavation (at least 1x2 m) other (describe): Historical /Architectural Methods (Describe the proportion of properties at which method was used by writing in the corresponding letter. Blanks are interpreted as "None. ") F( -ew: 0 -20 %, S( -ome: 20 -50 %); M( -ost: 50 -90 %); or A(-II, Nearly all: 90- 100 %). If needed write others at bottom. Check here if NO historical /architectural methods were used. _building permits _demolition permits _neighbor interview _subdivision maps commercial permits A exposed ground inspected _occupant interview _tax records interior documentation local property records _ occupation permits _ unknown other (describe): Scope /Intensity /Procedures Background research, Archaeological field survey, 92 shovel tests dug at 50m intervals and judgmentally; soil screened, strata recorded, units backfilled, visual reconnaissance, photos taken, report prepared. .. ........ ....... ,,,- ..T „•,: •T .:TTTT,T.rT•:•TT.,.T.,,•TT.. -T. ,.T..,:<,T.x;.,,xw.,..r, „r.,;,;:.- ::_:r:r•T -T .�.r•T.,,;, ..:.•X4rY +,,w ,•rYT,.'•r: «T ,•;< Y..;..: > %:,z > »:r:{?:- Y<;�;,u:<;:•X:nN: 3 .,,.TTr,,,,..,..,TT„ .. rr.. ..........r.r... <...........r.. ....oY:a T.. ..,.,,,s•. ..... .n?;;,•...,, r..:. .:.v:.T•..v.. -. '• - ,.,.,•,.:•....•rr... .r:or•.•..r. ..., r. ,..m ........... .... . Y<..., 4............................., v...vn, ,rv. ,v„ ... .,. x. ......, cx..R. x.,, r .:°Zi...R .r v.: .,. •: {::•j:�:iJ: :• }. »..v... T.r >:2 :hY.Tr:: ^<• rnv, vt .•rv...r.nn..ccicrr?:v.L.vN.•. •..r....r... ..r..r ...•. ., n•.•h•TT, h.r ..,....a .,h..�., v ••.•..v. .crfi:.•v,r ,. },....,.,,.,n,r .•.•. \v... {,.4 :; {�,•.•nl; ;. :•;:.•' 7•%'{ dT:. r::,•;:;%}'::}{ :S {' %r� }rli:;t: { {:•:4:= :`•:i•:v }vc. } }:4' {. }i'{;;•: {'•; {;�n2 n• {UT,Y•:• =h Yr..ivS•'ro%r vi y,�y� .hiS;'{ 'n'r.•.•srrs., r r• {rr.•.•r5: 2::T•..ccc?•:.• •.- r, l.: Tr �+rT• -i. Tr;:Tti {T .v....•., vnv ;: TT...,vn is vvvr.•r TTq..,T.vrw.•. TT.-,{ rr;'• rYT.:,'.; fY:. rrrrrr . }:�+.rr+,ror;- '•:'•�wH } }o T.4. +,.{, ...,,u,.,,.:...,.. •,..:,,.' a.,•T.{,... �> S;: a..,, x„r �X{ aw, :rT:os: {{• }:•?.a.S:.::�:,h'�§�: ....,.,,.:?•':, t.' vr: r.: isi,::•: tiv; T{:;.; �y::,. i' u'r x,!: crrxw ,{:;2•: {a{ {•T,.,:{•:.s,.,.x'�. ... rxT. Y T Site Significance Evaluated? ❑ Yes ® No If Site Counts: Previously Recorded Sites 0 Previously Recorded Site Vs (List site #'s without "8.” 'es , circle NR- eligible /significant site numbers below. Newly Recorded Sites 0 Attach supplementary pages if necessary) na Newly Recorded Site #'s (Are you sure all are originals and not updates? Identify methods used to check for updates, le, researched the FMSF records). List site #s without "8." Attach supplementary pages if necessary. na Site Form Used: ❑ SmartForm ❑ FMSF Paper Form ® Approved Custom Form: Attach copies of written approval from FMSF Supervisor and Supervisor- signed form. ATTACH PLOT OF SURVEY AREA ON PHOTOCOPIES OF USGS 1:24,000 MAP(S) HR6E06610 -97 Florida Master Site File, Division of Historical Resources, Gray Building, 500 South Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 Phone 650- 487 -2299, Suncom 277 -2299, Fax 850 - 921 -0372, Email fmsfile @mal.dos.state.fl.us, Web http : / /www.dos.state,fl.us/dhr /msfl \ \C cf graydhr\dhrshare\FSF\DOCS \FORMS \Logsheet.doc 10103/97 11:07 AM GeoSonks focm REPORT 161 BEZ'rER ROADS, INC. P.O. Box 9979 Naples, EL 34101 DATE March 4,:2003 SUBJECT ANLMAL RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS COPY NUMBER Animal Response Considerations Better Road. Inc. 'March 4. 2003 Purpose This review was completed to summarize existing vibration and air overpressure i airblast ). studies and experience related to blasting near or at Ieast in the proximity of various animals. Study is limited on this subject with a minimum of research studies conducted and published. In addition to the studies reported, general experience tnay be applied to consider limitations to protect adjacent wildlife. A general noise evaluation projection curve has also been included to consider levels that may be produced during mining operations using blasting. Published Studies Studies providing limits and or research related to blasting near animals are relatively brief. Two summaries are provided both included as experience of the same author. Lewis `L. Oriard'- summarized experience in various projects in two publications. The information does indicate that some startle effect may be, produced in animals when subjected to loud sounds and strong vibration.. The most important feature of this piece of information is that the animals observed were confined in either pens or buildings.. This may . be traceable to the issue that an animal senses something, threatening when confined and is more likely to panic than one that is free. The animals surrounding the quarry operation are free flying and are not contained: As such. the birds may briefly fly from a resting position but would be expected to return without harm. Information in the. aforementioned studies indicates that the animals are to a greater extent motivated by .their primary instincts -for survival, presence of food, predator or prey- and to a much lesser extent annovance or activity. There area number of examples of-noise and vibration and,effects upon animals where tolerance to the activity becomes acceptable: One mentioned case is discussed where deer .inhabited a local. airport. ± Grazing deer had moved close to the . runway: Some moved awway when a jet approached for takeoff while others remained «within cl'ose-proxiinity.. The close deer lowered their ears as protection: ho-,vever, they did not leave. Some acclimation to the noise had occurred with these animals. After the ddptrture the observation was made that the other deer returned to the site being gazed. The same observation was made by w V this author where blasting as conducted at the ulcan Materials Company, 41'` Street Quarry in Miami. The observation directly related to birds adjacent to the quarry site. In this case.. seagulls and an American Bald Eagle inhabited the north shore of the main quarn lake. Through the 1980's blasting was conducted at this quarn, on a. regular basis. Explosives were loaded to 40 — 60 foot depths with 300 — 400 pound per delay amounts and 40. — 60 holes detonated per blast. The birds were.drawn to.the area by..the adjacent ' Explosives En2ineerin2, Construction vibrations and Geotechnoiog�, Oriard. Lev k. L. International Societ %. of Explosives Engineers. Cleveland, OH, Chapter 6. pp 225 -226. The Effects of Vibrations and Environmental Forces. A Guide for the Irnzstigation of Structures. Oriard. Lewis L._ International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland. OR pp'•42 -2 I6. landfill site operated by Miami -Dade County. Blasting was conducted as a rule twice per week typically without adverse effect upon the wildlife. Haul units and vehicles operated within a few hundred feet of the birds without disturbance. For seismograph record pickup, travel was made on the north haul road, actually made through the bird's resting area. The birds were acclimatized enough to vehicles to fly up as the car approached and land immediately behind the vehicle as it passed. During blasting events, the mining operation made sure birds were not on the blast pattem and at the time of detonation. most of the birds remained on the ground. A very few flew- with those taking alight landing immediately after the initial noise was produced. In this case with blasting much more intense than expected at the Better Roads operation. there was not an observable effect upon the wildlife. Noise Level. Limitations Airblast 'is the most likely source of greatest influence on birds that would be near the Better Roads operation. The noise levels will vary as gases used in the detonation of the explosives vent to the surface. Wind. direction and the blast pattern itself would influence the amount of noise produced. The research mentioned previously indicated one project studying animals where the ground vibration and noise levels were measured as well as effects upon the animals. The study mentioned a maximum measurement of 104dB(C) for air overpressure levels. This level was reached but was produced without .detrimental effect to the animals. While this study made use of the C- weighted noise level metric, common blasting methods use the Linear (Flat) measurement network. While these noise levels differ in. part of the response curve, there is a comparison that may be made. The 104db(C) .level is approximately the 105 dB(C) limit suggested by the U. S. Bureau of Mines in Report of Investigations No. 8485. The study suggests limits for airblast produced :by mining operations. Based upon testing, the Bureau limit used for. the C- weighted scale is 105 dB. This corresponds to a limit of 133 dB in the .linear measurement format: The table following represents limits based upon.microphone response:. . Microphone Response I Decibel Limit ' Wei htin 1 -Hertz 134 dB Linear (Flat) 2 -Hertz 133 dB Linear(Flat) 5 -Hertz 129 dB Linear (Flat} i - 105 dB . C- weighting ' As a limitation for the wildlife, using the. 1.33 dB (L) limitations would correspond with the State of Florida limit published in FAC 4A -2 plus providing a level that would have a relationship to some testing_ even if limited, on wildlife. . Projection of Air Overpressure Airblast from mining operations has been studied and.recorded ' under the requirements of State of Florida regulations. From other. operations. a general regression (attenuation with distance) profile may >,e dzyeloped.: For this operation the worst case probability curve may be considered as the worst profile. 2 Considerim-, the formula of SD) -O-cx)21 from the graph. beloxv a projection of airblast at different distances may be made. Overpressure Regression I -r .'G 9516 Ezat,n, '23 '6 'kSGj ' -,M:*. 106 85 - — - — -- — - — - — - — - — - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ♦ AA AP . I I • . ------------------------------------- 'A --- : 1� - - - - & ---------------------------- --------- A • #4 A • #A;t • A A 4* A AMM ♦ A, •dMIP •r►A •6 X 41" ■ A 1W IL*4*V * 1 T — --------- - - - - - - - - - — • l, G rSt _f S! t 0 100 Cube Root 31-a ec Distance Correlation Coefficient = -0.02 Slope = -0.01 In order to provide projections of airblast the cube root scaled distance must be calculated. This is a method used to compare the effects of various combinations of explosive charge weight and distance. Fr orn that initial calculation. the Scaled Distance can be used to further project the airblast levels from a specifically designed blast. With those projections the airblast levels can 01 be- provided as a protection to maintain a level below the 133 dB (L) limitations suggest previously. Airblast Projection,Table 50 50 50 200 300 500 54.28- 8.1.4-3 13 5. 7 2 1.30.9 13 0. 7 130.65 The measurements made and.projected show little difference based upon a change of distance of 200 to 500 feet. Due to the limited slope of the attenuation graph. there is very little data change when using the worst case protections. On -site blast data -hen operations begin may be able to be used to refine the airblast attenuation. As it stands, the levels provided by the .«-orst case provide a safety marain to the suggested limit. Recommendations Based upon the review of literature and practical experience and using technical projections the followingsuggestions can be made. 1. Airblast would be the most significant effect,. in. our opinion, upon the .endangered woodpeckers habiting the Better Roads site. These effects would be less of an effect based upon the wildlife being unconfined. 2. Based upon prior studies and measured levels a 133 dB (L) level may be used to insure safety for the adjacent wildlife.. 3. Insuring that debris from the blast site does not fall upon the wildlife habitat, separation of 200 300 feet would be a reasonable separation to insure that airblast levels are below the suggested 133 dB (L) limitation suggested. Respectfully submitted GeoSonics. Inc. /Jeffrey A. Straw Vice President and Area Manager 4 Ex�- HI LL.A, UU - S--, 4E,,-- -- -1 -, , Dv,�A�n-i A--,,Ni,,fA Sill[S-5 NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT V.D.5 LAND USE DATA AND ANALYSIS Collier County Staff has acknowledged at various public forums the long term need for limestone aggregate in Collier County. Collier County Staff has prepared research and analysis documenting the existing mining operations in Collier County, maps of probable hard rock availability in the county, and existing limitations on mining operations. A copy of a presentation prepared for the Collier County Board of Commissioners has been attached as on supporting documentation of the data supporting the proposed land use designation. Additionally, the applicant has prepared a brief discussion of the need for aggregate and the positive economic impact that mining has on the local economy. This report is titled, The Need for Rock Mines in Collier County. Soil borings have been completed and a report on their findings has been attached. This report documents the existence of hard limestone deposits within the subject property and documentation of its quality for use as road construction material. Additionally extensive studies have been completed related to the environmental considerations related to earth mining in this area. These discussions and findings are found in Exhibits V.C.1, V.C.2 and V.C.3 of the application. Environmental Evaluation and Advocacy 5 November 2004 Mr. Milton S." Butch" Kent 1910 Seward Avenue Naples, FL 34101 RE: Environmental Analysis of Alternatives to Rock Mining in Collier County Dear Butch: The overview of alternatives to Collier Rock mining is attached. As you probably knew before I started this document, there is no economically feasible alternative. Your confidence in The Firm is appreciated. Thank you. Very rul y s, Brown ollins Suite 200 2159 Morning Sun Lane, Naples, FL 34119 239 -514 -3998 Fax: 514 -0955 browner- svnecol.com Analysis of the "Practicability" of Non -Lee County Alternative Sources to Supply the Area's Demand for Basic Construction Materials Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to use federal environmental assessment criteria to determine the practicability of alternatives to limestone mining in Collier County. Collier County presently supplies the vast majority of all the coarse and fine aggregate crushed stone needed throughout the County for building and maintaining public and private infrastructure. Without the Collier County resources these essential materials would be in critical short supply locally. Collier County mining began in the 1950s and has been fully approved by local, state and federal, zoning, planning and permitting agencies. Collier County products are the primary constituents of concrete, asphalt, road base and other products used to build essential human infrastructure including roads, bridges, airports, parking lots, office buildings, warehouses, retail stores, housing, schools, colleges, religious structures, hospitals, etc. This infrastructure is universally built with quarry products. Relative to other areas of the United States, both Florida and Collier County have an extremely limited supply of construction grade rock. This is especially critical because the population of this area is growing rapidly and needs huge quantities of rock to build and maintain infrastructure. In 1998, the State's total uses of 120,000,000 tons amounts to about 8 tons for every person in the State, every year. Including all statewide resources, Florida is projected to have only a 30 to 50 year supply of rock. Rock products are categorized by the USGS and the mining industry as follows: • Crushed Stone, Coarse crushed stone (3116" and larger) is producted by mining, crushing, and sieving solid strata or rock as in the Alico Corridor. Fine crushed stone (Less than 3/16" - manufactured sand) is a necessary byproduct with which is recovered by smaller screens in the Sieving process. Sand and Gravel are naturally occurring materials that are washed and sieved into various sizes Road Base, is a gradation of sizes with specific chemical characteristics Cement is processed from limestone high in calcium carbonate Fill is considered a quarry product but not necessarily tracked by the USGS. Coarse Crushed Stone or Gravel comprises slightly less than 1/2 of the volume of all concrete and asphalt. Coarse Crushed Stone or Gravel must meet certain physical and chemical quality requirements or the concrete and asphalt will not be durable or sufficiently strong. There is essentially no gravel available in Florida and there is a critical shortage in Florida of coarse crushed stone that meets FDOT quality specifications. In 1998, Florida needed approximately 39.4 million tons of coarse crushed stone. Locally, virtually all of the local consumption is produced within the county. The September, 1999, U.S.G.S. Mineral Industry Survey for Florida states: "the largersize limestone aggregates are becoming a limited resource in the state." Collier County presently supplies the vast majority of the areas larger size limestone aggregates locally. Fine Crushed Stone or Natural Sand also comprises slightly less than 1/2 of the volume of all concrete and asphalt. Like the coarse fraction, it must also meet certain physical and chemical quality requirements or the concrete and asphalt will not be durable or sufficiently strong. While there are sand deposits along Florida's central sand ridge, this material can not apply all the size fractions needed to produce quality concrete block and asphalt. There are only a few locations in the State with geological formations that produce coarse crushed stone that meets FDOT specifications. The availability of all of Florida's limestone deposits is diminished by urbanization, environmental restrictions, and public opposition to mining. All the available deposits in Florida are presently being mined. From the standpoint of quality and yield per acre, Collier County is the most productive mining area locally. Alternative locations in the State could not economically replace Collier County production. The analysis of alternatives is the heart of the decision making process. But alternatives can only be considered if they are "practicable ". The EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines for wetland permitting provide a multipart test to determine whether alternatives are practicable in light -of overall project purposes, i.e., providing rock meeting FDOT specifications for building and maintaining Florida's public and private infrastructure. For the purpose of evaluating Alico Corridor alternatives, some of the factors are: • The quality of rock must meet FDOT standards The yield per acre. (The less yield per acre the greater the habitat Impacts per ton of aggregate.) • The habitat impacts of mining in the alternate location relative to Mining in Collier County. • The effect on wetlands • Cost • Technology • Logistics, including transportation issues • Other significant environmental consequences of the alternative These criteria were used to evaluate mining alternatives in Florida, other states, and in foreign countries. We also evaluated substitute materials and recycling. The results of the analysis show: • There are limited reserves of construction grade rock in Florida outside of Collier County. Alternate sources in Florida are being fully utilized and are inadequate to economically replace any portion of Lake Belt Rock. • Alternate sites in Florida lack adequate transportation infrastructure to Serve the Collier County market area. • Alternate sites in Florida are limited by public acceptance, urbanization, And the need for environmental permits. • Alternate sites in other States have extreme logistical and cost problems. Rail or highway transportation infrastructure does not exist to move large quantities of rock to Collier County. They are also in valuable habitat areas and have problems with urbanization and environmental permits. Alternate sites in foreign countries also have extreme logistical and cost problems. Rail served deep water port facilities to handle large volumes of rock do not exist in Florida. Port facilities in foreign countries can not be expanded to handle large volumes of rock. Potential quarries in Mexico, Nova Scotia, and the Bahamas are in valuable habitat areas. Rock from Mexico is produced in an extremely valuable subtropical rain forest. Rock from the Bahamas does not meet FDOT specifications due to high chloride content. Rock from Nova Scotia is only available 7 months per year due to weather. Technology does not exist for the use of alternate (non - quarry) materials to replace Collier County rock. Based on permitting criteria, there are no practicable alternatives to mining in the Collier County. Premature curtailment of Collier County mining would cause extreme disruption of the county's construction industry and would vastly increase the cost of essential public and private infrastructure. Background Collier County mining began in the 1950s and has been approved by all necessary local, state and federal, zoning, planning, and permitting agencies. The unique value of Collier County limestone has been long recognized. The mining industry in Collier County is concentrated in certain areas because of large, accessible deposits of usable rock and the actions by state and local governments.of the past 40 years. Beginning in the 1950s, the Collier County government recognized that quarry products generated by the mining industry were an essential element in the continued development of southwest Florida. The large scale industrial activity associated with mining, processing and shipping rock products, and the manufacture of cement, required that the industry be located away from Urban areas and near a secure source of limestone. Government decisions in the following decades established the industry in Collier County. During our analysis of the impact of mining in the county, we should balance environmental protection with the regions critical need for rock to build public infrastructure such as roads, airports, schools and hospitals. We should also recognize that a reliable source of quarry products will be needed for to provide the ongoing infrastructure needs of this growing region. Appendix B, from the U.S Corps of Engineers Lake Belt EIS shows that annually, national use is approximately 2.8 billion tons of quarry products for construction purposes. At an average of 1.4 tons per cubic yard (net) this requires the mining of 2.0 billion cubic yards of rock to meet the annual infrastructure needs of the nation. The value of this rock at the quarry is $13.5 billion and with the assumption that transportation doubles the cost to the consumer, the nation pays $27 billion each year for construction rock. But few people recognize that our society is dependent on crushed stone, sand and gravel, and cement. This is because personal use is very little, if any, and hardly anyone recognizes the indisputable connection between mining and the infrastructure that makes possible our way of life. But everyone recognizes, and perhaps even takes for granted, our concrete and asphalt highway system; concrete bridges, our concrete buildings and parking garages, the concrete slabs and concrete blocks we use to build our houses, schools, churches and hospitals, asphalt parking lots, the concrete pipes we use to move water and so on. The typical formula for concrete is: • one part cement (90% quarry product) • three parts sand (100% quarry product) • three parts aggregate (100% quarry product) • enough water to make it flow Therefore, concrete is approximately 98% quarry product. The recipe for asphalt is similar except petroleum binder is substituted for cement. Asphalt is approximately 95% quarry product. In. addition, the foundation material under our roads is called "Base" and consists of crushed stone which is 100% quarry product. In Florida, we annually need a total of approximately 120 million tons of crushed stone, sand and gravel, and cement. This is approximately 8 tons for each of Florida's 15 million residents, every year. For example, one mile of four lane interstate highway typically requires approximately 80,000 tons of rock, one new six room house in Collier County typically requires approximately 300 tons of rock including the fill necessary to raise the house to mandated flood elevations, the slab, the concrete block walls, the road and sidewalks leading to it, and the commercial and transportation infrastructure attributable to the dwelling. Rock products are essential and the mining necessary to produce them is indispensable. Mining operators, public officials, consumers, and community residents no longer can remain independent of each other. All groups and individuals must work together to ensure the reliable supply of basic construction materials to build and maintain our infrastructure. Our way of life depends on it. Shortage of Construction Rock in Florida The USGS report, Circular 1110, 1993, "Natural Aggregate - Building America's Future ", recognizes that "natural aggregate occurs where nature placed it, not necessarily where people need it." This USGS report describes the Florida Peninsula and the Gulf Coast as an area "where aggregate occurs in very limited quantities; large areas may be devoid of aggregate ". Florida has the fourth largest population in the Nation and is one of America's fastest growing regions. It also has an extremely limited supply of the basic construction materials needed to build and maintain the infrastructure required to support society. This is especially true in Lee County. The remaining rock resource in Florida should be considered a vital commodity of critical concern. Useable aggregate reserves in Florida are estimated to last for only another 30 to 50 years, depending on location. The September 1999, USGS. Mineral Industry Survey for Florida states: "The larger size of limestone aggregates are becoming a limited resource in the state ". Collier County rock is the only economically viable supply of this material in our area In addition to the very limited geological resource in Florida, the availability of construction grade rock is further diminished by urbanization, environmental regulations, public resistance to mining, etc. Transportation Rock is a relatively low priced, high volume, heavy commodity. The cost of transportation can easily exceed the cost of the rock at the quarry. Transportation over short distances is typically by truck, while longer distances require rail, barge or ship. In areas of the United States which have abundant high quality rock, quarries are always located near the areas where large volumes of rock are needed. The infrastructure needs of Collier and adjacent Counties are supplied by trucks, primarily from the local quarries. Because of the shortage of quality rock in Florida, rock is shipped by rail from the primary source of supply from the Lake Belt Area in Miami, to Orlando (230 miles) and Jacksonville (350 miles). For example, both Disneyworld and Cape Kennedy were constructed from Lake Belt Rock. If rock of sufficient quality had been available in proximity to these large projects it would certainly have been used. This is an example of how fortunate we are to have rock in Collier County. Most of the Lake Belt Rock that is shipped by rail is economically transported form south to north on the FEC Railroad which otherwise has traffic which is predominantly in the other direction, from north to south. The FEC tracks are located along the East Coast of Florida. Smaller quantities of Lake Belt rock are shipped on the CSX Railroad which runs through the central part of the State. A network of redi -mix concrete, asphalt plants, and distribution terminals are located along both railroads to supply the infrastructure needs of the eastern 2/3 of peninsular Florida, all the way to Jacksonville. There is no rail in southwest Florida to allow for such rock imports to this area. It is also prudent to consider the cost and logistics associated with alternatives. Therefore, not only the alternative source of rock but how that rock would be delivered to the end user, i.e., the alternative distribution system, must be considered. This includes consideration of the logistics and cost of rail shipments from other states that would require transfer of rail cars from one railroad to another. At present, small quantities of rock are delivered to Florida's Panhandle area from other States. In the case of possible rock supply from foreign sources, the alternative distribution system must include port facilities and the transfer of product to rail lines. At present, small quantities of rock are delivered from foreign sources to the ports of Tampa and Jacksonville. Increase in volume would require significant expansion of existing port facilities or the construction of new port facilities. Categories of Construction Rock The two major categories are (1.) coarse and (2) fine aggregates with a dividing - line of 3/16 inch. In general, concrete is one part cement, three parts sand (fine aggregate), and three parts coarse aggregate. The USGS and the rock industry furhter classifies rock as (1) sand and gravel and (2) crushed rock. Sand and gravel are naturally occurring materials. In Florida it had its origins in alluvial periods when gravel and sand were deposited in the panhandle area and along a major channel from Jacksonville through Central Florida that terminated near Ortona in Southwest Florida. In their north -south movement, these natural sands underwent a process of attrition so that they are finer in composition than natural sands in other areas of the country. Typically, the sands found in Central Florida contain lesser amounts of coarse particles than the material in Florida's north deposits. The sand deposits in Florida supply a portion of the State's need for fine aggregates. Except in the western panhandle, there are essentially no gravel deposits in the state. Even in the panhandle, coarse aggregate needs are supplemented with gravel and crushed limestone from outside the state. Sand is washed and sorted into various construction sizes of fine aggregate by screening. Crushed Rock is essentially the only source of coarse aggregate in the state. Solid limestone is fractured by explosives, and processed through a crusher. The material is then washed and sieved into various construction sizes of coarse and fine aggregate. The build of coarse aggregate quarry production consists of (1) material with a nominal size of 1 inch and (2) material with a nominal size of 3/8 inch. Fine aggregate (less than 3/16 inch) is also called "manufactured sand ". Depending on location, the crushing process results in a variable mix of fine material (manufactured sand), and coarse aggregates. The ratio varies from mine to mine. There is no way to produce coarse aggregates without also producing fine aggregates. Quality Considerations The following is taken from the USGS Circular 1110, "Natural Aggregate — Building America's Future ", 1993, Page 6, a discussion of the "Physical and Chemical requirements of Aggregate ", "Most people probably assume that aggregate is used chiefly in cement concrete. Much natural aggregate, however, is unsuitable for such use. We all have seen crumbling driveways and bridges or cracks in sidewalks and patios. Concrete deterioration has many causes, but unsuitable aggregate, containing deleterious ingredients, can be a primary or secondary cause of the problem. Natural aggregate varies widely in quality, depending on the source. To ensure that aggregate is suited for particular uses, testing laboratories compare aggregate properties with predetermined standards. The most generally used national guidelines for specification and testing procedures are those of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). National specifications must be broad, and at best they serve as general guidelines. Local specifications need to reflect specific uses, availability and quality of local aggregates, and local climatic conditions. Suitable aggregate consists of clean, uncoated particles of proper size and gradation, physical soundness, hardness and strength, and chemical properties. The final use of the aggregate determines the specific properties sought. Generally, specifications for aggregate used in cement concrete and bituminous [asphalt] mixes are more stringent than are those for other construction - related uses. Mechanical sieving or screening is used to grade, or sort to size, aggregate. In general, aggregate for cement concrete should be well graded thorugh the sand and gravel range of particle sizes, although gap grading (aggregate with specific particle sizes missing) may be used and may be necessary for some products. Specifications for bituminous mixes are dependent on the pavement design, and therefore no general statement can be made regarding the sizes of aggregate used. Particle shape affects both the grading limits of aggregate used in cement concrete and the workability of the concrete. The presence or excessive amount of angular particles can require addition of a greater percentage of sand to the mixture, which in turn requires more water and cement. In contrast, because inter granular contact provides strength in bituminous mixes, angular particles generally are desirable. Smooth particles offer little assistance in holding the aggregate in place in bituminous mixes, too many flat or long particles may be harmful. Physical soundness is the ability of aggregate to resist weathering, particularly freezing- thawing and wetting cycles. Generally, aggregate that contains weak, easily broken, absorptive, or swelling particles is not suitable. Specifications for physical soundness are similar for use in cement concrete and bituminous mixes. Hardness and strength of aggregate affect the ability of the final product to resist mechanical breakdown. The breakdown of soft or weak particles during handling or mixing is deleterious in both cement concrete and bituminous mixes. Ideally, the aggregate is an inert filler, and it should not change chemically once in place. However, some aggregate ocntains minerals that chemically react with or otherwise adversely affect the concrete or bituminous mixes. In cement concrete, these chemical processes are reactions between the aggregate and the cement, solution of soluble materials, or oxidation of constituents. In bituminous mixes, chemical factors may influence oxidation of the asphalt or strip the bituminous film from the aggregate...." In Florida, most aggregate suppliers participate in a statistical quality control program developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The main purpose of frequent testing is to alert the producer to possible fluctuations in aggregate quality so that prompt adjustment can be made. The data are submitted to the FDOT. Status as an approved FDOT quarry depends on continuing compliance with State standards. Quarry operations are routinely monitored through on -site FDOT inspections of compliance with quality control requirements. This process assures that our highways are built and maintained with high quality materials. In addition, specifiers of rock for private, non - government projects can assure high quality of aggregates by requiring these be supplied form FDOT approved quarries. Florida's Demand for Rock The U.S. Bureau of Mines monitors the production of aggregate. One purpose of this monitoring is to provide data that can be used to project future needs. Because crushed stone and sand and gravel are used mostly in the construction industry, reasonable estimates of the future demand for aggregate are based on predictions of future construction, such as the number of residential and nonresidential buildings, highway award contracts, and public construction products. Other factors commonly used to predict future aggregate production include population, employment, personal income, mortgage rates, and State or National gross domestic product. Collier County is a growth area and accomodating growing population requires large quantities of rock. In addition, existing infrastructure must be maintained and replaced from time to time. Government policy is redirecting growth away from urban fringes toward the city center. Such redevelopment will require substantial quantities of rock. An estimate of the rate of growth in demand in Florida is provided by USGS data for the United States. See Table 1. Growth in Florida is expected to exceed national projections and Lee County is expected to grow much faster than the state as a whole. In addition, the restoration of the Everglades will be a massive public works project that will require large quantities of quarry products. y � T he following Table 2, provides the distribution of rock produced and used in Florida in 199.8. This illustrates the demand and supply in the State. The data from this table was obtained from U.S.G.S. publications and from mining industry sources. Table 2 shows the critical quantity of crushed stone that is supplied by Collier County Area. This is the primary source of coarse aggregates for the State. Crushed stone (coarse aggregates) comprise approximately % of the volume of concrete and asphalt. For these end products to be durable and perform as planned, the coarse and fine aggregates must conform to FDOT specifications. Collier County produces much of the crushed stone, coarse aggregate and manufactured sand, used in the county. As mentioned previously, concrete and asphalt requires a gradation of sand sizes. These graded sizes and angular particles result from the sieving process of producing manufactured sand. Fine aggregates (manufactured sand) are produced as a byproduct of the crushing process used to create coarse aggregates. The only source of coarse aggregates in the state that meet FDOT standards are Collier County and other crushed limestone facilities. Although construction grade rock is generally in short supply in Florida compared to other parts of the Country, it is coarse aggregate that is in critical short supply. Therefore, evaluation of alternatives needs to focus on crushed stone. Florida's existing crushed stone operations are shown in Figure 2. These generally coincide with areas on the map showing, "Areas of Potential Development of Limestone" from the 1979 report prepared by the Bureau of Geology, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Report of Investigations No. 88, "The Limestone, Dolomite and Coquina Resources of Florida ". See Figure 6. Please note that some of the areas identified on Figure 6, as areas of potential development of limestone, do not produce material that meets FDOT specifications for coarse and fine aggregate for concrete and asphalt. For example, potential limestone areas in Suwannee, Alachua, Marion, and Sumter Counties, produce base material, but the quality of the material does not meet FDOT standards for aggregate. All potential areas for the production of aggregate that will meet FDOT standards are presently being mined. Please see Figure 2 and Figure 6. These are: 1. The Dade County Lake Belt Area including Broward County 2. South East Dade County 3. Palm Beach County 4. The formation in Alico Corridor, Charlotte and Collier Counties 5. The Brooksville Area in Hernando County 6. Citrus County and Levy County Area 7. Taylor County Area 8. Jackson County Area (very small production - not evaluated in Appendix) .L^ Table. DIstbAon, of TIM TMA . TOW "1' WR Sub !Ilaftk s #In 1!fl n6 !VA ..tk tee • r.r�l 1'1 � c! k 4 V V 141 6 d.1 TOP !ER'! $fit i$ a t+ra.+e�rr�. t:.r �t # k i g ► , ` � .t:in: # r�n:.k: ian +s. rr� rrt INSERT TABLE 2 HERE Florida's Supply of Rock The FDOT maintains a data base of approved quarries in Florida, other states, and in foreign countries. Table 3 provides a listing of all DOT approved rock facilities in the state. Table 3, has been sorted to group quarries that supply crushed stone, sand, terminals where rock is distributed and quarries that supply road base but are not approved to supply sand or coarse crushed stone. Fig uq re 1 shows all DOT approved facilities, Figure 2 shows the location of approved crushed stone operations, Figure 3 shows the location of terminals where rock, primarily from the Lake Belt, is distributed to other parts of the State, and Figure 4 shows the location of facilities that produce only road base as the material generally does not meet State specifications for sand and gravel or crushed stone. Note that many of the crushed stone operations shown in Figure 2, also produce the road base that meets DOT specifications. Figure 5 shows the location of sand mines, most are on the sand ridge that follows the center of the State. These facilities generally do not produce any coarse aggregate material. Table 4 provides a listing of DOT approved quarries in other states. Seventeen of 32 facilities supply crushed stone. Quarries in northern Georgia supply crushed granite, the others, crushed limestone. Table 5 provides a listing of DOT approved quarries in foreign countries. Quarries in Nova Scotia supply crushed granite, in Mexico, crushed limestone. Bahamian coarse crushed stone is not approved due to unacceptable chloride levels in the rock. Table 2, above, shows the various quantities of basic construction materials presently supplied to meet Florida's needs. Assessing the practicability of alternate sources to replace Collier County rock. For this study, "practicability" is determined according to the following multipart test: alternatives must have less adverse environmental impact alternatives must not have other significant environmental consequences practicability must consider cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. TABLE 5 - FDOT APPROVED QUARRIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES PAGE 24 _ s y... +`w mow. All FDOT Approved Crushed r Stone, and Sand. and Gravel Facilities in Florida. Quarry data oompbed by LvW and. Aa ttes front zodda D:{?.'t r �1our e i w 'w � r. t s I M� w.".w ii:.. ATrr W /••iiw� WIr` LYy y„ Muir GAO" iW 11rY Yi i ifw' K Mier M` YLY Ww FDOT Approved gushed Stone, Coarse and Fine Aggregate Quarries in Florida T� Queny data compiled by Larsen and AsaWates cram F�aride D.O.T. mpais. „ i Figure 2 is wril wrr FDOT Approved Distdbutilon Terminals (No Mining) in Florida Quarry data =Piled by- Larsen and Asodates from M06 a DAZ Pvoft. Figure Figure 3 -. I A- Present Distribution of supply of Crushed Stone in Florida Florida Annual Net Yield FDOT FDOT Roadbase Es& Production Coarse Fine & Other mate 126,000 51116 Crushed Crushed 1,800,000 Life 12,100y000 50 Stone Stone net tons — tonsfacre . not tons % net tons % net .tans Year Florida Miami Lake Beft 41,000,000 126,000 51116 21,100,000 19% 1,800,000 30% 12,100y000 50 Broward County . . Palm Beach County 3,500,000 320000 40% 1,400,000 .20% 700,00.0 40% 1,400,00o .0 10 Naples Area 2,600,000 55,000 40% 1,000,000 200 500,000 40% 1,000,000 6+ Lee County 9,000,000 32,000 60% 5,400,000 261/o 2,250;1100 15% 1,350;0 A Brooksville' 9,000,000 40,000 60% '500/0 6,400,000 25% -2 25%000 '15.%.' 1,350,1000 10 Levy County 3,000,000 42;0.00 1,500;000 20% 60D.00(y � 300/0 900,000 30+ Perry Area 2,5009000 45:000 '50% 1t250,000 20% 500,000 3010 750,000 30+ All Others 15,000 -,000 na 0% 0 0% 0100% 15.,000,000 na, Total non-Lake Belt 44,500,000 na 6,800,000 21,750,000 na does not Include cement mills r Y1� a rra. u.., ry tir .r r 'YYrs YrN 14� KIY4 1b.r6 lYr. MOT Approved Crushed Stone " Base }hack Quarries in Florida � • Quo" data bompled by Lamn and Associates �, s from Fiodds DAT, reports. a Figure 4 ti , aprim Me I M1.111, I !1�lFf M w 1YR p Yes tJ'en.+M..r.... ►.r.�r ws.�iaas4 t. f' ....... AREAS OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF LIMESTONE w tb.:r law Y gn1.M • Areas of potential Development of Limestone from State of Florida, Bureau of Geology, Report of Investigations No. $8, The limestone, Dolomite and Coquina resources of Florida Emphasis Added to "High Potential" Areas. W"t Ti7?IK- AWiMMwYi�w.�rt' .r.r:Ir.. wr�,isrr. sr� vrrrw"n tmmymva- r+.drt.r..�w Q �4•ail. hlMR U AFrYr1F�w�� WrvrtlrtxYu6- y..r�w�►n...r..« Nome • (rtxar.l yfi.�pirsM ,•_..,._._ w tb.:r law Y gn1.M • Areas of potential Development of Limestone from State of Florida, Bureau of Geology, Report of Investigations No. $8, The limestone, Dolomite and Coquina resources of Florida Emphasis Added to "High Potential" Areas. In Appendix A we evaluate each area and assess its potential to increase production as an alternative to Alico Corridor Mining. We evaluated the following factors to determine whether alternatives are practicable in light of overall project purposes. The factors include: 1. The quality of the rock pursuant to FDOT standards. 2. The yield per acre. The less yield per acre the greater the habitat impacts per tone of aggregate. 3. The habitat impacts of mining in the alternate location relative to mining in Collier County. 4. Effect on wetlands 5. Cost 6. Technology 7. Logistics, including transportation issues 8. Other significant environmental consequences The same analysis is carried out for rock from other states and from foreign countries as follows: 1. Alabama 2. Georgia 3. Nova Scotia 4. Bahamas 5. Mexico Individual analysis. sheets for each quarry are provided in Appendix A. Practicable Technological Alternatives At this time, we know of no practicable technological alternatives to Collier County rock, and none have been suggested. Conclusion We evaluated potential alternatives in Florida, other states, and in foreign countries. We also evaluated substitute materials and recycling. The results of the analysis show: There are extremely limited reserves of construction grade rock in Florida outside of Collier County. Alternate sources in Florida are being fuly utilized and are not adequate to replace any portion of Collier rock. Many alternate sites have a substantially lower yield of useable rock per acre than Collier County. Therefore, at these alternate sites, much more habitat must be disturbed to produce an equivalent quantity of rock. • In general, the available alternate sites in Florida are in wetland /upland complexes with higher habitat value than the drained and degraded Melaleuca infested mining areas in Collier County. • Alternate sites in Florida lack adequate transportation infrastructure to serve the Collier market area. • Alternate sites in Florida are limited by public acceptance, urbanization, and the need for environmental permits. • Alternate sites in other States have extreme logistical and cost problems. Transportation infrastructure does not exist to move large quantities of rock to Florida. They are.also in valuable habitat areas and have problems with urbanization and environmental permits. Alternate sites in foreign countries also have extreme logistical and cost problems. Rail served deep water port facilities to handle large volumes of rock do not exist in Florida. Port facilities in foreign countries can not be expanded to handle large volumes of rock. Potential quarries in Mexico, Nova Scotia, and the Bahamas are in valuable habitat areas. Rock from Mexico is produced in an extremely valuable subtropical rain forest. Rock from the Bahamas does not meet FDOT specifications due to high chloride content. Rock from Nova Scotia is only available 7 months per year due to weather. Foreign sites are not practicable alternatives to Collier County. Technology does not exist for the use of alternate (non - quarry) materials to replace Collier rock. Based on federal criteria, there are no practicable alternatives to mining in the Alico Corridor. Premature curtailment of Collier mining would cause extreme disruption of southwest Florida's construction industry and would vastly increase the cost of essential public and private infrastructure. Bibliography Florida Geological Survey, Geological bulletin No. 39, Mining and Mineral Resources, James L. Calver, 1957 2. State of Florida, Bureau of Geology, Report of Investigations No. 88, the Limestone, Dolomite, and Coquina Resources of Florida, Walter Schmidt, Ronald Hoenstein, Michael Knapp, Ed Lane, George Ogden, Thomas Scott, 1979 3. Florida Aggregates in Construction, Their Characteristics and Performance, Technical Report 90 -01, Published by the Florida Concrete and Products Association and the Concrete Materials Engineering Council, Donald McCaulley, Martin Mitteladner, James Mross, John Roebuck, Raman Winemberg, April, 1990 4. Natural Aggregate - Building America's Future, Public Issues in Earth Science, U.S.G.S. Circular 1110, William H. Langar and V.M. Glanzman, 1993 5. U.S.G.S. Minerals Information, Crushed Stone Statistical Compendium, Valentin V. Tepondel, November, 1997 6. The Economic Significance of Lake Belt Limestone Mining, James C. Nicholas, November 1998 7. U.S.G.S. Mineral Industry Surveys, Cement in January, 1999, Hendrick vanOss, March 1999. 8. U.S.G.S. Mineral Industry Surveys, Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel in the First quarter of 1999, Valentin V. Tepordei, June, 1999 9. Florida Department of Transportation, List of Approved Sources and Producer Information pages for each of approximately 180 FDOT Approved Aggregate Sources 10. Draft ASTM Standard for Good and Customary Practice for Evaluating Practicable Alternatives under the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program, August, 1999 11. U.S.G.S. Mineral Industry Surveys for Florida, Arnold Tanner, September 1999, fhttp://minerals.usgs.gov/mineralsa and Walter Schmidt, State Geologist, fhftp: / /www.dep.state.fl.us/geo/I 12. Florida Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge construction, J.B. Lairscey, Pe.E., Ernest Garcia, P.E., 1996 and updated on fwww.dot.state.fl.us] on November 13, 1999, see Sections 901 -911, Division III. Appendix A. Data Sheets on Alternative Quarries 1. Limestone Quarries in Palm Beach County 2. Limestone Quarries in Broward County 3. 4. Limestone Quarries in Miami -Dade County Lake Belt Area 5. Limestone Quarries in Naples Area 6. Limestone Quarries in Lee Coutny Area 7. Limestone Quarries in Brooksville Area (Hernando County) 8. Limestone Quarries in Levy and Citrus Counties 9. Limestone Quarries in Perry Area (Taylor County) 10. Granite Quarries in Northen Georgia 11. Limestone Quarries in Northern Alabama 1.2. Limestone Quarries in Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico 13. Granite Quarries in Nova Scotia 14. Limestone Quarries in Freeport, Bahamas B. USGS Data on Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel for 50 States Appendix A. 1. Limestone Quarries in Palm Beach County Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Quality is marginal and sometimes out of compliance with DOT standards. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand ) ... Annual Production is approximately 3.5 million tons with a yield of approximately 32 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... limited, will last 10 years. This is. a cap - rock deposit and constitutes a limited pocket of acceptable material. Availability of land ... limited availability of material that meets DOT Specs. Potential for Permits ... Difficult Public Acceptance ... Accepted Effect on wetlands ... This is a former wetland area, now drained as part of the EAA. This is former sugar cane land. Yield is 26% of Lake Belt. Therefore, 3.9 times as much land area is disturbed to produce the same amount of rock. The quarry leaves a lake Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands endangered species... former wetlands, now drained by SFWMD. Logistical transportation issues ... Market is served only by trucks, site of deposit is not served by rail which would allow supply to more distant markets to replace Lake Belt Rock. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Water is required for washing and sorting rock. Ground water in this area is influenced by connate seawater which can affect quality to end user. Market ... Competitive with Lake Belt in local market area served by truck Summary ... Not practicable as Collier alternative due to limited reserves, marginal quality, low yield and lack of rail access. 2. Limestone Quarries in Broward County Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ...Quality is good but contains greater percentage of sand than Collier rock. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand ) ... Annual Production has declined to less than 1.0 million tons with a yield of approximately 100,000 tons per acre. Mining in Broward County was previously substantial, but now, Broward County receives its rock primarily from Miami -Dade County. Broward county has not been included in totals provided in table 2. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... None, mining has been replaced by urban development. Availability of land ... No additional land available, mining is being phased out. Potential for Permits ... Extremely difficult in Broward county Public Acceptance... Public opposition based on blasting and environmental concerns. Effect on wetlands ... This is a former wetland area, now drained for urban purposes. The quarry leaves a lake Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... former wetlands, now drained by SFWMD and by Broward County Logistical transportation issues ... Market is served only by trucks. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Water is required for washing and sorting rock. Market ... Competitive with Lake Belt in local area served by truck. Most present mining is for the purpose of filling land for residential development. Summary ... Not practicable as Collier Alternative due to loss of essentially the entire resource to urban development which is a more profitable land use. No rail access. 3. Limestone Quarries in Miami -Dade County Lake Belt Area Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Meets all FDOT requirements for coarse and fine aggregate and for road base. Quality is sufficient for feed stock to Cement Mills. For construction purposes, Lake Belt rock is the best in the state. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand Annual production is approximately 40.0 million tons with a yield of approximately 125,000 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... Reserves in the Lake Belt will last another 50 years Availability of land ... Ownership by rock mining companies and lease lands owned by the State will support another 50 years .of mining Potential for Permits ... Mining Permits will be issues for 50 years pursuant to the Lake Belt Plan Public Acceptance ... Plans approved by the Florida Legislature. Some homeowners are concerned over blasting vibrations. Effect on wetlands ... All mining will occur in seriously degraded wetlands according to a mitigation plan approved by the Florida legislature, and local, state, and federal agencies. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... All issues of wetland functions and values and habitat have been resolved by legislation dealing with. mitigation. Logistical transportation issues ... The only feasible way to deliver this rock to Collier County is by truck. The three hour haul time would place sever strain on existing roads, truck emissions would increase air pollution and the cost associated with delivery would be very high Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... None, large Volumes of water are available for processing of rock. Water is returned to the aquifer. Market ... This market is too far removed to be viable Summary ... Approximately 50 years of mining remaining. This is a crucial state resource for supplying rock which is essential to building and maintaing public and private infrastructure in Florida. Rail access and truck access is good. This area supplies approximately'/ of Florida's crushed stone and serves as a market area which extends to Orlando and Jacksonville, but is not feasible for southwest Florida. 5. Limestone Quarries in Lee County Area Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Meets DOT requirements, and is comparable to Collier Rock. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand ) ... Annual production is approximately 9.0 million tons with a yield of approximately 32,000 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... Reserves limited to Alico Corridor. Availability of land ...Additional land not available for mining. Mining area is encroached by urban sprawl. Potential for Permits ..Doable along corridor because much of the area has been used for truck crops or dirt mine. Limited environmental impact. Public Acceptance ... Public objects to additional mining nearer urban areas. Effect on wetlands ...Historical surface hydrology destroyed, exotic infestation heavy. Limited wetland impact. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... Poor habitat because of agricultural activities, drainage distruption and exotic infestation. Logistical transportation issues ... Transportation is by truck to local markets. There is no rail service which would allow supply to more distant markets. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining... None. Large volumes of water are available for processing of rock. Processing water is returned to the Aquifer. Market ... Serves local market. Summary ..Not practicable as Collier alternative due to limited resources, urban encroachment, sales of mining land for more profitable urban development, high habitat value, difficulty of permit approvals and lack of rail access. Trucking would be extremely expensive 6. Limestone Quarries in Brooksville Area ( Hernando County) Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Meets DOT requirements, however, is the most variable deposit in the state. The material will meet most Alico Corridor quality parameters, but will not meet all criteria such as for certain high traffic level asphaltic pavements. Yield /Production of.Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand) ... Annual production is approximately 9.0 million tons with a yield of approximately 40,000 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... Reserves are extremely limited. Three quarry operations, two will run out of rock 5 years, the third in approximately 15 years at current mining rates. Mining rates at third quarry will increase when first two quarries stop production. Availability of land ... Additional land not available for mining. Mining area encroached by urban sprawl Potential for Permits ... Approvals for expanding mining extremely difficult to obtain, panther habitat, upland area with high habitat value Public Acceptance ... Public objects to additional mining. Effect on wetlands... None. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... Excellent habitat Logistical transportation issues ... Transportation is predominantly by truck to local markets. Rail service is not available to connect to southwest Florida. Reserves are not adequate to support large scale rail use. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Large volumes of rock are required for processing rock in an area that can be subject to droughts. Processing water is returned to the aquifer. Market ... Serves Ocala to Tampa market, this is not an area generally served by Collier County.. Summary ... Not practicable as Collier alternative due to extremely limited resources, low yield per acre compared to Collier, high upland habitat value, and difficulty of permit approvals. 7. Limestone Quarries in Levy and Citrus Counties Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Meets some DOT requirements, however, is variable in hardness. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand Annual production is approximately 3.0 million tons with a yield of approximately 42,000 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... reserves will last approximately 30 years at present mining rates. Availability of land ... Additional land not available for mining. Potential for Permits ... Approvals for expanded mining extremely difficult to obtain.This is a wetland /upland complex. Public Acceptance... Public objects to additional mining Effect on wetlands :.. This is a wetland /upland complex with overall habitat values greater than the Alico Corridor. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... Excellent habitat Logistical transportation issues ... Transportation is by truck to local markets. There is no rail service which would allow supply to more distant markets to replace Collier rock. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... None. Large volumes of water are available for processing of rock. Processing water is returned to the aquifer. Market ... Serves Gainesville - Ocala and local market, this is not an area generally served by Collier County. Summary ... Not practicable as Collier alternative due to limited resource, less than ideal quality, low yield per acre compared to Collier, high habitat value, difficulty of permit approvals, and lack of rail access. 8. Limestone Quarries in Perry Area (Taylor County) Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Meets DOT requirements for road base and fine aggregates but does not meet FDOT requirements for coarse aggregates. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand ... Annual production is approximately 2.5 million tons with a yield of approximately 45,000 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... reserves will last approximately 30 years-at present mining rates. Availability of land ...Additional land not available for mining. Potential for Permits ... Approvals for expanded mining extremely difficult to obtain. Public Acceptance... This is a wetland /upland complex. Effect on wetlands ... This is a wetland /upland complex with overall habitat values much higher than Collier. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands endangered species ... Excellent habitat Logistical transportation issues ... Transportation is by truck to local markets. There is no rail service which would allow supply to more distant markets to replace Collier Rock. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Unknown. Processing water is returned to the aquifer. Market ... Serves the local market of Tallahassee to Lake City. Summary ... Not practicable as Collier alternative due to limited resources, low yield per acre compared to Lake Belt, high habitat value, difficulty of permit approvals, and lack of rail access. 9. Granite Quarries in Northen Georgia Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate... High quality, granite. Concrete producers in Florida prefer limestone because particles have cementicious properties which improve concrete quality. In addition, granite is highly abrasive to concrete producing equipment and heavier to transport than limestone. Granite provides a very durable surface layer for asphalt, however, a lime slurry agent is needed as an anti stripping agent. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand) Annual production for entire State of Georgia for all crushed stone is 78.2 million tons. Sand and gravel production is 7.7 million tons. The percentage of this production that meets FDOT specification is not known, however, all Georgia coarse crushed stone that is approved by FDOT is located in North Georgia, north of a line extending from Columbus to Macon to Augusta. Yield is approximately 1 million tons per acre as mining consists of removing low mountains. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... Substantial additional reserves, limitations in some areas due to urban growth pressure. Availability of land ... Substantial additional land available. . Potential for Permits ... Extremely difficult and time consuming, Air quality issues of this mining in the dry are important. Public Acceptance ... Depends upon proximity to urban areas. Effect on wetlands ... Upland Area. