Ordinance 002-1980ORDINANCE NO. 2 - 1980
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA ADOPTING THE MONROE COUNTY
COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION & CONSERVATION
ELE4ENT-1978 AS REVISED SEPTEMBER, 1979
AS THE FOURTH AND FIFTH ELEMENTS RESPECT-
FULLY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING LEGAL
STATUS OF SAID ELEMENTS PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, in conformity with, and in furtherance of,
the purposes of the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Act of 1975", Florida Statutes Sections 163.3161-163.3211;
and of the "Florida Statute Chapter 380, have after due con-
sideration and study with public participation completed the
Monroe County Coastal Zone Protection and Conservation Element-
1978, as revised September, 1979
WHEREAS, said elements has been duly approved by the
Monroe County Planning and Zoning Department and the Monroe
County Zoning Board acting as the designated local planning
agency pursuant to F.S. 163.3174, said Board having held
numerous meetings with the public toward the end that broad
dissemination of the land use proposals and alternatives and
open public discussion be had and received, and
WHEREAS, said Board having recommended to the Board
of County Commissioners that said plan be approved and adopted
by the County Commissioners that said plan be approved and adopt-
ed by the County as an element to the Comprehensive Plan for
Monroe County, and
WHEREAS, the Board having duly considered the
adoption of said plan at regular meeting held January 29, 1980,
and February 12, 1980, now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the MONROE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE
PROTECTION and CONSERVATION ELEMENT, 1978 as revised September,
1979, be and the same is hereby adopted by reference as the
27 v
-2 -
Fourth and Fifth Elements, respectively, of the COMPREHENSIVE
PY,AN FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Section 2. That said elements to the Comprehensive
Plan shall be accorded and have the full legal status and
effect as set forth in Florida Statue, Section 163.3194,
and particularly, no land development regulation, land develop-
ment code, or amendment thereto shall be adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida until such
regulation, code or amendment thereto has been referred to
the local planning agency for review and recommendation as to
the relationship of such proposal to the adopted element or
portion thereof of the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon
receipt: of the official acknowledgment from the Department of
State acknowledging receipt of certified copy of this Ordinance
and that said Ordinance has been filed in said office by the
Department of Administration, Division of State Planning pur-
suant to the requirements of Florida Statues Section 380.05
and Florida Statutes Chapter 120.
i HEREBY CERTIFY that this Levur :t bets
been reviewed for legal s i ir,[^ncp
content and that the same meets w;tl; r ;
approval. %d.►.w RICHAM G. PAY 'E
As,,t- Cosa"; ;"
-2 ?3
o�n�-a-iasc
a
monroe (m)m,Mw
coastal 7zQoc protection
ao" conservation
MONROE COUNTY
COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION
AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 1978
Revised Final Draft
September, 1979
Prepared by the Monroe County Planning
Department under contract with the
Department of Community Affairs. The
preparation of this element was
financially aided through a Grant from
the State of Florida, under the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act
Assistance Fund authorized by Item 254A
of Chapter 77-465, Laws of Florida.
MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Puriegton Howanitz, Chairman
Richard A. Kerr, Vice Chairman
Gerald Hernandez
Don Schloesser
Jerome Shipley
MONROE COUNTY
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Edward Davidson, Chairman
Roy Anderson
Ted Carter
Paul Cates
Nathaniel Funke
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Kermit H. Lewin, Director
Henry F. Weinkam, Chief Planner
*Pravin C. Shah, Senior Planner
+Herman Sweeting, Assistant Planner
Sheldon Kulik, Planning Assistant
Lorraine Rogers, Secretary
*Primarily responsible for developing this element.
+Responsible for graphics production.
ii
"Theoretically, almost all can agree
that the less government the better, the
fewer laws the better. But, in practice,
we are so large, so rich, so strong, so
diverse, so confounded and contradictory
in our aims, that even as we complain
about regulations we keep passing more of
them, for lack of a unified goal and a
rational policy. Our grumbles are not
the result of clear thinking, but a
substitute for it."
Sydney J. Harris
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Acknowledgements 1
CHAPTER I
Summary 2-4
Introduction 5-7
CHAPTER II
Goals and Objectives 8-10
CHAPTER III
Socio-Economic Context 11-22
CHAPTER IV
Management Policies and 23-57
Areas of Particular Concern
CHAPTER V
Plan of Action 58-65
APPENDIX:
A.
Marine Resources
Al-A24
B.
Natural Vegetative Resources
B1-B18
Bx.
Supplement -Vegetative Resources
Bxl-Bx7
C.
Natural Landforms and Features
Cl-C13
D.
Terrestrial Wildlife Resources
D1-D18
E.
Scenic Resources
El-E6
F.
Cultural Resources
F1- 13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although the County Planning Department is primarily responsible for
developing this Element, the contents of this report have benefitted
substantially from comments, suggestions, and contributions made by many
persons and organizations. Major direct contributions came from the Monroe
County Branch of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service and the Florida
Keys Community College. Thomas Murray, John Stevely, and Debra Hess of the
Extension Service expended considerable amount of their time and effort in
preparing the inventory of marine resources. Raymond H. Zerba of the
Extension Service and the Horticulture Advisory Committee donated their
expertises in the area of natural vegetative resources. Jack Thomas of
the Community College and his students are in large measure responsible for
developing the terrestrial wildlife resources report.
In an effort to verify the accuracy and adequacy of scientific and technical
information presented in this report and to receive first-hand reaction from
those who possess special expertise, knowledge, and interest in subjects
treated in this element, working drafts of issue papers and management plans
were sent to a group of individuals and organizations. By and large, this
group represents a broad cross-section of the community. Comments and
suggestions which were received in response have greatly improved the quality
of this plan. Individuals and organizations that took time to respond include
the Middle Keys Citizen's Association, Marathon; the National Audubon Society,
Tavernier; the Upper Keys Historical Preservation Society, Key Largo; the
Historic Key West Preservation Board, Key West; the Key Largo Civic Club,
Key Largo; Mr. John R. Edwards, Key Largo; Mrs. Neeva Archer, Marathon;
Dr. William L. Keefer, Key West; Mr. Donald J. Kosin, National Key Deer
Wildlife Refuge, Big Pine Key; Dr. Donald Crusoe, Key West; and Mr. R.L.
Blazevic, Key West.
Copies of working drafts were also sent to the Newfound Harbor Marine
Institute, Big Pine Key; the Upper Keys Chamber of Commerce, Key Largo; the
Greater Marathon Chamber of Commerce, Marathon; the Key Largo Garden Club,
Key Largo; the Upper Keys Citizen's Association, Tavernier; the Big Pine Key
Botannical Society, Big Pine Key; the Izaak Walton League, Tavernier; the
Ocean Reef Property Owner's Association, Key Largo; the Upper Keys Garden
Club, Tavernier; the Big Pine Key Civic Association, Big Pine Key;
Dr. Arthur H.Weiner, Middle Torch Key; Mr. David P. Horan, Key West;
Mr. Lynn Kephart, Marathon; Mr. Joe Pinder, Key West; Hon. Charles McCoy,
Key West; Mrs. Evelyn Blue, Key Colony Beach; Mr. Ron McIntosh, Marathon;
and Mr. Raymond Warner, Key Largo.
D, I
CHAPTER
SUMMARY & INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
The Monroe County Coastal Zone Protection and Conservation Element is primarily
directed towards the. unincorporated areas in the Keys where conflicts in land
use and problems in resource management are most prevalent in Monroe. County.
The Element addresses the requirements of the Florida Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975, as applicable to Conservation and Coastal
Zone Protection elements. Both these required elements are resource -oriented
in that they are concerned with protection, conservation, and management
of the County's resources. Due to the overlapping and highly interrelated
nature of these two elements, a combined Coastal Zone Protection and Con-
servation Element has been prepared for Monroe County. This element is
essentially a comprehensive policy plan for resource management with
technical guidelines for managing the County's coastal resources.
The first segment of this element which constitutes the core of the plan
contains the five chapters that enunciate goals and objectives, general and
special management policies, and implementation strategies and programs.
The second segment contains the background information on six resource
categories which include marine resources, natural vegetative resources,
natural landforms and features, terrestrial wildlife resources, scenic
resources, and cultural resources. Each resource category was examined from
the standpoint of the nature of the resource, man's interaction with the
resource, and existing controls and responsibilities. Problems and issues
identified in the process subsequently led to preparation of the management.
plan for each resource category.
Marine Resources: The Management Plan contains a set of general policies
which provide for the protection, conservation, and management of marine
resources including coastal water resources, marine flora and fauna, and
coral reefs. Water uses and activities which insure conservation and optimum
sustainable productivity of marine resources are given high priority. Also
established are policies pertaining to land and water activities having direct
or indirect potentially adverse effect on the integrity of marine resources,
specifically, water quality. The Plan also includes a set of criteria for
designating marine resources areas of particular concern and establishes
several site -specific and generic designations with special management
policies designed to protect and preserve the health and integrity of these
areas.
Natural Vegetative Resources: The Plan requires the County to direct its
land use and development regulations to minimize destruction of natural
vegetation and modification of landscape; and recognizes the unique and en-
dangered status of the upland vegetation and thereby provides for their
protection. The Plan also stresses the importance of preserving isolated
communities of natural vegetation in urban and urbanizing areas; and dis-
courages introduction of undesirable exotic species while encouraging the use
of native plants in landscaping. Criteria are established for designating
2
natural vegetative areas of particular concern; and sites specific de-
signations with special management policies are enunciated.
Natural Landforms and Features: This Plan provides for the protection of
the County's geological and hydrological resources in general and certain
special landforms and features in particular. Also established are shoreline
use priorities and guidelines designed to minimize the impact of various
types of shoreline modification including bulkhead and bulkhead lines,
dredging and filling, artificial waterways, docks and piers, and marina
facilities. The Plan contains generic designations of areas of particular
concern and special management policies in regard to fresh water aquifiers,
freshwater marshes and ponds, sandy beaches and young dunes.
Terrestrial Wildlife Resources: The Management Plan primarily emphasizes
the need for the protection and improvement of wildlife habitats and special
protective efforts regarding the preservation of rare, endemic, endangered,
and threatened species. Co-operation and assistance from other govern-
mental agancies and private groups involved in wildlife conservation and
management are solicited. The Plan also incorporates the set of criteria for
designating areas of particular concern and several site -specific and generic
designations equipped with special management policies.
Scenic Resources: The Plan is contrived to offer protection to the County's
scenic resources which include natural landscape characteristics, features,
and scenic areas. Policies established spell out the need for establishing
site design criteria and a site and architectural review committee. Proper
regulation of shoreline development and adequate setback and screening re-
quirements for development along the Overseas Highway are also emphasized.
Esthetic controls are called for towards restoring and preserving the
natural landscape character of urbanized areas. Strict enforcement and re-
vision, when necessary, of the existing regulations controlling the use of
commercial advertising signs and billboards are required.
Cultural Resources: The major thrust of the Plan is to mobilize the local
government and the community towards instituting conscientious programs
designed to identify and preserve all significant historical and archaeolog-
ical sites not already protected by Federal or State programs. The need for
special legislation to achieve this objective is indicated, and it is
recommended that the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Historic Key West
Preservation Board be expanded to encompass historical and archaeological
preservation throughout the County.
Plan of Action: This section deals with the basic approach and major short
and long-range programs necessary to implement the overall management plan
outlined. The basic approach delineates the principal implementation tools -
public acquisition, land development regulations, and taxation - which should
be utilized in combination with one another.
Major short-range programs proposed deal with zoning revision, creation of
Resource Management District, transfer of development rights, public land
acquisition, water quality monitoring, solid waste management, Overseas
Highway beautification, freshwater resources protection, cultural resources
protection, revision of existing County ordinances, and energy conservation.
Long-range programs include a program required to define the area's growth
3
potential and carrying capacity, implementation of the wastewater
facilities plan, coral reef research program, and an on -going research
program, related to the County's coastal environment. Finally, periodic
review and evaluation of the Coastal Zone Protection and Conservation Element
are required on a continuing basis.
4
A
INTRODUCTION
Monroe County is comprised of 1,418 square miles of which an estimated
384 square miles are classified as inland water. It has been estimated
that approximately 96% of the land and water area of Monroe County is
totally or partially controlled by Federal and State agencies, primarily
in the form of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and military
installations.
On the mainland of the Florida Peninsula outside the boundaries of the
Everglades National Park, there are approximately 190 square miles of land
in Monroe County. Most of this area is unimproved with high water table and
limited agriculture. Population in this area north of the National Park
is estimated at fewer than 200 persons. Located some 40 miles from the
nearest urban area in Dade County; and having been included in the Big
Cypress National Fresh Water Reserve,this area is under little pressure to
develop.
It is the Keys area that is of concern since virtually all the population of
the County is located here and it is where conflicts in land use and problems
in resource management are most prevalent. In the Keys, need for sound re-
source management is nowhere greater than in the unincorporated area which
accounts for nearly 95% of the Keys' total land area and where most of the
decisions concerning utilization of coastal resources are made. It is this
area of the Keys where the major emphasis of this element is focused.
This element has been structured to address the requirements of both the
conservation and coastal zone protection elements as required under the
Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 - Sections
163.3177(6)(d) and (g), F.S. Both these elements are fundamentally con-
cerned with protection and management of resources, with the conservation
element emphasizing natural and environmental resources whereas the coastal
zone protection element placing emphasis on coastal resources. In the case
of Monroe County, there is no distinction between natural and environmental
resources and coastal resources. Since Monroe County, unlike any other
County in Florida, is almost entirely a coastal zone, all its resources are
essentially coastal resources. A management plan providing for protection
of the County's coastal resources must therefore be related to conservation
of natural and environmental resources as well. In other words, a combined
element incorporating the provisions for conservation and coastal zone
protection should essentially be a comprehensive policy document for resource
management with technical guidelines for managing the County's coastal
resources. Specifically, such a plan must establish a series of policies
for:
1. Maintenance, restoration and enhancement of the overall quality
of the coastal zone environment, including,but not limited to,
its amenities and aesthetic values;
2. Continued existence of optimum populations of all species
of wildlife;
5
3. The orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, con-
sistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and
non -living coastal zone resources;
4. Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
coastal zone resources; and
5. Ecological planning principles and assumptions to be used in
the determination of suitability and extent of permitted
development.
The fundamental tenet underlying these objectives is that various components
of the environment are interdependent and functionally related. There is also
an ethical consideration behind the concept of resource management and con-
servation in that every user of the land is in fact a trustee responsible
for future generations which will depend upon that same land. Decisions
of one generation create the heritage of the next. These decisions concerning
the utilization of land and other coastal resources are made invariably in
an atmosphere of conflicting societal pressures pursuing a broad spectrum of
community objectives. Commendable as such objectives may be individually
in the interest of public,they are often mutually contradictory and lacking
in popular consensus. It is intended by way of this and other elements of
the Comprehensive Plan to provide a medium through which these seemingly
contradictory community objectives can be reconciled in a manner which will
promote fundamental fairness in making decisions related to the use of
resources. Of prime concern in this regard is the relationship between short-
term uses of the resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity of the environment. All factors in the decision making process
must be considered over a continuum of time and not just the short-term
period. It is important to bear in mind that what appears to be an immediate
positive benefit may prove to be detrimental in the long run. That which
currently seems to be of minor adverse impact may become significant over
time.
The first segment of this element contains the five chapters which constitute
the core of the plan by enumerating goals and objectives, general and special
management policies, and implementation strategies and programs. The second
segment contains the background information and supportive data on six
different resource categories examined during the preparation of this element.
Chapter II includes the goals and objectives which were established at the
outset of the planning process and revised subsequently. Chapter III provides
a backdrop to resource management in Monroe County by presenting infor-
mation on principal socio-economic resources such as population, economy,
land use and land ownership. Chapter IV contains management policy plans for
each individual resource category in terms of general management policies,
Areas of Particular Concern, and special management policies wherever
applicable. Designation "APC" implies that the area is environmentally
sensitive and significant and, therefore, any special policies established
to manage such an areas resource will have precedence over any other policy
in this or any other element of the comprehensive plan in case of conflict.
Chapter V outlines the basic approach and major short and long-range programs
necessary to implement the plan.
The Appendix section of the element includes six appendices from 'A' thru
dealing with marine resources, natural vegetative resources, natural
in
landforms and features, terrestrial wildlife resources, scenic resources,
and cultural resources. These sections contain most of the background
(W information which was accumulated while examining each resource category
from the standpoint of the nature of the resource, man's interaction with
the resource, and existing controls and responsibilities. These individual
reports identified major problems and issues concerning these resources
and thereby, led to the preparation of the management plan.
C'
CHAPTER II
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives will be used as essential guidelines
and references in the formulation and implementation of coastal zone
protection and conservation plans and programs:
Goal 1: Maintain, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the
coastal zone environment to benefit the present as well as
future generations of visitors and residents.
Objectives:
1.1 Maintain and protect the integrity of the natural
systems and the valuable services they provide.
1.2 Protect and conserve natural areas, wildlife habitat,
fisheries resources, and other renewable and
non-renewable resources of Monroe County.
1.3 Restore and enhance to the extent economically
feasible coastal resources degraded by land use and
development practices of the past.
1.4 Utilize coastal resources according to conservation
principals and guard against resource commitments of
an irreversible nature.
1.5 Encourage research and investigation into new
technologies of resource, use, disposal, and recovery.
Goal 2: Provide for sound utilization of coastal land and water resources
for sustained economic vitality in balance with the environmental
quality and productivity of the coastal zone.
Objectives:
2.1 Provide adequate opportunity for economic development
consistent with resource limitations.
2.2 Insure that decisions on development are based on the
natural, economic, and social carrying capacities of the
area.
2.3 Provide and improve opportunity for recreational and
aesthetic enjoyment of coastal resources.
2.4 Reduce the risk, potential, and impact of damage due
to storms and flooding.
2.5 Minimize the undesirable impact of development on both
the natural and the built environment by directing
development to locations that are comparatively better
suited for development.
2.6 Establish priorities in regard to the utilization of
coastal resources by identifying those natural and
socio-economic resources whose ecological, cultural,
historic, or aesthetic values override all consideration
as to potential use for development purposes.
Goal 3: Increase public awareness in regard to coastal zone planning and
management, and encourage active citizen participation in the
formulation of management plans and programs.
Objectives:
3.1 Disseminate available information on Monroe County's coastal
resources and natural and environmental systems so as to
increase public awareness of the coastal zone planning and
management needs.
3.2 Insure that those to be affected by the management of
coastal land and water resources have an opportunity to
participate in the formulation of the management plans
and programs.
Goal 4: Recognize the roles and responsibilities assumed by various
governmental units and agencies for the protection and proper
utilization of Monroe County's coastal land and water resources
in order to promote a coordinated management approach.
ObJ ecti ves :
4.1 Recognize that there is a demonstrated national interest in
the management, use, protection, and development of Monroe
County's coastal zone.
4.2 Ensure that to the extent practicable Monroe County's plans
and programs designed for the protection, proper utilization
and conservation of resources will be consistent with the
policies and principles of the State Coastal Management
Program.
4.3 Coordinate local coastal zone planning and management
activities with the South Florida Regional Planning
Council and the appropriate local governmental agencies
in the South Florida region in an effort to forestall
any potential conflicts and achieve the most efficient
and effective management of coastal resources.
E
4.4 Promote cooperation and coordination between the various
local governmental units and agencies in Monroe County
involved in the management of coastal resources and/or
regulation of land and water uses.
10
CHAPTER III
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
C+J
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
I. POPULATION
Historical Perspective
Growth in Monroe County essentially refers to growth in the Florida
Keys since almost the entire population of the County (approx. 99.70/0
is confined to the islands chain. Historically, military activities
in the Keys, particularly in the Key West area, have exerted a
dominant influence on the growth pattern in the Keys and account for
most of the population fluctuations experienced over the last hundred
years. After experiencing a major downward trend in population growth
during the early part of the Century, the Keys' population grew quite
vigorously in the 40's and the 50's, the former decade being the period
of the highest percentage growth in the recent history of the Keys.
In spite of the decline in population experienced by the City of Key
West since 1960 as a result of the gradually declining military presence,
Monroe County on the whole has been able to maintain a brisk growth
rate over the last two decades, with approximately 10% growth in the
60's and the projected 10 to 15% growth in the 70's. The City of Key
West in 1950 accounted for 88% of the County's total permanent popu-
lation, whereas in 1977 its share has receded to an estimated
46% of the County's total. In view of this fact, the gradual modest
increase in the County's population can be attributed to growth that
has taken place over the last 25 years or so in the Keys outside of
Key West.
TABLE 1
HISTORIC POPULATION FIGURES
MONROE
COUNTY
KEY WEST
POPULATION
% CHANGE
POPULATION
% CHANGE
1970
52,586
9.7
29,312
-13.7
1960
47,921
60.0
33,956
28.5
1950
29,957
112.8
26,433
104.5
1940
14,078
3.3
12,927
0.7
1930
13,624
-30.3
12,831
-31.6
1920
19,550
-0.9
18,749
6.0
1910
21,563
19.8
19,945
16.5
1900
18,006
-4.2
17,144
-5.3
1890
18,786
71.7
18.080
82.8
1880
10,940
93.4
9,890
97.2
1870
5,657
5,016
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
LGeographical Distribution:
Growth in the Keys outside of Key West has remained steady since 1950 with
the exception of the Lower Keys division which experienced a decline since
1970 due to the reduction in the military operation. The Upper and the
Middle Keys divisions, practically unaffected by the gradually declining
military operation in Key West and the Lower Keys, have maintained a steady
high growth rate since 1950. The 1977 population estimates (TABLE 2)
indicate nearly 82% increase in the Upper Keys, approximately 38% in the
Middle Keys, whereas, Key West and the Lower Keys have declined by approx-
imately 13% and 15% respectively, since 1970.
TABLE 2
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION
IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
1 2 3 4
1950 1960 1970 1977
Number % Number % Number % Number
Key West
26,443
88.3
33,956
71.0
29,312
56.0
25,382
46.2
Lower Keys
1,550
5.2
5,733
12.0
10,352
19.7
8,772
16.0
Middle Keys**
925
3.1
5,000
10.5
5,756
11.0
7,995
14.5
Upper Keys
1,025
3.4
3,126
6.5
7,012
13.3
12,785
23.3
Total*
29,943
100
47,815
100
52,432
100
54,934
100
*Total population of Monroe County excluding mainland portion.
**Middle Keys include Key Colony Beach and Layton.
Source: 1 and 2 - Florida Business Letter, June 14, 1962
U.S. Censuses of 1950 and 1960
3 - U.S. Census of 1970
4 - The Bureau of Economic & Business Research,
University of Florida
Notes; Lower Keys - From Cow Key Channel to Seven Mile Bridge
Middle Keys- From Seven Mile Bridge to Channel Five (just past Greyhound
Key)
Upper Keys - From Channel Five to the County boundary.
12
Although physical development is visible to a lesser or greater degree
rr virtually thru the entire stretch of the islands, the geographical
distribution of population in the Keys is characterized by uneven profile
with major population centers distributed sporadically., Key West, of
course, is the largest population center in the Keys which accounts for
nearly 46% of the County's estimated 1977 permanent resident population with
only approximately 5% of the total land area of the Keys. The Lower Keys,
excluding Key West, are estimated in 1977 to have a resident population of
a little under 9000 which constitutes approximately 16% of the Keys' popu-
lation with nearly 47% of the land area. It should be pointed out; however,
that a large portion of land in the Lower Keys is environmentally very
fragile, and therefore, subject to strict Federal, State, and local
controls; and a substantial amount of land is in Federal and State owner-
ship, thereby further reducing the availability of developable land. The
major population clusters of any significance in the Lower Keys outside of
Key West are Stock Island, Boca Chica, and Big Coppitt Key, together
accounting for over 50% of the Lower Keys' population.
The Middle Keys with a little less than 10% of the Keys' land area hold
approximately 14% of the Keys' population in the unincorporated areas
and the two incorporated jurisdictions of Key Colony Beach and Layton.
The major population center in this segment of the Keys is Marathon, which,
next to Key West,is the largest commercial and cultural hub in the Keys.
The Upper Keys, unlike the other two segments of the Keys, display, by
and large, an even distribution of population over a land mass which is
contiguous from the County line except for a few creeks and channels at the
lower end. Among the three divisions of the Keys excluding Key West, the
Upper Keys account for the largest segment of population (approx. 23% in
1977) scattered over Ocean Reef, Key Largo district, Tavernier, Plantation,
Islamorada, and Lower Matecumbe. The distribution of population over a
long stretch of the Upper Keys (with the exception of an approximate 10 mile
stretch in north Key Largo) has proved to be a decentralizing force foster-
ing the growth of several commercial nuclei along the major traffic
artery, and preventing the emergence of any one particular area as a
predominant commercial and cultural center in the Upper Keys.
The mainland portion of Monroe County which for the most part is under
Federal jurisdiction as a portion of the Everglades National Park contained
a population of 154 in 1970. Although it will be unrealistic to apply the
growth rate of the Florida Keys to this portion of the County as the
growth -inducing factors are virtually non-existent here, by allowing
approximately 25% growth in population, the 1977 population of the main-
land portion of Monroe County is estimated to be under 200.
Population Characteristics:
Since 1960, the age composition of the County has shifted from the pre-
dominant population of children and young adults toward a pattern of an
increasing number of adults and senior citizens. Specifically, the age
group under 25 has declined from 49% of the total population in 1960 to an
estimated 40% of the 1976 population. On the other hand, the percentage
4W of senior citizens (65 and over) has more than doubled from 5.6% in 1960
13
to an estimated 13.9% in 1976. Continuation of this trend points toward
the emergence of a more 'adult oriented' and retired population, less tied
to child-bearing and other home -centered activities, and left with the
increased amount of leisure time.
The shift in the age structure of the County since 1960 is accompanied by
a significant change in residency characteristics toward increasing number
of seasonal residents. The seasonal residential population, which fluctuates
between the winter and summer months because of the "two -season" nature of
tourist activities, consists of that portion of the population which does
not reside in the County on a year-round basis. Part-time residents are
made up mainly of retirees who migrate to other parts of the country during
the remainder of the year, and of workers who come into the area to serve
the needs of tourists and other part-time residents during the seasons of
highest activity.
When estimating and projecting the County's population, it is this
component of the population which has been often ignored all together or
confused with the tourist influx. But because of its magnitude and peculiar
characteristics, this segment of the Keys' population demands further study.
According to a survey conducted in 1970, more than 8 percent of the house-
holds lived in Monroe County from six to nine months, approximately 14.5
percent resided three to six months annually, and approximately 6 percent
lived in the County fewer than three months each year. If the recent
statistics on housing and electric customers, whose growth thru 1970-77
is nearly 7 to 8 times higher than the growth in permanent population, are
given any consideration, it could be asserted that there has been a
definite increase in the number of seasonal residents since 1970. It is
estimated that in 1977 as many as 35% of residents in the unincorporated
area and nearly 24% of the residents in the entire Monroe County during
the peak season were seasonal residents owning or renting houses, con-
dominiums, and mobile homes. It is interesting to note that over 89% of
the seasonal residents of Monroe County live in the unincorporated area of
the County, with Key West and Key Colony Beach accounting for less than 11%.
The City of Key West, which contains a very low percentage of seasonal
residents, is inhabited mostly by permanent residents and a large influx
of tourists exhibiting a rather erratic pattern from month to month.
Population Trends:
Monroe County has grown from its 1970 population of 52,586 to an estimated
55,124 in 1977, which represents a 4.8% increase in the County's permanent
residents since 1970. Paradoxically, during the same period, housing units
and residential electric customers in the County have increased by nearly
34% and 41%, respectively. The total public and private school enrollment
in Grades 1 thru 8; however, has dropped by over 10% since 1970. Among
other demographic characteristics, the birth-rate has been declining,
whereas the death -rate has escalated somewhat over the years. All in all,
these statistics could be construed as indicating the following trends:
1. Permanent resident population has kept growing at a brisk rate
in the unincorporated area of the County; whereas, Key West
has steadily declined since 1960. Growth in the unincorporated
area is likely to continue in the future at a modest pace.
14
(W 2. A significant increase in seasonal occupancy has occurred in
the County since 1970. The size of the seasonal component of
population is likely to maintain its present magnitude.
3. The average household size has steadily declined over the
years and will continue to move towards smaller household.
4. In -migrating population of mostly older people has been replacing
the out -migrating population of younger people. The percentage
of adult and retired population is likely to show a gradual
increase in the future.
15
(W
II. ECONOMY
The economy of Monroe County is based primarily upon three major
elements: the military, tourism, and commercial recreation, and
commercial fishing. The tourism/commercial recreation industry
provides the major portion of the civilian economic base of the
Keys. The trade and service industry which serves the tourist
trade is the largest source of civilian employment in Monroe County.
In 1975, nearly 430" of the wage and salary employment was concentrated
in the trade and service industry, and about 85% of, the total employ-
ment in the Keys was concentrated in functions belonging to the
service sector: transportation, communications, construction, trade,
finance, government, the professionals, and recreation (TABLE 3).