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... Habitat value of forested area is high, residual land is reclaimed to create wildlife habitat. Logistical transportation issues ... Rail network is not adequate for redistribution to areas presently served by Alico Corridor area. Present production of quarries is presently delivered to existing customers. Present capacity of quarries is limited and large financial investments would be necessary to increase production above present levels to accommodate larger service area. Large financial investments would be required to provide distribution to areas now served by the lake belt. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Air quality affects of dry surface mines are an issue. Market... Transportation costs to areas presently served by the Alico Corridor would be very high. The cost for the infrastructure necessary for Georgia rock to replace local rock in the Collier County service area would be extremely high and take years to implement. Summary ... not practicable as Corridor alternative due to extreme logistical and cost )roblems in moving material to present Collier service area from Northen Georgia. Present rail facilities now operate near capacity and huge capital investment would be required to increase production and provide large scale distribution to Florida and present Collier service area 10. Limestone Quarries in Northern Alabama Quality of Rock - Suitability for MOT Coarse Aggregate ... High quality, better than Collier. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand) Annual production for entire State of Alabama for all crushed stone is 50.2 million tons. Sand and gravel production is 16.0 million tons. The percentage of this production that meets FDOT specifications is not known, however, all Alabama course crushed stone that is approved by the FDOT is located in Northern Alabama. Yield is approximately 750,000 tons per acre as mining is of hills. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... Substantial additional reserves Availability of land ... Substantial additional land available Potential for Permits ... Difficult Public Acceptance ... Good, in rural areas Effect on wetlands ... Upland area, mining occurs in the dry with pumps, when pumps are turn on, excavation fills with water. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands endangered species ... Habitat value of forested are is high. Logistical transportation issues ... Small quantities are presently shipped by rail and truck to Panhandle of northern Florida. All FDOT approved coarse aggregate locations are in northern Alabama. Rail facilities are inadequate to ship any large quantities to present Alico Corridor service area. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Unknown. Market ... Transportation costs to areas presently served by the Collier mining would be very high. The costs for the infrastructure necessary for Alabama rock to replace Collier Rock in the local Service Area would be extremely high and take years to implement. Summary ... Not practicable as Collier alternative due to extreme logistical and cost problems in moving material to present Alico Corridor service area from Northern Alabama. Present rail facilities now operate near capacity and huge capital investment would be required to increase production and provide large scale distribution to Florida. 10. Limestone Quarries Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Coarse quality equal to Collier or better. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand) Annual production is approximately 8.0 million tons with a yield of approximately 125,000 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... All reserves owned by government of Mexico Availability of land ... Additional and lis available adjacent to operation Potential for Permits ... Now extremely difficult, Vulcan would not likely attempt additional permits. Public Acceptance... Unknown Effect on wetlands ... None, upland area, mining occurs from 40 above, to 40 feet below the water table, creating lakes. Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... Subtropical Rain forest Area, project opposed by several environmental groups ... Mining converts Rain forest, to freshwater lakes. There are extremely valuable archeological sites in this area which will make additional mining very difficult. Logistical transportation issues ... Small quantities are presently shipped to Tampa, distributed by truck. Most of present annual production of 8 million tons goes to other Gulf Coast ports in the Florida Panhandle, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Harbor facilities in Mexico can handle a maximum of 12,000,000 tons per year, this port facility can not be expanded. Port facilities in Florida with adequate depth, land to stockpile material, and rail access to customers are extremely limited. It would be difficult to expand existing port facilities in Florida, new facilities would be required. If new facilities were constructed, it is likely that the combination of depth, land, and rail could only be provided in Jacksonville, but, at greater expense. Land is only available along the north side of the St. John's river, on the CSX railroad. There would be substantial difficulty in transfer to the FEC railroad for deliveries to the southwest coast of Florida. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Hurricane stockpiles at port in Mexico could wash into harbor under hurricane conditions. Market ... Cost of limited quantities shipped to existing facility in Tampa is competitive with other sources in Tampa area. The Tampa area also receives small shipments from the Lake Belt. Costs for infrastructure necessary for Mexican rock to replace Collier Service Area would be extremely high and take years to implement. Summary ... Not practicable as Alico Corridor alternative due to extremely logistical and cost problems in moving material by vessel, unloading Florida port, and rail transport to Lake Belt service area. Capacity of quarry and port facility in Mexico is limited. 12. Granite Quarries in Nova Scotia Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... High quality, granite. Concrete producers in Florida prefer limestone because particles have cementicious properties which improve concrete quality. Granite provides a very durable surface layer for asphalt, however, a lime slurry agent is needed as an anti stripping agent. Yield /Production of Rock - Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sandl Annual production is approximately 2.5 million tons with a yield of approximately 1,000,000 tons per acre as mining consists of removing low mountains. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... essentially unlimited Availability of land... essentially unlimited Potential for Permits ... Very Good Public Acceptance ... Very Good Effect on wetlands ... Upland area Habitat Value, whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... Habitat value of forested area is high, residual land is reclaimed to create wildlife habitat. Logistical transportation issues ... Material can only be produced for 7 months per year, Shipping occurs 12 months per year, however, Port Area in Halifax can only accommodate 5 vessels during the five month winter. During particularly cold times, the stockpiles freeze. Port facilities in Florida with adequate depth, land to stockpile material, and rail access to customers are extremely limited. It would be difficult to expand existing port facilities in Florida, new facilities would be required. If new facilities were constructed, it is likely that the combination of depth, land, and rail could only be provided in Jacksonville, but, at great expense. Land only available along north side of St. Johns river, on CSX Railroad, creating difficulty in transfer to southwest coast of Florida. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Expansion of production would require reclaiming land and filling Halifax stockpile area out into the water. Market ... Essentially all production is now delivered to various East Coast ports including small quantities delivered to the port of Tampa. Costs for infrastructure necessary for Nova Scotia rock to replace Collier rock in the local service area would be extremely high and would take years to implement. Summary ... Not practicable as Collier alternative due to extreme logistical and cost problems in moving material by vessel, unloading in Florida port, and providing rail transport to Collier service area. Port facility in Nova Scotia is limited. Huge capital investment would be required to increase production and provide large scale distribution to Florida and present Collier service area. Due to weather, quarries can only operate 7 months per year, demand in Florida is on 12 month basis. 13. Limestone Quarries in Freeport, Bahamas Quality of Rock - Suitability for FDOT Coarse Aggregate ... Currently not certified by DOT due to Chloride content in rock. This negatively affects the durability and strength of concrete. Yield /Production of Rock Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate (manufactured Sand) Annual production is approximately 1.8 million tons with a yield of approximately 100,000 tons per acre. Potential for expansion of operations Additional extent of reserves ... limited, this is a small island Availability of land ... limited Potential for Permits ... Difficult Public Acceptance ... Accepted Effect on wetlands ... Upland area, but creates lake after mining. Habitat Value whether uplands or wetlands, endangered species ... unknown Logistical transportation issues ... Rock is shipped by barge and can be delivered to smaller ports in Florida. End user can be supplied by truck. Port facilities in Freeport are shared with others and it is doubtful that exports could be expanded significantly. Other Significant Adverse Environmental consequences of mining ... Fresh water required for washing and sorting rock is in short supply. Market ... delivered by barge to East Coast ports but use is limited as the material does not meet FDOT specifications. Summary ... Not practicable as Collier alternative because material is not FDOT approved, there are limited reserves, extreme logistical and cost problems in loading vessels in Freeport, unloading in Florida port, and providing rail transport to Alico Corridor service area. Huge capital investment would be required to increase production and provide large scale distribution to Florida and Collier service area. Appendix B. From USES Mineral Industry S1 vep Crushed Stone and Sand and Gnv>,l Data for 1998 'short toffs (2,000 Cad Crlailad Crushed Stolle Stone State Tats VO" DC9art! (OW) (0001 ' Tort• Sang and Bard and $and acrd Gravel Gravel 0mvnl Tax• VA* OobW (0001 (000) Tort' OW CruabWotal Crushea*t C vsN SWm plus Stone plus Stone ph+s Sand W Sans wW 8" and .0mvel Grav61 Gnrvj Toro• VAW DOUWW (000) {000) Ton' 1Q 50126.6 $308,000 $6.13 15,484 05,600 $416 88,249 S37316Q0 $5.84 2 5.827 522,400 58.35 13,779 *87.400 $4.17 17,306 ;791800 $4.61 3 8,157 143,300 $8.31 61,694 S224,OQ0 14A3 69;684 $272.300 $4.55 4 42,619 tI 41000 58 84 12,448 $SZ pOq $424 mW5 &W.w0 $¢ -� 5 63,052 5395 000 18 28 137,749 *762,000 $5,46 200,841 21,147,1100 0:71 6 13,228 37!!,400 1b 9d 41,457 5172000 $4.14 84,780 *250,9110 $4 68 7 ' . W 11,047 $73.000 $9.07 7066 33t,8p0 $4.47 15.10 $104,600 $6.92 6 °- - - - -- - - $4.11 2,482 S1t,200 *454 2AW $11= 1454 1Q 76,284 ;476,000 $0.015 7.715 527.800 ;3.68 43,980 6303;800 55.36 11 6.813 550.094 $047 447 $4,210 $10.10 8,924 $54,340 x4:14 t2 $347 f13,601) $4.06 VAN $48,000 $249 20,393 *59;000 $2-92 13 75,258 $376,000 $409 37,254 $144,000 $4.W 112,646 $525.000 54.68 44. 87,021 $289000 $4.31 26,015 $403,000 ;308 93,83$ 5342,000 $421 1b 44,633 $234,000. $535 14,339 $64;700 53,82 68.863 5266,700 ¢4,90 16 24.412 $102,000 34.(10 10,744 326.300 $2.63 95,680 3130,300 ;3.65 17 67,572 $282.000 $4.11 9.675 326.SW $305 70,247 $308.800 $4.05 1a 1,754 *18.20 59.19 4309 $U,3W 1420 16;633 574,500 $4.76 t9 3,486 $18.W00 ;5114 7,626 $33,100 54.23 10,913 $42,900 $4.51 20 23,144 5126,000 $5.44 12.897 578,200 36106 36048 $204MO 55.67 21 14;440 $21.70 scu 16.432 $76;000 54.96 29,873 *188,300 $5.63 22 48,297 $156,000 $3.41 66013 $229000 $3.37 114;310 5307.404 $3.39 23 16.476 366:340 3324 36;266 $124.000 $3.42 63.242 5213,500 $3,49 24 5,401 529;498 $5"44 17,190 $73.300 $426 22,597 $102,700 $4"54 25 21,902 $409.004 $4;99 9,213 $32.100 $3.44 911117 ;441.100 28 ' 206 $1.4100 $4.07 9" #33,100 *3.:43 12,832 *45,200 53„58 Z? 7.716 546.900 $8.08 *5,873 540,400 53.19 23;589 S41,5Q4 5433' 2a 6.173 3;6,240 $7.48 27,776 $1210W 54,36 33.961 3167,200 $4.92 22 2+425 314,100 SS:61 9,61$8 *39,000 $4,04 12,061 $53.100 54.40 30 27,337 $174.400 $4.36 19,962 $99.240 54.97 47,399 $273,20 $5.76 31 5,181 $26.200 $5.44 11.745 $555,808 !Km 16,976 483,20() x4..90 32 50,706 $=.000, $6.35 93.364 $187,000 34.72 06,091 $444080 $6166 33 Ti,634 *501.000 17,86 11,464 539.608 $3119 63,114 4866,600 $6.82 34 - 10,316 10.316 $2T,6W $2.68 10.318•. ;27;600 $2M 35. 59.17'7 $485000 $3,44 SS.= $244000 54.42 144.403 $729,900 *6.06 38 ,"!5.425 $117,400 53.27 9.444 $32,300 $324 45,064 5149;300 $3.21 $7 2t,7t3 $96,500 $4.54 18,296 $69.700 "A0 40,014 4146,240 $4.70 ;38 iQ0:2W $b64A00 $0.83 20.263 $107.000 $8.26 120,483 *371,000 55.57 39 1.984 510,000 56,44 2,262 $17,00o PA 4,266 (27,800 48.52 40 _ 30;203 5216000 $7.15 9.067 53$',600 i3 S0 2OA71 ;249;800 $427 43 6,014 MOW $4,53 10.641 534.100 33.14 17,461 S84,7W ;3.71 42 70.646 $344,000 $5.44 ON $42,600 $428 " 60,346.... 5426.600 $6 "30 43 102,515 $465,000 $4.54 74;490 $32i3.bW $4.41 176.021 ;791000 $4.48 44 13,881 ;64,980 34.17 44,064 2125,000 12.79 07.871 ;179,300 $110 45 9,239 550,400 $5.44 4,740 ;18,000 53.40 13.499 $66,400 $4:49 48 81.130 $442,000 $606 11,884 $.54.000 $4.62 92;815 $496NO $5,34 47 "115.873 588,400 $5.44 51,287 $ 213,800 14.15 ;57.131 $399.400 *4.46 46 14,330 $78400() 35.44 1.764 57.680 $4.46 16,091 $66,460 35.33 49 30,424 $110.008 13 "62 33.731 $103,000 $3 "06 64,185 5213.000 $3.32 50 _ . 6,504 $35,400 $5.44 4,244 $15,800 53,72 10.74E 551.200 .54 -76 State Toes t Popufst m Caplra 4,351.449 15.2 614,010 28,3 4,8811.831 12.8 2,638.303 21.7 32,888.550 S.t 3,970,971 13.6 3 274.,088 4 "8 743,603 3.3 7,643,207 11.5 1,103,001 5.0 1.228,864 1 e.8 12,045,328 9.3 8,888,196 15.8 2.442.447 20.8 2.624,067 13.s 3,938.449 19.4 4,364.667 316 1:244.2'50 8.6 6,134,806 7.0 8,147,132 4.9 9,817242 11.6 4.725,419 11.3 2.752,492 62 5,431$,639 16.s 680.433 14.3 1,462,714 14.2 1,746,898 14.4 1,185,048 102 8,115,011 5,8 1;738931 9.8 16,176.301 4.7 7,548,493 ma 636,244 182 11,209,493 129 3.346,713 13.8 3,281,974 122 12,001,451 10.0 MAO 4.3 3,836,962 10.4 738,171 23.7 3,430,621 14.6 19.758.814 9.0 2,004,758 27.6 640,663 23.7 8,791.345 13.7 6.689,263 11.8 1,811,158 8.9 8,223,600 12.3 480,907 223 1.641,742 S8.748,OW $5.3311,122,944 $4,714,070 3420 1 2,764.727 $13.468,670 $4.87 1259,775.400 10.2 STATE I Calkwria 2 Tars 3 Midiigan 4 Ofk s Ar'korsa i wa&"On 7 Utah 8 Cirivrad0 9 IT♦Ir+als 1ti mhwvs0ta 14 New York 12 VV%Qwmin 13 Nevaga 14 htdkM From USGS Mlnuai Industry surveys CFtmW Stone and $and and Graval Oita for #948 that W" (2,000 CutW iruab d $toil! St" Toni' Vakw (000) {000) 63.014 S395.000 10$7,515 :465,400 48,297 5180,000 89.177 7485,.000 8,167 $43,W. 15,873 $88.400 18,007 184,300 13,228 S7a"O 75,284 $376,004 10,978 sm u p. 50:708 $322.000 30.424 #114.000 0,173 $46,2W $7,021 S2a9.000 CnAhad Stairs Dol&W TW Sa24 *4.54 $3.41 45.44 $5.91 15.44 54.17 $5.44 $4.49, ;5.21'i $6,35 $3.82 $7'.40 $4.31 ( Sfata Tons p0putaOon Cap#* 4782,900 C.�nittladl ow Cn ahooToW Cnnt* 200,641 w pica $101» pkis 6$xA pkra Saw and S" and nd ad S" and SAnd Gc w Q*VW rawt rmQ) GW.* Onwel Vsk* Dollars/ OM, Vaka Doury MM Tan` 5387,040 (000) Tai` ( Sfata Tons p0putaOon Cap#* 4782,900 SaA6 200,641 $t.147.000 W1 32,668,550 $326.000 $4.41 176,421 S793NO >41.s8 19.759,614 $=AM $337 114,31..0 5387,040 $3.34 9,817,242 $244,.000 14.42 W,;403 37240.00. $5.05 11.209.493• 4=j= $4:43 69,8,56 ;372,300 $4:55 4,668.631 42100 $4.15 It7;t31 tm,400 f.:+.4¢ S,6d4= 4t2 AW 12.74 57,871 $170,300 $3.10 2,099,758 1);172.008 44,14 54.7!!3 $250.404 ;4.56 1870.971 ;149,000 34.00 112AO 5523,0!.00 14,88 12.048.326 1124AM $3.42 53:242 $212,800 M99 4.725.419 4187,000 $4,72 . 86.091 5469.00.0 Sr568 18,175.301 5103,000 5345. $4,t5S 4213,000 13 32 0223 500 4121,000 $409 4061 $.1.57,200 $402 1.748.696 sim. 00 43.04 $3,016 s37z. w S4.Y1 3,899,iss 8.1 9.0 11,5 t.2.9 72,8 i 1,a 27.8 13.8 9.3 11.3 4.7 12.3 19.4 15.8 17 NOW Jer 27,237 .--_ 4174.000 ^- $8.36 •rv#o^m, $.04300 a01w $447 , 7.57;40.1 4TAO 7r1r1*OW $27vw $447 $5.76 12,001.4#1 10.0 is Omom 21,7$0 31i3At?0 404 1114764 $4;90 40.614 1158;200 S4.70 8;115 Oi i 3.281,974 5.8 122 19 Lditat *O 5,40i #24,400 15.44. 17J:30d 14.20 32:60.7. 3102,700 $4.64 2x42.092 $.2 20 Idaho 3,]07 313,840 $4.06 WA00 32:59 20,393 559,540 $2:92 1;225,684 1a a 21 AlaDarnt 50,206 $308.004 #0.13 3$14.600 34.16 a4.240 *MAW 15.64 4.351.969 15.2 22 Nei(aska 7,T16 148:904 113.06 160.600 $3.19 21;A831 SQ7:5(!{j 54.13 i.EQ2,719 142 23 mS95adxnafb 44.440 $41.700 58 35 170.600 14.98 25173 5188.304 36.83 6,14T,132 4.9 Y4 )OVa 44,533 $234.040 $S.25 464:700 33:82. 58,863 $288,?00 $4.90 2.86x:447 20.5 26 tbuhiana ;1:764 $18.200 16.18 SS5,300. $420 ISA" STOW 34;76 4;388.067 3.6 26 Aaska 3.827 :u ,40O 0.3+1' $57,400 $4.17 17,306 smm 54:61 614.010 292 27 mwjy rxl 23.149 $125„000 $3.44 47x,200 0.00 30 ".'M 1204,200 55 47 51134.808 7.0 29 Arksnsrs 42,549 $241,000 $814 ;6,2,800 $4,24 55.005 $293,W0 $0.34 2.838.303 21.7 29 NOW modca 6.181 (28,200 $S1F!' ibd;OpO $4,66 18,973E $83.200 3450 1.730.931 9.6 30 Vkyktia $1.130 $44.3.000 $5.45 484.000 14.62 42.613 5406.000 #3 t 8.791.345 13.7 31 North CW*" 71,660 $507!A90 VA : 559 500 $5,19 !3.114 ""AM W82: 7.848.493 11.0 32 $m4t Dakota 38,614 $30,580 $4483 $34,100 43.14 17.461 $84.700 13.71 738.171 23.7 13 !(ir>saa $24,912 5102,000 $4.04 $28.300 $2.03 36.880 $130,300 53 86 2,629,067 93.6 34 North Dakota - S27,500 52.68 10,318 $27,600 32.68 538.244 162 33 Tennsstaa 70.548 1384, 000 $5.44 $42.500 54,26 60.546 1426.800 $8.30 5.430,921 i4.a 36 Okbdwma 35,825 $117,006 $3.27 431;300 13M 45,664 $149 300 $3.27 3346, ?13 13.8 37 Sovth C4waihra 30 20 3. $'116.000 1715 333,800 $3m 341671 $244.800 $677 3.835.982 10.4 3a Montana 2,978 112,100 $4.07 133,100 $3.43 12,632 546.200 $3:x8 ¢80,453 14.3 39 K*wH "hka $2,425 ';#89.000 $14,100 $541 434,000 $4.04 12.061 553;100 $4.40 1.155.046 10.2 40 MkstoUd 81,402 K", 133,100 $3.41 91,117 4441,100 ;4:54 6,410.554 taa 41 KrrnpJ* 87,872 =,WO $4.17 3"A% 13.06 76.247 $308„500 $4.05 3,438,499 19,4 42 Mak1r. 3,08E 118,600 16:44 $33;100 $423 10,913 $49,900 34-67 1,244.230 8.8 43 Goorpta 73;264 $478.000 6$1 $27,800 ;3.60 35„960 $803.800 15:88 7,642.207 11.3 44 C0rx1acWA 8,047 $73;000 SOX. 431,800 $4A7 15,113 $104" $8.92 3,274,089 4.8 45 Yerm"A 9;259 $50;400 $5.44 ita.0o0 53M 13,999 ;68.400 $4.89 590.603 2317 46 WyamkV 8.504 $33.400 53.44 $15 800 53.72 10,748 #51.200 54.78 460.D07 Z2.3 47 Detaw3wo - 411200 54.54 2;469 511.200 34.54 743.003 3.3 48 Rhoda !stand 1.964 110.500 7544 ':17.000 57.45 4,288 427,W0 ,18.52 95x.480 4.3 49 WAO pagan$* 14,330 $78,000 35A4 $700 $4M 16.094 585.680 SS-33 11611,168 8.9 50 Hawai 5,512 $69,000 19.07 $4.210 S%i0 5;423 #54;210 19.14 1,193.001 6.0 1 41.782 33.746.500 $5.331 1.172.944 14,714,070 S4.20I 2.7&4.727 ;13,480,670 $4471269,775,400 10.2 s E 13 i. From =4 W"o bWumtjy,$uroy* Crusw"Stmw *M 93rd itw:GMQ Data W19M cnnftd Slam STATE Mom 1. To= 2 PKm .ppo 'ft 4sad Sam 3224 Said uic Doerr a TOW V" Daw T• Tat' a' DWOdT*W CM*WDW Ou" SWO Tom-/ lam pw am ph& sw*.OA P*Uawo Capra *wa sw4w4 isw:VA Q(" GrA* vmw loj Tow V" Dobw p" mco Tw $4431 1050,414 2.0 6 WI, A001A51 10.0 34A4 5,433A69 loj $VAN tl 110 6a otl0 it 1, 3MQ f 'r*2= 12 11.3 ! l4rxlhCrtxlina .440' 371111. 11.41f4 $810 , 83,04 $WMo . -W 9M M4.= 7.344,410 9,3 11.0 to Tww""" ow 40.50 1426.M* Sfi=, GAXOtl 14.a cas ?"4T -'304* t4-00 3,934,494 19.4 12 kAW $4Ai Mims: -SIAM $1M M 93,W $302,00 5421 NA9911" 15 a 13 *3:C00 #1x211 "i3T7!8p 37113.040 14 wqwyq* V- AM $a-", .35A" flaTpo $432 BOA, 44 "A ISJ?S-iQl 4J 15 Agri som 4A to LlQipdet t.li0A0S7! 41 S- t7 131141 5231.000 >{3 . . . . -SR 7w m . BOA" $201J00 $4-94 2AdZ,44T 20.a 14 A*OnM 12446 02 sloo tmxo SS-34 =M= ;21,7 19 406 "49-4W 3327' 04013 13.6 20 wlsco 3414.040 : Max 6410 $2f2,WQ S=3.W, 12.3 21 AaWhOao&*; UOD $7 AS '#W;' awl smlw W27 3A35.942 10.4 22. AWAOW .3(74.040 x6 a0 19:452 fDlf,240: SM 47M #373200 S626° 9.115,011 6.9 24 Wr*d 14M : VAB 43AS 2 329.067 13.8 SL44 OAT 5.134.$N 7.0 26 amour I&M. $10,700 40.044 :JIMAX $4.10 3.241.974 IU 26 IRlrll 1 A3 300 8631 363311 .0124;4422 $3.42 '44i242 plum 43,90 4,r4A 19 11.2 27 1t,�gttin fart x,400 :.3s* A= 4441 ."131 im 66 4.44a 5AD26.3 t1.8 28 M""dswoftl' imu 44M Im sioat3w W63 6.147,im 4.9 29 '44 mbp MM 9 1.811j6a a.9 .so CZ10 .44.14 $4163 U&XXQ 13 63 3970971 13.9 $4.17 111A84 1126,040 62j4 57,371 33.10 2A9.733 27,8 32 iRinnont. 3441.449 $0A 4.740 yilr,D94 t3 34 12: M Aw -- $4.E9 WAS3 23.7 33 A&m 1F#3 110 8591 "-w S&O Mm t4.55 406431 12.4 .34 -706: 431MO S4A7 36AI3 :1i44AM 10.9; 3,274.000 4-6 35 ftbriMM 1503 197" S4A3 IM2.719 14.2 36 sowho*aft SAM 4443 = $2.0 17.441 smiloo $3.71 7M.171 23.7 37 lovolift . , ., . U44. Its : -. ^ *L?.Z 10.740 SMAO $4.10 480JW 2= 341 Nwn& 27,779 jpi� " Wo � u"I .3167m0 14i2 1.745M 19.4 2c Howal 411 - "jig kldi 0 04410 $9.14 -1.193.001 5.0 40 MWd&AW 620h40 $&44 I7.196 =AM *00 ZZW SIAM 3444 2.7SZ,= 02 41 UMMoka It 3tf70 *? .44, II.M $MAO . ;Cgo I 73 S$j.* $4.00 1ps .931 90 - 42 AWU ;23,100 13.779 M AM 14.t7 17.396 .879.1100 441 314,010 2a.2 43 Waho . 913,500 A 17;034 UN * U. 1,224A84 10,4 44 wakw Slow V.44 7 swim s4m AW $49A214 $447 1.244134 8.8 45 UNOM S14-100 .-$4.ff 96" 131;100 13:43 12= W;m 93M AW.03 14,3 43 T3ase_tfamp:Qkr` .3.14,400 .15.at IAW MOM 14M -t2j6l 593.104 :$4;40 1'iss,046 102 47 Rho&-WuW fIDAM 15.44. 2= .4t7m $7.45 4303 $VJW U.52 MAO 4.3 .48 uo*m 516,200 $0.19 PAO $54,= 14M AW $74A40 -14.76 4,368,967 3A .42 D -2.469 $11204 S414 Z,409 -1i1400 $4.54 743,503 33 50 Norlb Dakots 1.316 327J04 32A8 10,319 SVAW $2.43 * 6U.244 162 18.T48.6M $5.23 1.122.944 W14.070 $4.20 7-*.727 tiMAW.870 SAT1249,775,400 t4-2 Page 63 MINING FACT SHEET 1. Current yearly hard rock demand .. ......................4,000,000 cubic yards a. 222,222 truck trips yearly b. Average miles per gallon is 4.5 c. Average truck trip is 30 miles I Average sale price of hard rock products is $8 per ton 2. Projected population increase ............................10% yearly 3. Current population of Collier County ................... 251,000 year -round residents 4. Cubic yards per capita ....... ..............................7 5. Direct effect of eliminating hard rock mining in Collier County a. Loss of 9 cents per gallon of diesel fuel funds for Collier County transportation b. 12% of the 6% sales tax is returned to Collier County c. Collier County has calculated that trucks cause damage to Collier roads at the rate of .047 cents per cubic yard hauled d. At current cost of fuel, insurance and maintenance of trucks, importing hard rock material from other sources would cost a minimum of $2 per cubic yard 6. Acts and Statutes which drive growth management and comprehensive planning all mandate the wise use of natural resources for the economic benefit of the citizens of any given county in Florida 7. Positive effects of mining without development a. Ensure sufficient water supply for future generations b. Restore hydrology c. Create aquifer recharge areas d. Can reestablish historic natural sheet flow e. Protect land from development f. Create conservation lands g. Create habitat and food sources for all species VP C 8/10/04 Limerock Mining Resources in Collier County What is limerock & what is it used for? dense stone ( "aggregate ") required for concrete and asphalt different from fill (sand/clay /shell) per person usage of limerock in Collier County: 14 tons per year Rock resources needed in Coun current usage rate: 4 million tons per year in 2003 (this figure obtained from survey of aggregate usage by asphalt and concrete plants in Collier County) Projected usage rate considering growth rate (10 %) 2004 = 4.4 million 2007 = 5.9 2010 = 7.8 2020 = 22.2 2005 = 4.8 2008 = 6.4 2006 = 5.3 2009 = 7.1 Available limerock: Limerock resources currently permitted or permits likely in near future mine location million tons APAC extension NBM 3.3 Willow Run SBM 2.5 East Naples Land Co NBM 29.0 total 34.8 Supply /demand ratio: when will Collier County run out of limerock'? note: Collier is currently not meeting demands and importing rock from Bonita Grande mine, which has only a couple years of reserves remaining Collier County will run out of aggregate in 2010, if mined to full extent HOWEVER, Considering land value for housing vs value of rock , Collier will likely run out of limerock reserves much sooner. Mule Pen Quarry (CR 951 and Hwy 846) had an additional 10 years of permitted mining when it terminated mining in favor of housing. North Belle Meade Receiving area is expected to be the location of a Rural . Village -- unlikely it will be mined to full extent. Chiofi property (NBM Sec 20) has estimated 20.5 million tons limerock that will likely not even attempt to be permitted because of land value for housing. Realistic estimate: fewer than 5 years of limerock reserves in Collier Future limerock mining in Collier County: Limitations: Locations of limerock resources Limerock at suitable depth and abundance is found in limited locations (most areas have sand, shell, clay, and/or soft rock) Soil maps provide suggestions of location of limerock reserves. Require borings to determine location, depth, and hardness of rock. Zoned "mine - able" areas Minimum 100 acre mine; 400 acre parcel due to mitigation/environmental regulations, mine properties will likely need to be at least 4x as large as the mine Restrictions on blasting due to neighbors and buffers; Concerns for. residential areas, traffic, access Future reserves: overlay of soils map and zoning map provides extremely limited area of possible future mine sites Alternative: get rock from Lee County Cost: loss of jobs $6.50 per ton in labor and trucking (est. $26 million per year) loss of tax revenue $0.16 sales tax per ton (est. $640,000 per year) higher cost of future roads and construction example from Fort Myers of added trucking cost ($2.50 per ton) # Truck trips due to out -of- county source environmental cost of so many truck trips ? ?? If truck drivers buy gas in Lee, loss of local fuel tax revenue that would have been available for future transportation needs: $0.047 per ton. >$200,000 per year Alternative: get rock from other counties Collier, Lee and southern Charlotte Counties are only known sites of limerock in SW Florida. No resources between central Charlotte County and Brooksville. Counties between central Charlotte County and Tampa obtain aggregate by importing it by ship from Mexico and other sites. (requires deep water port) Limerock mines in Dade County are source of aggregate for most of eastern FL. I -A Ar ® uommer!Qlai iviininiz z.. ii ACTIVE CC NVAERCIA:L MINING OPERATIONS t � 1 J �� Legend ■ ;.v. I. ArtivefAines CG.iM � SG.I W�1A by Thomas M, Scott, P. G. #99, Kenneth M. Campbell, Frank R. Rupert, Jonathan D. Arthur, Thomas M. Missimer, Jacqueline M. Lloyd, J. William Yon, and Joel G. Duncan 1 t 7A old an a. t n, cur It, ni Iki �Ihl� tN„ I ' awl a,L eW.'Y tlii 1 a,( ppj Ul, � of r. O1VXF P�' ,u. 2u D 1n 10 Gn Bo Miles n 0 • — To 40_60 "Kilometers ? nw Scale 1350,000 r 1 U• G, Albers Conic Equal -Area Projection ''d, lit" n:, h• all eu' ro«o fl aW, �ur 13n.' v Walter Schmidt State Geologist and Chief David B. Strulfs, Secretary a CjC010giC Mai-l*-% n� ek SOFIA - http :llsofia.usgs.gov Motors Foot 400 100 300 a@ 60 "200 t0 20 100 MSL o--0 -10 •1 @D -80 -200 -50 .300 •100 •120 1-400 1.10 -500 -160 -800 Geologic Map of the State of Florida - Cross Section B -B' by Thomas M. Scott, P. G. #99, Kenneth M. Campbell, Frank R. Rupert, Jon;ithatt D. Arthur, Thomas M. Mtssrimer, Jacqueline M, Lloyd, J. William Yon, and Joel G. Duncan © o d C..7 V U ° op ° U U °.° ° O O i d AIm iyjU U�U Id t t71� o IU U�U U�U Ul 0 e a dim � ' '�1 a { I a 01 Rio j 0 8 � :a Q v� W di g i tn, Pict. y A t7 z x oU U ct� 0 ;o �� T_ Vertical exaggeration Is approximately 380 times trite scale. 0 20 40 Mfies 30 60 Kilometers QUaternary Holocene Pliocene Iii Q Holocene sediments Pleistocene /Holocene r-? Qal Alhuvlum E—_, Qbd Beach ridge and dune I_ _` Qtl Undifferentiated sediments Pleistocene E—? Qa Anastasia Formation Ell Qk Kean Laroo Limestono 1 ...' QM t Qtr Miami Limestone Trail Ridge sands TertiarylQuaternary Pliocene /Pleistocene L_ TQSLt Shelf sediments of Plio- Pleistocene ago i- TQLI Undifferentiated sediments _ I,_ TQd Bones 1 TQUC Reworked Cypresshead sediments 0 Tertiary Pliocene Residuum on Miocene sediments ( Tc Cypresshead Formation C Tel Citronelle Formation TM Miccosukee Formation Ev Tic tntracoastal Formation L. Tt Tamiami Formation MI Tib Jackson Bluff Formation Miocene /Pliocene Thcc Hawthorn Group, Coosawhatchie Formation, Charlton Member Thp Hawthorn Group, Peace River Formation C-7- Thpb Hawthorn Group, Peace River Formation, Bone Valley Member Miocene i Trm Residuum on Miocene sediments (-°- Tab . Alum Bluff Group Th Hawthorn Group The Hawthorn Group, Coosawhaflchie Formation Ths Hawthorn Grotrp, Statonville Formation E Tht Hawthorn Grotrp. Torreya Formation M Tch Chratahoochee Formation TSmk St, Marks Formation See OFR - 80 forW- numbors and locations, B Cross Section Oligocene/Miocene Location iTha Hawthorn Group, Arcadia Formation E'JThat Hawthorn Group, Arcadia Formation, Tampa Member Oligocene WTro Reslduuril on Oligocene sediments STS Suwannee Limestone TS Suwannee Limestone - Marianna Limestone undifferentiated Eocene i-'2q Tre Iii To W Tap GS 0FIA • htt!!so #ia.usgs"k�av eoioaic Cross-Section ReSiduum on Eocene sediments Ocala Limestone. ,+ <. Avon Park Formation T ,y Walter Schmidt State Gooloyist and Chief Davin B. Struhs, Sccrotary 91 Dk 1 999 GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE CENOZOIC MESOZOIC PALEOZOIC PRECAMBRIAN AGE cruim RI EWXH AGE PP.Y$ AL,E Iry _ PERIGD EIno :H AGE PICKS uacwar- .AUE PERM{, EP:+lH .AGE rIL7:5 .+1�E EGf! ERA. eD'F. Ayes Ilti1n1: hUJ IF1aJ l IPA., mw ilAa} IHai IFA.t'i tl4)I s axnca =�1 i& 31 `" n MUSTRICHTLVI L - W9 � PIAL=EPJZIhM1I _ y r 1 TI.3 t z m GAPARAtJAfI �' LATE 2ANCLEAN M6 x 51 _.t eo Lac 6 E .,ARTUJ51't14W ME��SIM AN i t LLJ S$KP,M4RI4PJ 7o L T-Mr -441.01 - 4lfClAri u i Tuw r11U1 CENUMPIRN a9s ASSELIAtJ L1J LJJ a 71s + M,rq � * `r IF LIJ SEF�'IAYALLIAM ru oao 7 so• � IC4 II1hIAP! MI[C1E C P.1 ins L e tom] ,. y (D PACf� 1JIMJ x 16 , rti .- ® (J LANGHIAM ALDIAI'J W 3tl N 77 LIJ 2 19A 110 , g F1LAalil3ALlAH AFTAN ' SEPFUKHC+iIrV Y�3 9 '-' t-r- LL "0 w E ArXIMIAH Yos um �.e C DAAREMIAN 127 3 •r� W w E ' U01 15�7C� tsoi 9► - rm �� Cr � 942 TGURM ISIAN y 9s t99 4i �; L° 15a L 1 HAUTER141AN xa A W. L C14ATTIdN i d 1a 4 y� VALNJ�IFIWPJ L rAMENPIAM Lj 14o u Lu Ir t 5_ EaRLr BERRIANkm 174 GI "JEM'lAfd roof I7 E RUPELIAI'J 1 s R TITH.:RJIAN P1 S90 MMPERIDCA N EEIFM.MELAIZN N ^41 j -ac I5t ' M 164 159 v? L PRI4BC4IAPI CALLINIAt * Ia' [ a_9 FA/+3HIAfJ r _ V.0 cr) 107 a 47c^ B4FITGPJI 101 B4TNUTAN 109 40 c _.. 779 H %lF b 420- WOCI:AN z L 9 "i I ar AN.Eh115PJ :.,. J1 g t60 I67 ¢ .4.ro TI�.AR_IUJ - Ld i M S d=Y? E LL.6NC *_h'ERIM! �J3 LATE JS g LUTETIAN t90 � '-°•y 14; t; �-+• L .A= :FIGILLIAM 443 PLIENSBXHIAN 195 C.ARADG:101 �� y, L1J 49.0 s GAILY Jeri —] SItJEM�1URIAfd f'1 LL4NCEILI,W LL4ft01FfN1AN air 4so `m [� a Q uj I E7TAIk,IM ARENIGAt r, „ z1 E YFAES14.1 ' = tdlG{iE A14 ETI,IJ 210 '�✓ Le:, E 496 325x_' �' 61s NGRWI Q f ,_K, °. aoo [? m:• W TH4tJETU+N -0 (�"} r.ac rl 406 { mm PIP () L .,.0 9 s Y8 9s7i CARNI4N C MARJUM AN' 80 OtJ SELANDIA =, - 9 t ` ` - EdRLY FI LADIWfJ D v ;•, u.M J BI A 1�JFlG 9 m 510 w'J DANAN AtlISISPJ E ^JO (_ S 66 "� q A ......................... _aoaa; GIIi.t• 9LEfEFUFd an :x 6aJ 549 ?C 1999, The '_�r is iral $rcieh� r.# ,xrneri,a. Prrcluck oa-1? CTSCfid. Corral il? rs: R.. R. Palmer, Jol m Ge- issmon non 1 T !1 ''Int- rnallonal ac1--a P swami not been arc reginnel fLa u rArl ieni rvly- 2- -undary Roos c. -r bas x.I on rtiting re0niqu4s and i;ssil ra3ar:ls mss, as ,:'11999: Paleartalgnelio otlribu6ci6 errors, Pleasa ignore the palemagnelic *cWe. - r Souruee for none lrlalure aril og] -s: Primarily frorn lawktvin, F., and slMp:6 J•, 1999, c,Ri64n1?5, a. 19, no,. 1 & 2; Gradslein, F. •:I al., 1995, GEOLOGICAL v* IE.T1` SUM SPr-,ial Puts 54, P• u5 -1_'8; Baragren, 'VJ A 1 at M., 1995, SEPf '-y- ,ial PUb. 6, p 1 12 _ ambrian <;rxJ bas<nl Clydoviclan agaa adapW.11rem Landing, E., 19R, Consdinn u. E.srth gc�onvec, x ?6, p. aRJ Da,'•t.14, K, el sal 1998, Vao a: r'ne, C'F AMER ICA v. 126, p. US -:109. Cambrian a-; > nsrne,6 from Palmer, A. R. 19ce, C�lncrd An {,r n,c,i t," �arV7 4 s;> rrr . w. '''£, p. ..',''Mk 28. e Geologic ime Probable Areas ot'Hard Rock Availability 1 j A. 1 IF i f; AY Soils with Limestone Substratum Orl the Flahvond, and Han1n14cks and in SIOU -011S Oil Prairies and !r Swamps and Freshwater Marshes Neater yy5 mine uveriay on tiara -Koc4 «V W� 1 4. ' ,wu xn7 K Va 9 a, Soils with Limestone Substratum Gm the Fla woods and H .mmcicks and in SIOLIC 119 ''�� � '• ," OR fclT;eS and in S4i''anl(3s and Ff09hV+'c" -te'f svIttfSlle5 mines •.• t7 ,n�6C� .� a Ll F J, Iil I. �, �:�.i \, ,i bl,,TLDC or • m 4' ks i -"2 a f - overiay 1 Sells with Limestone Substratum rCm the Flat"eloods and Hammocks and in Sloughs rs On Prairies and in Swaizips and Freshwater V r;hes �{ '4ater fi �� � itiI71GS =h y i. f •^1- G nr Nr� 4w�a w Jf :� y). 1 �4 �( Yk t .v N, 4 D } -"2 a f - overiay 1 Sells with Limestone Substratum rCm the Flat"eloods and Hammocks and in Sloughs rs On Prairies and in Swaizips and Freshwater V r;hes �{ '4ater fi �� � itiI71GS =h y i. I Present Limitations on Mining Proposed Additional Limitations on Mining /%rte r yJ st a. 0 10#1jo G. 1 � �. Percentages hestates Buildout Profile Hydrogeology-of the Gral-N, -Limmestone Aquirer in Southern Flory -da. Vml: 7.T Watar-tar,ra aqWfor !VRW, slit Inteff"erflIMLL aquife- systern 2cc Prin E X P LA N AT (i 0 N PRr--nOf,0NA;rr-L-Y QLIART7 r.ANn AND SANDSTOWE PREDOMINATELY TAJAIA,%AI CONFININ GA LA-V ONE Cvl= SECTION U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ',r opar - o I in c C-C C cravion 'o.-ith the SO,U7H FLORIDA)AFATER MANAG EMENT DISTRICT s to , ; 1 -ifF 71'.1 /k'..�, ri' • • 1 t .,,... 1! •a -: } 1 � '{ ".' 3331x1 �'I r-- c nss 1Yd7 xt.tni � �r 11 111 - . i� r I-1y 1.1x.. .1 *h!•. r.;w.5h+, �N' i r Figure 9. Traces of isydrocteolocgic s®ction A -A', A' R ". O ?' SlIrt C -C' its 09 stUdy area. 26 Hydrogeo -logy of the Garay Llrnestone A.yulfer In Southern Florida Nora we st sout hea ,I A' A co P, '7 7 IL u� Lij I F`,6f9 alqJ;iA- Son Levol L I; So. vci -TPI, w F m w 50 LL 100 - - - - - - - Ljnn..yyIAd Fin I r5o uj 150- R < 200 20ir 250 -0 IV" irEl 7:1 "CO 70 115 7C, 18= -0 -Jell d s 4J I LE sl 0 4 KILOMETERS RS VERTICAL SCALE GRE-ATILY EXAGG:CRATED EXPLANATION IM UND 11`7 FERENTIATED L-IMES7r-NNL - - - - IIYDROC-TRA'IIGF%'Ap'jLJIG CIOUNDARLY M PELECYPOD RUDSTONE AND I-LOATc3JONE., MINOR. LIT HOSTRATIGRAPHIC BOUNDAI'%*Y-- PC-LECYPOD-RICH QUARTZ SAND OR SANDSTONE D<l S 1-11, d Wh C 14-' FJ P. P f 0 X-1 111 D 1 I j 10 " -0 lod QUARTZ SAND OR SANDSTONE POSTULATED rAULT-DiteicLion -of M YERRIGENCIUS MUDSTONL C. S Ll CONFINING TO SPAICONFINING UNII C:] DIATONIACEOUS MUDSTONE SU SEMICONFINING UNIT Fin FORrywrION 1'U TOTAL WELL DEPTH, IN FEET LIE-LOW LAND SUR'l-ACE Fjg(n*e 10. 14,alrogeoloclic section A-N. 1—o,MflnIj of secticv^ line in figLire 9. Northwest v2L—i U_b_e, Lake nit Mv] Sea Lavaj 1­_ W 50 W LL. z 100 Ld < 2W, 70 M 4F4 SotAbeast —,$t Fl Lcvt:j Sand aqudar Va-i 0-et,)_r, Umnamod Formaitn SotAbeast 7:11 215 70 MILES M, 210 0 4 KILOMETERS VERTICAL SCALE Grq EAT LY EXAGGERATED EXPLANATION PM UNDWFEREWHATED LINIESTONE — — — — HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC BOUNDARY M GOLITIC LIML�STONE LITHOSTRATIGRAPI,flC BOUNDARY =1 PELEGYPOD RUDSTLINE AND FLOATSIONE. Fn) FORMATION MINOR CALCREIE BEDSAND LAMINATIONS; LOCALLY HELISOMA FLOATSTONE TD TOTAL DEPTH, IN FECTSELOWLAND PELECYPOD RUDSTONE AND FLOATSTONE: SURFACE tiiIINOR PELECYPOD-RICH DUARTZ.SAND OR SAN DSTON E QUARTZ SANDOR SIANDSTONL TERRIGENOUS MUDSTONE Figure 11, Hydrogeologic section .A A." Location of sevion line shown in figUre 9. —,$t Fl Lcvt:j Sand Z, 7:11 215 70 MILES M, 210 0 4 KILOMETERS VERTICAL SCALE Grq EAT LY EXAGGERATED EXPLANATION PM UNDWFEREWHATED LINIESTONE — — — — HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC BOUNDARY M GOLITIC LIML�STONE LITHOSTRATIGRAPI,flC BOUNDARY =1 PELEGYPOD RUDSTLINE AND FLOATSIONE. Fn) FORMATION MINOR CALCREIE BEDSAND LAMINATIONS; LOCALLY HELISOMA FLOATSTONE TD TOTAL DEPTH, IN FECTSELOWLAND PELECYPOD RUDSTONE AND FLOATSTONE: SURFACE tiiIINOR PELECYPOD-RICH DUARTZ.SAND OR SAN DSTON E QUARTZ SANDOR SIANDSTONL TERRIGENOUS MUDSTONE Figure 11, Hydrogeologic section .A A." Location of sevion line shown in figUre 9. 0 ID to M. M 1v lzr. ca sI CN Lie aqu;rof alod W-1 3 to 4'j jf eo Som Lvl S-3 :1 Luvui Arn 3,,i w Sp w u� tl Sa z Ulinar d 1J t' 1 uv •a Rn3^ion w < :�anfniig Ln:! p"k FA'� .200 I 250 T .13196 "Tj 7-7 M 20-3 7D 135 M 2-(, m 200 'TEi 195 7] 1-.111 M -09 M 219 70 219 TO 13S 5 MILES 702-9 -4 4 KILO M'Er EP. S VERTICAL SCALE GR E,4TL'-,' EXAGGERATED EXPLANATION UNDIFI ERIENTIATED LIMESTONL 111 PC)STULATr_D FAULT-- Diroc:llori •:)f PELLCYPOD RUDSTONE AND f LOATSTONE, — — — — HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC BOUNDARY hilINOR 'ALCRETE BEDS AND LAMINATIONS; L0CAL&'llC-L.'S0kfA FLUATSIGINE LIT.HOS'TR.ATIGRAPIlIC BOUNDARY PELECYPOD RUDSTONE AND FLOA•STONE CSU CDNFINING TC, SLMICONFINING UNIT tyll NICIR PLLECY P.0'D-RICH OUARTZ SAND OP 13 S U SEMICONrmmi� UNIT QUARTZ SANE, OR SANDSTONE TO TOTALDLPTli, IN FEL'I ULLOAl LAND SUR.F.ACE SILT 113 'l_LRRfGGN0US NIUDSTONE = WATO•ACECUS MUDSTrDNL Figure'll-2. •ydrogeoloclic sedioTl B-9. '_.qc•"tion of section line shore ti in ngurp. J. `MY Wast HYDROS I RM KiRAPHIC BOUNDARY =1 001-11 IC LIMESTONE L ITI i L! S I R AT I G R.A P H IC 13 0 U N DA R Y EaM un ca C3 I- VLLL GYPOD R UO S I ONE AND I-- LOA I'S T(,INL-; C. S U MINOR CALCR E I L BED S AND I-AkIl NATIONS: S U SEMICONFININ UNII LOCALLY IiELISOMA FLOATSIONL 6 PELEGYPOD RUDS'I ONLAND FLOArSTONL. I AS I N'l E RM E D I Al L AO U I FE 14 S Y S 1 ENI MINOR PELECYPOD-RICH OUARI Z SAND AND SANDSTONE M 6 INI'L-1�rv1EDIAI'L-'.CC)NNINING UNIT M 1'%LLl- ROCKAND MARING CAR130NAl 1- SA SAN L) A0 Ul F L R U1.10forwilialed "wild Feat I T wo in 41 FA Mia miLinm1c tic 'S' I L 1 I'D pja 11il v,;!j S -j rid =1 ILRRIGLNOUS MLIDSICINL 1=1 DIMUNIACEOUS MUDSTONL Fi gore ,113. Hydrogeologic sec:,ion C-(;"- Location of section line shown in figure C9. Lkhologies of test coreholas C-1 la4: C-1136, and MC-',-176 are based Son Levol S13a LUVW FYI Y Pirsecr-al -Sar4 41 J-, uj CIS u LL Urc�arw--J 4qu W, > ISO twk - urm tv.tcl rri < I AS tr 200 2 j j ro 10 141 TO 27o TO 20yj TO 205 10 207 m 215 10 2117 M 2177 M 2117 ro 2310 to Z30 I'D w' G 5 MILLS 0 4 X I LO IM E TY ERG VERT ICAL &CALE Gq EATLY EXAGGERATED EXPLANATION MM U N U I F f I! I � L - N I I A I L: D L 1 M E S 10 N L HYDROS I RM KiRAPHIC BOUNDARY =1 001-11 IC LIMESTONE L ITI i L! S I R AT I G R.A P H IC 13 0 U N DA R Y CONFINING 10 SEN11CON1,1NING UNIT 771 VLLL GYPOD R UO S I ONE AND I-- LOA I'S T(,INL-; C. S U MINOR CALCR E I L BED S AND I-AkIl NATIONS: S U SEMICONFININ UNII LOCALLY IiELISOMA FLOATSIONL M PELEGYPOD RUDS'I ONLAND FLOArSTONL. I AS I N'l E RM E D I Al L AO U I FE 14 S Y S 1 ENI MINOR PELECYPOD-RICH OUARI Z SAND AND SANDSTONE ICU INI'L-1�rv1EDIAI'L-'.CC)NNINING UNIT M 1'%LLl- ROCKAND MARING CAR130NAl 1- SA SAN L) A0 Ul F L R 0 UA R I I- SAND 0 R SAN D S 1'0 N P V n1 FORMA"TION 'S' I L 1 I'D I O'l A L D L P I'l 1. 1 N F L L -T B L L bliV L AN I.) S U R FA OL =1 ILRRIGLNOUS MLIDSICINL 1=1 DIMUNIACEOUS MUDSTONL Fi gore ,113. Hydrogeologic sec:,ion C-(;"- Location of section line shown in figure C9. Lkhologies of test coreholas C-1 la4: C-1136, and MC-',-176 are based ill dart on descriptions trGmWe-edman and others 09HIl r, f Arli I�FCY"1 -. -� i �,y. ........ate- .._�- ....__..___ — ^..{ ki at i 4F ' f i t i _ r fr 5 1G k #f t E25 ✓' 1� — � - 1 n. F � ly ( ,:1 L.ffai ,:r Cr?:txL hLt- IYitCC :h,.,•.,. :att.x lm . ;l xr... r# ,1 ms.:r -,r +r .InrF. .•, a -..I r...l ,, ,,.,.;, LJ,I .ar t:;i L.w r_ra.,»r^•^ �16..Yr, .tif, {Wrw stM.IM ►>Iw:a}wY a: p1c.4» I ,.•11„11 r a.n. ,Ya l+ -: 1 ,..a.[r , ,.•q e:l nl • I.•r•i , -Y .,r••.r::. ,.. 1" f:•- 1 " -yr•n •.rlrr:..l l =•• n,..:•H.,ly ;.. .. .I..,.. n.. sl ee. :...: +r r.r• I, „i .11 ••�•. Figure 14. Altitud9 of tiie top of the gray limestone aquifer. WEST W uuw EAS V FEET 'Nater-table, aquifer FED Sort Lova; Co-nfjn;,,. �tosemjconfiningmlif L 0" Bisc,-iynp- acuifer so - T Said aquifer 1-2y limestDne, -acuirer 2=1 Inten-nediate FFI.ClUifer system 200 Intermediate confining confining unit 25� A 25 MCES 811- 'All W uuw A 25 MCES 0 50KILOMETEr� �Ir m B I k 1k, I C At 1 3 C I p- r-1 G qTj I ILY E M 0 G -2 FAL iI TE D EXPLANATION PREDUVIINMELY QUARIZ SANDAND SANDS i C)NL PREDOMNATE12f LINIES I'ONL FIYDROS'i[,,,A'I'IGRAPI-ffCBOUNDARY TAMIANIf CONFINING UNII LINE Or' sL-c'rIONAND WELL LOCAHONS Figure 19. Relations among aquifers and confining LIMS in a coast-to-coast section across the southern 1:ienimlla of Florida along Alligator Alley. Section fine drc;wn, from west to east, throu.gh tole -Qrj,uhs?rn States Utilities aT)d PiCIYUlle Strand test wells (VAaedman and others, 19974, wells C -1117. C -1111. -1 TRI: C-1 173, C- 113 :,- C -1182, C -1169. 2:"29, (3-2330. G-2-3-20, G-2319, G-2321, G-2322 (all Isted in appendix 11), and G-2345 and G-2347 (brM) listed in Fish. 1988Y 50 U-1 �i Um 100 w m tTj Uj gJ Cl 20- ro Bear Island Campground 0-1141 E I ovation 15 feet nl LL U wl, 7�1-4 DLw.h 207 flute FAA Radar Site C-11 35 Elm,ation 12 feet P Big Cypress Sanctuary C -1169 Elevation 113 foot R HYd'fqj- Nffi1UrS9q3n1n1%1X,1t 14rwgvvly (Cpn) geo3m 101D 150 MR 10 50 100 "150 20Q T01.4 DVpV1 1 S-5 ie m Frail Center Nio- I 7a Elevation 10 feet I ly-Llro- EXPLANATION PLOW ZONES MAJOR ILOAf ZON E kyl I NOR FL UVV Z-ONCE Ov.1CAOS (k)-w ze, 1w slut f�urld 41 C-116IJ, WL to WlAi C-1,171 Ql-sarrju sM) DepUl Uf ljCUOjKjWWaN 1 r-", f'Lel U t Li re vj M ftot"VYI'10 14Y low"Ji'lw HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS = C ON F I t'41 N U UN 1`I Toed D ao Tvla D-mb 205 f? [ 4155feet Figure 24. Borehole genplrjrslcal logs, flow zones, and principal h,-drOg8OlOg1C units for test vw;.Als at four sites where rr1Lllt1W9Il saulfer tests -were canducted. -he cps unit represents counts per second. SEMICC NFINING U Nl"r i G CU ) GRAY L I ML t; I C, NL A U U I I - L- R SANDAOUIFLR FWRWAXER-IAULL ,44 'Wq;� AOU fl-L- R Toed D ao Tvla D-mb 205 f? [ 4155feet Figure 24. Borehole genplrjrslcal logs, flow zones, and principal h,-drOg8OlOg1C units for test vw;.Als at four sites where rr1Lllt1W9Il saulfer tests -were canducted. -he cps unit represents counts per second. EXHIBIT VE.1 PUBLIC. FA- �ILITIES LEVEL., OF SERVICE ANAL SIS EXHIBIT V.E. PUBLIC FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: The subject Growth Management Plan Amendment proposes to permit a maximum of 350 acres of commercial excavation on the 950+ acre property that comprises the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict land use category. Potable Water: The subject project is located outside the urban boundary and outside the Collier County Water and Sewer District Boundary established in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Service to this area is not provided by Collier County Water and Sewer District. This project will have no impact on the Collier County Regional Water System. Sanitary Sewer: The subject project is located outside the urban boundary and outside the Collier County Water and Sewer District Boundary established in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Service to this area is not provided by Collier County Water and Sewer District. This project will have no impact on the Collier County Regional Wastewater System. Arterial and Collector Roads: Please refer to the Traffic Impact Statement for discussions of the project's impact on level of service for arterial and collector roadways within the project's radius of development influence. Drainal4e: The subject project is located outside the urban boundary established in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards and 2_004 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) for Drainage are as follows: Drainage LOS Standard Future Development (subsequent to January 1989) — 25 year, 3 day storm Existing Development (prior to January 1989) — current service level Available Inventory as of 9/30/03 311 Canal Miles Required Inventory as of FY2009 347 Canal Miles F VOMHUSSEY RANCH GMPA (HGMPA)\APPLICATION\LOSDOC.doc HGMPA Planned CIE FY 05 -09 $77,700,000 5 -Year Surplus or (Deficit) N/A The proposed development in the amendment area will be designed to comply with the 25 year, 3 day storm routing requirements. Solid Waste: The subject project is located outside the urban boundary established in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards and 2004 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) for Solid Waste are as follows: Solid Waste LOS Standard Two years of constructed lined cell capacity at average disposal rate/previous 5 years Available Inventory as of 9/30/04 4,136,449 Site Tons Required Inventory as of 9/30/09 1,044,716 Site Tons Planned CIE FY 05 -09 2,500,000 Site Tons 5 -Year Surplus or (Deficit) 3,311,016 Site Tons No adverse impacts to the existing solid waste facilities are anticipated from this 950 -acre commercial project. Parks: Community and Rel4ional There are no proposed residential units associated with this newly created land use category, therefore there are no projected community or regional park impacts. F: IMBUSSEY RANCH GMPA (HGMPA)\APPLICATIONV.OSDOC.doc HGMPA EXHIBIT V TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.E.1 c Prepared for: Francis D. and Mary Pat Hussey 1350 Spyglass Lane Naples, FL 34102 Prepared by: Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (239) 947 -1144 APRIL 2005 n{p Revised May 2006 utt C. Dean - Smith, P.E. FL 44147 F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\HUSSEY RANCH GMPA (HGMPA) \TIS\HGMPATIS.DOC HGMPA Page 1 NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT INTRODUCTION The proposed North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict is a 950-+ acre parcel located north of I- 75 and East of Collier Boueevard in Sections 29,31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The proposed use for the project will be a maximum of 350 acres of commercial excavation. For project location please refer to Figure 1, Location Map, page 2. The parcel will be accessed from Collier Boulevard via Utilities Drive, White Lake Boulevard, and Blackburn Road. SCOPE The following analyses are included in this report: Trip Generation Calculations (at buildout) presented for Peak Season Daily Traffic 2. Trip Assignment within the Radius of Development Influence (RDI). 3. Existing Traffic Volumes within the RDI; AADT volumes, PSDT volumes, and Level of Service (LOS). 4. Discussion of impacts to roadways within the RDI. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations for the project are based on the highest volume of vehicular traffic that could be obtained for the proposed land use. The calculation is based on the maximum truck turnover and assuming all employees arrive and leave during the peak hour period. Please refer to Table 1 on page 3. The trip generation for the proposed use is estimated to be 424 trip ends for daily traffic volume and 51 trip ends during the highest peak hour (PM). Please refer to the DISCUSSION section for details concerning the effects of these traffic volumes on the level of service for roadway links within the RDI. F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\HUSSEY RANCH GMPA (HGMPA)MS\HGMPATIS.DOC HGMPA LOCATED IN SECTION 29, 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 49, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RANGE 27 FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP N.T.S. ¢ GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD W 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 7 z¢ 6 g m o J � WHI E B U R N w J 18 17 16 15 0 14 13 18 17 16 a to ° GREEN Jw BOULEVARD o � Lo N 22 24 19 > 19 w 20 21 23 20 21 J M ¢ GOLD � N ¢ SUBJECT SITE Q GATE z 30 29 �' 27 26 25 2$. CITY 30 2a TE PARKWAY MR. 886) INTE STATE UTILITIES RIVE - 75 31 32 33 34 35 36 LBLVD. 33 WHITE LAKE RADIO ROAD (C.R. 856) ALLIGATOR ALL lee BLACK URN ROAD 6 5 4 -3 2 1 6 FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP N.T.S. Page 3 Table 1 Trip Generation Conditions Estimated Excavated Volume Per Year = 930,000 C.Y. Truck Volume =18 C.Y. Hours of Operation = 9 hours /day, 250 days /year Generation: Truck Traffic 930,000 C.Y. /[ 18 C.Y. /truck] /[250days /year] /[9 hours /day] = 23 two -way truck trips peak hour 23 x 2 = 46 truck trip ends peak hour 46 trips x 9 hours /day = 414 trips AADT Employee and service Peak hour one way trips = 5 trip ends (AM enter, PM exit) Total Trips AM Peak Hour = 46 + 5 = 51 trips ends 28 enter, 23 exit PM Peak Hour = 46 + 5 = 51 trip ends 23 enter, 28 exit Total AADT = 414 + 10 = 424 trip ends FAPROJ - PLANNING DOCS\HUSSEY RANCH GMPA (HGMPA) \TIS\HGMPATIS.DOC HGMPA Page 4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT The projected directional distribution of traffic to and from North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict site was assumed to be 50% north and 50% south, since trip attractions for these vehicles is relatively evenly distributed in both directions from the access point. Based on the above distribution of trips, the projected peak hour, peak direction volume will be 14 trips. This volume represents 0.6% of the service capacity of the accessed roadway link. All links within the radius of development influence for the project will be below the significance test. Since no roadway segments meet the significance test, only the accessed roadway segments will be included in the balance of the analysis in this report. EXISTING TRAFFIC The existing (2005) peak hour, peak direction volume for Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Parkway to I -75 is 1,680 trips. This value was taken from the 2005 traffic counts published in the Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). The traffic count data is presented in Appendix A, Supporting Data. The AUIR reports a service volume of 2,450 for the link and 170 trips remaining capacity after accounting for banked trips. DISCUSSION The addition of the projected 14 trip ends for the project will have little impact on the roadwaynetwork surrounding the project. The volume of proposed project traffic does not degrade the level of service of Collier Bouevard below acceptable standards. The segment will operate at LOS Standard or better. The segment will also have excess peak hour capacity greater than the projected trip generation for the subject property. No roadway segments are significantly impacted by project traffic. F:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\HUSSEY RANCH GMPA (HGMPA) \TIS\HGMPATIS.DOC HGMPA FIGURE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAP GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 > J m tr N WHITE B UL AR w J 16 15 OU 14 13 18 17 16 GREEN BOULEVARD 20 21 22 23 24 19 21 GOLD N UTILITIES DRIVE SUBJECT SITE (24' WIDE, RURAL ROAD. PAVED IN GOOD CONDITION 7GA E WITH OPEN DRAINAGE) 27 26 25 28 30 28 CITY WHITE LAKE BLVD. 100 (24' WIDE, RURAL ROAD. PARTIALLY PAVED ALONG /WESTERN PORTION IN GOOD IN7E 10090 SrAIE 75 CONDITION WITH OPEN DRAINAGE) 33 34 35 ,�n 31 33 100% 100% ALLIGATOR A BLACKBURN ROAD (10' WIDE, RURAL ROAD. 3 2 1 UNPAVED IN FAIR CONDITION 4 6 WITH OPEN DRAINAGE) FIGURE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAP SUPPORTING DATA A -1 FAPROJ - PLANNING DOCS\HUSSEY RANCH GMPA (HGMPA) \TIS\HGMPATIS.DOC HGMPA CIE# Prof N._ . Road -# Link COLLIER COUNTY 2005 ANNUAL UPDATE INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) - Collier County Transportation Database (Based on Synchro and current traffic volumes) 10 Month 2005 Peak Hour Peak Peak Dir Hour L Year Exist Min Service Peak Dir Trip Total Remain. O Expected From/To Road Std V.h.m V.I.- 11-i' V..l...., r.,. -i c men..:..... Fiscal Year 200162010 Capital I 1 99910 CR31 AirportRd. hnmokalee Rd. to Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Ext. 4D D 2A60 1,910 336 2246 214 D 2 55 62031 CR31 Airport Rd. Vanderbilt Bch.Rd,Ext.to Pine Ridge 6D E 3,970 2,100 487 2587 1383 C 3 39 60121 CR31 Airport Rd. Pine Ridge Rd. to Golden Gate Parkway 6D E 3,830 2,200 523 2723 1107 D 4 99906 CR31 Ai art Rd. Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Rd, 6D E 3,230 2,710 269 2978 252 E Overpass Under CST 3 66031 CR31 Airport Rd. Radio Rd, to Davis Blvd. 6D I 00 2.450 231 2683 1417 C 6 3 66031 CR31 Airport Rd. Davis Blvd, to US41 6D 1120 80 211 2055 525 D 7 99911 Ba hore Road US41 to Thomasson Dr. 4D 50 38 778 1172 C J174 8 31 60021 CR 865 Bonita Beach Rd, West of Vanderbilt Dr. 4D 1 0 1310 310 D 9 35 69021 Carson Road Lake Trafford Rd, to Immokolee Dr. 2U D 760 0 270 490 D 10 33 60101 Coonty Bam Rd. Davis Blvd. to CR 864 2U D 860 690 224 914 -54 CST FY 06 28,279 40 11 99912 CR29 County Road 29 US41 to Chokoloskee Island 4D 2U D D 1.860 875 690 140 224 4 914 144 946 731 D /GI LS ED 12 SR84 Davis Blvd, US41 to Airport Rd. 6D E 3,420 2,090 131 2221 1199 State 13 48 60161 SR84 Davis Blvd. Airport Rd. to Lakewood Blvd 4D D 2,080 1,930 107 2037 43 2006 State 14 49 60161 SR84 Davis Blvd. Lakewood Blvd. to County Bam Rd. 4D D 2.430 1,930 235 2165 265 D 15 83 60161 SR84 Davis Blvd. County Bam Rd. to Santa Barbara Blvd. 4D D 2.575 1,940 501 2441 134 D 2006 16 83 SR84 Davis Blvd. Santa Barbara Blvd. toCR951 2U D 1,530 1,410 504 1914 -384 F Existing TCMA 17 62 63041 CR876 Golden Gate Blvd. CR951 to Wilson Blvd. 4D D 2,350 1 500 278 1778 572 C 18 99913 CR886 Golden Gate Pkwy US41toGoodlette•FrankRd. 6D E 3,180 1,170 76 1246 1934 D 1.9 5 60027C CR886 Golden Gate Pkwy Goodlett e -Frank Rd, to Airport Rd. 6D E 4,350 2,720 171 2891 1459 D 20 74 60006 CR886 Golden Gate Pkwy Ai port Rd. to I -75 (Overpass) 6D E 4,370 1,990 270 2260 2110 C I UNDER CST TCMA Policy 30,703 C /I/LS 21 74 60027 CR886 Golden Corte P nt I -75 to Same Barbara Blvd. (Landscape) 6D E 3 730 2,070 169 2239 1491 C 279 LS 22 99916 CR886 Golden Gate P SantaBazbera Blvd. to CR951 4D D 1 960 1,740 182 1922 58 D 2006 23 19 68041 CR851 Goodlette -Frank Rd. Immokalee Rd. to Vanderbilt Bch. Rd. 2U D 1 190 620 134 754 436 C Constrained 24 65 60134 CR951 Goodlette -Frank Rd. Vanderbilt Bch. Rd. to Pine Rid eRd 6/4D D 2,790 1,100 157 1257 1533 B 735 25 88 60005 CR851 Goodlette•Frank Rd. Pine Rid a Rd. to Golden Gate Parkwa 6D E 3,420 1,400 272 1672 1749 B UNDER CST LS 17,254 694 26 99917 CR851 Goodlette -Frank Rd. Golden Gate Parkway to US41 6D E 3,500 1,860 103 1963 1537 C GI LS 27 87 68055 Green Blvd. Sunshine to Santa Barbara Blvd 2U D 1,040 810 39 849 191 C CST FY 09 1.000 600 28 90 62024 Green Blvd. Extension Livin ston Rd. to Santa Barbara Blvd. 0 0 0 R R 2005 AUIR 11-30.A. Peg. 1 of 6 2%222000 Peak Hour Peak Peak Dir Hour L Year Fiscal Year 2006= 2010 Capital I Exist Min Service PeakDir Trip Total Remain 0 Expected m# CIE# Pro #, Road 0., .. Link From/To Road Std Vol e V 1 B nk V un game. a , olume capacity. S Deficient Notes 29 66011 GulfshoreDr. I11thAveN.toVanderbiltBeachRd. 2U D 530 320 16 336 194 B 30 37 65061 CR951 Collier Blvd, CR 951 Immokalee Rd, to Golden Gate Blvd. 2U D 1,240 1,120 858 1978 -738 D Existing CST FY 06 24,627 60 6D E 3,300 1.120 858 1978 1322 C D/R/CQ LS 31 85 68056 CR951 Collier Blvd. CR 951 Golden Gate Blvd. to Pine Ridge Rd. 41) D 2,180 1.800 678 2478 -298 F Existing CST FY OS 2,000 5,507 6D E 3150 1800 678 2478 672 D D/R D/R 32 76 65062 CR951 Collier Blvd. CR 951 Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Pkwy, 41) D 2,360 1,680 600 2280 80 D 2006 TCMA 30% Design 12A CR951 Collier Blvd. CR 951 Golden GatePkwy. To N. of I -75 41) Being Done on D 2,450 1 680 600 2280 170 D 2007 GG Blvd to Pine Ridge Project 33 61 60001 SR951 Collier Blvd. SR 951 N. ofI -75 to Davis Blvd. 41) D 3,000 2,980 461 3441 -441 F Existin 6D E 3 690 2 980 461 3441 249 D 34 66 60001 CR951 Collier Blvd. CR 951 Davis Blvd. to Rattlesnake Hmck Rd. 41) D 2,370 1.840 393 2233 137 D 2007 28,730 4,500 6D E 3,270 1840 393 2233 1037 C R/CR R 35 86 60001 CR951 Collier Blvd. CR 951 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. to US41 4D D 2,380 1,800 405 2205 175 D 2008 61) E 3,330 1.800 405 2205 1125 C 36 12 64041 SR951 State Road 951 US41 to Manatee Rd. 41) D 1,970 1,810 332 2142 -172 F Exlstin Design and CST US41 to South Wal Mart Drivewa 6D E 2,370 1,810 332 2142 228 E Paid B Others 37 12 64041 SR951 State Road 951 Manatee Rd. to New York Dr. 4D D 2,590 1,400 252 1652 938 C State 38 51 64041 SR951 State Road 951 New York Dr. to N, Marco Island Bride 4D D 2,480 1,410 252 1662 818 C State 39 64 99901 CR846 111th Av,N, Gulfshore Dr, to Vanderbilt Dr. 2U D 760 300 22 322 438 B 40 1 60031 CR846 I I Ith M N. Vanderbilt Dr. to US 41 2U D 1.040 500 i 88 588 452 C 41 6 66042 CR846 In mokalee Rd. US 41 to Airport Rd. 6D E 3,030 2,220 S l5 2735 295 D Existing UNDER CST 32,342 1,035 2 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee Rd. Airport Rd. to I -75 6D E 3,2 2,590 599 3189 101 E C/I LS Existing 43 8 69101 CR846 Tmmokalee Rd. I -75 to Logan Blvd 4D D 2 320 2,620 1213 3833 -1513 F EAstin CST FY 06 19,210 1 -75 to Logan Blvd 61) E 4,370 2,620 1213 3833 537 D R/C11 44 71 60018 CR846 Immokalee Rd. CR 951 to Wilson Blvd 61) E 3.790 1,260 653 1913 1877 B UNDER CST 5 71 60016 CR846 Im 15,725 900 mokalee Rd. Wilson Blvd. to Oil Well Road 6D E 3 670 1,510 550 2060 1610 B I C/I 46 73 60165 CR846 Immokalee Rd. Oil Well Road to Sr 29 2U D 860 230 146 376 484 A 47 66 99903 Lake Trafford Rd. West of M9 2U D 875 310 36 346 529 C 48 99922 Lo an Blvd, Pine Ride to Vanderbilt 2U D 990 470 127 597 393 B 49 22 68051 Logan Blvd. Pine Ridge Rd. to Green Blvd. 4D D 2,070 1 410 201 1611 459 D 50 79 60166 Logan Blvd. Vanderbilt to hmmokalee Rd. 2D 0 0 0 0 1.656 51 21 65041 CR881 Livingston Road IV R hn erial S[, to hnmokalee Rd. 614D D 3 260 980 156 1 136 2124 B 52 57 62071 CR881 Livin ston Road -III Immokalee Rd. to Vanderbilt Bch. Rd. 6L E 3 890 1 000 61 1061 2829 B CST BY 344 EST. OTHERS LS 53 56 62071 CR881 Livin ston Road -III Vauderbilt Bch. Rd. to Pine Ridge Rd. 6D E 3 890 1 480 762 1642 2248 B 54 52 1 60071 CR881 Livingston Road -II Pine Ridge Rd. to Golden Gate P 61) E 4,000 1,610 394 2004 1996 B 55 53 60061 CR881 Livin ston Road -I Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Rd. 6D E 4,000 1,442 223 1665 2335 B 56 77 60167 Livingston Road Extension 0 0 57 89 60036 F/W Livingston Road Old 41 to N/S Livin ston Rd. D - 0 0 0 0 58 67 99904 No 1 st Street Main St. to New Market Rd, 2U D 1,000 380 14 394 606 B 59 New Market Road Broward St. to SR 29 2U D 1,010 400 47 447 563 B 60 59 62021 Nortb 11 th In Immokalee - Rcbert's PUD 2U D 2006 AUIR 11.30.x1s Page 2 of 5 2/2212000 2006 AUIR 11.30.x1s Page 2 of 5 2/2212000 Peak Hour Peak Peak Dlr Hour L Year Exist CIE# Prot# Road Link Min Service Peak Dir Trip Total Remain. 0 Expected c.,,... m,. Fiscal Year 2006 -2010 Capital I 2006 AUIR 11- 30.x1. Page 3 of 5 2/22/2006 .urume nanx volume uavacity S Deficient ,. Notes FY07 1 36 Camp Kea s CR 858 to Immokalee Rd 2U D 860 160 203 363 497 C i2 68 99905 CR887 Old US41 US41 to Lee County Line 21U D 1,010 670 70 940 70 D 13 99924 CR896 Seagate West of US 41 4D D F620 750 68 818 802 C Crayton Rd. i4 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge Rd. US41 to Goodlette -Frank Rd. 6D E 2,730 1,520 180 1700 1 1030 D i5 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge Rd. Goodlette -Frank Rd, to Shirley 6D 2 640 328 2968 332 E i6 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge Rd. Shirl St. to Airport Rd. 6D 2 700 392 3092 638 E 41 ;6 41 60111 99907 CR896 CR896 Pine Ridge Rd. Pine Rid a Rd. Airport Rd. to I -75 I -75 to Logan 6D 6D JD2,18F 21950 2 550 721 230 3671 2780 59 1010 E D 2006 TCMA SCOOT and I-75 Golden Gate P Interchan e .9 15 65032 CR856 Radio Rd. Airport Rd, to Livingston 4D 1 580 290 1870 310 D 10 15 65033 CR856 Radio Rd. Livingston to Santa Barbara Blvd. 4D D 2 120 1 680 177 1857 263 D '1 16 '2 17 65031 65021 CR856 CR846 Radio Rd. Rattlesnake Hmck Rd. Santa Barbara Blvd. to SR 84 U541 to Charlema a Blvd. 2U 4D 4D 1 D D D 1.140 2,120 1 940 960 960 1,020 242 242 131 1202 1202 1151 -62 918 789 E C B Existing CST 06 SEE CIE #86 3 17 65021 CR846 Rattlesnake Hmck Rd. Chu] em agne Blvd. to County Barn Rd. 4D D 1,940 890 127 1017 923 B '4 17 65021 CR846 Rattlesnake Hmek Rd. County Barn Rd. to PolIv Ave. 4D D 2,340 770 105 875 1465 B 'S 77 60169 CR846 Rattlesnake Hmck Rd. Poll Ave, to CR951 22 D 840 560 188 748 92 D 2007 CST 06 26,146 '6 56 99908 Santa Barbara Blvd, Green Blvd. to Golden Gate Parkway 6D 4D D D 3,200 1930 560 1390 188 171 748 1561 2452 369 B �C Policy 55 '7 56 '8 56 62081 99909 Santa Barbara Blvd, Santa Barbara Blvd. Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Rd. Radio Rd. to SR 84 4D 6D 4D D E D 1,790 3,070 2,020 1,590 1,590 930 363 363 536 1953 1953 1466 •163 1117 554 E C D Existing 2008 CST 06 Constrained 39,390 D/R/C/I '9 32 60091 Santa Barbara Extension SR 84 to Rattlesnake Hammock 6D New 4D E D 2,790 930 0 536 0 1466 0 1324 0 C '0 SR29 SR29 Stale Road 29 State Road 29 State Road 29 U541 to CR837 CR 837 to I -75 I -75 to CR 858 2U 2U 2U C C C 875 875 875 110 110 110 0 0 35 110 110 145 765 765 730 B B B State State State 8,525 D/R 1 1 783 R/C /I 1 SR29 ,2 3 SR29 State Road 29 CR 858 to SR 29A (New Market 2U C 875 420 122 542 333 C State '.4 SR29 State Road29 CR 29A South to N. 15th St 4D C 1,860 630 116 746 1114 B State 500 ,5 SR29 State Road 29 N. 15th St. to SR 29A North 2U 2U 2U 2U C C C C 875 875 875 875 560 540 340 470 39 75 10 84 599 615 35o 554 276 260 525 321 B B C C State State State Stele b 7R29 SR29 State Road 29 State Road 29 State Road 82 CR 29ANorth to SR 62 SR 62 to Hendry Couo Line SR 29 to Lee County Line 7 $ SR82 9 15S41 Tamiaoi Tra l East 'Pour Comers" to Goodlette Rd. 6D E 3 410 2,090 89 2179 1231 C State D 0 US41 Tamiami Tmil East Goodlette Rd. to Davis Blvd, SD E 3,850. 3 500 206 3706 144 E State I 43 U541 Tamiami Trail East Davis Blvd. to Airport Rd. 6D E 2 750 1,890 356 2246 504 C State 2 47 US41 Tamiami Trail East AdIport Rd. to Rattlesnake Hmck. Rd. Hock. Rd. to Triangle 6D 6D E E 3,200 3 500 2,670 1,960 373 426 3043 2386 157 1114 E C 2007 TCEA State 3 46 US41 Tamiami Trail East iRattlesnake 2006 AUIR 11- 30.x1. Page 3 of 5 2/22/2006 Peak Hour Peak Peak Dir Hour L Year ID# CIE# Prns # Rnnrl a Exist 1VIrn Service Peak Dir Trin Tor..t ViSeal Year 2006 -207o rs..i, 94 95 US41 US41 US41 Tamiami Trail East Tamiami Tail East Tamiami Tra l East Tamiami Trail East Tria .. .. ,rrorruro, n le to Collier Collier to Groenwa Greenway to SR 29 SR 29 to Dade Coonty Line Lee Co, to Wiggins Pass Rd, Wi 'ns Pass Rd. to Immokalee Rd. Immokalee Rd.to Vand6D Vanderbilt Bch. Rd. to Gulf Park Dr. Gulf Park Dr. to Pine Rid a Rd. Road 6D 2U 2U 2U 6D 6D 6D 6D 6D 6D Std E C C C E E E E E E E Volume 3,200 1,075 1,075 875 2,400 3,520 3 3 70 3 440 3,550 3,410 3,470 Volume 1430 700 230 200 1,860 2,650 1,950 2,490 2,620 2,850 2,790 Bsnk, 558 609 10 3 159 351 372 194 188 99 52 Volume 1988 1309 240 203 2019 3001 2322 2684 2808 2949 2842 Ca aci -, 1212 234 835 672 381 519 1048 756 742 461 628 S B E g B E D D D D E D ....Y�,:.o� Deficient Existing Notes State State State State State State State State State State State PD &E Advanced FY06_ ._ 40,212 C/UR 8,118 D� 2,200 R 2.900 R 96 US41 97 98 71 U541 Tamiami Trait North 99 50 US4] Tamiami Trail North 100 45 US41 North 101 45 US4North 102 U54North Pine Rid a Rd. to Solana Rd. 103 US4orth Solana Rd. to Creech Rd. 104 US41 Tamiami Trail North 105 US41 Tamiami Trail North Creech Rd, to Golden Gate Parkwa 6D E 3,320 2,550 60 2610 710 D StffiState t 106 US41 Tamiami Trail North Golden Gate Parkway to Central 6D E 3,860 2,120 73 2193 1667 C 107 US41 Tamiami Trail North Cental to Goodlette 6D E 3 880 2 180 54 2234 1646 C 1,376 LS 7,250 R 10,400 18,400 C/I 108 Thomasson Dr. BU shore Dr. to US 41 E- 2U D 760 400 54 454 06 306 C 109 42 65071 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Gulfshre Dr. to U541- CONSTRAINED 110 111 113 23 63 24 78 67021 '63051 63051 60 168 CR862 CR862 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Vanderbilt Beach Rd. U541 to Airport Rd. Airport Rd. to Lo an Blvd. Lo an Blvd. to CR95 t CR951 to Wilson Road 4D 6D 6D E 1,290 940 56 996 294 E D E -E E 1,820 3,540 -3600 1340 1,460 239 258 1579 1718 241 1822 D B UNDER CST 760 246 1006 2594 B 114 115 116 25 26 69061 69061 69021 99928 CR901 CR901 CR888 CR 858 Vanderbilt Drive Vanderbilt Drive - Westclock Rd. Wiggins Pass Rd. Wilson Blvd. Oil Well Road Bonita Beach Rd. to Wig Pass Rd. Wiggins Pass Rd. to 111 th Ave. Carson Rd. to SR 29 Vanderbilt Drive to US41 North of Immokalee Rd. to Golden Gate Blvd. Immokalee to Everglades 2U ZU 2U 2U 2U 2U 4D 2U 4D 2U 4D 2U D D D D D D D D D D 1,075 1 150 760 1 050 860 1,010 2 400 101 560 560 160 1480 320 P51 0 107 0 119 119 177 653 611 160 547 470 599 599 497 422 539 600 503 390 4] 1 1801 513 C C C B C D C C 117 118 TBD 122 60044 122 60044 CR 658 Oil Well Road Eve lades to DeSo[o 122 60044 60162 CR 858 Tro icana Oil Well Road Tro icana Bride DeSo[o to comp Keias CR 951 to Tro icana 2,400 1 010 24D0 320 320 320 0 177 144 144 0 497 464 464 1903 546 1936 B C B 123 124 60040 CR 696 CR846 Immokalee Golden Gate Blvd. Pine Rid a Rd. Immokalee Ever lades to Wilson/ DeSoto Lo an to CR 951 Lo m Blvd. to CR 951 to Bonita Beach Road 2U 4D 4D 6D 4D D D D E 1010 2 800 2 520 3 850 920 1 480 2 300 2 300 0 93 188 188 920 1573 2488 2488 90 1227 32 1362 D B D C 2006 2006 SEE CIE #8 1,500 C 2,000 D 3,000 R 126 .27 .28 TBD . CR 951 Ext. 4D .29 TBD Immokalee - I -75 Loo 200a nuMa 1 1 -_,n Page 4 ot6 2/22/2006 Peak Hour Peak Peak Dlr Hour L Year Fiscal Year 2096 -2010 Capital 1 Exist Mtn Service Peak Dir Trip Total Remain. 0 Expected CIE# Pro] # Road# Link Fram/Ta n.,sa c.a 2005 AUIR 11- 30.,ds page 6 of 5 2/2212006 1-75 to Golden Gate Blvd, Golden Gate Blvd. to . 1-75 to Goldon Gate Blvd Golden Gate Blvd to Oil Well Rd : GoodlettetoAirDort Shoulder Safety Proarana Transit Facility& Tmsfer Site 2005 AUIR 11- 30.,ds page 6 of 5 2/2212006 1 1 VT��T �,-n 1 -4� tewnY 5. aem ave, .u�.n�.....eesM� r..m lrrn yx 1-7 Ni" S- NOTES TO USERS D couia Cowty 110067 Lops o 'zX M ShgF J} .0". ,,,R�,. AI ....... . . . . , 5W"Y' Z 'I LEGEND M v- p FIRM ROOD INSURANCE RATE MI COLDER COUNTY, FLORA PARR 4W Of PRO MW RUMP 1202100. tmcm DAI HowmBIR T7, it NOTES TO USERS 12: =Fzz up"a M. xf9J —t — FIRM ROOD INSURANCE RATE M. COLLMR coum, PLOKMA m -MMMM MAP KUM 1202104� MOIR 17.20 EXHIBIT V.G. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP AFFIDAVIT We /I, O �ow"ers 1 i�sSk �r n�l'� being first duly sworn, depose and say that we /I t of t e pro erty described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. W I understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. BETTER ROADS, INC. DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, 1 C. As property owner We /I further authorize HOOVER PLANNING & DEV . , INC. to act as alx/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner Signature f Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / d�ry of-'4g,', I 20 Q byor, , who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. State of Florida (Signature of Notary Public - State oj" County of Collier Florida) Michelle M Bianco * * My Commission CC855550 Expires Juty 15. 2003 (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name oj' Notary Public) 11 A IV SW : rm NA32 21 AV lw 24 23 Tj t. -CR'04 lll wv_t= AQ. L Gj Ir 11, A' L�­S WV P: A, II Al za—L mw L L: 36 31 all T.Ll cz, 7. plimps, Iwo 1 1,010 _AILUGATOR A.[ 93 75 ...... y MIAW 2AoJCA AV .rw �i' !x NA 3 !z I A' d5li_N: B _G;Ziit , BLVD w GOLDEN ly GATE BLVD I AV sw 1E mm A, "v A Vi is A cy !Izz 7 av S_ —7 p I AV S" P, 951 -3 AV sW F-14 Is AV I tz 11 A IV SW : rm NA32 21 AV lw 24 23 lll wv_t= L Ir 11, A' L�­S WV P: A, II Al za—L L L: 36 31 T.Ll cz, 7. plimps, Iwo 1 1,010 _AILUGATOR A.[ 93 75 ...... MIAW 2AoJCA Details Page 1 of I Current Ownership Folio No. 00338240008 I7LIap property Address NO SITE ADDRESS Owner Name HUSSEY JR FRANCIS D Addresses MARY PAT HUSSEY 1350 SPYGLASS LN City I NAPLES State FL Legal 31 49 27 E112 OF SE1 14 OF SE1 /4 OF SE1 /4 LESS S100FT R1W Section Township Range Acres 31 49 27 4.24 34102-7741 Map No. Strap No. 4C31 492731 001.0354C31 Sub No. � -T 100 60 HEADER AGRICULTURAL 287 Mill 1, aae 12.8115 I Use Code ( -) SOH Exempt Value $ 31,503.00 (_) Assessed Value $ 297.00 2004 Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 31,800.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 (_) Market Value $ 31,800.00 ( -) SOH Exempt Value $ 31,503.00 (_) Assessed Value $ 297.00 ( -} Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 0.00 ( =) Taxable Value $ 297.00 i = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date Baok - Page IF Amount 111 1990 1573 -635 $ 11,500.00 The Information is Updated Weekly. httt): / /www.collieran>o raiser .com/.RecordDetail.asD ?FolioID = 0000000338240008 3/14/200`_ Details Current Ownershi Page 1 of l Folio No.11 00342040003 Map Property Addressll NO SITE ADDRESS Owner Name HUSSEY JR, FRANCIS D =& MARY P Addresses 1350 SPYGLASS LN City NAPLES —�� State FL ��— Zip 34102 - 7741 Legaill 32 49 27 W1/2 Section Township �— Range —� Acres Map No. Strap No. 32 49 27 — 313.94 4C32 492732 003.0004C32 100 ACREAGE HEADER "'' Millage Area I Milla e - Use Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 12.8115 2004 Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 784,850.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 ( =) Market Value $ 784,850.00 ( -} SOH Exempt Value $ 758,874.00 (=) Assessed Value $ 25,976.00 { -} Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 0.00 ( =) Taxable Value $ 25,976.00 5UH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date Book - Page Arnount 09 / 1990 1561 - 1087 The Information is Updated Weekly. I– +, •i&t,.,nt -- 11;o, -.- -;—,•...,,Y,/7? o gA)Ciinnn< 2 /1Al7nn, Details Current Ownership Folio No. 00341964003 (Ujap PronertvAddressll NO SITE ADDRESS Owner Name HUSSEY JR FRANCIS D =& MARY P Addresses 1350 SPYGLASS LN City NAPLES —� State I FL Legal 32 49 27 E1 /2 LESS S 100FT RIW Section Town! 32 49 ange Acres 27 313.94 Page 1 of 1 Zipli 34102 - 7741 lap No. jI Strap No. 4C32 IF 492732 001.0004C32 Sub No. -1" Use Cod 100 60 ACREAGE HEADER AGRICULTURAL "4 Millage Area 287 —� Milla e —� 12.8115 2004 Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 784,850.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 (_) Market Value $ 784,850.00 { -} SOH Exempt Value $ 757,554.00 (_) Assessed Value $ 27,296.00 ( -) Homestead and other Exempt Value F $ 0.00 (_) Taxable Value $ 27,296.00 SOH = "Save Uur Homes" exempt vaiuc uuc iu uap - - aaaooai- u Latest Sales History Date Hook - Page Amount 09/1990 1561 - 1087 =$0-00 The Information is Updated Weekly. i-- /i- --- -- ..-.9 r%l;r%Tn— nnnnnnn�;419(nn01 3/14/200 Details Current Ownership Folio No.11 00328560002 MaR Property Address]l 1150 LEON AVE Owner Name I HUSSEY JR, FRANCIS D =& MARY P Addresses 1350 SPYGLASS LN Cityll NAPLES State FL Page 1 of 1 34102-7741 Legal 29 49 27 E1 /2 OF SE 1/4, NW1 /4 Acres OF SE 114, E 1/2 OF SW 114 OF Strap No. SE 114, NW 1/4 OF SW114 OF SE 49 27 114, N112 OF SE 1/4 OF SW 114, `For more than four lines of Legal Description please call the Property Appraiser's Office. Section ji Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 29 49 27 260 4029 492729 001.0004029 Sub No. 100 ACREAGE HEADER Millage Area ' Miliaoe 4?j Use Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 12.8115 2004 Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 1,300,000.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 ( =) Market Value $ 1,300,000.00 ( -} SOH Exempt Value $ 1,277,200.00 ( =) Assessed Value $ 22,800.00 Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 0.00 ( =) Taxable Value $ 22,800.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date 11 Book - Page Amount 08/1990 1554 - 2220 $ 15,000.001 The Information is Updated Weekly. ... „-, — , •I — s- r— '1 /1 A17nn Details Page 1 of 1 Current Ownership Folio Noll 40003 NiaR Property Address NO SITE ADDRESS Owner Name HUSSEY JR FRANCIS D=& MARY P Addresses 11350 SPYGLASS LN State FL Zip 34102 - 7741 City NAPLES Legal 29 49 27 E112 OF SE114 OF SE1 /4 OF NW1(4 + W112 OF SW114 OF SW114 OF NE114 Section Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 29 49 —27 ��— 10 4C29 492729 001.0024C29 Sub No. �— 100 ACREAGE HEADER Millage Area 13 Milla e r„,4o 60 AGRICULTURAL �— 287 12.8115 2004 Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 50,000.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 (_) Market Value $ 50,000.00 ( -) SOH Exempt Value $ 49,300.00 ( =) Assessed Value $ 700.00 { -) Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 0.00 (_) Taxable Value $ 700.00 = -6ave vur rtomes exc,nNL Va uC — tv —F1 — Latest Sales History Date 1211989 Book - Page —� 1492 --j 074 Amount —� The Information is Updated Weekly. Details Current Ownership Folio No.11 00331320006 jNap Property Address NO SITE ADDRESS Owner Name I HUSSEY JR, FRANCIS D =& MARY P Addresses 1350 SPYGLASS LN City j NAPLES 11 State FL Legal 29 49 27 SE114 OF SE1 /4 OF NE1 /4 Page 1 of 1 Zipll 34102 - 7741 �— Section r Township Range Acres Map No. 11 Strap No. 29 —� 49 27 10 4029 492729 062.0004029 Sub No. 100 ACREAGE HEADER 3 Millage Area I Millaae Use Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 —� 12.8115 2004 Final Tax Roll Land Value $ 50,000.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 ( =) Market Value $ 50,000.00 ( -) SOH Exempt Value IF $ 49,300.00 (_) Assessed Value $700.001 ( -} Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 0.00 ( =) Taxable Value $ 700.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date Book - Page Amount 091 1990 1561 -1087 The Information is Updated Weekly. Details Page 1 of 1 Current Ownership Folio No. 00342040003 Property Address NO SITE ADDRESS Legal 32 49 27 W112 Section Township Range Acres Map No, Strap No. 32 49 27 313.94 4032 ---jj 492732 003.0004032 Sub No. 1 100 ` M1lage Area .rt Lill_illag "i Use Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 13,5679 2002 Final Tax Roll Values SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date Book - Page Amount 09 / 1990 1561-1087 I $ 0.00 05 / 1988 1347 - 288 $ 500,000.00 O6 / 1973 533-350 $ 314,000.00 The Information is Updated Weekly. http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail .asp ?FolioID = 0000000342040003 1/29/2003 Details Current Ownership t Folio No. 100341960003 Property Address I NO SITE ADDRESS Page 1 of 1 Legal 324927 E112, LESS S 10OFT Section Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 32 49 1 27 313.94 4C32 492732 001.0004C32 Sub No. 100 Book - Page Millaae Area l Millaa e " Use Code I 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 13.5679 2002 Final Tax Roll Values SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date Book - Page Amount 09 1 1990 1561 -1087 1; 0.00 05 / 1988 1347-284 $ 500,000.00 The Information is Updated Weekly. http:// www. collierappralser .corn/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000000341960003 1/29/2003 .�,.IS . 1. Jrt 1 [MY+ - A. LL ro 90 . br FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR.. TRUSTEE k» p.ay a FRANCIS 0. HUSSEY, JR.. AND MARY PAT HUSSEY. HUSBAND AND WIFE .rh~paso//k,..Jd•...i. 400 8th Street North, Naples, FL 33940 �► 714r +L..,Kd lti war. F...I a, Lam,. d +An ..w ./ i 10.00 o M Aw,I h A6 nil msw,i i+.hs aL...o,yt +�•+»/ w f..a. �,t r++4oi.Mn —,6 -wd --Q r. , F.".�..t .i. wyrlf .«i w+.c d.r..wl J....1 N A- -a sm I.! r F.. M..wd ► IA. %.i..ane:w AAd 4L , . .. W. ,s„rt bae ,rI i.Y m! rd Colder dmbf I"lar[rda SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTIOX ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A' 11 .*e F i SS n Paaarr• r'�+3ro •pa 00►a�FA CO�N1Y 0? CADR13 �y fIi C� SubJsct to eaiaaants, - strictgroas 4Ad ctserratlons of record 'V SAd real estate taxes for "a current and tucca.ding years. The pproperty described In Exhibit "A* Fs aot the houatteaa of the lirantor. r M e>qg** a wokeow 04 of 06 OWN. ,,OA ate+, sower, ran. .d riN, wtut• y T6 old Aw P-V i.e Aw" .rd ,+.tyt Aww 1f�. �• CII'N�Ya711 rl arw�a. �� 'w�,lww iq .ri �.. ' ' TRUSTEE COLLIER t q t i loarta�l C n" d.. do dir. ww... m F&CI AM., 4r. aw :ir eN >t� s w +► sue•• are.ad � ..a .r ..d.,r w a.�.1,. °""1i i .�,� 'LMMb M rap ke oiarl.i Y..n... ,`rrte !W W WQid sM i ar Coun..,a t„e . D" �It .t kotery Public . '• e, = � A cr, ncrAsr P.suc - , STAT&C OF �FLLO�Rt W"Nuf J.814ARON, ESQ . ` Bulge 304, 726 aoodle+tte Road y€lTipiec. FL 33940 001561 001088 " OR BOOK PAGE The Southeast quarter (SE1 /4) of the Southeast quarter (SE1 /4) of the )tortheast quarter (NE1 /4) of Suction 29, Township 49 South, Mange 27 East, Collier county, Florida. {fast 1/2 of NN1 /4 of SW1 /4 of SE1 /4, Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 Bast, Collier County, Florida. Nest 1/2 of the Southeast 114 of the SAorthwst 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Meat 1/2 of 5X1 /4 of MW1 /4 of SZI /4; and SN1 /4 of NN1 /4 of SS1 /4; and East 1/2 of SC1 /4 of 19El /4 of SwIl4r all in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. East 1/2 of the Southeast 1, /4 Of the 16out.ha =act 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, TomrAd ip 49 South, Range 27 Cast, Collier County, Florida. X}or'th 1/2 of SSM144 Of SWI /4, garot.ion 24, Townahlp 49 South, Rango 27 "at, Collies county. Florida. East 1/2 of the &outhua.at 1/41 and tUa East 1/4 of the west 1/2 of Us.0 v0k%tbeast 1/4 of Wo tIlmn is, Township 49 South, Range 27 east, collier cmn". Florida. Mete 1/2 of MU /4 of IRAs 1/4 of 1151 /4l and Rut /4 of Neel /4 of SEl /41 and goat 1/2 as Kn /4 of XMI /4 of SWI /41 all in section 29, Totrwhdp 49 Basta?. Xo-enpe 27 Umt, ThO Most I/2 of tare SU. /4 Of t:&O M/4 of CAa 3W1/4 of Bastion 29, T"nOlp 40 South. MaPQ& I? ftwt. Collier county. Florida. t4Ae Melt 1-,$2 tray the Amt l/1 or %of% Wwttlwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, to" Most so feet and %Am ?youth fro feet tb&rsof. dediostod for CO" purposes. l.yinq *Ad belag In Soation 33, Tornahip 49 tow th, N a 27 mWt. Collier 00unty. Florida. The MOMt 1/2 of t2m SUWM Ifk of the South 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Mrnetb 1 2 of the Mecttomst l 4. less tho Aleut 35 feet tberwof AtM cetW for to" pdxpo et, lying and being in section 33, lOAlAlhip 40 Swtth, die ;?7 ifult, Oolliux County, Florida. fte Art t/I of Xera 11. BifPw►OAtly 41 South, Rang: I7 Cut, QOlUo Co"ty. FlAwlda, 14Was and wmapt the followings a) wavivowly l or ooaw dl to Collier County or the at Treamportatten (va tba Rtate of rloirds for rood R -wUr psrpmrss. h) all elllltinq rights to and ftoa State t4 dtr I -'9s Previommir candem —d by Depart -ont of ampagUtim far lieu? Vita of Fllorids and c) 4Ll1 oil, mineral and "blw too rite Wgsenc.ly *maw) by the ?"remora. "0 W"t 1/2 at "ati4A 32, Tamwfti.p 49 South, Range 27 Bast, ftlut r owant7. rlotrft. low " --pt th* fol loai'v t a) lms-ty owAo nzad or carx*ya+d to Collier County or the ri� r�sett of Troaa owtation for the State of Florida for road -w" purpom"i and b) all pis rights to and from State lAoed 04 far I-7S provicusly aoodeanod by Departs.ant of T'Y'RTRp wtatioe for the State oR Florida for rood right- of-vay Details Page 1 of 1 Current Ownership Folio No. F00338240008 Property Address NO SITE ADDRESS L Section Township Range Acres 11 Map No. 11 Strap No. 31 49 27 4.24 4C31 492731 001.0354C31 Sub No. Owner Narnell HUSSEY JR. FRANCIS D Millage Area. Addresses MARY PAT HUSSEY 1350 SPYGLASS LN AGRICULTURAL Cityll NAPLES Statell FL Zip1l 34102 - 7741 L Section Township Range Acres 11 Map No. 11 Strap No. 31 49 27 4.24 4C31 492731 001.0354C31 Sub No. 100 Millage Area. "171 Millage Use Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 13.5679 2002 Final Tax Roll Values Latest Sates History SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Date Book - Page Amount 11 / 1990 1573-635 $ 11,500.00 The Information is Updated Weekly. http: / /www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail. asp ?FolioID = 000000033 8240008 1/29/2003 THIS Inowrr=' Nagle tM a Z—f* day of 5-ovAin*oT I *so, betwe", acm" JUttiI IvvM 0 of the cow" or 0 fta" of Jklabs", arentars, and MAn" D. Bonn, ilk. and W" P" 1,aggog, hMM&=td g" wilt, %6ba" peat office address is 400 M ftr*at mom, "Plas, norJAM 040, of Um County of Collier, State olf Florida, qnmtee4p. Irt2%2SgM,, ?bat o&14 graftor, ticw and in conaideration of the am of T= M 00^00 t$10-00) DDLLAIts. and other good and "arable oon&J&M*tJoa to s*Jd grantor in hand paid by said 0 the rscajVt wbaroot is ha rsby acknmled"d, h= granted. 4--A god sold to the 9*" Wlft", and 9rOnt"•s heirs, cm"ff=atl7"" assigns tozeww' all of ii al�-Ir09 Lt being to Collier Oounty, Florida, top-wit I gget 1/2 of the Waboast 1,(4 of the Southeast 1/4 of tho MoUtheeat 1/4 of #Wtt4ft 31. TOUtChiP 49 South, R&04P 27 east, C0411ar catafty, Ilarlds. Subject, how"ar. to restrictions, reavrvations and seessafts of record, without intandIng to m-imposo any of the am*, and real. estate t*xa* for the current and amobedt" yea" - Ma IS VAC hn LUM AM 13 Wr TUN HGOWTUD Or GRAW". WVS said gra"tog 1, 1 hereby ftlly warrant tba title to said land, &a& will &W",A the same against the lawftl clatias of all persons iftatecaver• *"Grantor- and ■grantea" are usod for singular or plux 1, as 0ontext. requires. SUm Tax Precast„ Tax 4. U Wbz 22 M910 19 M 7.12 001513 000935 COUNTY RECORDED OR BM PAGE ►ppraiser's Parcel rdentifIcation 103612600002 Rattwn to I Richard J. Aaron, Esq. IN& ft�ita 3014, at The Comma 11720 Goodl*tte Road North Naples, Florida 33940 Pr)%-parad by i Richard J. Aaron, Eaq. Suits 304, at "m Commons r10'4411 720 Goodl*tt* Road North Naples, Florida 33940 Gr*nt" S. s. ems. Granites S. S. No - THIS Inowrr=' Nagle tM a Z—f* day of 5-ovAin*oT I *so, betwe", acm" JUttiI IvvM 0 of the cow" or 0 fta" of Jklabs", arentars, and MAn" D. Bonn, ilk. and W" P" 1,aggog, hMM&=td g" wilt, %6ba" peat office address is 400 M ftr*at mom, "Plas, norJAM 040, of Um County of Collier, State olf Florida, qnmtee4p. Irt2%2SgM,, ?bat o&14 graftor, ticw and in conaideration of the am of T= M 00^00 t$10-00) DDLLAIts. and other good and "arable oon&J&M*tJoa to s*Jd grantor in hand paid by said 0 the rscajVt wbaroot is ha rsby acknmled"d, h= granted. 4--A god sold to the 9*" Wlft", and 9rOnt"•s heirs, cm"ff=atl7"" assigns tozeww' all of ii al�-Ir09 Lt being to Collier Oounty, Florida, top-wit I gget 1/2 of the Waboast 1,(4 of the Southeast 1/4 of tho MoUtheeat 1/4 of #Wtt4ft 31. TOUtChiP 49 South, R&04P 27 east, C0411ar catafty, Ilarlds. Subject, how"ar. to restrictions, reavrvations and seessafts of record, without intandIng to m-imposo any of the am*, and real. estate t*xa* for the current and amobedt" yea" - Ma IS VAC hn LUM AM 13 Wr TUN HGOWTUD Or GRAW". WVS said gra"tog 1, 1 hereby ftlly warrant tba title to said land, &a& will &W",A the same against the lawftl clatias of all persons iftatecaver• *"Grantor- and ■grantea" are usod for singular or plux 1, as 0ontext. requires. SUm Tax Precast„ Tax 4. U Wbz 0. r N ORMM MGE Nrf)MW VH=WF, tho said Grantor has sigmed and sealed tftwo itz the day and year first above writt*n. Or: MET I*A Daftis jW AUTO - gTkTR CW ALABAMA Coum or I HXRM CW"rI that an this day, before so, &n t,?f ic*r duly his" in tbs State &W County otoro"id, to tak* p.—aaftmaU., pmrsmgaly agVeared, 00"S JU3M RVT*UM, to as kooft to be the perms demarUAd to &M who *mKmtod tbo for ing 4:10tamov* Im bwtom as that she executed the same. WIT$= w/ hqXd "a Ortlaw Mal in the ODU►tY and state last etares&id tms W& fty of =�Xt" Notary Pubtl i c OA tov COWEV C -Ot: ti OA tov COWEV C -Ot: Details (D Current Ownership Folio No]l 00328560002 Property Address 1150 LEON AVE Page 1 of 1 Legal r29 49 27 E112 OF SE 114, NW114 OF SE 114, E 1/2 OF SW 114 OF SE 1/4, NW 114 OF SW1 /4 OF SE 114, N112 OF SE 114 OF SW 114, Section Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 29 49 27 260 4C29 492729 001.0004029 2002 Final Tax Roll Values Land Value Sub No. 100 $ 0.00 r a Milla Aea g_ _ i Milla. e U$e_Code 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 13.5679 2002 Final Tax Roll Values Land Value $ 650,000.00 ( +) Improved Value $ 0.00 ( =) Market Value $ 650,000.00 ( -) SOH Exempt Value $ 629,650.00 ( =) Assessed Value $ 20,350.00 ( -) Homestead and other Exempt Value j $ 0.00 (_) Taxable Value $ 20,350.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Sales History Date 1E Book - Page Amount 08 / 1990 1 1554-2220 $ 15,000.00 The Information is Updated Weekly. http:// w-ww. collierappralser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000000328560002 1/29/2003 WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, Made this _ZJ_ day of , 1990, Between, JAILS TRAIDUAlF WI11KCOFF, d iiI�jIFRBD SIIITii FF, husband and wife., of the County of ►„�,�, State of Florida,, grantor *, and FR2LiEi''LS D. H[TSSEY, JR. and MARY PAT MTSSRY, husband and wife, whose post office address is 400 8th Street North, Naples, Florida 33940, of the County of Collier, State of Florida, grantee *, WITNESSETH, That said grantor, for and in consideration of the sun of TEN and 00 /100 ($10.00) DOLLARS, and other good and valuable consideration to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bylined and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs, pesotitfl representatives, successors and assigns forever, all of tiit certain land situate, lying and being in Collier County, Floe da, to -wit: East half (E1 /2) of the Northwesr Quarter (NW1 /4) of the Southuest Quarter (SW1 /4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Subject, however, to restrictions, reservations and ease*ents of record, without intending to re- impose any of the same, and real estate taxes for the current and succeeding years. THIS IS VACANT LAND AND IS NOT THE HOMESTEAD OF GRANTOR. r _and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and toill defend the same against the lawful clams of all persons �hateoever. *"Grantor" and "grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires. iecetved _Documentary Stamp Tax ReCeivCd $ Class "C'• Intangible Personal Property Tax 4[JLLI. ,COUPl7Y C RK OF COURT Yts'%,Gl�. r . �CI .K ..F • . w1Jili .,:i'_.., __ /i'+��.. �i .,. _ L a 01W (N 'Y RECORDED Property-Appraiser's Parcel Identification 100328560002 Return to: Richard J. Aaron, 1 Suite 304, at The Esq. Commons /// 720 Goodlette Road North ..;. Naples, Florida 33940 Prx -pared by: Richard J. Aaron, Esq. Suite 304, at The Commons 720 Goodlette Road North Naples, Florida 33940 Grantee S. S. No. Grantee S_ S_ No. WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, Made this _ZJ_ day of , 1990, Between, JAILS TRAIDUAlF WI11KCOFF, d iiI�jIFRBD SIIITii FF, husband and wife., of the County of ►„�,�, State of Florida,, grantor *, and FR2LiEi''LS D. H[TSSEY, JR. and MARY PAT MTSSRY, husband and wife, whose post office address is 400 8th Street North, Naples, Florida 33940, of the County of Collier, State of Florida, grantee *, WITNESSETH, That said grantor, for and in consideration of the sun of TEN and 00 /100 ($10.00) DOLLARS, and other good and valuable consideration to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bylined and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs, pesotitfl representatives, successors and assigns forever, all of tiit certain land situate, lying and being in Collier County, Floe da, to -wit: East half (E1 /2) of the Northwesr Quarter (NW1 /4) of the Southuest Quarter (SW1 /4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Subject, however, to restrictions, reservations and ease*ents of record, without intending to re- impose any of the same, and real estate taxes for the current and succeeding years. THIS IS VACANT LAND AND IS NOT THE HOMESTEAD OF GRANTOR. r _and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and toill defend the same against the lawful clams of all persons �hateoever. *"Grantor" and "grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires. iecetved _Documentary Stamp Tax ReCeivCd $ Class "C'• Intangible Personal Property Tax 4[JLLI. ,COUPl7Y C RK OF COURT Yts'%,Gl�. r . �CI .K ..F • . w1Jili .,:i'_.., __ /i'+��.. �i .,. _ L a in .il�•p �.. -.- be MMI &W -has .0" tbow proomto t0 in to t* the day ,1:4.11. -;� x..�y s .. �� , ��.� •iYIVVi'.,�tt�• r: -fix. :. a ''Cs'"itl �;:. ,. •_ mmavmm _�: 4. it cips j zz Av e , COUNTY OF S I: Y CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly h in . the State and county aforesaid to talcs f' r ll appimrad, JAMS FRWMIi 4ZFDPF and r ;SII :,VINECOFF, husband and wife, to se known to be the `iih and who ammted the foregoing -instrmsent and as that they executed the same. and Taff cial seal in the and last a {' day "lil Ao(a__ Y ' ;�; -_ • . _�`'`�� {f ��. fit. - - li(� a :r a" rAk Sftft 4# radh :4 !: .S' ,''�l� °: `•;.• � - f..O.tA+r%a�fM+-r.r.+wwa mod �- 4; M 00 Co/u" COMM Miff. r AUES C GUS, CLEM MAM 0412 Z2 PAGE Appraiser's Parcel Property Identification 10033104000/1 -:< to: Richard J. Aaron, F.aq. Suits 304, at The Corsons 720 Goodlotte Road !forth Naples, Florida 33940 Prepared by: Richard J. Aaron, Esq. Suite 304, at The Consons - 720 Goodlette Road North Maples, Florida 33940 ;'.. Grantee S. S. NO. Grantee S. S. No. WaRX DEED MIS IIiDi"QRB, Made thistday of 1990, BetirBgtf, CIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY PAT HUSSEY husband and rife, of �- .fntuity of Collier, State of Florida, granto r*, and JAws ' . tl b0a►t and WjNlgg= smwTH DOFF, husband and rife, �.. Wliipi" ..poet office address is 455 Oakland Aver, Inaj- aiarrtic, 4. F]i'srfda 32903, of the County of , State of Florida, iiF3C0i8SSETH, That said grantor, for and in cawsideration of tb& ::Sm of TEN and 00/100 ($10.00) DOLLARS, and other good and ... Valuab consideration to said grantor in hand paid by said x•`; , the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, <: and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs, k.. jai. representatives, successors and assigns forever, all of * , c ortaf.n land situate, lying and being in Collier County, cam._.. } hest 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the yFa.. Mbitht+est 1/4 of Seation 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 a:. .East, Collier County, Florida. Subject, however, to restrictions, reservations and ea of record, without intending to re- ifepose any t of the saw, and real Mate taaces for the current and ' R. r i s to oediW years. Nx MB IS V. CAJIT LAUD AND I3 NOT THE HOMMEAD OF GRANTOR. r 'E - 'jgyQ ---antor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, i41E _ ,F d shd the sam against the lawful cl aisa of all persons *06 of bur* and 109rantoe" are used for singular or plural, &* k . tary Stamp Tai a..';... Ctass "C" tntangible ruml Fromm Tax _Wien W of COU W x 4. 4 5 �.�...�y,,��. �y `y��- {.� y X1;1 't M1 ; •�yw - .'r^,1- j- .w!��. {i�ra6to has WRi Pr - bpi be E ' lA , � � 'ta DO hereunto i offi y`a � duly authorized, the •Aa ., r w� �Sr J2G� W ib� written. arE "O' SRAM DALIV8PJM Ili TM PRESENtz OF: FRA D. HUSSEY, .7R. MARY PAV HUSSSY STMM OF FL RIDA : COUNTY OF COUNTY X REMY CERTIFY that on this day, before ne, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take a moulodgments, Personally appeared, FRANCIS D. BUSS", 5'R. and mAst(ViT HUE! Y, husband and wife, to me knows to be the persons +fie qx d in and who executed the fore9949 instrummmt and ac taC tl before no that they executed . I and off cial l in 7ntj� and afor*"a&5d this ? day of co - , 299 t� N Publ 1W co"M "Jon mmires : pppr8e K awr.r r • oOLMR cotrrtr, FU )00^ Property Appraises 00329120001 Parcel klerifification No, Wad '?eceived —Documentary Stamp Tax Received Class "C" lntang;bte, Personal ProPeny Tax CD -GrPnV-o:S_& No. COLLIER COUNTY ZLERK OF LOUR C= BY D.0 C-i Ispace above this Hue Im recording dam] 496 -ORY FORM — SECTION 689.OZ F--,) jN%jtRANTY PE�D (SrAnn .110s Indenture, ad,. this day of K ig 89, Between Q. V an unremarried widow State of Hors A-- grantor*, and M-9 _V�­WE"'W 3-61 Sd-1 head, A-hvilll, NC M03 Lt. .Ate of North Carolina grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of C=3 00/-10() ($10.00) Doaar� -and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said granter, the receipt whereof is he-by has granted, bargained and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the fallowing M County, Florida wit- _P1 Ur situate, lying and being in 0DIlFlorida o- wilt 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of 96ction 29, Township 49 South, Fange 27 Fast, (Y-1 I i OountT, Florida. IBCT to easements, restrictions and reservations of record and real estate tmm for the current and succeeding years . h hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend h e same against the lawful claims of A ­_rmtor" and "grantee we used for singular or phrral, as context requi- �MherWfy gmtor has hereunto so granWs; hand and seal the day and year first above written. our presence (seal) BETry ME Flo (Seal) Id.01 FLORIDA (Seal) 6t deicribed in and who executed -0 Aipitent and admcrwledged before me that r !!�-Tlday of JULY '19 89. I 0;qtary Public r r. 771 .-M.R 0 0 212 5 -OR-WOK PAGE Pr operty Appraiser's Parcel Identification #00332040000 tol R#hqrd•j. Aaron, Esq. 304# at The Commons 720 Goodlette Road North Naples, Florida 33940 pre by: Richard J. Aaron, Esq. .pared Suite 304, at The Commons 720 Goodlette Road North Naples, Florida 33940 .. Grantee S. S. NO. Grantee S. S. No. WARRANTY nIRPD THIS INDENTURE, Made this a627-jday of ARush—, 1990, Between, STRUM" of the County of State of North Carolina, grantor *, and FRANCIS D. MonWAA MARy pA!r HUSSEY, husband and wife, whose post ik.0 and -�010.i64 � address is 400 8th Street North, Naples, Florida 33940, of tine .lCounty of Collier, State of Florida, grantee*, w-l-TRESSETH, That said grantor, for and in consideration of the. 0 and 00/10o ($Io.00) DOLLARS, and other good and ,un of TEN consideration to said grantor in hand paid by said the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs, on& representatives, successors and assigns forever, all of W l UAI-,:66rtafn land situate, lying and being in Collier CourAty, West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 last, Collier County, Florida. Sqbject, however, to restrictions, reservations and efts, g*Mts of record, without intending to re-impose any off: :'thj� sane, and real estate taxes for the current and sliding years. "IS IS VACANT LAND AM is NOT THE HOMESTEAD OF GRANTOR. d,#j" grantor does, hereby fully warrant the title to said land, defelid the Sallie against the lawful claims of all persons s antorlk "grantee" are used for singular or plural, Wkft md as requires. 0curnentary Stamp Tax Class "C' Intangible Personal Property Tax -�:adliiifkb&NTY CCERK OF COURTS L—D.0 - MISS, A$ Ft y =r '., . } b Fs 13Y y nrk,•i,�y��ni$.�rf�c y�Fk°°!� {'tLi�; � �'4 y � �pk � � 1 •� '`".�,. c•ti Ov Caused• these resents to be 'R�+ 4 t °r P Grit4r his P ` . ur:.. co rate seal 'to be hereunto :. Ail a:' its yigyr;:s - " ��` s thereunto duly authorized, the day !: 3' !4 : offricer ti; L DELIVERED dE 00: AARGARiOr J :. .. . �!l w....% ,� J� c► %� Q�I Alin+ o� 6T�/�!1 6•�t iL�{ � Y w- 3VNART ST3}► . • . 4F . HORTH CAROLINA : : 07 buneom(oe- I " H99ftY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly 44"prizod in the State and County aforesaid to take personally appeared, NARGARET WINECOFF STEWART, th be the person described in and who executed the :.Jnotrument and acknowledged before as that she executed iiB53 my hand and offs ial seal in the County and State last . mfore . this e1s 44 day of , 1990. Notary Public :IW .. o' minsion Expires: petdded � �rtfd OpLLtERR K�'aF MDR )XMrS C GtLES. CLERK Details Page 1 of 1 Current Ownership Folio No. 00328640003 Property Address NO SITE ADDRESS Owner Name HUSSEY JR, FRANCIS D =& MARY P Addresses 1350 SPYGLASS LN Citv NAPLES State FL Zip 34102 - 7741 Section Township Range Acres 11 Map No. Strap No. 29 4g 27 10 4C29 492729 001.0024C29 Sub No. Sub 100 Milla a 3. - - -- - -.- `0 Milla e �' 9 # Use Code. 60 AGRICULTURAL 287 13.5679 2002 Final Tax Roll Values SOH = "Save Our Homes" exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. Latest Safes History Date Book - Page Amount 12 ! 1989 1492-1074 $ 30,000.00 The Information is Updated Weekly. http: / /www.collierappraiser. com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000000328640003 1/29/2003 ...►...s t.eca VITRQVI D?IITIQT MDud 't" fie err e( Deceet er A. 1) W d9 ko 1 UTIM RAMARt and CATHMINR 1<dMAGR, husbsad and wife i,mvxlfM rs1!ed .hr nnmor, ro rRANCIS D. MSU, JR. and MA1tY PAT MUS217, hua►a*d *td rite N �6sc a..t.U.r..hl. —, i. 400 - 6th Street North, Naples, Florida 21940 QV hreMwo�lrr c.1h +lJY Nr.n.rr: i�tiSd ,b �tMn m � vIt: v..t t6, g.aw!w. for and !n fw.944-1l .t rhr MA .4 510.00-- -- - --d .4'" C c•ai..bfe nr.d.l.+ori.r,.. .rcn:lir y.h.. H herr6l .rho 4 -lovd, 1.r.rbr oe.n/a, 1.....r....rlir, slimy, rr- u° mm. . "Jess.+. can.rys and r.4it m. —r. IAe p—spe. A t"i u.tei.. land I.ro.rr M Cos t ier cr Caa.y, i �r ia..•rc Parcel is The West 1/2 of the $OVrh.reat 1/4 of thr SOethuest 114 of tha Martheut S16 of Section 2S, 7a+mahip 69 South. Rant• 27 Lase, Callier County. Floc!da. property 1, 0. A Q0 3 Z.'? & 4 Q(1 ii o Parcel 2c The test 112 of Elie Southeast 114 of the Souchesst a 1/4 of the Rorthwast 1/6 of Section 29, T&nsshfp 69 south, Range 27 L..t. Collier County, Tlorida. t7� to Property I.D. I 003Zr (,!ZoQa3 [n 0 1Q�� weh .Il J.r tm.a,.ar+. h.re�tt.awnrr ant or�vtrasnccr drnN bri.+ybtp a 1a cnr- � mLr aFp.rt.rufnr. 3o��iiauc at►Q to }told, J,. r.�e M �.. ems. r�.r�r.. iTlitl tAe rr.nle. An.6 ee..n.nta .uh .*a a.—# . IA.r 16 ar.J.r f. L. -/.A) ..--4 .j ..rl 6j t,. i- ..t.9t.: rRa( rl.. 11-1w F" pe.J "ski ..d L 1.1 ..1t.my 1. uR .w1 can..) a.t! 1«i: sti.t ru W~ k"47 J.u, a.—.0 the !ale r. sold 1a4 snd .10 dolmd tb sm. y.1.ul 16 6.J.1 .A P- # ,aL.....r.er: and 161 WJ 4..f L 1" .1 *11 .arsrw6rsnrea_ .sees( I— .ccn.rae .rturpwwl t. I).e.e.L' it. 1089. Recskvd /A is AO rWv-ntntarYlSIAMTn tax 01t Ism WIm0f, A. Nil tHntvr he. 1Jan.4 tnd "aw "e peleaL the ry and .rear now 04 1 ow �irs! .rilltrti y h t STATI or Firm trees ttrr yea rxossta _ i = 1 NIRUW METITY Am rc ft tar, W.rc w, r -nkv Alt V v.unr+.se M fie flex e4..m s./ k A.c t7a..n.y .4tr..ie to ..Lt C.d...fa�,wer, rr.we.Ib eryr..ed - 11800 tAR7rfI escl gT11tR�}R 1111dtit. tstbsni asi siFe �f�•�ma a, .A[ t M.cr+Ad 1• as/ .A. ex...r1 d,. thlr .etne.lsel.d ►t11st f.. rMs SMr h--4 ai dt'#W L.kC Ar..4 dl .Ali A" et I -6-k it". RRMe.e.+ "Jd Ilrtll126 !. cm4r Jr "— -'- 21553 7aataat Trail North, Suit* Ut Ctl3 }aio -CCMD ]7440 Ca 0 to 0 C3 O v k Ci; f ' � Details 06l:. * ?.f`l Lh is +'^ Current Ownership f Folio Noll 00331320006 Property Addressir NO SITE ADDRESS Page 1 of 1 Legal 129 49 27 SE114 OF SE114 OF NE114 Section Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 29 49 27 10 4C29 ----]1492729062.0004C291 Sub No. 100 1 "1 Millage.Area I ' Millage Use.Code 60 11 AGRICULTURAL 287 1 13.5679 2002 Final Tax Roll Values Latest Sales History Land Value $ 25,000.00 1 1 Book - Page Amount ( +) Improved Value —$-0-0-0-1 0911990 11 1561-1087 $-0---00-1 (_) Market Value $ 25,000.00 091 1988 1382-753 $ 20,000.00 ( -) SOH Exempt Value $ 24,350.00 (_) Assessed Value ( -) Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 650.00 $ 0.00 ( =) Taxable Value $ 650.00 SUN = "Save Uur Homes- exempt value clue to cap on assessment increases. The Information is Updated Weekly. http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail .asp ?FolioID = 0000000331320006 1/29/2003 ROM avids en Ens i n e e r ins qT- (0 0 V.-- tr7 an t,e ess NO= V*m a �InVI `�rrt iU Guua ia�o /.a� �V •+ti � +v U.+c���oc ov fi fit i &...w * ) E1a of A. Q w fRAKI S O. MOSEY, JR., TRUSTEE Aw r•-40� r FR"ClS 0. HOSSEY, JI., AND MY PAT HUSSEY, iWSBAN; ao WIFE wk'e' +'A&.u4 460 Eth Strott forth, Maple:, fL 33440 a w i►wfy, r. h..i� � �.•� � O'4.. wdr ate arw.J ~ �'e"{ 4 Lw.i�'.i...l,.�,j da.. 4Nis wwW m iLe'.J 1M a,.1� kr 4 ew1 t. tAe tew.., �%► C W& W,...A'" a1 iwr.i- V O..., rf Col I fee Bwr� F lorbdd� , �.•.w, SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTAC14ED HE"70 AS FOIRIT `A' A�uti.e4 Cta+'C ,rY.i� COtteA DOVM am OF CO MS Subject to aottaents, restMCtions JRd reLerYstloas of record and real estate tam for the carrot and succaadisq years. The property 601cribed to ExkSblt 'A' is Rot the %aMtstead of the Grantor. Is Vw MW LO M (6 h"4w r4f..4 .4 &.6,6 eeMrYe.r'A tiw.le i.l wvko w fw -010" we a , i *4 aN *A fokk r%k alp i.f ML Nm e+wv'/ lie W1 �ftd Owax O J,r in Ire or Ow+ay, ik A- w ift f e.d 664 go � ftmuw.r� ,.eq, Ire {irl .i..w NOW, 7u -w knt P" A. aipd .r4 .sw #,., P.M. f6 4, .a Vac �.'wl,i ewJ rt.i.r1 ee n..+ax► d, TAMES . anu of aoa mxk 1 COVO Y a COLLIER r �e.yy I lttataY calmy am e. A1, 4.4 Id.. 01* r RA!!Ctµ S 0� iM15S T,J 3R. A $d E �•it r wa ad.r�r4••., Ir+ri aw"m u w L.'..e is Me to }..M., dr.W M nr 6" Okkk w iwwiM h • ,��a UAw nw r'a ht «ra.r /aN mw.. Co..,y 64 40 a4 f 1t . • q a �a.. A. A MID. , Rotary Public Mr io"tssbaa NGCGuwtt r. r;. • �• r r.�+ttn • STATE or rl.a+ " ^r' T>Mr mo,.R„rpagwd Aj; Aar Suite 304, 72a a2mlatta Road t pfas. FL )3440 ,a �o r � cn 0 0 0 oa b f on 1561 001088 OR am PAGE sst�tr "�• !n4 llootlli"t quLrter {89314) of the louthaaat quarter (3ESJ4) of ttss ft t *wit quutwr (Pii2 /4) Of Saotion 29, Towanhip 49 South, XmW 77 East, Colliar county, rlorids. most 1/2 of W114 of Sttl /4 of "1/4, sootlon 20, Tbrnahip 49 South, Lunp 27 teat, fa111as County, riotida. 9MCt 1/2 of tea aosMeast 1/4 of the Xartb*"t 1/4 of the sonthvast 1/4 of 840tioa 29, 7owr*hip 49 ftut7e, Im" 17 last, callisr Comatp, Florida. Mast 1/2 of 91114 of MI /4 or n1/41 -aid mn /4 of 4at1 /4 of 391/40 wo Mast 1/2 of tl1 14 of z/4 of BM! /41 all in 3actioa 29. Totarlhip 4e 9o4tb, Raags• 27 sast, Colliarr Con[ttY, riarids. East 112 of tAe 9=tV~t l iq t� ynv,, AutQe 21 Collier Cx", nr . 1/oiu + metfa 1/2 of M/4 ed am /4, motion 29, ftumbip 49 South, Rang* 1i Asst, 00111ar County, rlortax. Umt 112 of the owtheast 1/41 and the Mast 1/4 of the 4leat 1/2 of tm 4cat3iast 1/4 of geotlon 29, Township 42 douth, f r4a 27 Last, 1coolliltt county, llosida. .r�dl Sist o1/3 Oe 181%4 1/4 f ifli /A of M/0 all �ldatstion 22. UWAskip 449 South, RMn9M 27 9"t- "M Mast 1/2 of rite 4 =/4 of the I/4 Cd co SM/4Fof S*otion 21, Township 49 Eautb, ist The writ 1/2 ai the W44t 112 of that aoatbMWt 1/4 of tb4 SCNtUWRmt 1/4, lent+ tle Most so toot and the bouth 56 fart tt�, dad1aat4d r= road purpm", 1}'#riq end b.inq in s4atioa 33, TowyWhip 49 /bpth, R&ngs 27 Ust, Canter COm , rioa3da, rba hoot 1/2 of tis South 1/2 of tbi 8ontlt 1/2 of the Mya" 1/3 of tho *octh 1/2 of the portbVaat 114, lass the WWt 35 flit: tb.arevf dadiaste4 fa: sold ' 1Y�9 and being In SeCrtlon 33, ToUgSbip 49 Eouth, RaWe 27 UAt, Collier cxratp, noridn- ,M& Root :/2 of Saatfor 32, TWAship 49 South, RwW* 37 lair, Collier Constyy, rlorids, less and t the folltwirw e) 17�Y Y �dsansd ov, cpamh al ko Colliat �tY or the of tr4nepartatioc for the staxo of tloirda for toad right- of-vay purposes, b) all exi" riri fights to aAd froze Ytata loaEl 84 or 1-78 prrvi.v"ly cvx by D.partretst of Tranaport%tion for t3» state of Florida and a} all oil, al-nel and 4AW=f0as rights pevaently ovr-id by the QmMtnra- lbo 0"t 112 of Swtioct 11, Tbvaehip 49 DOOth, Riw4a 37 Mist Collier Y, riodrda, 16sl sad *wept use follovingt a� opoaaaaw or ooavyod to oolliar C0MtY cw tb* °t t o f .00 s tights to md from state cigl4t -O per/e•� lm.d M4 far t -76 prwlotsal,Y oottd4aned DY Dape:-taettt Of Tramaportatiots for tho strte of flb'ift fW road right•- of-ray pettj904M 4 � JW� Details Page 1 of 1 Current Ownership Folio No. l 00330480002 Property AdATsAF NO SITE ADDRESS Owner Name HUSSEY JR, FRANCIS D =& MARY P Ad:dresses 1350 SPYGLASS LN City NAPLES State FL Zip F34102-7741 Legal 29 49 27 E112 OF SW1 /4 OF SW1 14 OF NE1 /4 Section Township Range Acres Map No. Strap No. 29 49 11 27 IL 5 4C29 492729 041.0004C29 Sub No. 100 1 60 AGRICULTURAL `v Mi.flage.Area F 287 ' Millage 13.5679 Use Code 2002 Final Tax Roll Values Latest Sales History Land Value �— $ 12,500.00 �— $ 0.00 $ 12,500.00 Date 101 1990 Book - Page 1566-171 �— Amount ( $ 15,000.00 $ 700.00 ( +) Improved Value (_) Market Value 06 / 1961 86-1 ( -) SOH Exempt Val ue $ 12,175.00 ( =) Assessed Value ( -) Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 325.00 0.00 ( =) Taxable Value $ 325.00 SOH = "Save Our Homes' exempt value due to cap on assessment increases. The Information is Updated Weekly. http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail .asp ?FoliolD = 0000000330480002 1%29/2003 ,)M Davidson tn9 sneer ins 01.424CUO an IT a 7132 no 1 566 800111 ( Lib CWNTY RECORDED OR BOOK PAGE �a Parcel = rt �tilpn /Q�33049MO2 R,aturn tot Richoxi J. Aaron, Esq. Ric"rd J. Aaron, A. A. R. Suite 304, at ThS Cooans 720 Coodlatto ROAd ltorth txC� x.aplas, rlorids 33940 tNl d 5 a. 4e!j Prepared by: Richard J. Aaron, Eaq- Rivard J. Aaron, P. A. Suit# 304, et The CAMMO 730 Goodletta Reed "rth Kapiea, Florida 33940 ��• a, Grantna S_ S. MO ey C,ranteA 9. B. DFa- THIS 1)(D)slilyiU, Made this day of october, 1990, BetMe @n, RICHARD MAL%zR, a single x", Ath* CamtY of � KABY PET of Florida, grantW, and FRANCIS D *HUS SV, s i6 40Q 8th AUSSSY, husband and wife, wlsasa post offiav address of C 00 at, >~strast Worth, Naples, Florida 33UOp Of thO COUnty State of Florida, granteer WITIJEsa 3m, "fiat said %cantor, for and in cartsideration of the suss of TIN and 00 /100 (110.00) DOLi,ias, tad otber �pod and valuably auttsideration to said grantor in hand Paid by said grantee, the receipt wb&raoY is hereW =kDOwlidged, has greened, bargained and sold to the sails grantee, mid 4rantee,9 heirs. poraanwl reprasuttatives, euccessors and assigns forever, all of Qt certain land sittm &, iyinq and being in Collies" curitY, Florida, tc -wit: The ]east 1/2 of the gouth~t 1/4 of the SOtitZtileat 1/4 or the lfortho*st I/4 of S*cti0 t 29, ItownshiP 49 South, Rangy 77 Ra&t. Stsbjoct, bowQ►er, to rsstrictlona, regervatiarts and easenants or record, Vithaat intantdinq to r*-inPO" anY of ti* a*a, arxt real estate taxes for the currant and succeeding Yom- The grantor repromwty# warrants, end uwaars, under oath that the I&W desaribed herein does nvt nw OOnstitme, noar h5s the 08" ever constituted, the hodsatead of the grantor or any Part or Portion of their howstead. QOISs6 000172 OR BOOK PACE sad said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the 9900 a9tiittst the lawful clams of all paresons "O tnoavar • **Grantor' and '9rantae' are used for singular or plural, as oont"t requiras. IN Wj7jxS3 WKMMF, Grantor ham hereunder set grantor's hand arut seal trA day and "ar first above Vrittatt. a � • �w ": •.. Y .1 • I HEatM CMT,yy that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorised !A the state acrd county aforesaid to talc& acknmledgumta, personally apptared RZcUM WALUM, a single plan, to ass known to be tha parmm described in and rata exacutod that Bing inatruxent and be aaknO++iQdqQtd berore me that he 4" usted the aalae�, and official meal in the County and State last .�k day of Octcbrr, �xRrt Vic) �sJ� EXHIBIT Go- 5 LETTER QF A T THQR IZATTQN -- LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Richard• D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates and John G. Vega to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in th)s Application. Signed — Print Name: I hereby certify that I application is true, co State of Florida County of Collier Date 15 Jr. the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Print Name Francis D _Sworn to and subscribed before me this t � day of - r' —= 2005, by v P4 Karen C Stevenson — "-`� MY Commission DD064590 fi __ ._ : -• otary Public Expires ocwber 14, 2005 My Commission Expires: CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING • who is personally known to me who has produced did take an Oath did not take an Oath as identification Mar IG 05 02:28p John G Vega PR (238)859 -3427 LETTER OF A1ITHO017ATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates and John G. Vega to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed Print Name: Ma P. Hulse Date 3 ! I hereby certify that i have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Print Name Mary P,H Hulse State of Florida County of Collier Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of N\Axzr— l 2005, by Notary ublic My mmission Exp CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING who is personally known to me who has produced as identification And S N*xy did take an Oath icr of Rorkic not take an Oath COMUM # DD 349706 ` 1ont�d Nafioryd ,�. p.3 PRE APPLICATION METING —.7—f so DATE /- TOPIC OF MEETING 6✓4?k MEETING MOTES COLLIER COUNTY * * ** DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT * * ** TIME /(� 3f% �— NOTES BY ATTENDANCE(print name clearly) Prkkc 4nvtf W4 YYVA -P iA 32, aq, 7/ - `fa - Z7 fs►- e-4, 7% ,, KEY POINTS /UNDERSTANDINGS /CONCLUSIONS /Z/,It/ % W,o—h t.+✓ O y�LC �'f 7 Y /G7 'i13/� ��' / �'+! -�.lh rVt L i! a ✓f ff A r-/'7 v.Q £fie, - ��,��, /yt - v, S ✓.6C� -- r2-,, P&A i'�'1/•tlf l2 � �'Q SCI .- 111 to yA �-4e, -�, _ r .e, -e of 07 4e� ®� r�ra�. (.✓k h� S.tie,s rte, G�h fy�.., 59�,� � 1",t rk-, 64r Lerch - "' Gf wlt, 6u YI /'DU / PiS ? F'-c f �a 1. 1 - ~�WfC r �wY-iG 62Scs° 6r� � 1'il s, �a i'�'1/•tlf l2 � �'Q SCI .- 111 to yA i �s. ` `�`�- �. . D rBSI F-0- ITSvLs : ` >r-076e-h p en 1, `rte t .. tz, Kd' � n iC e-�i' rno '� -aa,�t � —k J Agenda Item 4.0. Co Y Co-ri-�.ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: March 5, 2007 RE: PETITION CPSP- 2005 -14, SENDING LANDS RE- DESIGNATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) AGENT /APPLICANT: Multiple - the agents and owners of 90 properties are identified on the attached re- designation spreadsheet. However, Collier County government is the petitioner. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: This petition consists of 90 properties comprising ±3,606 acres. They are located in the following Sections - Townships- Ranges and general areas: Section Twp Rnq Area 34 47 27 2 miles N -NW of Fairgrounds 3 48 27 1.75 miles N -NW of Fairgrounds 11 48 26 2 miles N of CR951 /lmmokalee Rd. intersection 25 49 26 2 miles E of CR951 in North Belle Meade 29,32 49 27 N of 1 -75 in North Belle Meade 13, 14, 22, 27 49 27 N of 1 -75 in North Belle Meade NRPA 15,21 51 27 N -NW of US411CR92 intersection REQUESTED ACTION: In each case, the property owner is requesting the property be re- designated from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands (whichever it abuts). BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 19, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) a /k/a comprehensive plan to establish the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( RFMUD) and related Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for ±73,000 acres designated on the countywide Future Land Use Map as Agricultural /Rural and generally located between the Golden Gate Estates subdivision and the coastal urban area. The RFMUD consists of Sending Lands, Receiving Lands, and Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are so designated because, at the landscape (macro) scale (not site - specific parcel by parcel view), they contain lands of higher environmental value - wetlands, listed speci .-s habitat, etc. Accordingly, allowable land uses are greatly restricted and native Agenda Item 4.0. vegetative retention standards are stringent (80 %). The desire is for these lands not to be developed and instead transfer (send) the residential development rights from these Sending Lands to Receiving Lands, lands possessing lesser environmental value and where development is directed and encouraged. Each of the 90 subject parcels is designated RFMUD Sending Lands, though five are partially Receiving Lands as well, and some are also within a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay and /or the North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay; and, each is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use zoning overlay and some are in the NRPA and /or NBM zoning overlays. During the public hearings in 2002, many owners of proposed (and now - designated) Sending Lands asserted their property had been previously cleared or otherwise did not warrant the Sending Lands designation. Recognizing this possibility — it was made well -known that the designations were based upon landscape scale analysis, but also that allowing Receiving or Neutral Lands designations to be surrounded by Sending Lands designations (Swiss cheese concept — holes of Receiving or Neutral Lands within Sending Lands) was not acceptable, the BCC included a GMP provision giving a one year window in which owners of Sending Lands property that share a boundary with either Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands could submit data and analysis in an effort to demonstrate that, as of the date of adoption of the RFMUD (June 19, 2002), the Sending Lands designation was not warranted. Also, staff would re- evaluate the data used in 2002 (panther telemetry data, red - cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat data, land cover classification data, etc.) to determine the boundaries of Sending Lands. Please see the GMP provision below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RFMUD Sending Lands "11. Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries. For all properties designated Sending Lands where such property is contiguous to a Sending Land/Neutral Land boundary or Sending Land/Receiving Land boundary, the County will provide written notice to the property owners to advise of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a change to the boundary is warranted. Said written notice will be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe amendments. Within one year from the date these notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map." During the allotted one year period, twelve submittals were received comprised of 98 parcels (but only 90 are under consideration as two are already designated Neutral Lands and six were subsequently withdrawn). The total acreage of these 90 parcels is ±3,606 though that includes roughly 1,245 acres of Receiving Lands as five parcels have split Sending /Receiving Lands designations, leaving about 2,361 acres of actual Sending Lands. Per BCC direction in October 2005, contiguous parcels under the same ownership are to be viewed as a single property for purposes of determining if the property is contiguous to Receiving or Neutral Lands. However, PA Agenda Item 4.0. in viewing the submitted data and analysis for purpose of determining the appropriateness of Sending Lands designation, each tax parcel is viewed separately. Given that the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate the Sending Lands designation is not warranted, staff's approach is to look for conclusive evidence. Most of the submittals simply verify the existence of native vegetation on the subject parcels. The attached re- designation spreadsheet identifies each tax parcel, its location, staff's recommendation and rationale, and other information. As noted on the spreadsheet, and on the two maps identifying the 96 parcels, staff is recommending only 16 parcels be re- designated from Sending Lands to Neutral or Receiving Lands. These 16 parcels are highlighted on the spreadsheet, and outlined in red on the maps. One issue unrelated to the submitted data and its evaluation pertains to authorization of property owners for their property to be submitted and evaluated in this process. Some agents have submitted a notarized letter of authorization to demonstrate they have the legal authority to represent the owners of the subject parcels for which they have submitted data and are requesting a re- designation; however, some have not — and may not have been previously advised by staff of the need to do so. (The owners of one property listed under the agent Don Lester /15,000 Coalition recently met with staff and advised they never granted authorization to that agent or any other to represent them in this process.) Only a property owner or their authorized agent may petition the County to request a GMP amendment. Therefore, staff will advise all agents and property owners for which a notarized letter of authorization has not been provided, of the need to do so; failure to provide such a letter will likely result in the affected properties being withdrawn from this GMP amendment requesting re- designation. Finally, a GMP amendment such as this would ordinarily be evaluated for impacts upon infrastructure, effect upon the TDR program, compatibility considerations, etc. However, amendment is being reviewed only under the specific criteria established in the FLUE and stated above, as it is a special provision authorized by the BCC in the 2002 Rural Fringe GMP amendments (which were subsequently found to be in compliance with state statutes by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). Note: Two property owners are participating in this petition and have filed their own petition -- I.M. Collier Joint Venture, petition CP- 2005 -8; and, Francis and Mary P. Hussey, CP- 2005 -12. STAFF ANALYSIS: As previously noted, staff has reviewed each property to determine if it abuts Receiving or Neutral Lands, and has reviewed the data and analysis submitted by property owners and has re- reviewed data used by the County in 2002 to determine if either conclusively demonstrates property characteristics do not warrant Sending Lands designation. The results of these analyses are indicated on the attached re- designation spreadsheet. As to GMP consistency, this is a proposed amendment to the countywide Future Land Use Map as specifically allowed by the FLUE. For those properties that are re- designated, they will be subject to all GMP requirements and limitations of the new Future Land Use Map designation, including the native vegetation retention requirements of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Staff's determination for each parcel is identified on the attached re- designation spreadsheet. Staff is recommending only 16 parcels be re- designated, as noted on the spreadsheet and as identified on the two attached maps (in red cross hatch). Agenda Item 4.0. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS County staff duly advertised, noticed and held the required NIM on January 17, 2007, at 5:30 p.m., at the Golden Gate Community Center. The meeting was attended by approximately 55 persons in addition to staff present. A meeting summary is provided below. Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department staff member David Weeks provided background of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and its establishment in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) in 2002; generally explained allowable uses in Sending Lands, Receiving Lands and Neutral Lands; explained the GMP included a provision for owners of Sending Lands along the Sending /Receiving or Sending /Neutral boundary to submit environmental data in an effort to demonstrate that their property does not warrant the Sending designation and that the designation should be changed to the abutting designation (either Receiving or Neutral); noted that owners of 92 properties [now 90], comprising 3,646 acres [now 3,606], took advantage of this opportunity and submitted data; advised that, based upon staff's preliminary review of the data, only about 10 properties would be recommended for change, but noted the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would make the final determination; and, advised that the County regulations require notification of owners within 1,000' of any of these properties for which the re- designation request was made so that they might be aware of requested land use changes that could potentially impact their property. Also, that the owners initiated these requests but that the County was taking the requested amendments forward through the hearing process at no cost to the owners. David referred to the table at the back of the room which contained his business cards for future contact; a sign -up sheet as sometimes people want there to be an official record to show they attended; and, a handout containing excerpts from the GMP (RFMUD of the Future Land Use Element) — this opportunity to request re- designation, and portions of the Sending /Receiving/ Neutral Lands designations. David invited the audience to contact him with any follow -up questions and /or to check the Department's website for additional information about this petition, e.g. hearing dates, Staff Report. Several questions were asked about Sending /Receiving /Neutral designations, such as what the allowable uses are [David explained]; if nearby owners would be notified of future development for those properties successful in this re- designation request [depends — yes if a public hearing process is involved, e.g. conditional use, no if not, e.g. building permit]; about the GMP amendment process, including whether they could file a request for re- designation [David explained; yes, anyone has a right to submit an application but at their own expense]; whether the County owned any of this property [no] or initiated this request on behalf of any owner [no]. Various comments were made pertaining to the history of the RFMUD, the process to establish it, the Rural Fringe Advisory (citizen) Committee appointed by the BCC, opinions about the RFMUD and the (inappropriate) designation of some properties as Sending Lands, various procedural matters of state law (e.g. dispute resolution process, visioning process). In response to a question, David advised the first set of hearing dates as: Environmental Advisory Council — first Wednesday in February [7th]; Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) — March 5, with carryover dates to be decided at the CCPC's 1/18/07 hearing; BCC — June 4 with carryover date to 5th EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) held their hearing on this petition on February 7, 2007. At that time, staff advised that properties under ownership by Curtis Mitchell (map property numbers 12 -16, 93) were withdrawn from this petition at petitioner's request, thus staff's recommendation was modified accordingly. Also, staff advised they would be making a Agenda Item 4.0. site visit with the petition agent for map property number 1 and 2. The EAC recommended approval for re- designation per staff's modified recommendation, except for map property numbers 1 and 2, which were continued to the March 7 EAC hearing so that interested EAC members could make a site visit. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CPSP- 2005 -14 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit - but only for map property numbers 1, 36 -41, 43, 56, 61, 70, 79, 91, 92, 95 and 96 (identified on the attached re- designation spreadsheet, and depicted in red cross hatch on the two attached maps) - to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. [At the CCPC hearing, staff will report on its site visit to view map property numbers 1 and 2; as a result of this site visit, the preceding staff recommendation could be slightly modified.] Staff Report revision on 5118/07: As reported at the CCPC hearing, based upon site visit with petition agent, staff recommendation to approve re- designation of parcel 1 stands; and, for parcel 2, staff recommendation changes to support re- designation for a portion of that parcel — that portion lying north of Tomato Road. 61 Agenda Item 4.0. PREPARED BY: DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: DATE: RANDY COHEN, AICP, DIRECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: DATE: MARJORIE M. STUDENT - STIRLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR DATE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PETITION NO.: CPSP- 2005 -14 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007, BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Transmittal CCPC Staff Report CPSP -05 -14 revised Rec. for BCC G: Comprehensive \Comp. Planning GMP DATA\Comp. Plan Amendments\2005 Petitions\CPSP- 2005 -14, Sending Lands Re- designation dw12 -23 -07 g Fd n v m O m 0 n N O O CT A (D C CD y N O A CD m (D r m r D y O Z CD C N r m C CL y Co z nd o D m W nm D m (D O o 0 0 0 P O -1 3� o N 0) cn tis n II n n u u II X CD y 3 O CD N II M X X Z u n-1 O _? s s s o= 3 Cc CD o M CD CD (O O 00 C7 O ci ci n °c o r o C o y m m C m C C m D I m m co o m En m� to cc o a CL y w 3 o 0 (� �• ? l< a '• m o o cr V) a a D D D D D D D 3, 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 'V CD w 7 fO O j Co I 0 O CD 7 N 0 0 N N O O V 'O CD O 3 D = �- O N y y CD A v 3 O — (� U% D) CD 7 C v CD 7 G !v CD < d CD < [v CD O< y (D 3< to 7< C 3 fD C1 C1 C- C1 C_ C O- L C n L a L a L CS C_ G c 0 y N d d Uzi .ZJ fD O N N O p1 41 N d N y' (D ^_ CD O @ .r CD -n = 0 T 0 0 T O 0 X CD n, 0 O (7 O VJ n, n, n n r. CD N N N N N y @ N. CD CD O � T T T T T T T Im CD '•, O_ 'a 0 y n N o N o N o N o N 0 y y °1 (DD C a SN _Fn SVi Sy 2N 2N 2v+ y y y N N N 3 CD D °' C, (D m m m 3 m m m O i CD to o g Z S 3 m W W W 7 f1 (D N i O CD co W O C — A a) Cl) W a) A ai O cn CD O O O O O W O O j — — N A W C) N CT W N j 0 v V W W � CJC CJ7 � O C1 CD d V)= 00 co O A O A O y C7 CD W W N N N N N N y N N (D O CD CD tD (AD CAD (AD (D (AD CAD co 4 J v V V v PO v M k C C C C C C C K (n (n (n (n (n (n (n CG CD CD a a a a a a a tCDD y co (o m m m (0 (o Co Z Z Z Z Z Z Z K K K K 9 9 K O O O O O O O ;o M m X X X X C C C C C C C y CD CC CD CD CD CD CD CD 2 9 2 2 m m c0D < Z Z Z < <' <' (D CD CO CD (0 (0 (0 10 ffl Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W W co co co W W w O O O O O O O 3 0 O O N N N N N N on Or N N CA ({D (a y y y CQ 'J C O C •� y CL (c°((DD Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 7 0 y O o 0 0 0 0 o 01 0 d •J ' 0 m O CD 0 CD 0 m O O 0 n --n 0 0 0 0 0 m a nvii m CD CD CD n N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 D 3 :3 A 3 Chi 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD n CD (D CD fD CD CD CD N 3 o m O m 0 n N O O CT A (D C CD y N O A CD m (D r m r D y O Z CD C N r m C CL y Of P- 200s -/y :- Fyote. �- -- _Y% G�a!iei�i! r, r: 1 BAR a ., ♦;' :. gy s e r ....'�..i!i. r - 26 y33•��i1.6 "M� 49 27 49 21 35 36 26 26 i�i�i� - i i �'...{ r{{... +�i�i {i�iMO. .3 .. ..e{...{t{ .. �i {000�'Oi {J{O s +1 .^ 1 1 •1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 •1 1 1 1 1 .1 26 1 r. 1 r 23 24 1 1 1 1 1 ' .i ♦; 1 26 50 26 1 r 1 1 1 ) 1 1 27 1 r 1 1 1 1 •1 1 51 4 27 51 �1 I� ............ ...:.....,.. .......... ..,..... 51 16 I , { {C �t �tttt�fttt { {t �....�t. {�.....