This inordinate economic reliance on the service sector is due to
the unique physical attributes of the Keys which, unlike most areas
on the mainland, have a very limited capacity to realize a broad and
balanced economic base. The dimensions of the economic base of the
Florida Keys are, therefore, narrow and bound with the region's in-
creasing tourist trade. Consequently, many important external and
internal economies of scale are denied to the Florida Keys.
TABLE 3
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 1975
Total Employment
Proprietors
Wage and Salary
Private
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation,Communication
and Public Utilities
Trade
Services
Finance,Insurance and
Real Estate
Other
Government
Federal Civilian
Federal Military
State and Local
Number
22,669
2,542
20,127
11,985
812
712
784
4,603
4,065
805
204
8,142
1,506
3,864
2,772
Source: Monroe County Economic Data, April, 1977
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Florida
Department of Commerce
Percent
100
59.5
4.0
3.5
3.9
22.9
20.2
4.0
1.0
40.5
7.5
19.2
13.8
16
(W TABLE 4
MONROE COUNTY PERSONAL INCOME, 1975
by Place of Residence
Thousands
of Dollars
Percent
Property Income
55,000
19.5
Transfer of Payments(less personal
41,000
14.6
contributions to Social Security)
Manufacturing
5,773
2.0
Construction
9,177
3.3
Wholesale and Retail Trade
32,385
11.5
Finance,Insurance and
7,044
2.5
Real Estate
Transportation,Communication
8,743
3.1
and Public Utilities
Services
31,304
11.1
Other private industry
5,257
1.9
Federal Civilian
18,201
6.5
Federal Military
41,774
14.8
State and Local
25,664
9.1
Total Personal Income
281,322
100
Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1977
Bureau of Economic and Business Research
University of Florida
Over the years, tourist industry in the Keys has experienced a significant
increase in the total number of visitors and also in the percentage of the
out-of-state tourists coming to Florida. Figures from the Florida Department
of Commerce show that in 1977, approximately 2.8% of the total number of
out-of-state tourists coming to Florida visited the Keys. This percentage
accounts for nearly 850,000 out-of-state tourists whose number has increased
by about 85% since 1970.
In addition to the tourists from out-of-state, there have been growing
numbers of in -state visitors to the area. Residents of the highly -populated
southeastern counties of the State have found that the Keys are an excellent
place for weekend and short vacation trips. No definite figures can be
given for the number of in -state visitors, but based on the 1972 estimate
and assuming the same rate of growth as the out-of-state visitors, their
number is likely to be around 500,000.
17
The impact of visitors to the Keys on the local economy is of such a
magnitude that the services needed to accommodate these tourists/visitors
now provide employment and income for close to 45% of the civilian labor
force of Monroe County.
The Federal Government, through its military operations in the Key West area
has had a considerable influence on the economy of Monroe County for many
years. The military population increases sales in the trade and services
sector and influences the housing market in the Key West urban area. Military
operations have provided employment for many civilians in the County. But
over the years, as the following Tables show, the influence of military on
the County's economy, especially the Key West economy, has been declining
with the curtailment in military activities.
TABLE 5
MILITARY CONNECTED POPULATION*
YEAR
Military Connected
Percent of
Percent of County
Population
Key West
Population
Population
1960
17,600
52%
37%
1970
18,107
62%
34%
1972
15,054
51%
27%
1973
14,171
47%
25%
1974
11,516
40%
22%
1975
10,691
37%
19%
1976
11,025
43%
20%
1977
9,049
36%
16%
*includes
military personnel,their
dependents, and
civilian naval
complex
employees.
Source: Analysis of Military Impact - Key West Housing Market Area,
HUD, 1977.
TABLE 6
YEAR
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT ON NAVAL COMPLEX SINCE 1966
CIVILIAN
CIVILIAN
NAVAL COMPLEX
LABOR FORCE
NAVAL COMPLEX
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
OF COUNTY
EMPLOYEES
AS A % OF TOTAL
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
15,500
1,918
12%
15,780
2,020
13%
15,840
2,047
13%
17,740
1,923
11%
17,780
1,693
10%
16,340
1,447
9%
17,680
1,406
8%
19,600
20,356
756
5%
4%
Sources: 1. Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management
Study of 1974, Florida Coastal Coordinating Council
2. Analysis of Military Impact - Key West Housing Market
Area, HUD, 1977
In light of the declining economic influence of the military, the civilian
labor force expanding at a modest rate has looked up to the tourist sector
of economy for potential employment. It can be stated that economic loss
resulting from the cutbacks in military activities over the years has been
offset to a large degree by the increase in tourist activity and its
stimulating impact on the service sector.
The commercial fishing industry remained relatively stable up until 1974,
but since then there has been a slight decline in the catch as well as the
dollar value of the fish landings. In 1975, commercial fisherman brought
into Monroe County docks 14% of all fish landed in Florida as opposed to
17% in 1974. Of course, the percentages of value will be much higher due
to the large quantities of shrimp harvesting in the Keys. It is not
anticipated that the industry will show any large gains in the future.
It is primarily, as is the tourist industry, a seasonal activity.
The majority of business and industry in Monroe County is small business.
This is reflected by the employment information (TABLE 3 ) which shows
less than 4% of the total employment in manufacturing. Large scale
manufacturing could never become a reality in the Keys due to the unique
geographical location of the Keys. The primary constraints in this re-
gard are the absence of near -by large market area in which products can be
sold, the scarcity of suitable load carrying land, the excessive transpor-
tation costs, and the high cost and shortage of water. These limitations
19
AP would make it clear that there is little chance for major industrial facilities.
For this reason, efforts should be focused on developing small business and
industry which would serve the needs and desires of the local people and
the tourist industry.
III. LAND USE
Existing land uses have been the result of a combination of important factors
including location, owner objectives, access, suitability of land as to
drainage and soils, land value, general economic conditions prevailing at
the time of development, and the regulation of land by government. As areas
become more developed, they require more urban facilities and services, and
increasingly this becomes a major factor in determining land use.
One of the most critical factors influencing the land use patterns in the
Keys has been the Overseas Highway in the form of a major arterial providing
direct access to abutting properties and most of the Keys. The commercial
and residential land use that has proliferated along this corridor is
largely in response to the uncontrolled access provided by the highway thru
the entire stretch of the Keys. The continuous strip development along
this Highway has debilitated its capacity to function as a major arterial
and has engendered a situation which could potentially generate a negative
impact on the Keys' economy, the tourist industry.
While no efforts were made to prepare an inventory of the existing land
uses as of 1977, the information and data contained in the Florida Keys
Coastal Zone Management Study of 1974, and the Monroe County Land Use Plan,
Update of 1974, have been analyzed to reach the following conclusions:
1. Land used for governmental purposes, utilities, or other
public services including park and recreation areas
constitutes the largest category of land use in the Keys.
(In 1974, this category accounted for over 12% of the total
land area of the unincorporated portion of the Keys.
2. Next to the 'Public Service' category, residential land
use is the most predominant type of land use in each County
Census Division. (i.e., Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys).
Single family residential accounts for the greatest per-
centage of this followed by mobile homes.
3. Industrial land use which accounts for a very small per-
centage of the total area is concentrated primarily in the
Lower Keys.
4. Commercial use is ubiquitous through out the Keys in the
form of strip development, but is primarily concentrated
in the Key West and Marathon areas. It is estimated that
over 30 miles of Overseas Highway frontage (accounting for
both sides of the road) is already developed for commercial
use.
5. Tourist accommodations constitute a significant percentage
of land use in the Middle Keys.
20
6. Military facilities are concentrated in the Key West and Lower
Keys divisions.
7. Land use patterns are generally random and mixed with apparent
conflicts occurring between compatible uses in some areas.
The 1974 Land Use Plan Update estimated that approximately 73% of the
land area in the unincorporated portion of the Keys was vacant. Almost
two thirds of this area was classified as wetland comprised to a large
extent of mangrove vegetation and tidal swamps. The survey disclosed
approximately 16,000 acres of dry lands that potentially could be developed.
To the extent legally practicable, the future development should be
directed to these areas in proportion to the support services already
available or planned for.
IV. LAND OWNERSHIP
The study of the land ownership pattern in the Keys reveals that over
three quarters of the land in the Keys is privately owned. Approximately
24% of the land in the Keys is owned by various levels. of government.
The Federal lands comprised of Wildlife Refuges and military installations
in the Lower Keys make up over 65% of those lands. The State owned lands
containing state parks, education lands, highway construction, borrow pits,
and causeways account for over 4300 acres. The County's share of govern-
ment ownership amounts to only 760 acres (nearly 520 acres in the un-
incorporated portion) scattered over school areas, airports, solid waste
disposal sites, and parks.
One of the most significant land ownership characteristics in the Keys,
as revealed during the Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study of
1974, is that nearly 51% of the Keys' land area in 1974 was in large
ownership (parcels over 20 acres) and was controlled by 245 owners. The
parcels in large ownership totalled about 34,805 acres, with over 60% of
this land area considered environmentally sensitive. It was also revealed
during this Study that over 2000 acres of submerged land were claimed by
private owners.
The findings of the 1974 Study led to the following planning implications
which are still applicable:
1. Government ownership of lands in the Keys, while significant,
does not account for nearlvas much of the area as is commonly
assumed and does not appear to be a major factor in managing
growth in the Keys.
2. Present land values in the Keys are so high that taxing
policies may actually be forcing development of areas that
should be preserved. This in turn may contribute to ex-
cessive conflicts with State and Federal regulatory agencies
who are charged by law with protecting these areas. This
situation needs further investigation to determine if taxing
policies can be altered to provide developers with incentives
not to develop ecologically sensitive areas.
21
3. The extent of land in large single ownerships suggests that
planned unit development concepts should be utilized more
heavily in future development in the Keys rather than allowing
traditionally subdivision practices to prevail.
4. Submerged land ownership is apparently a significant problem
in the Keys. Present prohibitions against private development
of these areas strongly suggests that a concerted effort be
undertaken to explore all possible means for getting such
areas back into public ownership.
22
LIM
CHAPTER IV
MANAGEMENT POLICIES
A
MARINE RESOURCES
The great value attributed to Monroe County's marine resources is due to
their crucial role in the local economy, and in providing a wide range of
natural amenities and services. Health and integrity of the marine system
is a fundamental prerequisite if these resources are to continue to provide
social, economic, and environmental benefits that we have at times taken for
granted. Mangroves, seagresses, and coral reefs, all of which are sus-
ceptible to pollution and dredging, are extremely important in providing
food and shelter for myriad forms of marine life, providing storm protection,
and maintaining water quality. If uses and activities such as dredge and
fill, destruction of natural vegetation, use of pesticides and fertilizers,
improper sewage and solid waste disposal continue indiscriminately and un-
controlled; the ability of the marine system to function effectively will
deteriorate, thereby resulting in the loss of many natural services and
socio-economic benefits to society. Therefore, it is imperative that such
uses and activities be carefully regulated so as to insure conservation
and protection of resources and long-term maintenance of their productivity.
Refer to APPENDIX A for more information on marine resources.
MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT POLICIES
1. Recognizing the crucial role that the marine environment plays in
the local economy, the protection, conservation, and management
of marine resources will be viewed as an issue requiring the
County's utmost attention.
1.1 In an effort to protect and conserve marine resources,
emphasis will be placed on protecting the entire marine
eco-system.
1.2 To this end, maintenance of water quality; protection of
marine flora and fauna, including shoreline vegetation;
and preservation of coral reefs will be regarded as being
absolutely essential to maintaining the integrity of
marine system.
2. Utilization of marine resources will be judged sound or unsound from
the standpoint of whether or not a permitted use insures conserva-
tion and long-term maintenance of the resource. High priority
will be given to those uses and activities which insure conserva-
tion and optimum sustainable productivity of marine resources.
Such uses will include, but are not limited to; mariculture,
educational and scientific use, commercial fishing, and recreational
uses of the type and in the magnitude which will not cause any
significant adverse impact on the marine environment.
2.1 The County will encourage research and development programs
designed to insure optimum sustainable productivity in the
marine resource industries.
2.2 The County will support and, whenever feasible, aid private
and non-profit groups, and public agencies engaged in promoting
mariculture which will be compatible with the Keys' natural
environment.
23
3. Land and water activities which are incompatible with the preservation
of marine resources because of their potential adverse effects will be
L; prohibited, restricted, or carefully regulated depending upon the nature
of activity and the extent of potential impact.
3.1 The County will support State and Federal policies and regulations
concerning dredge and fill activity and,to the extent legally
practicable,prohibit dredging and/or filling of submerged lands
for development except in proven cases of overriding public
interest.
3.2 Dredging and/or filling associated with necessary water -dependent
public projects shall be minimized and carefully managed to
prevent unnecessary adverse environmental impact.
3.3�,Jhe County will cooperate with the State in developing and
enforcing stringent design and operating standards for septic tanks
and package treatment plants to govern their use either on an
interim basis or where conditions are found to permit their con-
tinued use without posing a threat to water quality.
3.4 Long-range sewage disposal alternatives, including recycling
of wastes, will be carefully reviewed and evaluated to insure
protection of quality of coastal water resources.
3.5 The County will seek cooperation of, and encourage South Florida
cities and counties to improve the existing ocean disposal system
and to eliminate ocean outfalls where they affect coral reef areas.
3.6 The County will provide adequate solid waste disposal system in
the areas under its jurisdiction; and will encourage neighboring
units or local government to do so.
4. The County will develop and enforce stringent development regulations to
minimize water pollution from point and non -point sources in an effort
to improve and maintain quality of coastal waters. Programs designed to
investigate and monitor nearshore water quality will be encouraged and
supported.
4.1 Marine grass beds, mangrove communities, and associated shoreline
vegetation will be preserved to the fullest extent possible.
Removal of vegetation or modification of natural patterns of
tidal flow and nutrient input, cycling and export should be con-
sidered only in the case of overriding public interest.
4.2 The County will encourage creation and restoration of marine grass
beds, and mangrove communities in areas which could support such
vegetative growth and could potentially enhance the environmental
quality.
4.3 As far as possible, natural patterns of gradual and dispersed
runoff will be maintained.
24
4.4 Direct discharge of runoff from paved areas into nearshore
water will be restricted. Storm runoff from developed areas
will be minimized and, when possible, contained on site to
filter through vegetation and soil.
5. The County will encourage and assist in research efforts established
to ascertain physiological stresses of the Keys coral reefs as a system.
Funding sources for such a program will be explored.
6. Land and water activity in the vicinity of stress areas (coral, grass
bed, and inshore water quality) as identified and illustrated in the
Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study and as may be discovered
during any future study will be carefully controlled and regulated in
an effort to arrest further deterioration. Research and study directed
toward alleviating the stresses and restoring their condition to natural
healthy state will be encouraged and supported.
7. The County will seek cooperation of appropriate State and Federal
agencies in enacting regulations to control boat and amphibious traffic,
and marine recreation activities, whenever necessary, to alleviate
erosion, sedimentation, noise and other environmental problems; and to
prevent destruction of submerged vegetation and coral reefs.
8. The County will encourage and assist appropriate Regional, State, and
Federal agencies in rigorously enforcing the existing laws and reg-
ulations protecting marine resources; and in preventing and discouraging
illegal and unauthorized interference with the resource.
MARINE RESOURCES AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
Criteria for Designating Areas of Particular Concern:
1. Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, physical
feature and scenic importance;
2. Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat, for living
resources, including fish, wildlife, and the various trophic levels in
the food web critical to their well-being;
3. Areas of substantial recreational value and/or opportunity;
4. Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal lands or
resources, including coastal flood plains, coral and other reefs, beaches,
off -shore sand deposits and mangrove stands.
Site -specific Designations
1. Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve: This Aquatic Preserve is included in
the State Coastal Management Program as a Geographic Area of Particular
Concern. It incorporates the waters of Florida Bay and Hawk Channel,
between Upper and Lower Matecumbe Keys and surrounding Shell Key,
Lignumvitae Key, and Indian Key State Parks. The waters support
25
abundant marine grass beds and fish species, and the Keys incorporated
in the Preserve have mangrove fringes and unique hardwood forests.
The forest on Lignumvitae Key is in better condition than on any other
Florida Key, containing mahogany, fase-mastic, gumbo -limbo, and es-
pecially the lignumvitae. Several unique and endangered wildlife
species are found on this Key, including the lignum snail.
Management Policies:
a. Management and recreational usage for the State Parks on the Keys
in the aquatic preserve must be consistent with preservation of
the Aquatic Preserve.
b. Development activity on Upper and Lower Vatecumbe Keys, including
dredging and filling and urban run-off water will be controlled so
as not to damage waters of the Preserve.
2. Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve: Designated for its unique biological and
scientific values, this Preserve is also included in the State Coastal
Management Program as a Geographic Area of Particular Concern. This
shallow semi -enclosed bay off Big Pine Key is ecologically sensitive,
and its waters support diverse marine species. A unique geological
formation occurs where Miami oolite overlaps the Key Largo reef for-
mation, near the surface, and is therefore especially accessible for
study and research. Live coral reefs near the mouth of the Bight and
within the Bight itself are accessible in shallow water, and therefore,
ideal for study and research.
The area has little land development yet, but the increased development
activity in the surrounding area as witnessed in the recent years
threaten the integrity of this unique preserve. If uncontrolled,
adjacent over -development, introduction of sewage effluents, or des-
tructive dredging and filling would alter the unique character of the
waters.
Management Policies:
a. The County will cooperate with the Florida Department of Natural
Resources in carefully reviewing all activities proposed in the
Preserve waters to insure compatibility with p%otection of water
quality.
b. Land and water activities in adjacent and surrounding areas will be
carefully controlled and regulated to insure compatibility with
maintenance and preservation of the Preserve.
c. The use of septic tanks in the adjacent areas will be discouraged.
d. Storm water management standards will be strictly enforced to
reduce run-off pollution from developed areas.
<401 e. All approved dredging and/or filling activities will be conducted
in a manner which minimized adverse impacts on natural habitat and
water quality.
26
f. Areas adjacent to and surrounding the Preserve will be zoned for
low intensity uses consistent with preservation of the Preserve.
3. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park & Key Largo Coral Reef Marine
Sanctuary:
These unique underwater preserves off Key Largo have been established for
the protection of the living coral reef formation and its associated flora
and fauna. The State Park is about 21 miles long, extends approximately
three miles seaward, and encompasses about 75 square miles of living
coral reef. This park is administered by the Florida Division of Parks
& Recreation.
The Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary, established under Title III
of the Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act of 1972., begins at
the three-mile territorial limit of the State Park and extends seaward
to the 300 foot isobath. Designation of this area as a marine sanctuary
and management according to the established regulations control and
minimize many of the stresses that would otherwise affect this portion
of the reef.
Management Policies:
a. Management and recreational activities in the designated areas must
be consistent with preservation of the underwater preserve.
b. Development activity on Key Largo, including dredging and filling,
urban run-off water, and the use of septic tanks will be controlled
and regulated in order to minimize stresses which result in water
quality deterioration.
c. The County will explore funding sources for, and encourage and
cooperate with State and Federal agencies in the acquisition of land
in the immediate vicinity of the Coral Reef State Park so as to
create a buffer zone between the preserve and the nearby urbanized
area.
Generic Desiqnations
1. All Marine grass beds in waters off the Florida Keys.
2. All patch reef coral and other reef formation found in the surround-
ing waters off the Keys.
3. All shore -fringing mangrove and associated vegetation extending up
to 50 feet laterally upland from the landward limit of the shoreline
mangrove.
Management Policies:
a. These biotic communities will be preserved to the fullest extent
possible. Modification will be considered only in the case of
overriding public interest.
b. Creation and restoration of these communities will be encouraged
wherever feasible and necessary.
27
L_J
W
OD
a
�
UJ
0
U
rid
Z
z
Z
w�
z
:D
�
a
N
r
a
�
Z��
o
U
w
0
\
z
.\
o
2
i Bor,,E �pNNEL {�� Q � '•�f
0
29
NATURAL VEGETATIVE RESOURCES
The diverse and often unique plant associations of the Florida Keys are
a vital element of Monroe County's natural system and economic structure.
The natural functions performed by these plant communities with regard to
marine resources, unique and endangered wildlife, shoreline stabilization,
filtering of urban runoff and scenic value make them vital elements in
maintenance of the urban structure and attractions for the tourist base
of Monroe County's economy.
Basically, the Keys' vegetative environment, depending upon its location in
relation to tidally influenced areas, is characterized by wetland and upland
vegetative communities. Protection of both these communities is important
in maintaining a high quality living environment. But, while wetland
vegetation is generally well protected under the existing State and Federal
legislations, the protection of upland vegetation has remained primarily
a local responsibility. The two major upland vegetative communities
occurring in the Keys, hardwood hammocks and pinelands, contain most of the
rare and unique plant and animal species found in the Keys, and provide
habitat for a number of wildlife species. They also perform a number of
cost-free services valuable to the community. The areas where these
communities exist will come under increasing development pressures in the
near future since such areas require least modification for urban develop-
ment. These circumstances warrant that the County develop and enforce
regulations designed to provide adequate degree of protection to these
vegetative communities.
(Refer to APPENDIX B for more information on Natural Vegetation)
NATURAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES
1. In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as
possible, the County will direct its land use and development regula-
tions to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification
of landscape.
1.1 Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect
natural vegetation from development will be developed and
enforced.
1.2 Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled.
1.3 Land clearing will be restricted to site area being prepared
for immediate construction. If the construction cannot begin
within reasonable time, the cleared area will be replanted
with ground cover.
1.4 In areas where temporary removal of vegetation is necessary
during construction, replanting of ground cover will be carried
<401 out as soon as possible.
31
2. The unique and endangered status of the hardwood hammock community; and
the critical role of the pineland in providing the only living
habitat for the Key Deer will be recognized and given due considera-
tion in developing future land use regulations.
2.1 Development in and adjacent to hardwood hammock and pineland
areas will be carefully regulated so as to maintain normal
drainage patterns and the ecological balance of the entire area.
2.2 Outstanding, rare, and unique communities of hardwood hammock
and pineland will be preserved to the greatest extent possible.
2.3 The County will encourage public acquisition of land areas
containing rare, unique and outstanding plant communities or
threatened or endangered species. Funding sources for such
acquisition will be explored.
3. Regulations controlling development in areas characterized primarily
by wetland vegetative species such as mangrove and associated vegetation
will emphasize preservation of natural vegetation to the maximum degree
possible. Local regulations in this regard will be consistent with the
appropriate State and Federal regulations.
4. In an effort to preserve adequate degree of green and open space,
isolated communities of natural vegetation in urban and urbanizing
area will be considered for public ownership to the extent they can be
developed as parks or nature study areas. In any event, the natural
character of these communities will be preserved to the maximum degree
possible.
5. Introduction of undesirable exotic species which tend to outcomplete
or otherwise displace native species will be discouraged and, where
necessary, prohibited.
5.1 The deliberate planting of particularly undesirable exotic species
will be discouraged.
5.2 The removal of undesirable exotics currently existent in the Keys
will be encouraged.
5.3 The use of native plants which tend to minimize use of water,
pesticides, and fertilizer will be encouraged in the landscaping
of future developments.
6. Programs for mosquito control will be carried out in a manner which will
minimize destruction of natural vegetation and alteration of physical
environment.
6.1 Mosquitoes will be controlled in the larval stages whenever
possible, generally keeping the Keys free of biting adults.
Larviciders will be chosen on the basis of safety both to
humans and wildlife and applied in a lawful manner.
6.2 New ditching for mosquito control will be discouraged.
32
Ar 6.3 Filling of existing ditches will be considered to the extent
practicable and feasible in places where they pose a serious
enviromental threat.
6.4 Chemical control of adult mosquitoes will be kept to a minimum, consistent
with acceptable control and lawful application.
6.5 Research will be encouraged to explore alternate methods of
control which will be economically feasible and environmentally
sound.
7. Installation of public utility lines and road building will be carefully
planned and regulated to minimize any adverse impact on natural
vegetation.
8. The existing County ordinances designed to protect and conserve
natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced,
and/or amended when necessary.
9. The County will seek assistance from and cooperate with the appropriate
State and Federal agencies in developing and enforcing regulations
designed to protect rare, threatened and/or endangered plant species
from development, valdalism, tree poaching, and plant thefts.
10. The County will support, encourage, and whenever feasible, assist in
the scientific studies and surveys dealing with the Keys' natural
vegetation and/or the related environmental parameters.
11. The County will maintain and update from time to time maps and inventory
of the Keys' natural vegetative resources.
CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATING AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN:
1. Areas containing plant communities of unique character and/or rare,
threatened or endangered species.
2. Vegetative communities exceptionally outstanding in growth and structure.
3. Isolated communities of well developed natural vegetation in urban or
rapidly urbanizing areas.
4. Areas of substantial recreational and/or educational value and/or
opportunity.
SITE -SPECIFIC 'APC' DESIGNATIONS:
1. Cactus Hammock on Big Pine Key:
A vegetative feature of very small size but having unique character-
istics, even within the Keys, is the cactus hammock of Big Pine Key.
The area, consisting of less than 100 acres, contains several species
of cactus found elsewhere only in Cuba and the Bahamas, and one
variety specific to the Keys. The area also contains luxurious growths
33
of Spanish moss, a rare phenomenon in the Keys. Because of the
uniqueness of this area, it is of considerable interest to botanists
and naturalists.
Management Policies;
a. This area will be protected to the maximum degree possible through
the application of Zoning, tax, incentives, purchase, easements,
or other appropriate means.
b. Public aquisition of this land will be considered a high priority
alternative. The County will explore possible funding sources for
this purpose.
c. Any development in or adjacent to this area will incorporate special
precautions to avoid damaging the natural character of the area.
34
NATURAL LANDFORMS AND FEATURES
The uniqueness of the Keys is exemplified in many ways, but especially in
the physical character of the area. The natural landforms and features
which attribute to this area a unique identity have evolved in response
to a wide range of natural forces and processes. These natural processes
still exert a dominant influence that shapes the environment in an
evolutionary process. Although the use of land for human habitation
inherently implies modification of landscape and even disruption of natural
processes to a lesser or greater extent, such modifications must be kept
to a minimum level so as to assure the integrity of the natural system.
The Keys exist as an interface between land and water. Different land and
water units of this system are interrelated in an intricate manner.
Therefore, protection of natural landforms and features should not be
interpreted as strictly concerning a specific location, but should be viewed
in the broader context of the overall natural system.
Of all the natural landforms and features which must be given due con-
sideration in regard to their protection, protection of shoreline is of
prime concern. The shoreline areas perform many useful functions and
constitute a highly dynamic zone which grows or shrinks in response to
natural processes such as storms, currents, and sediment supply, and the
activities of man. Modification of shoreline by man in a manner that
disregards the dynamic nature of this area must, therefore, be kept to
minimum. Development activities in this area must be carefully regulated
and use priorities should be established.
Also requiring special attention are those features which because of their
rare occurrence and special significance in the Keys must be considered
areas of particular concern. Such special resources as groundwater aquifers,
freshwater marshes and ponds, sandy beaches, and young dunes must be care-
fully managed to guard against any potentially detrimental use or activity.
(Refer to APPENDIX C for more information on Natural Landforms and Features)
NATURAL LANDFORMS AND FEATURES MANAGEMENT POLICIES
1. Efforts will be made to insure that no representative natural eco-system
or a special natural feature presently existing in the Keys is
extirpated from the area through unwise land use or management practices.
2. The County will encourage and support scientific studies and investi-
gations of the Keys geological and hydrological resources.
3. Development in both the public and private sector will be required
to take into consideration protective measures for natural landforms
and features during the planning process so as to minimize modification
of hydrological regime and natural landscape.
35
4. Mud banks and islands in the surrounding waters of the Florida Bay
and Hawk Channel will be preserved to the greatest degree possible.
Modification of these environmental units will be considered only in
the case of overriding public interest and in conformance with the
prevailing State and Federal regulations.
5. Development activities will be required to protect tidal flushing and
circulation patterns. Any project which may produce changes in
circulation patterns will be approved only after sufficient hydro -
graphic information is available to allow an accurate evaluation of
the possible impacts of the project.
6. Existing spoil islands will be protected and maintained to serve as
green areas, bird roosting, nesting, and feeding areas and/or water -
oriented recreation areas not requiring major expenditure of public
funds. Planting with native vegetation will be encouraged when possible.
7. Priorities will be established for the use of shoreline. All pro-
posed shoreline uses will be analyzed with respect to the biophysical
character of the area to be modified and any adverse socio-economic
and environmental impacts of permissible uses will be minimized.
Development practices which have the potentials of causing erosion of
the beaches and shoreline will be regulated.
8. Aggregation of multiple uses that are compatible with the existing
uses and natural environment will be encouraged along the shoreline.
SHORELINE USE PRIORITIES
Those activities of socio-economic significance to the Keys that can only
function through use of waterfront property or access to it must have first
priority for inclusion in shoreline areas designated for development. Of
second priority are those activities that can function inland but a shore-
line location significantly enhances the land use on an economic or
aesthetic basis. Any waterfront use, of course, must still make every
effort to minimize environmental impact. Land uses not requiring a coastal
location or that are not economically or aesthetically enhanced to a
significant degree should be discouraged from waterfront locations.