•�A {..tl NEUTRAL RECEIVING .A.,.,.g,.,..,., SENDING fir. ,2•A; -w� ' a JOHN G. VEGA, P.A. 2018 T11 STREET SOUTH, SUITE 207 NAPLES, FL 54102 (259) 659 -5251 (239) 659 -5427 FAx VEGAOFFICE @EARTHI,INK.NET October 18, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Stan Litsigner, AICP Director, Comprehensive Planning Department Community Development & Environmental Services Division Collier County Government 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Requests for adjustment to Sending Land Boundaries Dear Stan: Al A P PkOPEAT i 4 25- 31 f Section II to the Future Land Use Element of Collier County's Growth Management Plan was adopted by order of the Department of Community Affairs on July 22, 2003. Section B -1 -C -8 is titled "Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries." That paragraph provides that all properties that are designated Sending Lands and which are contiguous to a Neutral Land Boundary or a Receiving Land Boundary will receive written notice of an opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate that a change to the appropriate boundaries is warranted. That section further provides that, within one year of the date that these notices are sent, the County will initiate a growth management plan amendment to consider boundary changes as may be warranted by the data and analysis submitted. On behalf of Francis D. Hussey, Jr. and Mary Pat Hussey, I am requesting that their property known as the "HHH Ranch" be considered as appropriate for redrawing the boundary between Sending and Receiving Lands within the North Belle Meade. A legal description of the parcels which compose the HHH Ranch property is attached to this letter as Exhibit A and a graphical depiction of these lands is attached Exhibit B. I note that Section B -1 -C -8 was careful to utilize the word "property" and not the phrase "parcel." The reason for this specific term is the fact that a single piece of property may be composed of several parcels with distinct tax identification numbers. The HHH Ranch is an example of that type of property. Although it has been fenced as a single piece of property and ranched for two decades, the Property Appraiser continues to assess it as separate parcels. Accordingly, my request is made on behalf of the property as a whcn fVtsolely those parcels which abut the Sending/Receiving Boundary. 0 C ' 11 3 ?1004 F � The Husseys request that Collier County consider the following additional data in determining whether HHH Ranch lands or portions thereof are appropriate for inclusion within Sending Lands: 1. These lands contain significant deposits of easily accessible DOT and hard aggregate grade limestone. The presence of locally scarce limestone is an explicit factor in the determination of Receiving Lands within the North Belle Meade Overlay to the Rural Fringe Amendments. Paragraph 9J- 5.013(2)(c)2 of the Florida Administrative Code also indicates that the appropriate use of areas suitable for extraction of minerals is consistent with the use of natural resources. I have enclosed as Exhibit C a report of drilling services from MACTECH Engineering and Consulting. A review of the drilling report indicates the significant presence of hard limestone at various locations. For example, boring number B -12 exhibited hard limestone at depths between six and nineteen feet, and boring number B -15 exhibited hard limestone at depths from eight to twenty -four feet. The need of Collier County for limestone to keep pace with both new construction as well as planned road improvements is self - evident. The economic impact to having to bring limestone into Collier County from outside the jurisdiction would extremely detrimental. A brief overview titled "The Need for Rock Mines in Collier County" prepared by Better Roads, Inc. is attached as Exhibit D. 2. The Presence of wetlands is dramatically less than thought by the County at the time that the Sending and Receiving Designations were created. The County, in preparing its Sending and Receiving Designations, relied strongly upon the vegetative designations assigned to areas of land from the South Florida Water Management District. Such an approach is considered appropriate under the Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual in areas where the lands have not been impacted by drainage. However, the North Belle Meade is surrounded by canals and has been severely impacted through drainage over the years. The effect of these actions has been to dramatically shrink the presence of actual wetlands. Attached as Exhibit E is a portion of a map encompassing the HHH Ranch prepared by Breedlove Dennis & Associates out of Orlando. Breedlove Dennis prepared its wetland delineation map based upon utilization of the latest USGS infrared photography (five years more recent than the infrared images used by SFWMD in its analyses), the most current Collier County high resolution aerials from the Property Appraiser's Office, as well as field testing and site evaluation. As a brief review of this exhibit indicates, Breedlove & Dennis found only three wetlands on the HHH Ranch property; a medium sized wetland near the south side of the eastern boarder, a small oval wetland on the north side of the eastern boarder, and an extremely small circular wetland in the northeast corner of the property. Overall, the HHH Ranch is more than eighty -five percent non - wetland, a ratio typical of parcels designated as Receiving. As further justification delineation of wetlands on the property is an ongoing study by Synecologocial Analysts. I have attached as Exhibit F correspondence dated November 25, 2003 from Brown Collins of Synecologocial Analysts. He recognizes that historic development and drainage have significantly impacted the HHH Ranch and the water table within the lands. His observation is that "much of the approximately 650 acres originally suggested as wetlands would not meet the wetland hydrologic criteria." Synecologocial Analysts has been retained to drill 22 monitoring wells to determine if any portions of the HHH Ranch have the hydrology necessary to qualify as wetlands. The result of Synecologocial Analysts year -long monitoring of hydrologic conditions on the HHH Ranch is ongoing and its data will be submitted to Collier County when completed. My latest discussions with Mr. Collins has indicated that, despite the r i presence of these monitoring wells on the HHH Ranch, not a single parcel has displayed functioning wetland hydrology. 3. While some portions of the HHH Ranch lands have environment significance, that significance is not such as should prevent a Receiving Designation. Certain areas within the HHH Ranch, predominately upon the western borders, are home to colonies of red - cockaded woodpeckers. Those colonies do not exist exclusively upon the lands of the HHH Ranch; rather, they straddle the HHH Ranch and adjoining lands. A map of the location of the red - cockaded woodpeckers colonies as well as observation of foraging RCW's is attached as Exhibit G, attached as Exhibit H is a habitat management plan for the red - cockaded woodpecker prepared by Maureen Bonness and DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc., and a wildlife and habitat management plan from James L. Shortemeyer is attached as Exhibit I. These documents make it abundantly clear that, if this land is left as Sending Lands, it will remain umnaintained; resulting in the extinction of these red - cockaded woodpecker colonies. The unanimous recommendations of these analysts, in order to preserve and enhance habitat for the red - cockaded woodpeckers on these lands, is to permit certain economic uses for the areas of the land which would not adversely impact red - cockaded woodpecker colonies or prime foraging habitat. A portion of the income from these uses should then be spent to maintain and enhance RCW habitat. However, a continuation of the Sending Designation for the entirety of the HHH Ranch would foreclose the economic uses required to fund habitat management plans for the HHH Ranch. 4. The proposed Wilson Blvd. Extension will sever the HHH Lands from the environmentally sensitive NRPA lands to the east. Sending Lands within the Rural Fringe Amendments were separated into two categories; plain Sending Lands (with less environmental significance) and Natural Resource Protection Areas (with higher environmental significance). The majority of the Sending Areas within the North Belle Meade are NRPAs. However, no part of the HHH Ranch is within a NRPA. The NRPA lands are located to the east of the HHH Ranch and feature higher percentages of wetlands and increase listed species activity, especially the Florida panther. The extension of Wilson Blvd., specifically contemplated in the Rural Fringe Amendments, will sever the HHH Ranch from the remainder of the North Belle Meade, including the areas designated as NRPAs. Once severed, the HHH Ranch Lands will have significantly more in common with the industrial and residential areas within Sections 30 and 31. A major road will pass it to its east, cross it along its southern border and effectively separate the areas appropriate for uses consistent with Receiving lands from those areas to be left in their natural state. The benefit to a Wilson Blvd. Extension are numerous. Primarily, it is a requirement for expansion of the existing APAC Mine, and the limestone and aggregate from that mine, as well as the limestone and aggregate found on the HHH Ranch, will be critical to Collier County's ability to construct roads and maintain its infrastructure. Further, such a route would divert heavy and dangerous dump trucks from the residential roads they currently travel and lessen the traffic demand upon the already overburdened Golden Gate Parkway. Further, in the event of the need for an evacuation, this route would permit numerous residents within Golden Gate Estates easy access to Collier Blvd. and Interstate 75. Please note the newspaper article entitled "Proposed Changes in Rural Roads" published in the Naples Daily News and attached for your r i i reference as Exhibit I I ask that the study boundary information, apparently furnished to Collier County by Wilson Miller, be incorporated in this request by reference. In short, the HHH Ranch lands contain extremely valuable subsurface rights which were not given any weight when the designation of Sending and Receiving boundaries were created, the wetlands believed to be on the property are dramatically smaller than previously believed due to the effects of drainage over time, and the environmental significance of certain small portions of the land is recognizable, but requires that economic uses be allowed on other areas of the Ranch in order to fund habitat management. Absent a change in the boundary designations, such a common sense approach to maintaining and improving this environmental habitat will be impossible. Ohn G. Vega GV /mmw Enclosures EXHIBIT INDEX EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION A Legal description of the parcels which compose the HHH Ranch property B Graphical depiction of the parcels which compose the HHH Ranch property C Report of drilling services from MACTECH Engineering and Consulting D Brief overview titled "The Need for Rock Mines in Collier County' prepared by Better Roads, Inc. E Portion of a map encompassing the HHH Ranch prepared by Breedlove Dennis & Associates F Correspondence dated November 25, 2003 from Brown Collins of Synecologocial Analysts G A map of the location of the red - cockaded woodpeckers colonies as well as observation of foredging RCW's H Habitat management plan for the red - cockaded woodpecker prepared by Maureen Bonness and DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. I Wildlife and habitat management plan from James L. Shortemyer J "Proposed Changes in Rural Roads" published in the Naples Daily News EXHIBIT A M�: IC Folio # Description 00328640003 Parcel 1: The West %2 of the Southwest %4 of the Southwest %4 of the Northeast %4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, of Collier County, Florida. Parcel 2: The East %Z of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest %4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27, East, of Collier County, Florida. 00329760005 The East %2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 00330480002 The East % of the Southwest %4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast %a of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East. 00331320006 The Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of the Northeast quarter (NE %4) of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. 00341960003 The East % of Section 32, Township 49, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, less and except the following: a) property previously condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation for the State of Florida for road right -of -way purposes, b) all existing rights to and from State Road 84 or I -75 previously condemned by Department of Transportation for the State of Florida and c) all oil, mineral and subsurface rights presently owned by the Grantors. 00342040003 The West %2 of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, less and except the following: a) property previously condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation for the State of Florida for road right -of -way purposes and b) all access rights to and from State Road 84 for I -75 previously condemned by Department of Transportation for the State of Florida for road right -of -way purposes. 00328560002 East half (E %2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1 /4) of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. EXHIBIT B = ImImm I! A II i ' A A P i r I it � • It A I -- .- L - - - - - -- A es -� _.. y, �:' .,w. -`�' `.+�` .r: `•x^..... may >. it It it uti .. '+ ., - •.se -_ _.. Y.,._. u .%v ` � �' ..µ L• T..&�- tea: .4•:" _?�- ..^ tx. . 3:.. </2 .ye.. ".ALL.. � yr_- - -''w _. 4. ^: ""c..._. ..� •�w.- --'�'- — ._ .,. '">"- „•pr- '� ^� -t4' -' ._- �`-,�y 'i°'_yp, _ .+.Ir:' � � _. -� v .,r!.:. w..' -fir- _ �. I 4 � �".{�* � i � �\ � yy. off. _.. -... ..IY•. '�'. - .,ey -� -- -.! .4 .� +lA+ .'�_ ._ .a411- .. „ry .� a \�a -- -'8'.- — "a' ... ''..- -•v- ... — ..- Ir "1`- �?. -+,y. -tit- wE- ...�_ _,�-. 'g n ..+It-- '-,o.. P .arm 4k /r l�r It Hc- -+� �-2°i- -tb- _. �• d�...- '. --sx- _ '�' ,�. -+W-- �-+F x . .. dx"._d.E.^ .+i..� "'W,- .'tk..._ ..r_ -•'1 / p ALur It A I -- .- L - - - - - -- A es -� _.. y, �:' .,w. -`�' `.+�` .r: `•x^..... may >. it It it uti .. '+ ., - •.se -_ _.. Y.,._. u .%v ` � �' ..µ L• T..&�- tea: .4•:" _?�- ..^ tx. . 3:.. </2 .ye.. ".ALL.. � yr_- - -''w _. 4. ^: ""c..._. ..� •�w.- --'�'- — ._ .,. '">"- „•pr- '� ^� -t4' -' ._- �`-,�y 'i°'_yp, _ .+.Ir:' � � _. -� v .,r!.:. w..' -fir- _ HH14 Ranch Project Area, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Sections 29, 31, and 32, Collier County (USGS Belle Meade NW, Fla. 1958, PR 1987; Belle Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973). - —.. (ALL/GA rOR ALLE77 � �".{�* � i � �\ � yy. off. _.. -... ..IY•. '�'. - .,ey -� -- -.! .4 .� +lA+ .'�_ ._ .a411- .. „ry .� a \�a -- -'8'.- — "a' ... ''..- -•v- ... — ..- Ir "1`- �?. -+,y. -tit- wE- ...�_ _,�-. 'g ..+It-- '-,o.. P .arm 4k /r l�r It Hc- -+� �-2°i- -tb- _. �• d�...- '. --sx- _ '�' ,�. -+W-- �-+F x . .. dx"._d.E.^ .+i..� "'W,- .'tk..._ ..r_ -•'1 / p ALur �- - 1 0 0.5 mile HH14 Ranch Project Area, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Sections 29, 31, and 32, Collier County (USGS Belle Meade NW, Fla. 1958, PR 1987; Belle Meade NE, Fla. 1958, PR 1973). 'I • {J I K e j 1 v ,r• I� J }- -; l .Y L 7 r , L - ?" I r 4 r J Imo' �I I -i -'L •5 L i.� 1 � _yy I *y 4 -I J 1 ` `I . Ji.•t J 1- F �r I i 1 r ± �4 J _ • _J "F A ''w �. 1 '—. '-e 4 IL. '' - I - 't i � i �L K ' r. t �• :r, LIP pl _. J [ '� y -�y i, R J f • � l I_ ��t � �t �i `' A A .r 7 K j'f "i � ,<. !- r I r-44 _ 1 v I[ L -� 4' ,g" � 3 4 t � u i ;� r � I I i -•Cc - - i Lf r - r pr -; l .Y L 7 r , L - ?" I r 4 r J Imo' �I I -i -'L •5 L i.� 1 � _yy I *y 4 -I J 1 ` `I . Ji.•t J Prig hD 0 9 jd: Al Pal., Al EXHIBIT C REPORT OF DRILLING SERVICES AND SOIL EVALUATION SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 49S, RANGE 27 Collier County, Florida — PREPARED FOR — WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION Naples, Florida — PREPARED BY — MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING OF GEORGIA, INC. Naples, Florida MACTEC Project 6787 -03 -2020 March 4, 2003 u March 4, 2003 OMACTEC Mr. Butch Kent WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION 4300 County Road 951 7 Naples, Florida 34114 (941) 775 -0720 (941) 775 -6453 (Facsimile) ] Subject: Report of Drilling Services and Soil Evaluation SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 49S, RANGE 27 Collier County, Florida MACTEC Report 6787 -03 -2020 Dear Mr. Kent: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc., (MACTEC), f/k/a Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., is pleased to submit this report of our drilling services and soil evaluation for the proposed borrow pit at this site. Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal 40399 -0- 0000 -882 dated January 30, 2003 and signed by you on February 3, 2003. The depth of some borings was increased, with your approval. This report presents a review of the J information provided to us, a discussion of the site and subsurface geotechnical conditions, and our evaluation of potential uses for the excavated soils. The Appendix contains a_ Boring Location Plan and results of our field and laboratory tests. The assessment of site environmental conditions for the presence of pollutants in the soil, rock, and ground water at the site was beyond the scope of this report. Project Information The following project information is based on a discussion with you. We understand the project will consist of developing a borrow pit on the project site. The soils excavated from the site are planned to be used as structural fill. J MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 3627 Progress Avenue - Naples, FL 34104 239 - 643 -4747 - Fax: 239 - 643 -4750 Section 32 Morch 4, 1003 MACTEC Project 6787 -03 -2020 Site Conditions We conducted a site reconnaissance on February 20, 2003 to observe and document surface conditions at the site. Information gathered was used to help us interpret the subsurface geotechnical data, and to detect conditions which could affect our evaluations. The site is located north of Interstate 75 and east of the Naples Landfill. The site is heavily vegetated with palm and palmetto trees. The terrain is relatively level. Subsurface Geotechnical Conditions The subsurface geotechnical conditions were explored with seventeen soil test borings (ASTM D 1586 -99). The boring locations were chosen by you and located in the field by MACTEC. The borings were drilled to depths (determined by you) ranging between 30 and 50 feet below existing ground surface. The approximate boring locations are shown in the appendix. The subsurface geotechnical conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown on the Test Boring Records in the Appendix. These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface geotechnical conditions based on the field logs, visual examination of field samples by a geotechnical engineer, and tests of the field samples. The lines designating the interface between various strata on the Test Boring Records represent the approximate interface location. In addition, the transition between strata may be gradual. Water levels shown on the Test Boring Records represent the conditions only at the time of our exploration. The subsurface profiles for the borings are presented in the Appendix. The borings completed within the site revealed a subsurface stratigraphy consisting of the generalized strata characterized as follows: 2 Approximate Layer Approximate Layer Range of Standard r Bottom Depth (feet) Thickness (feet) Penetration Resistance Values (blows per foot) Fine to silty, clayey SAND with variable amounts of 4.5— 12 4.5— 12 2— 12 roots Medium Hard to Hard 9-31 4 — 17 5015" — 5010" LIMESTONE Slightly silty to silty SAND with shell and limestone 50 ( Weathered to Soft 3 — 39 1 - 49 (Borings terminated) Limestone) 2 Section 32 MACTEC Project 6787 -03 -2020 Ground Water March 4. 2003 The ground water level at the time of drilling ranged from approximately 3.3 to 5.6 feet below existing grade. This level will fluctuate due to changes in seasonal climate, surface runoff patterns, construction activity, and other site specific drainage characteristics. Rock Excavation Recommendations Based on our experience with rock formations in the site vicinity and the data obtained during this geotechnical exploration, it is our opinion the locally occurring moderately hard rock layer encountered in the borings will not be ripable with standard excavating equipment. It is our opinion the majority of the medium hard to hard rock encountered is of sufficient hardness to require blasting to facilitate removal. The specific pattern and intensity of blasting should be left up to the contractor. If blasting is performed we recommend vibration monitoring of any nearby structures be performed. We also recommend pre - blasting condition surveys be performed for these structures to document the pre- existing condition. We anticipate the weathered and soft limestone layers can be removed with conventional equipment; however, the depth of the soft limestone may cause some difficulty during excavation. Encountered Soil Evaluation Structural Fill Based on our visual classifications and experience, it is our opinion a majority of the soils between the ground surface and 8 feet below the ground surface are suitable for use as structural fill. MACTEC typically recommends structural fill materials contain less than 12 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Generally, the sands and slightly silty sands appear to meet this requirement. If some near surface soils are found to contain more than 12 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, these soils can be used by blending these soils with the clean surficial sands and using proper moisture control and compaction techniques, to obtain specified field densities with standard vibratory equipment. Large rocks may occasionally be encountered in the surficial strata and will require crushing prior to use as structural fill. The amount of rock crushing should be determined 3 Section 32 March 4, 2003 MACTEC Project 6787 -03 -2020 during the excavation program. If large amounts of roots are encountered in any of the near surface soils, screening will be required, in order to remove the roots to produce suitable fill. As evidenced in the borings, possible structural sand fill material generally. extends to depths ranging from ground surface to about 8 feet below existing grade. There are some locations where silty/clayey soils were present within the upper 8 feet. Some of these overburden soils mixed with shell or crushed rock may also be suitable for use as roadway stabilized sub -base material. Additional laboratory testing would be necessary to verify the suitability of the soils for this purpose. This testing would consist of Limerock Bearing Ratio tests of bulk samples that could be obtained during excavation. Limestone Material The hard limestone formation at depths between about 4 to 31 feet below grade could potentially be utilized as crushed limerock roadway base material. Additional laboratory testing should be performed on bulk samples to verify the suitability of the limestone for this purpose. This testing should include but not be limited to Limerock Bearing Ratio, gradation and percent carbonates. The soft and weathered limestone may be suitable for use as structural fill, after stockpiling so that the material can drain. However, depending on the silt and clay content, a sheepsfoot roller (not standard equipment for this locale) may be required to compact the material. In addition, screening or sorting may be required to produce material with a consistent gradation. Basis for Evaluations The evaluations provided are based in part on the project information provided to us and they only apply to the specific project and site discussed in this report. If the project information section in this report contains incorrect information or if additional information is available, you should convey the correct or additional information to us and retain us to review our recommendations. We can then modify our recommendations if they are inappropriate for the proposed project. Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions between borings will be different from those at specific test boring locations and that 4 J_ Section 32 March 4, 2003 MACTEC Project 6787 -03 -2020 conditions may not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process may itself alter soil conditions. Unanticipated conditions and inadequate procedures should be reported to the design team along with timely recommendations to solve the problems created. 7 We wish to remind you that our exploration services include storing the samples collected and making them available for inspection for 60 days. The samples are then discarded unless you request otherwise. Closing 7 a 7 If you have any questions regarding the recommendations of this report or if we can be of further service in providing the necessary testing to complete this project, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We look forward to serving as your geotechnical engineering consultant on the remainder of this project and on future projects. Sincerely, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc., f/k/a Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. Senior Engineer Florida Registration 54834 JCT /DFM:cjb /6787 -03 -2020 Appendix: Site Location Plan Boring Location Plan Key to Classification and Symbols Test Boring Records Information About Your Geotechnical Report 5 Jo Tucker, P.E. Principal Engineer Florida Registration 46950 a 7 7 l 7 l im APPENDIX SITE LOCATION PLAN BORING LOCATION PLAN KEY TO CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS TEST BORING RECORDS INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT I(REFERENCE: DELORME STREET ATLAS SECTION 32 NAPLES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LAW PROJECT NUMBER: 6787 -03 -2020 'LE s WASTER -SITE �� LAW RESOURCES CREATING SOLUTIONS LAW ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 3627 PROGRESS AVENUE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 TEL: (941) 543.4747 U FAX: (941) 643 -1750 FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION PLAN DRAWN BY: N.A.B. DATE: 2/26/03 CHECKED BY:riYt SCALE: N.T.S CV nn 77 0 f• L O l` I 7 Z (n lXl O F O U a O O � b o m O J o © F O Q u V) a � O U O In _ O N CL 0— cr U ° X O W < r a r� --------------- --- ----------- --- -- ---� � � I L 1 I 1 � .o a i I o U N M p 1 V c L. Y O _ J a r cb n a Z V h V L 3 N I 1 P W C O O S 0 O 1: U � D W y O W � a 7 7 Undisturbed Sample Split -Spoon Sample Time Rate of Drilling FINE SAND SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND SILTY FINE SAND VERY SILTY FINE SAND _ Water Table 24 HR. SZ Water Table at Time of Drilling Loss of Drilling Fluid MC: Natural Moisture Content CORRELATION OF PENETRATION RESISTAiNCE Organic Content LL: Liquid Limit WITH RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY P -200: Fines Passing No. 200 Sieve N0, OF BLOWS, N RELATIVE DENSITY PARTICAL SIZE IDENTIFICATION 0-4 Very Loose BOULDERS: Greater than 300 mm 5 -l0 Loose SANDS: 1 1. '-20 Firm COBBLES: 75 mm to 300 mm 21 -30 Very Firm GRAVEL: Coarse - 19.0 mm to 75 mm J 31 -50 Dense Fine - 4.75 mm to 19.0 mm OVER 50 Very Dense SANDS: Coarse — 2.00 tnm to 4.75 mm CONSISTENCY Medium - 0.425 mm to 2.00 inm Fine - 0.075 mm to 0.425 mm 0 -2 Very Soft 3-4 Soft SILTS & CLAYS: Less than 0.075 mm SILTS 5 -8 Firm & 9 -15 Stiff CLAYS: 16 -30 Very Stiff Approx. Fines Content MODIFIERS 31 -50 Hard OVER 50 Very Hard ' 5% to 12% Slightly silty or slightly clayey HARDNESS 12% to 30% Silty or 0 -19 Very Soft - 30% to 50% clayey Very silty or LIMESTONE 20-49 Soft very clayey 50 -100 Medium Hard 50 FOR 2 " -5" Moderately Hard 50 FOR 0 " -2" Hard DEFINITIONS AND KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS 7 7 Undisturbed Sample Split -Spoon Sample Time Rate of Drilling FINE SAND SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND SILTY FINE SAND VERY SILTY FINE SAND _ Water Table 24 HR. SZ Water Table at Time of Drilling Loss of Drilling Fluid MC: Natural Moisture Content OC: Organic Content LL: Liquid Limit PL: Plastic Limit P -200: Fines Passing No. 200 Sieve WOH: Weight of Drilling Hammer KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SILT SAND WITH LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL FINE SAND WITH SHELL -rr- SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND. WEATHERED LIMESTONE CLAYEY FINE SAND SOFT TO VERY SOFT LIMESTONE VERY CLAYEY FINS SAND MEDIUM TO MODERATELY HARD LIMESTONE SANDY CLAY HARD LIMESTONE SILTY CLAY FINE SAND WITH ROOTS CLAY PEAT DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test AITM D -1586 HOLE DIA. 3 inches REMARKS: 10 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTER-FACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. rn 111CC1.I Q DATA AAA V DQ r.D AT')l TAT %MACTEC D SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES PL,��) NM LL E P AND REMARKS E L - N-COUNT G E D T A FINES ( %) T H SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF E N v N E Y P to t' t' -2 • SPT (bpf) (1`) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. D (n) E 3! � 0 0 T 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 VERY LOOSE tan to brown f fine SAND (SP) SPT-I 1-1-2 (N = 3) SPT-2 2-2-1 (N = 3) 5 5 SPT-3 2-50/5" MODERATELY HARD to HARD LIMESTONE NE Time "'ac Time Rate of Drilling: 5-6::3-50 5-" 3 '0 SPT-4 - 7, 00 6-7 :1:00 7'2 7-8': 1:29 -8 9 1 1 1 r 8-9': 0:48 100% mud loss @ 9' 8-9. 0 48 100 - SPT-5 10 9-10': 0:28 9 10, 0 28 -10 10 10- 1 V: 0:07 I r 007 FIRM SAND, FIRM gray SAND, SHELL and LIMESTONE (WEATHERED LIMESTONE) - SPT-6 8 -3-8 15 -15 (N I I VERY LOOSE gray silty SAND with shell and limestone fragments (SM) SPT-7 1-2-1 20 -20 (N 3) 20 3-2-2 25 -25 (N = 4) 25 VERY LOOSE gray sandy SILT with shell (ML) sp-r-9 2-2.2 30 BORING TERMINATED -30 (N = 4) 30 35 -35 135 40 — 40 40 45 45 45 O O 50 — -50 1 50 55 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -55 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test AITM D -1586 HOLE DIA. 3 inches REMARKS: 10 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTER-FACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. rn 111CC1.I Q DATA AAA V DQ r.D AT')l TAT %MACTEC D E P T H (fi; 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 3 45 L 'J 'J J 50 0 t r 55 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. E G N D E V (ft) SAMPLES PL ( %) NM ( %) LL ( %) e ♦ FINES ( %) •SPT (bp() 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I D E T T P E N -COUNT ° ° ^ REMARKS: 10 feet of NW casing used 0 VERY LOOSE gray to brown fine SAND some roots (SP)' SPT -I 1 -2 -2 (N =4) SPT -2 4 -1 -4 5 SPT -3 (N =5) 6 -50 /0" _ LOOSE brown silty fine SAND with limestone (SM) MEDIUM HARD to MODERATELY HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: SPT-4 50 10" 5to6' =2:35 6 to T = 3:35 100% mud loss @ 6' 7to8' =0:58 8 to 9' = 0:06 9to10' =0:06 10 SPT -5 (N =49) (N = 49) 10 LOOSE to VERY LOOSE gray silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) -15 SPT -6 6-2 -4 (N =6) 15 -20 SPT -7 X 4 -3 -2 (N = 5) �0 -25 SPT -8 X 4 -2 -2 (N = 4) 25 -30 SPT -9 5 -2 -3 (N = 5) 30 SPT -10 3 -2 -2 -35 (N = 4) 35 -40 SPT -11 x 3 -2 -1 (N = 3) 40 FIRM gray silty SAND with limestone (Very Soft Limestone) 45 SPT -12 4 -9 -10 45 (N = 19) SPT -13 9 -8 -7 -50 (N = 15) 50 BORING TERMINATED DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT CME -55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD. Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA. 3 inches REMARKS: 10 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. rn ..rnrrrn�tc f. C'i` \IICL-AI CTV AT kAA V GF (:R Ar)11A1 V to [u )u gu w ov iv ov Yu ivv b ii9 tit rr�a1 i8T.16�'N tr'p r q © (ay., IF- BORING NO.: B -2 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 11, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE 1 OF 1 l l i J 7 "" "" 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D-1586 HOLE DIA.: 3 inches REMARKS 10 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. -_ ......- .- ..,r- r-- .nrn— A l i AV DO f D A fV 1 Al BORING NO.: B -3 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 12, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE 1 OF I %MACTEC i i i i i i D P AND H (fl) SOIL CLASSIFICATION REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. L G N D E E V (ft) SAMPLES PL ( %) NM ( %) LL ( %) ♦FINES ( %) •SPT (bpf) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 D E T T P E N- COUNT o is ^ 10 feet of NW casing used 0 0 VERY LOOSE brown fine SAND (SP) 3Pi_1 1.2.2 (N =4) SPT -2 2 -3 -5 LOOSE brown fine SAND some organics (SP) (N ° 8) 5 .5 SPT -3 18 -8 -6 (N = 14) FIRM dark brown silty fine SAND some organics (SM) HARD LIMESTONE SPT -4 50/0" Drilling Time: 5to6' =2:15 10 7' =2:15 ' = 0:38 A8�j,.9' = 2:21 100% mud loss 9' -10 SPT -5 1 -1 -5 (N = 6) 10 LOOSE tan LIMESTONE fragments (Very Soft Limestone) FIRM to LOOSE gray silty SAND with limestone (Very Soft IS Limestone) -15 SPT -6 11 -10 -6 (N = 16) IS 70 -20 SPT -7 5-4 -3 (N = 7) 0 LOOSE gray silty SAND with limestone (Weathered 15 Limestone) -25 SPT -8 2-4-2 (N = 6) 'S 30 -30 SPT -9 5 -3 -3 (N = 6) 3C MIN BORING TERATED 35 -35 3� 40 -40 40 45 115 145 50 50 50 :c -55 n in 1n 1n en cn fn 7n Rn Qn 100 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.: 3 inches REMARKS: 10 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER- INTER-FACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. — . QP'rWFFN CTRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. BORING NO.: B -4 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 11, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE 1 OF JMACTEC (ft N E 0 to 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 z 50 O O 55 SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES PL NM LL (%) 0 G E N-COUNT 0 AND REMARKS T G E D ♦ FINES ( %) E V E Y H SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. N D (ft) CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) • SPT (bpo 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 T P 3 inches VERY LOOSE gray fine SAND some roots (SP) 15 feet of NW casing used 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 - -30 -35 40 45 -50 S PT- 1 SPT-2 SPT-3 SPT-4 SPT-5 SPT-6 SPT-7 SPT-8 SPT-9 x 1-1-1 (N = 2) 1-2-3 2-3-5 (N =8) 2- (N = 6-40 46) 5010" 16-10-5 (N = 15) (N 10-8j6 5-4-4 (N = 8) 3-1-2 (N = 3) - 5 10 15 20 15 30 35 40 4, 50 LOOSE brown fine SAND (SP) LOOSE brown silry fine SAND with roots and rock (SM) HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: 9 to 10' =0:41 10 to 1 1'=0:50 I I to 12'= 0:30 12 to 13'= 0:20 100% mud loss @ 13' 13 to 14' =0:15 FT= 9 FIRM to LOOSE gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Very Soft Limestone) LOOSE to VERY LOOSE tan silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) U, BORING TERMINATED DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.: 3 inches REMARKS: 15 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. V IV iu JU 14V )v ov IV 6V vV 1VV sr- BORING NO.: B-7 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 13, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787-03-2020 PAGE I OF I rMACTEC f E F l E (f C 5 I( I` 20 25 30 35 0 40 J J 3 45 z 50 55 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. L E G E N D E L E V (fl) 0 SAMPLES PL ( %) NM ( %) LL ( %) ♦ FINES ( %) • SPT (bpo 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 1 D E T T Y P E N -COUNT U O o u VERY LOOSE brown fine SAND (SP) 15 feet of NW casing used SPT -1 1 -1 -2 (N = 3) SPT -2 2 -2 -3 -5 SPT -3 (N = 5) 3 -3 -2 5 LOOSE brown slightly silty fine SAND some shell (SP -SM) - (N =5) SPT -4 OI-U6 " -8 -5014 HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: -10 SPT -5 5010" 10 8 to 9' = 0:30 9 to 10' = 2:10 10 to I 1'= 1:30 II to 12'= 1:15 12 to 13' = 0:38 100% mud loss @13' NR-6 WOR/6 " -O -I 13t 14'= 0:2 -15 (N =1) 15 No recovery. Probable VERY SOFT LIMESTONE FIRM gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Very Soft Limestone) SPT -7 9 -7 -10 -20 (N = 17) 20 SPT -8 5 -6-6 -25 (N = 12) 25 LOOSE tan silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) SPT -9 4 -2 -3 -30 (N = 5) 30 BORING TERMINATED -35 35 -40 40 -45 45 -50 50 _ _cc DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.: 3 inches REMARKS: 15 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TO AUCtTtnUC FtFTWFFN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. !+ ) ter' _: yy nryc /" o to ?aT - '--��. 4tMACTEC 8 to 91 =2:02 9 to 10' = 3:30 '0'0 I to ': = OI.: " �2 = 06 100% mud loss @12' 15 2 to 13' = 0: 06 13 to 14'= 0:06 FIRM to VERY FIRM gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Very Soft to Soft Limestone) 20 100% mud loss @20' LOOSE to VERY LOOSE can silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) 25 30 tan very 35 40 45 L(xist tan silty Limestone) z — 50 BORING TERM 55 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.. D SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES PLC/o) NM LL (%) E P AND REMARKS E G L E , FN-COUNT e D ♦ FINES ( %) E Y H SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N N P Z. 1 0 SPT(bpf) (fl) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. D (A) T E 11 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 VERY LOOSE to LOOSE tan fine SAND (SP) 91-50 SPT-I x 1-1-3 (N =4) S PT -2 x 4-4-3 (N = 7) VERY LOOSE brown silty fine SAND (SM) 5 -5 SPT-3 3-2-2 5 1 (N 4) VERY LOOSE brown silty fine SAND with shell (SM) SPT 4 (N 1) HARD LIMESTONE M SPT-5 5012" 10 Drilling Time: I I IO 8 to 91 =2:02 9 to 10' = 3:30 '0'0 I to ': = OI.: " �2 = 06 100% mud loss @12' 15 2 to 13' = 0: 06 13 to 14'= 0:06 FIRM to VERY FIRM gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Very Soft to Soft Limestone) 20 100% mud loss @20' LOOSE to VERY LOOSE can silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) 25 30 tan very 35 40 45 L(xist tan silty Limestone) z — 50 BORING TERM 55 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.. 3 inches REMARKS- 20 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE: TQ AMq1TT0Mq RFrWF.FNSTRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. SPT-6 1,� 12-9-13 [ I F 15 I I I I I J (N = 22) 1 --1—j — I I I I I I -55 r I I I I I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WSW BORING NO.: B-8 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 12, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787-03-2020 PAGE I OF I �MACTEC -25 -30 -35 40 45 SPT-8 SPT-9 SPT-10 SPT-I 1 SPT-12 SPT- 13 X N 3-2.2 (N = 4) 4-3-3 (N = 6) 3-1-2 (N = 3) 1-1-1 (N = 2) 2-1-2 (N = 3) 3-4- 2 (N = 6) 1 , -5 30 35 40 45 50 91-50 -55 r I I I I I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WSW BORING NO.: B-8 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 12, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787-03-2020 PAGE I OF I �MACTEC E P T H ( fl) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 _o 40 n :3 V 3 45 c 0 0 a Z 50 'l. SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. E G E N D � E V (ft) 0 SAMPLES PL ( °r °) NM ( °r °) LL ( %) Q�— o ♦ FINES ( %) •SPT (bpf) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 D N D T T Y P E N- COUNT 2 VERY LOOSE gray fine SAND some roots (SP) 15 feet of NW casing used SPT -1 (N =2) SPT -2 5 SPT•3 (N =2) 4 -3 -4 LOOSE brown fine SAND some roots (SP) gpfA (N =7) 2 -3 -4 LOOSE brown slightly clayey fine SAND (SP -SC) SPT -5 (N =7) 24- 50/3" HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: •10 10 9 to 10' =1:27 10 to 11' = 0:26 100% mud loss @ 10' I I to 12'= 0:06 12 to 13' =0:06 13 to 14' =0:06 -15 SPT -6 2 -3 -2 (It =S) 15 LOOSE tan silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) 20 SPT -7 3 -3 -3 (N = 6) '0 -25 SPT -8 X 7 -4 -4 (N = 8) 25 30 SPT -9 Z 3 -3 -2 (N = 5) 30 BORING TERMINATED -35 35 40 40 -45 a 5 -50 50 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto - Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE D1A.: 3 inches REMARKS: 15 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. V IV LV JV YV JV — 1v OV — — BORING NO.: B -9 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 13, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE I OF A MACTEC Sto9' =4:43 9 to 10' =1:01 I 0 to 11' = 1:08 I I to 12' = 0:21 100% mud loss @ 12' 12 to 13' =0:18 15 13 to 14' =0:21 DENSE gay silty SAND and LIMESTO I 00% mud loss fat IS' LOOSE to VERY LOOSE tan silty SAN] 20 (Weathered Limestone) 25 30 35 0 D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto-Hammer) 40 Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 D SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES PL0 %) N e( °r °) LLB( %) E AND REMARKS E I- I SPT -8 N couxr 7 -7 -5 P G E D T X ♦FINES ( %) T E V E Y H SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF N P o ° • SPT (bpf) (1`0 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. D (ft) T E 0 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 IUU LOOSE to FIRM gray to brown fine SAND (SP) SPT -1 1-2-3 (N =5) SPT -2 5 -7.5 (N = 12) 5 1:;,'•.',.;:•: -5 SPT -3 4-4 -4 IN = 8) HARD LIMESTONE SPT -4 1- 0 -50 11" Drilling Time: SPT -S 10 7 to 8' =1:15 -10 10 Sto9' =4:43 9 to 10' =1:01 I 0 to 11' = 1:08 I I to 12' = 0:21 100% mud loss @ 12' 12 to 13' =0:18 15 13 to 14' =0:21 DENSE gay silty SAND and LIMESTO I 00% mud loss fat IS' LOOSE to VERY LOOSE tan silty SAN] 20 (Weathered Limestone) 25 30 35 0 D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto-Hammer) 40 Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA 3 inches REMARKS: n 2 -3 -4 -20 v SPT -8 3 7 -7 -5 -25 45 (N = 12) c; 0 SP-r-9 X 0 -30 z 50 -35 x r 55 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA 3 inches REMARKS: 15 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. -40 45 -50 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 -551 II � I I I I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 �MA SPT -6 IN 15 -19.22 -I5 (N =41) SPT -7 2 -3 -4 -20 (N = 7) SPT -8 7 -7 -5 -25 (N = 12) SP-r-9 X 3 -1 -2 -30 (N = 3) -35 -40 45 -50 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 -551 II � I I I I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 �MA C E P T H (ft 0 5 10 IS 20 25 30 35 _o 40 0 V V 3 45 L t-i O N O z 50 `o r 55 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. E G N D L E V (ft) 0 SAMPLES PL ( %) NM ( %) LL ( %) v E ♦ FINES ( %) • SPT (bpO 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 p N T T E N -COUNT u 6 E VERY LOOSE brown fine SAND some roots (SP) 25 feet of NW casing used SPT 1 -1 -2 (N =3) SPT 5 -4 -6 (N = 10) -5 SPT 2- 50/5" 5 HARD LIMESTONE - Drilling Time: SPT 50 /5" 5to6' =1:09 6 to 7' = 0:25 SPT 15 -12 -12 7 to 8' =0:36 8 to 9' = 0:33 100% mud loss @ 9' -10 (N = 24) 10 llto12' =1:40 12 to 13' = 3:26 13 to 14' =1:02 14 to 15' = 0:47 100% mud loss @ 15' 15 to 16' = 0:1 1 16 to 17' = 0:06 -15 SPT 50/2" 15 17 to 18' = 0:06 18to19' =0:06 20 SPT 4 -2 -2 (N = 4) '0 - VERY LOOSE to LOOSE gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Very Soft Limestone) 100% mud loss @ 23' SPT 5 -5 -2 -25 (N = 7) 25 LOOSE to VERY LOOSE tan silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) SPT 6-4 -2 30 (N = 6) 30 SPT 5 -3 -2 (N =5) -35 35 SPT WOH/6 " -1 -1 40 (N = 2) 40 SPT WOH/6 " -I -I -45 (N = 2) 45 SPT WOH/6 " -3 -1 50 cc (N = 4) 50 BORING TERMINATED DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto - Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.. 3 inches REMARKS: 25 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. FNTERFACES BEW EEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. U IU LU )U 4U JU ou /U 8U YU IVU BORING NO.: B -1 I PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 20, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE 1 OF 1 AA MACTEC F (fl 0 5 IC 15 20 25 30 35 A — 40 45 so O O 55 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW, L E G E N D E L E V (ft) 0 SAMPLES —7 P NM LL T-0 I D E N T T Y P E N-CUUN I Z. �� A FINES ( /o) • SPT (bpo 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 VERY LOOSE brown fine SAND some roots (SP) -5 -10 -15 -20 25 -30 -35 -40 45 -50 SPT_I SPT-2 SPT-3 SPT4 SPT-5 SPT-6 SPT-7 SPT-8 SPT-9 SPT-10 SPT-1 1 SPT-12 X 1-1-1 (N - 2) 1-2-2 (N - 4) 4-4-9 (N = 13) 50/2" 50/3'. 25/0' 50/6" 6-54 (N = 9) 5-50/6' 7-1-2 (N = 3) 9-6-4 (N = 10) 0-3-3 (N = 6) 15 -'0 5 30 35 40 45 50 VERY LOOSE tan fine SAND (SP) FIRM brown silty fine SAND some roots (SM) T T,010 HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: 6 to 7' =1:02 100% mud loss @ 7' 7 �o 8: =1:02 8 09 = 0:23 9 to 10' =0:50 10 to I I' it to 12' = 0:06 2 to 13' = 0:20 : 3 to 14' =4:30 14 to 15' = 1:43 100% mud loss @ 14' 15 to 16` = 0:06 16 to IT = 1:29 17 to 19' = 1:30 19(a 19 = 1:31 20 to 2 P = L01 211027 = 0:09 22 to 23' =0-13 I0016 mud loss @ 22' 23 to 24' = 0:06 - - ------- < y silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Very Soft Limestone) LOOSE HARD LIMESTONE 100% rnud loss @ 31' LOOSE to VERY LOOSE tan silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) BORING TERMINATED DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA. 3 inches REMARKS- 25 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTER-FACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. v LU W qv )U ou N 6U vv ivu BORING NO.: B-12 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 18, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787-03-2020 PAGE I OF tMACTEC. D E P T H (r, 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 z — 50 L 55 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. L E G N D E L E (n) 0 SAMPLES PL NM (%) LL (%) 0 Q� A FINES(%) 0 SPT (bpf) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I D E N T Y P E . N-COUNT Z. t. 3� 12 VERY LOOSE brown fine SAND some roots (SP) -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 30 -35 -40 45 -50 SPT SPT SPT SPT SPT SPT SPT SPT SPT SPT X x X 1-1-1 (N=2) 2-1-2 3-4-3 25/0" 5011" 50/6' 5-19-15 (N = 34) 16-17-5 (N = 22) 3-3-3 CN = 6) 5.20-9 (N = 29) - 10 is 20 25 30 35 40 4 50 VERY LOOSE brown very silty fine SAND some roots (SM) HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: 6 �o 71 =2:34 7 o8' =1:10 8 �o 9' =0:30 9 o 10' = 2:18 10 to I I' =0:25 i I to 12' =0:15 : 2 to � 3: = 0:10 3 0 4 = ::20 14 to 15 . = : 0 I 5 to 16' = 0: 14 6 to 17' = 0: 10 5 19 3 10 0 18 to 4 DENSE to VERY I" gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Soft Limestone) Drilling Time: 21 to 22' = 0:54 22 to 23' =0:51 23 to 24' = 0:27 100% mud loss @ 27' LOOSE tan silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) VERY FIRM gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Soft Limestone) BORING TERMINATED DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME-55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D-1586 HOLE DIA.i 3 inches REMARKS: THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLEINTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS RFTWFEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. U 10 2U JU 40 5U 6U ]U 8U YU WU BORING NO.: B -13 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 19, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787-03-2020 PAGE I OF 4 A M11% 1 35 40 0 3 45 :J 0 0 z 50 s l 55 DRILLER: SOIL CLASSIFICATION L E SAMPLES 10 to I I' = 1:20 HOLE DIA. PL ( °r °) NM ( °ro) LL ( %) P AND REMARKS G E 13 to 14' = 0:46 I FIRM gray silty SAND and LIP N -COUNT T Drilling Time: D T �0 FINES ( %) H SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF E N V E P o ° o •SPT (bpf) (ft) SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. D (tl) T E jyj u - 0 0 30 27 to 28° =0:20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 VERY LOOSE gray fine SAND some roots (SP) VERY FIRM to FIRM gray silty, (N =22) (Soft L imestone) 35 SPT -Il 12 -16-11 SPT -40 (N = 27) 40 SPT -12 8 -7 -5 LOOSE brown fine SAND (SP) SPT -2 2 -2 -3 (N = 12) 45 SPT -13 7 -8 -9 (N - 5) -50 LOOSE brown clayey fine SAND (SC) _ 5 - -5 SPT -3 2 -2 -3 (N - 5) 50 -55 5 HARD LIMESTONE SPTA 50/1" Drilling Time: 6 to 7' =1:20 SPT -5 10 7to8' =1:01 -10 10 35 40 0 3 45 :J 0 0 z 50 s l 55 DRILLER: 8 to 9' = 0:54 EQUIPMENT: 9 t 10' =0:19 METHOD: 10 to I I' = 1:20 HOLE DIA. I 1 to 12' = 2:38 REMARKS: 12 to 13' =1:27 15 13 to 14' = 0:46 FIRM gray silty SAND and LIP -30 HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: 16 to IT =3:00 �0 17 to 18' = 1:08 18 to 19' = 0:48 DENSE gray silty SAND and L 30 HARD LIMESTONE s 8 -9 -13 Drilling Time: 24 to 25 = 1:29 25 to 26' =0:19 26 to 27' =0.19 30 27 to 28° =0:20 8 to 29` = 0.06 VERY FIRM to FIRM gray silty, (N =22) (Soft L imestone) 35 40 0 3 45 :J 0 0 z 50 s l 55 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto - Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA. 3 inches REMARKS: 10 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. SPT -6 II -7 -11 -15 (N = 18) 15 SPT -7 M (N 2 35) 20 -20 r' ;�°°�€)adl, �31�ufyl . ?.§° �3�q3�� );sh��i��,r�•`- fi�B�,`t���t�^b i'i'i SPT -9 8 -6-7 -30 (N = 13) 30 SPT -10 8 -9 -13 -35 (N =22) 35 SPT -Il 12 -16-11 -40 (N = 27) 40 SPT -12 8 -7 -5 45 (N = 12) 45 SPT -13 7 -8 -9 -50 (N = 17) 50 -55 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 r' ;�°°�€)adl, �31�ufyl . ?.§° �3�q3�� );sh��i��,r�•`- fi�B�,`t���t�^b i'i'i 15 70 25 36 35 8 40 U V 3 45 u 0 a :7 z 50 s 55 I i) SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. L E G N D E L E V (ft) SAMPLES PL (^ /o) NM (era) LL ( %) -'� ♦ FINES ( /o) • SPT (bpf) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I D E T T P E N- co13Nr t. ^ I VERY LOOSE clayey SAND with limestone fragments SC 0 -5 -10 -IS -20 25 -30 -35 -40 45 -50 _SC SPT -1 SPT -2 SPT -3 SPT -4 SPT -5 SPT -6 SPT -7 SPT -8 SPT -9 SPT -10 SPT -11 SPT -12 SPT -13 LL 1 -1 -2 (N = 3) 2 -2 -3 (N — 5) 1 -12 -10 (N =22) 15 -10 -14 (N = 24) 50/6" 25 -25 -50/1' 13 -10- 50/1" 5011" 45 -35 -11 (N = 46) 8 -13 -36 (N = 49) 5 -3 -5 (N = 8) 7 -5 -6 (N = 1 1) 7 -5-6 (N = 1 1) 5 10 IS 20 �5 30 35 40 45 50 LOOSE gray clayey SAND (SC) VERY FIRM clayey SAND and LIMESTONE (Soft Limestone) 1 — HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: 9to10' =1:12 10 to IF =0:38 1 I to 12' = 0:06 100% mud loss @ 12' 12 to 13' = 0:06 13 to 14' = 0:10 15 to 16' = 1:09 16 to IT = :21 17 to 18' =0:38 18 to 19' = 0:34 20 to21' = 3:14 21 to 22' = 2:30 22 to-23' = 2:01 100% mud loss @ 23' 23 to 24' = 0:20 24 to 25' = 0:33 25 to 26' = 0:41 26 to 27' = 0:21 27 to 28' = 0:07 28 to 29' =0:13 DENSE gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Soft Limestone) 100% mud loss @ 32' LOOSE to FIRM gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Very Soft Limestone) BORING TERMINATED DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto- Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.. 3 inches REMARKS: 35 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. U IU 2U 3U 4U )U bU /U dU YU IUU BORING NO.: B -15 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 19, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE I OF 1 4 A rM A 1AVCTEC 21 2' 3G 35 2�40 3 45 0 z 50 0 s 55 REMARKS P r i) SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. L G E N D E E V (ft) 0 SAMPLES PL ( %) NM ( %) LL ♦ FINES ( %) • SPT (bpO 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ID E T T Y P E N o ° E 30 feet of NW casing used VERY LOOSE to LOOSE tan fine SAND some roots (SP) 5 -10 15 -20 -25 -30 -35 SPT 40 -45 SPIT-12 SPT 50 SPT -I SPT -2 SPT -3 SPT4 SPT -5 SPT -6 SPT -7 SPT -8 SPT -9 SPT -10 -I 1 -13 X 1 -2 -4 (N =6) 5 -4 -4 (N =8) 2 -1 -1 — 2) 1 -1 -1 (N1 2) 2 -1 -1 (N ° 2) 25/0" 12- 50/4" 50 15" 9 -6 -20 (N = 26) 50/6" 10 -8 -14 (N = 22) 5-4-9 (N = ) 8 -7 -6 (N = 13) 5 110 15 '0 '5 - 30 35 40 45 50 VERY LOOSE tan silty fine SAND (SM) HARD LIMESTONE Drilling Time: 12 to 13' = 2 :40 100% mud loss @ 12' 13 to 14' =2:21 14 to 15' = 2:10 15 to 16' = 0:27 16 to 17' = 0:08 17 to 18' = 0:09 l8 to 19' = 0:10 20 to 21' =4:30 21 to 22' = 0:37 22 to-23' = 3:02 100% mud loss @ 22' 23 to 24' = 1:42 25 to 26' = 2:20 26 to 2r = 1:33 27 to 28' = 1:30 1001/. mud loss @ 27' 28 to 29' = 1:30 1 VERY FIRM to DENSE gray silty SAND and LIMESTONE (Medium Hard to Soft Limestone) LOOSE to FIRM tan silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) 1001/6 mud loss @ 32' BORING TERMINATED DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME- 55 (Auto-Hammer) METHOD: Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.: 3 inches REMARKS: 30 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. U IU 2U 3U 4U SU 6U /U KU 9U IUU BORING NO.: B -16 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 18, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE 1 OF I D E P T H (fl) SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND REMARKS SEE KEY SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED BELOW. L O E N D E E V (n) 0 SAMPLES Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 PL ( %) NM ( °r °) LL ( °o) ♦FINES ( %) • SPT (bpQ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 D E N T T p E N- CO 11Ni �a E 0 s 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 i i 45 i - - 50 .2 VERY LOOSE gray fine SAND trace organics (SP) -5 10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 40 45 .50 55 SPT -1 SPT -2 SPT -3 3PT -4 SPT -5 SPT -6 SPT -7 SPT -8 SPT -9 SPT -10 SPIT-11 SPT -12 SPT -13 1 -1 -2 (N =3) 2 -4 -4 (N =8) 1/24" 1 -33- 50/2" 25/0" 16 -11 -42 (N = 53) 12 -42 -15 (N = 57) 12 -12 -44 (N = 56) 6-5 -5 (N=10) 5 -7 -9 (N = 16) 5 -6-5 (N = 1 1) 7 -4 -5 (N = 9) 10 15 3( 3. LOOSE to VERY LOOSE tan fine SAND (SP) _ VERY LOOSE brown sli htl sil fine SAND (SP)-------,- HARD LIMESTONE Time Rate of Drilling: 9.10' :1:26 10 -11' : 0:40 1 1 -12' :0:09 12-13': 3:10 13-14': 3:04 14 -15' : 3:40 I S -16' : 228 100% mud loss @ 16' 16 -17 : 1:10 17-18': 0:21 MEDIUM HARD LIMESTONE Time Rate of Drilling: 20-21': 1:20 100% mud loss @ 21' 21-22-1A0 22- 23':1:10 26-2T: 0:38 27 -28' : 0:17 28 -29' : 0:20 LOOSE to FIRM gray silty SAND with limestone (Weathered Limestone) 4( a 5 BORING TERMINATED 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DRILLER: D.T. EQUIPMENT: CME -55 (Auto-Hamrner) METHOD Standard Penetration Test ASTM D -1586 HOLE DIA.: 3 inches REMARKS: 25 feet of NW casing used THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL. ,. c1 BORING NO.: B -17 PROJECT: SECTION 32 SITE LOCATION: NAPLES, FLORIDA DRILLED: February 17, 2003 PROJECT NO.: 6787 -03 -2020 PAGE 1 01 rMACTEC As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. ASFE /The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences offers the following suggestions and observations to help you manage your risks. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS Your geotechnical engineering report is based' on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project - specific factors. These factors typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; other improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, and the additional risk created by scope -of- service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate how factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may effect the report's recommendations. Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, do not use your geotechnical engineering report: • when the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one. • when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed structure is altered. • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified. • when there is a change of ownership; or for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors considered in their report's development have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with your geotechnical consultant to learn if additional tests may be required when subsurface conditions are affected by construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground water fluctuations. Keep your geotechnical consultant appraised of any such event. MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your geotechnical engineer to observe construction can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS CAN ONLY BE PRELIMINARY The construction recommendations included in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork, you should retain your geotechnical engineer to observe actual conditions and to finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally conterripla'ted without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT AT ISSUE Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site. The equipment, techniques;. and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmerital exploration,differ° substantially from those applied in geotechnical engineering. Contamination can create major risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site being contaminated, you are advised to speak with your geotechnical consultant for information relating to geoenvironmental issues. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid misinterpretation, retain your geotechnical engineer to work with other project design professionals' who are affected by the geotechnical report. Have your geotechnical engineer explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and then review those design professionals' plans and specifications to see how they have incorporated geotechnical factors. Although certain other design professionals may be familiar with geotechnical concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent geotechnical engineer. BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT Geotechnical engineers develop final boring logs based upon their interpretation of the field logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Geotechnical engineers customarily include only final boring logs in their reports. Final boring logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are the all -to- frequent result. To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared. or authorized for their use. (If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not. onaof the specific persons for whom the report was prepared and that developing construction cost estimates wad hot one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. In other words; while a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor would be well - advised to discuss the report with your geotechnical engineer and to perform the additional or alternative work that the contractor believes may be needed to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes.) Some clients believe that it is unwise or unnecessary to give contractors access to their geotechnical engineering reports because they hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems. It also helps reduce the adversarial attitudes that can aggravate problems to disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgement and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical engineers: To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. Responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer geotechnical engineers liabilities to other parties. Instead they are definitive clauses that identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end. Their.use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report. Read them closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to any questions. RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Most ASFE- member consulting geotechnical engineering firms are familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Speak with your geotechnical engineer not only about geotechnical issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. You may also wish to obtain certain ASFE publications. Contact a member of ASFE for a complimentary directory of ASFE publications. F THE ASSOCIATION EPRAOCENTICING ER 1 IN HEI EOSC IENCES 8811 COLESVILLE ROAD /SUITE G106 /SILVER SPRING, MD 209I0 TELPHONE: 301/565 -2733 FACSIMILE: 301/589 -2017 Copyright 1992 by ASFE. Inc. Unless ASFE grants specific permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressy pronibitea Re -use of the wording in this document, in whole or In part, also Is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE of for purposes of review or scholarly research. BCPCO592A /3.5M EXHIBIT D The Need for Rock Mines in Collier County Collier County uses three million tons of lime rock and stone annually. With the population expectations this need will be over five million tons per year by 2010. Due to the moratorium and the extreme inflation of land cost, Collier County mining industry has fallen behind in it's permitting of reserves. Collier County has some very good rock reserves but most of these reserves can not be permitted due to comprehensive plan changes. The areas that have rock in the rural fringe receiving area that can be permitted will escalate in cost to a point that it is no longer economical to mine. The other problem will be the encroachment of population on these areas. Quarries and population do not mix well, trucking and blasting if at all possible should be separated from residential populations. What is needed for the long term needs of the county, are reserves in an area that is isolated from development. This was the historical mining trend until the rewrite of the comp plan. Current permitted and possible reserves Willow Run 2.5 million tons out in 2006 APAC extension 3.3 million tons East Naples Land Co 29 million tons Chiofi Sec 20, 5 million tons (most likely will not be mined) Total 39.8 million tons Less than 10 years if mined to maximum extent. Collier County mines are a tremendous economic benefit to Collier County. Each ton of stone will cost $6.50 in labor to produce and truck. Each ton will contribute $.047 local fuel tax to pay for roads. Each ton contributes $.16 sales tax. And the big one Collier County saves $2.00 in trucking cost for each ton bought locally. The stone could be shipped in from out of county but the fuel to truck will most likely be purchased out of county, the jobs would be out of county and there wouldn't be any sales tax. At the same time the county will experience even more truck traffic and road cost. HHH Excavation Permit The HHH ranch excavation permit will produce 30 million ton of stone, $195 million wages $1,400,000 local fuel tax, $4,800,000 local sales tax and save the county $60 million in trucking cost. HHH is outside of the development areas thereby affecting very few people with dust, blasting, noise etc. Trucking is along side the interstate so no one can logically complain about the truck traffic as it passes the landfill and industrial parks. The HHH Ranch mine can also provide a needed road connection between Collier Blvd I- 75 and the northern Golden Gate Estate population. The mine with 30 million tons of rock will help to meet the growing needs of Collier County. The quarry will add $360 million to Colliers economy, half of the sales price is wages. Many of the jobs are medium level income such as heavy equipment operators and truck owners typical of the Estates population. Collier is running out of rock quickly, soon the construction industry and government will need to ship stone in from other counties, exporting $195 million in jobs. Loosing $6.2 million in tax revenue and increasing it's infrastructure cost by $60 million. The environmental concerns have been addressed and the mining of this property is the best passible way to save the endangered RCWs in this area. Collier County has over it's years had rock quarries in areas with sensitive environments. Recent tracking of the Florida panther shows that quarries attract Panthers. The lakes enhance the habitat and the higher quality supports more prey such that it negates the loss of land. Higher quality habitat reduces the range of the panther and will act to increase the population. The same affect also happens with Bald Eagles. The RCW colonies in Belle Meade are doomed to extinction if they are left to live on their own. The hydrologic changes to the area from Alligator Alley the estate drainage canales and farming has brought about an epidemic of exotic and invasive plant life. Mallaluccas and Brazilian Peppers are taking over the area cluttering the mid story foraging area of the woodpeckers. Forest fires are a necessity for healthy pine forests, but we have suppressed fires for decades. Lack of forest fires for years has allowed vines cabbage palms and shrubs to endanger nest sites. Now with an overgrown fuel base wildfires will kill off the pine forest with a fire so intense that all the trees will be killed except the mallaluccas which will take over and turn this area into a monoculture barren of most wildlife. For this area to maintain its RCW colonies, human intervention is needed control burns, nest restrictors and artificial nests are needed. A major wildlife plan will need a funding source. Current TDR incentives will cause abandonment of the area and hasten the demise of the habitat. The ability to mine makes it economical to fund a wildlife management plan and the lakes will enhance the habitat making it more viable. EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F DEC -03 -2003 10:53AM FROM- T -423 P 003 F -624 ...- --- ..r.- -. -���ia 7'TLSiV107» � N_02 COPY oF sY tCOLOGICA L 9&NALYSTS Environmental Evaluation and Advocacy 25 November 2003 Mr. Milton S." Butch" Kent Winchester Lakes Inc 1910 Seward Avenue Naples, FL 34101 RE: H &H Wetland Progress Overview Bear Mr. Kent: 'Phis correspondence transmits Synecological Analysts Inc.'s summary observations of the ongoing evaluation of wetland ecology on the H & H Parcel. As we have discussed in the past, the primary area of emphasis is the wetland status of the plant communities, Based on my field work to this point, it appears likely that the Hoover estimate of approximately 850 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on this 950 acre parcel can be significantly reduced. As we have discussed, vegetation, edaphic factors and hydrology are the criterion used to designate jurisdictional wetlands. The original estimate of site wetlands was based on a cursory review of these specific site conditions. A more In -depth review of these community components reveal that all these factors have been affected by historic development of land to the north and west of this area. Edaphic (soil) factors have not changed at the series level, but certainly have a different hydrologic regime than when they evolved and when they were classified. If re- mapped at the current time, they would be identified as the same species as listed In the soil survey, so they would still be considered hydric. The vegetation has been altered by interruption of surface water flow that historically inundated the site. This is reflected by dead cypress boles that litter much of the area and invasion of more mesic species such as cabbage palm that are rapidly Increasing. One easily observable manifestation of the site becoming more xeric is the grape (a more xeric species) growing to the top of many cypress. Suite 200 2169 Morning Sun Lane, Naples, FL 34119 239.514 -3998 Fax: 514 -0855 hrnwn#M&vnor-nl IIII DEC -03 -2003 10 :54AM FROM- T -423 P 004 F -624 Based on the more xeric Indicators the vegetation exhibits, we are establishing a series of shallow monitoring wells to document site hydrology. My best guess is that much of the approximately 650 acres originally suggested as wetlands will not meet wetland hydrologic criteria. Simply stated, an area must be inundated for seven consecutive days during the growing season or have the water table wlthing 12 Inches of the soil surface for 14 consecutive days during the growing season to be considered wetlands from a hydrologic perspective, I would welcome the opportunity to do another site visit at your convenience. Your confidence in The firm is appreciated. Thank you. Vkn:olllns ou , B EXHIBIT G -I IT j ' $64 L 01 Figure I 7�. ID LO ,W, SOUTH At ;PARK 14 13 is .15. 7 13 az. 22 24= 19 20 21— 22 =2. Z� 27 26 21— 7 26 25 7 z -31 3-5 S HENDEk"30M CAEE K" 4 mile MW Vol- i-C Ma LIR --- --- W�k --- ------ 01 M --- ----- - - - - -- -- ---------- a-------- i `E, la, ------ --- ------- L 01 Figure I 7�. ID LO ,W, SOUTH At ;PARK 14 13 is .15. 7 13 az. 22 24= 19 20 21— 22 =2. Z� 27 26 21— 7 26 25 7 z -31 3-5 S HENDEk"30M CAEE K" 4 mile FLu=u Cab Deevb6n 1 . ]21 PeMwM tlt Piro Fl.lxppb tt1N1A Pbu Fhewtl. xtM Gbbpe PeW 128 1]v1u CaEbpe Peen 1.)] o..tl Pt.. wen G66ew P.W u.0 Pop W6bv sldpn taw Nyhk eleW.�u m 621 Cypnn 11392 621212 CypnealllnbnproveE PeWn 98.91 ¢1R12H 62tM12 CyprnslMyNitl U6impraretl Peame 1.90 B�cw.a Pepe «4v.eetl Lypeo l+w X1 BV129 cyp.n ve6 Gmepe Pees 6K PlteCypneeLaMww PeW 3050) 82{518 McWeuv lmWetl Plne- CyprnaGWeOe PMm 1]35 911 Fne6+M«M.n6 tr w. IFer�a urea) 190 )tw Hya9cfwmwtlLenm fPw Lere/ 6.w eeD.l] Slb TaW EX0- M— 1- EB :Oam Et =6 -24% 0 E] e60 -)IX E{ e76•tfIOY Figure 2. HHH Ranch FLUCCS with locations of RCW cavities and -pine -basal plots. EXHIBIT H COPY RED - COCKADED WOODPECKER HABITAT MANGEMENT PLAN Prepared By: Maureen Bonness & DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. Environmental Management & Design, Inc. Prepared For: THE HHH RANCH NAPLES, FLORIDA Submitted To: Collier County November 25, 2003 HHH RCW Management 2 Introduction In response to requirements for protection of endangered species such as the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW) the following Habitat Management Plan was developed for the HHH Ranch Property and the propo :;ed limerock mining activities. The study focused on detailed evaluations of RCW3 and the habitats used on the property. These studies provide baseline data on cavity tree location, cavity tree and cluster site status, population estimates, and a habitat quality analysis. From these studies management recommendations were developed which will aid in the protection and recovery of RCWs in the area. Fire has been excluded from much of the area for the past twenty years or so resulting in sub - optimal habitat for RCWs. Patches of old growth pine, however, occur throughout the area including the HHH Ranch and other forested areas in the region which still have conditions suitable for RCW occupation. The cluster sites on the HHH Ranch occur primarily on mesic flatwoods sites. The HHH Ranch is a 960 acre parcel located in north Belle Meade, Collier County on the north side of 1 -75 (Alligator Alley- Figure 1). A 353.5 -acre limerock mine that will result in two lakes is proposed for the property. Natural habitats of the property consist of palmetto prairie, pine flatwoods, cypress /pine mixed forest, cypress stands, and pop -ash sloughs. The property also contains areas impacted by humans including: cleared areas of cypress forest, disturbance by cattle grazing, alteration by fire suppression and damaging wildfires, and wetlands drainage (particularly by the 1 -75 canal). The property harbors several stands of old- growth slash pines (Pious elliottii var. densa) that are home to RCWs. The boundaries of the mining operation have been designed to avoid RCW clusters (the area containing roosting and nesting cavities), as well as preserve a habitat management area for RCW foraging and movement. This area also contains substantial old- growth pine (100 -230 years old) and may become suitable nesting habitat in the future. The pine forest on the HHH Ranch includes areas of hydric and mesic conditions, which promote different growth conditions for pines. One limiting factor on the survival of RCWs is lack of old- growth forests that are managed to preclude the development of substantial mid -story. The east Napl as population of RCWs has declined precipitously since the early 1990s from 25 =.0- 30 groups to approximately 10 -12 groups (Dryden 2003 and DeLotelle 2003 unpublished data). This population has increased by four breeding groups in the Picayune Strand State Forest as a result of bird translocation, artificial cavity installation, and increased habitat management and non - native species removal (DeLotelle unpublished data 2003). There are four factors contributing to the HHH RCW Management 3' decline of the east Naples population of RCWs: 1) loss of large old pine trees •:o logging, fire, and disease; 2) invasion of non - native plants in the mid -story; 3) lack of fire management (results in an increased mid -story in unburned areas send damaging wildfires that kill pine trees); and 4) an increasing density of sabal palm trees that crowd the mid -story and lead to severe fire damage and death of canopy and cavity pine trees. One key to RCW preservation and enhancement in the Belle Meade area is land management that includes removal of exotic species and proper fire management of the pine forest ecosystem. Even if the entire area was preserved from clearing, the survival of these endangered birds is doubtful without prope, habitat management and population expansion techniques. For example, melaleuca invasion and encroachment of young pine trees in the mid -story (due to fire suppression) is probably responsible for the loss of 10 or more RCW groups (the majority of the south Belle Meade population) in the 1990's along Sabal Palm Road in the area now preserved as the Picayune Strand State Forest (DeLotelle unpublished data 2003). HHH Red - cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan The goal of this RCW management plan is to ensure the long -term stability of -:he current RCW groups utilizing HHH Ranch, a degree of stability that is rare for RCW groups in the Belle Meade area. These groups are likely important for the reestablishment of RCWs on the northern portion of the Picayune Strand State Forest). The HHH Ranch currently contains an occupied RCW cluster along the easte-n border (Figure 2). In the summer of 2003, this group consisted of three birds (an adult male, an adult female, plus a juvenile male). All three of these RCWs have been banded. This cluster included seven cavities, of which five have evidence of recently being used by RCWs. The HHH Ranch also shares an active RCW group on its western border, with cavity trees on both sides of the property line. This group had three birds in the summer of 2003 (a pair of adults and a juvenile male). Cavities identified on HHH property include two inactive cavities, one of which is used by red - bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus). The three active cavities of this group are located on a parcel adjacent to the HHH Ranch. Based on the location of both clusters, we assume that about half of the foraging time is spent on the HHH Ranch. This is consistent with observations during evening roost and other observations that revealed RCWs foraging on adjacent HHH RCW Management 4 properties and the HHH Ranch. The HHH Ranch thus, accepts 50% responsibility for the nesting and foraging requirements of these two groups. The HHH management plan outlined below closely follows guidelines describE d in Recovery Plan for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): 2nd revision. 2003. US Fish & Wildlife Service, and further referred to in this report as the Recovery Plan. Also see DeLotelle et al (in press) for methods used in central and south Florida for cluster site management. In order to sustain RCI V groups in the area, HHH Ranch will manage 162.61 acres designated as the RCW Management Area which includes 1) stands containing the cavity clusters, 2) the central uplands that provide a connection between the two clusters, and 3) a corridor along the western property border near an occupied cluster of an ofl= site group to the northwest (Figure 2, Figure 3), \Within the RCW Management Area, foraging habitat will be maintained that strives to attain Recovery Plan guidelines which were developed for private landowners (Appendix 5 of the Recovery Plan): • a minimum of 4500 square feet pine basal area, including only pines >'O inches dbh • an average pine basal area of pines >10 inches dbh between 40 and 7) ft'/ac • an average pine basal area of less than 20 ft2 /ac for pines < 10 inches dbh • a midstory that is sparse and less than 7 ft in height • total stand basal area (including all trees) less than 80 ft2 /ac Overall, these standards will be met as indicated in Table 1 and as developed during burning and other management techniques described in this plan. In addition, there are over 208.27 acres of pine /cypress forest (FLUCCS 624) that may also serve as additional foraging habitat (Figure 3). Although the pine /cypress habitat does not meet all requirements listed above, foraging by RCWs does occur here (Beever and Dryden 1992 and DeLotelle unpublished data). This habitat will further be improved for foraging by prescribed burning, which will reduce midstory vines, shrubs, and small trees. Features of the management plan for the RCW Management Area are detailed below. A. RCW Monitoring (1) An RCW monitoring report will be submitted annually for 5 years to tf e RCW Recovery Coordinator, reporting on cluster activity. Activity status of each cluster will be assessed near the beginning of the breeding season (March -May), and also after fledging (July- September). Observations will be done by at least one experienced red - cockaded HHH RCW Management 5 woodpecker biologists and are intended to determine the number of birds in the group, the locations of active cavity trees (if they are on the property), the condition of all known cavity trees, and supportive information about breeding success. To provide further information about group dynamics, attempts will be made to band adult birds before the first and third year of monitoring. Subsequent to the 5 -year monitoring, the status of cavity trees (occupied /non- occupied) will be determined each year throughout the lifetime of the mining operation. B. Habitat Monitoring (1) Information on the success and dates of prescribed burns will be provided in the annual report. (2) A re- assessment of quantity and quality of foraging habitat will be completed 5 years after implementation of the management program. This assessment will be submitted to the RCW Recovery Coordinator in the fifth annual report, and will include determination of pine basal area, midstory density, and groundcover composition. During the initial survey that was completed in 2003 (see Table 1, Figure 4), ten 50m x 50m quadrates were established that are representative of various locations and habitat types within the RCW Management Area. Within each quadrate, the dbh was measured for all trees >4 inches dbh. The number of sabal palm tress with a stem greater than 6 ft tall was also recorded. Within each quadrate, a line intercept transect that runs down the north -south center of the quadrate was used to determine percent cover of mid -story (greater than 7 ft) and groundcover. For each 10 m of the transect, a 1m x 1 m quadrate was used to determine the composition of the groundcover in three categories: a) palmetto + young sabal palm, b) grass + herbs, and c) open ground. We also recorded dominant species of the midstory and groundcover. These technique-3 and quadrate locations will be used during subsequent monitoring episodes. C. Cluster Management (1) Maintain at least 4 suitable cavities in each active cluster for the duration of the mine, as long as RCWs are present. (2) Install 2 artificial cavity inserts (installed as per guidelines in the Recovery Plan) for each active cluster. Artificial cavities, which have •3 small PVC entrance tube, ensure protection against other species HHH RCW Management 6 (particularly red - bellied woodpeckers) that enlarge the entrance hole and usurp the nest. (3) It is recognized that all active cavity trees and "recently active cavity trees" (cavity trees that have been inactive for less than 3 years and have the potential of becoming an active cavity in the future) are legally protected from being harmed by cutting,; bulldozing, pesticides, or any other activity. In addition, the following protective measures will be taken: a. Cavity trees will be clearly marked to reduce risk of accidental damage. b. Cavity trees will be protected against fire damage by removing highly flammable plant material at base of tree before prescribed bums, back racking, or back burning. c. The use of heavy machinery will be prohibited within 50 ft of a cavity tree. Use of mechanized equipment will be avoided within the cluster when woodpeckers are nesting. (4) In order to provide sufficient large pines for future cavity trees, a minimum of 40 Oac pine basal area for pines >10 inches dbh will be maintained in the RCW Management Area. D. Predator Control (1) To deter snake predation on nest trees, flashing will be installed on the bole of cavity trees (DeLotelle et al 2003, in press). Midstory plants (of all species) adjacent to cavity trees will be removed. All vines on cavity trees will be removed. E. Mid -story Control (1) Reduce midstory to very low coverage. Midstory reduction can be done via prescribed burn, mechanical removal, or chemical treatment. Priority will be given to removing non - native invasive plant species (e.g., melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, ear -leaf acacia, and old -world climbing fern). When herbicides are used, considerations will be made as to tt e type of chemical so that harm to large pine trees nearby is avoided. Young pines within cluster areas will be removed if they are a problem around cavity trees. Mechanized equipment used in such removal will only be employed during the non- nesting season in the cluster area, and not within one hour of sunrise or sunset. F. Prescribed Burning HHH RCW Management 7. (1) A prescribed burning program will be implemented for preserved land s at HHH Ranch The following guidelines will apply: a. Recommended burn rotation of 2 -5 years in the uplands of the RCW Management Area, where feasible. (Smoke hazard and proximity to 1 -75 will be serious considerations when determining burn feasibility.). Burn frequencies in pine /cypress will be a muci longer rotation of 10 -20 years. These burn frequencies are interpreted from Duever et al. 1986, and may be amended as additional information is provided for habitat management in southwest Florida ecosystems. b. Fires during the dormant season or late growing season may be utilized when re- introducing fire to fire- suppressed habitats. Once hazardous fuel accumulations have been reduced, early- to mid - growing season bums are recommended, although fires should be avoided within active cavity clusters during nesting season. c. Priority will be given to burning habitat with active clusters. d. Burning of cavity trees themselves will be prevented by removinc thick duff or highly flammable plants (e.g., sabal palms) at base of cavity trees. e. Disking of a fire lane is prohibited within 50 ft of a cavity tree because of potential tree root damage. No plowing of fire lanes will be conducted for prescribed fires. H. Noise Control (1) Heavy machinery is prohibited within 50 feet of cavity tree during nesting season. (2) Clearing is prohibited within 400 feet of cavity trees. Blasting is prohibited within 400 feet of cavity trees. (3) To facilitate acclimation of RCWs to noise, initial mining phases will be further than 0.5 miles from occupied clusters. When development activity commences within 0.5 miles of a cluster, the following guidelires shall be in effect: a. Initial activity will not commence during the nesting season (April 15 - June 15). b. During the first week of noise - producing activity, noise shall not b-: produced until 1 hour after sunrise, and shall cease 1 hour before sunset. I. Preservation HHH RCW Management 8 (1) Safe Harbor Agreement: HHH Ranch will make reasonable efforts to establish a Safe Harbor contract with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2) The RCW Management Area will be managed according to this management plan as long as there are RCWs present. References Beever, J. W. and Dryden, A. K. 1992. Red - cockaded woodpeckers and hydric slash pine flatwoods. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:693 -700. Delotelle, R. S., R. J. Epting, D. L. Leonard, Jr., and R. Costa. 2003. Management strategies for recovery of red - cockaded woodpeckers Populations: a metapopulation proposal. In R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, editors. Red - cockaded Woodpecker: Road to Recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA. In Press. Duever, M. J., J. E. Carlson, J. F. Meeder, L. C. Duever, L. H. Gunderson, L. A. Riopelle, T. R. Alexander, R. L. Myers, D. P. Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. National Audubon Society. New York, New York, USA.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 22 28 22 27 25� _ _ ` �3 GOLDS V GATE _ _ - _ _ _ _ s5-= _ rz Zr PQ ect Location _ - -- �.. GOLDEN GATE � 26 DELIMITED AREA as 75 — '-- 1LwM.Mr lri.,4 f Mtor AMMI !7 cn . I E to it 12 -� •- - -- -� - - � �� - _ =- � � - AI VARR _ -- _ _ -••_ ,y - •` HornA Stun iy,;,,l'•. 27 saw a �. _ ►.— -- - �- _.� =• !7 _ ai = ze ==.7 its 31 EEi S _ -x - -31 if MEMDlAiOR GREE11 7� p _ y . J ^ 11 O i 4 mile Figure 1 HHH Ranch Pine Basal Overview within Proposed Management Area 'lot # 1.UCCS ►eacHption 1 411 E. Clustr 2 411 7 411 8 411 9 411 10 411 11 411 12 13 14 AVG ine 410" dbh #acre 45 . Abnd C 50 W. Clustr Central Central SE SC 411 Central 411/321 Cvty 12 411/321 ft2/acre 17.54 14.72 68 23.05 81 26.50 117 71 24 42 E. Clustr 53 if 10-14" dbh #acre 35.59 22.85 7.36 14.27 2.49 53.00 56 21,74 ft2 /acre 34 26.76 25 29.18 65 41.23 39 29.86 57 37 60 31 19 fit; >14" dbh #acre 40.48 27.15 43.25 24.31 14.50 29 04 40 30.58 ft2/acre 13 16.67 7 14.39 18 25.76 11 14.52 6 7.89 3 8.69 10 10 10 11 10 .her z4" dbh # acre 1 13.95 13.84 13.52 17.36 14.16 ft2 /acre 2.95 1 0.40 18 3.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.31 3 tal Pine z4" dbh #acre 92 0.84 0 00 0.00 1.80 0.99 ft2/acre 60.96 102 58.30 141 90.04 131 70.85 180 83.96 111 108 tal Pine z10" dbh #acre 53.70 64-57 54.74 30-44 65.00 63.26 ft2/acre 47 43.43 52 43.57 73 66.99 31 44.40 63 48.37 40 70 41 29 50 spp z4" dbh # acre 30.84 57.21 40.47 27.98 46 40 44.97 ft2/acre 104 63.91 104 58.69 159 98.64 131 70.85 180 83.96 114 99 41 36 110 108 MS >6 ft Stem # 54.01 65.41 54.74 30.44 66.80 64.74 St o >T per acre %cover 26 6 44 17 39 6 5 11 5 15 g ss/Herbs %cover 16 13 56 12 36 8 15 31 18 Q 16 metto :n Ground %cover %cover 13 60 25 48 17 an 1 2 32 28 33 9 1 12 20 16 72 31 9a 20 0 38 80 nn Table 1 HHH Ranch Pine Basal Overview Outside Proposed Management Plot # 4 FLUCCS 3 5 6 Description 624 435 435 435 South Wiidfr Wildfr wildfr Fine 4-10" dbh #acre 52 ft2/acre 16.72 15 0 31 4.57 0.00 10.38 Pine 10-14" dbh #acre 32 ft2/acre 5 2 16 26.77 3.75 0.37 13.38 Pine >14" # acre 18 3 0 2 ft2/acre 22.82 3.78 0.00 2.55 Other z4" dbh # acre 141 ft2/acre 19.37 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 cypress Area Avg, 3,5,6 Ild Wlldfr 5 4.98 8 4.59 2 2.11 0 0.00 Total pine 24" dbh Total Pine 1:10" dbh # acre ft2/acre #acre ft2/acre 102 66.31 50 49.59 23 12.08 8 7.53 2 0.37 0 0.00 50 26.31 18 15.94 25 12.92 g 7.82 411 spp z4" dbh # acre ft2/acre 243 85.68 23 12.08 2 0.37 50 26.31 25 12.92 'alms >6ft Stem Aidlsto >7' �rass/Herbs 'almetto )pen Ground # r acre 0 /o cover % cover %cover % cover 3 68 0 1 12 30 89 29 29 34 36 40 71 26 33 Table 1 cont. APPENDIX Roy S. DeLotelle, M.S. DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. Environmental Permitting & Endangered & Threatened Species Qualifications: ✓ 27 years experience in conducting surveys on wildlife communities. ✓ Supervised and conducted reserazch for mitigati on alternsatives for wildlife species from the panhandle to the Florida Keys on thirty different species. ✓ A member of the Red- cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Team. ✓ Completed five different Habitat Conservation Plans for the FWS. ✓ Extensive experience in the south and central Florida region including the vicinity of the study area. ✓ Completed other Mitigation Plans for endangered species. ✓ Prepared Draft Safe Harbor Agreement for TM-Ranch. . Professional History: DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. 1992 - Present, president Alverez, Lehman, & Associates, Inc. 1987 -1992, Senior Scientist Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 1978 -1987, Senior Scientist Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. 1975.1976, Biologist U.S. Marines. 1968-1972, Captain - Helicopter Pilot Relevant Experience: Project Scientist for development of a draft Red - cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor agreement for the TM Ranch Mitigation Bank in Orange County, Florida. Studies 999 two Present, Population Inventory, banding, reproductive monitoring, and plan development. Proiect Scientist for development of Mitigation Plan and Draft Biological Assessment for Red-cockaded Florida, Woodpeckers along the Proposed Alafaya Trail Extension in Orange CO", , Floi 2001 to present. Project Manager for development and implementation of a Red - cockaded Woodpecker Enhancement Plan for Picayune Strand State Forest near Naples Florida. Florida Department of Forestry, 1999 to Present. ProJect Scientist for survey of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers along CR 951. 2000 -2001. Project Manager for development and implementation of Red - cockaded Woodpecker Enhancement Plan, St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve, project Number 9713341, St Johns River Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1997 to Present. Project Manager for developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on development site in Brevard County, Florida. included cluster creation, translocation, banding, reproduction monitoring, and habitat analysis. 1994 to 1999. Project Manager and Scientist for demographic assessment and population expansion for a Red - cockaded Woodpecker population (Hal Sett Preserve) in south - central Florida. St. Johns River Water Management District. 2001 -2003. Project Manager for DRI permits, take permits, and development of HCPs for Red - cockaded Woodpecker and HCP for the Florida Scrub jay and Eastern indigo Snake on a development site (13,500 acres) near Ocala, Florida Red - cockaded Woodpecker studies included banding of adults and nestlings, translocation of young, artificial cavity installation, and evaluation of habitat. Other work for the HCP included population studies on Florida Burrowing Owls, Gopher Tortoises, Eastern Indigo Snakes, Southeastern Kestrel and Sherman Fox Squirrel. 1984 to present. HCPs for RCWs and Scrubjay and Incidental Take Permits were approved in 1996 and 1999, respectively. Project Manager for developing a draft ITP and an HCP for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on lime rock mine, Crystal River, Florida. Created clusters and moved girds. 1994 -1999. Project Manager for developing a draft ITP and an HCP for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on a logging site in Alachua County, Florida. Moved birds. 19941999. Project Manager, responsible for endangered species studies on south Florida power plant site (FPL). Endangered species Issues focused on Sandhill Cranes, Gopher Tortoise and Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. A management plan for the Florida Grasshopper Sparrow was developed after discovering a small on -site population. 1992. Endangered species assessment of a rural highway on a small population of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers In Orange County, Florida 1985 -1989. Project Manager for wildlife assessment of the Lake George Basin near Ocala, Florida . for the St. Johns River Water Management District. Study focused on endangered and threatened wildlife species within a 783 square mile area. 1990 -1991. Project Scientist for surveys of wildlife communities along proposed High Speed Rail Corridors in central/south Florida. Listed upland and freshwater semi - aquatic species were the focus of these surveys Inching Southern Bald Eagles, Crested Caracara, Florida Scrub Jays, Red - cockaded Woodpeckers, and others. During these surveys over 31 protected species were encountered and evaluated In central Florida. 1998-99. Project Manager for assessment of affects of power plant (OUC Stanton 1 3 2) development and operation on Red - cockaded Woodpeckers and Florida Scrub -jays. Duties included development of habitat management plans in 1982 and 1992 for Red - cockaded Woodpecker and upland and wetland mitigation plans in 1991 for Water Management Districts and DEP. Conducted evaluation of transmission lines. Monitoring studies on Red - cockaded Woodpeckers included banding of all adults and nestlings, home rang% habitat use, reproduction, and populations dynamics. 1980 to present. Endangered Species Scientist for a routing study (FPC) for proposed transmission line through the lard Red - cockaded Woodpecker population on private lands near Thomasville, Georgia. 1992. Project Scientist for route selection of proposed pipeline through major Red - cockaded Woodpecker population in southwest Georgia. Additional studies included other Protected species and important wildlife areas such as sinks. 1996. Project Manager and Scientist, responsible for biological assessment on Red - cockaded Woodpecker population for several small road and transmission line projects in vmstem Orange County, Florida. 1985. Project Manager, biological assessment on Red - cockaded Woodpecker for a gas drilling operation on D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge in Monroe, Louisiana. Conducted surveys of habitats potentially used by Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. Provided impact assessment and testimony for hearing in civil action suit brought by an environmental organization against the client. 1986. Task Manager, conducted endangered species evaluation and wildlife inventory for proposed development site near Wilmington, North Carolina. Seven colonies of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers were found on -site and in surrounding habitats. Conducted Inventory of colony resources including cavity trees and potential cavity trees. Also conducted inventory to determine the quality of foraging resources including age and class distribution and density of pine stands. Developed management plan. 1984. Task Manager, conducted biological assessment on large farming operation (wetland impacts) for Southem Bald Eagle, American Alligator, and Red - cockaded Woodpecker in North Carolina. Located one colony of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers and several potential nest sites of the American alligator in pocosin habitat on inland coastal swamps. 1986. Project Scientist, conducted endangered species surveys for comdor certification for Florida Power & Light. The line was 175 miles in length and included surveys for Bald Eagle nests, Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, and_ScruNays. Because of the presence of several Bale Eagle nests and Red - cockaded Woodpecker colonies on the proposed line, the proposed line was moved to avoid harming the better quality habitat and reducing mitigation requirements. 1987. Project Manager, biological assessment of endangered species (Florida Panther and Red - cockaded Woodpecker) conducted for Exxon Company, USA, in the Big Cypress National Preserve. 1983 -1984. Project Scientist for assessment of endangered species (Florida Panther, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, and others) for oil exploration operations in the Big Cypress National Preserve, Near Naples, Florida. Evaluation included literature and agency review, aerial, and ground surveys. 1997. Work Related Experience: Studies for development and industry projects on endangered and threatened wildlife species including 31 biological assessments covering 30 different state and federally listed species. These species ranged from the Florida Panther, the Florida Black Bear to the Southeastem Kestrel, Gopher Tortoise, and others (See above). I recently completed an intensive banding and nesting survey of adults and nestling Scrub jays. These studies have included work with nesting heron and egret populations in various habitats of the southeast. Incidental take permits were obtained for federally and state protected species. Organization Review: Organized and conducted Red - cockaded Woodpecker workshop. 1986. Reviewed and commented on endangered species guidelines for state and federal agencies. 1990 -1991. Member of the 1996 - Present Red - cockaded Woodpecker recovery team. Publications and Reports: DeLotelle, R. S. 1976. A Survey of the Herpetofauna of Standing Stone State Park, Tennessee. Masters Thesis, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee, 64 pp. Winchester, B. H. and DeLotelle, R. S. 1978. The Current Status of the Endangered Colonial Pocket Gopher (Geomys colons). Oriole. Winchester, B. H., DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and McClave, J. T. 1979. Ecological Management of the Colonial Pocket Gopher: A Progress Report: Proceedings Rare and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, August 3- 4,1978. University of Georgia. DeLotelle, R. S., Fletcher, S. W., and Arcuri, A. N. 1981. Patterns of Wading Bird Utilization of Natural and Altered Freshwater Marshes: Causes and Management Implications. Symposium on Wetlands Management and Restoration. Kissimmee River and Taylor Slough Coordinating Council, Tallahassee, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S. 1982. Endangered Species Mitigation - Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Florida Field Biologist, Gainesville, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S. and Newman, J. R. 1983. Possible Factors influencing Red - cockaded Woodpecker Colony Abandonments: A rase study. Pp. 104 -106 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II Proc. (Wood, D.A., ad.). Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S. Tallahassee, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and Jerauld, A 1983. Habitat Use by Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in Central Florida. Pp. 59-67 in Red- ockaded Woodpecker Symposium II Proc. (Wood, D.A., ad.). Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S. Tallahassee, Florida. Jerauld, A, DeLotelle, R. S., and Newman, J. R. 1983. Restricted Red - cockaded Woodpecker Clan Movement During Reproduction. Pp. 97-99 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium it Proceedings. Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S.. (D. A Wood, ad.). Tallahassee, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and Epting, R. J. 1987. Habitat Use and Territory Characteristics of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in Central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 99(2) 202 -217. DeLotelle, R. S., and Epting, R. J. 1988. Cavity Tree Selection by Red - cockaded Woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:48 -52. Del-otelle, R.S., and Epting, R.J. 1992. Reproduction of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 104 (2) 285 -294. DeLotelle, R.S. 1992. Issues and Conflicts Associated with the Red - cockaded Woodpecker. Western Systems Coordinating Council, the Edison Electric Institute and American Public Power Association. Re- authorization of the Endangered Species Ad Conference, Lakewood, Colorado. DeLotelle, R.S., Epting, R.J. and DeMuth, G.A. 1995. A 12 -year Synopsis of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in Central Florida. Pages 259 -269 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium III: Species Recovery, Ecology, and Management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. Epting, R.J., DeLotelle, R.S., and Beaty, T. 1995. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Territory and Habitat Use in Georgia and Florida. Pages 259 -269 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium ill: Species Recovery, Ecology, and Management. Center for Applied Studies In Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. EXHIBIT I WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN, HHH RANCH COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA December 2, 2003 James L. Schortemeyer Certified Wildlife Biologist Introduction HHH ranch, located in Collier County just north of 175 at mm 98, covers approximately 1.5 square miles. It is within the Big Cypress Physiographic region in an area referred to as -North Belle Meade." The area is dominated by a variety of cypress and south Florida slash pine plant communities. The area's hydrology has been adversely impacted by surrounding development projects including Golden Gate Estates and I -75. Purpose The management goal of HHH ranch is to assure the protection and conservation of the natural, floral, faunal, hydrological, recreational, and ecosystem values through a limited mining program designed to provide funding for implementation of a long term management program. A conceptual plan was developed for HHH ranch in March 2003. According to the conceptual plan forty percent of the area would be altered during the extraction of limerock and other minerals for use as fill material. This operation would consist of several phases with an estimated project life of twenty years. The entire parcel would be managed as wildlife habitat with at least 55 percent of the ranch being managed as the historical natural plant communities which occupy the site. The remaining land and water areas would be managed as high value wildlife and aquatic habitats found under similar conditions in SW Florida. Basic Principles Fire and water were the primary natural forces that determined the specific wildlife values that occurred across the Big Cypress. Occasional freezing temperatures and hurricanes shaped and regulated the survival of individual plants across the landscape. These forces together with the influence of man for the last 10,000 years molded the diverse flora and fauna observed by the first European settlers. Plant communities are constantly changing in a process described as Succession The geologic features of the area provided the mold which determined the geographic location of specific areas with high wildlife values. Many of these high value wildlife habitats also possessed attributes desirable to people. Fertile soil, dry land, easy access, and a constant reliable water supply are habitat characteristics important to both people and wildlife. Many of these high value habitats such as waterfront property and adjacent high ground were so valuable to humans that they were `lost' early in the development process• value habitats. High wildlife Big Cypress wildlife flourished in a variety of specific ' high values occurred at locations where specific ecosystem functions were beneficial to wildlife or where specific high value habitats evolved. Hammocks and tree islands are examples of high value habitats that occur throughout south Florida. These hammocks and islands occupy only a small portion of the area but they provide essential cover and nesting habitat for numerous species including reptiles, birds, and mammals. They also provide seeds, finite, and acorns from an array of tropical and temperate plant species. Sloughs and other flow ways where excess water moved slowly across the seemingly flat landscape are examples of natural system fimctions valuable to wildlife. This `sheetflow' across the landscape is important to wildlife because it �c locations where these resources are landscape. High value habitats occur spec concentrated and or dispersed. Locations where sheet flow enters or leaves deepwater habitats and where flo-ways are constricted by high ground or vegetation tend to be high value sites. Finally deep water habitats in the interior portions of south Florida were high value habitats. Cypress ponds, alligator holes, flag ponds and the relatively few natural lakes are important to wildlife both from an ecosystem function standpoint and as a high value habitats. Management Projects Both wildlife and habitat management include ongoing projects which will be enhanced under this proposal. Planning and evaluation will be an integral feature on all projects including habitat management, hydrological management, monitoring, wildlife protection (regulating human activities to minimi�s adverse impacts), and wildlife management. Pig, -and Evalu_ ation All management activities will be conducted using a continual planning and evaluation process. A comprehensive management plan will guide activities. Goals and objectives will be established and results will be measured through wildlife surveys, monitoring programs and periodic review. Management programs will be adjusted or modified based on the results of the evaluation process. The following individual projects have been identified and key components have been incorporated in this plan. 1. COMPILE EXISTING DATA SYSTEMATICeWILDLIFE SURVEYS.' etc.) 2. DESIGN AND DIPLEMENT AND 3. IDENTIFY KEY WILDLIFE �MEN,I, WILDLIFE SPECIES. 4. MAP AND IDS 5. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT GOALS AND INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS DESIGNED TO REACH THOSE GOALS. Natural Areas Habitat Management Approximately 55% of the area will be retained as natural habitats. Hydrological constraints may limit the ability to manage these sites with strict adherence to historical conditions but healthy and productive pinelands and cypress communities can be maintained- 2 Disturbed Site Habitat Management Most of the remaining area (approximately 40 %) will be impacted directly by mining operations. Upon completion of mining operations the mining impact area will be managed as fish and wildlife habitats with emphasis on creating high value habitats. Disturbed sites not impacted by operations will be managed as wildlife habitats as soon as practical. Hydrological Management ' While the mining operation will convert a maximum of 40 percent of the area to open water habitats it also offers an opportunity to restore some sheetflow across the area and to create some `new' extended hydroperiod wetlands and significant deep water habitats. Within the area covered by mining operations littoral zones and shallow wetlands will cover minimum area of 60 acres. These areas will be designed to receive inflows from adjacent wetlands and to provide outflows across downstream wetlands. Ground elevations will be designed to provide a minimum area of 5 acres with water depths between 3 -15 inches under all anticipated hydrological stages. Partnerships will be sought with the appropriate water management agencies to integrate water management practices with regional programs to restore and create flo-ways that approximate historical conditions with emphasis on enhancing wildlife values. While surrounding development may prohibit complete hydrological restoration these shallow excavated areas will be designed to provide both seasonal and permanent wetland areas with a wide array of habitats 6. CONDUCT HYDROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT This assessment is being conducted in conjunction with the permitting process for the proposed mining operation. This information will be incorporated in the wildlife management plan. 7. HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY The hydrology of HHH ranch has been severely impacted by off site projects. Preliminary discussions have indicated that it may be feasible to incorporate HHH ranch into regional efforts to partially restore `sheet' flow within the Belle Meade portion of Big Cypress. If feasible this program would have dramatic positive impacts for wading birds and other aquatic wildlife. 8. DEVELOP INTERIM HYDROLOGICAL PLAN An interim hydrological plan is being developed in conjunction with the mining proposal. This proposal will include measures to manage onsite rainfall. Sloughs and swales will be designed to isolate mining operations from non - impact areas and provide enhanced wildlife habitat. 3 9. DEVELOP FINAL HYDROLOGICAL PLAN A Final Hydrological Plan will be developed for HHH ranch. This plan will incorporate appropriate elements from the preceding plan elements (1. through 7.) In addition it will include the following: A) Islands of upland habitat will also be maintained within the artificial wetland complex. These islands will be managed to encourage growth and development of hardwood hammocks bordered by mixed hardwood swamp species and emergent marsh vegetation. B) Native plant species will be established on these sites with emphasis on species, densities, and structures that provide high wildlife values. C) Mosaic patterns and meandering lines which mimic natural ecotonal conditions will be utilized during the final demarcation of the excavation/mining operation. 10. BOUNDARY FENCES AND TRAILS Existing woods roads, trails, and boundary fences will be maintained. These trails can be used to delineate management units and serve as fire breaks. Perimeter trails and fence lines will also be maintained as fire breaks for prescribed burns and to provide protection from wildfires. These firelines and trails also provide access for management activities. 11. CATTLE Cattle will be maintained on the area as an interim management practice. This will help maintain fuel loads at an acceptable level until prescribed burning has been established The use of cattle may also be compatible with long term management goals. Cattle, especially at proper densities, can provide benefits to wildlife and may also help reduce fuel loads and control exotic vegetation. The continued use of cattle should be based upon demonstrated wildlife habitat management benefits. 12. PRESCRIBED FIRE INTRODUCTION Florida has been described as `The land from the Sea'. As sea levels dropped geologic features provided the mold which determined the location of lakes, rivers and shorelines. Indeed, across this relatively flat area, water has been a dominant force in shaping biotic communities. In its pristine condition nearly 60% of the state's 35 million acres were wetlands (Fernald and Purdum 1996). Abundant rainfall averaging 57 inches annually and a mild climate encouraged plant growth. Natural plant mortality coupled with occasional freezes, frequent frost and annual dry seasons enhanced the buildup of dead vegetative fuels across the landscape. Thunderstorms provided unlimited ignition opportunities with 4 each ground strike of lightning. Under these conditions wild fires were common and widespread. Hydrology and the relatively flat terrain created an environment composed of a mixture of upland and wetland plant communities. Fire touched the fire ca longer th many areas burning every one to five years. Other areas experienced rotations which varied from five years to several decades. plant fire return interval which on first inspection appear' to be untouched by fire have Y natural forces that may be measured in centuries. Thus, fire and water were .the a he Prim determined the specific plant" and wildlife communities found across Florida's pristine landscape. The combination of these two forces would determine which plants and animals would flourish, merely survive or perish. Humans have occupied Florida for the last 20,000 years. Early Floridians developed P increasingly complex social structures and created substantial structures which modified natural habitats. For example, recent discoveries near the settlement of Ortona on the Caloosahatchee River have documented that native e� was mated to raise series harvest fish. and canals near the river. The purpose of these Elsewhere in America and throughout the world fire was useconcentrate extensively wildlife, natural habitats (Fyne, 1995). Fires could protect villages, attract Robbins and Meyers, and produce succulent vegetation and promote mast prod 1990, offer the opinion that fire was not used extensively in pre - European Florida. While the level of use and its impact on natural habitats may be debated, Floridians have long recognized the awesome power of fire. Early efforts to manage fire may not have been organized or extensive but there is little question that Florida's first inhabitants made significant attempts to harness both fire and water. Following statehood early settlers continued to use fire to manipulate vegetation fire to improve resources in Florida Ranchers and hunters frequently and regularly used grazing lands and wildlife habitat. Throughout the Southeast fire has been consistently used as a land management tool. One of the first scientific approaches was initiated near Tallahassee, Florida in the 1920's. In 1932 Herbert Stoddard published "The Bobwhite Quail; Its Life History and Management." This Publication and the founding of "Tall of efforts to promote and use fire wisely through a scientific Timbers mark the beginning approach to land management. HHH ranch, located in Collier County, is in the Big Cypress physiographic region. This region has a well established relationship with natural and prescribed fire. Private land owners, state and federal land managers routinely use prescribed fire as a management tool. The continued use of fire at specified intervals, seasons, and intensity levels is the only known way to fully Main the ecosystems Floridians depend upon for their livelihood and recreation. Fortunately, the state of Florida has recognized the importance of prescribed fire. "Certified Prescribed Burning." The section Florida Statute Ch. 590.125(3) � includes the following: dealing with legislative findings purpose "(a) The application of prescribed burning is a land management tool that benefits the safety of the public, the environment, and the economy of the state. The Legislature finds that: S 1. Prescribed burning reduces naturally occurring vegetative fuels within wildland areas. Reduction of the fuel load reduces the risk and severity of wildfire, thereby reducing the threat of loss of life and properly, particularly in urban areas. 2. Most of Florida, s natural communities require periodic fire for maintenance of their ecological integrity. Prescribed burning is essential to the perpetuation, restoration, and . management of many plant and animal communities. Significant loss of the state's biological diversity will occur if fire is excluded from fire dependent systems..........: ' PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES While HHH ranch and fire have a long relationship development and population growth have impeded the use of prescribed fire as a management tool. In years past lightning fires and human caused fires frequently burned across the landscape with little adverse impact and little need for planning. Today, unplanned ignitions or wildfires can cause numerous adverse impacts, In recent years, wildfires in surrounding areas have caused substantial property destruction and loss of life. However, carefully planned and executed prescribed fires can reduce the size of wildfires, make suppression easier, and protect certain areas from wildfire. This report outlines a strategy for the implementation of a prescribed fire program for HHH Ranch which will reduce hazard fuel loads and improve wildlife habitat (,See APPENDIX A for more detail). OBJECTIVES: 1) Implement a prescribed fire program that provides hazard fuel reduction, improves wildlife habitat, maintains ecological integrity, and meets other forest and range land management criteria. 2) Develop guidelines for personnel and cooperators participating in prescribed burning. 3) Establish protocols for notifying and assisting the Division of Forestry and Local Fire Departments with any wild fire within or near Harmony. 4) Incorporate other land management techniques which complement, enhance, or facilitate the use of prescribed fire or provide for safe reduction of natural wildfire hazard fuels. 5) Conduct prescribed burns in accordance with the provisions and standards of Florida's Certified Bum Manager Program. 6) Insure that SAFETY supersedes all other objectives. 7) Identify management units or portions of management units which should be included in an initial prescribed burning prograrn. 8) Cooperate and encourage adjacent landowners to enhance existing prescribed fire programs or to develop new programs. C. INITIAL FOCUS within The initial focus of the prescribed burning Pro g�° will be to identify natural areas management amts which are slated for protection wilbe identified and designated specific frequent fire. These areas will historically were maintained by freq acres will be divided by natural or as burn zones. Individual burn zones larger than 50 be restored or manm.ade fire breaks into Parcels less than 50 acres. Prescribed and mixed pine /cypress as soon as possible. Pine fl�'O°� fire maintained on these units frequent fire- Typical habitats are examples of vegetation communities ho �firre intervals will be applied to return intervals for these communities are 2 -5 y 2 -3 years. A short these units with each burn unit scheduled for d nil buildup, and minimize fire =turn interval will alp Program will focus on habitats within and near identified Red intensity. The Cockaded Woodpecker habitat. and truthed so exact acreages and Bum zone boundaries have n tand motions and prey equations number of zones have no designated Burn Zones. Annual indicate that approximately 500 acres should be included in dra from a few acres to as burn acreage should average 200 acres with individual burns ranging vide for plans to limit any large as 50 acres. Initial prescriptions and bum units should Pro internal firebreaks, or bins to less than 25 acres through the use of a staged ignition plan, additional suppression equipment on site. to the south, nearby residential areas and The location of H H ranch with 1 -75 immediately o the live smoke management program- other smoke sensitive areas nearby dictate a comp administrative support is t burn team with Proper equipment and admini bps only when Establishing a Prescribed bums on a priority basis and executing essential. Scheduling conditions ate favorable will lead to a successful program. 13. HIGH VALUE WILDLIFE HABITATS on management. Existing high value wildlife habitats will b ldbe�fi �n located and protection and Active red cockaded woodpecker col enhancement of these colonies will be incorporated into all manag ement programs. rod wetlands also occur on the ranch. Restoration of these areas will Extended hydrogen enhance wildlife values. 14. EXOTIC VEGETATION CONTROL on the site. Both chemical and Exotic vegetation will be controlled as neces � appropriate native plants will mechanical control methods will di resent both Brazilian Pepper and Melaleuca be re.- established by planting or seeding. Other exotics such as `old are common exotics and control programs Odd be a priority. climbing fern, earleaf acacia, and tropical soda apple should be monitored and world' ct g controlled. 15. ADDITIONAL MOSAIC PATTERNS out the area by utilizing the unit Additional mosaic patterns will be encouraged • e3 roads trails and other disturber sites. Management of these sites would boundan , 7 include openings, brush piles around cleared sites, artificial structures for wildlife, artificial hammocks, and isolated hardwood trees. 16. ADDITIONAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AT DISTURBED SITES Additional habitat management activities may be conducted at disturbed sites. Additional earthwork may be required to temporarily stockpile topsoil during excavation. This topsoil could be used during the final contour_ process and at specific locations to facilitate plant growth. Specific projects may also be conducted at disturbed sites to benefit both endangered plants and animals. Herbaceous plantings using native plants may be established with emphasis on endangered plants and attracting invertebrate animals. Artificial nest structures may be placed at selected locations for a variety of wildlife species. Rocks may also be used as cover structure both underwater and on elevated sites. These rock structures will provide habitat for small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. 17. WILDLIFE AND FISH MANAGEMENT Fish and wildlife management activities will be designed to monitor and evaluate specific management programs. Exotic fish and wildlife species will be monitored but no control programs are recommended at this time. Some exotic species may in fact be beneficial. Select exotic fish species may be important food for wading birds. Both wild hog and armadillo are important food for the Florida panther. Some limited fish stocking of native species may be conducted as different phases of the mining operation are completed. A major goal of any stocking would be to encourage the establishment of native rather than exotic species. Release or stocking of other wildlife species will not be allowed. Nuisance wildlife will not be relocated on this property. The property owner may permit the release of injured wildlife under special circumstances and may cooperate with experimental programs to study or manage native wildlife species. MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR SELECTED SPECIES 17.1 RED- COCKADED WOODPECKER HHH Ranch includes natural habitats typical of the Belle Meade area: palmetto prairie. pine flatwoods, cypress/pine mixed forest. cypress stands, and pop -ash sloughs. The property also includes areas impacted by human activity. Logging, cattle grazing, fire suppression operations, adjacent drainage, major road projects (I -75) and damaging wildfires have resulted in impacts which range from moderate to severe. Within the flatwoods are several isolated stands of mature pines that include active cavity trees and red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat. The boundaries of the mine have been designed to avoid RCW clusters, as well as preserve a corridor of RCW foraging habitat. An RCW management plan has already been developed for the area (Appendix A). Two RCW clusters are active on portions of this area as well as adjacent lands. This plan 8 includes RCW monitoring, habitat monitoring, cavity management, predator control, vegetation management, prescribed burning and noise control. Coupled with similar programs on adjacent properties conditions for these two clusters will improve. 17.2 WOOD STORK Wood storks commonly feed in freshwater marshes, flooded pastures and ditches. They have a tactile feeding method referred to as "grope - feeding" which is most effective in shallow water with an abundance of prey items. Depressions in marshes or swamps where fish become concentrated during periods of falling water levels are particularly attractive as feeding areas. These areas are further enhanced if they are connected to deepwater habitats. Wood stork use at the present time is limited both spatially and temporally due to altered hydroperiods. Habitats used as foraging areas for wood storks at HHH is likely restricted to the larger pop -ash sloughs. Without improved hydrological management other wetlands at HHH Ranch are unlikely to provide foraging habitat for wood storks. The wood stork is a colonial species that nest in certain cypress or mangrove swamps. Population numbers of wood storks is thought to be limited by the ability to successfully raise chicks, and is dependent upon sufficient foraging grounds during nesting season. The nearest known rookery is approximately 14 miles from HHH. Since wood storks typically, stay close to the rookery when feeding chicks, it is unlikely that HHH is utilized as a foraging area during that part of the season. Hydrological improvements that incorporate shallow water feeding areas and extended hydroperiods will benefit wood storks. Feeding areas and floways will require periodic maintenance. 173 FLORIDA PANTHER Florida panthers, which occur primarily in south Florida, utilize a wide variety of habitats including pine flatwoods, mixed- hardwood pine, hardwood hammock, tropical hammock, hardwood swamp, cypress swamp, and freshwater marshes. Home range size for females (average of 125 sq mi) appears to be regulated by habitat quality and prey density, while home range size for males (average 215 sq mi) is also influenced by density and distribution of adult females. Radio telemetry points for panthers near HHH Ranch indicate there has not been any recent activity in this area. Previous points are correlated with the release of Texas cougars for the panther genetic restoration program. This area of North Belle Meade may be considered to be a buffer zone between panther territory and Naples developments, but it is not considered to be primary panther habitat. None of North Belle Meade is included in the USFWS areas designated as either Priority 1 or Priority 2 panther habitat. However, much of the HHH Ranch is within the FFWCC GAPS Strategic Habitat Conservation Area. Z The recommended protective measure applied to some of the Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas is acquisition of conservation easements and land -use agreements that secure valuable natural resources but also allow private uses of the land. The HHH habitat management plan should provide significant improvements on the protected natural habitats. Prey densities should increase on these areas. The mining operation will result in the loss of some potential habitat. Some of the littoral zone and other remaining upland disturbed sites will benefit panthers. Artificial hammocks or shrub zones will provide escape cover. These habitats especially in proximity to aquatic habitats will have increased densities of raccoons and other small mammals. Increased mast production including acorns, Sabal Palm berries and other hardwood mast will also attract deer and hogs. The quality of habitat within the preserve will also be enhanced by implementing a prescribed burn program and removing non -native invasive vegetation 17.4 FLORIDA BLACK BEAR Currently, the black bear remains widespread in Florida, but its distribution is reduced and has become fragmented The Black bear also uses a wide variety of forested habitat types, including pine flatwoods, hardwood swamp, cypress swamp, hammocks, xeric oak scrub, mangroves and mixed hardwood -pine forests. The black bear is omnivorous and adaptive. They take advantage of a wide variety of abundant food sources as they become available. Black bear movements and home ranges undergo seasonal shifts in response to food availability. Primary threats to the Big Cypress population are continued habitat loss and human induced mortality. Motor vehicle collisions are the primary mortality factor. HHH habitat management programs will enhance Black Bear habitat with the exception of the deepwater lake area. Foraging and denning sites should be improved especially with artificial hammocks and littoral zones planned for disturbed sites. The abundance and variety of food sources will be significantly increased. 17.5 GOPHER TORTOISE Gopher tortoises in non - coastal areas of Collier County are primarily associated with xeric scrub, dry prairie, and xeric pine flatwoods. Three environmental conditions are especially important: 1) well- drained loose soil in which to burrow, 2) adequate low- growing herbs for food, and 3) open sunlit sites for nesting. Gopher tortoises forage primarily on grasses, herbs, and saw palmetto berries when available. The decline of gopher tortoise populations in Florida is generally due to loss of habitat. At HHH Ranch, gopher tortoises occur on one upland area that is located in the centralleastern area The majority of the tortoise - occupied upland will be included in the preserve. Approximately 13 acres of the preserved portion of the upland is currently suitable for gopher tortoise burrows, with an additional ±20 acres of suitable foraging habitat surrounding the burrowing habitat. The foraging and burrowing habitat will be enhanced by the prescribed burn program. Burning will decrease palmetto leaf litter and allow sunlight to reach the ground layer, thereby increasing sunlight for growth of forage species and tortoise thermo- regulation It.is expected that burning will significantly 10 increase the carrying capacity for gopher tortoises in this upland. Since this upland also fosters an RCW cavity cluster, it will receive priority on the burn plan. Some burrows are located in the future mining area.. Prior to clearing the mining area, the upland will be re- surveyed and, if needed, tortoises will be relocated to the preserved portion of this upland. A barrier will be constructed to Prevent tortoises from entering the mining area. In addition, several "burrow berms" will be installed in the preserve to augment burrowing habitat. Burrowing berms will be constructed of sand from the cleared upland, and will measure approximately 4 feet high, 12 feet long, and 8 feet wide. Additional tortoise habitat will be provided on disturbed upland sites including sand berms and foraging areas. 