A considered priority of shoreline uses in descending order can be summarized
as follows:
1. Water -dependent activities. These activities include, but are not
limited to, ports and water -dependent industry, marinas, water -
dependent recreation, certain military activities, navigation, and
fish and wildlife production.
2. Water -related or water -enhanced activities. These activities
include, but are not limited to, utilities, water -related
commerce, water -enhanced recreation, and water -related industry.
3. Activities not water -related or water -dependent. These activities
include, but are not limited to all industry and commerce which are
not water -dependent or water -related, and intensive urban develop-
ment in general.
36
(W SHORELINE MODIFICATION
Shoreline generally requires some degree of modification before it can be
utilized for development of any sort. But such modification, unless
carefully planned, can have adverse effects far beyond the area directly
altered for development. For this reason, all shoreline modifications
are subject to close scrutiny and regulation by local, State and Federal
agencies. The following guidelines should be used at the local level to
minimize the impact of shoreline modifications of different types.
Bulkhead and Bulkhead Lines:
1. Bulkhead lines should be set at, or landward of, the mean high water
line or the landward boundary of the shoreline protection zone, which-
ever is applicable.
2. Where possible, sloping rip -rap structures and coastal vegetation
should be used rather than vertical seawalls.
3. Bulkhead construction should avoid sharp -angle turns that may collect
trash or cause shoaling or flushing problems.
Dredging, Filling, and Artificial Waterways:
1. Dredging and/or filling of submerged lands will be kept to a minimum.
2. Residential developments that are feasible only through creation of
land by dredging and filling of submerged areas will ' be prohibited.
3. Proposed upland waterway systems should be carefully considered by
local regulatory bodies before submission for State review to determine
the long-term effect the entire upland development will have on water
quality.
4. The State should not approve excavations in submerged lands or wetlands
areas for the purpose of obtaining fill material unless it is for a
necessary public purpose, the ecological impact can be shown to be
minimal and short-term, and there are no other suitable alternatives.
5. Buffer zones of natural vegetation and adequate setback should be
established between development and any waterways.
6. Artificial waterways should be designed to ensure adequate flushing.
Deadend waterways should be avoided.
7. Waterway connections to open water should be located in areas where
impact on the littoral zone will be minimized.
8. Artificial waterways should generally not be excavated to depths
greater than six feet, mean low water, to allow establishment of
vegetation on the canal bottoms.
9. The sides of artificial waterways should be gently sloping rather than
vertical to facilitate biological as well as physical stabilization
of the canal shoreline.
37
10. The berm of artificial waterways should be raised so that there is a
gradual slope away from the canal edge. This will help prevent
introduction of contaminants into adjacent water bodies.
11. Because present State policy specifies that the process of dredging
upland canals does not thereby establish justification for the later
issuance of a permit to connect them to public waters, all necessary
permits for land modification and canal construction should be obtained
before any residential lots are sold in areas requiring dredge and
fill.
12. Dredging and filling for public shoreline projects should be planned
for only if the activity is water dependent and there are no feasible
alternatives.
13. Dredging for navigational access should be well planned to prevent
unnecessary channels. Central marina facilities should be used if
possible rather than providing individual facilities.
14. All dredging spoil material should be placed on suitable upland
rather than in water areas.
15. Turbidity control mechanisms such as diapers and weirs should be
used to protect water quality in adjacent areas during construction.
16. Adequate diking should be constructed to contain fill material on
upland areas and allow for settling of fine materials.
17. Runoff from dredging operations should utilize natural drainage
patterns, where possible.
Docks and Piers:
1. Docks and piers should not hinder navigation or public use of the waters.
2. Docks and piers will be constructed and maintained in a manner that
does not degrade area aesthetics or conflict with adjacent shoreline
uses.
3. Docks and piers should be constructed in a manner that does not
restrict water flow.
Marina Facilities:
1. Marinas should be located in areas where maximum physical advantages
exist and where least dredging and maintenance will be required.
2. Marina construction should avoid unnecessary destruction of marsh
areas, shellfish beds, and submerged grasses.
3. Open dockage extending to deep water should be considered as an
alternative to dredging for navigational access.
4. Turning basins and navigation channels should be designed to prevent
r long-term degradation of water quality. Deadend or deep canals
without adequate flushing should be avoided.
5. Marinas that cater to live -aboard craft will be equipped with sewage
collection systems for servicing the vessels.
6. Regional as well as local need data should be considered as input in
location of marinas.
7. All plans for marina development should be submitted for review by
appropriate State regulatory agencies at the earliest possible time to
prevent unnecessary delays in gaining approval.
8. Spoil disposal areas should be designated and obtained prior to initial
development of marina facilities.
9. Evaluation of potential marina sites in the Keys as contained in the
Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study should be given careful
consideration prior to the approval or disapproval of any proposed
development of marina facilities.
AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
Criteria for designating APC's:
1. A geological, hydrological or physiographical feature confined to a
small area of the Keys and considered quite rare locally or regionally.
2. A representative natural eco-system and/or its units existing in a
few isolated locations but extirpated from most of the Keys.
3. A natural landform or feature considered quite unique and having
substantial educational and/or scientific value.
Generic Designations and Management Policies:
1. Freshwater Aquifers: All freshwater aquifers in the Keys are designated
as Areas of Particular Concern", with special emphasis being on the Big Pine
Key aquifer. Ground water resources of these aquifers will be subject to
the following management policies:
A. Efforts will be made to fully investigate and record the
Keys' groundwater resources with the ultimate objective of
establishing the maximum sustainable yield.
B. Recommendations made as a result of scientific research and
investigation concerning the Keys' groundwater resources
will be used in developing a management plan for this resource.
C. The County will develop and adopt an ordinance providing for
the protection of freshwater resources of the Keys when more
definitive scientific information becomes mailable.
39
D. In the interim period, the County will restrict the
consumptive use of ground water to domestic purposes
on single-family lots where public water supply is
unavailable, and to those other uses which reflect
overriding public interest. All other uses of ground-
water by deep, shallow, or surface wells will be prohibited
until definitive parameters of this resource are established.
E. The County will seek assistance and cooperation of the
South Florida Water Management District and the U.S.
Geological Survey in securing detailed scientific infor-
mation concerning the Keys' freshwater aquifers and in
developing specific regulations necessary to protect
the groundwater resources.
F. The County will expedite the implementation of the
wastewater facilities plan which will eliminate the
use of septic tanks for waste disposal in the Big Pine
Key area.
G. Certain development practices such as blasting and
canal and borrow pit dredging will be regulated - in
the areas of known groundwater resources.
2. Freshwater Marshes and Ponds: Existing primarily in the Lower Keys,
these freshwater marshes and ponds represent a threatened natural system
and, therefore, must be treated as Areas of Particular Concern to be
managed through the application of the following special policies:
A. These areas will be protected to the extent practicable
through the application of local zoning, tax incentives,
public acquisition, easements or other appropriate means.
B. Any development in or adjacent to these areas will be
required to take special measures to avoid damaging the
character of the feature.
C. Efforts will be made with the help of local biologists
to identify the isolated locations of this feature in
the Lower Keys.
D. Scientific study and investigation of this resource
will be encouraged and supported.
3. Sandy Beaches and Young Dunes: Sandy beach and dune formations are ex-
tremely rare feature in the predominantly rocky shoreline areas of the Keys.
These areas, in addition to being very important recreational resources,
constitute natural shoreline protection features; and their rare occurrence
in the Keys gives them additional value as a special resource. The
management of these vital areas will be guided by the following special
policies:
A. No new construction will be allowed that would threaten
the stability of either the dune (if existing) or the
40
beach itself. All construction will be restricted to
areas landward of the primary dune line whenever
applicable.
B. In areas where beaches and dunes are being eroded, the
County will encourage and support stabilization projects,
preferably utilizing vegetation as the stabilizing medium.
C. The County will pursue programs that will guarantee
adequate public access to the beaches. If associated with
dune formation, such access will be designed in a
manner which protects dune stability.
D. Beach and dune resources of the Keys will be inventoried
and mapped.
41
11
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The high proportion of rare, endemic, threatened and endangered wildlife
species in Monroe County imparts a uniqueness found nowhere else in the
continental United States. The importance of these species lies in their
aesthetic, educational, ecological, recreational, and scientific values.
The preservation of these terrestrial wildlife species is most closely
linked to the preservation of their natural habitats. For the terrestrial
mammals and land birds, this requires preservation of upland vegetation
such as hardwood hammocks and pinewoods. Coastal wetland vegetation such
as mangrove is necessary for the retention of wading and shore birds as
breeding and feeding grounds.
An additional danger to wildlife species is over -exploitation of those
which have commercial value. Plumage hunting severely reduced bird
population of several species in past years. Overhunting was responsible
for reduction of Key Deer population. Although these activities have been
reduced through legislation, strict enforcement of the protective lays is
important to inhibit poaching.
Also important in preserving the ecological balance of the Keys' wildlife
is the control on exotic and pet species. Legislation which limits the
possibility of exotic and pet species of wildlife which may be dangerous
to humans is already in existence. However, the introduction as pets of
exotic species which may possibly escape and establish populations in the
Keys represents a potential danger to the native wildlife as well. Such
exotic species may be able to outcompete native species thus threatening
their existence. Also introduced exotic species may occupy and dominate
habitats to the discouragement of potential naturally occurring immigrants.
(Refer to APPENDIX D for more information on terrestrial wildlife)
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT POLICIES
1. In order to conserve and wisely manage the Keys' wildlife resources,
the County will conscientiously direct its efforts toward the protection
and improvement of wildlife habitats throughout the Keys.
1.1 Development activities which may degrade, destroy, or severely
impact productive areas for wildlife will be required to assess
possible means and, to the extent practicable, adopt protective
measures for abating these impacts on wildlife populations and
habitat.
1.2 Recognizing that each wildlife group has its own requirements
and tolerances, the adequacy of protective measures will be
evaluated for each individual species occupying the habitat.
42
J✓ 1.3 Improvement of habitat through encouragement of native vegetation
which would give desirable species the best chance to flourish
will be supported and encouraged.
1.4 Planning, design, siting, and construction of public capital
improvements and facilities such as roads, solid waste disposal
sites, and utility lines and structures will be carefully
regulated to minimize impact on wildlife habitat and movement
patterns.
2. The County will exert special protective efforts regarding the preserva-
tion of rare, endemic,endangered, or threatened species as identified
by Federal and State agencies and the habitat required to support these
species in the coastal zone.
2.1 Intensive development will be directed away from the habitat of
rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species.
2.2 Public acquisition of highly sensitive wildlife areas will be
encouraged and the funding sources for such acquisition explored.
2.3 Special resource management techniques such as Transfer of
Development Rights and certain tax relief methods will be con-
sidered wherever feasible to preclude development in sensitive
wildlife areas.
2.4 Any major development project, public or private, will be re-
viewed to assess its impact on wildlife species.of special
concern in regard to the habitat, breeding, and feeding
characteristics of such species. Adequate protective measures
will be required to forestall potentially adverse impact.
3. Areas that have the realistic potential through sound wildlife manage-
ment practices for becoming productive habitat for desirable species
will be given due consideration in all planning and management
activities.
4. The County will encourage and support scientific studies related to
wildlife management in the Keys and will utilize the recommended
management principles in the deliberations concerning the impacts of
various land uses upon the wildlife resources of the area.
5. Recreational use of public wildlife areas, including nature walking,
picnicking, wildlife observation, and photography will be encouraged;
but use intensity will be controlled to protect the species and
preserve the habitat.
6. The County will cooperate with the appropriate State and Federal
agencies in assuring that the existing laws protecting wildlife are
rigorously enforced.
7. Introduction as pets of those exotic animal species which may represent
a potential danger to the native wildlife will be discouraged.
43
8. The County will seek assistance from the various governmental
agencies and private groups involved in wildlife conservation
and management in maintaining an up-to-date inventory of the
Keys' wildlife resources including the listing of rare, en-
dangered, and threatened species and mapping of their habitats.
WILDLIFE AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
Criteria for designating APC's:
1. Existing wildlife refuges, reserves, and sanctuaries.
2. Known habitats of rare and endangered species as defined by the U.S.
Department of Interior, the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission,
or the Florida Department of Natural Resources.
3. Major wildlife intensive use areas such as well developed hammock
communities, highly productive coastal tidelands and mangroves.
4. Areas used for scientific study and research concerning wildlife.
5. Areas of substantial recreational and/or educational value and/or
opportunity.
Site -specific Designations
1. National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge:
The National Key Deer Refuge was established for the purpose of
protecting the Florida Key White Tail Deer. Since the establishment
of the refuge in 1954, the threatened number of Key Deer has risen
from 50 to over 350 in 1977. Today the refuge incorporates 4383
acres and the main headquarters are located on Big Pine Key, where
the majority of the Deer inhabit.
2. National Great White Heron Wildlife Refuge:
The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1938,
gives permanent protection to the Great White Heron, largest of North
American wading birds. This refuge also protects a number of rare,
endangered and threatened bird species. The boundaries which enclose
a number of low mangrove -covered islands are roughly 40 miles long and
8 miles wide and are stretched over a total land area of approximately
6781 acres.
Endangered animal species within boundaries of the National Key Deer
Refuge and The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge:
Bald Eagle
Brown Pelican
Cudjoe Key Rice Rat
Key Deer
American Crocodile
44
Threatened animal species within boundaries of The National Key Deer
Refuge and The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge:
Magnificant Frigatebird
Great White Heron
Osprey
White Crowned Pigeon
Roseate Tern
Least Tern
American Alligator
Eastern Indigo Snake
Endangered species reported within boundaries of the Refuges, but not
known to have established breeding populations there:
Grasshopper Sparrow
Peregrine Falcon
Snowy Plover
Manatee
Management Policies:
a. Intensive development will be directed away from the wildlife
refuge areas.
b. All development proposals will be required to demonstrate that
they will not significantly affect the direct or supportive
environment of the habitat within the refuge areas.
c. Low -intensity recreational development which may be compatible
with the objectives of wildlife refuges will be encouraged, but
extreme caution must be taken to insure that wildlife values
are not jeopardized.
d. The County will cooperate with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service in the wildlife management within the refuge areas.
3. Known Habitats of Rare & Endangered Species (See the following maps
for locations)
Management Policies:
General Policy No. 2(2.1, 2.2, 2.3, & 2.4)
Generic Designation
1. All prime wildlife habitat areas in hammock communities,
coastal tidelands, and mangroves.
45
(W Management Policies:
a. The direct removal of prime habitat will be avoided by
requiring clustering of uses, where possible, outside prime
habitat areas.
b. Natural features such as vegetation, tidal circulation,
surface water, and/or shoreline which collectively create a
supportive environment of the prime habitat areas will be
preserved to the maximum degree possible.
c. Public and/or private management programs designed to
preserve prime habitat areas will be supported and
encouraged.
L t?
SOUTHERLY
In
lw
ul
RZ,
lir7 �01
Q\l
C6
6-4
z
0
-4 ) �, /' L" fi
�40 IVNQt.,LVN . 13HI j4',kbVrJNf'. IFV
g
m
ILD f q,-
po
v
c m
4!
m 0
N
R
m
m
cn
8q
D
Z
_
31 IIIIIII ) v ® Z>
3 IIII � i D
1-<
A
AA O -o
1 a
s G =
N� m n im
A
OF i THE y�
rfiO YF .-Iili.*(NvilmP q`
!C/ Z
z
n :p
sTc Q' 90 Cn
H s z biz
x � D 1� ✓ �i
wpm o : m
Am
z s m
�m Cm
m m x z I c fiS. o
m o
Im 81/111111111111
O i 1
Z i. .
cu
co
y
o c+ Rl O �5 \� Z _✓ar
Z7 'rl r Lr,�rsa��iri 1"
= m z
z
� o `� �` t•
m
o C
\L
Mangrove muds and peats also have a function, serving as a biological filter,
ce breaking down some pollutants and organic matter, and making available numerous
nutrients (8). However, heavy metals and pesticides may accumulate on bottom
sediments faster than they can be assimilated, and consequently, enter the
food chain when consumed by fishes and invertebrates. (4)
Commercially Valuable Species:
Barracuda
Blue Crab
Bonefish
Crevalle Jack
Jewfish
N Mullet
Pink Shrimp
N Mangrove Snapper
N Sea Trout
N Snook
N Tarpon
N Thread Herring
- Sphyraena barracuda
- Callinectes sapidus
- Albula vulpes
- Caranx hippos
- Epinephelus itajara
- Mugil sp.
- Penaeus duorarum
- Lutjanus griseus
- Cynoscion nebulosus
- Centropomus undecimalis
- Megalops atlantica
- Opisthonema oglinum
N = This species utilizes this habitat as a nursery area.
3. Seagrass Beds
Seagrass beds cover much of Florida Bay, the passes and lagoons between the
Florida Keys, and the offshore areas in the Atlantic Ocean to about 30 ft.
depths. Temperature, salinity, and light availability (9) limit the distribu-
tion of seagrasses in South Florida, however, the local distribution of these
plants are affected more by water depth, wave action, turbidity, and salinity
(10). Seagrasses, being photosynthetic plants require light to produce food,
and are therefore restricted to shallower depths (usually less than 30 ft.)
(9). A soft substrate such as sand, mud, soft marl, or coral sand is
necessary for anchorage of roots (11).
One of the major roles of seagrasses is as a primary producer, producing food
which can be utilized by other animals further along the food chain. Rates
of primary production by turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) rank among the
highest of all plants (12). Interestingly, consumption of turtle grass leaves
is uncommon, the only significant consumers being sea urchins, parrotfishes,
and tangs, with the majority of leaves remaining untouched until they die or
are torn from the plant (9). However, turtle grass leaves have been shown to
possess at least 92 species of epiphytic algae (a plant growing on another
plant but not acting as a parasite) on them (13). This epiphytic algae provides
a food source to many small invertebrates which dwell in the protective cover
of the grasses. In addition, dead turtle grass leaves contribute to the
detritus food chain, this being a very important contribution to the productivity
of the entire marine system.
Besides producing the basis of the food web, seagrasses serve other important
functions. The dense growth of leaves and stems can slow water speed, and
accumulate sediment from the water reducing turbidity (9). This sediment
accumulation provides additional growth area for the roots. Seagrass beds also
provide a muddy bottom supporting many species of filter and deposit feeders who
A- 4
this activity. As for the magnitude of the commercial fishing industry,
statistics are available in the summary of Florida Landings published yearly
since 1953. An inventory of Monroe County's valuable fishery resources has
been undertaken by the Monroe County Extension Service. The University of
Florida and the Department of Natural Resources are conducting research on
the Spiny Lobster Fishery. Furthermore, regional fisheries management councils
will be examining many of Monroe County's fisheries, and assigning management
schemes to fisheries. Currently, Monroe County falls under the coverage of
two fishery councils - Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Councils. Recommendations made by these agencies and institutes must be
given due consideration in the management of fishery resources.
The Keys' environmental problems are not entirely locally generated. As
pointed out earlier, the source of the problems in certain cases transcend
local jurisdiction. A prime example of such an "external" influence is the
dependence of the Keys' marine environment on the Everglades estuary, at
least in part, for the high productivity of the mangrove and seagrass habitats.
It has been indicated that this estuary is competing with South Florida's
urban environment for water essential to the functioning of the estuary which,
in turn, supports many of the Keys' commercially valuable species. Also
affecting the integrity of this estuary are the urban and agricultural uses
in the South Florida region which contaminate this water body with heavy
metals, pesticides, and improperly treated sewage. Further, lateral highway
construction reportedly reduces drainage into Florida Bay affecting salinity
and siltation, and thus, primary production. The urban megalopolis of southeast
Florida, supposedly also contributes in the deterioration of the reef by outfall
disposal of sewage wastes and heavy metals which follow the countercurrents
of the Gulf Stream south to the reef (29).
III. EXISTING CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OVER MARINE RESOURCES
The following governmental agencies exert the major influence in the planning
and control over marine resources in the South Florida region and in Monroe
County.
A. FEDERAL LEVEL
1. Army Corps of Engineers: One of the principal activities of the Army
Corps of Engineers which affects land development and resource utilization is
its environmental regulatory program. Four Federal laws form the basis of
this program: the River and Harbor Act of 1899; the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972; the Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries
Act of 1972; and the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. Under these
four laws, the Corps has regulatory authority over all navigable waters of
the U.S. from mean high water to the outer limits of the Continental shelf.
The Corps regulatory program has the underlying responsibility to enhance water
quality, protect fisheries resources, safeguard wetland wildlife and recreation,
avoid water contamination, and reduce storm damage and erosion. This broad
responsibility is carried out by requiring permits for activities such as
obstruction or alteration of navigable water; construction of piers, bulkheads,
pilings, marinas, docks; dredging; disposal of fill or dredged material; and
filling of wetlands adjacent or contiguous to navigable waters. As of July,
1977, the Corps jurisdictional authority to regulate the discharge of dredged
A- 17
LA
Q
3
ss `.....
F
J�
�l
d�
a
o d7
a
0
J Z
w
0
W
a
0
cr
wi
(D
Z w
w
O
O �
2
Q� O O
3
ao
Q
S
O
4m o
Z;, J
31
Z w w
y Y Y.
49
A
LL
0
Cl)
4
w
w
LL
rj)
Z!
w
0
w
w
>
w
U)
w
w
X
w
z
w
w
z
CA
Ld
V)
z
(n
0
w
0
Y-
8
0
.
cc
O
co
<
0 0
m
0 ,
cr (r
z
Z
_j -j
w
3:;,
CL
0"
w w
50
LM
0
r
�a�
G
U
'y O
f,
V
w
U
w
a
0
w
It
(D
Z
0
Z
W
w
t4
0
0
LL.
2 Q
0
w
Z J
O Q OU
�'y
~
3 0
U
0 0
y
J J U
W
ZWW�
Y
Y. Y. Q
os n \ d
06
51
Q.
:4
Oy
d
cn
W
U
W
a
O
W
w
W
Z
LJ
Z vi
W o
f
O K w
Z J
r o
Q r O o
En" 3 Ir
Q U
_ C7 (
Z J J U
3 K
W
Z w W f
Y- Y y Q
oodb7
52
SCENIC RESOURCES
Scenic resources are the natural landscape characteristics, features, and
scenic areas found in the Florida Keys. By intense interaction, these
resources create a natural landscape, visual quality of which is extremely
pleasing to the eyes.
Like most natural and environmental resources of the Keys, scenic resources
of this area are extremely fragile as they are highly susceptible to alter-
ations which may destroy the resources themselves or obscure them from
public view in perpetuity. This is primarily due to the peculiar con-
figuration of the Keys which has brought these resources face to face with
the urbanized areas, especially along the Overseas Highway - the major
scenic corridor in the Keys.
In order to arrest further deterioration of the visual environment and
preserve the scenic quality of the Keys, scenic resource planning guideline,
policies, and controls are needed. However, it should be remembered that
protection and preservation of scenic resources not only depends on
government regulation, but also upon private citizen commitment to main-
tenance of the scenic character of the Keys. Even purely from an economic
standpoint, a strong community effort directed toward preserving the Keys'
scenic resources is highly desirable since degradation of these resources
will inevitably destroy the initial reason for the Keys' popularity as a
resort, recreation and island living environment.
Furthermore, research into this topic indicates that many landscape
components of high aesthetic value also have very high ecological value and
very low development suitability. However, if proper design techniques are
utilized, many other aesthetically valuable areas could be developed.
The often complimentary nature of aesthetics and ecological values gives
additional support to the concept of trying to maximize the public benefits
of development through careful analysis of, and design in accordance with,
physical characteristics of the landscape.
(Refer to APPENDIX E for more information on scenic resources)
SCENIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT POLICY
1. In an effort to protect and preserve the natural scenic character of
the Keys, Monroe County's scenic resources will be identified and
assessed utilizing techniques and procedures presently available.
2. Site design criteria will be developed and incorporated in the County
land use regulations to insure that proposed developments are located,
sited, and designed to complement and be compatible with the natural
character of the site to the maximum extent practicable.
2.1 Natural vegetation will be preserved to the fullest extent possible.
53
„i 2.2 Scenic views of water will be protected, preserved and enhanced
wherever possible.
2.3 Cluster development and planned unit development techniques will
be encouraged to conserve natural landscape and preserve open space.
3. Public access to and views from shorelines will be protected to the
greatest extent possible. Shoreline development will be carefully
regulated to minimize its impact on scenic views.
4. Site and architectural review committee will be established to review
major development projects, shoreline development projects, and develop-
ment proposals along major scenic corridors including the Overseas
Highway so as to insure conformance with site and architectural design
criteria developed to protect and retain area's landscape features and
promote architectural style which will relate to the characteristic
landscape of the Keys.
5. Development along major scenic corridors will be properly set back from
the road and screened off from the view wherever possible and necessary
to minimize impact on the visual environment.
5.1 Industrial, heavy commercial, and mining sites abutting the
Overseas Highway and established on a long-term basis will be
screened off from the highway by means of proper landscaping to
serve as a visual barrier.
6. The County will encourage and support by way of providing technical and
financial assistance studies and programs aimed at uplifting the urban
aesthetics in the Keys. Such efforts should be specifically directed
toward restoring the natural landscape character of the urbanized areas
and developing aesthetic controls to be applied to residential,
commercial, and utility structures including roadway and building signs,
traffic signals, overhead wires and utility poles.
7. The County will rigorously enforce and when necessary revise the existing
regulations controlling the use of commercial advertising signs and
billboards so as to minimize negative effects on the visual environment.
8. Programs educating the population regarding the need to protect scenic
resources will be encouraged.
54
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The known and recorded cultural resources of Monroe County excluding Key
West include a few selected historical sites and a fairly large number of
archaeological sites. While historic preservation and restoration in Key
West have received National attention, prehistoric sites of the Keys, in
spite of their prevalance and uniqueness from archaeological standpoint,
have not received adequate protection from urban development, land uses,
and vandalism. In the absence of specific controls and regulations,
these activities have resulted in the loss of many historic and pre—
historic sites thereby eradicating the physical evidence which could
provide great deal of information about the cultural heritage of the
area.
Despite the efforts of the State to inventory sites and structures. of
historical, archaeological, and architectural significance, quite a few
sites of local significance in the Keys remain unrecorded. At the local
level, the only public or private organization involved in this activity
other than the Historic Key West Preservation Board, is the Upper Keys
Historical Preservation Society which needs greater cooperation and en-
couragement from the community and its leaders.
Whereas the properties recorded in the National Register of Historic Places,
and those located on State lands do receive an adequate degree of protection,
it is the responsibility of local government to protect, in the public
interest, those important sites which are in private ownership.
(Refer to APPENDIX F for more information on cultural resources)
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT POLICIES
1. Recognizing the cultural significance of historical and archaeological
sites, the County will institute or support conscientious programs designed to
identify, protect, and preserve significant sites located in the Keys.
1.1 The County will encourage and cooperate with institutions of
higher learning and interested organizations such as local
historical associations to identify, record, and preserve
important historical and archaeological sites.
1.2 A listing of historical and archaeological sites of National,
State, and local significance will be maintained and updated
periodically by the designated County agency responsible for
historical and archaeological preservation throughout the County.
1.3 The County will submit and encourage private and public entities
and citizens to submit additional sites to the Division of
Archives, History & Records Management for inclusion in the
State inventory, and where appropriate submitted to the National
Register.
55
1.4 The County will coordinate its activities in regard to
cultural resource management with the Florida Division of
Archives, History & Records Management and cooperate with
appropriate agencies in protecting and preserving properties
of cultural, archaeological, and historical significance in
the County.
2. The County will solicit technical assistance and cooperation from the
Division of Archives, History & Federal Government and local historical
societies and professionals to develop a set of regulations designed to
insure long-term maintenance and integrity of culturally significant
sites.
2.1 The County will adopt an ordinance declaring that information and
artifacts contained in sites and structures of cultural sig-
nificance are of public concern; and therefore, unauthorized
disturbance, modification or excavation of such sites is
unlawful.
2.2 The ordinance will set forth procedure to be followed by the
developer or -builder when a site of historical or archaeological
significance is proposed for development; or when, during the
course of construction, an archaeological site is accidently
discovered.
2.3 Excavation or disturbance of any archaeological site will require
a permit. The permit procedure will be based on an outline of
the requirements for excavation by qualified professionals.
3. The County will disseminate information pertaining to the Keys'
cultural resources and the National State and local regulations protecting these
resources.
4. Local schools will be encouraged to conduct educational programs
involving historical and archaeological sites in cooperation with
programs sponsored by other public agencies or private organizations.
5. The County will seek cooperation of appropriate State and Federal
agencies in exploring feasibility of establishing community parks on
historical and archaeological sites having high educational and/or
recreational value.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF A SITE (To be used to
designate additional historical and archaeological sites)
1. How does the site relate to the general development of the local
area, the regional area, the State, and even the Nation?
Does it represent a trend, a movement, a departure from the
typical, etc.?
2. If a building is in an important architectural design example
of its period? Why is this the case? Does it retain enough of
its significant design to be recognizable?