17.6 BIG CYPRESS FOX SQUIRREL primary habitats for the big cypress fox squirrel are open pine flatwoods, cypress strands, broad leaf evergreen hammocks, mangroves, and oak forest. They feed mainly on cypress balls and pine seeds. Fox squirrels also utilize cabbage palm berries, saw palmetto berries and hardwood mast. Due to the seasonal nature of their forage sources, they fluctuate much in using different habitats. Fox squirrels spend a significant amount of time on the ground foraging, thus an open understory is critical. Optimal habitat for a fox squirrel has an open park -like quality. Fox squirrels have been sighted at HHH Ranch, mainly in pine/cypress/cabbage palm (FLUCCS 624). Prescribed burning and continued use of cattle will help improve and maintain `open, habitats preferred by this species. 18. REGULATING RECREATION ACTIVITIES Traditional resource based outdoor recreation has been the primary activity on this property. This use has been well regulated in recent years. It is anticipated that this property will remain in private ownership. In addition to the traditional activities, the deep water habitats will provide excellent fishing opportunities. The area will remain closed to the public and to commercial activities but it will continue to provide high quality resource based outdoor recreational experiences to permitted users. 19. REGULATING MINING OPERATIONS Mining and excavation operations will be closely monitored to prevent adverse impacts - p.tculw care will be taken to protect endangered species including the active red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) colonies. No clearing or excavation will be conducted within 400 feet of identified RCW cavity trees. Furthermore mining operations will be conducted in phases throughout the twenty year project life. Best management practices will be implemented and modified as necessary. 11 spry opportunity for Collier County. The Project �S management prOPOsd owner an opportunity develop a portion of the �Pe�or gill allow the property management programs mining and excavation. Innovative hydrological both hydrological and wildlife wildlife diversity and abundance.�t, With compatible adjacent management will depend on adjacent property pri vate property and private land uses this project can serve as a model for the inclusion'of e for Big Cypress wil f. enterprise in enhanced stewardship programs dli � � �� wildlife habitat 'o of the site will be Pm and m and managed as valuable The �� will also red ro managed throughout the project l�f a D�� d. �mp�n the property will be man g wildlife and aquatic habitats. At project. and protected as fish and wildlife habitat• the mining protect (estimated at 20 yew) Wildlife and habitat management both during from wed matte into a Trust be funded by Royalties paid be protected but the annual and after completion will letion the trust fund principal will P Fund. After project comp earnings will be available for wildlife and habitat management. 12 EXHIBIT J 4� 4� i•r x qo!:� O .8 M C� bA u O O U + H W ° o - a A '401 cls U cd � ° WO . O � ON b 4+ - O O tj O 0 OU Qm N O+ cc � c p N O '� y C 0 cam!! " am ti 0 ° —0�'0 .a U TBa CV Ci-16 x W cd Q) 5 to fV td w N O O O � N U O c O d . b O b W R H N �G �._, --d A 7q L" +� •� • O O c�� 0-0 .O a� y aCi O O " o.1 5C � o t7 O P. 7�1 cod v NO `Ja�a� cc3 ooy ° o �N�.p NSW N�dw cad ���� O N N Oa C1 O Ox y•' �--. cd ai H ,C: 0 . pa bA N cj 04 0 cd i-a (d U o d �a u b � �,d oo ° �� cg v9 0Z. N COl�� � U W Uj 4•+ ,N., U 8 u7 . O O IS n o2 ° O ° a0 G ay aa� °' a� o ° �nv�y a ��U E rl(u c- d�'�a� °F'U ova ° ��� � oD� `� o• °L' V 5 Z' Y Q O O C o ° (�Y° C AC `� d WO G o o H Z C N U 2 H O 7Oi 461 O W cC W U 0 �. aj Pi OD O U P cl 0 ;4 CC a) a) U O A o 4-6 �- b 01 ° P. s Q z o Fi z3 c•N E a, " ' C zs E OU N V O ca cs cv O c V (a' C -0 c �., E—^ o c6 E C •� OV 0 O O cC 'd O � G pp vi O i ca 2 ,� O ca O y a) O ca O Q U` Q N N Q Q N i p aj a) a! O N cd co i• 00 4— y U W Uj 4•+ ,N., U 8 u7 . O O IS n o2 ° O ° a0 G ay aa� °' a� o ° �nv�y a ��U E rl(u c- d�'�a� °F'U ova ° ��� � oD� `� o• °L' V 5 Z' Y Q O O C o ° (�Y° C AC `� d WO G o o H Z C N U 2 H O 7Oi 461 O W cC W U 0 �. aj Pi OD O U P cl 0 ;4 CC a) a) U CJ) cn . -, 0 P=14 O 0 1 i as a) > TJr, � a) Y r" bA ca ° i1 ti ° E AA Cd 0 0 �r3 y CIS bq a) •! �C' � bA q °a,. a 2 t1t)� N s� Ccd - .w..ccl y�i-�, cC . N cd v U O U U y N 300oa 4'Y,'oa'�YUcn p.�.� -, o �w0-n cd ..o.o ��, .4.0 1 , a C/3 aJ v � •d a) by p p w• a o N CIS w a°�1 h Qj a U' U' ' 1 'U N 'CJ r-+" 1 1 1 ��ry���� Capon °o� °°°'wor. -orl 4• .°Y ° 3o a �,", 'o CS �o °a�up ati -oo i o �9 v o o ° ti a� 3 U r, Y L - a) cn o Y.ai vas avoY v�,iyi a� �Y O'b o oa' },d ° cl, o po IvCy a� ° En 1 � o - r o o o o 4 °t 'a °° E�no • �ow ° � � 3 a� o o bu r 3 w pa > a) o q h •S 0a r- o y ° o Ob V > ° j�aoS.�w,g + o G G'4 w 5� MM CO) A ov� °O ' °° cn -o °■ o O a) � W v ' q� bA bq q w w ap +7 0 "a > (U r a 'a aG ) y0 ° . U . q 4 o V a O � Z A N V C U o O ' 1' O w U N d O a= �r b0 c` rawp°gb3o cd3� d°a�i �W CA a� O.� ocJ° 7raJaj) V 'y Y bA w f al O 0° o F. � LL N y .� � 6i °oopV o � a' vp� ,L°", CA' ;11 1 �ti-1 • �' U �8 o w�o° g- p > -�i K. 's y 's ° gno- �+ cct Y cz En Wg ���3 30� �0—� 0 °c'' oC �tic"bgo'C7a nni: �oa0''a�ioo a�u�U°a� Ua'��a�0 U y a) A w p •� „ yr a� �.V3 O a � ° v o bo p, a° as bb Y Y o w V v •� . o p -El � U ",Q a .o O ap o (- Y o cl o• i. wN w p Y bn ° o-° cn In lu :43a d ° .�° on a>i0 ° vo°4 U' U' ' 1 'U N 'CJ r-+" 1 1 1 ��ry���� Capon °o� °°°'wor. -orl 4• .°Y ° 3o a �,", 'o CS �o °a�up ati -oo i o �9 v o o ° ti a� 3 U r, Y L - a) cn o Y.ai vas avoY v�,iyi a� �Y O'b o oa' },d ° cl, o po IvCy a� ° En 1 � o - r o o o o 4 °t 'a °° E�no • �ow ° � � 3 a� o o bu r 3 w pa > a) o q h •S 0a r- o y ° o Ob V > ° j�aoS.�w,g + o G G'4 w 5� MM CO) A ov� °O ' °° cn -o °■ o O a) � W v ' q� bA bq q w w ap +7 0 "a > (U r a 'a aG ) y0 ° . U . q 4 o V a O � Z A N V C U o O ' 1' O w U N d O a= �r b0 c` rawp°gb3o cd3� d°a�i �W CA a� O.� ocJ° 7raJaj) V 'y Y bA w f al O 0° o F. � LL N y .� � 6i °oopV o � a' vp� ,L°", CA' ;11 1 �ti-1 • �' U �8 o w�o° g- p > -�i K. 's y 's ° gno- �+ cct Y cz En Wg ���3 30� �0—� 0 °c'' oC �tic"bgo'C7a nni: �oa0''a�ioo a�u�U°a� Ua'��a�0 JOHN G. VEGA, P.A. 201 8T" STREET SOUTH, SUITE 207 , NAPLES, FL 34102 (239) 659 -3251 (239) 659 -3427 IPAx VEGAOFFICE @ EARTHI,INK. NET November 8, 2004 Via Hand Delivery Marcia R. Kendall, Planner Comprehensive Planning Department Collier County Government Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Francis D. and Mary Pat Hussey Properties Folio No. 00328640003, 00329760005, 00330480002, 00331320006, 00341960003, 00342040003 and 00328560002 Dear Marcia: Thank you for your correspondence of October 21, 2004. I would like to supplement the request for re- designating the Hussey Properties with the enclosed information. I have had Brown Collins of Synecological Analysts forward me the monitoring well data to date. It is attached as a series of two tables. The measurements are in feet. As an example, the July 3, 2004 reading on well number 7 was 1.08 feet, translating into thirteen inches. According to Mr. Collins, and consistent with my review of Florida law concerning the designation of wetlands, lands which have been affected by drainage or other human activities must display a hydrology that includes groundwater within twelve inches of the surface for a time period of at least fourteen consecutive days. As you can see from the data, not a single well has displayed groundwater within twelve inches of the surface on any day that measurements were taken. These measurements were conducted consistent with industry standards, one measurement per month during the dry season and one measurement per week within the rainy season. It is notable that most of the measurements displayed no measurable groundwater at all. Quite simply, it appears unlikely from this data that the HHH Ranch contains any significant wetlands whatsoever. These measurements are especially telling given that rainfall during 2004's rainy season has been running at 105% percent of normal. Also attached is SFWMD's latest Hydro -Period Rainfall map, indicating that the Southwest Coast is running 2.04 inches above normal and that the Big Cypress region is 1.72 inches above normal. Having watched Charley and his siblings dump water on Southwest Florida this year, it seems apparent that if these lands can not meet the wetland criteria in this year, then they will never meet them in a normal year. V hn ;�/Vega JGV /mmw Enclosures I 6SYN c ()LQ e�AIL n%A N A L Y S T' Environmental Evaluation and Advocacy FAX COVER SHEET TO: JOHN VEDA F i s Brown Collins - Date.: 6 Nov 04 Page One Of Eight RE.- HHH Water Data Follows. As always, your assistance is appreciated. Thank you. Brown 2159 Morning Sun Lane, Maples, FL 34118 239- 514 -3998 Fax; 614 -0955 5rown@synecol.com Naples Utndfidl -- Waiter Monitoring itoring :1004 kr'x-) 1 2 Mar 3, 04 Mmy 5,04 June 26, 04 Jimly 3 U4 JuJy 11, 64 _jubL20 04 Jid 25, 04 T` - 1 No h2o No h2o No h2o No h2o No h:)x No h2o No h2o Z No h2o No h2o I 1.13 1,12 1.144 1.16 1.12 _ 3 No h2o No h2o No h2o No h2o No h' 2o No h2o No h2o 4 No h2o No h2o 1.06 1.1 1.18 1.22 1.2 S No h2o No h2o No h2o No h2o Na h�?o No h2o No h2o 6 No h2o No h2o No h2o No h2o No h2o No h2o No h2.,o 7 No h2o 1 1.04 1.08 1.W2 1.12 1.15 8 No h2o 1 1.2 1.17 1.22 1-25 1.25 kr'x-) 1 2 Ang 6, 04 1.32 1.75 Aug 154, 04 1.95 2A8: No h2o 1.21 Auz 25 04 2.24 2.64 An 3104 2.37 2.81 3 1:68 2.26 1.18 2.49 2.53 4 1.91 2.35 1.31 2.53 2.74 _ 5 1.18 1.62 No h2o 1.89 2.Ck1 6, 1.45 2.05 1.22 2.36 2.47 7' 1.62 1.92 132 224. 145 8: 2.14 3.12 1.56 325 ;3.3 4 a� ry Hydro- Period Rainfall Alaps Select A Month current / previous months only __nkL15u To print a map - 1. Click on the map 2. Select print from your browsees menu Return to Rainfall Mao. main page Email Use of information herein constitutes acceptance of our dl+clalltler. SFWMD HOME SFWMD Rainfall 02- JUN -2004 to 01 -NOV -2004 > 300% 200 -300% 150 -200% 'f 120 -150% 90 -120% 60 -90% 30-50% <30% Measured (% of Avg, Diff From Avg) ti DISTRICT -WIDE; 36.75" (112 %, +3.9911) "- k 77 `. (1697th ^•4. i UPPER - •i� 111 J !, — � •woar i� !} ,�..�, EASTERN PALN aEACH 31.8Z' FERN BRDWPRD 4' EI.sTERR � I �i NIANI -DARE a , y ` > 300% 200 -300% 150 -200% 'f 120 -150% 90 -120% 60 -90% 30-50% <30% Measured (% of Avg, Diff From Avg) ti DISTRICT -WIDE; 36.75" (112 %, +3.9911) "- APPENDIX I Protocol for Monitoring Project Related Traffic Disturbance to Red - cockaded Woodpeckers During the Nesting Season Ralph Costa, RCW Recovery Coordinator, USFWS (864) 656 -2432 ralph,_costa@fws.gov Background Across the range of the red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW), hundreds of active clusters have roads traversing through them or are adjacent or in close proximity to roads. In, some cases RCWs have excavated cavities in trees adjacent to roads. In other cases managers have created artificial cavities adjacent to forest roads. Vehicular traffic on these roads during the nesting season has the potential to cause disturbance to, i.e., "harass ", RCWs. Because harass can result in "take ", it is critical for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to provide guidance on how to avoid or minimize traffic disturbance during the nesting season. In reference to cluster management and roads, the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan: Second Revision (Plan) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) in Section 8F (page 181) states: "Reduce human disturbance within clusters as much as possible, especially during the nesting season. As a minimum, follow these guidelines ": "a. Restrict vehicle use to existing roads." The above statement is in reference to existing, i.e., historic, levels of normal traffic. It does not account for project related new or increased levels of traffic on existing roads. Therefore, if (1) a project will create new traffic or increase historic levels of existing traffic, and (2) that traffic cannot be avoided in the cluster during the nesting season, two administrative options are available. One, incidental take may be authorized via a biological opinion if a "may affect" determination is made. Or, two, if a "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect" determination is made, the Service may concur in writing with the project but request that monitoring (the purpose of this guidance document) be employed to ensure that no adverse affects do occur. While, in many cases, restricting new or increased vehicle use to existing roads, even if they traverse clusters, will reduce or minimize disturbance there may be circumstances When disturbance could still reach a "harass" threshold. The potential to harass RCWs with project - related vehicular traffic during the nesting season can depend on one or a combination of the following six factors. These factors include, but may not be limited to: Appendix 1 page 2 1. distance of the nest tree from the road in question, 2. nesting stage, e.g., incubating eggs versus feeding nestlings, 3. historic level of road use; frequently, but not always, related to type of road, e.g., dirt woods road, gravel secondary road, or paved road (ranging from local county to federal highway), 4. expected level of road use during the project, 5. type of vehicle (sedan versus logging truck) and associated level, duration, and intensity of vibration/noise, and 6. number of years a particular cavity tree has been the nest tree. Traffic Disturbance Assumptions Following are the assumptions used to help formulate the monitoring protocols. Regarding each of the 6 factors listed above (and with all other factors being equal in reference to the assumption for each individual factor) it is assumed that: Nest failures are more likely to occur as: the distance from the road to the nest tree decreases from 200 to 0 feet; project related traffic volume increases; vehicle type increases in size and noise level. Nest failures are less likely to occur as: the nesting stage advances from eggs to fledglings; historic levels of traffic volume increase; number of years the tree has been a nest tree increase. Traffic Disturbance Factors Discussion Monitoring protocols are primarily based on 2 of the 6 factors listed above; distance of the nest tree to the road and expected project related traffic volume (see below; Traffic Monitoring Protocol). However, it is critical that as biologists design and implement the cluster specific monitoring program, they assess and consider the other 4 key factors; nesting stage, historic traffic volume /road type, vehicle type, and history of nest tree. These 4 factors, independently and cumulatively, can affect RCW response to traffic. Regarding nesting stage, given the vulnerability of eggs to variation in incubation temperature, nests may be more susceptible to loss during the egg incubation period (10- 12 days) if adults are continuously or regularly flushed from the nest cavity due to vehicular traffic. Once hatched, nestlings are fed at regular intervals (every 5 -15 Appendix 1 page 3 minutes) throughout the day. During this period (24-26 days), adults are only present at the nest for short periods of time during the day and may not be as vulnerable to disturbance as when incubating eggs full time. However, depending on other factors (e.g., proximity, vehicle type, historic road use, etc.) continuous traffic during this period could interfere with adults attempting to supply prey to nestlings. Under historic conditions of high traffic volume, RCWs become habituated to that level of activity and noise. Under these circumstances, an increase in traffic volume associated with a timber sale for example, is not likely to produce an adverse effect. In contrast, and all other factors being equal, if historic road use levels have been 2 vehicles per day through a cluster and the project increases that level to 20 vehicles per day, an adverse effect on nesting RCWs would not be unexpected. Of the factors listed, vehicle type may have the least potential to harass nesting RCWs. However, sudden significant changes in vehicle type may result in disturbance. For example, and with all other factors being equal, if typical traffic on a road has been limited to small, relatively quiet vehicles (pickups, sedans) and that changes to large trucks (logging, construction equipment) or military vehicles, the potential for project - related vehicle disturbance should be considered. If historically (multiple years) a group of RCWs has been using the same nest tree adjacent to a lightly- used.(several vehicles per day) woods road and traffic increases moderately, for whatever reason, the birds may show no adverse response. On the other hand, if historic road use is rare to occasional (couple vehicles per week) and a project 'increases that use to many (10 -20 +) vehicles per day, even birds using their historic nest ,tree may be adversely affected by the increased use. Traffic Monitoring Protocol The following monitoring protocols are only applicable to assess traffic related disturbance to nesting RCWs. They.do not replace any other population or other project related active cluster monitoring (e.g., impacts of construction activities, logging operations, etc.) that is either ongoing or planned. If "no monitoring required" is indicated.that is only referring to traffic- related monitoring, the subject of this guidance. The basic monitoring objective is to "observe RCW response" to the traffic (see below for definition) to determine if the level of disturbance (if any) reaches a threshold of harassment. When assessing impacts to RCWs from traffic disturbance it is important to consider the total change in traffic levels above the background traffic levels to which RCWs may have become habituated. If the background traffic level on the road in question is already high then the project related traffic is not likely to have an effect on RCWs. If however, the background traffic on the road in question is very low, low or moderate and the project related traffic results in the total'traffic level changing to a higher level (very low to low, low to moderate or moderate to high) then the following monitoring is required. . Appendix 1 page 4 Nests located further than 200 feet from any road, irregardless of traffic volume: no monitoring required. Nests located from 100 to 200 feet from any road: High volume — monitor 2 days Moderate to low volume — monitor 1 day Very low - no monitoring required Nests located 0 to 100 from any road: High volume -= monitor 3 days Moderate volume — monitor 2 days Low to very low volume — monitor 1 day Traffic Monitoring Protocol Definitions with Discussion Definitions: Traffic volume High volume — many vehicles per hour for a majority of the day; e.g., vehicles come by at least every 10 minutes (6 or more vehicles/hour) and for 6 or more hours per day. Moderate volume — several to numerous vehicles per hour for at least half of the day; e.g., vehicles come by at least every 20 minutes (3 or more vehicles/hour) for 4 — 6 hours per day. Low volume — few vehicles per hour during the day; e.g., vehicles come by at less than 3 per hour during the entire day. Very Low — few vehicles per day. or every few days up to a vehicle per hour The above volume definitions do not (and the guidance cannot) account for every possible project related traffic volume scenario. When designing a project specific monitoring protocol, in addition to the above traffic volume guidance, biologists must do two additional things: (1) consider the Traffic Disturbance Factors Discussion points (see above), and (2) use common sense regarding expected traffic volume and frequency to "fit" the project into a high, moderate, low, or very low volume category. For example, if vehicles were only going to come by, on average, at 4/hour, suggesting a "moderate" level, but that was going to occur for 10 hours daily, erring on the conservative side would suggest a category of "high" not moderate. In other words, it will be necessary to both balance and evaluate the traffic volume with the frequency as monitoring programs are designed. Observe RCW response Prior to initiating monitoring, the biologist/technician must determine the location of the nest tree and its distance from the road in question. In addition, the biologist/technician must know the nesting stage, i.e., eggs or nestlings, as this factor defines the adult Appendix 1 page 5 behaviors expected to be observed. The monitoring biologist/technician needs to be positioned to clearly observe the nest cavity, while ensuring that his/her presence is in no way affecting the bird's behavior. Additionally, the monitoring location must allow accurate observation and recording of all traffic volume, type, and frequency. Flush — bird exits cavity in response to a vehicle passing. This behavior must be separated from exiting the cavity to trade incubation duties with its mate. Delayed feeding — bird returns with prey and instead of immediately entering cavity to feed: (1) spends inordinate amount of time ( -5 or more minutes) perching or flying about the cluster prior to finally entering cavity, or (2) leaves the cluster with the prey. If the nesting stage is "incubation ", birds would not be expected to be exiting the nest cavity except occasionally to trade incubation duties with other group members. This may occur multiple times per day, but normally would not occur frequently, 'e.g., several times per hour. If birds are either: (1) exiting frequently without group member replacement, or (2) switching duties frequently, it may likely be due to traffic. Of course, if this behavior is being observed and there is no traffic, some other factors (presence of observer, large group size) may be involved. A bird returning to the cluster with prey and then not promptly feeding the nestlings is abnormal behavior. Although they may spend some time upon returning with prey perching or hitching on the nest or other cavity (or cluster) tree, doing so for numerous minutes is unusual. If this behavior is observed in conjunction with traffic passing by, traffic is likely the cause. If this behavior is observed without traffic some other factor (presence of observer, predator, or competitor) may be involved. Number of days to monitor The recommended number of monitoring days, e.g., 3 days for high volume traffic within 100 feet of the road, involves the following concepts: First, the day(s) chosen to monitor must represent what is expected to be a "normal" traffic day for the particular project. For example, if a logging operation and its associated truck traffic are anticipated to last 3 weeks, with traffic volume steadily increasing to a peak at the end of the first week, monitoring the first couple days of the operation would not represent "normal" project traffic. Second, in most cases there will be no need to monitor for an entire 8-hour day. On each of the monitoring days (1 -3 depending on traffic volume and frequency, see above) it is only necessary to monitor long enough to understand if an adverse impact, or the potential for one, is. occurring. For example, if within the first 2 hours of monitoring, birds attempting to incubate eggs flush repeatedly in response to passing traffic, the disturbance is obvious. Conversely, if birds feeding nestlings show no disturbance to heavy traffic after several hours of observation during the first day of a 3 -day monitoring Appendix 1 page 6 program, monitoring could likely end for that day. The subsequent 2 days of monitoring would hopefully mirror the first days' results and confirm that traffic related disturbance is not occurring. Evaluation of Monitoring Results If monitoring determines that nesting RCWs are flushing from the nest cavity during the egg laying and incubation process curtail project related traffic on the road until the eggs hatch and nestlings are being fed. Then continue with monitoring as described previously. Alternatively, curtail project related traffic on the road until the nestlings have fledged. If monitoring determines that impacts are occurring, but are sporadic or infrequent in nature, i.e., bird flushes occasionally, but not always, when vehicles pass, contact the appropriate Service Field Office or RCW Recovery Coordinator to discuss whether, monitoring should continue or not to determine the fate of the nest. APPENDIX II Roy S. DeLotelle, M.S. DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. Environmental Permitting & Endangered & Threatened Species Qualifications: ✓✓ 27 years experience in conducting surveys on wildlife communities. Supervised and conducted reserarch for mitigation alternsatives for wildlife species from the panhandle to the Florida Keys on thirty different species. ✓ A member of the Red - cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Team. ✓ Completed five different Habitat Conservation Plans for the FWS. ✓ Extensive experience in the south and central Florida region including the vicinity of the study area. ✓ Completed other Mitigation Plans for endangered species. ✓ Prepared Draft Safe Harbor Agreement for TM- Ranch. . Professional History: DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. 1992 - Present, President Alverez, Lehman, & Associates, Inc. 1987 -1992; Senior Scientist Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 1976 -1987, Senior Scientist Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. 1975-1976, Biologist U.S. Marines. 1968 -1972, Captain - Helicopter Pilot Relevant Experience: Project Scientist for development of a draft Red - cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor agreement for the TM Ranch Mitigation Bank in Orange County, Florida. Studies included population inventory, banding, reproductive monitoring, and plan development. 1999 to Present. Project Scientist for development of Mitigation Plan and Draft Biological Assessment for County, Woodpeckers along the Proposed Alafaya Trail Extension in Orange Florida, 2001 to present. Project Manager for development and implementation of a Red - cockaded Woodpecker Enhancement Plan for Picayune Strand State Forest near Naples Florida. Florida Department of Forestry, 1999 to Present. Project Scientist for survey of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers along CR 951. 2000 -2001 Project Manager for development and implementation of Red - cockaded Woodpecker Enhancement Plan, St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve, Project Number 9713341, St. Johns River Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1997 to Present. Project Manager for developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on development site in Brevard County, Florida. Included cluster creation, translocation, banding, reproduction monitoring, and habitat analysis. 1994 to 1999. Project Manager and Scientist for demographic assessment and population expansion for a Red - cockaded Woodpecker population (Hal Scott Preserve) in south- central Florida. St. Johns River Water Management District. 2001 -2003. Project Manager for DRI permits, take permits, and development of HCPs for Red - cockaded Woodpecker and HCP for the Florida Scrub -jay and Eastern Indigo Snake on a development site (13,500 acres) near Ocala, Florida. Red - cockaded Woodpecker studies included banding of adults and nestlings, translocation of young, artificial cavity installation, and evaluation of habitat. Other work for the HCP included population studies on Florida Burrowing Owls, Gopher Tortoises, Eastern Indigo Snakes, Southeastern Kestrel and Sherman Fox Squirrel. 1984 to present. HCPs for RCWs and Scrubajay and Incidental Take Permits were approved in 1996 and 1999, respectively. Project Manager for developing a draft ITP and an HCP for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on lime rock mine, Crystal River, Florida. Created clusters and moved birds. 1994 -1999. Project Manager for developing a draft ITP and an HCP for Red - cockaded Woodpeckers on a logging site in Alachua County, Florida. Moved birds. 19941999. Project Manager, responsible for endangered species studies on south Florida power plant site (FPL). Endangered species issues focused on Sandhill Cranes, Gopher Tortoise and Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. A management plan for the Florida Grasshopper Sparrow was developed after discovering a small on -site population. 1992. Endangered species assessment of a rural highway on a small population of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in Orange County, Florida. 1985 -1989. Project Manager for wildlife assessment of the Lake George Basin near Ocala, Florida for the St. Johns River Water Management District. Study focused on endangered and threatened wildlife species within a 783 square mile area. 1990 -1991. Project Scientist for surveys of wildlife communities along proposed High Speed Rail Corridors in central/south Florida. Listed upland and freshwater semi - aquatic species were the focus of these surveys including Southern Bald Eagles, Crested Caracara, Florida Scrub -jays, Red - cockaded Woodpeckers, and others. During these surveys over 31 protected species were encountered and evaluated in central Florida. 1998 -99. Project Manager for assessment of affects of power plant (OUC Stanton 1 & 2) development and operation on Red - cockaded Woodpeckers and Florida Scrub -jays. Duties included development of habitat management plans in 1982 and 1992 for Red - cockaded Woodpecker and upland and wetland mitigation plans in 1991 for Water Management Districts and DEP. Conducted evaluation of transmission lines. Monitoring studies on Red - cockaded Woodpeckers included banding of all adults and nestlings, home range, habitat use, reproduction, and populations dynamics. 1980 to present. Endangered Species Scientist for a routing study (FPC) for proposed transmission line through the largest Red - cockaded Woodpecker population on private lands near Thomasville, Georgia. 1992. Project Scientist for route selection of proposed pipeline through major Red-cockaded Woodpecker population in southwest Georgia. Additional studies included other protected species and important wildlife areas such as sinks. 1996. Project Manager and Scientist, responsible for biological assessment on Red - cockaded Woodpecker population for several small road and transmission line projects in western Orange County, Florida. 1985. Project Manager, biological assessment on Red -c occkaded Woodpecker for a gas drilling Operation on D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge in Monroe, Louisiana. Conducted surveys of habitats potentially used by Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. Provided impact assessment and testimony for hearing in civil action suit brought by an environmental organization against the client. 1986. Task Manager, conducted endangered species evaluation and wildlife inventory for Proposed development site near Wilmington, North Carolina. Seven colonies of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers were found on -site and in surrounding habitats. Conducted inventory of colony resources Including cavity trees and potential cavity trees. Also conducted inventory to determine the quality foraging class distribution and density of pine stands. Developed esources including age and ped managemerrt plan. 1984. Task Manager, conducted biological assessment on large farming operation (wetland impacts) for Southern Bald Eagle, American Alligator, and Red - cockaded Woodpecker in North Carolina. Located one colony of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers and several potential nest sites of the American alligator in pocosin habitat on inland coastal swamps.. 1986. Project Scientist, conducted endangered species surveys for corridor certification for Florida Power $ Light. The line was 175 miles in length and included surveys for Bald Eagle nests, Red - cockaded Woodpeckers, and Scrub -jays. Because of the presence of several Bale Eagle nests and Red - cockaded Woodpecker colonies on. the proposed line, the proposed line was moved to avoid harming the better quality habitat and reducing mitigation requirements. 1987. Project Manager, biological assessment of endangered species (Florida Panther and Red- cockaded Woodpecker) conducted for Exxon Company, USA, in the Big Cypress National Preserve. 1983 -1984. Project Scientist for assessment of endangered species (Florida Panther, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, and others) for oil exploration operations in the Big Cypress Neal Preserve, Near Naples, Florida. Evaluation included literature and agency review, aerial, and ground surveys. 1997. Work Related Experience: Studies for development and industry projects on endangered and threatened wildlife species including 31 biological assessments covering 30 different state and federally listed species. These species ranged from the Florida Panther, the Florida Black Bear to the Southeastern Kestrel, Gopher Tortoise, and others (See above). I recently completed an intensive banding and nesting survey of adults and nestling Scrub -jays. These studies have included work with nesting heron and egret populations in various habitats of the southeast. Incidental take permits were obtained for federally and state protected species. Organization Review: Organized and conducted Red - cockaded Woodpecker workshop. 1986. Reviewed and commented on endangered species guidelines for state and federal agencies. 1990 -1991. Member of the 1996 - Present Red - cockaded Woodpecker recovery team. Publications and Reports: DeLotelle, R. S. 1976. A Survey of the Herpetofauna of Standing Stone State Park, Tennessee. Master's Thesis, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee, 64 pp. Winchester, B. H. and DeLotelle, R. S. 1978. The Current Status of the Endangered Colonial Pocket Gopher (Geomys colons). Oriole. Winchester, B. H., DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and McClave, J. T. 1979. Ecological Management of the Colonial Pocket Gopher, . A Progress Report: Proceedings Rare and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, August 3-4,1978. University of Georgia. DeLotelle, R. S., Fletcher, S. W., and Arcuri, A. N. 1981. Patterns of Wading Bird Utilization of Natural and Altered Freshwater Marshes: Causes and Management Implications. Symposium on Wetlands Management and Restoration. Kissimmee River and Taylor Slough Coordinating Council, Tallahassee, Florida. Del-otelle, R. S. 1982. Endangered Species Mitigation - Red - cockaded Woodpecker. Florida Field Biologist, Gainesville, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S. and Newman, J. R. 1983. Possible Factors Influencing Red-cockaded Woodpecker Colony Abandonments: A case study. Pp. 104 -106 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II Proc. (Wood, D.A., ed.). Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S. Tallahassee, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and Jerauld, A. 1983. Habitat Use by Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in Central Florida. Pp. 59-67 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II Proc. (Wood, D.A., ed.). Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S. Tallahassee, Florida. Jerauld, A., DeLotelle, R. S., and Newman, J. R. 1983. Restricted Red - cockaded Woodpecker Clan Movement During Reproduction. Pp. 97 -99 in Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium 11 Proceedings. Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Comm., U.S.F.W.S., U.S.F.S.. (D. A. Wood, ed.). Tallahassee, Florida. DeLotelle, R. S., Newman, J. R., and Epting, R. J. 1987. Habitat Use and Territory Characteristics of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers in Central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 99(2) 202 -217. DeLotelle, R. S., and Epting, R. J. 1988. Cavity Tree Selection by Red - cockaded Woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:48 -52. DeLotelle, R.S., and Epting, R.J. 1992. Reproduction of the Red - cockaded Woodpecker in Central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 104 (2) 285 -294. DeLotelle, R.S. 1992. Issues and Conflicts Associated with the Red - cockaded Woodpecker. Western Systems Coordinating Council, the Edison Electric Institute and American Public Power Association. Re- authorization of the Endangered Species Act Conference, Lakewood, Colorado. DeLotelle, R.S., Epting, R.J. and DeMuth, G.A. 1995. A 12 -year Synopsis of Red- cockaded Woodpeckers in Central Florida. Pages 259 -269 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium III: Species Recovery, Ecology, and Management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. Epting, R.J., DeLotelle, R.S., and Beaty, T. 1995. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Territory and Habitat Use in Georgia and Florida. Pages 259 -269 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa. Red - cockaded Woodpecker Symposium III: Species Recovery, Ecology, and Management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas. DeLotelle, R. S., and D.L. Leonard, Jr. 2000. Population enhancement for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers at the St. Sebastian River State Buffer Preserve. Project Number 97B341. St. Johns River Water Management District. Palatka, FL. 50pp. DeLotelle, R.S., Epting, R.J. and Leonard D., 2003. Management Strategies for Recovery of Fragmented Red - cockaded Woodpecker Populations: a Metapopulation Approach. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. DeLotelle, R.S., Leonard D., and Epting, R.J. 2003. Hatch Failure Rates and Brood Reduction in Three Central Florida Red - cockaded Woodpecker Populations. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Epting; R.J., DeLotelle, R.S., and Leonard D. 2003. Fledgling Sex ratios and Demographics of Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Epting, R.J., DeLotelle, R.S., and Leonard D. 2003. Forest Stand Selection by Foraging Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red - cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Leonard D., DeLotelle, R.S., and Epting, R.J. 2003. Factors Contributing to Variation in Fledgling Production in central Florida Red - cockaded Woodpeckers. in R. Costa and S. Daniels, Eds. Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Road to Recovery. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington. Expert Testimony: 1982. Provided testimony as an endangered species biologist at the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) hearings for site certification of Stanton I, Favorable Ruling by Hearing Office; 1984. Provided expert testimony on the potential impacts on a local RCW population in Louisiana from a gas field expansion at a civil action suit brought by an environmental organization, Favorable Ruling; 1984. Assisted in deposing Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission biologist on the Florida panther for issues related to road development in the Big Cypress National Preserve; 1985. Same as 1984 Louisiana- hearing listed above, Favorable Ruling; 1986. Provided expert testimony on wetlands impacts and endangered species for landfill sighting (Administrative), County obtained their permits; 1991. Provided expert testimony as a wildlife ecologist for continued development by OUC with respect to wetlands and endangered species for Stanton 11, OUC obtained their permits; 1992 -1994. Provided expert testimony on RCWs issues at interagency meetings on a proposed road extension through a RCW habitat management area. Client obtained permits. APPENDIX III MAUREEN S. BONNESS QUALIFICATIONS Three years field experience monitoring red - cockaded woodpeckers and their habitat in Collier County. Ten years experience in southwest Florida monitoring vegetation and conducting wildlife surveys. • Natural areas manager for preserves in Collier and Charlotte counties. EDUCATION B.S. 1982. University of Wisconsin - Madison, Botany Department Ph.D. 1992. The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Botany Dissertation Title: "Pokeweed Antiviral Protein Inactivates Pokeweed Ribosomes; Implications for the Antiviral Mechanism" RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Environmental Consultant in southwest Florida 1997 to present. Natural Areas Manager for Willow Run Preserve (225 acre private preserve). Supervise restoration and maintenance of preserve. Conduct field work, write environmental monitoring reports, and assist in acquisition of permits from government regulatory agencies. Willow Run Preserve is the first applicant in Collier County for an RCW Safe Harbor agreement. Field techniques: vegetation mapping, listed species surveys, vegetation sampling, irradicating invasive plants, prescribed burns. (South Belle Meade) 2003 to present. HHH Ranch environmental surveys. Vegetation mapping, wildlife surveys, RCW habitat analyses (pine basal area plots), RCW foraging and cavity surveys, assist with RCW banding, create RCW Habitat Management Plan. (North Belle Meade) 2003 to present. Supervisor of a recipient site for 50 relocated gopher tortoises. Conduct burrow surveys, trap tortoises, frequent monitoring of site and tortoises. (South Belle Meade) Appendix III page 2 1997 to present. Environmental consultant for or several small preserves (ranging from 2 to 90 acres) associated with fill pits or limerock mines. Write environmental monitoring reports, remove invasive plants, vegetation sampling, and assist in acquisition of permits from regulatory agencies. Adjunct Professor• Instructor 2000- -2003. Florida Gulf Coast University 1992. The University of Texas at Austin Field Research Assistant 2001 to present. Frog Listening Network. Collier County, FL. Group leader for Big Corkscrew Island transect. 2000. Ted Center, USDAIARS Invasive Plant Research Lab, Fort Lauderdale, FL Determine melaleuca weevil distribution from Picayune release site. Univ. o Florida Immokalee, FL 1998 -1999. Mary Carrington, of Florida, in determining effect of harvesting saw palmetto berries on bear foraging behavior, and investigating pollination biology of saw palmetto. Lecturing Naturalist 1986 -1996. Linblad Expeditions, Inc., New York, NY Naturalist on small cruise ships specializing in natural history expeditions to remote areas of the globe including Baja California, Alaska, Greenland, Amazon and Orinoco Rivers, Central America, and Papua New Guinea. RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 2005 to present. Member of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Board in Collier County. 1 2003-2006- Participant in annual meetings of the South and Central Florida Recovery Unit for RCWs. Meetings provide updates on all RCW management in peninsular Florida, as well as field trips to RCW management areas. 2004. "Fellow" of the Collier County Audubon Society, granted for 'outstanding achievement that has benefited the natural world" RELEVANT AFFILIATIONS Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council Friends of Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve Maureen Bonness Jan. 16, 2007 HHH Ranch RCW Habitat Management Plan Summary Two groups of red - cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) include HHH Ranch property within their foraging territory. One group, which has cavity trees on HHH property near the eastern border, currently has one active cavity tree, one inactive cavity, and three cavities usurped by red bellied woodpeckers. The other group has cavities on properties adjacent to HRH's western border, although there is one cavity tree on -site that has been abandoned for more than 4 years. The management plan follows all requirements detailed in the Private Lands Guidelines (Appendix 5) of the Recovery Plan for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): 2' revision. 2003. US Fish & Wildlife Service. HHH Ranch will maintain an RCW Management Area including both cavity clusters and a corridor of pine forest uplands between the two cavities. The RCW Management Area will be comprised of more than 75 acres of RCW foraging habitat, which will supply more than 50% of the foraging needs for both groups. Foraging habitat will comply with these standards: • an average pine basal area of pines �: 10 in dbh between 40 and 70 felac • an average pine basal area of pines < 10 in dbh less than 20 ff2 /ac • a midstory that is sparse and less than 7 ft in height • total stand basal area (including all trees) less than 80 fe /ac Above and beyond the standards for managed stability, the HHH Ranch plan includes the following aggressive management components: RCW Monitoring: Band birds and monitor cluster activity, group size, and reproductive success Annual reports submitted to RCW Coordinator Cavity Cluster Management Maintain at least 4 suitable cavities in each active cluster Install 2 artificial cavities per cluster (prevents red -belly invasion) Habitat Structure Restoration and Maintenance Implement prescribed burn plan Cavity trees are protected against fire damage by removing highly flammable plants or plant material at base of tree before prescribed burns. Remove sabal palm trees where they create a fire hazard for large pine trees Habitat Monitoring , Locations, dates, and results of prescribed burns are documented Quantity and quality of foraging habitat re- evaluated after 5 years Roads & Noise considerations New haul roads will be as narrow as possible (preferably one -lane, one -way roads). Route selection for roads will avoid removal of large pine trees. New roads will be at least 100 feet, preferably > 200 feet from RCW nest tree. Noise - producing activities restricted to facilitate RCWs to habituate to the noise: Noise - producing activities will first be located >half mile from clusters and gradually get closer to clusters. Increase in noise level not allowed during nesting season. When noise levels increase, the elevated noise level is not allowed until 1 hr after sunrise and shall cease 1 hr before sunset. Blasting prohibited within 400 ft of cavity tree. Preservation RCW Management Area will have conservation easement in perpetuity. RCW Management Area will apply for Safe Harbor Agreement. MoTmfe =ie P- j si :a MW Prepared by Maureen Bonness DeLotelle & Guthrie, Inc. Environmental Management & Design, Inc. November 25, 2003 revised January 15, 2007 HHH RCW Management 2 Introduction In response to requirements for protection of endangered species such as the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW) the following RCW Management Plan was developed for the HHH Ranch Property and the proposed limerock mining activities. The study focused on detailed evaluations,of RCWs and the habitats used on the property. These studies provide baseline data on cavity tree location, cavity tree and cluster site status, population estimates, and a habitat quality analysis. From these studies management recommendations were developed which will aid in the protection and recovery of RCWs in the area. The HHH Ranch is a 960 acre parcel located in north Belle Meade, Collier County on the north side of 1 -75 (Alligator Alley- Figure 1). A proposed limerock mine totaling approximately 350 acres will result in two lakes. Natural habitats of the property consist of palmetto prairie, pine flatwoods, cypress /pine mixed forest, cypress stands, and pop -ash sloughs. The property also contains areas impacted by humans including: cleared areas of cypress forest, disturbance by cattle grazing, alteration by fire suppression and damaging wildfires, and wetlands drainage (particularly by the 1 -75 canal). The property harbors several stands of old- growth slash pines (Pious ellioftii var. densa) that are home to RCWs. The boundaries of the mining operation have been designed to avoid RCW clusters (the area containing roosting and nesting cavities), as well as preserve a habitat management area for RCW foraging and movement. This area also contains substantial old- growth pine (100 -230 years old) and may become suitable nesting habitat in the future. The east Naples population of RCWs had declined precipitously in the 1990s from 25 -30 groups to approximately 10 -12. groups .(Dryden personal communication, DeLotelle 2003 unpublished data). This population has recently increased by four breeding groups in the Picayune Strand State Forest as a result of bird translocation, artificial cavity installation, and increased habitat management and non - native species. removal (DeLotelle unpublished data 2003). There are four factors contributing to the decline of the east Naples population of RCWs: 1) loss of large old pine trees to logging, fire, storms, and disease; 2) invasion of non - native plants in the mid -story; 3) lack of fire management (results in an increased mid -story in unburned areas and damaging wildfires that kill pine trees); and 4) an increasing density of sabal palm trees that crowd the mid -story HHH RCW Management 3 and lead to severe fire damage and death of canopy and cavity pine trees. In other words, the RCW population has declined not only because of the loss of old growth pine forests, but also because remaining forests were not managed to preclude the development of substantial mid -story. All four factors have had negative effects on the RCW sub - population in north Belle Meade, resulting in loss of clusters and sub - optimal habitat for the few remaining RCW groups. One key to RCW preservation and enhancement in the Belle Meade area is land management that includes removal of exotic species and proper fire management. Even if the entire area was preserved from clearing, the survival of these endangered birds is doubtful without proper habitat management and population expansion techniques. For example, melaleuca invasion and encroachment of young pine trees in the mid -story (due to fire suppression) is probably responsible for the loss of 10 or more RCW groups (the majority of the south Belle Meade population) in the 1990's along Sabal Palm Road in the area now preserved as the Picayune Strand State Forest (DeLotelle unpublished data 2003): HHH Red - cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan The goal of this-RCW management plan is to ensure the long -term stability of the RCW groups at HHH Ranch, a degree of stability that is rare for RCW groups in the Belle Meade area. These groups are likely important for the re- establishment of RCWs on the northern portion of the Picayune Strand State Forest. Two groups of RCWs are known to forage at HHH Ranch. One of these groups, the "eastern group has its cavity cluster on HHH property close to the eastern border, while the "western group" has its cavity cluster off -site not too far from the western boundary (Figure 2). The groups have been observed for three years to understand cavity tree usage, group sizes and reproductive success. Birds in both groups have been banded. Each group appears to contain a breeding pair that has remained at their site over the past three years. Both groups typically lay two (sometimes three) eggs and fledge one chick annually. These chicks, some of which have been banded, are typically gone by the beginning of the following breeding season. Hence, despite much reproductive effort, these groups are not growing. The lack of helper birds makes them very vulnerable to extirpation if a member of the breeding pair should die. Over the past three years, we have found eight cavity trees in the eastern cluster. The nest tree has remained active throughout the three years. One cavity was HHH RCW Management 4 lost to lightning, two were lost to hurricanes, three have been usurped by red - bellied woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus), and one has been abandoned for many years. One of the eight cavities was newly excavated since 2003. As of October, 2006, the nightly roost site of the female breeder was unknown since her cavity had recently been taken over by red - bellied woodpeckers. Nine cavity trees associated with the western group have been observed. Three of the cavities were abandoned long before 2003 and have never shown any signs of activity. One cavity (which had been occupied by red - bellied woodpeckers in 2003) has been permanently lost to wind damage. A total of three cavities have been taken over by red - bellied woodpeckers since- 2003. Four of the nine cavities were newly excavated since 2003. The cavity data demonstrate that red - bellied woodpeckers are currently the . greatest source of loss of cavity trees. Significant energy is required to excavate a new cavity, Also, the loss of cavities may have a direct effect on survival of fledgelings who may not have the protection of a cavity for roosting at night. This problem can be alleviated by installation of artificial cavities.that have a PVC entrance tube that precludes red - bellied woodpeckers. Based on the location of both clusters, we assume that half of the foraging time is spent on the HHH Ranch. This is consistent with observations during evening roost and other observations that revealed RCWs foraging on adjacent properties and the HHH Ranch. The HHH Ranch thus accepts 50% responsibility for the nesting and foraging requirements of two groups. The HHH management plan outlined below closely follows guidelines described in Recovery Plan for the Red- Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): 2 "d revision. 2003. US Fish & Wildlife Service, and further referred to in this report as the Recovery Plan. Also see DeLotelle et al (2004) for methods used in central and south Florida for cluster site management. In order to sustain RCW groups in the area, HHH Ranch will manage an area designated as the RCW Management Area which includes 1) the cavity tree cluster of the eastern group, 2) a stand that has potential for future cavity development for the western group, 3) ample foraging habitat for half of the needs of both groups, 4) and also the central uplands that provide a connection between the two clusters. Within the RCW Management Area, foraging habitat will be maintained that strives to attain Recovery Plan guidelines developed for private landowners (Appendix 5 of the Recovery Plan). Under these guidelines, the minimum foraging habitat for each group is defined as: • a minimum of 3000 square feet pine basal area, including only pines >10 inches dbh HHH RCW Management 5 • an average pine basal area of pines >10 inches dbh between 40 and 70 ft'/ac • an average pine basal area of less than 20 fe /ac for pines < 10 inches dbh • a midstory that is sparse and less than 7 ft in height • total stand basal area (including all trees) less than 80 ft2 /ac Measurements of tree diameters (pine -basal area) in plots at HHH Ranch (Tables 1 & 2, Figure 2) indicate that these guidelines can be attained (i.e., there is a sufficient number and density of large pines). The quality of the RCW habitat will be further improved by prescribed burning and other management techniques described in this plan. In addition, many acres of preserved pine /cypress forest (FLUCCS 624) may also serve as additional foraging habitat. Although the pine /cypress forest does not meet all requirements listed above, foraging by RCWs may occur in that habitat (Beever and Dryden 1992, DeLotelle unpublished data, and. observations at HHH Ranch by M. Bonness and J. Sterk). This habitat will further be improved for foraging by prescribed burning, which will reduce midstory vines, shrubs, and small trees. Features of the management plan for the RCW Management Area are detailed below. A. RCW Monitoring (1) An RCW monitoring report will be submitted annually for 5 years to the RCW Recovery Coordinator. Activity status of each cluster will be assessed near the beginning of the breeding season (March -May), and also after. fledging (July- September). Observations will be done by at least one experienced red- cockaded woodpecker biologist and are intended to determine the number of birds in the group, the locations of active cavity trees, the condition of all known cavity trees, and supportive. information about breeding success. To provide further information about group dynamics, attempts will be made annually to band birds, particularly nestlings. Subsequent to the 5 -year monitoring, the status of cavity trees (occupied/non- occupied) will be determined each year. B. Habitat Monitoring (1) Information on the date and outcomes of prescribed burns will be provided in the annual report. (2) A re- assessment of quantity and quality of foraging habitat will be completed 5 years after implementation of the management program. HHH RCW Management 6 This assessment will be submitted to the RCW Recovery Coordinator in the fifth annual report, and will include determination of pine basal area, midstory density, and groundcover composition. During the initial survey that was completed in 2003 (see Tables 1 & 2, Figure 2), ten 50m x 50m quadrats were established that are representative of various locations and habitat types within the RCW Management Area. Within each quadrat, the dbh was measured for all trees >4 inches dbh. The number of sabal palm tress with a stem greater than 6 ft tall was also recorded. Within each quadrat, a line intercept transect that runs down the north -south center of the quadrat was used to determine percent cover of mid -story (greater than 7 ft) and groundcover. For each 10 m of the transect, a 1 m x 1 m quadrat was used to determine the composition of the groundcover in three categories: a) palmetto + young sabal palm, b) grass + herbs, and c) open ground. Dominant species of the midstory and groundcover were also recorded. These techniques and quadrat locations will be used during subsequent monitoring events. C. Cluster Management (1) Maintain at least 4 suitable cavities in the eastern cluster. (2) Install 2 artificial cavity inserts (installed as per guidelines in the Recovery Plan) for each active cluster. Artificial cavities, which have a small PVC entrance tube, ensure protection against other species (particularly red - bellied woodpeckers) that enlarge the entrance hole and usurp the nest. (3) It is recognized that all active cavity trees and "recently active cavity trees" (cavity trees that have been inactive for. less than 3 years and have the potential of becoming an active cavity in the future) are legally .protected from being harmed by cutting, bulldozing, pesticides, or any other activity. In addition, the following protective measures will be taken: a. Cavity trees will be clearly marked to reduce risk of accidental damage. b. Cavity trees will be protected against fire damage by removing highly flammable plant material at base of tree before prescribed burns, back racking, or back burning. c. The use of heavy machinery will be prohibited within 50 ft of a cavity tree. Use of mechanized equipment will be avoided within the cluster when woodpeckers are nesting. HHH RCW Management 7 (4) In order to provide sufficient large pines for future cavity trees, at least 35 acres with a minimum of 40 ftz /ac pine basal area for pines >10 inches dbh will be maintained for each RCW group in the RCW Management Area. D. Predator Control (1) To deter snake predation on nest trees, a barrier will be installed on the bole of cavity trees (DeLotelle et al 2004). Midstory plants (of all species) adjacent to cavity trees will be removed. All vines on cavity trees will be removed. E. Mid -story Control (1) Reduce midstory to very low coverage. Midstory reduction can be done via prescribed burn, mechanical removal, or chemical treatment. Priority will be given to removing non - native invasive plant species (e.g., melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, ear -leaf acacia, and old -world climbing fern). When herbicides are used, considerations will be made as to the type of chemical so that harm to large pine trees nearby is avoided. Young pines within cluster areas may be removed if they contribute to mid -story crowding. Loud mechanized equipment used for habitat management will not be operated in a cluster within one hour of sunrise or sunset, and not at any time of day during nesting season. F. Prescribed Burning (1) A prescribed burning program will be implemented for preserved lands at HHH Ranch. The following guidelines will apply. a. Recommended burn rotation of 2 -5 years in the uplands of the RCW Management Area, where feasible. Smoke hazard and proximity to 1 -75 will be serious considerations when determining burn feasibility. Burn frequencies in pine /cypress will have a longer rotation of 10 -20 years. These burn frequencies are interpreted from Never et al. 1986, and may be amended as additional information is provided for habitat management in southwest Florida ecosystems. b. Fires during the dormant season or late growing season may be utilized when re- introducing fire to fire- suppressed habitats. Once hazardous fuel accumulations have been reduced, early- to mid - growing season burns are recommended, although fires should be avoided within active cavity clusters during nesting season. c. Priority will be given to burning habitat with active clusters. HHH RCW Management 8 d. Burning of cavity trees themselves will be prevented by removing thick duff or highly flammable plants (e.g., sabal palms) at base of cavity trees. e. Disking of a fire lane is prohibited within 50 ft of a cavity tree because of potential tree root damage. Fire lanes should not be maintained by plowing, which may harm pine roots. G. Roads Information provided in Appendix I (Protocol for Monitoring Project Related Traffic Disturbance to Red - cockaded Woodpeckers During the Nesting Season) will be considered when designing roads. (1) Roads within the RCW Management Area will be as narrow as possible and, to the extent practicable, will avoid removal of large pine trees. No road within the. RCW Management Area shall be greater than two lanes. (2) New roads will be located at least 100 feet from nest trees; preferably more than 200 feet from nest trees. If a road is located less than 200 feet from a nest tree, the nest tree will be monitored according to guidelines in Appendix I. (3) If traffic volume increases on existing roads within 200 feet of a nest tree, the nest tree will be monitored according to guidelines in Appendix H. Noise Control Guidelines below were developed from studies of noise impacts on RCWs in military training grounds (Delaney et al., 2002). (1) Heavy machinery is prohibited within 50 feet of an active cavity tree during nesting season (April 15 - June 15). (2) Blasting is prohibited within 400 feet of cavity trees. (3) To facilitate habituation of RCWs to noise, initial mining phases will be farther than 0.5 miles from occupied clusters. When noise - producing activity commences within 0.5 miles of a cluster, the following guidelines shall be in effect: a. Initial activity will not commence during the nesting season. HHH RCW Management 9 b. During the first week of noise - producing activity, noise shall not be produced until 1 hour after sunrise, and shall cease 1 hour before sunset. I. Preservation (1) The RCW Management Area will be placed under a conservation easement in perpetuity. (2) HHH Ranch will apply for a Safe Harbor Management Agreement for Florida's Statewide Red - cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor (3) The RCW Management Area will be managed according to this management plan as long as the RCWs are present. References Beever, J. W. and Dryden, A. K. 1992. Red-cockaded woodpeckers and hydric slash pine flatwoods. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:693 -700. Delaney, D. K., et al. 2002. Assessment of Training Noise Impacts on the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker: 1998-2000. US Army Corps of Engineers. Nov 2002. ERDC /CERL TR -02 -32 Delotelle, R. S., R. J. Epting, D. L. Leonard, Jr., and R. Costa. 2004. Management strategies for recovery of red - cockaded woodpeckers populations: a metapopulation proposal. Pages 77-89 In (R. Costa and S. J. Daniels, editors) Red - cockaded Woodpecker: Road to Recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington, USA. Duever, M. J., J. E. Carlson, J. F. Meeder, L. C. Duever, L. H. Gunderson, L. A. Riopelle, T. R. Alexander, R. L. Myers, D. P. Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. National Audubon Society. New York, New York, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.' 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 17 LL 0-64 26 25 4 !�-36 —7732 2 J, .0 GOLDE 4 GATE A RpoftT -7-- (PV'T.) 14 _= — r 24 23 Project Location 211, GOLDEN GATE DELIMITE D 26 AREA 27 35 33 36 31- LC lucky T. 93 951 Gotd- C—t. E.t. `T* 4 84 3 2 5 7 -�Z-- 12 it 'WIN,' - M ;P�RK 7= 81 15 14 is 7 R I -- - — j�— z -Z — 22 21= 24M 19 20 21— 22 23 =2-= fit- 4� 27 25 .20 — 2t 21 I 26 25 Z- 3. 31 M1 -Z 36 -31 Z-Z 2 r_A3 2 7: 4 mile Figure I 591 i ---------- GOLDE 4 GATE A RpoftT -7-- (PV'T.) 14 _= — r 24 23 Project Location 211, GOLDEN GATE DELIMITE D 26 AREA 27 35 33 36 31- LC lucky T. 93 951 Gotd- C—t. E.t. `T* 4 84 3 2 5 7 -�Z-- 12 it 'WIN,' - M ;P�RK 7= 81 15 14 is 7 R I -- - — j�— z -Z — 22 21= 24M 19 20 21— 22 23 =2-= fit- 4� 27 25 .20 — 2t 21 I 26 25 Z- 3. 31 M1 -Z 36 -31 Z-Z 2 r_A3 2 7: 4 mile Figure I Table 1. HHH Ranch pine basal plots within RCW Management Area Plot # 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 AVG FLUCCS 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411/321 411/321 East. E. abnd West Cavity East description cluster cavity cluster central central SE SC central 12 cluster Pine 4 -10" # acre 45 50 68 81 117 71 24 42 6 53 56 ft2 /acre 17.54 14.72 23.05 26.50 35.59 22.85 7.36 14.27 2.49 53.00 .21.74 Pine 10 -14: # acre 34 25 55 39 57 37 60 31 19 40 40 ft2 /acre 26.76 29.18 41.23 29.86 1 40.48 27.15 43.25 1 24.31 14.50 29.04 30,58 Pine > 14" # acre 13 7 18 11 6 3 10 10 10 11 10 ft2 /acre 16.67 14.39 25.76 14.52 7.89 3.69 13.95 13.84 13.52 17.36 14.16 other >_4: # acre 1 1 18 .0 0 3 5 0 0 5 3 ft2 /acre 2.95 0.40 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.84 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.99 total pine >_4" # acre 92 102 141 131 180 111 94 83 36 105 108 ft2 /acre 60.96 58.30 90.04 70.85 1 83.96 53.70 64.57 54.74 30.44 65.00 63.26 total pine z10" # acre 47 52 73 31 63 .40 70 41 29 51 50 ft2 /acre 43.43 43.57 66.99 44.40 48.37 30.84 57.21 40.47 27.98 46.40 44.97 all spp >_4" DBH # acre 104 104 159 131 180 114 99 41 36 110 108 ft2 /acre 63.91 58.69 98.64 70.85 83.96 54.01 65.41 54.74 30.44 66.80 64.74 palms >6ft stem # per acre 26 44 39 6 5 11 5 15 8 0 16 midstory >7' cover 6 17 56 12 36 8 15 31 18 1 20 grass /herbs % cover 16 13 25 17 1 2 28 33 9 12 16 palmetto % cover 13 60 48 21 20 32 0 38 80 60 37 open ground % cover 72 31 26 62 79 48 72 29 12 28 46 Table 2. HHH Ranch pine basal plots outside of RCW Management Area Plot # 4 .3 5 6 avg 3,5,6 FLUCCS 624 435 435 435 435 description south wildfire wildfire wildfire wildfire Pine 4 -10" # per acre 52 15 0 31 15 ft2 /acre 16.72 4.57 0.00 10.38 4.98 Pine 10 -14: # per acre 32 5 2 16 8 ft2 /acre 26.77 3.75 0.37 13.38 4.59 Pine >1 4" # per acre 18 3 0 2 2 ft2 /acre 22.82 3.78 0.00 2.55 2.11 other >_4: # per acre 141 0 0 0 0 ft2 /acre 19.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cypress total pine >_4" # per acre 102 23 2 -50 25 ft2 /acre 66.31 12.08 0.37 26.31 12.92 total pine >_10" # per acre 50 8 0 18 9 ft2 /acre 49.59 7.53 0.00 15.94 7.82 all spp >_4" DBH # per acre 243 23 2 50 25 ft2 /acre 85.68 12.08 0.37 26.31 12.92 palms >6ft stem #per acre 3 91 89 34 71 midstory >7' % cover 68 12 29 36 26 grass /herbs % cover 39 30 29 40 33 palmetto % cover 0 56 45 26 46 open ground % cover 61 14 21 40 25 FLDGCB I+qn GN Deevy6on AceeQV� ��i.b4 lumpA.ec ui Prm.no sa.a PMe FYempoO. 4tt/aiH Phu FLLmp9.wN GMape Pekin t6B. i 2515 eze CMOa9e Pete 1.75 6,51426 0.M Phw. xiN GMVq PMm 515 Pop Aeh L VBbw BMpL Xy4Xe M=IeYO 12 4812 1¢65 fi21 Cyp.ss 9.00 14392 621212 Cypress lUriM�c Pe.tun 8992 U-k 821212H Cypress \Nyh10 UnMpmC Pe6( 621 /L2622 BnvID.n Pepp.r M.eM Lypnn ('e0 CPyMprCUe wUh CeSbpe PKn 1.90 @62rm i9 MNeMpu hrwPWLypraeCeroaq Pdm 13.]9 W1 Frsslw=ur Mesh )40 DIe4rMel+M. IFeitn 111 )121 XYbk DMYBGC Wqe (Fenn lJrezJ (F B.49 T_ EXOTIC6 DE91DF16710N ED =D.sx m Ei =6.24% Q •25 -1 of ' El .50 -74x 4% E4 =76 -100% ,s RCW nest tree 2006 ■ active cavity tree • cavity tree inactive >3 yrs or usurped by red -belly O site of lost cavity tree 618 E6 ® pine -basal plot 621x28 E 212H Et T� 411!426 El fizlmz ' a 624 E7 za 74g\ 01 E 71* 1212 E7 afl 616 E1 39e 624 ED 425 — i 9-E7 1 ' 48 x26 ED a.6 E2 o40H 624 E, A rJ° I v I U 621 212 Q /2 21 B21u12 E1 64„ '12H E7 a6 0361428 El 4s • 6212.14 E1 624 EO MI212EI 62 Q 8�8 21 - 821212H El 0.15 Ln 212H E7 sn B14 El 624 E, a: Q 716 0H h 411.428 E7 7.m TiTH Et o.m 411-4 E, An 212H E7 621 E2- 624819 E4 411 EO ex 2t2H E 1918 ma to a']t EO 624 El m 62Q 924 411 ED 328 1t1 EO E7 $ 9A 4 321 621212 Q 0 524 Q vb 740 27 Et 621212 3 4 atu' 40 824 E7 321 ED an 6m om 8212,2 t_1 /`/�R'/ 618 EO 4ubi EO finE-0 61 ED 321 EO 81 !3 321 L,/ A9 . 740H 21 ED 321 eD 740 99 624 El 321 3Ta1mEDD 821 EO aAO L O 5�a 74OH O ate 621 Q ■ 624 I., E2 Y ■ IX- 7 321 EO 09 .11 411 EO 471 E1 9] EO 7 11 o • U1 � 12 624 E4 619 624 E7 4>s 740H . 624 E • 32193 1.40 6.9x 621m2 E7 411 EO 4 m,9 as 411 EO 321 ED 40H 8 Q 824 E4 624 am '11 to xAt 51 E nm th 1. 61 1 O 74 9.06 621/.,.422 E3 624 E2 82 .1 1 y Q r32t EO ® 621 E3 7 j L1 824 E3 tam as 624 E1 740H m-72 624 EO 411 E1 za t Et 2.0 411 E7 624 E7 R 1. 624 E2 1 El 411 621 sb.n 6� . E4 E1 i4ie0' 411 E7 oa Figure 2. HHH Ranch FLUCCS with'locations of RCW cavities and•pine -basal plots. APPENDIX A Environmental Evaluation and Advocacy SITE VEGETATION AS INFLUENCED BY SURFACE AND NEAR- SURFACE HYDROLOGY 1 MAY 2007 Suite 200 2159 Morning Sun Lane, Naples, FL 34119 239 - 514 -3998 Fax: 514 -0955 brown @synecol.com SITE VEGETATION AS INFLUENCED BY SURFACE AND NEAR - SURFACE HYDROLOGY This site is a mosaic of areas that have historically been distinctively upland and other areas that were originally very wet. Over time, a combination of canal and road systems appear to have significantly altered the surface and near - surface site hydrology. Most notable among these influences are the 1 -75 canal that borders the site to the south and the Golden Gate Canal approximately 1.5 miles north of the site. The combined effects of these canals is enhanced because the Golden Gate Canal both interrupts historical sheet flow and lowers near - surface groundwater levels. The 1 -75 Canal accelerates the rate of near - surface water level drawdown. The combination of these influences might well significantly influence wetland hydrology on the site. In 2003, Synecological Analysts installed a system of 15 shallow water wells to document site water levels. As data are recorded and evaluated, new wells have been installed. Water levels have been recorded monthly during the dry season and weekly during the rainy season. These data and the well locations are presented in the accompanying figure. Water level elevations are shown in relation to ground level. The definition of wetlands, as a regulatory construct, varies between state and federal regulatory agencies but there are some common hydrologic triggers that might indicate jurisdictional wetlands. If the water table is within 12 inches of the surface for 14 consecutive days or if the surface is inundated for seven consecutive days during the growing season, these areas might be jurisdictional wetlands. Anomalies such as tropical storms or hurricanes are excluded. Based on these general criteria, much of the site which supports wetland vegetation, primarily cypress, may well not meet regulatory criteria as jurisdictional wetlands. Moreover, this diminished hydroperiod diminished wetland plant vigor significantly. This loss of vigor makes these plants more susceptible to disease. They are also less able to successfully compete with exotics, resulting with accelerated rates of melaleuca and Brazilian pepper infestation. Well Data Statistical Analysis To correct for storm events and other anomalous well data recordings, we use as a metric the absolute value of the rate of change in water level measurements in feet per day. To identify statistical outliers we employ the Fourth - Spread method of outlier detection as detailed in Devore, J.L. (2000) Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences. In fact, we use a more conservative exclusion criteria by requiring outliers be twice the fourth - spread distance from the median instead of the accepted 1.5 times metric. Outliers are assumed to have an approximately 10 -day relaxation time, and data in that interval are replaced by standard linear interpolation. f �. ". ;. A �•. :, ';Ra . ,:;,.Airy <-•F.,`Y, ,h A .,,^h. J,..�,. R .,,..._,. ,. •- .':. ;. y. .f vz ;r, ,L•cA ,t.- .: .,,, 2,, 1.. I:; A •L1 k yh ,L"wf,14.i 1 y.. � ; -. h :h ...e « w � .'JC't uA i ^M „� ,�,,. "1 P. °s X i : J t 'TYi�•,: i.: •r�;.' a'k r�n� - r•�t r a' ri . ' i ,� " '%.••` a.......� „•+.+..err: 1"'i,J': palh ,'�`y” +lhA '�: hr.. 7; ,e Ce �' ,��`.� � �, d�, �` "�,.: �1 �,s •'lY}� ��y�1a ^S�i':�A'4t � ��'�. �a T ,aYrt -.t c` .t +1 �y Ik,'�;pa.� �� � ,'i.� .. .'s'V31`; �. n.� a'' �. ` a J%at ,. =`e•L., ,; 3� �� ` +, ii° ;' » �+ ivv � A, ,- �Et: ,. �� � .-. �4 ., � � y : �+ ..,` v WELL -3 •;I' ,� �� = "" $,�� z, A, 4� A rR . +,._ <`,.�' '�# :t.+ , ad • rt. 5.��. {FJ,Y :, y.i '+;:;, ^t t ` .f 5 ?';+1�: �'.�!+,ye"i n4 4.. ` ;"Gr ,�,. �»++,. r. ” •�� i 4 F 4 XVw Y ;.r :'S •I;s; "*:". "r"T"YG «, - , -+,,F, �'., ij +.. 6:M' ` '�' ! rY t ..Ar } i. .t 4 �"�• P ' ^ �'r ., ,y ,�, ^,. tt,�.i; 4�� �A � �,.i�t• wr ,}'y�M #T 9. Id '� 'Y.. � F�jA ^ -:' n: �. � -1� P.S. �$j, Eh' 4 ,. �f T� YN'1,� �7L,�l Y.00 t' Y4 :•�I.l tk,5 +`4,�1 ,,f,,.� ..;: . � :'� 6: -.:' , ^.i° ::. '�'• 5: ' A'� . �' •�.. �� v y .1r� t! YA + {; , �{.k,a ,M1. A NI^ l �.r. ii . i }1 ,7,R k,. �" � _ ".�•� r�'Y. �,:,,1j '.'�, RyAlya:a � .i .� �.� ,r !♦. �` � 9 r, -��" WELL :..xA+ � ?:_ ,, ,. ";:; s+��- r s ,"��` °;a ,,r � h � x' , °.. „•.[>aad � 1« 5,: „,... 1• ua ^ y :.,' ;.- r s.: , :,, <.: ,, .. in + ': `' .:���" ^ ^1;t ,.'q N's �4^Y',S';u+. �)t. �.F .k -•F r„ _ ,r.1e', (J;a u r Jj�r' r'� �'� "'"�t" �•t "F^ .� WE —4 a. l', �'': LL � ',���>r , ^,i•'r{;. ., t..'." R . ,...,.... -I. •"'i�,.; <A ,.: ,.t'¢¢• ,m a, . 1: , . r. .w.� •r k� "'1"' 4 } v. A� (��•• i-: cif f, -. j� y( Y 4i '.T :. `* fa:' + '„ � � ^v Y• t 4T '; -' f. + .f �... .!w.1,".. ,.. ri a �� -�. f �•, �� tY �w'' $tt { /'. 2 *�,.,r �F „. I.i f AT <t J i 4' �'Sd .ti'``i ��:', ,�' d� ":.`� °' � N• '.4`"i a ,. , ^�� ar a � � �.rl,;, � r;'•i... 'h{ �i. -.,�,� � 2;a ,'71�' � �." �.!✓� r["� Y 5' 1 r #t Jr' n,,,�Ml' ,.. nY p �,� � ” /..K �l, .�a.. _nr',f, � 1+ I;Y.T �t {, R av r :��w: ',�i T�." rt�r`�•�• r ':�,x�S,(4� { L,C, �' � �'.. '4•.- s, t� 4.,?Elt_. y 1 74 C x'A . �'t E'..�� [ i �` t w,'�6'�+„ - wa'�""' 'S° 7+, ,s rlF�s .�r. >�e .r. AJ it , k ". i z � ,: ,i' " -•�3 '� ,.1,�.�}(�t t 3", ,.� „.Gr A :� } °t' /•. �'�., :ry , � aki,4 .� � tSJ. ^N „ !t:+ �•+ a [ 1`.. A F tl t � I�` e4 �. !� o- � . ;y; '�Ik -Ar ',eta:• v:' ,i,� .apt•:'..k �r •,Z1} :a. :11 � {_� -f•.{' ,� `r�g .,�y `j w ; .f ": 1y Y. "s r�, i.J: vn" :,'"k. -'1. 'v " .-'R,..., .i. .;,y.. .i•i t, t,. • -tj »�i 'Y ��,*+IY�', �'�' ^:4': ��!' � -'L.r f �' 1. t. �rj r 1 ^',i tJ ,�” ., 11�.4 .. - .y. a• ''r,,t,'�'. r 1 ]y�,.^ : ".r. :. r •. *�1'':' ��`f'•a -rr.R "+ n:: WELL -5 {`Af 5'.tr`t; b" , .,, tt' •!4 i r %. ".' A " +�.. •k. : ¢. 4�R 'F + .R ' f.(n , t . WELL -9 y2�11_� � :r 'jy :, -���rJ c.ra�� v .r`, � "'n '•1 't{ S r �M a. ;X `{ 'S T'4. :� l' ,?'4.•�3. ',14 -T �! , t,; r�. : A'J •.y[�L t ''� • "t '1.'� . ; ; ; a Ui. 4.' ,,_:,C Th . BC I' tl • .•, d? r. s ^„w T -.,,l, +{,+E1 y. ,tl .A T, (��t ,;. i' d . T j 4 ' ,z": :t . y? rz�i' A. d `fi 1 ! # L,:Y^' !P, ��- it ��� �i d � ..��� �._; n *•,: t^ •. -:' ?7 .-. 1 4T , T r,.,� s2..: r •?,aG«.. ,,. A . ,4. W 1 • ..�,; Syr � ,r �..�» t � . �� ,, '.� �yA +j la: �� ��l� 1 � "r'c.t 4' 1 � d. ..:.,�- ,! .~ 1' �� UA.". ,•T�4 ..;.{ -b. � •w,;yt .`rJ1A ,. s7 T ��. "���4;: f.- a.. i'� bJ.i• )�'�A y�'. ,.'• ' ".T ..., '. „ � e r '.. ,T ';�! r � � ,,.' � t.a� .�,+� '1 iFJ : i i� a''C..� ''� #f�j A,�i',�4.it 4 "�y. ,�. '%�C "?.•.:1' i �-`° ..t,sl... 'f r�i ;.�• .r Er ,. •j . -. ;w, ., ,.errIl':rl' } „~ S, „r T. ".>I„ .L, ✓A fi ; �7 vy,A?1'jr,.ty , % „{u. t *t. �j y T fC d1 A 'a r dA; yYat #�3 ra.t�w �.. � rl k', �.�?'�. t -'+ u'! [. -�” , tr + „•, WELL -7 - s3 WELL -6 , ,><� fi rX,' ,: ri"i •A -E• � y, ^ t.. . "'� �;�',. {•'fit : . ,fin . 1� ^'�"a^ 'r ` ��1Ae IF r � r ' f ;3 w�Li'Re'.. n,e,. *. 3a{,"' - Kw :7,,k y,,. „r'.. •r'ia`,,. { ^rrt..°i• 1d. �1 .�.[” lti"F- .'. :,:.,� !. Y. '4�. ',^. rJ I.. R. , . ,,, a;r � �` .,: �,� cA 'a�R6' ,..� - �: -, •.� .. ' +�r "� �'�' 9 'A= _ �• +w�''' „'{t., ±?.�; *J �k t� _'« « -. -'t. #,.".'"^ttrR r ` -'NAA ..t•'•�{5dya Ar:`.;" {� WELL 15 r��.k- Y � fir=. ,r .# %d'' E �*�� + -,s, 6 , : 3r , �`'+�', Nro 3 .” IJ• ,,,A;" 1.,,_ '� J� <RIy ldl, Va : -".jv' A'i.�,w. j� ,. c.1 { t ' �, iyyRr` r, 'I l,r :i1�IF C y( I: �L�• ` q I A 'i � �4„ F , sny�� +Y'Yy ..:: � r+ ''. I 1 '�' ,�tf t,t{� ry f�J,� i .:/ � � �t � �i. � �.0 n .jj,�.:; �t ,..J � • ! '�,!; � • '.,, t , i :.� �, � rr : t,'. ! dA i, ”) "'�. ,E. A { R 1�'yy " -i�^T } '., `l ! e p '.ra .A 4,°...a'T ,'"Ot 11. , 1.','y •Y •n'.!.'�, i. R �, ,�. -3'i,y "a.�` +.. �.b,• ' y ^:i,'�s "?.s— WELL— - '- ;14 ' 4 .. . --. .._ .� ,. r.,;! v;, .i�Y,;;,y T ;.o-=ti i t +. n . .: .. ..,4: .`,k'tt$ /. r.r •.t . ., lk,. µ��. e �., 4' 4a `r °d ,.A��F .�ly+ ,�:. 1 � :.;:A _ �. ,yT?A'• >.I, �.. ', '9 ..I S: r,.4 ,�r y`.^ �c.I ^+ .�`t .I.. �.i,.r ;."�• ,,.: 'y', - WELL— 10 "X# a ; -.y. •�r, �Y �jr. R , •A Y�� M fi �.,; yr'd �"r T rn: « rr; ,. +.;`. „x��' r"i r ++ r,Y�n'�. ',t.,r'F�+� ^ 5• x °�. - ���< 1” , 1 WELL -8 ��. r• ;Fx ,�y.� - (j `.�, [ :.ka R t ~, , �• �`�"A},1 ;.�. � ,:q .,;� `` d '��,. b:, " � , A,!: l�r,.. �}V�'e, . I •x - :`x .1 I w'v ,,x l;q„ t ", Yr6 t,X` r £ M) d + tl•T'. «} ,�� JF�' '.�^Y+,S ` { .;.; •d" - b4C } piFA ,.wS"..V.,�r >' 71,..':.•'!•4 �'� ^- '� s.. •a" - lh'::�r, "1'1 ..�q, �'�roJi :AA .0 %u, S'I�Ftfq`' ^s-�.,"R.lt.i"FT 1, . 4 ,� w , rR"{. WE L -12 ,A? a +a��ir'�rl L I+. . w,. ti: .Ek y, D , .. 75 " ♦ d _.�*� ,3 q R'.L: ^:'�%'� r pn S t M1 R '+.^Rla. ` �'J';'I �.. ; `: I 7, {,,, ;.> h,•;; 'WELL-11 tT� ;..6... Aa..' +r , {c_ '. �, rit •,:- d.e °,:y. r q a"�1, i 1 ;': �'Y ►..r:"`;r i' ;3. ,Y..r....:r.. �. ' `'�.tl J�."* k ++fi?R {A „lp. t At #, a ,� yy# ✓,its', y w ?Mar.ty 3i..; i Tly1 1:' v ti” Tk. M erT,� >r It �v-rh ey;,; "il . ,'�[ Fai,• c tN� TM: {v' µ� �, ,:t 'i'4~' •a P.I :�!�` 1 r.4 •id.. �Mr 3:1 ,4ti.' h �' ^, , �' r ,✓ �a:Q y. L. �. '�a �� 'w�i E .A'..,T, a 1.'�� � A' "F ,r .:'��. drr:l { ,,sA. E�& TE .. - i r L x v LEGEND OWNER /DEVELOPER DUMNHD BY: S.J.U. CRADY MINOR AND - ASSOCIATES, P.A. NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICr 0 NElL LOCATioN ORA�- eY: K.A.M. a Na. ARE MONITORED WEEKLY DURING THE Mwr SWEN nHD FRANCE 0. HUSSEY JR. , CIVIL ENGINEERS A LAND SURVEYORS a PLANNERS WNiHtY DURING DRY SFAHON. Mq MONTH WA WERE USED FOR MART PAT RUSSET PRV 8.1 D.N.]BDO YIA DQL RHT HHH RANCH THIS PLOT; MI. DATA ME ATTACHED1350 SPYGLASS LANE BOii"A "R,IICR, PIDRIDA ]4134 WELL LOCATIONS NAPLES, FL 34102 -7741 B CODC A Dse.+blme DY .CA N.T.S. [CBRUAR g•2007 HHHRPnt�NPR Noe'ol,ona DRONING NUMBER 1 e WBII 7 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 t y -1.50 - - x d d -2.50 - ------ ._. _ ... - -3.00 -3.50 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 Day in year Well 3 0.00 -0.50 - 1.00 ., -1.50 - - L -2.00 -2.50 J -3.00 - - -- - . - $ -3.50 -4.00 - -- - - -- -4.50 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 Day in year -2004 -2005 2006 -GVUY -2005 2006 Well 2 200611 0.00 -0.50 _ -1.00 -1.50 L 01 _ -2.00 > -2.50 w J y -3.00 -3.50 -4.00 -4.50 Well 7 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 Day in year 0.00 -0.50 _ -1.00 a' " -1.50 r OI S -2.00 -2.50 J `w -3.00 -3.50 -4.00 -4.50 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 Day in year Well 8 Well 9 Well 10 0.00 -- - - - - -- ------------- - - -.__ -0.50 - - -- 0.00 - - - - -- -0.50 - - -� - -1.00 -1.50 " -- - - - - -- -- -- -_.. - - -- _1.50 - - -- L 2 -2.00 _ .:_ -2004 > -2.50 - - - - 2005 _ -2.00 2004 w - _ ._. .__ -,: :_--._.. --__ ._.:.._ "_- ___..._. .... -_. -- -- -2005 J 2.50 -3.00 2006 3.00 - -- 2006 3.50 3.50 - -4.00 -4.00 - - -4.50 -4.50 1 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 Day in year Day in year Well 11 Well 12 - - - - -- - D o- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- .._ -_.. .- -- - - -0.5 - rn a -2 : d -2.5 - - -- - - - - \ -2004 -- -2005 m _2 x > 2.5 - 2004 - --2005 J 2006 d -3 -. - - 2006 _3 m -3.5 _ 4 -4 - . .. -.,. -4.5 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 -4.5 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 Day in year Day in year Well 13 Well 14 0 -0.5 - - - - -- -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - _._ _ - -- - - - - .: -0.50 -- -1.00 - -1.50 x - 2004 m 2.5 - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- -2005 _2.00 - -- - - - - - a J 2.50 - - - -2004 -2005 3 LL _ / 2006 iu -3 00 2006 + -3.5 -- -- - - -- �y -3.50 -4.00 -- - -- - - - 4 -4.50 -4.5 1/0/00 2/19/00 419/00 5/29/00 7/18/00 9/6/00 10/26/0 12/15/0 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 0 0 Day in year Day in year Well 15 o- -0.5 - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- _ - - - -- -- -- t rn v -2.5 - - 2004 - 2005 J w _3 ,. 5 -3.5 - . - -- -- vi - q -4.5 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 Day in year APPENDIX B Prescribed Burning INITL4L FOCUS The initial focus of the prescribed burning program will be to identify natural areas within specific management units which are slated for protection or restoration and that historically were maintained by frequent fire. These areas will be identified and designated as burn zones. Individual burn zones larger than 50 acres will be divided by natural or manmade fire breaks into parcels less than 50 acres. Prescribed fire will be restored or maintained on these units as soon as possible. Pine flatwoods and mixed pine /cypress habitats are examples of vegetation communities maintained by frequent fire. Typical fire return intervals for these communities are 2 -5. years. Short fire intervals will be applied to these units with each burn unit scheduled for fire treatment once every 2 -3 years. A short return interval will facilitate control, minimise hazard fuel buildup, and minimize fire intensity. The initial program will focus on habitats within and near identified Red Cockaded Woodpecker habitat. Burn zone boundaries have not been delineated and ground truthed so exact acreages and number of zones have not been determined. Site inspections and preliminary evaluations indicate that approximately 500 acres should be included in designated Burn Zones. Annual burn acreage will fluctuate depending on desired fire return intervals and environmental condition. Annual burn acreage should fluctuate between 50 and 200 acres. Individual burns may be as small as a few acres and as large as 50 acres. Initial prescriptions and burn units should provide for plans to limit each burn to less than 25 acres through a combination of staged ignition plans, internal firebreaks, and additional suppression equipment. The location of HHH ranch with I -75 immediately to the south, nearby residential areas and other smoke sensitive areas nearby dictate a comprehensive smoke management program. Establishing a competent burn team with proper equipment and administrative support is essential. Scheduling prescribed burns on a priority basis and executing burns only when conditions are favorable will lead to a successful program. PRESCRIPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL BURN UNITS Burn Prescriptions should be prepared for each burn unit. A burn prescription is a written document that details the purpose and objectives, weather parameters, environmental conditions, precautionary measures, ignition plan, personnel, equipment, and other factors that will allow a fire to be set and bum a predetermined area. A Florida Certified Burn Manager should prepare or review these prescriptions. Each prescription should meet the requirements outline in FS790.125 and FAC Ch 5I- 2. In addition the prescription should follow the guidelines as established in the Interagency Basic Prescribed Fire Course. These guidelines identify 14 prescription elements. 4/25/2007 .1 1. Purpose and objectives 2. Description of Burn Unit 3. Burn Unit Map 4. Safety 5. Weather Factors 6. Fuel Conditions 7. Season and Time of Day 8. Smoke Screening Plan 9. Publicity 10. Personnel and Equipment 11. Legal requirements 12. Ignition Plan 13. Contingincies, Mop Up, Declare Fire Out 14. Evaluation Items which should receive special attention or suggested parameters are discussed for each category. * *NOTE ** Not all required information for each prescription is addressed in this document. Purpose and Objectives: The Goal for natural resource management at HHH ranch is addressed on page 1 and the goal of the prescribed fire program is discussed at the beginning of this section on prescribed fire. In addition each prescription should include measurable objectives for the specific burn zone. For example an objective to reduce hazard fuel should include the desired percent reduction and or an estimate of fuel loading before and after the burn. If a mosaic of burned and unburned areas is desired then an acceptable range should be listed. For example a burn which covers 50 -70% may be desirable for one bum unit while it may be desirable to burn at least 90% of the unit when an extreme fire hazard exists. Unburned "islands" within burn units will provide potential denning sites for bear and panther. Description of Bum Unit: The description of the burn unit should be detailed. As a minimum it should include the location, size, topography, soils and previous bum records. The plant communities within the unit should be described including the overstory and understory. Plant species, size and density should be described. The fuels expected to carry the fire should also be described. Fuel types, loading, density, size, and continuity should be evaluated. Burn Unit Man: The burn unit map should serve as a guide for burn team members and other interested parties. The unit boundaries should be well defined along with adjacent or nearby property owners. Access to the unit should also be shown on this map or if required on a second area map. Include access for reinforcements such as the Division of Forestry if they are called. A Division of Forestry Transport loaded with a tractor plow has more restricted access than other equipment used on prescribed bums. Existing and 4/25/2007 2 additional fire lines should be identified along with natural firebreaks, trails, and other features which may affect the fire. Improved structures or natural features which should be protected should also be identified. Special hazards, areas of fuel buildup, dead end roads and other problem areas should be highlighted. The map should include a verified scale and directional arrow for proper orientation. Safety: Both public and crew safety should be addressed in this prescription. Crew training, general safety standards and other policies are discussed in a later section. All personnel should have and use standard Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), be in proper physical condition for their assigned duties and be advised of special hazards on each burn. Heat exhaustion and dehydration are frequent problems on Florida prescribed burns especially when higher ambient temperatures are encountered. A crew briefing and preburn checklist should be used immediately prior to the bum. This briefing provides everyone the opportunity to review and understand the entire bum plan including contingencies such as escape routes, safety zones, emergency contacts and crew assignments during extended operations. Public safety is a growing concern in Florida. In the past smoke management issues dominated public safety issues associated with prescribed bums. While heath issues associated with breathing smoke filled air are always a concern it has been reduced visibility and impacts to transportation that have caused most problems. Smoke management and smoke screening can limit these impacts to acceptable levels but prescribed burners need to develop contingencies for regulating traffic if smoke reduces visibility on roads to unacceptable levels. Warning signs and contact with the Florida Highway Patrol and local police before problems arise are proactive steps which should taken on every prescribed fire. Weather Factors: Weather during the burn as well as overall environmental conditions is one of three major components of the fire environment. These components (fuels, weather, topography) determine how each fire will burn. Using available weather forecasts and measuring on site weather conditions are essential components of all successful prescribed burns. The Division of Forestry web site as well as NOAA weather offices located throughout Florida are excellent resources for fire weather forecasts including spot forecasts for exact locations. An example of a fire weather forecast is included as Appendix 16.0 -A. Wind and relative humidity are the two most important weather factors which directly impact how the fuels bum. Wind direction determines how and in which direction the fire will spread and wind speed will determine how quickly a fire will move. Relative humidity will directly impact fuel moisture and fuel moisture determines how rapidly or if a given fuel will burn. Other weather factors are discussed in the sections fuel conditions, smoke management, and season of bum. Desired forecast wind speeds should generally fall in the range of 5 -15 MPH and relative humidities should be between 40 -65% . Specific objectives, site conditions, anticipated fire behavior and ignition patterns may dictate more restrictive conditions. Fuel Conditions: The fuels which will carry the fire and those fuels that are consumed during a burn determine how a fire burns and the difficulty of control. Fuel characteristics including the volume or loading, the size of each fuel particle, continuity, density and chemical characteristics can play major roles in fire behavior. For fine fuels 4/25/2007 3 such as grasses and pine needles fuel moisture is critical. Relative humidity, exposure to sun and wind can quickly change fine fuel moistures while fuels in contact with wet surfaces or standing water may retain high fuel moistures. Desired fine fuel moistures will depend upon bum objectives, ignition techniques, fuel loads and site specific circumstances. In general dead fine fuel moistures between 8 and 20 percent are desirable. Peat soils and duff layers should be excluded as available fuels. Prescription criteria that address the KBDI(Keech -Byram Drought Index), days since significant rain, and the depth to the water table can all serve as indicators of duff and peat conditions. A KBDI index above 500 indicates that peat or duff layers may be at risk. Little or no rain fall for 10 days or more prior to a burn may result in an extremely hot fire with complete fuel consumption. Water tables at or near ground level generally indicate that duff or peat has sufficient moisture to prevent ignition. Season and Time of Day: From an ecological perspective most lightning fires occurred in May and June at the beginning of the thunderstorm/rainy season. Plant communities are still relatively dry and fires have a greater chance to bum significant acreage. Lightning strikes are frequent during the rest of the rainy season but generally wetter conditions reduce the likelihood of ignition and hinder the spread of any fires that are started. Lightning strikes during the dry season are less frequent so there are fewer fires at this time. During dryer years these less frequent strikes were likely to start fires early in the dry season and these fires might bum until the arrival of the rainy season. Historical prescribed burns were conducted mostly in the winter. The approach and passage of cold fronts produce predictable weather patterns that are conducive to prescribed burning. Successful burn programs often rely on a combination of burning strategies to accomplish multiple objectives. Bum units which have not burned on a consistent rotation should first be burned under safe conservative conditions at the beginning of the dry season (December- January). Once a consistent rotation has been established some burns should be conducted during the early growing season. When woody vegetation is a valuable resource prescribed fire should not be conducted during periods of high potential mortality (Fall for Pine Trees and Spring for Hardwoods). Early growing season burns coincide with the peak wildfire season and in some years little or no prescribed burning is possible at this time. For this reason prescribed bumers should set annual plans which actually begin in April or May. Thus in years when growing season burns are restricted the bum manager can make a decision to shift the season of bum to winter or delay the bum for at least one year. Smoke Management: Florida's population is rapidly approaching 1 person for every 2 acres of land. Smoke form any wildland fire has the potential to impact thousands of people. Smoke management is a plan of action to conduct prescribed fires in such a way that the smoke produced is dispersed without causing a health or safety hazard. The objectives of smoke management are to: 1) reduce the emissions produced, 2) identify and avoid smoke - sensitive areas (SSAs) such as airports, hospitals, schools and public roads, and 4/25/2007 •4 3) burn only when atmospheric conditions assure good smoke transport and dispersion Combustion Phases: The combustion processes is comprised of four phases, each producing different types and amounts of combustion products. Understanding these phases is a prerequisite to estimating the total amount of smoke. The total area and amount of time a fire remains in the smoldering phase will significantly impact total smoke production. Smaller, lighter fuels (e.g., grasses) will smolder for a relatively short time compared to larger fuels (e.g. logs, limbs stumps and organic soils like muck). The four phases of combustion are: 1) preheating; 2) flaming; 3) smoldering; and 4) glowing. Preheating or Preignition Phase: Fuel temperature is rising because heat is being absorbed. Moisture and flammable gases are being driven off.. Some of these materials are consumed during flaming combustion and some condense into particles which become visible smoke. Flaming Phase: Fuels have passed the ignition temperature threshold and are flaming. Fuel is changing chemically and large amounts of heat and gas are being released. Emissions are mostly carbon dioxide and water. Some of the organic compounds produced cool and condense into tar droplets and solid soot particles as they move away from the heat of the fire. These particles make up the visible smoke component. The more efficient the combustion process, the less soot and tar produced. In general the higher the rate of spread, the less efficient the combustion process. Thus, backing fires are often preferred from a smoke management standpoint. Smoldering Phase: The flaming front has moved on but non - flaming combustion with intermittent flaming is taking place. The combustion process is not efficient. Lots of smoke is produced. Emissions from smoldering combustion are at least twice that of the flaming phase. The smoke associated with fast - moving intense fires is black because of incomplete combustion. Headfires produce the most particulate and backing fires the least. Headfires result in more smoldering for a longer time than backing fires. In a typical heading fire, about half the fuel is consumed during the smoldering phase. In backing fires, most fuel consumption takes place in the flaming zones so little smoldering occurs behind the flaming front. Glowing phase: Virtually no combustion products are given off during this final phase of combustion. Combustion Products Water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) comprise about 90% of the combustion products of wildland fuels but are not considered pollutants. Water vapor can, however, drastically reduce visibility. The most important pollutants of forest fires are particulate matter and carbon monoxide (CO). Current smoke management systems are all based on particulate matter. Particulate matter is defined as any solid or liquid particle suspended in the atmosphere. Most are too small to be seen with the naked eye and can stay suspended in the atmosphere for months. Particulate matter is largely responsible for reduced visibility in smoke, most being in the size class range that causes the maximum reduction of light. 4/25/2007 -5 CO is rapidly diluted but it is very toxic and can cause headaches and disorientation with continued exposure near the combustion zone. Smoke Management Guidelines 1) Follow a smoke screening process for each burn. 2) Choose wind directions which direct smoke away from sensitive areas 3) Choose ignition methods which minimise smoke production 4) Communicate and provide advance information to everyone who may be impacted or concerned about smoke. 5) Be prepared to respond promptly and effectively to any problems. 6) Conduct more extensive mop up when smoke sensitive areas may be impacted. 7) Use ignition techniques and weather parameters that favor the flaming phase and minimize the smoldering. 8) Specific burns may require more stringent guidelines but the following minimum values should be met: Mixing Height 1700 ft Transport Wind 9 MPH Daytime Dispersion 35 Night Dispersion 3 9) Reduce the number of acres to be burned by splitting units into smaller blocks. 10) Isolate problem fuels within the burn unit or develop alternate treatment of these fuels. 11) Rotate crew members to minimise exposure to heavy smoke /carbon monoxide. 12) Incorporate experience and lessons learned from other burns both onsite and within the vicinity of the proposed burn. Publicity/Notification of Local Authorities: Each bum unit plan should include a Public Relations element which identifies the individuals and agencies which should be notified just prior to the burn. A wide variety of methods may be included in this process and include: Distribution of pamphlets or flyers, large posters or notices at strategic locations, public meetings, civic organizations, internet notifications and postings, and media outlets. The public should be notified well in advance and again within a few days of proposed burns. In addition a list should be developed for required contacts on the day of the burn. This list along with telephone numbers should be included in the plan for each individual unit. Legal Requirements: Legal requirements associated with prescribed burns include laws, rules, and policies administered by the Florida Division of Forestry, Environmental Laws and Endangered Species Laws and Rules. An authorization from the Division of Forestry is required for each bum. All burns that qualify will be conducted under the Certified Prescribed Burn Act. This act requires that a certified bum manager review and sign the prescription, that a certified burn manager be present during the burn and that established criteria are followed for the entire process. In addition to other requirements a written prescription must be on site during the bum. In some cases the authorization may be secured after 4:00 PM the day before the burn but in most cases it is obtained after 8:00 AM the day of the bum. It is the responsibility of the Burn Manager to: 1) Notify DOF at the time the authorization is secured that the burn is being conducted under the provisions of the Certified Prescribed Burn Act. 4/25/2007 2) Inspect the bum unit prior to ignition to insure that endangered species will not be adversely impacted by the bum and to insure that any improved property or structures will be protected. 3) Provide a reliable communication link with DOF during the bum. 4) Notify DOF if any problems arise on the bum. If the fire escapes from the designated bum unit notification and a request for help must be requested immediately. 5) Be prepared to extinguish the prescribed bum within two hours after notification by the DOF. 6) Be prepared to enact contingency plans for other problems which may arise. Ignition _Plan: Selection of the proper firing technique or combination of techniques and ignition pattern should be based on the burning objective(s), fuels, weather, smoke management guidelines, and manpower and equipment available. A complete ignition plan should include both a narrative and a map depicting the ignition sequence. All ignition plans are based on the location and type of control lines. Fire lines which are constructed to bare mineral soil are preferred because these are the most reliable type of line. All fire lines should be completed prior to the scheduled burn date but they should also be inspected immediately prior to the bum. Every prescribed bum should be preceded by a test fire within representative fuels in the bum unit. The test fire should be located near the downwind side of the burn unit near the anchor point_ The test fire is a final check to verify that fire behavior will be within acceptable limits and that the objectives of the bum can be accomplished. After the test fire has been evaluated a decision is made to either extinguish the fire or to proceed. For cancelled bums the test fire site should be closely monitored for an extended time period to insure the fire is out. After the test fire is complete a blackline should be established on the downwind side of the unit. An anchor point should be established which secures the test fire area and from which the blackline can be established. The baseline is always established on the downwind side of the area to be burned and should be wide enough to stop a headfire. This is normally done in conjunction with burning the whole area but it can be done several weeks prior to the actual bum. Once the blackline is established the actual ignition of the unit begins. The ignition pattem may be a single technique or a combination of four techniques. These four techniques can be grouped into two broad categories: linefires which are specifically set to either back, head, or flank; and spot fires which combine all 3 components at the same time. The need for a secure perimeter line around the area to be burned is common to all firing techniques, as is a secure baseline. Bacldng fires are the safest firing technique. They result in more complete combustion during the flaming stage and thus produce less smoldering combustion than any other technique. This means they also produce the least amount of particulate -less than half the amount produced in a head fire. They have the lowest fireline intensity and are the least likely to produce crown scorch. 4/25/2007 -7 This technique is not used as often as it would otherwise be because it produces the slowest rate of spread of any technique. The maximum is about 200 feet/hour regardless of windspeed. Large blocks where backing fires are to be used, therefore, require the construction of interior lines to ensure the burn will be completed by nightfall. A rate of spread of 2 chain/hour (1 chain =66 feet) is often used when determining how many interior lines will be needed to assure completion of a burn before sunset. Interior firebreaks should be constructed 5 to 10 chains apart prior to the day of the bum. Once constructed, interior lines limit useable wind directions. Backing fires often do not carry well in the summer because of higher fuelbed moisture contents and lower windspeeds. Transpiration from low vegetation and reduced windspeeds close to the ground result in a zone of slightly higher relative humidity beneath the understory canopy. Heading fires produce the highest fireline intensity because they have the fastest rate of spread (600 to over 6,000 feet per hour), the widest flame zone depth and the longest flames. They are also the most inefficient from a combustion standpoint and thus also produce the most particulates. But they also result in good convective lift which is needed to disperse combustion products and are a quick way to complete a burn (so larger areas can be burned). At HHH their use should be generally confined to areas with only a 1 or 2 year rough. Headfires can be used with higher RH and higher fine fuel moisture than other techniques. They can accommodate lower windspeeds than backing fires, just enough to give the fire direction. The probability of crown scorch increases as the ambient temperature increases, so be careful when using this technique during the growing season. "Caution" Caution* * When using strip headfires, flank fires are often used to secure the hot flank between strips. When doing so, make a curved turn as you begin the next strip rather than a 90 degree turn to minimise the possibility of creating small fire whirls that can jeopardize fire containment. If both flanks are brought up, you essentially have produced a ring fire which almost invariably results in overstory damage as the lines of fire converge. Flanldng fires are parallel lines of fire set into the wind. This technique produces a fireline intensity somewhat less than that produced by a heading fire, but considerably more than a backing fire. The most important requirement when using flanking fires is a steady wind direction. Crew safety is a major factor with this technique because slight deviations in wind direction can result in heading fires that can jeopardize ignition personnel that fall behind. Fire strips should all be lit at the same time. Lines of fire coalesce along a moving point (at least in theory) instead of all at once along a line, so crown scorch is less likely than when using strip hadfires. The spotfire technique employs a series of small spotfires which burn in all directions as they come together. Spot fires are the ideal firing technique under light and variable winds and are often used to produce a mosaic burn pattern. Spacing of spots is critical. Hot spots with severe scorch are likely if spacing is incorrect. Start with a square grid. A 2x2 chain spacing will result in 1 ignition every 0.4 acre while a lxl chain spacing will result in 1 ignition every 0.10 acre. Make sure the heading fires run into the previous line of spots before the flanks merge. This will help 4/25/2007 8 minimise crown scorch by allowing the fires to coalesce along moving points rather than as lines of fire. Contingencies, Mop Up, Declare Fire Out: Each prescribed fire plan must address specific details concerning contingencies, mop up and declaring the fire out. Contingency plans should be developed for each proposed burn. They must address procedures and actions for escaped fire. Contingency plans should also address medical emergencies, equipment breakdowns, smoke management problems, and failure to meet prescription criteria. Good contingency planning is based on common sense and good communications. It will increase the likelihood that all personnel will remain calm during the crisis and that correct decisions will be made on a timely basis. Contingency plans and action decisions should provide for both public and crew safety. Contingency plans should provide resources to manage both the original prescribed fire as well as the escaped fire or other emergency action. If the fire has escaped the burn manager should be prepared to turn the fire over to the Division of Forestry or their designee upon arrival. The prescribed burn crew should remain on site and perform duties consistent with their training and skill levels. Contingency plans should also contain provisions for extended operations and provide for personnel replacements and shift work for extended operations. Mop up standards and protocol should be clearly established in the bum plan. Special precautions should be taken due to the proximity of 1 -75. Snags, unburned fuels, residual smoke, burning peat or duff, or other problems will dictate more extensive mop up. Written guidelines and standards let everyone know what must be done before it is safe to release the crew. Declaring the fire out is the final step in declaring the burn unit safe. Normally a fire is not declared out until the burn manager is certain that all combustion including smoldering and glowing phases has ceased. This determination is usually made several days after the burn has been completed but in some cases it may be several months. Evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation of the burn are essential tasks for all prescribed burns. For each burn unit the evaluation process is a continual process. When the unit is burned again the process continues through a renewed cycle. Protocols for monitoring fire effects on soil, water, , air, vegetation, and wildlife should be included in the burn unit plan. In addition The overall monitoring program for harmony should incorporate plans to document prescribed fires and their potential impact on Harmony's natural resources. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS Publicity /education Perhaps more than any other environmental program, prescribed fire requires public support. Publicity and education regarding prescribed fire will inform people before they see smoke that this particular fire will be beneficial. Their actions and cooperation both during and after the fire can help minimise any problems or adverse impacts which may arise. Public support and demand for prescribed fire will only be achieved when an effective program has been developed and when the public is informed. A formal public information plan should be developed and implemented as an integral feature of the overall resource management program. Public support will be based on the community image of prescribed burning and prescribed burners. Both 4/25/2007 9 individual participants and a commitment from management is required. The individual crew members should be dedicated and professional whenever they are involved in any facet of prescribed fire. A positive attitude about prescribed fire and a positive attitude and response to public interest are required from each team member. The management team is responsible for maintaining a sustained commitment to natural resource stewardship. This includes a financial commitment to provide the manpower, equipment, and other resources for the prescribed fire program but it also means that management should foster and encourage a team approach to creating a successful prescribed fire program. Teamwork, professionalism, attitude, and preparedness are the key ingredients for a successful program and for the development of a positive Public Image. A formal plan and process for implementing an information program should be developed. Wildfires Wildfires are a threat to public safety and can inflict long term damage to the floral and faunal resources. Wildfires will be promptly reported through the Collier County 911 emergency response system and through direct contact with the Division of Forestry, Caloosahatshee District. The Wildlife Management Team will provide requested assistance during the suppression phase. Mop up and monitoring hot spots will be closely coordinated with the DOF and other agencies. The Wildlife Management Team will monitor and evaluate resource impacts and recommend any needed fire related mitigation. Personnel And Equipment The anticipated scope (Number of acres to be burned and number of proposed burns) of the HRH ranch prescribed fire program does not justify a dedicated full time staff. An alternative would be to contract with DOF, private companies, or other organizations to implement the program. However, Prescribed Fire is an integral feature of the HHH wildlife management plan. Direct involvement by the Wildlife Management Team is recommended. A prescribed fire team should be assembled that includes individuals recruited from a variety of sources. Actual personnel and equipment needs will be determined for each bum. Site preparation should be accomplished prior to the burn. A standard farm tractor, assorted discs, and a bush hog should be able to complete site preparation. Prescribed burns at HHH may require 3 -8 crew members, a tractor -plow, transportation, 2 portable pumps and water tanks (200 gallon minimum), a water buffalo (500 gallon minimum), assorted hand tools, and PPE for each crew member. Initially, a DOF tractor plow should be contracted for each burn. This added measure of safety is advisable until crews, individual team members, and equipment have been field tested under HHH ranch site conditions. Training Standards should be established for all members of the prescribed fire team. These standards should require a combination of training and experience before crew members can operate independently on prescibed burns. Both the certified bum manager and the Conservation staff supervisor should review crew member qualifications prior to participation. The following positions may be expected on each prescribed burn. 1) Certified Burn Manager The person in charge of the bum. 2) Ignition Supervisor 4/25/2007 . • 10 3) Holding Supervisor 4) Fire Behavior Specialist/ Safety Officer 5) Equipment Operator 6) Prescribed Burner All crew members may be required to help with escapes or spotovers. Each crew member is responsible for maintaining a level of physical fitness that allows safe participation on the Rx burn. The burn manager should resolve any questions or issues concerning fitness or training prior to starting the burn. 4/25/2007 •11 James L. Schortemeyer 3481 5th Ave. SW Naples, Fl 34117 239 - 455 -5847 Schortfire @aol.com ' 12 December 2004 Education and acquired skills: BSF University of Florida 1969: Major, Wildlife Ecology MS University of Florida 1976: Major, Wildlife Ecology Certified Wildlife Biologist, The Wildlife Society, 1978 Certified Prescribed Burner, Florida Division of Forestry, 1990 Instructor /Coordinator, Florida Interagency Prescribed Fire Training, 1991 Work Experience: 2001 -2005 Consulting Wildlife Biologist It Senior Instructor, Florida Interagency Prescribed Fire Training: Hillsborough Community College sponsors an Interagency Basic Prescribed Fire Course several times a year at locations across the state. Duties in addition to teaching include: group leader for field exercises, coordinator for FWC sponsored sessions, and editor, Interagency Basic Prescribed Fire Manual. Serve as project leader for the development of a new course ( "Prescribed Fire for Wildlife "). Plan and execute prescribed burns in a variety of habitats throughout Florida. Private Consultant: Develop wildlife, habitat management, and prescribed fire plans for specific parcels of land. 1983 -2000 District Wildlife Administrator Southwest Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Responsible for agency wildlife management programs in Southwest Florida including all or parts of Lee, Collier, Hendry, Dade and Monroe counties. Duties include design, implementation and evaluation of a wide array of programs including habitat management, population monitoring, public use regulation, permitting, emergency responses to critical wildlife problems, nuisance wildlife, employee supervision, volunteer programs and cooperative agreements. Served as the lead biologist o %the Big Cypress area including Big Cypress National Preserve. Developed new program for monitoring recreational hunting on an. extremely large (560,000 acres) area with unlimited access. Conducted deer surveys and recreational use studies with emphasis on issues related to Florida panther survival. Instituted systematic aerial wading bird surveys in cooperation with Everglades National Park and others to document interior South Florida populations. Conducted habitat management programs including prescribed burning, exotic vegetation control and planting native woody vegetation on the Jetport unit. Participated in workshops and served on a variety of interagency teams providing input on enhancing panther habitat. Proposed and evaluated new regulations designed to improve prey management for the panther. 1 1970 -1982 Everglades Recreation Project Leader/Wildlife Biologist, Everglades Wildlife Management Area. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Worked with the Everglades Recreational Planning Board to develop a recreational use and access plan for the Everglades with emphasis on the three Water Conservation Areas. Developed recreational access on the. fringes of the Everglades and instituted interior habitat management programs including prescribed burning, construction of artificial wildlife islands, enhancement of spoil banks, and exotic vegetation control. Resolved wildlife issues throughout the Everglades region and served as the Division and agency representative at a variety of meetings and functions. 1970 -1972 Wildlife Biologist, Everglades Wildlife Management Area. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Designed and implemented wildlife programs on the 725,000 acre Everglades Wildlife Management Area. Wildlife studies included work on deer, wild hogs, and alligators. Habitat management activities include investigations on the impact of off road vehicles and fire ecology. Habitat management programs included prescribed burning, exotic vegetation control, and restoration and management of natural and artificial upland sites. Accomplishments Early work focused on wildlife responses to water management practices in the Everglades. Evaluated fawn rescue attempt during 1970 high water event. Low survival rate for fawns captured and subsequently restocked in the Everglades demonstrated the failure of this management technique. Designed and evaluated programs to construct artificial wildlife islands and improve upland habitat values on canal spoil banks. Program included planting these sites with a variety of woody plant species. A major focus of these studies was the documentation of wildlife responses to water management practices in the central Everglades (Conservation Area #3). This work and subsequent agreements led to the construction of the first "ecological water control structures" known as 5 -339 and 5 -340 on the Miami canal in CA3. Later work focused on the Big Cypress region of South Florida. Deer management has been a major project for the Big Cypress field station and several new strategies have been developed for monitoring and managing deer both as a primary food source for Florida panthers and an important game animal. The "five inch" antler rule, restrictions on ATVs, extended quota periods, and additional regulations on private lands were established as part of this program. Other prey management issues have focused on managing wild hogs as an important panther food and implementing habitat management programs for prey species. Planned, executed and evaluated prescribed fires in a variety of Florida habitats begriming in 1970. Since 1990 Jim has been actively involved in Florida's Interagency Prescribed Fire training program. He has served as an instructor, session coordinator, and steering committee member for this nationally recognized training program which is designed to improve prescribed burning in Florida's rapidly changing landscape. 2 List of Publications: Schortemeyer, J. L. 1972. Destruction of alligator habitat in Florida. American Alligator Council Symposium, Lake Charles, La. 71 -76 Schortemeyer, J. L. 1980. An evaluation of water management practices for optimum wildlife benefits in Conservation Area 3A. Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission. Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 74pp. Schortemeyer, J. L. 1994. Habitat management for panthers in South Florida - an overview. Pages 460 -466 in D. B. Jordan ed. Proceedings of the Florida panther conference. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Schortemeyer, J. L., R. E. Johnson and J. P. West. 1980. A preliminary report on wildlife occurrence in Melaleuca heads in the Everglades Wildlife Management Area. 75pp. Schortemeyer, J. L. and P. Rosendahl. 1983. The Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park. Handbook on the Biscayne Aquifer: Water Management, Water Conservation and Health and Cost of Drinking Water. 20 -31. Schortemeyer, J. L. and S. L. Beckwith. 1971. Chemical control of pigeon reproduction. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 35:47 -55. Schortemeyer, J. L., D. S. Maehr, J. W. McCown, E. D. Land, and P. D. Manor. 1991. Prey management for the Florida Panther: a unique role for wildlife managers. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:512 -526. Schemnitz, S. D. and J. L. Schortemeyer. 1973. The influence of vehicles on Florida Everglades vegetation. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 74pp. Schemnitz, S. D. and J. L. Schortemeyer. 1973. The impact of halftracks and airboats on the Florida Everglades environment. Proceedings of the 1973 snowmobile and off road vehicleresearch symposium. Kushlan, J. A. and J. L. Schortemeyer. 1974. Glossy Ibis nesting in southern Florida. Fl. Field Naturalist. 2:13 -14. Maehr, D. S., J. L. Schortemeyer, E. D. Land, and D. K Jansen. 1988. An Unusual nest site for purple martins. Fl. Field Naturalist. 16:35 -37. - Flemming, D. M., J. L. Schortemeyer, and J. Ault. 1994. Distribution and abundance of white tailed deer in the Florida Everglades. Pages 247 -275 in D. B. Jordan ed. Proceedings of the Florida panther conference. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 3 HHH RANCH WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HHH Ranch is located just north of I -75 near mile marker 98 in Collier County. It covers approximately 1.5 square miles within the Big Cypress physiographic region. The site contains a mix of habitat types including a variety of pine and cypress forests and other Big Cypress wetlands and uplands. With the exception of logging of large cypress, the native vegetation communities have not been subjected to intensive land management alterations. However, they have been significantly impacted by nearby roads, canals, and developments. Incidental drainage, increased severity of fires, and invasion of exotic plants have degraded wildlife habitat throughout the site. In the absence of proactive habitat management programs wildlife values attributable to this site and within the North Belle Meade region will continue to decline. This proposal provides a comprehensive wildlife and habitat management program for HHH Ranch. This will be accomplished through specific programs to protect, conserve, and enhance the wildlife, floral, hydrological, recreational, and ecosystem values. With approval, . sixty percent of the area will be fully protected immediately, while forty percent of the area will be impacted by limerock mining during an operational phase of approximately 20 years. Wildlife and habitat management will be initiated immediately on the fully protected area. During the mining phase, wildlife and habitats within the impact area will be managed to min;mi�e adverse impacts. If feasible, littoral zones will be created and managed during the mining operation. At the conclusion of mining, all land and water areas within HHH will be managed as wildlife habitat to protect, conserve and enhance wildlife. Habitat management programs will initially focus on aggressive control of invasive exotic plants, initiation of a prescribed fire program, and hydrological improvements. With cooperation of water managers, restoration of sheet flow across HHH will enhance regional habitat values and increase wildlife use of HHH. Fire adapted species, including gopher tortoise, bobwhite quail, fox squirrel and red - cockaded woodpecker, will benefit from the prescribed fire program. Improved hydrology will provide habitat for wading birds and other aquatic wildlife throughout the entire year not just on the current seasonal basis. Improved hydrology will restore plant communities and increase the effectiveness of exotic plant control. Large mammals including panther, black bear, and deer will benefit significantly from the prescribed bum, as well as from newly established shrub areas and protection of selected palmetto islands. Additional species - specific management activities are proposed for long -term conservation of gopher tortoises, red - cockaded woodpeckers, and wood storks. An endowment will be created to fund the HHH wildlife and habitat management programs in perpetuity. During endowment creation, mining operations or other sources will fund the wildlife and habitat management program. After creation of the endowment, annual income will be used to fund these programs. A minimum endowment of $4 million will be required. 