56
Air, I
3. Is the site associated with the life/lives of any important
person(s), or social, political, cultural, or economic movements)
or with any important historic event(s)? Can the associative
value(s) be identified and documented?
4. If an archaeological site, has or could it yield useful information?
5. Are there any important engineering or technological features
(apart from design)?
57
CHAPTER V
PLAN OF ACTION
7
PLAN OF ACTION
A. Basic Approach
The main categories of tools essential for natural resources conservation
and protection are embodied in five major governmental powers: Police power,
Eminent domain power, Spending power, Proprietary power, and Taxation
power. Primarily, these tools fall into three major categories: public
aquisition, land development regulations, and taxation. Each has its
advantages and disadvantages, therefore, in order to assure wise and
efficient management of resources, an imaginative application of a mixture
of the tools is necessary.
The most direct method of implementing the resource conservation and
protection objectives is for the County to become the owner of land by
acquiring a full fee title through condemnation, donation, or purchase.
But there are two major problems associated with this approach. First,
the County's financial resources cannot be stretched far enough to assume
the ownership of land on a massive scale; and second, the more land the
County acquires, the less private land there will be on the tax roll thus
reducing the size of revenue from property taxes. For these obvious reasons,
public acquisition of land as a tool to insure conservation of resources
must be used with a great caution in cases where the potential benefits
to the community could be proven to outweigh the potential cost of public
ownership. It is most suitable when certain specific, unique features are
to be protected or where significant public access is desired as in the case
of beaches or parklands. Public ownership should also be considered in
urbanized areas where development pressures are so great that public
regulations per se cannot be relied upon to retain adequate open space or
to protect environmentally significant areas. In other cases, where only
part of the natural feature or resource needs to be preserved or protected,
full title acquisition may not be required. Instead of acquiring a fee
simple title through outright purchase, the County can acquire less than
full fee title, can purchase development rights, or can purchase or require
the dedication of easements.
Land development regulations are most appropriate in those situations where
private development or utilization of a resource, including land, can occur
without significant damage to the resource or the public interest to be
protected. Regulatory tools still provide some of the most basic controls
on the "quality of the environment" in terms of guiding the pattern and
design of development from setbacks to densities. These regulatory tools
are generally based on the police power of government and involve such
devices as zoning, subdivision regulation, and other development regulating
ordinances. Of these, zoning is still being used as the most fundamental
tool for land use regulation.
In spite of its history of abuse and failure, zoning can be a valuable tool
for achieving better land use. What is needed is an emphasis on using
zoning as a part of a larger, more positive, more dynamic plan for attaining
desired conditions. This calls for the integration of zoning with other
:
measures for the social direction of land use. Zoning must be treated as
a tool of planning, and administrators must recognize that a comprehensive
area plan is a fundamental for sound zoning.
Taxation is another means which can be used in certain cases to protect
environmentally sensitive areas by precluding or discouraging development.
Taxation is thought to be a factor in influencing development decisions as
well as providing incentives for the conservation and protection of re-
sources in undeveloped or underdeveloped areas. Since it is generally
believed that high taxes often force many undeveloped natural land areas into
development, local governments have occasionally resorted to special
techniques such as tax exemption, preferential assessment, tax deferral,
etc. It should be remembered, however, that all these techniques have only
limited application since there are certain disadvantages and legal com-
plexities associated with them. But in cases where the total preservation
of a resource is highly desirable, and where tax development pressures are
too strong to preclude or discourage development, these 'tax -relief'
techniques may provide the incentive to the property owner not to develop
his property.
One of the most innovative tools presently available to protect special
resources such as environmentally sensitive areas, historic preservation
districts, etc., is the Transfer of Development Rights. This concept
breaks the physical linkage between particular land (location) and its
development potential by permitting the transfer of that potential or
"Development Right" to another location in a manner which meets legitimate
planning objectives without placing unfair burden on the property owner.
Although there are inherent administrative problems associated with the
concept, it does seem to have considerable potential for success in the Keys.
The present provisions under Federal Internal Revenue Service policy also
encourage preservation of natural areas and environmental resources. These
provisions allow donations of property or easements to any unit of govern-
ment or to approved non-profit organizations, to be deducted for income tax
purposes. This generally unrecognized provision can be used to preserve
areas that otherwise might be forced into development by land values and
taxation policies. The provision is of relatively little use to the small
landholders who do not have significantly large incomes. However, some of
the larger land holdings are in stable ownerships by persons or corporations
having incomes that would make this provision attractive.
B. Short -Rance Pro4rams
Implementation of the mm agement plan outlined in this element will in many
instances require that specific programs be set up to achieve the stated
goals and objectives. Depending upon the nature of the policy and objective,
and the financial and technical resources available, these programs should be
designated short-range or long-range and implemented step-by-step over a
period of time. The short-range programs should be regarded as requiring
full or partial implementation within the next 2 to 5 years; whereas the
long-range programs should be viewed in the broader time frame, preferably
5 to 10 years. The major short-range programs recommended are discussed
below:
1. Zoning Revision Program: The traditional image of zoning as a negative or
59
defensive mechanism used primarily to prevent undesired development must be
changed to that of a positive approach which could direct development and
protect environment in a manner that achieves the desired planning objectives.
The intended basic change in the function that zoning performs will
necessitate a major revision of the County's Zoning Ordinance which was not
contrived to conform with any comprehensive planning concept. The basic
objective of this revision program will be to make the ordinance consistent
with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in
the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety. The program can be financed through
a planning assistance grant from the State or Federal level received to
facilitate the implementation of the adopted plan. Depending upon the
availability of financial and technical resources a planning consulting firm
could be hired to set up the program with limitea assistance from the County
planning staff or a team of representatives from the County's planning,
zoning, legal, and property appraiser's staffs could take the full re-
sponsibility for the program.
2. Resource Management District: From the standpoint of land use planning
and environmental management, there is a need to create a 'resource manage-
ment district' as a new zoning classification to primarily include environ-
mentally sensitive or significant areas. With this objective in mind,
areas outside of the presently urbanized and urbanizing centers and those
already committed to development should be treated essentially as non -urban
resource management areas to be protected by controlling and regulating
the type and intensity of uses and the mode of development. By and large,
such areas conform with the lands presently zoned as 'GU' (General Use)
which account for over 60% of the Keys' land area, and contain a vast
majority of the Keys' natural resources in need of conservation and
preservation. Land uses to be permitted in this district should be of low -
intensity, including single family homes, and the percentage of parcel
allowed for permanent alteration should be kept to minimum. Density within
this district could be limited by a use -intensity matrix related to the
physical characteristics of the site or by controlling the amount of site
alteration. The fundamental distinction between the conventional zoning
district and this district is that in the case of the RMD there are different
density standards set up for different types of land characteristics within
the district; however, these are not delineated on maps into smaller sub -
districts. The idea is to keep the lands within the RMD as one district,
use intensities within which should be established and regulated strictly
from the resource management standpoint to the extent legally practicable.
On the basis of the research conducted during the "Ecological Constraints
In Coastal Development" Study for Rookery Bay area in Collier County, it is
recommended that in the wetland and associated lands (to be determined by
natural vegetative indicators) no more than one percent of the area of any
parcel be allowed for permanent alteration. It would permit one modest
dwelling, including limited roadway, walks, a pier, etc., on each parcel
of about five acres, depending upon the access facilities desired. In
considering which one percent may be altered, existing access, ecological
character, seasonal flooding, endangered species habitat and other factors
should be reviewed and development should be encouraged in the least
sensitive part of the parcel of land.
. %
Minimum lot sizes for this district (varying from two to five acres) should
be established for lands having different physical and ecological character-
istics. Every proposal in this district should be reviewed on an individual
basis to assess the permissible aggregate density or the site alteration
ratio depending upon the physical characteristics of the land, and to
determine the least sensitive part of the parcel of land.
The creation of the resource management district and the development of the
use -intensity allocation system to be used in conjunction with this district
should be tied in with the proposed zoning revision program. They should
receive a very high priority among the programs outlined in this element.
3. Transfer of Development Rights: The feasibility of using this technique
in the Keys should be thoroughly explored in conjunction with the RMD and
the zoning revision program. If such a system could be developed for the Keys
it would go a long way toward solving some of the built-in conflicts without
significant reduction of the tax base. The following is a brief summary
of how such a system might be used in conjunction with the County's Compre-
hensive Plan:
• Identify areas that are to be preserved according to the overall
comprehensive plan. Then determine the total preservation acreage
that is currently in private ownership.
• Identify those areas most suitable for future development and again
determine the total acreage in private ownership.
• Determine how many potential dwellings could have been developed in
the privately -owned preservation areas under conventional zoning
and assign salable development rights to the respective owners
depending upon the acreage they own. These rights could either be a
fraction of the original potential allowed under conventional zoning
or the entire amount. This would probably depend upon the ratio of
development to preservation areas.
• Those people owning development rights in preservation lands could
either sell these rights on the open market to people wishing to
develop their developable land or a local ordinance could require
that anyone wishing to take full advantage of zoning allowances must
acquire a portion of this development density through purchase of
development rights (i.e., if someone owns land that is zoned at
10 units/acre, he must have or obtain 3 units/acre of development
rights from someone owning preservation lands in order to achieve his
maximum allowable development density. If he chose not to do this,
he could only develop at 7 units/acre, etc.).
• The lands that have had their development rights sold would stay
on the tax rolls but at a greatly reduced rate and would be
essentially zoned "preservation".
• Those areas with increased development potential would conversely
increase in tax value roughly balancing what was lost through
preservation zoning.
61
4. Public Acquisition Program: The objective of this program is to place
selected areas on the basis of their recreation and open space potential,
environmental and ecological significance, or the anticipated future public
use in public ownership so as to preclude their development. The
recommendations made in this element in terms of areas of particular
concern should be assessed to ascertain their recreation and open space
potential. To the extent possible, major open space areas should be
directly related to natural resource protection. Upon the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, the County should appoint a Land
Acquisition Committee to be in charge of developing an official acquisition
program on the basis of the recommendations made in this and the other
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee should also explore the
feasibility of creating a local land trust and establishing a land banking
program.
The technique of land banking involves purchase of land by local government
and keeping it in reserve for future use. The land is bought at the pre-
vailing market price. Use of eminent domain procedures is permissible
where a definite public need is demonstrated. However, land banking is not
limited to land need for future public use only, but is extended to all land
to be developed. A government.unit acquires tracts of land and leases them
to private persons for specified uses in accordance with the approved public
plan for the area. The lands can produce rents for the public bodies and
remain productive.
5. Water Quality Monitoring Program: The availability of adequate water
quality data for the Keys or the lack of it is closely linked with the
decision of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to require
implementation of the proposed 201 centralized wastewater system plan for
Monroe County. The FDER does not plan to require implementation of the
recommended plan until water quality data confirms the need for centralized
facilities based upon violation of water quality standards or threat to
public health. At this time, data is insufficient to support firm con-
clusions regarding water quality in the Keys. The County must conduct a
comprehensive water quality monitoring program at the earliest through
financial aid from the State or Federal level, and work closely with the
FDER in their efforts to develop the 208 areawide water quality management
plan for the non -designated areas like Monroe County.
6. Solid Waste Management Plan: The County should expedite implementation
of the 1976 Solid Waste Management Plan which recommends construction of
incinerator facilities for solid waste disposal. Many of the recommendations
made in the plan have already been implemented or are presently being
considered. The County is condemning property to construct the first in-
cinerator which will be in operation soon. Additional funds are being
sought for future incinterators and equipment. The second and third in-
cinerators should be operational by early 1980 in Long Key and Cudjoe Key.
The fiscal requirements for capital expenditures to support implementation
of the plan are discussed in the Services and Utility element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4W 7. Overseas Highway Beautification Program: This program is presently being
developed by the Monroe County Highway Beautification Advisory Committee.
The initial efforts of this Committee are primarily directed toward strict
62
enforcement of the zoning ordinance in regard to screening and landscaping
requirements; ornamental landscaping along the highway; litter control; and
the control of outdoor advertising. With due consideration given to the
recommendations made in the scenic resources section of this element and
in cooperation with the County Planning Department and the DOT, this
Committee should take a lead role in developing a comprehensive highway
beautification program. The scope of this program should be extended to
cover the means of controlling strip commercial development along the
highway and recommendations in regard to scenic easements wherever
necessary and practicable. Such a program should also include site and
architectural design criteria and guidelines to promote and encourage
architectural styles and character which would relate to the Keys' natural
landscape.
8. Freshwater Resources Protection Ordinance: As recommended in the
"Natural Landforms And Features Section of this Element, the County should
develop and adopt an ordinance providing for the protection of the Keys'
freshwater resources whose occurrence in the Keys is extremely rare. In
order to develop such an ordinance, the County will need more conclusive
scientific information than what is presently known of these resources.
It is imperative, therefore, that a concerted effort involving the U.S.
Geological Survey, the South Florida Water Management District, and the
County be made to further investigate these resources and derive additional
information necessary to establish protective guidelines and criteria.
9. Cultural Resources Protection: An ordinance designed to protect
historical and archaeological sites and structures in Monroe County should
be developed and adopted as a necessary step toward cultural resources
conservation. This recommendation has been treated with a little greater
detail in the cultural resources section of this element. It is also
recommended that the responsibility of the Historic Key West Preservation
Board -an agency funded by the State and the County - be extended to include
historical and archaeological preservation throughout the Keys. The Board
should maintain a qualified archaeologist on its staff or engage the
services of qualified professionals to study and investigate the Keys'
archaeological resources. Technical resources of this Board, the State,
and the local historical societies should be utilized in developing the
proposed ordinance. The enforcement of the ordinance should be a joint
responsibility of the County Planning Department and the County Historical
Preservation Board.
10. Ordinances Revision Program: Most of the County development regulating
ordinances have remained substantially in the same form since they were
adopted or amended in 1975. After the adoption of the County Comprehensive
Plan, these ordinances should be evaluated to assess, 1) their success or
failure in attaining the desired objectives on the basis of the past
performance; and 2) their consistency with the adopted policies and tenets
of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the zoning revisions discussed
earlier, the other ordinances to•be included in this review and revision
program are: The Major Development Ordinance, Shoreline Protection
Ordinance, Site Clearing & Tree Protection Ordinance, Flood Hazard Pro-
tection Ordinance, and Plat Filing Ordinance. Wherever feasible, these
ordinances should be refined and enlarged to incorporate some of the more
specific recommendations made in this element.
63
11. Energy Conservation Plan: The County should establish a citizen's
advisory committee to develop a County -wide energy conservation plan. The
committee should represent a broad cross-section of the community with
members selected from civic organizations, professional firms, business
groups, home building firms, utility companies, and consumer groups. The
plan should encourage car pooling and the use of energy -efficient
transportation modes and appliance; it should discourage uses and activities
considered inefficient or wasteful; and it should outline a publicity
campaign to increase citizen awareness and promote appropriate conservation
measures. The plan should also contain a contingency provision that can be
implemented during crisis situations. The County should also encourage
energy conservation by establishing steps and guidelines to be followed by
the County employees and citizens particularly in regard to air-conditioning,
lighting, and motor vehicle operation. The County should seek technical
assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy which is responsible for the
administration of the Local Energy Management Program.
C. Long -Range Programs
1. Growth Potential and Carrying Capacity: The process of analyzing any
area's "carrying capacity" involves measuring its natural and socio-economic
resources, and thereby pinpointing the intrinsic constraints on population
density or development. The carrying capacity analysis is a very useful
tool in resource management; however, its application at the present time
remains limited and the methodology somewhat disputable. It is anticipated
that the state of the art will advance in the near future to a point where
the concept of carrying capacity will directly relate to all those factors
which constitute quality in life, and will, therefore, prove to be a
commonly acceptable tool. The County must pursue the objective of establish-
ing the area's growth potential and, when technically and financially feasible,
should carry out the program.
2. Wastewater Facilities Plan: A plan for wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal facilities has been prepared for Monroe County with a 201 Grant
from the EPA. Implementation of this plan is not anticipated until such
time as available water quality data confirms the need for centralized
facilities. It was tentatively assumed that during the wastewater facilities
planning period of 1977-2000, water quality data may confirm the need to
provide centralized wastewater facilities throughout the Keys. The Plan
initially calls for a series of service areas utilizing either secondary
treatment plants or package treatment plants on the basis of population
density. The fiscal requirements and the feasibility of implementation
of the Plan are discussed in the Plan itself and alsoin the "Services and
Utility" element of the Comprehensive Plan. The County should anticipate
implementation of the Plan within the long-range period as established in
here, i.e., 5 to 10 years, and should start making necessary long-range
financial arrangements.
3. Coral Reef Research Program: There is a great need to establish a
program to ascertain physiological stresses of the Keys coral reefs as a
system. Such a research effort should be designed to serve as a basis for
64
active management of the reefs as a valuable public resource and should
include provisions for monitoring their viability over time. The County
should explore potential funding sources and urge the appropriate State
and Federal agencies to set up a joint research program invoving an
institute of higher learing or the County Marine Extension Service.
4. Coastal Resources Retearch Program: Monroe County's coastal resources
have been inventoried and analyzed in this document to the degree presently
available information and the time permit. It is realized that additional
work needs to be done in many areas such as marine resource, wildlife,
natural vegetation, geological and hydrological characteristics, etc.
From the scientific standpoint, any research in these areas is desirable;
however, from the planning viewpoint it should essentially center around
the environmental factors critical in developing effective resource
management plans and programs. At this point in time, specific research
programs or their relative priorities are not considered since it is
understood that such specific research needs will become apparent in time
as the County accumulates more experience in comprehensive planning and
resource management. As the need for research becomes obvious and as the
financial resources become available, such work should be undertaken in
conjunction with appropriate State and County agencies and private interest
groups.
D. Periodic Evaluation
A prerequisite to successful implementation of the Plan is the continual need
for public information, coordination and administration of planning activities
locally on a day-to-day basis, and liason with State and Federal agencies.
Periodic review and updating of the Plan to meet changing circumstances in
the future and to prevent obsolescence of the Plan is also a vital part of
the implementation program. Community objectives and goals can be expected
to change with time. New and revised land -use concepts, scientific infor-
mation and environmental data, public desires and aspirations, economic,
technological and sociological developments, will require periodic re-
evaluation of the Plan. The planning program, therefore, must be a continuous
and on -going process. It is recommended that the Coastal Zone Protection &
Conservation Element be reviewed and up -dated annually for the first five
years after its adoption; thereafter, it should be revised every five years.
The procedure for periodic evaluation is outlined in the County Land Use Plan.
C"�
APPENDIX
7
APPENDIX A
MARINE RESOURCES
(W I. NATURE OF MARINE RESOURCES
A. MONROE COUNTY MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The subtropical waters surrounding Monroe County abound with diverse marine
life which, in many cases, can be found nowhere else adjacent to the North
American Continent (living coral reefs being the most notable example).
Annually, millions of dollars worth (23 million in 1976 alone) of shellfish
and finfish are harvested. Clean waters and diverse marine life provide
ample recreational opportunity and attract a growing tourist trade easily
valued in the tens of millions of dollars yearly. Indeed, this marine environ-
ment plays a crucial role in the region's economy.
However, if these renewable marine resources are to continue to supply food,
revenue, and recreation, care must be taken to protect the natural functioning
of the marine ecosystem from man's activities. Mangroves, seagrasses, and
coral reefs, all of which are susceptible to the effects of pollution and
dredging, are extremely important in providing food, shelter, and maintaining
water quality. For instance, it has been recognized that seagrass beds and
mangroves support as many as 90% of Monroe County's commercially valuable species
during some portion of their life cycle(1).
One prominent example of the significance of complex seagrass, mangrove and coral
reef ecosystems is their high productivity (production of organic matter which
can be utilized as food) and consequent contribution to the food chain. Although
seagrass and mangrove leaves are usually not consumed directly, bacteria and
fungi growing on decaying plant material are consumed by small invertebrates
and fishes which, in turn, are consumed by larger animals (Figure A-1).
Interestingly, usually only bacteria and fungi are digested and the undigested
plant material is excreted, capable once again of supporting bacterial and
fungal growth. The symbiotic algae associated with corals are also highly
productive. Algae (Zooxanthellae) growing within the tissue of the coral polyp
(animal) allows the coral to organize and recycle nutrients, and thereby max-
imize productivity. It will be evident in the following descriptions and
discussions of individual habitats that they also serve important roles in
providing shelter and nursery areas, recycling nutrients, maintaining water
quality, and stabilizing shorelines.
Obviously, these ecosystems are complex, and although these resources have long
been utilized by man, the complexity of marine systems is just beginning to
be understood. The scientific community has observed that many of these
systems are highly sensitive to man's interactions; however, the degree of
their susceptibility, in many cases, cannot be definitely established. Under
these circumstances, it behooves those who utilize and manage these resources
to exercise extreme caution regarding uses which result in over -utilization
of the marine environment or engender pollution, siltation, and alteration or
destruction of habitat.
B. HABITAT AREAS AND DESCRIPTIONS
1. Canals
Canal construction has created a new habitat for marine species in the Florida
Keys, while altering and/or eradicating shallow bay bottom, submerged vegeta-
tion, and emergent vegetation in intertidal areas. Chesher (2) reports canals
A-1
Lm
FIGURE A-1
MANGROVES
SEAGRASS BEDS
\I00 FUNGI AND LEAF PARTICLES
LEAVES BACTERIA &
s er
AMPHIPOD
OTHERS)
SMALL I
SMALL FISH
LARGER FISH [�2
THE DETRITUS
FOOD CHAIN
A-2
to support 80 species of fishes, 244 invertebrate species, and 104 species of
marine plants and algae. The importance of shallow bay bottom communities
(seagrasses) eliminated in canal construction will be discussed in a following
section.
Several studies have suggestions for construction of canals designed to
minimize construction and usage impact on the environment, while at the same
time maintain well flushed canals that will not foul. Chesher(2), and Lindall
and Trent(3) suggest banning construction of dead-end canals, restricting canal
depths to the trophic (light) zone (6-10 ft. depths), maintaining a uniform
depth and the widest possible width to maintain water mixing from wind, elimin-
ating septic tanks, and minimizing runoff into canals. A good wind and tidal
flushing are essential to canal health.
Dominant Flora•
Several Algal Genera and Species, Including:
Batophora, Acetabularia, Enteromorpha,
Cladophora, Penicillus, and Halimeda
Shoal Crass - Diplanthera wrightii
Turtle Grass - Thalassia testudinum
Dominant Fauna:
Tree Oyster
Black Tunicate
Silversides
Upside Down Jellyfish
Ringed Anemone
Spider Crab
Commerciallv Valuable Species:
Mangrove Snapper
School -master Snapper
Barracuda
Spiny Lobster
2. Mangrove Fringe
- Isognomon alatus
- Botrylloides ni rum
- Atherinidae (family
- Cassiopea sp.
- Bartholomea annulata
- Mithrax sp.
Lutjanus griseus
L. apodus
Sphyraena barracuda
Panulirus ar4us
The Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) is a common shoreline inhabitant of the
Florida Keys, frequently lining the edges of the land or occupying entire
islands. The importance of the black and white mangroves will be covered in
the vegetative resources section. The Red Mangrove grows a collection of prop
roots which serve several important functions besides providing support. Red
Mangrove roots are a most effective sediment collector (4), followed by
seagrasses, and then algae in effectiveness. Red Mangrove roots also
stabilize the land (5), and provide hurricane protection (6). The maze of
roots is an excellent habitat with cover for many marine fishes, invertebrates,
and plants (7). Equally vital are the leaves. Mangrove and seagrass
leaves combine to form the basis of the detritus food chain. This detritus
food chain supports much of the primary productivity of the inshore waters
in the Florida Keys.
A-3
Mangrove muds and peats also have a function, serving as a biological filter,
breaking down some pollutants and organic matter, and making available numerous
nutrients (8). However, heavy metals and pesticides may accumulate on bottom
sediments faster than they can be assimilated, and consequently, enter the
food chain when consumed by fishes and invertebrates. (4)
Commercially Valuable Species:
Barracuda
Blue Crab
Bonefish
Crevalle Jack
Jewfish
N Mullet
Pink Shrimp
N Mangrove Snapper
N Sea Trout
N Snook
N Tarpon
N Thread Herring
- Sphyraena barracuda
- Callinectes sapidus
- Albula vulpes
- Caranx hippos
- Epinephelus itajara
- Mugil sp.
- Penaeus duorarum
- Lutjanus griseus
- Cynoscion nebulosus
- Centropomus undecimalis
- Megalops atlantica
- Opisthonema oglinum
N = This species utilizes this habitat as a nursery area.
3. Seagrass Beds
Seagrass beds cover much of Florida Bay, the passes and lagoons between the
Florida Keys, and the offshore areas in the Atlantic Ocean to about 30 ft.
depths. Temperature, salinity, and light availability (9) limit the distribu-
tion of seagrasses in South Florida, however, the local distribution of these
plants are affected more by water depth, wave action, turbidity, and salinity
(10). Seagrasses, being photosynthetic plants require light to produce food,
and are therefore restricted to shallower depths (usually less than 30 ft.)
(9). A soft substrate such as sand, mud, soft marl, or coral sand is
necessary for anchorage of roots (11).
One of the major roles of seagrasses is as a primary producer, producing food
which can be utilized by other animals further along the food chain. Rates
of primary production by turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) rank among the
highest of all plants (12). Interestingly, consumption of turtle grass leaves
is uncommon, the only significant consumers being sea urchins, parrotfishes,
and tangs, with the majority of leaves remaining untouched until they die or
are torn from the plant (9). However, turtle grass leaves have been shown to
possess at least 92 species of epiphytic algae (a plant growing on another
plant but not acting as a parasite) on them (13). This epiphytic algae provides
a food source to many small invertebrates which dwell in the protective cover
of the grasses. In addition, dead turtle grass leaves contribute to the
detritus food chain, this being a very important contribution to the productivity
of the entire marine system.
Besides producing the basis of the food web, seagrasses serve other important
functions. The dense growth of leaves and stems can slow water speed, and
accumulate sediment from the water reducing turbidity (9). This sediment
accumulation provides additional growth area for the roots. Seagrass beds also
provide a muddy bottom supporting many species of filter and deposit feeders who
A- 4
Lcan further reduce water turbidity (14).
The dense growth of turtle grass, and large surface created by the leaves, stems,
and roots provide habitat and protection for thousands of small invertebrates
and fishes. For example, Moore (10) in push net samples in Biscayne Bay
turtle grass beds reported each square meter to produce 72 small shrimp,
20,960 tiny s nails, and 8,170 clams. Several of Monroe County's major commercial
fisheries originate or are dependent on turtle grass beds during some portion of
their life cycle.
Seagrass communities, like mangroves, are also fairly hurricane resistant.
Thomas (15) in assessing the hurricane damage to seagrass beds in Biscayne Bay
found a thinning of the grasses and large accumulations of leaf detritus on the
beaches, but apparently little total destruction of the beds.
Seagrass communities and the muds associated with them can also help in nutrient
cycling and waste breakdown. However, seagrasses are very sensitive to man's
activities. Excessive sewage pollution, turbidity, and thermal pollution can
destroy this community (16). Seagrasses are also extremely sensitive to physical
disruption of the beds. Zieman (16) has shown cuts in turtle grass from boat
engine props to require two or more years for recolonization.
Dominant Flora:
Turtle Grass
Manatee Grass
Shoal Grass
Several Algal Species Including:
Penicillus, Halimeda, Laurencia
Batophora, Acetabularia
Dominant Fauna:
Variegated Urchin
Long-spined Urchin
Callianassid Shrimp
Tiger Lucina
Helmet Shell
Sea Biscuit
Sea Cucumber
N Spiny Puffer
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Loggerhead Sponge
Vase Sponge
Soft Coral
Soft Coral
Commercially Valuable Species:
N Queen Conch
Mullet
- Thalassia testudinum
- Syringodium filiforme
- Halodule wrightii
- Lytechinus variegatus
- Diadema antillarum
- Callianassa sp.
- Codakia orbicularis
- Cassis sp.
- C1 easter rosaceus
- Holothuria flori ana
- Diodon sp.
- Scaridae (family)
- Acanthuridae (family)
- Spheciospongia vesparia
- Spongia graminea
- Pterogorgia citrina
- P. anceps
- Strombus gigas
- Mugil Sp.
A- 5
N Pink Shrimp
N Mangrove Snapper
N Sea Trout
N Blue Crab
N Spiny Lobster
N Stone Crab
Cobia
Thread Herring
N Jewfish
Pompano
Permit
Mutton Snapper
Groupers
Hogfi sh
N Tarpon
Bonefish
N Barracuda
Yellowtail Snapper
- Penaeus duorarum
- Lutjanus griseus
- Cynoscion nebulosus
- Callinectes sa idus
- Panulirus argus
- Menippe mercenaria
- Rachycentron canadum
- Opisthonema oglinum
- Epinephelus itajara
- Trachinotus carolinus
- T. falcatus
- Lutjanus analis
- Serranidae family)
- Lachnolaimus maximus
- Megalops atlantica
- Albula vulpes
- �S h raena barracuda
cyu0 rus Chrysurus
N = This species utilizes this habitat as a nursery area.
4. Outer Reef
For 150 miles along the Florida Keys from Miami to the Marquesas Keys runs the
richest flourishing coral reef in the continental United States. These coral
reefs provide spectacular underwater viewing for diving enthusiasts, and habitat
for fishes sought by commercial and sport fishermen. The reefs also serve as
storm protection, wave energy being dissipated somewhat before reaching the Keys.
This lush community is the most productive of all ecosystems (17). It is
characterized in shallower waters by extensive coral development, primarily in
the northern section of this tract where the reef is protected from seawater
exchange between Florida Bay and the Gulf Stream by the elongate upper Keys
(Key Largo, Islamorada, Tavernier, etc.) (18). At least half of the reef tract
is unsuited for extensive coral growth primarily because Florida Bay water brings
lower salinity, silty, turbid waters over the outer banks where coral develop-
ment occurs.
In many areas where hard corals have not established, soft coral growth pre-
dominates. The diversity and abundance of soft corals in the Florida Keys is
among the richest in the Caribbean (19), and unmatched around the world (20).
Being more sediment tolerant, these animals can thrive where hard corals might
be smothered by silt (21).
The corals of the Florida Reef Tract are at the northernmost limit for coral
development. Antonius (22) has found temperature to be the most severe natural
factor limiting reef development in Florida (fluctuating temperatures below 240C
inhibit reef development). Sediment laden waters, another natural stress which
has been worsened by man, can inhibit coral growth, development, and establish-
ment of coral larvae (23). Corals have been shown to be sensitive to light,
temperature, salinity, sediment, and currents (24).
Although hurricanes and severe storms can result in physical damage to the reefs,
beneficial effects may include (26):
A- 6
(a) resettling of coral larvae on clean, hard
surfaces - ideal conditions for their establishment
(b) regenerating coral fragments swept from the reef
Major Coral Zonation Shoreward in Flourishing Shallow
Fore -Reef and Reef Buttress Zones
a) Star Coral (Montastrea annularis) Zone
b) Fire Coral (Mille ora alcicornis) Zone
c) Elkhorn Coral Acropora palmata Zone
Dominant Coral Species:
Fore Reef:
Staghorn Coral - Acropora cervicornis
Leaf Coral - Agaricia agaricites
Star Coral - Montastrea annularis
Porous Coral - Porites astreoides
Reef Flat: 3 Main Sub -Environments
1) Area with thin covering of ripplemarked sediment over reef.
2) Marine grasses.
3) Patch reefs and soft corals.
Reef Buttress:
Leaf Coral - Agaricia agaricites
Fire Coral - Millepora sp.
Elkhorn Coral - Acropora palmata
Star Coral - Favia fragum
Starlet Coral - Siderastrea siderea
Commercially Valuable Species:
Amberjack -
Angelfishes -
Ballyhoo -
Barracuda -
Blue Runner -
Crevalle Jack -
N Groupers -
N Grunts -
Hogfish -
Jewfish -
Snappers -
Spiny Lobster -
Thread Herring -
Yellowtail -
Queen Conch -
Seriola dumerili
Chaetodontidae (family)
Hemiramphus brasiliensis
Sphyraena barracuda
Caranx crysos
C. hippos
Serranidae (family)
Pomadasyidae (family)
Lachnolaimus maximus
Epinephelus itajara
Lutjanus sp.
Panulirus argus
Opisthonema oglinum
Ocyurus Chrysurus
Strombus gigas
N = This species utilizes this habitat as a nursery area.
A- 7
5. Blue Water
Blue water environments occur where open ocean conditions and communities
intrude within a short distance of the shoreline, such as along the outer
reef tract in the Florida Keys. These areas are characterized by extremely
clear, transparent water due to the lack of phytoplankton (27) . This blue
water environment is the home of many commercially and recreationally valuable
fishes. Along the Florida coast the high numbers of fishes occurring in this
zone are at least partially supported by the productivity of the reefs and
inshore grass beds. Along the reef tract the large pelagic (open -ocean) fishes
can feed on benthic (bottom) fishes and animals, which in turn have fed on
benthic plants and detritus. This short food chain allows more top carnivores
to be supported by the extremely high productivity of the inshore and reef
environments (27).
Commerciallv Valuable Species:
Swordfish
- Xiphias gladius
Amberjack
- Seriola dumerili
Blackfin Tuna
- Thunnus atlanticus
Bluefin Tuna
- T. saltatrix
Bonita
- Euthynnus sp.
Crevalle Jack
- Caranx hippos
Dolphin
- Coryphaena hipiDurus
Groupers
- Serranidae family
Tilefish
- Caulolatius sp.
Sailfish
- Istiophorus nigricans
Hammerhead Shark
- Sphyrna lewini
King Mackerel
- Scomberomorus cavalla
Spanish Mackerel
- S. maculates
Cero Mackerel
- S. regalis
Mako Shark
- Isurus ox rinchus
Marlin
- Istiophoridae (family)
Pompano
- Trachinotus sp.
Wahoo
- Acanthocybium solanderi
C. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT, MONROE COUNTY
(From Inventory of Rare & Endangered Biota of Florida,
Florida Audubon and Florida Defenders of the Environment)
1. Endangered Species*
Invertebrates:
Elkhorn Coral
- Acropora palmata -
Outer
Reef Environment
Staghorn Coral
- A. Cervicornis -
Reef
Environment
Staghorn Coral
- A. prolifera -
Reef
Environment
Pillar Coral
- Dendrogyra cylindrus -
Reef
Environment
Large Flower Coral
- Mussa angulosa -
Reef
Environment
Lettuce Coral
- Agaricia agaricites -
Reef
Environment
Flower Coral
- Eusmilia fastigiata -
Reef
Environment
Starlet Coral
- Siderastrea siderea -
Reef
Environment
an
Brain Coral
CO Brain Coral
Small Star Coral
Large Star Coral
Brain Coral
Fishes:
Key Silverside
- Diploria clivosa
- D. labyrinthiformis
- Montastrea annularis
- M. cavernosa
- Meandrina meandrites
- Reef Environment
- Reef Environment
- Reef Environment
- Reef Environment
- Reef Environment
- Menidia conchorum - Seagrass beds and mangrove habitats
(Big Pine - Key West)
Reptiles and Amphibians:
American Crocodile - Crocodylus acutus - Mangrove fringe - Florida Bay,
Key Largo and Torch Keys
Atlantic Green Turtle - Chelonia mydas mydas - All habitats
Atlantic Hawksbill - Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata -.primary reef habitats
Turtle
Atlantic Ridley - Lepidochelys kempi - All habitats
Turtle
*Endangered species: Species in danger of extinction if the deleterious factors
affecting their populations continue to operate. These are forms whose numbers
have already declined to such a critically low level or whose habitats have been
so seriously reduced or degraded that without active assistance their survival
is questionable.
2. Threatened Species+
Fishes:
Florida Keys Sheepshead Minnow - Cyprinodon variegatus -
Seagrass beds and mangrove habitats - shallow water.
Southern Gulf Killifish - Fundulus grandis seguanus -
Seagrass beds and mangrove habitats -shallow water.
Florida Keys Longnose Killifish - Fundulus similis-
Seagrass beds and mangrove habitats - shallow water.
Rainwater Killifish
- Lucania
ap rva
Rivulus
- Rivulus
marmoratus
Mangrove Gambusia
- Gambusia
rhizophorae
Sailfish Molly
- Poecilia
latipinna
Spottail Goby
- Gobionellus stigmaturus
Key Blenny
- Starksia
starcki
- Mangrove habitat
- Mangue onTytat shallow
- Mangrove habitat
- Mangrove habitat
- Seagrass beds
- Shallow reef canals
+Threatened Species: These are likely to become endangered in the State within
the foreseeable future if current trends continue. This category includes:
A-9
1) species in which most or all populations are decreasing because of over -
exploitation, habitat loss, or other factors; 2) species whose populations
have already been heavily depleted by deleterious conditions and which, while
not actually endangered, are nevertheless in a critical state, and 3) species
which may be relatively abundant but are being subjected to serious adverse
pressures throughout their range.
D. AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Two of 31 State Quatic Preserves were established in Monroe County under the
Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975. These preserves were designed to set
aside state-owned submerged lands of exceptional billogical, aesthetic,
and scientific value. The two preserves are Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve
near Big Pine Key, and Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve incorporating waters
surrounding Lignumvitae, Shell, and Indian Keys.
John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and the adjacent Key Largo Marine
Sanctuary cover approximately 178 square nautical miles or coral reefs,
seagrass beds, and mangrove swamps. This is the first underwater State park
in the United States, and it was set up to protect and preserve a portion of
the only living coral reef in the continental United States.
E. AREAS OF RESOURCE DEGRADATION AND EXPLOITATION
The Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study (30) identified environmental
problem areas in the Florida Keys during 1974 according to water quality
problems, coral reefs under stress, and upland problem areas. These areas were
then plotted on maps, and the problems discussed. An updating and continuation
of such a project would aid in making decisions where stressed areas need to
be identified, and special management techniques and procedures need to be
established to prevent further deterioration of the resource.
II. MAN'S INTERACTION WITH RESOURCE
A. UTILIZATION OF MARINE RESOURCES IN MONROE COUNTY
Sport and commercial fishing, mariculture, recreation, scientific research,
and environmental education constitute major uses of marine resources in
Monroe County. Foremost in importance and growing constantly in magnitude
are recreational uses of marine resources. Recreational uses include:
fishing, snorkeling, scuba diving, swimming, spearfishing, beachcombing,
sailing, and boating. Figure A-2 shows commercial and pleasure boat registra-
tion in Monroe County from 1965-66 to 1976-77. While commercially registered
vessels remain relatively constant, pleasure craft registration is growing
rapidly. However, it must be noted that out of county commercial vessels,
particularly shrimpers, have seemingly increased considerably in the recent
years. TABLE A-1 lists major state recreation areas and their facilities.
Visitation to these state parks has not displayed the rapid growth of the
boating registration, however, most of these parks have a limited carrying
capacity which is met daily during winter tourist peaks, thus no major
growth in number of visitors is observed. In 1976-77, over 700,000 people
visited Bahia Honda, Long Key, and John Pennekamp State Parks.
A-10
FIGURE A-2
(W COMMERCIAL AND PLEASURE BOAT REGISTRATION
IN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. FROM 1965-1977
0
z
a
Cn
0
z
0
a
cr
F-
In
0
w
cr
SURE
IERCIAL
FISCAL YEAR
Source: Department of Natural Resources
A- 11
TABLE A-1
State Parks Offering Marine Recreation in Monroe County, Florida
Bahia Honda State Park
Long Key State Park
John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park
276 acres, marina, boat ramp,
ocean beach, picnicking, pro-
tected bay swimming, snorkeling,
carrying capacity about 1,000
people daily
292 acres, ocean beach, picnicking,
swimming, snorkeling
75 square miles of reef, seagreasses
and mangroves. Glass bottom boat
tour, snorkeling, swimming, fishing,
boat ramp, rental boating
Commercial fishing is another important utilization of marine resources in
Monroe County. Among all commercially valuable species caught in these
waters are 26 species of fish and 11 species of invertebrates. During 1976,
156.4 million pounds of fish were landed commercially in Florida with 17%
of that catch, or 27,165,966 lbs., worth over 23 million dollars, attributed
to Monroe County. Sportfishing also contributes a major portion of fish
catches in Monroe County, although reliable catch statistics are not avail-
able. It was reported that 186 rental charter boats were available in the
Florida Keys in 1974 (31). The Upper Keys, especially, support a large
number of fishing guides and sportfishing opportunities.
Mariculture represents a tremendous potential use of marine resources in the
Florida Keys, but presently, and in the past, few projects have been under-
taken. TABLE A-2 displays past and on -going mariculture projects, as well as
potential undertakings. Several different habitat areas may potentially be
utilized in mariculture including the shallow Gulf side flats, mark or borrow
pits, and the deeper offshore waters. Depending upon the type and intensity,
utilization of marine resources for mariculture could be, economically as
well as environmentally, a promising alternative.
Scientific research and education also constitute an important utilization
of our marine resources. Many colleges and universities conduct field trips,
short courses, and research in the Florida Keys. Two college field study
facilities are available; Pigeon Key Environmental Center of the University
of Miami, and Newfound Harbor Marine Institute, Big Pine Key. Newfound
Harbor Marine Institute also serves as a marine environmental education
center providing programs for many schools throughout South Florida. Florida
Keys Marine Institute, Key West, offers a marine program for delinquent
teenagers. Florida Keys Community College offers a number of courses in
marine sciences, along with a two year degree program. Seacamp, Big Pine Key,
is a co-educational summer camp offering various marine education courses.
A- 12
FIGURE A-3
TOTAL CATCH 8rVALUE OF MONROE COUNTY COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
FROM 1960 -1976
0
z 2
n
0
a
:,
s
U
H
Q 2
U
Cb
N -�;
cr a o
J
J �
0 f
z
W
J
H
F
C
YEAR
Source: Department of Natural Resources
A-13
TABLE A-2
Mariculture in Monroe County, Florida
J. Thompson, M. Moe, pers. comm.
1. Past Mariculture Projects:
Stone Crabs
Sponges
Eucheuma (algae)
Hypnea (algae)
Pompano
2. On -going Mariculture Projects:
Shrimp
Brine Shrimp
Marine Aquarium Plants
Marine Aquarium Fishes
3. Potential Mariculture Projects:
Conch
Snappers
Sea Trout
Spiny Lobster
Dolphin
Mackerel
B. IMPACT OF MAN's ACTIVITIES ON MARINE RESOURCES
Man's activities affecting the integrity of Monroe County's marine resources
are not only local, i.e., geographically contained within the county, but
they often transcend the political jurisdiction as they extend over the entire
South Florida and Gulf region. Many years of scientific research have been
instrumental in identifying certain uses and activities most of which are
associated with urban development, as having impact on the marine resources.
Some of these uses and activities have been recognized for their potential
impact, whereas some are only speculated. Prominent among such uses and
activities are: dredging and filling operations, destruction of natural
vegetation, use of pesticides and fertilizers, and improper sewage and solid
waste disposal.
Improper dredge and fill operations in the past have inflicted considerable
damage on the area's natural environment. Sedimentation occurring as a result
of dredging operations has left many of the inshore seagrass areas virtually
unproductive (32). Several past studies have indicated a concern that this
type of damage may result in a long-term (if not permanent) loss of a valuable
resource, since these areas serve as breeding, nursery and feeding areas for
many fish and Shellfish Species. It is also believed that siltation
occurring as a result of dredging may stress or even kill coral reef
A- 14
communities and other valuable marine organisms. Concern has also been
expressed that the practice of filling submerged lands and mangrove areas
which has resulted in the loss of natural habitat for a variety of organisms
has done much to upset the natural balance of the area's life systems.
These activities have aroused such public concern that today they are subject
to stringent regulations being enforced by the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulations and the Army Corps of Engineers. In cases where dredging
and filling is permissible under State and Federal regulations, several
recommendations have been made (28) to carefully monitor this activity:
1) identification of significant hermatypic (reef building) coral
reefs within 1 nautical mile of the proposed dredging, and
prohibition of any dredging work within 1/2 nautical mile of
the corals.
2) directing proposed dredging to bare areas of the bottom,
protecting seagrass beds and mangrove fringe to aid in sediment
capture.
3) monitoring all dredging in the Florida Keys simultaneously,
limiting dredging projects to 200 mg/cm2/day turbidity, which,
if exceeded on a weekly average will require a cease in dredge
activity for a week to reduce the sediment level in the water.
4) improve the technology of turbidity diapers used to restrict
water flow allowing sediment to fall to the bottom.
Most of the resource degradation problems, including water pollution, can be
traced back to urban development occurring in the coastal areas. At the
present time, some of the activities associated with such urban development,
like destruction of natural vegetation and dredge and fill, are being
regulated by the local, state, and federal agencies. But some of the point
and non -point sources of pollution such as urban storm water runoff, waste-
water and solid waste disposal still remain as problem areas which demand
greater attention.
From the standpoint of pollution potential, the first runoff from storms
in urban areas is the equivalent of secondary treated sewage (30). In
addition, in areas of fill with no vegetative cover and where natural
vegetation has been destroyed, the turbidity of the water in the canal and
adjacent bay or ocean may increase tremendously. Reduction of runoff by
leaving at least a shoreline border of natural vegetation, especially the
highly efficient sediment trapping mangroves (4) can reduce the impact of
storm runoff.
Scientific research (29) has shown heavy metal concentrations in the
Florida Keys to be related to areas of dense population, high automobile
or boat traffic, and improperly monitored or maintained sewage disposal
systems. Many of the pollutants move south in the Gulf Stream counter-
currents from the sewage outfall disposals of the large southeast Florida
cities. A scientific survey (29) found the highest concentrations of heavy
metals on the outer reefs. The exact effect of these increased metal on
A- 15
corals, small invertebrates, and other bottom dwellers in muds where the
metals frequently accumulate is presently unknown.
The use of septic tanks in the Keys has also been cited by many scientists
as a potential source of marine environmental degradation. A survey con-
ducted in 1974 (30) revealed that 94.6% of the residential units in the Upper
Keys, 80% in the Middle Keys, and 56.5% in the Lower Keys excluding Key West
utilized septic tanks for waste disposal. The soils and geological make-up
of the Keys are generally unsuited for this type of development. Specifically,
these natural conditions give rise to the following problems (2):
1. low elevations prevent proper functioning
2. the tanks tend to float, sometimes right out of
the ground at high tide,
3. the effluent seeps into canals
The available scientific information points toward exercising great caution
in the use of septic tanks and to the extent practicable, eliminating their
use altogether especially in shoreline areas and areas of low elevations.
The other methods of wastewater disposal such as the use of package treatment
plants and discharge of untreated centrally collected sewage in the open
water could also potentially contribute to the resource degradation problem.
Although not used as extensively as septic tanks, the package disposal
plants frequently malfunction, or are improperly operated and maintained (30).
The City of Key West, which is in the process of constructing a centrally
collected sewage treatment facility, is releasing through an ocean outfall
between 5 to 7 million gallons per day of raw, untreated sewage at the
present time. Solution to these problems by way of proper sewage treatment
and disposal are essential to protect integrity of marine resources. Studies
on disposal of treated wastes need to be undertaken, with consideration
given to shallow and deep well injection (30).
Among a number of other activities which are considered potential sources of
water pollution and resource degradation, the ones considered to be of sig-
nificant impact and often occurring frequently are: spraying for mosquito
control, disposal of sewage from boats in the water, and oil spills.
Spraying of chemicals for mosquito control still occurs in Monroe County, but
the effects of this spray on the marine environment are yet to be studied.
As for sewage disposal from boats and oil spills occurring mostly as a result
of pumping bilges, there are Federal and State laws regulating these
activities; but, violations occur uninhibitedly.
While utilization of the marine resources, principally through recreational
diving and fishing, is in the best socio-economic interest of the community;
if left unregulated and uncontrolled, such activities could lead to resource
degradation and depletion. The increasing number of boaters attracted to
the coral beauty have caused anchor damage on reefs and have thus threatened
the health and integrity of coral communities (25). Similarly, the level of
sport and commercial fishing activities has also escalated over the years.
Although very little is known of the magnitude of the sport fishing in the
Keys, it is believed that a vast number of tourists and residents engage in
A-16
this activity. As for the magnitude of the commercial fishing industry,
(W statistics are available in the summary of Florida Landings published yearly
since 1953. An inventory of Monroe County's valuable fishery resources has
been undertaken by the Monroe County Extension Service. The University of
Florida and the Department of Natural Resources are conducting research on
the Spiny Lobster Fishery. Furthermore, regional fisheries management councils
will be examining many of Monroe County's fisheries, and assigning management
schemes to fisheries. Currently, Monroe County falls under the coverage of
two fishery councils - Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Councils. Recommendations made by these agencies and institutes must be
given due consideration in the management of fishery resources.
The Keys' environmental problems are not entirely locally generated. As
pointed out earlier, the source of the problems in certain cases transcend
local jurisdiction. A prime example of such an "external" influence is the
dependence of the Keys' marine environment on the Everglades estuary, at
least in part, for the high productivity of the mangrove and seagrass habitats.
It has been indicated that this estuary is competing with South Florida's
urban environment for water essential to the functioning of the estuary which,
in turn, supports many of the Keys' commercially valuable species. Also
affecting the integrity of this estuary are the urban and agricultural uses
in the South Florida region which contaminate this water body with heavy
metals, pesticides, and improperly treated sewage. Further, lateral highway
construction reportedly reduces drainage into Florida Bay affecting salinity
and siltation, and thus, primary production. The urban megalopolis of southeast
Florida, supposedly also contributes in the deterioration of the reef by outfall
disposal of sewage wastes and heavy metals which follow the countercurrents
of the Gulf Stream south to the reef (29).
III. EXISTING CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OVER MARINE RESOURCES
The following governmental agencies exert the major influence in the planning
and control over marine resources in the South Florida region and in Monroe
County.
A. FEDERAL LEVEL
1. Army Corps of Engineers: One of the principal activities of the Army
Corps of Engineers which affects land development and resource utilization is
its environmental regulatory program. Four Federal laws form the basis of
this program: the River and Harbor Act of 1899; the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972; the Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries
Act of 1972; and the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. Under these
four laws, the Corps has regulatory authority over all navigable waters of
the U.S. from mean high water to the outer limits of the Continental shelf.
The Corps regulatory program has the underlying responsibility to enhance water
quality, protect fisheries resources, safeguard wetland wildlife and recreation,
avoid water contamination, and reduce storm damage and erosion. This broad
responsibility is carried out by requiring permits for activities such as
obstruction or alteration of navigable water; construction of piers, bulkheads,
pilings, marinas, docks; dredging; disposal of fill or dredged material; and
filling of wetlands adjacent or contiguous to navigable waters. As of July,
1977, the Corps jurisdictional authority to regulate the discharge of dredged
A- 17
or fill material under Section 404 of the FWPCA has been extended to all waters
of the United States, including the territorial seas.
The Corps of Engineers also provides engineering services and administers
Federal funds for the correction of flood problems, water oriented recreation,
beach erosion, channel and harbor dredging for navigation, and flood plain
management programs that do not involve structural solutions.
2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The Environmental Protection Agency
is responsible on the National level for the implementation of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL92-500) which is implemented
at the State level by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). The
most potentially important EPA program in regard to land development and its
impact on water quality is the recently begun Section 208, Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Planning Program which is presently being developed by
the DER for the non -designated areas like Monroe County.
3. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: The Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act of
1958, gives the Fish & Wildlife Service review responsibilities in regards to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Regulatory Program. The
issuance of permits for dredge and fill, spoil disposal, and other related
works in the navigable waters of the U.S. by the Corps is reviewed by the
Fish & Wildlife Service ( as well as other Federal and State agencies) to
assess what impact such activities will have on fish and wildlife in the
affected area.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, enacted for the purpose of providing a
means of protecting the habitat of endangered and threatened species of
plants and animals requires the Fish & Wildlife Service to prepare a list
of such species and establish and implement a conservation program. The
Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission participates with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service in this program.
4. National Marine Fisheries Service: This agency in the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration issues permits for capture of marine
mammals and for scientific research and educational displays involving
marine mammals. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it has arrest,
search, and seizure powers in the waters of the U.S. out to the territorial
limit. (Power delegated to the Florida Marine Patrol).
Under the U.S. Fishery Conservation & Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-265),
the National Marine Fisheries Service is required to make its services and
facilities available to the Regional Fishery Management Councils created
by this Act to develop fishery management plans for each fishery in the
conservation management zone of their regions. This Act is discussed in
greater detail in the Section dealing with regional agencies.
5. U.S. Coast Guard: As an agency
CW and navigable waters, the U.S. Coast
protection to marine environment. I
t
A- 18
power includes the authority to enforce the Federal Laws related to dis-
posal of sewage from boats. Additionally, it directs the clean up of
oil spills in navigable waters (Ocean Dumping Law & River & Harbor Act
of 1899), and reviews and comments on environmental impact statements.
Responsibility for the enforcement of the Fishery Conservation and Manage-
ment Act also lies in part with the U.S. Coast Guard.
B. STATE LEVEL
1. Department of Environmental Regulation (DER): The DER is now the
principal administrating agency for water quality programs in the State.
The statutory basis for water quality programs in Florida is provided
primarily in the following acts: a) Federal Water Pollution Control Act
& Amendments of 1972; b) Florida Air & Water Pollution Control Act
(Ch. 403 F.S.); and c) Sections of Chapter 253, F.S., pertaining to dredge
and fill operations.
The FWPCA is a highly comprehensive Act which establishes stringent
standards for pollutant discharges, and expands and strengthens the Federal
Grant Program for municipal treatment plants. The concern for water quality
problems is best reflected in the Section 208 of this Act which deals with
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning. Section 208 recognizes that
many water quality problems arE! too complex to be solved by additional
applications of waste treatment technology; '1.11,at to solve the toughest
water quality problems, many aspects of water pollution control must be
brought together into a united areawide plan. Thus, the 208 plan must con-
sider the treatment of municipal and industrial wastes, so-called "non -
point" pollution sources including storm run-off, septic tank use, and many
other factors. This Section also recognizes that water quality and land use
are intimately related and that the control of many water pollution problems
ultimately requires some measure of land use regulation. Section 208 is
administered nationally by the EPA; but the DER administers the program at
the State level. Presently, there are 12 designated 208 planning areas
which are getting funding under this program. Monroe County is one of the
additional seven areas likely to be considered if new funds become available.
Presently, the DER is in the process of developing 208 plans for the non -
designated areas including Monroe County.
Chapter 403, F.S., gives DER the power to control air and water pollution,
and authorizes a permitting program for discharges into State waters. In
this role, the DER supervises surveillance and sampling of pollution
sources, solid waste disposal, waste water treatment and air pollution.
The DER has classified waters of the State according to their usage. The
surrounding waters off the Keys fall into two Classifications: Class II -
Shellfish Harvesting; and Class III - Recreation, Propagation & Management
of Fish & Wildlife. The DER has determined minimum criteria to apply to
each of these Classifications. In addition, provisions of Chapter 253,
F.S., require regulation of dredge and fill on State land. The DER acts
on applications to dredge and fill based upon the expected impact on State
owned land.
A- 19
01
2. Department of Natural Resources (DNR): The Division of Resource
Management in the DNR administers the two Aquatic Preserve areas established
by the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975. The State has established
strict regulations concerning activities and alterations in the Aquatic
Preserves. Dredge and fill activities are prohibited in aquatic preserves
except for authorized navigation projects.
The Oil Spill Prevention & Pollution Control Act (Ch. 376, F. S.) impowers
the DNR to: (a) deal with the hazards and threats of spills; (b) require
the prompt containment and removal of pollutants spilled; and (c) establish
a fund to provide for the inspection and supervision of those activities
which may result in spills and to guarantee the payment of damage claims.
This Act specifically prohibits the discharge of oil, oil by-products and
other pollutants into the State waters and also prohibits the operation of
a terminal facility without a license issued by DNR.
The responsibility for acquiring, developing, and operating the recreation
and parks system of the State is given to the Division of Recreation &
Parks of the DNR (Section 592.12, F.S.). Currently, there are three
developed and three undeveloped but designated State parks in Monroe County
outside of Key West which are being administered by the Division of
Recreation & Parks.
3. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC): Pursuant to the requirements
of the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the GFC evaluates the
effects on fish and wildlife populations of dredge and fill activities
which require Corps of Engineers permits. Corps permit issuance is based,
in part, upon the effects of dredge and fill on fish and wildlife.
The GFC also provides advice and technical assistance to all governmental
agencies and the public on proper game and fish management practices and
the effects of development activities on these resources. Protection of
game animals and game fish is undertaken through licensing, closed seasons
and other restrictions.
4. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services - Shellfish regulation:
The Division of Health is involved in control over the growing, harvesting,
processing, and marketing of shellfish and the picking, packing, and
marketing of crabmeat. Appraisals of suitability of shellfish waters for
harvesting are made in accordance with the National Shellfish Sanitation
program as well as State standards. Actual field work and analysis is
done in cooperation with the County Health Department.
C. REGIONAL LEVEL
1. Regional Fishery Management Councils: The Regional Fishery Management
Councils were created by the U.S. Fishery Conservation and Management Act
of 1976, to develop fishery management plans for their jurisdictional areas.
Presently, the "fishery conservation zone" around Monroe County falls
under the jurisdictions of two Councils: 1. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council, and 2. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Additionally, the Act sets forth "National Standards" for the management
of fisheries; establishes the 200 mile "Fishery Conservation Zone"; and
generally prohibits fishing by Foreign vessels within the U.S. Fishery
Conservation Zone.
A- 20
(W Basically, the management plan for each fishery will include an estimate of
optimum yield; a description of the fishery; and recommendations for
conservation and management measures, and data reporting and collecting.
2. South Florida Regional Planning Council: The SFRPC, empowered by
Chapter 160, F.S., serves as an intermediary agent in the review of DRI
applications. They determine the extent to which development will efficiently
use or unduly burden the natural, structural, and socio-economic resources
of the region.
The Council also has the responsibility of reviewing applications for
Federal assistance, Federal development projects, and environmental impact
statements as required in the OMB circular A-95.