04 -26 -07 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN HHH RANCH, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA April 20, 2007 James L. Schortemeyer Certified Wildlife Biologist INTRODUCTION HHH Ranch, located in Collier County just north of 175 at mm 98, covers approximately 1.5 square miles. It is within the Big Cypress Physiographic region in an area referred to as "North Belle Meade." Big Cypress wildlife flourished in a variety of specific high value habitats. High wildlife values occurred at locations where specific ecosystem functions were beneficial to wildlife or where specific high value habitats evolved. Hammocks and tree islands are examples of high value habitats that occur throughout south Florida. These hammocks and islands occupy only a small portion of the area but they provide essential cover and nesting habitat for numerous species including reptiles, birds, and mammals. They also provide seeds, fruits, and acorns from an array of tropical and temperate plant species. Sloughs and other flow -ways where excess water moved slowly across the seemingly flat landscape are examples of natural system functions valuable to wildlife. This `sheetflow' across the landscape is important to wildlife because it moves both food and nutrients across the landscape. High value habitats occur at specific locations where these resources are concentrated and or dispersed. Locations where sheet flow enters or leaves deepwater habitats and where flow-ways are constricted by high ground or vegetation tend to be high value sites. Finally deep water habitats in the interior portions of south Florida were high value habitats. Cypress ponds, alligator holes, flag ponds and the relatively few natural lakes are important to wildlife both from an ecosystem function standpoint and as high value habitats. Fire and water were the primary natural forces that determined the specific plant communities within Big Cypress. Occasional freezing temperatures and hurricanes also influence these plant communities. HHH plant communities have been identified by FLUCCS code, mapped, and are depicted in Figure 1. Cypress and pine communities dominate. The most significant 04 -26-07 2 wetland is a cypress and pop -ash slough area located along the northeast border of the property. Large cypress trees have been removed by logging, but old growth pine trees remain. While the dominant plants within these communities survive, the ecosystem values and vigor of the native communities have been degraded by manipulated hydrological conditions, altered fire regimes, logging, and proliferation of exotic plants. Under natural conditions surface water flowed across HHH ranch in a southerly direction during wet periods. For over fifty years these overland flows have been impeded by roads and developments or intercepted and diverted by drainage and borrow canals. In addition to disrupted `sheetflow' water tables have been lowered causing reduced hydroperiods in wetland areas (see Appendix A). Wildfires have been suppressed throughout Florida since statewide laws were passed in the 1920's. These efforts combined with roads, canals, and other barriers have reduced the size of most fires. Individual areas burn less frequently and fuels build up on unburned areas. As a result, fires burn less frequently but when conditions are extremely dry large severe fires are common. Under these conditions canopy trees are killed and/or significant habitat degradation occurs. At HHH Ranch, a wildfire in 2000 devastated the northeast pine forest, killing most of the overstory pines (Figure 2). On May 30, 2006 a wildfire burned 30 acres of pine /palm habitat in the north central zone. Although few canopy trees were harmed in the recent wildfire, the area has a significant coverage of melaleuca that will likely become a complete coverage in the very near future. The disruption of natural processes including hydrological and fire regimes has promoted the establishment of invasive exotic plants. Brazilian pepper and melaleuca are widespread and a variety of other exotics also established. Figure 3 shows the coverage of exotic plants on HHH ranch. Adjacent to HHH Ranch to the east and northeast, is a proposed 1000 -acre mine within a Rural Fringe Receiving Area. Along the southern border is I -75 and a proposed haul road for the adjacent mine. All other borders are adjacent to 5 -acre lots, many of which will become housing or agricultural operations in the future. As neighboring areas develop, the need for aggressive management to maintain functioning native ecosystems at HHH Ranch will increase. 04 -26 -07 3 FLUCGS L - , Cotla �ciotien ' h146c PmveE _ . 411 ANatlo S(.9e 411 Phw PlaMmb 16891 411/428 -Pw FlaMOO4a vMM1 Ca4he4e Frm x628. . 428. CMMW Peho 1.'75 425!628 Oeatl Plnae wM s— Wk p Prm 15.12 — H> MNWUa 6�qh 11m F pYPaa 14]92 4 . 821212 C>gaa \UBMlwva4 Pashas 8892 6212128 Gy8nv4\.— UlJmpmvr4Peah48 198 c tun er was Paowrd,we.e LYwaa lsu %) 616 n6afx 676 ED .I.. cyP�aaa wGp,ymwa Pm� poi 14e . N 621 /,4 E sza614 ur.i..m hw.4w wa.- qv�.a.- c.hc.c. Pre 1us ' ut Pre5liwarrMm4 IM 21:1 Et 744 pHhu5tl laMa(Fm ®urea) 4]4 fm 411928 E1 7448 Hy4 p4huba4laMaIPSar. Urea) 6.46 827212 >.n e84.a8 s'm T- iN 824 E7 t° 7 BI6 E 0.H t E1 is 1212 E1 7 ExO - pE61GNA110N 1 E O Q nw nit BIG El E4 =O-21 E1 +6 -26% E2 .25-4816 7 426 E7 524 E7 E3 =54 -74% E4 = 75 -100% istf 624 0 tr S.+t 435142B E6 — Q ED 10 B27 A4 111e2 E7 ye 40X 524 B 621/42254 tae 824 Et 84 aae o� 4119260 816F3 TX -411 '1212 E4 aP f.b 624 E1 74OW 624 Et as asp 621m2 Q 212H E7 827212 E7 BN 2128 E7 t - 4{.46 aT 12 ' 4381428 Et 4m 821272M El 824 an 824�Q 618 62im2 E� 6212728 E7 6A u 6 m vas 2728 E1 624 E1 ou1P 212H Q 7 TM 524 Et 49x ^'� 740 1791 411-428 El. 212H E7 411.428 E7 v 128 E7 44t 821 E2 6241618 E4 411 0 2728 vat un 1 624 E7 417 ® 624 E2 . t4A - 1 �W 6.1e 111 \004VVaatJeeV // 1 E1 321 82V212 Q 4 624 Q to 7 0 e 272N Et 4111 E1 40 a.4i 627M2 624 E7 �1 ED � 4A w 6 UM2 E rels so 321 ED 3210 616ED 74 rD a v /}'�.8 /�� 82L E 4. 1 EB tJ 321 321 8D to 740 av • 624 E7 321 - '4.>6- 621 .. aAe fiO te1 624L 7408 a1x 621 Q 624 r2 7m t 3210 7g 411 0 fat 41161 xs24. 4E 321 0 624 E4 618 496 0.K 824 E1 740X 624 E7 ' w'a 321 ED um 827212 E7 III El to 417 0 0 321 ' Q4LM 827 Q t9' 21 4eA 408 ae�t 81 486 m 7 nv 6271422 E3 62A E2 r321 0 ® 621 E3 7440 13e11 n.4S 624 E3 624 E1 y >6 xzv M 0 818 411 E1 x2s to 4 1 1 7x ' 411 El 4'a 624 E1 a ' > wa 411 Et 411 Q �x.s4p 13241 EO 624 fM 8�19e 824 E7 7408 v9e 4" El Figure 1. HHH Ranch vegetation co=unities-(FLUCCS codes). Figure Excessive pine meenatfiqT,2000 wildfire in northeast., IHIH Ranch. 04-26-07 �f('( gar"•Y i�' WMIass L szttas ID ji #61 4D 10 00 5 5 S to 5 so S F -5, Is 10 1W S SIT 5 5' 44 �7j 45 if; . /kCVV.12 ':5 `1V= to — [a 41 :X0 5. to 411 � 10 2C - 5.15.45 —1 S eRCVV.iO sch J U HE SNOWY ET 624 0 WOM IBI 5 to , A" WWOOD s i6 10 G 2M Ili �t' . �5 av kG';. lo 10 it 00 ID 4L & awe 5' 5 \ Cz lor 5 - 60 , r. 0 6" GZI.. 41. ');11 '10 30 to D too —i"j to -10 60 f. zta 5 IS k5 a yl r. iL D" '40. q 00�. VC 'jam -D 24 .4" 'to 1,r PO 1,0 5. =5 0 5' L/ 2C U 0 100,700 L :[ so Is 5- 31 '411 at, IO to- jil -CS' 10 6]4 411 0 ox Se. "C k ui AD W , K 40 SC 41t 5- 10 10 LX IC In la Ic 'S to 5 i5 '0 16 1 1 11IM 10 .1 . BEAR TREE F SCILUn 74m+, 10 51 IG 10 OU 0 -5 MI J 6) n- It 'RCV /4t 4n Gzt 3L 20 cJG 1 12 V to RCW10 It) -0 1 62 Jid1 6'RCWD4- 0 RMW" U re, Ili. I • 7., 7.0 •CVW�5 S 411 jo E < - ZZI 621 RMIV°3, i�-­ 10 2C. %C X 20 is 10 10 XO ,Z1 in c 4r -s- it 30 4 t', 10 'G, 40 LI " - " �') 4Z i 1 4 q -zC 7W 41 411 r. 'P q'j 'c.c- 321 to 40 4 40 so 4T 'to ri, WID qC 10 " '.jL' '0 -ID 40 0 -An SL 4v z In LI (r . '57 L'D 4R SD kc io t.- 1411 it. 5 4' Ag Ljo 3. IG S "M 5 ' S , ,, -A 5. ID 10 2.6 0 le, 'G <e D to 6" 6 Ott ii�s " 10 i 'C'; 4S 41�1 �> 't to o � 'K -40 S- LA Figure 3. Coverage of exotic plants at HHH Ranch. Summary of field notes from February and September 2005 surveys. Numbers. show percent cover of invasive exotic plants at that location.. PROPOSAL This proposal is designed to provide a comprehensive wildlife and habitat management program for HHH Ranch. This management program will assure the protection, conservation, and enhancement of the wildlife, floral, hydrological, recreational, and ecosystem values of this area. A limited mining program will facilitate the funding and implementation of long term management programs. Under this proposal approximately sixty percent of the area would be aggressively managed to maintain natural plant communities and restore ecological functions. Forty percent of the area would be altered during the extraction of limerock primarily for use as stone in concrete and asphalt. This operation would consist of several phases with an estimated project life of twenty years. The entire parcel would be managed as wildlife habitat with at least 60 percent of the ranch being managed as the historical natural plant communities which occupy the site. The land and water areas remaining after mining would be managed as high value wildlife and aquatic habitats found under similar conditions in southwest Florida. MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Wildlife and habitat management include ongoing projects which will be enhanced and expanded under this proposal. Planning and evaluation will be an integral feature on all projects. including habitat management, hydrological management, monitoring, wildlife protection (regulating human activities to minire adverse impacts), and wildlife management. A comprehensive management plan will guide activities. Goals and objectives will be established and results will be measured through wildlife surveys, monitoring programs and periodic review. Precise details of the burn plan, exotics control plan, and monitoring methods will be submitted with mitigation proposals to permitting/regulatory agencies such as Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Management programs will be adjusted or modified based on the results of the evaluation process. The following individual projects have been identified and key components have been incorporated in this plan. 1. COMPILE EXISTING DATABASES Soil data and FLUCCS vegetation maps are included in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) by Hoover Planning (latest revision Dec., 2003) as well as Figure 1. Area coverage by exotic plants is depicted in Figure 3. 2. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT SYSTEMATIC WILDLIFE SURVEYS The results of a general wildlife survey, RCW monitoring, and gopher tortoise burrow survey are included in the EIS and Protected Species Survey by Hoover Planning (updated Dec., 2003). Surveys for specific species are discussed in section 17 below. 04 -26 -07 7 3. IDENTIFY KEY WILDLIFE HABITATS AND WILDLIFE SPECIES Locations of habitats that are integral for listed species occurring at HHH Ranch have been identified. These are discussed in section .17, and include: • a key wetland for wood storks and wading birds is the pop -ash slough in the northeast comer • active red - cockaded woodpecker cavity clusters on eastern and western HHH Ranch borders • uplands with old- growth pine in central area that are potential cavity and foraging habitat for red - cockaded woodpeckers • uplands currently occupied by gopher tortoises, as well as potential future habitat • for large, wide- ranging mammals, preserve southeastern quarter of HHH Ranch to retain connectivity with natural areas to the east r,M F411 711a13117W" Iwon 64 M►ff"XI -Iw►aN IUl 10�� Precise management units will be identified after mining impact areas and phases are defined. These units will include prescribed bum units, exotic plant treatment units, as well as units that will be more intensively managed for certain species, such as red - cockaded woodpeckers, gopher tortoises, and wood storks. General locations for these special management units are described in section 17. 5. DEVELOP MANAGEMENT GOALS AND INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS DESIGNED TO REACH THOSE GOALS Natural Areas Habitat Management. Approximately 60% of the area will be retained as natural habitats An additional 6% of the area will be restored and managed as extended hydroperiod wetlands which are natural adjacent habitats. Hydrological constraints from off site conditions may limit the ability to manage these sites with strict adherence to historical conditions but healthy and productive pinelands and cypress communities can be maintained. Disturbed Site Habitat Management. Most of the remaining area (approximately 40 %) will be impacted directly by mining operations. Upon completion of mining operations the mining impact area will be managed as fish and wildlife habitats with emphasis on creating high value habitats. Disturbed sites impacted by operations will be managed as wildlife habitats as soon as practicable. Hvdrolodcal Manamement. While the mining operation will convert a maximum of 35 percent of the area to open water habitats it also offers an opportunity to restore some sheetflow across the area and to create some `new' extended hydroperiod wetlands and significant deep water habitats. At least 15% of the mining impact area will be retained as littoral zones or shallow wetlands. These areas will be designed to receive inflows from adjacent wetlands and to provide outflows across downstream wetlands. Ground elevations will be designed to provide a minimum area of 5 acres with water depths between 3 -15 inches under all anticipated hydrological stages. Partnerships will be sought with the appropriate water management agencies to integrate water management practices with regional programs 04 -26 -07 8 to restore and create flow -ways that approximate historical conditions with emphasis on enhancing wildlife values. While surrounding development may prohibit complete hydrological restoration these shallow excavated areas will be designed to provide both seasonal and permanent wetland areas with a wide array of habitats 6. CONDUCT HYDROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Current hydrological conditions are being monitored and assessed. This assessment is being conducted in conjunction with the permitting process for the proposed mining operation. Preliminary information is included as Appendix A. At HHH Ranch, hydrology of wetlands is significantly affected by the I -75 canal on the southern border and the Golden Gate Canal to the north. Many of the areas currently vegetated by long -lived obligate wetland species (e.g., cypress) have a severely shortened hydroperiod, as compared with historical times. Canals draw water away from wetlands and result in moving excess fresh water to estuaries. Canals in southwest Florida have been shown to have an effect on wetlands 1 -2 miles away. Mining operations will be accomplished through "wet- mining ", without de- watering of mining pits, thus no significant impacts to the water table are expected. As quarry lakes replace vegetated lands, there will be an increase in evaporative water loss. However, the evapo- transpiration rates of some vegetation types (e.g., melaleuca, cattails) result in greater water loss than open water evaporation. A very small percentage of water may also be lost during processing of the stone, as well as attached to the product. However, increases in water loss. should be offset by increased water storage onsite in the lakes rather than flowing towards canals. Also, the evaporation rate for open water is approximately four feet per year, which in southwest Florida is replaced annually by rainwater. Theoretically, the creation of quarry lakes should not have a significant change in the overall water budget of the site. A simplified model predicts that during dry season, quarry lake water will seep towards adjacent lands, thus the quarry lake becomes a "source" during dry season. During the wettest months of the rainy season, water will flow towards the lake, making the quarry lake a "sink" at that time of year. Thus, the lake becomes a buffering reservoir that would be expected to abbreviate the amount of time a wetland experiences either very high flood levels or extreme low water levels. Precise effects between a quarry lake and adjacent wetlands are site - specific, depending upon many factors, including tran_smissivity of strata, composition of wetland soils, distance from the lake, and other water - dependent activities nearby (e.g., agricultural irrigation or golf course watering). At HHH Ranch, it is quite plausible to expect that quarry lakes will become "sinks" during wet season, such that water flows towards the lakes (not towards the canals), thereby retaining more water onsite and ameliorating the draw -down effect these canals have had on HHH Ranch wetlands. The quarry lake could lengthen the hydroperiods of wetlands that have been drained by the canals. 7. HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY The hydrology of HHH Ranch has been severely impacted by off -site projects. Preliminary discussions have indicated that it may be feasible to incorporate HHH Ranch into regional efforts to partially restore `sheet' flow within the Belle Meade portion of Big 04 -26 -07 9 Cypress. If feasible this program would have dramatic positive impacts for wading birds and other aquatic wildlife. S. DEVELOP INTERIM HYDROLOGICAL PLAN An interim hydrological plan is being developed in conjunction with the mining proposal. This proposal will include measures to manage onsite rainfall. Sloughs and swales will be designed to isolate mining operations from non - impact areas and provide enhanced wildlife habitat. 9. DEVELOP FINAL HYDROLOGICAL PLAN A Final Hydrological Plan will be developed for HHH ranch. This plan will incorporate appropriate elements from the preceding plan elements (1. through 8.) In addition it will include the establishment of mosaic patterns and meandering lines which mimic natural ecotonal conditions in the final demarcation of the excavation/mining operation. 10. BOUNDARY FENCES AND TRAILS Existing woods roads, trails, and boundary fences will be maintained. These trails can be used to delineate management units and serve as fire .breaks. Perimeter trails and fence lines will also be maintained as fire breaks for prescribed burns and to provide protection from wildfires. These firelines and trails also provide access for management activities. 11. CATTLE Cattle will be maintained on the area as an interim management practice. This will help maintain fuel loads at an acceptable level until prescribed burning has been established. The use of cattle may also be compatible with long term management goals. Cattle, especially at proper densities, can provide benefits to wildlife and may also help reduce fuel loads and control exotic vegetation. The continued use of cattle should be based upon demonstrated wildlife habitat management benefits. 12. PRESCRIBED FIRE Throughout the southeastern US, fire has been consistently used as a land management tool. One of the first scientific approaches was initiated near Tallahassee, Florida in the 1920's. In 1932 Herbert Stoddard published "The Bobwhite Quail; Its Life History and Management." This publication and the founding of "Tall Timbers" mark the beginning of efforts to promote and use fire wisely through a scientific approach to land management. HHH Ranch, located in Collier County, is in the Big Cypress physiographic region. This region has a well established relationship with natural and prescribed fire. Private land owners, state and federal land managers including the nearby Florida Panther National Wildlife. Refuge use prescribed fire as a management tool. 04 -26 -07 10 The continued use of fire at specified intervals, seasons, and intensity levels is the only known way to fully sustain the ecosystems Floridians depend upon for their livelihood and recreation. Fortunately, the state of Florida has recognized the importance of prescribed fire. Florida Statute Ch. 590.125(3) addresses "Certified Prescribed Burning." The section dealing with legislative findings and purpose includes the following: "(a) The application of prescribed burning is a land management tool that benefits the safety of the public, the environment, and the economy of the state. The Legislature finds that: 1. Prescribed burning reduces naturally occurring vegetative fuels within wildland areas. Reduction of the fuel load reduces the risk and severity of wildfire, thereby reducing the threat of loss of life and property, particularly in urban areas. 2. Most of Florida's natural communities require periodic fire for maintenance of their ecological integrity. Prescribed burning is essential to the perpetuation, restoration, and management of many plant and animal communities. Significant loss of the state's biological diversity will occur if fire is excluded from fire dependent systems..........." While HHH Ranch and fire have a long relationship, development and population growth have impeded the use of prescribed fire as a management tool. In years past lightning fires and human caused fires frequently burned across the landscape with little adverse impact and little need for planning. Today, unplanned ignitions or wildfires can cause numerous adverse impacts. In recent years, wildfires in surrounding areas have caused substantial property destruction and loss of life. However, carefully planned and executed prescribed fires can reduce the size of wildfires, make suppression easier, and protect certain areas from wildfire. This report outlines a strategy for the implementation of a prescribed fire program for HHH Ranch which will reduce hazard fuel loads and improve wildlife habitat (See APPENDIX B for more detail). OBJECTIVES: 1) Implement a prescribed fire program that provides hazard fuel reduction, 'improves wildlife habitat, maintains ecological integrity, and meets other forest and range land management criteria. 2) Develop guidelines for personnel and cooperators participating in prescribed burning. 3) Establish protocols for notifying and assisting the Division of Forestry and Local Fire Departments with any wild fire within or near Harmony. 4) Incorporate other land management techniques which complement, enhance, or facilitate the use of prescribed fire or provide for safe reduction of natural wildfire hazard fuels. 5) Conduct prescribed burns in accordance with the provisions and standards of Florida's Certified Burn Manager Program. 04 -26 -07 11 6) Insure that SAFETY supersedes all other objectives. 7) Identify management units or portions of management units which should be included in an initial prescribed burning program. 8) Cooperate and encourage adjacent landowners to enhance existing prescribed fire programs or to develop new programs. The initial focus of the prescribed burning program will be to identify natural areas within specific management units which are slated for protection or restoration and that historically were maintained by frequent fire. These areas will be identified and designated as burn zones. Individual burn zones larger than 50 acres will be divided by natural or manmade fire breaks into parcels less than 50 acres. Prescribed fire will be restored or maintained on these units as soon as possible. Pine flatwoods and mixed pine /cypress habitats are examples of vegetation communities maintained by frequent fire. Typical fire return intervals for these communities are 2 -5 years. Short fire intervals will be applied to these units with each burn unit scheduled for fire treatment once every 2 -3 years. A short return interval will facilitate control, m. . . hazard fuel buildup, and minimize fire intensity. The initial program will focus on habitats within and near identified red - cockaded woodpecker habitat. Burn zone boundaries have not been delineated and ground truthed so exact acreages and number of zones have not been determined. Site inspections and preliminary evaluations indicate that approximately 500 acres should be included in designated Burn Zones. Annual burn acreage should average 200 acres with individual burns ranging from a few acres to as large as 50 acres. Initial prescriptions and burn units should provide for plans to limit any burn to less than 25 acres through the use of a staged ignition plan, internal firebreaks, or additional suppression equipment on site. The location of HHH ranch with I -75 immediately to the south, nearby residential areas and other smoke sensitive. areas nearby dictate a comprehensive smoke management program. Establishing a competent bum team with proper equipment and administrative support is essential. Scheduling prescribed burns on a priority basis and executing bums only when conditions are favorable will lead to a successful program A precise burn plan that outlines burn units and goals will accompany mitigation proposals required for permitting agencies. 13. HIGH VALUE WILDLIFE HABITATS Existing high value wildlife habitats will be identified and receive priority management. Active red - cockaded woodpecker colonies have been located and protection and enhancement of these colonies will be incorporated into all management programs. Extended hydroperiod wetlands also occur on the ranch. Restoration of these areas will enhance wildlife values. 14. EXOTIC VEGETATION CONTROL Exotic vegetation will be controlled as necessary on the site. Both chemical and mechanical control methods will be utilized and when appropriate native plants will be re- established by planting or . seeding. In February and September of 2005 a thorough survey of the entire property was conducted to determine the percent cover of invasive non- 04 -26 -07 12 native plants. The results of that survey and more recent field work are shown in Figure 3. Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthefolius) and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) were the most dominant invaders, as well as downy rose myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa) in some locations and West Indian marsh grass (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) in the northeastern pop - ash slough area. Also common were torpedo grass (Panicum repens), ceasar weed (Urena lobata), and false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), but these were not included in the percent cover survey. Species that were present, but not yet widespread, include old -world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), and tropical soda apple (Solarium viarum). Brazilian pepper and melaleuca are found throughout. Some extremely dense forests of melaleuca occur in the eastern half and a few other spots. In the northeast quarter, melaleuca saplings are quite common, likely stimulated by a wildfire earlier this decade, and the canopy of this area will likely become more solidly covered by melaleuca in the near future. Brazilian pepper pervades the cypress and pine forests of the southwest quarter, and dominates a cypress stand in the far northeast. In general, the pine and plametto uplands (FLUCCS 321 and 411) have low or very low coverage of non - native invasive plants. Cleared pasture areas (FLUCCS 212 and 621 /212) in the north generally also have low coverage of invasive exotics, with the exception of the groundcover. Initial treatment of invasive exotic vegetation will be completed before mining commences, or no later than one year after all permits are received. The preferred method is selective hand - clearing and/or herbicide treatment. In some locations, mechanical clearing (feller - buncher, hydro -ax, or similar) may be warranted, although mechanical clearing will be avoided if at all possible because of disturbance to groundcover and tracking of exotics' seeds or spores by machinery. Follow -up treatments will be an ongoing program, and the frequency is dictated by density and species. Exotics control management details, including methods of treatment and methods for monitoring, will be submitted with mitigation proposals required for permitting agencies. 15. ADDITIONAL MOSAIC PATTERNS Additional mosaic patterns will be encouraged throughout the area by utilizing the unit boundaries, roads, trails and other disturbed sites. Management of these sites would include openings, brush piles around cleared sites, artificial structures for wildlife, artificial hammocks, and isolated hardwood trees. 16. ADDITIONAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AT DISTURBED SITES Additional habitat management activities may be conducted at disturbed sites. Initial earthwork may require temporary stockpiling of topsoil during excavation. This topsoil will be used during the final contour process and at specific locations to facilitate plant growth. Specific projects may also be conducted at disturbed sites to benefit both endangered plants and animals. Herbaceous plantings using native plants may be established with emphasis on endangered plants and valuable wildlife plants. Artificial nest structures may be placed at selected locations for a variety of wildlife species. Rocks may also be used as cover structure 04-26 -07 13 both underwater and on elevated sites.. These rock structures will provide habitat for small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. 17. WILDLIFE AND FISH MANAGEMENT Fish and wildlife management activities will be designed to monitor and improve specific management programs. Significant work is already being conducted with red - cockaded woodpecker. Exotic fish and wildlife species will be monitored but no control programs are recommended at this time. Some exotic species may in fact be beneficial. Select exotic fish species may be important food for wading birds while wild hog and armadillo are important food for the Florida panther. When warranted, exotic animal control programs will be established. Some limited fish stocking of native species may be conducted as different phases of the mining operation are completed. A major goal of any stocking would be to encourage the establishment of native rather than exotic species. Release or stocking of other wildlife species will not be allowed. Nuisance wildlife will not be relocated on this property. Wildlife managers may permit the release of injured wildlife under special circumstances and may cooperate with experimental programs to study or manage native wildlife species. Manazement Plans for selected species 17.1. Florida panther Florida panthers, which occur primarily in south Florida, utilize a wide variety of habitats including pine flatwoods, mixed- hardwood pine, hardwood hammock, tropical hammock, hardwood swamp, cypress swamp, and freshwater marshes. Home range size for females (average of 125 sq mi) appears to be regulated by habitat quality and prey density, while home range size for males (average 215 sq mi) is also influenced by density and distribution of adult females. Intermittent panther activity has been documented in the vicinity of HHH Ranch. Most recently livestock depredation has been attributed to an uncollared panther along Inez Road. An uncollared panther was also killed on 1 -75 in March, 2007. Previous points are correlated with the panther genetic restoration program. This area of North Belle Meade may be considered a buffer zone between panther territory and Naples developments. None of North Belle Meade is included in the USFWS areas designated as either Priority 1 or Priority 2 panther habitat. However, much of the HHH Ranch is within the FFWCC GAPS Strategic Habitat Conservation Area. The recommended protective measure applied to some of the Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas is acquisition of conservation easements and land -use agreements that secure valuable natural resources but also allow private uses of the land. The mining plan at HHH Ranch was designed to avoid the southeastern quarter of the Ranch, which was deemed to be valuable to panther and mammals with a large range. By preserving that area of the Ranch, the preserved areas are connected to ecosystems to the east. The preserved areas throughout the Ranch include a mosaic of the variety of habitats that are preferred by panthers, including upland sites for resting and denning. The HHH habitat management plan will provide significant improvements when compared to current natural 04 -26 -07 14 habitat conditions on the protected natural habitats. Prey densities should increase on these areas as a result of management activities. The mining operation will result in the loss of some potential habitat. Some of the littoral zone and other remaining upland disturbed sites will benefit panthers. Shrub zones and selected palmetto areas will be managed through fire exclusion or prolonged fire return intervals to provide escape cover and potential denning sites. These habitats, especially in proximity to aquatic habitats, will have increased densities of raccoons and other small mammals. Increased mast production including acorns, Sabal palm berries and other hardwood mast will also attract deer and hogs. The quality of habitat within the preserve will be significantly enhanced by implementing a prescribed bum program and removing non -native invasive vegetation. During mining operations traffic and human disturbance will be minimized. Hauling of excavated material will be. restricted to approved times and speed limits will be enacted. At the completion of mining operations human disturbance will be restricted to activities described in this plan. 17.2. Red - cockaded woodpecker Current Conditions Distribution of red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity trees and potential habitat are shown on Figure 4. A detailed RCW habitat management plan for HHH Ranch by DeLotelle and Bonness (updated Jan 15, 2007) has been developed (see Appendix C). Briefly, two groups of RCWs include HHH Ranch property within their foraging territory. One group, which has cavity trees on HHH property near the eastern border, currently has two active cavity trees, one inactive cavity, and three cavities usurped by red - bellied woodpeckers. The other group has cavities on properties adjacent to HHH's western border, although there is one cavity tree on -site that has been abandoned for more than 4 years. The greatest impediments to survival of the RCW groups at HHH Ranch observed since 2002 are 1) loss of cavities to red - bellied woodpeckers, 2) loss of cavities to wind or storms, 3) encroaching melaleuca, 4) potential fire hazard due to increasing density of cabbage palms adjacent to mature pine trees, and 5) fire suppression. Mann eg ment The RCW management plan, detailed in Appendix C, follows all requirements detailed in the Private Lands Guidelines of the Recovery Plan for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): 2"d revision. 2003. US Fish & Wildlife Service. HHH Ranch will maintain an RCW Management Area including both cavity clusters and a corridor of pine forest uplands between the two cavities. The RCW Management Area will be comprised of more than 75 acres of RCW foraging habitat, which will supply the majority of the foraging needs for both groups. In addition, managed uplands in the northwest of HHH Ranch will provide high quality forage habitat for a third colony of RCWs that have an active cavity cluster located northwest of HHH Ranch. Above and beyond the standards for managed stability, the HHH Ranch plan for RCW management includes many aggressive components. RCWs will be banded and monitored to determine cluster activity, group size, and reproductive success, with annual reports being submitted to the national RCW Coordinator. Each active cavity cluster will have a minimum of four suitable cavities, and at least two artificial cavities will be maintained per cluster to 04 -26 -07 15 RCW �]- j. Ptwcs l.wam is Ues poter :al habitat Code DeaaipOmm Aavuu 21�ic"�l pwm� —5i.�H Jest Tree Very goad potential habitat <28 CebbaBe Pdm 5.75 <]6I420 Dud P�nea MN r_ ^�po PaM <.12 p�.a¢ a,s PppAnbawaN.,swyn 10bB Cavity Tree — !Active 610 Hydde Meb4w B.yO a2, Cypnao eB9 Good potential habitat x212,2 CyBtBaa,Dn'unpmvM P:sMa .2 4,21 B-M. HytletlI.— ePaaMe .m 6z,9zz BraIDan P.ppe.mweee gw.aa PSD 1:) ,esD 62,H2a typnsvrMCebbnyaPaOn .1b6 . Cavity Tree — Inactive > 3yQar bX PM >CYP`aa %CabbeBaPeMA1 Red belly usurped OK potential habitat 614610 MWleuo NVetled PVa- C�pmzsLebbapa Pelm 1]25 W, EmNw,ar Marsh t3, 74p D "WBNa— !Pena Unea) 190 )eDH HyNic DmwNetl tsntla fPann unv) e.w � y�°,]�•) ° OK after exotic PY.OTC6 DESIaHnna+ .1sE1 72u E7 rr u�tFO u, BIG F ED •D. i _ ,F c '8 -2<1 % 'c2 •28 -92% 7 428 E7 624 E, 11 •sD -7411 624 ED tta zM , .51420 ED aaMQ E4 x76 -1DD% Ya O 627 1! I GO 1272 EI xm 401 s 1v 627922 CV ,s / ar .621 E1 N A B16 Le a -V`V. 411926 E0 IsQFti 11,212 E4 1 821 E7 JJ� c 624 Et z,4a r n \ 621212 E2 t4B 212M E1 V nn 821912 Et 21211 Et M n nat f 9S48 E7 ,:•4 621212H E1 . f � 6240 62 q 619 621mx Er 62121211 E7 0.,b BB 212H Et 21211 Q �....: y40•_ 624 E7 D s2 an 1n B7A Et 411.42B E7 0440H 212H Et i 411.4 E7 E, r - e 821 Q 824!619 F4 n7 EO 21211 El/ 71 x21 ElI51 E, 1..1 r -- - $f 62,m2 Q 321 EDIT 6212E2 21711 E, 621012 r 32} ED ,11E Q e:a2 �i 67aFi .� th f, .. Ba 09 62,212 -16 ED Q f � � (� � �6i} � .e �L61�a�Y`, i � '\ i'yf' '� •p � 4. ,�Frydlj� ED1�jt 676® % y l .•I I'• �/ /f, n�� :. I` *w rr= 621 E2 l "� r r"-1 , "l ` i I e ED� w. 111 741 i 1Y y a3, EDP I_ 624 E4. `1\ JD6az D' t -�: � 621212 E1 � `�75��4�.w x6124 H• Q 827 l: )n so � 13 621M22 E3 62w 1 ]A / ; r 621 E1 ., 7AH 624 Et — 624 EO 610 ,a 1.16 t 4E1 u E7 „4 1st E7 ` 411 ewx 621 ED 411 E, 621 E3 a1y 624 E2 1. zs. ,1�� nrta —_ att E7 u, Figure 4. Potential red - cockaded. woodpecker habitat, HHH Ranch. Habitat is graded by its potential to provide foraging and cavity habitat with the maximum pine- basal -area (i.e., best habitat has the highest density of large, old pine trees). prevent red -belly woodpecker invasion. Prescribed burn will be a primary habitat management tool, along with mid -story control. The quantity and quality of RCW foraging habitat will be re- evaluated through pine - basal -area plots after five years. Disturbance from roads will be limited by restricting new haul roads to be as narrow as possible (preferably one -lane, one -way roads), and roads will avoid removal of large pine trees. New roads will be at least 100 feet, preferably > 200 feet, from RCW nest trees, and blasting is prohibited within 400 ft of a cavity tree. After habitat has been improved for RCWs, HHH Ranch will be reassessed for the possibility of growth of a completely new, additional RCW colony in the south - central uplands. HHH Ranch could provide the main link between RCW sub - populations in North Belle Meade and the Picayune. 17.3. Wood stork and wading birds (White ibis, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill) Current Conditions Wood storks and wading birds commonly feed in freshwater marshes, flooded pastures and ditches. Wood storks have a tactile feeding method referred to as "grope - feeding" which is most effective in shallow water with an abundance of prey items. Depressions in marshes or swamps where fish become concentrated during periods of falling water levels are particularly attractive as feeding areas. Habitats used as foraging areas for wood storks at HHH is limited to pop -ash sloughs (FLUCCS 616). Other wetland types at HHH Ranch are unlikely to provide foraging area for wood storks because severe drainage due to nearby canals results in these wetlands drying down rapidly and typically becoming dry by October when wood storks arrive in southern Collier County. The wood stork is a colonial species that nests in certain cypress or mangrove swamps. Population numbers of wood storks is thought to be limited by the ability to successfully raise chicks, and is dependent upon sufficient foraging grounds during nesting season. The nearest known rookery is approximately 14 miles from HHH Ranch. It is unlikely that HHH is utilized as a foraging area when feeding chicks, since the pop -ash sloughs are dry in spring. The large pop -ash slough in the northeast corner of HHH Ranch (Figure 5), where wood storks and wading birds have been observed, is invaded by West Indian marsh grass (Hymenachne amplezicaulis). Over 60% of the slough is covered with this invasive exotic grass. The adjacent cypress forest is solidly infested by Brazilian pepper. Management West Indian marsh grass and Brazilian pepper will be treated. Elimination of these invasive species will double the effective foraging area in the northeast pop -ash slough and provide new foraging habitat in the adjacent cypress forest during high water. Hydroperiod and water levels will be monitored to determine the effect of the mines (both HHH proposed mine and the adjacent Florida Rock mine) on the hydrology of the largest pop -ash slough. The creation of a large reservoir of water along with improved water management may mitigate adverse impacts from the Golden Gate and I -75 canals by improving the hydrology and extending the hydroperiod. During years of mine operation, swales will be maintained between the mine and adjacent wetlands. These swales will be connected to adjacent wetlands during periods of 04 -26 -07 17 high water and sheet flow. As water recedes they become isolated during dry-&-,7,7n. Wood storks and wading birds have been observed foraging in similar swales at Willow Run Qumnry. The swales vAll significantly increase foraging habitat on HURI Ranch. Other innovative ideas will be tested for creating littoral zones after mine completion that will be amenable to wood storks and wading birds. One idea is to create "seasonal tide pools", which are depressions in the littoral zones that would be part of the lake during high water, then become isolated pools as water levels decrease during dry season. Eigure 5. Pop-ash slough (northeast HIM Ranch) with West Indian marsh grass. Oct. 24, 2006. 1704. FEG-rida black bear Currently, the black bear remains widespread in Florida, but its distribution is reduced and has become fragmented. The Black bear also uses a wide -variety of forested habit-at types, including pine flatwoods, hardwood swamp, cypress swamp, hammocks, xeric oak scrub, mangroves and mixed hardwood-pine forests. The black bear is omnivorous and adaptive. They take advantage of a wide variety of abundant food sources as they become available. Black bear movements and home ranges undergo seasonal shifts in response to food availability. Primary threats to the Big Cypress population are continued habitat loss and human induced mortality. Motor vehicle collisions are the primary mortality factor. 04-26-07 1 8 HHH habitat management programs will enhance black bear habitat with the exception of the deepwater lake area. Foraging and denning sites should be improved especially with artificial hammocks and littoral zones planned for disturbed sites. . The abundance and variety of food sources will be significantly increased. 17.5. Gopher tortoise Current conditions A burrow survey was conducted on 21 November 2003. The burrow survey revealed a total of 18 burrows in an upland located near the eastern border (same upland that includes the eastern red - cockaded woodpecker group). At that time, nine burrows were active, seven were inactive, and two were abandoned. Some of the active burrows were small, suggesting this population is successfully breeding. The gopher tortoise population at HHH Ranch is estimated to have approximately nine gopher tortoises. Gopher tortoises have not been observed in other FLUCCS 321 uplands, although the uplands appear to have potential to become habitat for gopher tortoises. All of the FLUCCS 321 upland areas have had fire suppression and have probably not burned for decades. Management The entire upland area where gopher tortoises currently reside will be preserved. Since this upland is also an RCW cluster site, it will have very high priority for prescribed bums. Burning will be conducted every 2 -5 years. Prescribed burning will decrease palmetto leaf litter and allow sunlight to reach the ground layer, thereby increasing sunlight for growth of forage species and tortoise thereto- regulation. It is expected that burning will significantly increase the carrying capacity for gopher tortoises in this upland. All of the preserved FLUCCS 321 uplands (approximately 50 acres) have the potential to become gopher tortoise habitat. In each of these uplands, exotic invasive plant species will be eliminated. Frequent prescribed burns of each of these uplands will be the primary tool for habitat enhancement. Following burns that include FLUCCS 321 habitat, a burrow survey will be conducted, thus providing long -term data about the gopher tortoise population at HHH Ranch. Within a year of the initial prescribed burn, each upland will be surveyed for tortoise foraging conditions. If the habitat is favorable for tortoises, the upland may become a recipient site for translocated tortoises from the region. 17.6. Big cypress fox squirrel Primary habitats for the big cypress fox squirrel are open pine flatwoods, cypress strands, broad -leaf evergreen hammocks, mangroves, and oak forest. They feed mainly on cypress balls and pine seeds. Fox squirrels also utilize cabbage palm berries, saw palmetto berries and hardwood mast. Due to the seasonal nature of their forage sources, they fluctuate much in using different habitats. Fox squirrels spend a significant amount of time on the ground foraging, thus an open understory is critical. Optimal habitat for a fox squirrel has an open park -like quality. Fox squirrels have been sighted at HHH Ranch, mainly in pine /cypress/cabbage palm ( FLUCCS 624). Prescribed burning and continued use of cattle will improve and maintain `open' habitats preferred by this species. 04 -26 -07 19 18. REGULATING RECREATION ACTIVITIES Traditional resource based outdoor recreation has been the primary activity on this property. This use has been well regulated in recent years. It is anticipated that this property will remain in private ownership. In addition to traditional activities, the deep water habitats will provide excellent fishing opportunities. The area will remain closed to the public and to commercial activities but it will continue to provide high quality resource based outdoor recreational experiences to permitted users. 19. REGULATING MINING OPERATIONS Figure 6 delineates areas that may be considered for mining impacts. Important wildlife areas including the pop -ash slough, prime RCW habitat, significant gopher tortoise habitat, and potential panther habitat have been protected. Mining and excavation operations will be closely monitored to prevent adverse impacts. Particular care will be taken to protect endangered species including the active RCW colonies. No clearing or excavation will be conducted within 400 feet of identified RCW cavity trees. Furthermore mining operations will be conducted in phases throughout the twenty year project life. Best management practices will be implemented and modified as necessary to minimize adverse impacts within and adjacent to mining impact areas. 20. ENDOWMENT An endowment will be created to fund HHH wildlife and habitat management programs in perpetuity. The endowment will be created through TDR's associated with the limerock impact area. During the creation of the endowment, mining operations or other sources will fund the wildlife and habitat management program. After creation of the endowment, annual income will be used to fund these programs. A minimum endowment.of $4 million will be required. The endowment will be managed by a board of directors. The board of directors shall include representatives of the landowner, regulatory and environmental agencies, environmental organizations, HHH Ranch natural areas manager, adjacent neighborhood civic organizations, and the mining operator. Annual income from the endowment will be available for wildlife and habitat management on HHH Ranch in accordance with established plans. The board of directors may chose to expend excess annual funds on approved wildlife or habitat within the region. Unused annual income will accrue to the endowment. 04 -26 -07 20 Figure 6. Potential impact areas. Shaded areas depict maximum footprint of all impacted areas including mining, processing, facilities, and temporary impacts, but excluding narrow connector road between north and south lakes. 04 -30 -07 21 SL7NE IARY This management proposal provides a unique opportunity for Collier County. The project will allow the property owner an opportunity to develop a portion of the property for mining and excavation. Innovative and comprehensive hydrological, prescribed fire, and exotic plant control programs will enhance wildlife diversity and abundance. Additional wildlife and habitat management will augment these efforts. The success of these efforts will be influenced by adjacent property management. With compatible adjacent land uses this project can serve as a model for private stewardship programs for Big Cypress wildlife. The majority of the site will be protected and managed as natural wildlife habitat throughout the project life. Disturbed sites will also be restored and managed' as valuable wildlife and aquatic habitats. At project completion the entire property will be managed, conserved and protected as fish and wildlife habitat 04 -26 -07 22 RESOLUTION NO.2012- 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONDUCTING A RE- REVIEW AND AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-290 WHICH ALLOWS FOR EARTH IYIINTNG WITS EXCAVATION, BLASTING AND PROCESSING OF MATERIAL IN A RURAL AGRICULTURAL MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A -MHO), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RURAL FRINGE NDXED USE DISTRICT RECEIVING LANDS AND EAST OF EM MOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPER'T'Y ASS LOCATED WITHIN SECTIONS 35 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, AND ALL OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, LESS ROAD RIGHT -OF WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 8* (DWOKALEE ROAD% COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 08-128 AND 88 -290. WFIEREAS, the Legislature of the Stan of Florida in Chap er 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, aed Chapter 125, Florida 5tatutm, has confamd on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as am necessary for the protection of the Pubes and WHEREAS, the County purumm thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordim= No. 200441, as antend:d) which inciexles a Compr+ehensivc Zoning Oboe establishing regulatim for the zoning of particular geogniphic divisions of the County, among which is the gmn&9 of Ca®ditional Uses; and WHEREAS, on Novamber 9,1999, by Rmohdmoa 99A20, the Board of Zoning Appeals of Ceuta County approved a Con tionsl Use providing for earth mnm& amovatm and related prodxasi�g with respect to the same property which is rho subject of this condition! use m4eview, which property is described d in (Exhibit "A') which is altsched her to and incorporated by mftre = herein; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2006, by Resolution 06457, the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County approved an amended Conditionol Use to allow blasting of mmnal wuhn the same property which is the subject of this conditional use le-review, and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006, by Resolurdon 06 -264, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved an amendment of Ras"on Our 157 to coma scr�ivemer's errors in the regal &mription and zoning classification., and WHEREAS, on Sq*=ba 25, 2007, by Resolution 07 -274, the Board of Zoning Appeals of CUR- PL2011 -1177 / SR 846 Land Trust Rev. 1/17/12 1 of3 Coles County approved an amdcd CandidOnal Use wi@h respect to the same property which is the subject of this cond>toaal use m eview do cgmnd the bormdmm of the arcavaton a+ea and repeal Reaohitkins 99-420 and 06 -157; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of approval is that periodically the conditions be reviewed to deaemnine whether additional sdpulmdons or mitigation are accessary to error conqmtbik with odur poperfm in the area and to assure flint the public heahh, safety and welfare is adoquaidy addressed, and Wi 1EREAS, on April 22, 2008, and by Resolution No. 08-128 adopted on May 13, 2008, the Board of Zoe ng Appeals, as part of the m eview of the Cow Use, approved wrinAnent to the CmWhiatm of approval at tic mine owner's request, and VAU REAS, on September 23, 2008, the Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a wHaview hearing on the popaty drat is the subject of this ro-ramw heaing and approved Resoh>tion No. 08- 29D which approved an amendment to the conditions of approval proposed by the County and repealed prior Resolution Nos. "420,06-157 and 07 -274; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009 the Board of Zoning Appeals condmftd a re- review /hearing on the property that is the subject of this re- review hewing but determined that there was no need to change She conditions of approval and theret'm did not adopt a Resohraan; and Ire owner ofdhe sid ax pgmty, SR 846 Land Trim, has bbd Pbtitiou No. CURL. 2011 -1 177, as required by the prier conditim of appoval for a to-reviaw of these conditions, and is requesting to the eondm M ofappvval for do CAndido W Uses woved for the p mpatydo is the subject ofdo movirw hoeing and WHEREAS, the parties with thattris Resolution repeal and replace Resoh9 m Nos. 08-128 and 08- 290 so that Brio Resolutm sets froth all conditions governing the pevwusly approved tondit ad Tines fordmm&jectpopaty; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being fie duly up;, 0od and constituted plamaa board for the area hereby affected, }has held a public hearing after notice as in said reguiatioas made and provided and as provided in Resolutim 08- 290, and has considered the advisabr'b'ty of mnmw ing the oomdrtioat of approval; and WHEREAS, the Collier Oom ty PW=g Camunmort Previously host found as amatbroffactthat sat factory provision and amemneut have bear made concerning all applic" mOm required by said reg Wkms and in accordance with Subsection 10.0&00.1. oftbe Land Development Code. and WHEREAS, aIl inreremled parties have been given opportunity m be heard by Iris Board in a public meeting asem bled and the Band having conWerod all roamers peseote i NOW, TBERFFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COid1M COUNTY, HDRMA, dirt CUP.- PL2011 -1177 / SR $46 /.sad Trust Rev. 1/17/12 2 of 1. patitim Nurrbar CUR4'LMI1 -1177 filad by R. Brae Ardetsor4 Es*kc of Roomel dt Andress ad Margret Perry of Stannic firing SR 846 Land Trust with reaped to the property hercinaftea described in F.-dd bit "A ; be and the some is ban by approved and lisle Board hereby amends the conditions of prior approvals in soo ' -- , e vA #z Caucatle W MWw Pb n dmvlxd io i "91 and as set forth in the Conditions of Approval described in Exhibit "C". Exhibits "A ", "B" and "C" are attaclud hemto and incorporated hereon by reference. 2. That this Radutiarr hereby repeals Rswohdan Woo. 08 -129 and 08-290 which are accordingly no lorlgrrofmy legal beeareBa t BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. 'Phis Resolution adopted after motion, second, and supp- majority vote, this o2 2012. day of � 01, ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Af L ,0. i C;hi tore r.4.1 Approved . and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williaats Ss(� Assistant County Attorney," I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: W. Attachments: Exhibit A — Legal Description Exhibit B — Master Plan Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval CP: 11- CPS-0111 ill S CUR- PL2011 -1177 / SR 846 Land Trust Rev. 1/17/12 3 of 3 FRED W. COYLE, LEGAL. DESCRIPTION ALL OF SECTIONS 3 27 EAST AND ALL SOUTH, RANGE 27 COUNTY .ROAD 848 FLORIDA. 5 AND 36 IN TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE OF SECTIONS I AND 2 IN TOWNSHIP 48 EAST, LESS ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR (IMMOKALEE ROAD), COLLIER COUNTY, EXHIBIT NA" `�` _ EXHIBIT "B" r i t � / NO BLAST ZONE BLAST ZONE PROJECT. S.R. 846 LAND TRUST EARYi cjENT: S.R. 846 LAND TRUST wil�iiir� c3F ""` z' -�soa °` °io:2r1ao7 ste 'M 4Tt4a 27 pl. . ceyt ." • &.&WI - $.In" . Candre �Pr A,:AA. l . fr— pwtA- C.4wfuh W7lsonMilli,:nc. .o aiioa.000.aoo o•wn rrw aw[�.o: { x f 11"Pby'awS�+b- '!! -MrW r.F+Mr]�fWf� /. new fYO.t�l:vrr.irr .74:tiJSff. ►lr►t7'r .....im+Mwr� `�` _ EXHIBIT "B" Exhibit "C" Conditions of Approval for January 2012 R&4Uw'evv Mining Ventures, LLC, Petitioner; SR 846 Land Trust, Property Owner CUR- PL2011 -1177 Collier County Conditions of Approval CUR- PL2011 -1177 S.R. 846 Land Trust Earth Mine This approval is conditioned upon the following stipulations because of the close proximity to Golden Gate Estates in Collier County. 1. Following conditional use hearing requirements, the BZA may revoke the approval of this Conditional Use if the Collier County Code Enforcement Board finds that the mine operator has violated or has not fully complied with all conditions of approval including completion of improvements indicated on the Conditional Use Master Pian and the mine operator has failed to remedy the violation or come into compliance within the time period established by the Code Enforcement Board. 2. The County shall monitor the conditional use for blasting, and an inspection charge shall be applied to cover fees associated with the inspection. 3. A $500,000 bond shall be set aside for settlement of any claims for structural damages directly resulting from blasting. 4. The local damage contact will be Mr. Damon Jones at 239 - 3041506 or coliieraggregates. com. 5. To reduce the impacts to the neighborhood, and to account for changes in weather conditions, air blasts shall not exceed a maximum limit of 120 dbl. 6. Ground vibration shall be allowed up to and not to exceed a calendar monthly average of 0.20 inch per second. 7. The maximum load per hole shall be limited to less than 100 pounds of explosives per blast. 8. The maximum number of blasting activities shall be limited to eight (8) days per month and the maximum number of holes per month shall not exceed 1,680. 9. A one dollar ($1.00) per heavy loaded truck exiting Jones Pit shall be paid semi - annually for ongoing maintenance of county roads impacted by the heavy vehicles. This surcharge will expire when the property is rezoned or the conditional use has been terminated. 10. The applicant shall hire a consultant to establish an archaeological monitoring plan and make sure the employees of Jones Mine are aware of the monitoring plan. Exhibit "C" October 2011 Conditional Use Re- Review Response to Conditions of Approval CUR- PL2011 -1177 — Resolution 08-290 Mining Ventures, LLC 11. Beginning on the first anniversary date of BT.A approval and continuing each year thereafter, the owner shall provide a report to the Collier County Transportation Services Division which will include the condition of the roadway adjacent to the property entrance, accident reports, and average daily and peak hour vehicle trips entering and exiting the earth mine. 12. The storm water run off quality should not be affected with the proposed excavation area expansion. 13. A twenty (20) foot wide Type B buffer and fifteen (15) foot high berm shall be installed along the perimeter of the operation adjacent to the residential struchm immediately upon approval of this conditional use to insure the noise reduction is addressed. Mulch berms shall not be permitted as part of the buffers. 14. To lessen the potential for noise, dampening of the rock crushing equipment shall have attenuation properties/enclosures around the motors of the equipment. If attenuation enclosures are not able to be achieved for other large equipment then an earthen berm shall be installed around the pumps and equipment; up to the height of the equipment being shielded, (i.e. if the equipment is 10 feet high then a 10 foot high berm is required). The berm shall be installed within six (6) months of approval of this conditional use. 15. Blasting is allowed only within the "Permitted Lake Boundary" as shown on the Conditional Use Master Site Plan — Phase 1 and 11. 16. Adequate utility, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities already provided shall continue to be maintained. 17. The mining operations shall be conducted in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, Collier County Government and the Federal Government, especially as related to safety standards set forth in the Blasting Regulation of Collier County Ordinance No. 04- 55, as amended. 18. The hours of pit operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday to prevent disturbance noise to the surrounding residential property owners. if the County receives any complaint regarding the noise from the rock crushing equipment then the hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. The hours of blasting shall be regulated by stipulation number 23. 19. The hours of blasting shall be limited to 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Blasting activities shall not exceed eight (8) days per month with a three (3) second maximum initiation duration with a low volume and close pattern to minimize noise and vibration. 20. The maximum allowable depth of the excavation shall be 45 feet or to the confining layer, whichever is shallower. 2 October 2011 Conditional Use Re- Review Response to Conditions of Approval CUR- PL2011 -1177 — Resolution 08-290 Mining Ventures, LLC 21. Excavation shall occur from the eastern boundary and work towards the western boundary of the property. 22. A southbound lane shall be installed to include a passing lane and the length shall be determined on an acceleration rate to 45 miles per hour (mph) or posted speed limit of a loaded dump truck exiting from the property on to Immokalee Road. The southbound lane shall be built to the standards of the Transportation Services Division and all costs of the construction of the southbound lane as well as the land for right- of-way shall be the applicant's responsibility. 23. The conditional use shall be limited to 800 maximum kaaded trips per day until the southbound passing lane is constructed. Once the southbound lane has been installed, the limitation an 800 maximum loaded trips shall be lifted. 24. Upon completion of excavation activities, all buikings, equipment, buffers and berms shall be removed within six (6) months, unless such buildings and equipment will be used in the reclamation process. 25. During each blast a seismograph machine shall be placed in three locations; at the northern property border closest to Fawn Avenue and adjacent to the closest residential structure; at the southern property border adjacent to the closest residential structure between 16'h Street N.E. and 20* Street N.E.; at the eastern property border between 52"d Avenue N.E. and 5e'" Avenue N.E. 26. A pre - blasting survey shah be taken for all affected property owners who expressed a concern at the Neighborhood Information Meeting, Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners as well as those who transmitted Letters of dissent and existing structures along with the future structures that meet the pre - blasting inspection criteria of Ordinance 0455. One copy of the pre- existing survey will be given to the homeowner and another copy shall be filed with the Collier County Engineering Services Department Director. 27. An approved indigo snake plan is required to be implemented prior to beginning any construction including site clearing. The name and contact information of a qualified biologist who wig monitor work shall be supplied to Environmental Services Department staff at the pre- construction meeting or prior to excavation permit approval. 28_ Evidence of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) accepted mitigation for impacts to panthers, woodstorks, Florida black bear and other listed species will be required prior to excavation permit approval. 29. An updated listed species survey less than 6 months old is required for areas of expanded excavation prior to issuance of an excavation permit. As required by FWC Technical Assistance, follow up pedestrian surveys of each new mining block will be conducted between 60 and 180 days prior to commencement of any mining related activity through 3 October 2011 Conditional Use Re- Review Response to Conditions of Approval CUR- PL2011 -1177 — Resolution 08-290 Mining Ventures, LLC the fife of the project. The applicant shall submit a copy of these surveys to Environmental Services Department staff. 30. Vegetated buffers shall be maintained around all wetlands. if any of these buffer areas do not include the minimum required vegetated width, a replanting plan win be required as part of the excavation permit. 31. Any other additional or updated environmental permits or information as required in the LDC will be required prior to excavation permit approval. 32. Provide a 5.3 acre littoral area, suitable for wading bird habitat within the created lake. Construction of the littoral area will commence during the reclamation phase of the project as required by FDEP Permit #0271820 -001. 33. All conditions of the original Conditional Use shall remain in effect, but only to the extent they are not in conflict or inconsistent with these stipulations. 34. The water table in adjacent on -site wetlands shall be monitored. Levels shall be recorded and reported to the Community Development and Environmental Services Division every Mare and September for 5 years. The results shall also be provided to the Environmental Advisory Committee. 35. Additional information provided by FWC staff regarding impacts of blasting on burrowing owl embryo formation shall be forwarded to the County. The information from the FWC shall be provided to the applicant upon recelpt. 36. Expedited permitting shall be pursued to ensure that these conditions are met quickly and to shorten the length of time that mining will occur on this site. 37. Blasting shall be terminated five (5) years after the expanded excavation permit has been issued. 38. Blasting shall be limited to the blast zone depicted on the attached map. 61195540 4