3. South Florida Water Management District: The Florida Water Resources
Act of 1972 Ch. 373, F.S. is the principal statute providing for water
management in the State. By this act, all waters under the jurisdiction
of the State are subject to regulation. The SFWMD is one of the five
WMD's created for the purpose of implementation of the Act. The Act is
especially broad in coverage of ground water, but does not deal
specifically with the management of coastal waters. However, the new
guidelines and criteria established by the SFWMD concerning storm water
run-off should provide some protection to marine resources of coastal
areas.
D. LOCAL LEVEL
Since the coastal waters fall primarily under State and Federal jurisdictions,
virtually all direct controls over marine resources are exercised from these
levels. Monroe County assists State and Federal agencies in their efforts
to regulate uses and activities involving interaction with marine resources.
The most significant local control derives its authority from a special
county ordinance designed to maintain the functional integrity of the
mangrove communities and to preserve marine productivity. This Ordinance
(Monroe County Shoreline Protection Ordinance No. 17-1975) establishes a
shoreline protection zone with the interior boundary at a line extending
50 feet laterally upland from the landward limit of the shoreline mangroves.
Uses and activities in this zone are restricted.
Furthermore, the Community Impact Statement required under the Major
Development Ordinance No. 21-1975, includes an evaluation of a given major
development project's impact on the overall environmental structure and
ecology.
Local controls and responsibilities also extend to the provision of
adequate wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal facilities. In this
regard, both the County and the City of Key West are in the process of
building new facilities. Also, regulations regarding the use and design
of septic tanks is a local environmental health concern. The Florida
Administrative Code (Chapter 10-D6) contains a set of standards and
criteria to be followed in the design and installation of septic tanks.
One of the setback requirements is that a septic tank must be at a minimum
A-21
distance of 50 feet from open water including mangrove communities. The
responsibility for regulating the use of septic tanks in conformance with
the State Code rests with the County Health Department which is a regulatory
agency issuing septic tank permits.
The Monroe County Branch of the Florida Cooperative Extension Service Marine
Advisory Program responds to the need of bringing various user groups
together in an effort to exchange views and impart basic knowledge necessary
for balanced utilization of the County's valuable marine resources. In
this advisory role, the County Extension Service engages in scientific
fact-finding, disseminates available information on marine environment to
increase citizen awareness; and in doing so, encourages sound decision -
making in regard to marine resource utilization.
A- 22
4W SELECTED REFERENCES
1. GORE, RICK, The Tree Nobody Liked. Nat. Geog. 151(5): 668-689, 1977
2. CHESHER, R.H., Canal Survey, Fla. Keys, Society for Correlation of
Progress & Environment. 173 pp., 1974
3. LINDALL, W.N. and L. TRENT, Housing Development Canals in the Coastal
Zone of the Gulf of Mexico: Ecological Consequences, Regulations, and
Recommendations. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37 10 :, 1975
4. ODUM, W.E. and E.J. HEALD, Tro hic Analysis of an Esturine Mangrove
Community, Bull. Mar. Sci. 22 3 : 671-738, 1972
5. LUGO, A.E. and S.C. SNEDAKER, The Ecology of Mangroves, Annual
Review Syst. and Ecol. 5:39-64, 1974
6. CARLTON, J.M., Land -building and Stabilization by Mangroves,
Environ. Conserv. 1 T4T285-294, 1974
7. SNEDAKER S.C. and A.E. LUGO, The Role of Mangrove Ecosystems in the
Maintenance of Environmental Quality and a High Productivity of
Desirable Fisheries, Center for Aquatic Research, University of
Florida, Gainesville, 1973
8. KUENZLER, E.J., Mangrove Swamp Systems, Ch. B-1 in: Coastal
Ecosystems of the United States, Vol. 1:346-371, Conservation Foundation,
1974
9. ZIEMAN, J.C., Quantitative and Dynamic Aspects of the Ecology of
Turtle Grass, Est. Res. 1:541-562, 1973
10. MOORE, D., Distrib. of the Seagrass Thalassia in the United States,
Bull. Mar. Sci. 13 2 : 329-342, 1963
11. PHILLIPS, R.C., Observations on the Ecology and Distribution of the
Florida Seagrasses, Prof. Pap. Ser. #2 FL St. Bd. Conserv., 1960
12. ODUM, H.T., Tropical Marine Meadows, Ch. B-3 in Coastal Ecosystems of the
United States, Vol. 1:442-487, Conservation Foundation, 1974
13. HUMM, H., Epiphytes of the Seagrass Thalassia in Florida, Bull. Mar.
Sci. 14(2): 306-341, 1964
14. WOOD, E.J. et. al, Influence of Seagrasses on the Productivity of
Coastal Lagoons, UNAMUNESCO Sumposium Proc. pp. 495-5025 1967
15. THOMAS, L.P., et al, The Effect of Hurricane Donna on the Turtle Grass
Beds of Biscayne Bay, FL, Bull. Mar. Sci. 2 : 191-197, 1967
16. ZIEMAN, J.C., The Ecological Effects of Physical Damage from Motor
Boats on Turtle Grass Beds in S. Florida, Aquat. Bot. 2:127-139, 1975
17. DI SALVO, L.H. and H.T. ODUM, Coral Reefs, Ch. B-2 in Coastal
Ecosystem of the United States, Vol. 1:372-441, Conservation
Foundation, 1974
A. 23
18. MARSZALEK, et al, Reef Distribution in South Florida, Proc. Third Int.
Coral Reef Symp. Geol. pp. 223-230, Univ. of Miami, 1977
19. BAYER, F. M., The Shallow -water Octocoral of the West Indian Region,
Martinus Nijhoff, Netherlands 373 pp., 1961
20. KINZIE, R.A., The Zonation of West Indian Octocorals, Bull. Mar.
Sci. 23(1): 93.155, 1973
21. PRESTON, E.M. and J.L. PRESTON, Ecolo ical Structure in a West Indian
Gorgonian Fauna, Bull. Mar. Sci. 25 2 : 248-258, 1975
22. ANTONIUS, A., et al, Looe Key Reef Resource Inventory, Publication
Draft, 1978
23. LOYA, Y., Effects of Water Turbidity and Sedimentation on the
Community Structure of Puerto Rican Corals, Bull. Mar. Sci. 26(4):
450-466, 1976
24. HOFFMEISTER, et al, Living and Fossil Reef Types of S. Florida
Guidebook: Geol. Soc. America, Nov. 1964
25. DUSTAN, P., Besieged Reefs of the Florida Keys, Nat. Hist.,
Vol. 86(4): 73-76, 1977
26. SHINN, E., Coral Reef Recovery in Florida and the Persian Gulf,
Environ. Geol. 1:241-254, 1976
27. ODUM, W.P. and J.J. WALSH, Tropical Blue Water Coasts, In Coastal
Ecosystems of the United States, Vol. I pp. 514-533, Conservation
Foundation, 1974
28. GRIFFIN, G.M., Effects of Dredging on Water Clarity Around A Key Largo
Dredge -Fill Site, with Recommendations For Dredgers and Regulatory
Agencies, Harbor Branch Foundation Pub., No. 33, 1974
29. MANKER, J.P., Distribution and Concentration of Mercury, Lead, Cobalt,
Zinc, and Chromium in Suspended Particulate and Bottom Sediments -
Upper Florida Keys, Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay, 1975
30. Coastal Coordinating Council, Florida Keys Coastal Zone Mangement
Study, DNR, Tallahassee, FL 138 pp., 1974
31. CROWE, D.R. et al, Recreation and Tourism Facilities Of The Florida
Keys, FL Coop. Ext. Service, Key West, FL, 64 pp, 1974
32. Milo Smith & Assoc., Monroe County Land Use Plan, Monroe County
Planning Department, 1977
A- 24
APPENDIX B
NATURAL VEGETATIVE RESOURCES
I. NATURE OF NATURAL VEGETATIVE RESOURCES
A. Overview
The terrestrial plant associations of the Florida Keys can best be described
by separating the Keys into an upper and lower region, with the dividing
line at Big Pine Key. There is a natural division and distinction between
the plant associations of the Upper and Lower Keys in this region as a
result of a change in the limestone substrata from Key Largo limestone to
Miami oolite.
In the Upper Keys, tropical hardwood hammocks and mangrove swamps constitute
the predominant plant associations. The tropical hardwood hammocks occupy
higher portions of the Keys which are better drained and where salinities
are lower and more topsoil exists. The plant species of these hammocks are
mainly of Caribbean origin and were probably transported to the Keys by
tropical storms, ocean currents, and migrating birds. Within the tropical
hammock there is a variety of plant species which greatly exceeds that of
adjacent buttonwood or mangrove communities. Logging by early settlers and
land clearing for development and farming have greatly reduced the acreage
of prime, well developed hammocks. The mangrove swamps occupy lower and
wetter sites with the majority of these mangrove areas subject to daily or
seasonal tidal inundation.
The predominant plant associations in the Lower Keys, from No Name Key to
Key West are mangrove swamps, pinelands, and tropical hardwood hammocks
of different bio-physical characteristics from those of the Upper Keys. The
pinelands of the Lower Keys are found on well drained oolitic limestone
areas and where fresh water lenses are underlying the top strata. The pines
involved are a variety of slash pine indigenous to the Caribbean area.
Associated with the pines are several species of palms and numerous under -
story plants not found elsewhere in the Keys.
B. Vegetative Pattern
The overall vegetative pattern produced is a result of a number of environ-
mental (geological, hydrological, climatic) factors acting upon a specific
locality and, competitive advantages each species may have in regard to
these factors.
Typical zonation finds red mangroves and pioneers of this species on the
seaward edge subject to daily tides, Black Mangroves next inland in upper
reaches of the high and spring tides, on waterlogged and/or hypersaline
soils, and white mangroves on slightly elevated well drained areas
characteristically on the extreme landward side above tidal reaches.
Buttonwood occurs on waterlogged soils (but notinundated or drowned)
and extends to and interfingers with upland vegetation. Some mixing of
the species occurs at the edges and within the species growth zones
because of the natural tendency of the red mangrove communities to grow
seaward, building up the shoreline behind them and leaving the landward
side to become increasingly terrestrial. The species growth zone
pattern has led some biologists to place higher functional values for
production,stabilization and wave surge reduction on the red mangrove
communities.
LA
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM of MANGROVE ZONATION
TROPICAL FOREST
SOURCE:
Adopted from Davis , 1940
BEDROCK
The vegetative zonation described above is found in many places in the
Upper Keys; but by and large, in the Florida Keys, there are numerous
exceptions to the species growth zones of red to black to white man-
groves. Due to the peculiar topographic and hydrologic formations in
the Keys, a variety of combinations of mangrove species can occur in
almost any undeveloped, low lying area. The functional values of the
Keys' mangrove communities are, therefore, related more to their
location and less to their particular species.
M_H.W
_ M_L.W
(W C. Mangrove Associated Vegetation
Of all the biological resources in the Keys, the mangrove communities are
considered among the most critical for the maintenance of a high quality
human and natural environment. Forming vast forests along the shoreline
and into the shallow offshore areas, these tidally influenced plants play
a vital role in maintaining the urban structure, economy, and environment.
The dense canopy and roots of the mangroves buffer storm winds and tidal
surges, while the arching prop -roots of the red mangrove and the roots
of the black mangrove trap sediments and stabilize and extend the shoreline.
Mangroves preserve water quality by filtering suspended material and
assimilating dissolved nutrients; provide food, shelter, and nesting areas
required by a large number of species of marine and wildlife; and in doing
so, maintain the highly productive marine ecosystem. The free services
provided by these vegetative communities are of such great importance to
man in his living environment that, based upon a National Geographic
article and university research into its economic value, an acre of man-
grove is considered worth $4,000*. The dollar value to the public today
will be much higher than this figure if the future benefits of the mangroves
are taken into consideration.
Mangroves and associated species of vegetation occupy those portions of
the Keys which are characterized by saline soils and influence of tidal
flooding at one time or another. The lower portion of the saline mangrove,
subject to daily tidal inundation, contains coastal mangrove fringe of
predominantly red mangrove, and vegetated tidal flats and banks. The upper
portion of the mangrove zone, which is not subject to surface flooding as
frequently but where water-logged soils are common due to the low elevation,
usually contains black mangrove forests with associated lagoons, salt ponds
and salt flats. The transition zone, generally comprised of buttonwood,
black and white mangrove scrub and associated vegetation, grades from water-
logged soils into upland where the saline water table is considerably lower
than the mangrove zone, and normal tidal influence is absent.
In the growth of mangroves, the substratum is a powerful shaping factor.
The substrate must be penetrable to the roots for tall tree growth. With-
out a loose substratum of adequate depth and, adequate nutrient levels in
the soil and water, mangroves will be stunted. The stunted mangroves which
are often referred to as scrub or dwarf mangroves and, are quite common
in the Keys due to the shallow organic substratum, look like juveniles,
but some of them may be forty to fifty years old.
*The Miami Herald, August 17, 1977
BE
► Mangroves have a remarkable ability to recover from natural or man -
induced stresses if the right conditions prevail. Mangrove fringe can
survive severe damage and new fringe can start to form within a year on a
denuded shoreline. If wave action is minimal, the substratum soft enough
for seedling root penetration, and the shore slopes gently enough or has
a shallow shelf, mangrove fringe recovery can be quite rapid and within
four to five years give the impression of being old established fringe.
There are many species of mangrove, but only three are found in the Keys
and in South Florida. These are the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle;
the black mangrove, Avicennia germinans; and the white mangrove,
Laguncularia racemosa. Associated with these mangroves are a host of
vegetative species whose complete listing and description specifically
for the Keys remain yet to be established. Nevertheless, the following
information extracted from early research work carried out in the South
Florida region exhibits the variety of plant life that may be found in the
mangrove communities.
Mature Red Mangrove Family (Davis, 1940)
Red Mangrove
Black Mangrove
White Mangrove
Smooth cordgrass
Saltwort
Glasswort
Sea Blite
Marine alga
Marine alga
Marine alga
Marine alga
Rhizophora mangle
Avicenia germinans
Laguncularia racemosa
Spartina alteriflora
Batis maritima
Salicornia perennis
Suaeda linearis
Acetabulum crenulatum
Caulerpa cupressoides
Gracilaria cornea
Batophora ovalis
Black Mangrove and salt marsh associated vegetation (Davis, 1940)
Black mangrove
Aviacennia germinans
Red mangrove
Rhizophora mangle
White mangrove
Laguncularia racemosa
Buttonwood
Conocarpus erecta
Saltwort
Batis maritima
Glasswort
Salicorna perennis
Sea Daisy
Borrichia frutescens
Christmas -berry
Lycium carolinianum
Saffron -plum
Bumelia angustifolia
Dalbergia
Dalbergia amerimnon
Sea grape
Cocoloba uvifera
Rubber vine
Rhabdadenia biflora
Dropseed
Sporobolus virginicus
Key grass
Monanthochloe littoralis
Sea blite
Suaeda linearis
Sea purslane
Sesuvium portulacastrum
Leather fern
Acrostichum aureum
AM
,r Smooth cordgrass
Cordgrass
Cordgrass
Rush
Sedge
Galingale
Finger grass
Buttonwood
Poisonwood
Sea Grape
Key Thatch Palm
Mayten
Joe Wood
Wild Dilly
D. Upland Vegetation
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina spartinae
Spartina cynosuroides
Juncus roemerianus
Fimbristylis castanca
yperus ottonis
Chloris glauca
Buttonwood Scrub (Roberts, 1975)
Conocarpus erecta
Metopium toxiferum
Coccoloba uvifera
TF-r—inax morrisii
Maytenus phyllanthoides
Jacquinia keyensis
Manilkara bahamensis
The rocky uplands of the Florida Keys beyond the range of tidal influence
are vegetated by hardwood trees of mainly tropical origin. Two distinct
groupings occypying the Keys' uplands are Tropical Hardwood Hammocks
found throughout the Keys, but most notably on Key Largo and south through
Lower Matecumbe Key and; Pinelands, practically localized on a few of the
Lower Keys.
Tropical Hardwood Hammock:
Tropical hammocks in the Keys are found in the elevated areas characterized
by very thin soil layers over rocky, porous limestone substrate. As the
hammock develops, the dense vegetation tends to hold high humidity within,
creating a microclimate that is warmer in winter and cooler in summer than
the surrounding area. Leaf litter builds up on the forest floor, to form
moist hammock peat soil a foot or more deep. As a community, the tropical
hammock has a crowded, closed canopy which provides wind protection as
adjacent trees buffer each other from the impact of the wind. The extensive
root systems, which overlap and interwine with adjacent trees, anchor the
trees to the limestone substrate.
The food resources and habitat provided.by the tropical hammock are an
essential component in the life cycle of numerous birds and other animals
in the Keys. In addition to their value as a food resource, the vegetative
cover of the tropical hammock provides shelter, roosting and breeding areas
for a number of wildlife species.
Without major natural or manmade disturbances, these plant communities will
pass through successional stages to what is known as the climax community.
(W A fully matured tropical hardwood hammock is the climax community for the
Florida Keys. However, only a small percentage of the total acreage in the
Keys has survived natural and manmade impacts and reached the mature or
climax state.
AN
4W Not all hardwood hammocks in the Keys exhibit the same growth and floristic
characteristics. Depending upon the environment to which they respond and
adapt, these communites have developed slightly different characteristics
in different areas. In those areas, where there is a lack of adequate soil
cover or where substrate is rockier than normal, these plant communities
have assumed smaller, less well developed, and scrubier form to be termed
as thorn scrub or upland scrub hammock. In many coastal areas of the Lower
Keys, these communities have grown in association with some typical strand/
dune vegetation and are, therefore, called coastal hammocks.
PREDOMINANT SPECIES OF THE KEYS
HARDWOOD HAMMOCKS (Monroe Co. Ord. No. 18-1975)
Pigeon Plum
Coccoloba diversifolia
Strangler Fig
Ficus aurea
Shortleaf Fig
Ficus citrifolia
Torchwood
Amyris elemifera
Wild Tamarind
Lysiloma bahamensis
Jamaica Dogwood
Piscidia piscipula
Mastic
Mastichodendron foetidissimum
Willow Bustic
Bumelia salicifolia
Black Ironwood
Krugiodendron ferreum
Lancewood
Nectandra coriacea
Gumbo Limbo
Bursea simaruba
Geiger Tree
Cordia sebestena
Crabwood
Gymanthes lucida
Poisonwood
Metopium toxiferum
Spanish Stopper
Eugenia buxifolia
Wild Lime
Zanthoxylum fagara
Soapberry
Sapindus sapunaria
Blolly
Pisonia discolor
The total hardwood hammock acreage throughout the Keys as estimated by the
Coastal Coordinating Council in 1974 was 9,210 acres, representing about 13%
of the total land area of the Keys. The most extensive of these areas are
in Upper Key Largo adjacent to U.S. 1. Recent surveys have revealed that
much of this hammock land is undisturbed and contains significant populations
of the rarer hardwoods and several exceptionally large individual trees.
Further to the south, relatively large and intact hammock occurs in Lower
Matecumbe. An isolated community of diverse and well preserved hammock
exists in the urbanized area of Marathon. In the Lower Keys, the most
extensive and best examples of hammock are found on No Name Key, Middle and
Big Torch Keys, and Sugarloaf Key.
Pinelands:
On portions of upland in the Lower Keys, mainly Big Pine, Little Pine, No
Name, Cudjoe, and Sugarloaf, are open stands of pines and understory palms
and shrubs. This community has little or no tolerance to standing water or
saline ground water and it is postulated that the oolitic substrate which
contains confined lenses of brackish/fresh water provides favorable con-
ditions for its occurrence here. The 'pinelands' have developed on rocky
lands with thin soil cover and are relatively fire resistant where leaf
litter is light. This has allowed the community to persist in its present
location while hardwoods have been eliminated from areas subject to periodic
fires. Taylor Alexander in a series of studies of the National Key Deer
Wildlife Refuge covering parts of Big Pine Key documented the incursion of
hardwoods in the absence of fires in the Refuge between 1951 and 1968.
Control burning is now conducted periodically by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service on Federal lands within the Refuge in order to maintain pinelands
which provide the only remaining habitat of the Florida Key deer, a small
race of the Virginia white -tail.
Development practices in pinelands must take into consideration the extreme
susceptibility of pines to damage. If the roots or bark are injured by
clearing, trucking, or operation of heavy construction equipment, the tree
becomes susceptible to invasion by the pine bark beetle. It takes five to
ten years for the tree to succumb, and it is common to see pines that were
thoughtfully preserved in development become yellow, lose their needles and
die in a few years. One method of avoiding such injury is to leave a pro-
tective ring of native vegetation around the pines and incorporate them both
into the landscape design.
DOMINANT VEGETATION OF THE KEYS PINELANDS (Dickson, 1955)
Slash pine
Silver palm
Indian grass
White indigo berry
Christmas berry
Pineland croton
Yellow root
Love wine
Locust berry
Pinus elliottii
Coccothrinax araentata
Sorghastrum secundum
Randia aculeata
Crossopetalum ilicifolium
Croton linearis
Morinda royoc
Cassytha filiformis
Byrsonima cuneata
E. Endangered, Endemic, Threatened, and Rare Plant Species (Little, 1976)
(The term 'endangered species' means any species which is in danger of extinc-
tion throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The term
'threatened species' means any species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future if current trands continue. A 'rare
species' has small numbers of individuals throughout its range, which may be
restricted or widespread, and may become endangered if environmental conditions
become more adverse. The term 'endemic species' applies to a species whose
range is limited to a particular area, usually small.)
The Keys tropical forests have a relatively high species diversity compared
to temperate forests and quite a few species are rare, occurring nowhwere in
the United States. All rare tropical species do occur elsewhere, more ex-
tensively in the West Indies; and are therefore, not endangered throughout
their range.
Only about 13 species of native trees are confined to the Florida Keys and
absent from the mainland. However, all these species are found in the West
�r Indies, thus neither endemic nor threatened with extinction. Nine of these
are very rare and endangered locally and nearly extinct in Florida. Five of
of the nine very rare species are found on the Lower Keys and 3 on the
Upper Keys, and 1 has varieties in each group. (See the following TABLE).
Furthermore, there are two species ( Simpson Stopper in the Upper Keys
and South Florida Slash Pine in the Lower Keys) which are considered
endemic varieties in South Florida.
Additionally, about 38 species of native trees have restricted ranges in
both the Florida Keys and the mainland at the southern end of the
peninsula. All are native in the West Indies, and some in continental
tropical America. Nearly all are recorded within Everglades National Park
or National Key Deer Refuge on Big Pine Key, some on both.
ce RARE SPECIES OF FLORIDA KEYS
(Little, 1976)
COMMON NAME/ PRIMARY DISTRIBUTION
BOTANICAL NAME
1. Tree cactus Through Lower Keys, but mainly on
Cereus robinii Big Pine
2. Copey clusia Reported on Big Pine, Sugarloaf,
Clusia rosea Cudjoe and Bahia Honda Keys. Very
rare on Little Torch
3. Florida cupania
Very rare at Watson Hammock on Big
Cupania lag bra
Pine Key. They were also reported
on Johnson and Summerland Keys
4. Lignumvitae
Rare on Upper Keys. Found sparsely on
Guaiacum sanctum
Lower Matecumbe, Upper Matecumbe, and
Plantation Keys and Key Largo. Pre-
served in the State park on Lignum Vitae
Key,(named for this tree)
5. West Indies fasebox
Wild on Lower Keys: Sugarloaf, Cudjoe,
G minda latifolia
Middle Torch, Ramrod, Little Torch,
No Name, Big Pine, Howe Keys. Re-
ported also on Vaca, Boot, and Grassy
Keys
6.
Buccaneer - palm
Recorded as native from Long Key, but
Pseudophoenix sargentii
were introduced and transplanted on
other islands, such as Upper and Lower
Matecumbe Keys
7.
Yellowheart
Several trees were found within Bahia
Zanthoxylum flavum
Honda State Park and one on Marquesas
Key
8.
Acacia
One tree growing and undisturbed in
Acacia choriophylla
northern Key Largo. Others are within
the Key Deer Refuge on Big Pine, and
the Bahia Honda, Key Largo State Parks
9.
Long -spine acacia
Found as wild trees on Ramrod Key
Acacia macracantha
10. Pisonia Found on Big Pine and nearby Keys
Pisonia rotundata
11. Milkbark Recorded as abundant on Key Largo.
Drypetes diversifolia Also noted on Bahia Honda, Vaca,
Boot, Big Pine, Cudjoe, Big and
Little Torch, Sugarloaf, Ramrod,
Grassy, Plantation and Long Keys
we
12. Caribbean princewood
Exostema caribaseum
Located on Big Pine, Plantation,
Upper Matecumbe, Largo and Ramrod
Keys
13. Bahama maidenbush Located on Key Largo and abundant
Savia bahamensis in the Lower Keys such as Big Pine,
Little Torch, Sugarloaf, No Name
and Ramrod Keys
NOTE: Species 1 thru 9 are considered very rare and endangered
locally and nearly extinct in Florida
Species 10 thru 13 are confined to the Florida Keys and
absent from the mainland.
In addition to these rare species, several hardwood trees, because of their
rarity and great commercial value, have been threatened with extinction in
the Keys. Such species include: (Weiner, 1977)
Machineel Hippomane mancinella
Soldierwood Colubrina elliptica
White Ironwood Hypelate trifoliata
Torchwood Amyris elemifera
Satinleaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme
B-10
ENDANGERED (OR THREATENED) PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCUR IN (OR NEAR) MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Oct., 1977)
COMMON/SCIENTIFIC
NAME
1. Florida Royal Palm
Roystonea elata
2. Tree Cactus
Cerus robinii
3. Apple Cereus
Cereus gracilis
4. Fossett Florida Hornwort
Ceratophyllum floridanum
5. Coontie
Zamia integrifolia
6. Florida Key Senna
Cassia Keyensis
7. Blodgettii's Sage
Salvia blodgettii
8. Sand Flax
Linum arenicola
9. Carter's Flax
Linum carteri
10. Florida three awned grass
Aristida floridana
11. Florida Gramagrass
Tripsacum floridanum
12. Tropical Curly -grass
Schizaea germanii
13. Bahama Horse
Solanum bahamense
PRIMARY DISTRIBUTION
I'N MONROE COUNTY
Common in the Everglades National
Park and in the hammocks of the
Florida Keys
Found from the lower Florida Keys
north to Big Pine Key
Indication of occurrence in
Monroe County around the Big Pine
Key area
Possibly located in the Big Pine
Key area
Northern Florida Keys and the
southern extreme of Big Pine Key
Monroe County (No specific
location available)
Probably located on the Keys
west of Big Pine Key
Monroe County (No specific
location available)
Monroe County (No specific
location available)
Monroe County (No specific
location available)
Monroe County (No specific
location available)
Probably on the Upper Keys
Probably between Big Pine Key
and Key West
B-11
II. MAN'S INTERACTION WITH NATURAL VEGETATION
With the discovery of the Florida Keys in the Sixteenth Century man's
activities which could induce long-term effects on natural vegetation in-
creased substanially. The impact of man's intensified interaction with
natural vegetation in many instances resulted in the decimation of rich
climax communites and elimination of some species that were once prevalent
in the Keys. Early utilization of the natural vegetation in the Keys was
primarily limited to activities such as: logging of hardwood trees to obtain
timber for building construction and charcoal making; clearing of unwanted
vegetation by homesteaders for farming endeavors; and the construction of
railroad and the Overseas Highway. In the more recent times, activities
associated with urban development in general account for much of the
destruction of natural vegetation. These development activities were
particularly more pronounced in the Upper Keys where large areas of tropical
hammock and other lush vegetation were transformed into barren rockfields.
Some of these areas have remained undeveloped and are being slowly recolonized
by new vegetation. Also posting threat to the integrity and continued existence
of natural vegetation, particularly upland carmunities, are: the theft of plant
specimens, tree poaching, vandalism, fire, and misuse by the general public.
A recent survey of the Keys' Hammocks documented the existence of all these
problems.
In the public sector activities, road building and ditching for mosquito
control have been found to have severly impacted the natural vegetation in the
Keys. In summarizing the results of the research and field investigations
conducted during the Florida Keys Hardwood Hammock Project, Arthur H. Weiner,
(1977) concluded:
"Roads cut through hammocks and wetlands for access and survey purposes,
destroy considerable amounts of vegetation, and permit the establishment of
a community characteristic of a much earlier seral stage. Roads through
wetlands are particularly devastating. Normal drainage patterns are disturbed,
oftentimes causing considerable stress to the natural systems. The weight of
the heavy equipment and subsequent motorized traffic destroys the ground cover
and compacts the soil on unfilled roads. This compaction makes it difficult
for the salt tolerant vegetation to become re-established and re -stabilize
the topsoil.
Many of these roads were found to begin in wetlands and continue through
upland areas. Vehicular weight and destruction of vegetation results in deep
ruts which permit tidal waters to intrude into the hammock. This, in turn,
has created a persistent saline soil condition which promotes the development
of salt tolerant vegetation in an upland zone. In some areas, the effects
have been so pronounced and long-lived, that buttonwoods and mangroves now
exist in areas which were previously hammock in character.
Mosquito ditching has an even more pronounced and longer lasting effect.
These trench systems, designed to drain upland areas, have also permitted
salt water intrusion into upland areas. This saline influence has impacted
ground water supplies, destroyed the character of the hammock, and has per-
mitted the establishment of saltwater wetland associations into upland areas.
Clearing for these ditches initially destroyed large tracts of hammock. The
spoil banks adjacent to the ditches are quite rocky and unstable, preventing
re-establishment of a ground cover."
B_12
Most of the destruction of natural vegetation thru road building and
mosquito ditching has occurred in the past when these activities were
routinely carried out virtually uncontrolled. But, the situation has
changed significantly in the recent years with the introduction of a wide
range of -State and Federal environmental legislation currently regulating
these activities in the public interest.
The practice of mosquito control thru ditching remains a highly disputable
issue with the center of argument being not so much its usefulness or efficacy
as its environmental impact. The same is also true of the use of chemicals
for mosquito control in which results are frequently unpredicatble and
erratic and there is also a very real problem of mosquitoes building up
resistance to certain insecticides. The latest developments in mosquito
control involve the application of biotic agents such as pathogens, parasites,
and predators, as well as biological manipulation of mosquitoes. But these
techniques are still in the experimental stage and their practical application
is years away.
At the present time, mosquitoes are controlled in Monroe.County by way of
existing ditches and chemical spraying both of which are considered, to a
lesser or greater degree, environmentally detrimental. With the existing
State and Federal regulations strongly discouraging digging of new ditches,
the primary emphasis in Monroe County at the present time is placed on
maintaining the existing ditches and chemical spraying consistent with
acceptable control and lawful application. In the present circumstances, it
is imperative that various methods of mosquito control be assessed and
compared with each other in terms of their potential costs and benefits.
Introduction of undesirable exotic species such as Australian pine,
Brazilian pepper, Melaleuca, etc., also poses a potential threat to the health
and survival of native vegetation in the Keys. Most such exotic vegetation
has a detrimental environmental impact. It frequently requires high
maintenance, has no natural pests or diseases, spreads easily, and has a
neutral or even negative value to wildlife. Such forms grow to the exclusion
and detriment of native plants and wildlife.
It is recommended that natural vegetation be used for landscaping (trees,
shrubs, and ground covers) because it is adjusted to the local environment
(soils, water cycles, nutrients, insect pests, etc.) and generally does not
require the expensive, destructive, and polluting maintenance (watering,
fertilizing, spraying) that exotics require. Furthermore, the native fauna
is adapted to utilize native vegetation (for cover, nesting, food, etc.)
and loss of natural vegetation will, therefore, reduce wildlife. Discussion
and listing of undesirable exotic species and desirable native and
ornamental trees and plants are presented in the latter portion of this
section.
The Keys' natural vegetation was historically regarded as having little
or no economic value to the landowner. It was treated as something which
must be removed or destroyed so that the land may be used for development
or to produce an income commensurate with the cost of ownership. But,
with the growing understanding of our environment, we have come to realize
that what was once considered economically worthless or of little value;
in fact, performs numerous cost-free services highly valuable to the
community. Among these services are provision of habitat for various wild-
life species, air purification, noise reduction, retardation of runoff
B- .13
and retention of soil moisture, prevention of shoreline erosion,
buffering of storm surges, maintenance of area aesthetics, utilization of
excess nutrients, and filtration of sediments and pollutants which may
endanger water quality in adjacent areas. Replacement of these natural
services and amenities by technology could come, if at all, only at an
extreme public and private expense. Sound land use planning and manage-
ment, therefore, must take into consideration the need to preserve as
much natural vegetation as possible. It is understood that removal of
vegetation, to a certain extent, will occur almost invariably in the
process of development, and even with the most conscientious planning
efforts, certain degree of landscape modification can hardly be avoided.
However, with careful planning and site design considerations and using
discrimination in the removal of natural vegetation wherever unavoidable,
landscape modification can be kept to a minimum and the natural character
of the area can be preserved.
III. EXISTING CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Federal Level: Protection of natural vegetation as a resource falls within
the purview of Federal jurisdiction only in conjunction with broader environ-
mental legislation such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the
Endangered Species Act. One of the most effective and widespread controls
over natural vegetation associated with wetlands springs from the Environ-
mental Regulatory Program implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers. Under
the provisions of the Section 404 of the FWPCA, a permit is required from
this agency for the filling of wetlands adjacent or continguous to all waters
of the United States. And since vegetation is used as an indicator of wetland
territory extent, removal of mangrove and associated vegetation constitutes
alteration of wetland and, therefore, subject to Corps regulatory controls.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, requires the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service to prepare a list of endangered or threatened species of plants and
animals and, establish and implement a conservation program. It further
authorizes this agency to acquire land to protect the habitat of endangered
and threatened species with funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
State Level: As part of the State water quality program, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation regulates certain activities which
may reasonably be expected to be sources of pollution. Dredging and filling
in State waters is one such activity subject to DER's regulatory controls
under the provisions of Chapter 253, F.S. For management purposes, dredge
and fill jurisdiction has been limited to natural bodies of water, their
landward extent being defined by a vegetative species list, and to
artificially constructed bodies of water which connect to natural bodies of
water. All mangrove and associated vegetative communities contiguous to
natural bodies of water are defined as submerged lands in Section 17-4.02
of the Florida Administrative Code. Regulatory controls over dredge and
fill activities in these areas complement the Federal regulations (under
Section 404 of FWPCA) protecting wetlands.
The Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, reflecting the statutory intent
of the Land Conservation Act of 1972 (Chapter 259, F.S.), provides an
excellent mechanism for protecting areas or resources sensitive to develop-
ment, particularly areas which need to be kept intact and unaltered. This
B-14
program should be used to the extent necessary to preserve representative
units of each type of ecological system in the State and protect rare and
endangered species of plants and animals. This program is administered
by the Department of Natural Resources which establishes guidelines for
program administration and screens and appraises proposals for acquisition.
Proposals for State acquisition may be made by any source.
Local Level: Direct control over natural vegetation is exercised at the
local level by enforcing two County Ordinances: the Site Clearing & Tree
Protection Ordinance, No. 18-1975, and the Shoreline Protection Ordinance,
No. 17-1975.
The Site Clearing & Tree Protection Ordinance requires a permit for land
clearing within the unincorporated area of Monroe County and provides for
the maximum protection of tropical hardwood hammock communities and
individual palm trees and tree cactus of certain species. The performance
standard requirements of this Ordinance are directed toward saving intact
areas or 'clumps' of hammock by incorporating these areas into the develop-
ment design. Palm trees and tree cactus of the following species are
required to be individually protected through selective site clearing:
Buccaneer Palm
Cabbage palm
Coconut palm
Date palm
Paurotis palm
Royal palm
Silver palm
Key thatch palm
Florida thatch palm
Washington palm
Tree cactus
Pseudophoenix sar4entii
Sabal palmetto
Cocos nucifera
Phoenix dactylifera
Acoelorrhaphe wrightii
Roystonea elata
Coccothrinax ar entata
Thrinax morrissii H. Wendel)
Thrinax radiata Lodd
Washingtonia filifera
Cereus robinii
It is stongly recommended that this list of species to be individually
protected be expanded to include additional species of special concern and
significance such as the rare, endangered, and threatened species as listed
in the preceding pages.
The Shoreline Protection Ordinance provides protection to shorelines and
associated mangrove communities. It establishes a shoreline protection zone
with the interior boundary at a line extending 50 feet laterally upland from
the landward limit of the shoreline mangroves. While restricting uses
and activities in this zone, the Ordinance establishes performance standards
for permitted uses and prohibits landfill within the zone.
For planning and administrative purposes at large, the County Planning
Department maintains a set of natural vegetation maps of the Keys prepared
by the Coastal Coordinating Council. At the scale of 1" = 2000', these maps
illustrate the Keys' major vegetative communities such as: pioneering red
mangrove, red mangrove, black and white mangrove, mixed mangrove, scrub/
young red mangrove, distrubed mangrove, Buttonwood transition, tropical
hammock, upland scrub hammock, disturbed hammock, cactus hammock and pineland.
B-15
Although limited to major vegetative communities only, the maps are an
excellent planning tool. The cartography of these maps reflects considerable
precision and the accuracy limit as small as 1 to 5 acres. These maps should
be updated and refined on a continuing basis so as to maintain and enhance
their utility.
RM
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. ALEXANDER, T. (1955), Observations on the Ecology of the Low Hammocks of
Southern Florida. Quart. Jour. Fla. Acad. Sci. 18(1), 1955,
2. ALEXANDER, T.R. & J.H. DICKENSON, III. (1970), Vegetational Changes in
The National Key Deer Refuge. Quart. Jour. Fla. Acad. Sci.,
Vol. 33(2): 81-89,
3. ALEXANDER, J.R. (1972), Vegetational Changes in the National Key Deer
Refuge II. Quart. Jour. Fla. Acad. Sci. 35(2): 85-96,
4. BROWDER, JOAN (1975), Energy Flow Unit Model and Vegetational Survey
of a Tropical Hammock of the Florida Keys. Unpublished Manuscript,
Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Environmental Engineering.
5. CARLTON, J.M. (1974), Land Building & Stabilization By Mangroves:
Environmental Conservation Vol. 4, No. 4,
6. CRAIGHEAD, F.C. (1964), Land Mangroves & Hurricanes. Fairchild Tropical
Garden Bul. V19, No. 4.
7. "CP,AIGHEAD,F.C. (1971), The Trees of South Florida I: University of
Miami Press. Coral Gables, Fla.
8. CRAIGHEAD, F.C. (1974), Hammocks of South Florida In Environments of
South Florida: Present and Past, Patrick Gleason, ed. Miami Geol. Soc.
Memoire 2,
9. DAVIS, J.H., (1940), The Ecology & Geologic Role of Mangroves in Florida.
Papers from Tortugas Laboratory, Vol. XXXII, Sept. 27, 1940.
10. DICKENSON, J.D., III. R.O. WOODBURY: T.R. ALEXANDER(1953), Checklist
of Flora of Big Pine Key, Florida, and surrounding Keys. Quart. Jour.
Fla. Acad. Sci., Vol. 16, No. 3, P181-197,
11. FORSGREN, T. (Coordinator), (1976), The Conservation & Management of
Tropical Hardwood Hammocks in the Florida Keys. Bureau of Land & Water
Management, Fla. State Dept. of Administration.
12. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council (1974), Florida Keys Coastal Zone
Management Study, Dept. of Natural Resources, State of Florida,
13. HANLON, F., F. BAYLER: G. VOSS (1975, Guide to the Mangroves, Buttonwood,
and Poisonous Shoreline Trees of Florida, The Gulf of Mexico, and the
Caribbean Region. Sea Grant Field Guide Series No. 3.
14. HEALD, E.J., W.E. ODUM: D.C. TABB(1974), Mangroves in the Estuarine
Food Chain. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past,
(W Patrick Gleason, ed., Miami, Geol. Soc. Memoire 2,
15. KUENZLER, E.J. (1974) Mangrove Swamp Systems in Coastal Ecological Systems
of the United States, Opum, H.T. et al, ed. Conservation Voundation
P346-371, Univ. N. Carolina Inst. Marine Sci., Raleigh, 3 vol.
B- 17
16. LITTLE, E.L. (1976), Rare Tropical Trees of South'Florida. U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture- Forest Service, Conservation Research Report No. 20.
17. LUGO, A.E.: S.C. SNEDAKER(1974), The Ecology of Mangroves. Annual Review
of Ecology & Systematics, V5.
18. MARTIN, EUNICE. What are Those Mangroves Worth? Accounts, Ecologists
Team Up, The Miami Herald, August 17, 1977.
19. PRITCHARD, C.H. (1978) Florida Palms. Florida Naturalist. V51, No. 1,
P 12-25.
20. ROBERTS, LT. R.E., (1975), Report on February 28 and March 1, 1975.
On -Site Inspection of the Cove Point Area on Key Largo. Environmentally
Endangered Lands Program Dept. Natural Resources.
21. ROBERTS, LT. R.E. (1975), Report on March 4, 1975, of an on -site
inspection of the Southwest corner or Ramrod Key. Environmentally
Endangered Lands Program, Department of Natural Resources.
22. ROBERTS, LT. R.E. (1975) Report on June 19, 1975, on -site Inspection of
the North Key Largo proposal, Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.
Dept. of Natural Resources.
23. TEAS, H.J., (1974), Mangroves of Biscayne Bay. Metropolitan Dade County
Commission.
24. TEAS, H.J.(1977), Ecology and Restoration of Mangrove Shorelines in
Florida: Environmental Conservation, Vol. 4, No. 1.
25. WEINER, ARTHUR H., (1977), Summary Report of the Florida Keys Hardwood
Hammock Project, Phase I, National Audubon Society, The Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.
ME
DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE SPECIES
FOR LANDSCAPING IN THE KEYS
The information that follows was developed by the Monroe County Branch of
the Florida Cooperative Extension Service in consultation with the County
Horticulture Advisory Committee. The objective is to disseminate this
information to the public so as to discourage the deliberate planting of
undesirable exotic species and to encourage the use of native trees and
desirable ornamentals in landscaping.
A. UNDESIRABLE EXOTIC SPECIES
Introduction of undesirable exotic species as listed below poses a potential
threat to the health and survival of the Keys' native vegetation. The potential
environmental problems associated with each one of these exotic species are
elicited in the discussion that follows. The species to be discouraged are:
Australian pine Casuarina equisetifolia, and
casuarina lepidophloia
Cajeput (paper tree) Melaleuca quinquenervia
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Coconut palm Cocos nucifera, var. Jamaican Tall
Oleander Nerium oleander
Various rubber Ficus spp.
trees and figs
The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia and Casuarina lepidophloia only).
Although this species does have some beneficial value, on the whole it is
regarded as an undesirable species throughout South Florida for certain
environmental reasons. One of the primary reasons being that if planted on
beaches where sea turtles breed, it is thought that it will destroy their
nesting sites by making it impossible for them to dig. In addition, it is a
highly competitive plant species and few other plants can grow near it. It
is a vigorous growing species and its roots are quite capable of doing
extensive damage to sidewalks, driveways, septic tanks, sewer lines, seawalls,
and if planted too close to house foundations, will create problems there also.
The homeowner needs to be especially warned against planting C. equisetifolia
because it readily reseeds itself and once started will rapidly reproduce
seedlings all over a wide area, completely dominating and outcompeting other
desirable species, unless continued attempts to control its numbers are made.
The species C. lepidophloia is also undesirable for planting in the Keys
because of its propensity for suckering at its root system. Cutting the
tree's roots only serves to induce more suckering until the homeowner is
faced with a dense forest of suckers. Total removal of all roots when a tree
is cut down is a near impossible task in the Keys because of our soil system,
but this is the only option available to the homeowner who wants to get rid
of this species, short of using strong chemicals that would be non -selective
in their kill. The species C. cunninghamiana is a species that does not seed
as freely as C. equisetifolia and does not sucker as C. lepidophloia. It is
Bx-1
DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE SPECIES
FOR LANDSCAPING IN THE KEYS
The information that follows was developed by the Monroe County Branch of
the Florida Cooperative Extension Service in consultation with the County
Horticulture Advisory Committee. The objective is to disseminate this
information to the public so as to discourage the deliberate planting of
undesirable exotic species and to encourage the use of native trees and
desirable ornamentals in landscaping.
A. UNDESIRABLE EXOTIC SPECIES
Introduction of undesirable exotic species as listed below poses a potential
threat to the health and survival of the Keys' native vegetation. The potential
environmental problems associated with each one of these exotic species are
elicited in the discussion that follows. The species to be discouraged are:
Australian pine Casuarina equisetifolia, and
casuarina lepidophloia
Cajeput (paper tree) Melaleuca quinquenervia
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Coconut palm Cocos nucifera, var. Jamaican Tall
Oleander Nerium oleander
Various rubber Ficus spp.
trees and figs
The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia and Casuarina lepidophloia only).
Although this species does have some beneficial value, ,on the whole it is
regarded as an undesirable species throughout South Florida for certain
environmental reasons. One of the primary reasons being that if planted on
beaches where sea turtles breed, it is thought that it will destroy their
nesting sites by making it impossible for them to dig. In addition, it is a
highly competitive plant species and few other plants can grow near it. It
is a vigorous growing species and its roots are quite capable of doing
extensive damage to sidewalks, driveways, septic tanks, sewer lines, seawalls,
and if planted too close to house foundations, will create problems there also.
The homeowner needs to be especially warned against planting C. equisetifolia
because it readily reseeds itself and once started will rapidly reproduce
seedlings all over a wide area, completely dominating and outcompeting other
desirable species, unless continued attempts to control its numbers are made.
The species C. lepidophloia is also undesirable for planting in the Keys
because of its propensity for suckering at its root system. Cutting the
tree's roots only serves to induce more suckering until the homeowner is
faced with a dense forest of suckers. Total removal of all roots when a tree
is cut down is a near impossible task in the Keys because of our soil system,
but this is the only option available to the homeowner who wants to get rid
of this species, short of using strong chemicals that would be non -selective
in their kill. The species C. cunninghamiana is a species that does not seed
as freely as C. equisetifolia and does not sucker as C. lepidophloia. It is
Bx-1
(W also somewhat tolerant of mushroom root rot which is believed to be potential
threat to C. equisetifolia plantings in the Keys. It has the other dis-
turbing characteristics, however, of being a vigorous competitor with other
plant species, particularly many of our native trees. It also is capable
of creating problems for seawalls, sidewalks, and other structures. For these
reasons, C. equisetifolia and C. lepidophloia should be discouraged in the
Keys landscape and the use of C. cunninghamiana should be viewed with a great
deal of prior considerations.
The Cajeput, Punk tree, or Paper tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) has one
overriding feature which makes it an outlawed species in many South Florida
areas, its ability to self -seed itself and to quickly outcompete other
vegetation in the area. Once established, butting the tree down simply causes
it to resprout quickly. For whatever reason, in the Keys themselves, this
tree species is not observed reproducing in the wild on its own (except
on rare occasion). On the mainland it most frequently reproduces on sites
where fresh water is nearby. It is suggested that perhaps environmental
conditions in the Keys are not as suitable for naturalization of this species
in the wild as they are in areas such as the Everglades. The property owner
should still be advised against planting this species in the Keys since it
is confirmed that the Melaleuca is a frequent cause of respiratory problems
for a significant portion of the general population when it is in bloom.
The Florida holly, or Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius)offers
a particularly menacing threat to the existence of other native plants on
the Keys and the mainland. Both the male and female plants offer distasteful
features. The male plant produces a vaporous flower exudate, when mature,
which is irritating to many people. The female plant produces bright red
berries which are ingested by bird species who then sow the defecated seed
over wide areas increasing the plants wild populations. The tree, when cut,
suckers quickly and the use of non -selective strong chemical killers or re-
moving the major part of the root system is the only permanent way to assure
destruction of the established tree. Both the female and male trees have a
sap that a significant number of individuals in the general populace show an
allergy to. It is suggested that this species should be strongly discouraged
in the Keys for these reasons. With time it it also hoped that natural plant
predators or a significant disease pathogen will move in to control its
populations in the wild.
The coconut palm,variety Jamaican Tall (Cocos nucifera, var. Jamaican Tall),
in light of its high susceptibility to the Lethal Yellowing disease and the
fact that to date no good control measures exist for this disease except
to plant resistant varieties, should be discouraged. The key to preserving
the coconut tree population in South Florida is to cut down on the populations
of susceptible varieties by encouraging their gradual removal, or thinning,
and replacement with resistant or tolerant coconut varieties such as the
Malayan Dwarf and Maypan. Continued planting of the Jamaican Tall and other
highly susceptible coconut varieties can only prolong the potential threat
of a Lethal Yellowing epidemic occurring in one of the Key's communities.
Oleander (Nerium oleander) should be discouraged from cultivation in the Keys,
particularly in public areas. Although this plant grows quite well with
minimum care and does not offer any problems to native plant species by being
a potential vigorous competitor, it is considered to be the most poisonous
plant currently seen in numbers in the Florida Keys.
Bx-2
Although many native plants such as the machineel and poisonwood must not be
overlooked for their toxic potentials, it is the oleander that has the greatest
potential for actually killing Keys residents. Because it is commonly seen in
ornamental.plantings, it offers repeated opportunities for ingestion by small
children or the unwitting adult who is simply chewing on a leaf that he has
unthinkingly pulled from a nearby plant. As little as one or two leaves may,
according to some authorities, be sufficient to cause death in a child, if
ingested. The smoke from burning branches can also be quite toxic. In view
of the fact that, in some areas of the State, the Department of Transportation
has begun to post signs warning of the toxicity of this plant along roadsides,
and in view of the current frequency with which governments are being sued by
individuals for actions which constitute a hazard to public safety, it is
suggested that this plant should not be used in public planting of any sort
in the Keys. It is further suggested that the Key's homeowner be advised of
the potential for liability when this plant is used in his landscape.
Various rubber trees and figs (Ficus spy) with the exception of the edible fig
(Ficus carica) offer great potential for destruction to seawalls, house
foundations, sidewalks, driveways, septic tanks and sewer lines here in the
Keys. They are highly competitive with other plantings. There are several
species that are considered native in the Keys and in the wild they have not
been observed to offer a significant threat to other native vegetation over
a wide area. Their use in the landscape should be discouraged, however, in
the Keys unless lot size is large and they are planted at a distance greater
than 50 feet from seawalls, sewer lines and various foundations, because of
the potential threat they offer to these structures.
In reviewing the other species of plants that are often discouraged in other
areas of South Florida for their ability to be strong competitors with native
vegetation, it is concluded that the following do not, at the present time,
offer any real threat to Keys natives: coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis),
Caesar bur (Urena lobata), rosary pea (Abrus precatorius , air potato
(Dioscorea bulbifera , Brazilian jasmine Jasminum fluminense), blasam pear
(Momordica charantia var. abbreviata), velvet bean Mucuna deerin iana),
Chinese fever vine (Paederia foetida), kudzu (Pueraria thunbergiana),
rattlepods (Crotalaria incana, C. striata, C. retusa and C. spectabilis and
C. mucronata), castor bean Ricinus communis). It is noted that increased
plantings of these species might, with time, cause a potential problem.
B. DESIRABLE NATIVE SPECIES FOR LANDSCAPING
It is suggested that the following natives be encouraged on the basis of being
low maintenance (i.e., requiring minimum fertilizer, no supplemental water
once established, and tolerating associated pests without the need for
complicated or extensive control measures). In each case, it is assumed that
the individual has improved the soil to a level that equals or exceeds the
fertility and/or physical structure of the soil type these plants would
naturally grow in. In areas where an attempt at preservation is being made,
it is assumed that no major disturbance is being made to their root systems
in the way of scarification, grade changing, or artificial covering with
materials such as pea rock or plastic mulches which would detrimentally affect
their survival.
Bx-3
NATIVE SPECIES FOR AREAS SUBJECTED TO WIND AND CLOSE TO SALT WATER
'A
Trees:
red mangrove
black mangrove
white mangrove
buttonwood
seagrape
mahoe
portia
seven-year apple
wild dilly
paradise tree
pigeon plum
autograph tree
Small trees to small plants:
cocoplum
Bay -cedar
sea -lavender
inkberry
necklace pod
spider lily
swamp lily
beach morning-glory
Trees:
Rhizophora man le
Avicennia If
germinans
Laguncularia racemosa
Conocarpus erecta, also
Coccoloba uvifera
Hibiscus tiliaceus
Thespesia populnea
Casasia clusiifolia
Manilkara bahamensis
Simarouba glauca
Coccoloba diversifolia
Clusia rosea
Chrysobalanus icaco
Suriana maritima
Tournefortia gnaphalodes
Scaevola plumieri
Sophora tomentosa
Hymenocallis keyensis
Crinum americanum
I omoea pes-caprae
C. erecta var. sericeus
NATIVE SPECIES IN CENTER ISLANDS OR
SOIL SITES WITH DEFINITE "A" HORIZON AND DRAINED CONDITIONS
cabbage palm
buccaneer palm
Jamaica thatch palm
Key thatch palm
silver thatch palm
Joe -wood
torchwood
cats -claw
mahogany
Lignum Vitae
gumbo -limbo
Jamaica dogwood
wild tamarind
Geiger tree
wax myrtle
lancewood
tallowwood
Sabal palmetto
Pseudophoenix sargentii
Thrinax floridana
Thrinax microcarpa
CoccotFirinax argentata
Jacquinia keyensis
Amyri s el emi fera
Pithecellobium unguis-cacti
Swietenia mahagoni
Guaiacum sanctum
Bursera simaruba
Piscidia piscipula
Lysiloma latisiliqua
Cordia sevestena
Myrica cerifera
Nectandra coriacea
Ximenia americana
Bx-4
mi1kbark
soldierwood
satinleaf
mastic
strongbark
princewood
blolly
black ironwood
stoppers
Small trees to small plants:
Mayten
blackbead
Cupania
sweet acacia
Florida Trema
marlberry
limber caper
buckthorn
saffron -plum
snowberry
darling -plum
Randia
locust -berry
Tetrazygia
wild coffee
C. DESIRABLE ORANMENTALS
Drypetes diversifolia
Colubrina elliptica
Chrysophyllum oliviforme
Mastichodendron foetidissimum
Bourreria ovata
Exostema caribaeum
Pisonia discolor
Krugiodendron ferreum
Eugenia myrtoides, E. �sim sonii,
E. acillaris, E. rhombea and E.
Maytenus phyllanthoides
Pithecellobium guadalupense
Cu ania glabra
Acacia farnesiana
Trema micrantha
Ardisia escallonioides
Capparis flexuosa
Bumelia reclinata
Bumelia celastrina
Chiococca alba
Reynosia septentrionalis
Randia aculeata
Byrsonima lucida
Tetrazygia bicolor
Psychotria undata
E. longipes,
confusa
There are many good ornamentals that do well in the Keys. They also should
be encouraged for the reason that they too should be considered low
maintenance selections, providing that the property owner again realizes
that the soil he is working with, in many cases (particularly on fill sites),
is at a primitive evolutionary stage and needs improvement by the addition
of organic matter through initial soil incorporation and continued organic
mulching practices to bring it to the advanced level which will support these
suggested ornamental species:
ORNAMENTALS FOR AREAS SUBJECTED TO WIND AND CLOSE TO SALT WATER
Trees:
Washington palm
coconut palms
Norfolk Island
Jerusalem thorn
tropical almond
black olive
Tabebui a spy
Washingtonia robusta
Cocos nucifera var. Malayan Dwarf
pine Araucaria excelsa
Parkinsonia aculeata
Terminalia catappa
Bucida buceras
Bx-5
Hedges, Specimen Plants, Ground Covers:
St. Augustine grass
zoysiagrass
Spanish bayonet
Aloe spp.
Agave spp.
pencil tree
candelabra tree cactus
Kalanchoe spp.
Opuntia spp.
galingale
Carissa sue.
Ochrosia elliptica
Asparagus sprengeri
silverthorn
Ligustrum
Crown of thorns
Yucca aloifolia
Euphorbia tirucalli
Euphorbia lactea
Cyperns papyrus
except boxwood or dwarf types
Elaeagnus pungens
Ligustrum japonicum
Euphorbia milii
ORNAMENTALS FOR CENTER ISLANDS OR
SOIL SITES WITH DEFINITE "A" HORIZON AND DRAINED CONDITIONS
Note: All of the above will serve well here also.
Trees:
African tulip
bottlebrush
woman's tongue tree
orchid tree
tamarind
travelers tree
pink ball
schefflera
golden shower tree
royal poinciana
Barbados cherry
Surinam cherry
yellow -elder
sagos
Canary Island date palm
lady palm
Spathodea campanulata
Callistemon rigidus and C. citrinus
Albizzia lebbeck
Bauhinia spp.
Tamarindus indica
Ravenala madagascariensis
Dombeya wallichii
Brassaia actinophylla
Cassia fistula
Delonix re is
Malpighia lg abra
Eugenia uniflora
Strenolobium stans
Cycas spp.
Phoenix canariensis
Rhapis excelsa
Small trees to small plants - sunny area:
All the ones sited for beach conditions are suggested here.
artillery plant
shore juniper
Hotentot fig
dwarf lantana
oyster plant
blanket flower
Wedelia trilobata
Pilea microphylla
Juniperus conferta
Carpobrotus edulis
Lantana montevidensis
Rhoeo spathacea
Gaillardia spp.
Am.
Joseph's coat
(W giant toad plant
hemp plants
blood leaf
parrot leaf
yellow shrimp plant
shrimp plant
rubber vine
allamanda
snow bush
chenille -plant
spider plant
banana
coral vine
dwarf poinciana
Thryallis lag uca
Devil's backbone
Amaranthus tricolor
Stapelia gigantea
Sansevieria spp.
Iresine lindenii
Alternanthera amoena
Pachystachys lutea
Beloperone utg tata
Cryptostegia grandiflora
Allamanda cathartica
Breynia nivosa
Acalypha hispida
Chlorophytum capense
Musa spp_
Antigon leptopus
Poinciana pulcherrima
Pedilanthus tithymaloides
Small trees to small plants - shadv areas:
bromeliads
particularly Aechmea spp.
pothos
Scindapsus aureus
purple queen
Setcreasea purpurea
wandering Jew
Tradescantia fluminsis
cast-iron plant
Aspidistra elatior
lily turf
Ophiopogon japonicus
Peperomia spp.
purple Texas sage
Leucophyllum texanum
Ixora coccinea
Pittosporum tobira
orange jessamine
Murraya paniculata
Japanese yew
Podocarpus machrophylla
Plumbago capensis
copper leaf
Acalypha wilkesiana
stick aralia
Polyscias balfouriana
Monstera
Monstera deliciosa
Bird -of -paradise
Strelitzia spp.
holly malpighia
Malpighia coccigera
and Billbergia spp.
Bx-7
APPENDIX C
NATURAL LANDFORMS AND FEATURES
NATURAL LANDFORMS AND FEATURES
I. NATURE OF THE RESOURCE
A. Landforms
The Florida Keys - the term commonly used to refer to most of the
islands of Monroe County lying south and east of the Intra-coastal
Waterway - include some 97 Keys of ten acres or greater in size,
and stretch about 135 miles from Biscayne Bay to Key West for the
total land area of approximately 70,000 acres. Key Largo, the
largest and northernmost major island, is approximately 28 miles
in length and contains slightly over 21,500 acres. Twelve Keys in
addition to Key Largo are greater than 1000 acres in size, with Big
Pine Key being the largest (approx. 6,000 acres). All of these
islands are of low elevation with about 90% of the land area lying
less than 5 feet above mean sea level. Portions of a central ridge
on Key Largo attain elevations of 10-15 feet, and Key West contains
some 250 acres between 8 and 15 feet above m.s.l. This low lying nature
of the Keys makes them extremely susceptible to storm flooding.
B. Geology and Hydrology
The Florida Keys are composed of Pleistocene limestone islands fringed
variously with sheet deposits of sand and mud. Geologically, they are
a continuation of the Florida mainland exposed to the surface as the
sea level dropped. There are two distinct rock formations making up the
geologic base of the Keys. These are referred to as the Key Largo
Limestone and Miami Oolite.
The Key Largo Limestone formation is an extremely porous and permeable
rock unit consisting of an ancient coral reef. It underlies all the
Keys except the Lower Keys (from Big Pine Key to Key West) where it is
submerged beneath the Miami Oolite. The Miami Oolite is typically a
soft, white to yellow, cross -bedded, sandy, pure limestone. It is much
less permeable than the Key Largo Limestone and tends to confine natural
recharge better than the Key Largo Formation. This results in the
occurrence of some potable water at the top of the water table in some
locales (primarily Big Pine Key and Key West). But the majority of the
Keys is underlain by a shallow, brackish to saline aquifer, largely un-
suitable for use as a potable water supply without extensive treatment.
The hydrological characteristics of the Keys are quite complex and rather
atypical due to the peculiar formation and configuration of the islands.
The Upper Keys receive an average of 25-50 inches of rainfall each year,
and the Lower Keys average 25-35 inches. The porous limestone substratum
C-1
allowsrapid mixing of fresh rainfall with sea water. Due to the low lying
(W land with very slight slopes, surface drainage is not well developed in
the Keys. Most of the surfact runoff is by means of sheet flow with some
drainage by tidal creeks and creek systems.
C. Topography and Physiography
Generally, the Upper Keys exhibit a more or less regular increase in
elevation with a corresponding progression of different types of vegetation.
This regularity of gradient is primarily controlled by the structure of the
old coral reef subject to erosional processes even today. The Lower Keys,
on the other hand, are an example of lagoonal formation, still very close
to sea level, and more prone today to sedimentary processes of accumulation
than the Upper Keys. The land elevations in the Lower Keys are generally
lower than the Upper Keys and the gradient very slight and irregular.
The shoreline is extremely convoluted and irregular and the nearshore
surface shows a jumbled pattern of humps and depressions reflected in the
mixture of vegetation patterns until rocky upland with more regular
gradient is encountered.
The windward side of the entire Keys chain reflects the energy of the
prevailing wind and wave regime (circulation pattern and energy) and exhibits
intermittent progradation (building -advancing) reflected in coastal mangrove
forests and degradation (erosion to grade -retreating) reflected in rocky
shores. On these shores, the shoaling bedrock platform is eroded back to
where it effectively dissipates much of the wave energy. As sea level rises
it degrades further and the portions below effective wave energy become
covered with marine muds. The shoreline actually retreats landward.
The leeward shoreline is the side of lower energies and both Upper and Lower
Keys show patterns of accumulation. In the Lower Keys, marine sedimentation
dominates and accumulative features such as immature anastomising mudbanks
are actively forming. In the Upper Keys (geologically older) such mudbanks
are stabilized and mature, and coastal mangrove forests have extensively
transgressed into the bay as much as 4 km in places, where not subject to
erosive currents.
D. Typical Land and Water Units
The complexity and uniqueness of the composition and structure of the Keys
are so great and the major physical and ecological differences between the
Upper and Lower Keys as well as between individual islands so outstanding
that it would take a major research project to list and identify every
single land form and feature. This certainly is not the objective of this
report, nor is such a level of sophistication absolutely essential,
however desirable it may be from the scientific point of view, to the
purpose of this element. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to list and
describe major land and water units found in and around the Keys on the
basis of the information presently available. A generalized concept of
the Keys environmental units and systems is illustrated in a cross-section
profile in FIGURE C-1. Some of these units and systems are discussed at
length in the sections dealing with marine and vegetative resources. The
others, also considered significant from the resource management standpoint,
C-2
are described briefly below:
Coastal Wetlands and Intertidal Zone:
The coastal wetlands and intertidal zone consists of narrow beach areas,
shallow mud and sandbanks, salt ponds, and mangrove areas which are exposed
or partially exposed at low tide. Tidal ranges are low in the Keys, but
the typical lack of appreciable slope to the shorelines results in large
expandes of such areas fringing most of the islands, with mangroves and
salt ponds being the most extensive components.
Salt Pond¢ -
These are shallow, enclosed basins with very restricted tidal influence
and generally having extremely variable salinity and temperature. This
characteristic is directly related to the season of the year and the
rainfall/evaporation budget. Due to these extremes in, salinity and
temperature, conditions are adverse for most organisms found in coastal
wetlands. For these reasons, such areas have populations restricted to
specialized organisms able to tolerate the rigorous environment. Such
populations tend to change with salinity fluctuations caused by alternating
periods of rainfall and drought.
Although salt ponds in the Keys do not appear to be nearly as productive
as salt marshes in general, their value as an important breeding and
feeding ground for a wide range of bird population cannot be under-
estimated. In regard to their ecological importance in terms of environ-
mental productivity,data is presently unavailable. Recognizing this lack
of information, it would be necessary for the County to exercise a great
caution in managing these areas so as to preclude any potentially
irreversible commitment of this resource before its nature, character,
and functions are adequately understood.
Shallow Mud and Sand Banks
The shallow mud and sand banks adjacent to the mangrove fringe, seemingly
devoid of life to the untrained eye, actually are teeming with small to
microscopic life forms that represent a major part of food chains leading
up to species of interest to man. Filling of such areas can have very
serious repercussions on sport and commercial fisheries in the Keys.
Since these habitats occur where land and water meet, they are in an area
that traditionally has been in great demand by man. However, because of
the natural values of these areas to man and because they require major
modification before development can occur, these and other intertidal
areas should not be sacrificed for development except under conditions of
overriding public need or in cases where anticipated damage is shown to
be short term and minor.
Florida Bay and Hawk Channel Islands
These are stabilized islands vegetated by red mangrove associations and
other communities found in Florida Bay, Gulf side of the Lower Keys and
seaward of the Keys on theAtlantic side. They are built by peat,sediment
accumulations, shell hash and layers of hurricane marl. The islands may
C-3
b 0
:9 N Z T
O �. c'' C. n -1 C
N 3
cam. -1
MII ID (
0.-- .-.3 M
�• N w 0
O F �• Z
-i� Z N Z w 0 << II
w 0
M cT d
C �•
N S
O O II w
MN' c 0
II (D 6 rt
J w J 0
t0
rY N n 'O w rt -+. w
O �• w n J
t
Z P t0
3 Z
(D w
J --'
3 0_
C n
N O -' O
£ ID w N
ID rD < n n w d
-• O
N n �• O
�• C n+ 3
-'II -•
n Z -�
w N fD
(D O
:c ID
N O. -' 0 3
N •--� F 3
• rD
w w O. N �•t0 (D 'S
w
N rD
l0 << w
F C II 0_
ID
o Z
z w /D
MO
J N J
C M IDrD
S S ID O w J
Z Z N �. Z O.
N O
S d
N
J
O. Z O
ID
o- M
d N w••
S £
�• C T N -� �•
d P �. O J• fD O
O c
z n
O M
-1, w
Z •O T
'S w -�
-q a
t0 N J d N II
N (D
'S
P M
�c- o
o
s o
rt ID J N
O
S ID rp Q O N S
w O
O �• M
J S
a f* J 3
Z O
a :c
M J
N S Z
0, m P
rD n d II
a II
S£ �•II C O
rt 3 J n
(D
ID
(D 3
? ID
Z �+ �• n
o II z P c �. �c
n w
N -s
J �• �
N --+rp .
O w j
O N �• X
0
m
II 0 N J
(D
J w i0
F O_ cf
N d (D
J 33 0
a �• O
fD J J
=
m mw J< C
rt �< o � II
-' fD
J N
O
<<
ct �• C
ft -. C
cam.
mO Z
c
0 o o c rD
-1' "D o O. w Z
nII
rD
M
w n n
J -�• rt
P �+rn z
O O w ID
• n -A M
N
M1 + 0--�
N w J71
n
O
T
rt c* �•
N
rt a lD O.
rr d M '<
3 N
N
3
0
0
0
j£ N£ w CO • w << w -5 w
S Z rp rp �. w
N< N rt ID
O D_ n N rF
a O w
i-f rt J
-•. Z l? J S N
w Z S ry w
Z J N�
fD
O w- O N
0 3
>• m rt m
•N rDNP�•
0 3 w n
�cwsso
Mrr CL
.+ N c a N N
< o n
z n
3 r* w
c
N 3
a nJPrDN
mMS
(D
�oS�
rD
t0 V3i �. Z
J N d Z
�Y P C .n..
O n rD
_
w d
O �+ (D
ID
-+• O
J w
O rD Z J ct 3 ID
ry w r3D
---1 -fi
II J• S
J fZ N 1] O fD
N 300J
O w
SO N
Nd d��••
OON
�wPN
w cY
n (D S
N II ID n cn
n 'i O
S Co J J f0
w �C O
E3 r3D
3 rrDD N N 7 Z a
0 x
O X f
N �+ O
0 0 S Z J•
Z �C £ N
n
w c
w -S Z w
c nn- w D 01
N
-•• N£
J J wro
O •t0 .�
rD a o.a n
rD
a
N Z
3
N
fD O Z
J
3 O. S
f+ C
-1i N II (p
J
x w rD
nC VNi .. r0+
w w O w (p
3
< N F
0 '•C O N
N Z 0
J fD 0_
N O fD w
w<
f'l
w -.
rD
< II << M
Z J Z rD Q
w
<
yJ 3D
0
w rt 0
DPO O
n
< c
ID
C d
fr
0. ID N �. �? rD
N O
< <G J d n
rD �. S
fD
K n
H F 0 3 0 -
N, j
C O➢ O. MO
0.0
O N Z
O
rt n -III V�
OS
w cT
-0 Q to 0 0 N
J
< O
O n f�D
Z S �+ -.,
3
3 a w J N o.
o vi
F
lD fD II
O d (p Z d
J d 0 d
N F
cp ID
tD J P C
O
J O
O w C
'S
d ID
J rD �-t W
M rD
0 Z P r+
�� £
�.�
C A �.? t0
n
C. c rD
M r�D
N
J• N O 0 Z
w C IDSp-�
] d
O J N rp
M N rD t7 Pr' ••
M
N <<
w la IDe'F
t0 II (D
i rt w
J
�f w cT a
a N
S
O rD
M
C P
N 3 N
O J P X'
J O
J n
N
�. O
m
IDZ
�c'• rD r*
C
3
N a N <<
N
0
rt
T S
m
rD
n
ro 3
VD
N
0
`TJ
N
0
`cn
V
I
�
V
m
0
0 c�
Z
m
r c�
C
2
m
r-
0
D
x
m
V !
10 be structurally controlled bedrock highs, stabilized grass mounds such as
Rodriguez Bank off Key Largo, or colonized mudbanks. Many have been shown
to be underlain by anomolous topography, i.e., depressions in the bedrock.
The Florida Bay Islands are most frequently characterized by fringes of red
mangroves and interiors of Black Mangroves or salt marsh plants. The
interiors may be tidally connected and part of an intertidal/supra-tidal
lagoonal environment, where waters become very hot and highly saline pro-
ducing barren mud flats. Perimeters build up around the edges due to wave
energies and trapping of debris and distinct shell hash or marl beaches
may exist on the windward shores. Some islands show interior high land
which becomes vegetated by hardwoods.
Tidal Channels
Tidal channels include the passes between islands and grass flats, the major
creek systems within mangrove systems, and the linear depressions between
shallow areas. An example is Tavernier Creek. These areas of considerable
water movement provide the major access for organisms between Florida Bay
and the Florida Straits. They range in size from relatively small passages
a few yards wide and a few feet deep, to areas a mile in width and 12-15
feet in depth. Some of them serve as major navigation channels and may be
dredged for this purpose. The sides and bottom are usually grass covered.
In areas of particularly rigorous water movement, the bottom is composed of
coarse sand debris and supporting some attached invertebrates. These areas
represent a very high energy environment, and the grass and mangrove fringes
serve to stabilize them from erosive action of the water. Because of the
high energy budget associated with these features, they are to a degree
ephemeral and change course and configuration in response to changes in the
energy budget.
Tidal Deltas
These deltas are developed in response to sediment transport by tidal currents.
When tidal currents leave the confines of a restricted channel, with con-
current loss of velocity, the coarser portion of the sediment load is lost
to the bottom, forming delta deposits. For this reason, they are
characterized by relatively coarse material mixed with some finer Florida
Bay derived mud. A good example is the well developed delta at the south-
eastern end of Tavernier Creek.
Such areas generally exhibit a gradation of sediment size, with finer
materials toward the seaward edge. They are frequently grass covered and
are inhabited by a variety of fish and invertebrates. A moderately high
biologic productivity is associated with this feature.
Open Water Areas
Florida Bay is the major example of this type of feature. This very large
open expanse of shallow water is the major water area associated with the
Florida Keys. As such, it is a primary factor in the total Keys environ-
ment. Water depths here range from a few inches to 20-30 feet, but
average 8-10 feet over most of the area. This water body occupies an old
Pleistocene limestone basin and has a thin to non-existent sediment over
predominantly very fine carbonate and organic muds. It has numerous
mangrove islands on which sediment cover may develop to over fifteen feet
in thickness.
C-5
Bounded on the north by the Florida Everglades, the Keys proper to the east
(W and south, and the Gulf of Mexico to the west, this large region of shallow
water is one of great biological productivity. It is a major nursery area
for many types of fish and invertebrates. The Dry Tortugas pink shrimp
fishery, by far the largest of the Gulf Coast of Florida, is almost
completely dependent upon Florida Bay as a nursery area. Many commercially
important fin fish are also dependent upon this area.
Because of its dynamic character and shallow water depths, Florida Bay
is extremely fragile. It is particularly sensitive to dredge and fill
activities and related sediment production, disposal of toxic wastes,
and modification of the water regime in the Florida Everglades.
Enclosed Tidal Areas
This feature includes those areas which are at least partially enclosed
and subject to major tidal action. A good example is Blackwater Sound.
Such areas characteristically have very fine sediments and restricted
currents except in connecting tidal creeks and channels between enclosed
water bodies. The typical enclosing mechanisms are mangrove islands,
linear extensions of these islands as shallow banks, or by limestone
islands adjacent to the Keys proper. Sediments range from a few inches
to several feet in thickness and are usually highly organic, little
oxidized, and contain high levels of hydrogen sulfide. Much of the
organic material contained in these sediments is derived from mangrove leaf
litter and the grass flats.
The enclosed tidal areas are of major biological importance from the
standpoint of providing nursery areas for larval fish and invertebrates.
In addition, the enclosing islands and banks provide important habitat to
indigenous and migratory birds.
E. Special Features
1. Groundwater Resources
The meagre freshwater resources of the Keys, almost exclusively localized
in the Lower Keys, exist in conjunction with the Miami Oolite geological
formation which, being less permeable, tends to confine natural recharge
better than the Key Largo Limestone formation. The existence of fresh-
water at the top of the water table is concentrated primarily on Big Pine
Key and Key West. Smaller lenses also exist on No Name, Cudjoe, and
Upper Sugarloaf Keys.
The available freshwater resources of Big Pine Key, the most significant
in the Keys, are very limited. The primary freshwater bearing unit under-
lying this island, from what is generally known is a layer of Miami oolite
averaging 19 ft. in thickness. The freshwater exists in two separate
lenses,one in the northern half of the island and the other in the south.
The slightly larger northern lens is separated from the southern lens by a
low lying area (1-3 ft. above msl). The level of the lens fluctuates in
response to the tides.
C-6
The volume of freshwater in the lens is dependent on rainfall, evapo-
transpiration, lateral and vertical losses, and pumpage from local wells.
Monthly estimates of the amount of freshwater (less than 500 mg/L chloride)
ranged from 3.6 billion gallons in September, 1976, to 1.7 billion
gallons in March, 1977. Impermeable layers of "cap rock" within the
Miami oolite dampen the lens response to tidal fluctuations and reduce
evaporative losses during the dry season. The estimated maximum holding
capacity of the Miami oolite onBig Pine Key is 5.5 billion gallons. This
compares favorably with the volume of water with chloride concentrations
less than 1,000 mg/L estimated to be in the lens during September, 1976.
The freshwater lens under Big Pine Key does not constitute a major source
of freshwater. Continued freshwater skimming by means of shallow wells
or other small scale recovery systems will probably not damage the system.
However, a continued point withdrawal or large scale general withdrawal
is likely to be detrimental to the quality of the freshwater in the lens.
It is doubtful that the northern lens will be adversely affected by
prospective freshwater withdrawals because most of this area is under the
control of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Key Deer Refuge and is not
subject to development. However, the southern area which overlies that
freshwater lens is presently semi -developed or platted for future
residential -commercial development. Future withdrawals will probably be
from this area.
2. Freshwater Marshes & Ponds
During the 1977 survey of the Keys' hardwood hammocks, several small
(0.5 to several acres) upland marshes were discovered on No Name Key,
the Torch Keys, and Cudjoe Key. Water in these marshes was found to be
fresh to brackish during the summer. These marshes, while quite common
on the mainland, are unique in the Keys' predominantly marine environment.
The uniqueness of the Keys' marshes in terms of educational, scientific,
and ecological value could be attributed primarily to the distinct biota
(flora and fauna) that they support. Many of these marshes and ponds,
which may have previously existed throughout the Keys, have been destroyed
by ditching, draining, and filling. A strong and concerted research,
planning, and management effort is necessary to insure survival of the
remaining specimens of this very threatened natural system.
3. Sandy Beaches
The rare occurrence of sandy beaches in the Keys is due to the Keys'
peculiar geological structure and their location in relation to longshore
currents. The large percentage of beach material found in the Miami area
is effectively stopped by the embayment and tidal action on Biscayne Bay;
and the longshore currents are retarded by mangrove fringe and frequently
by tidal channels. Very little material is, therefore, available for
beach nourishment in the Keys. The cumulative impact of these physical
factors has left the Keys shoreline practically devoid of sandy beaches
and coastal dune formation characteristic of the northern Atlantic beaches.
C-7
The sporadic occurrence of a few sandy beaches in the Keys, most of which are
quite narrow and low in elevation, could be attributed to some wave action
and energy currents localized in certain areas along the shoreline. The
rarity of this physical feature in a recreation oriented resort area like
the Keys makes the County's available beach resources extremely valuable.
Needless to say, they must be protected to the greatest degree possible
from erosion and nearby incompatible development.
4. Strand Beach and Young Dune Formation
Distinct and well developed beach -dune formation typically found along the
Atlantic Coast of the northern counties is virtually non-existent in the
Keys. What appears, instead, intermittently along the Keys and on some of
the Florida Bay Keys is a young dune formation, quite depauperate as
compared with the northern beach -dune formation, associated with the coastal
strand. Some typical vegetation associated with South Florida beaches and
dunes occurs in these coastal strand areas.
II. MAN'S INTERACTION WITH THE RESOURCE
Practically every public or private sector activity that makes use of land
affects some natural landform or feature in one way or the other. The impact
of these activities on these physical resources is sometimes short-term;
sometimes persists over a long period of time; whereas in some cases, it
permanently alters the character of land. Activities associated with
urban development such as road building, clearing of land, dredging and
filling, channelization for residential development, mosquito control
ditching, installation of public utilities, etc., account for the major
modification of the natural landforms and destruction of many natural
features. Specifically, such activities have resulted, directly or in-
directly, in the alteration of shoreline in a manner that disregards the
forces and processes of nature, often making it more susceptible to erosion;
impediment of tidal flow and circulation; modification of natural drainage
pattern; depletion of ground -water resources and salt water intrusion; and
disruption of many ecological systems, in some cases almost to the point of
total breakdown. Most of these activities and the associated problems and
concerns are treated with greater detail under various other resource
categories (natural vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, scenic and marine
resources).
One special feature that needs further discussion here is the freshwater
acquifer underlying Big Pine Key. Development on Big Pine Key has
accelerated rapidly in the last few years. An increasing demand on the
local ground -water resource by commercial and residential users is a matter
of concern.
Water is presently withdrawn from the freshwater lens by an estimated 150
private and commercial wells. The lens is used as a secondary water
source in most cases with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority pipeline
serving as the primary source. The largest single use of water from the
lens is irrigation for lawns, nurseries, and to maintain upland pine -
hardwood forest for Key Deer habitats. No estimate of actual total with-
drawal from the lens is presently available.
WE
Saltwater intrusion which could result from excessive withdrawal is a
threat to the fresh gound-water lens of Big Pine Key. Intrusion has
occurred in some parts of the Keys due to channelization for residential
waterfront property. To a lesser extent, saltwater intrusion has occurred
in low parts of the island as a result of channelization for mosquito
control.
Recognizing the concern for the fresh -water lens generated due to an
increasing demand on this ground -water resource, a study was initiated in
March, 1976, to evaluate this aquifer and determine its volume, boundaries,
and maximum sustainable yield. The Study was undertaken by the U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resources Division at the request of the Ridge and
Lower Gulf Coast Water Management District and Monroe County. It was
hoped that the Study when completed would provide a series of criteria and
guidelines to assist in the formulation of a management plan for this
resource. Unfortunately, this Study still remains to be completed.
III. EXISTING CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Federal Level
Agencies and programs related to natural landforms and features as
treated in this report:
1. U.S. Department Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
a. Soil Survey Program: In cooperation with the
University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
detailed soil surveys are conducted throughout the
State.
b. Resource Conservation & Development Program:
Technical and financial assistance available to local
groups in conserving and developing their natural resources.
2. U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
a. Topographic Map Preparation: Preparation and maintenance
of topographic maps that show both the natural and man-made
features of the land surface, as well as elevations.
b. -Geologic Research & Investigations: A broad program of
field and laboratory research on the geology of the U.S.
c. Water Resources Investigations: A program for appraising
the quantity and quality of the water resources (surface
and ground water) in cooperation with Federal, State, and
local agencies.
C-9
3. Housing & Urban Development
National Flood Insurance Program: Provides insurance coverage
for property owners in flood prone areas. Extensive land use
and control measures for flood prone areas for localities
participating in the program are required. The program describes
land development goals which State and Local governments are
encouraged to pursue in regards to flood protection.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
a. Environmental Regulatory Program: Regulation and issuing
of permits for activities such as obstruction or alter-
ation of navigable water; construction of piers, bulk-
heads, pilings, marinas, docks, dredging, disposal of
fill or dredged material, and filling of wetlands
adjacent or contiguous to all waters of the United
States.
b. Beach Erosion Control: Restoration of eroded shores and
their subsequent preservation in cooperation with State
and Local governments.
B. State Level
1. Beaches and Shores Preservation:
The Beaches and Shores Preservation Act (Chapter 161, F.S.)
was enacted for the purpose of controlling beach erosion.
This is to be accomplished by: providing beach nourishment
and erosion control programs; regulating coastal construction;
and establishing setback lines on sand and shell beaches
fronting on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, seaward of
which construction is not occurring without authorization.
The agency responsible for the implementation of this Act is
the Department of Natural Resources (Bureau of Beaches).
Regulation of coastal construction is carried out by requiring
permits for any construction or reconstruction projects below
the mean high water line of any body of tidal water, including
groins, jetties, moles, breakwaters, seawalls, revetments,
causeways, impermeable or solid design docks, and related
structures, and any deposition or removal of beach material.
2. Geological Investigations:
Section 377.075 F.S., requires that basic geological investi-
gations of the State be undertaken in order to understand the
general geologic make-up of Florida. This responsibility is
given to the Bureau of Geology in the DNR.
3. DER's Water Quality Programs:
Dredging and filling in State waters is regulated by the DER
under the provisions of Chapter 253, F.S., as part of the State
C-10
water quality program. For management purposes, dredge and fill
jurisdiction has been limited to natural bodies of water, their
landward extent being defined by a vegetative species list, and to
artifically constructed bodies of water which connect to natural
bodies of water.
C. Local Level
Local controls over natural landforms and features are exercised, in most
cases only indirectly, by several County ordinances designed to regulate
development and protect some of the natural resources. Principally, these
include the Zoning Ordinance,Plat Filing Ordinance, Site Clearing & Tree
Protection Ordinance, Shorline Protection Ordinance, and Major Development
Ordinance. Of these, the latter two are particularly directed towards the
protection of shoreline and incorporation.of natural land features in the
site planning of major developments.
Specific regulations designed to protect special features such as freshwater
resources, sandy beaches, etc., are non-existent in the County at the present
time. Although the drilling of wells for the consumptive use of ground
water requires a County Permit, the County lacks a comprehensive management
plan and specific regulations to protect this resource. Presently, the use
of ground water is permitted for domestic use only on single family lots
provided the pbulic water supply from the F.K.A.A. is not available. For
commercial use of ground water, permits are issued after the evaluation of
the proposed use on an individual basis as long as the water is not in-
tended to be used for human consumption. For health reasons, wells are
not permitted within 75 feet of any septic system. Beyond these lean
regulations, the use of freshwater resources (ground water as well as
surface ponds) in the Keys remains almost uncontrolled.
The responsibility for the management of the Keys' freshwater resources
rests principally with the County, although the Florida Water Resources
Act of 1972 (Chapter 373, F.S.) has theoretically assigned this responsibility
to the South Florida Water Management District in the case of Monroe County.
The WMD is given a wide range of responsibilities and powers including
regulation of consumptive water use; regulation of the location, con-
struction, repair, and abandonment of wells; and preparation of any studies
necessary to manage water resources. But in practice, the Keys' ground
water resources have never been subject to the WMD's regulations since
almost all the individual consumptive uses of this ground water have re-
mained below the minimum threshold of 100,000 gallons per day over which
a permit is required from the WMD. The County while recognizing its
responsibility for the mangement of this resource lacks conclusive
scientific information in regard to the maximum sustainable yield which
could be used in developing specific regulations which while allowing
reasonable and beneficial use of the resource will restrict potentially
harmful uses and activities. The County must seek the assistance and
cooperation of the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S.
Geological Survey in getting the 1976 Study of the Big Pine Key Aquifer
completed and in developing specific regulations necessary to protect
this resource.
C-11
Local responsibilities also extend over the protection of natural drainage
pattern, tidal flow and circulation, freshwater marshes and ponds, beaches,
and young dunes. Natural patterns of drainage and tidal circulation must
be left undisturbed to the maximum extent possible by requiring the
development to conform to specific regulations and performance standards.
Special natural features such as freshwater marshes and ponds, sandy
beaches, and dunes should be inventoried and mapped as areas of particular
concern to be treated as vital areas requiring preservation to the utmost
degree possible.
C-12
SELECTED PREFERENCES
1. COASTAL COORDINATING COUNCIL, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, The Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study. pp. 105-106,
1974.
2. GLEASON, PATRICK J. ED., Environments of South Florida: Present
and Past. Miami Geological Society Memoire 2, 452p., 1974.
3. MULTER, H. GRAY, Ed. Field Guide To Some Carbonate Rock
Environments: Florida Keys & Western Bahamas. Fairleigh Dickenson
University, 415 p., 1973.
4. WEINER, ARTHUR H., Summary Report of The Florida Keys Hardwood
Hammock Project, Phase I. National Audubon Society and the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, 1977.
C-13
APPENDIX D
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES
LM
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES
I. NATURE OF RESOURCE
Typically, the diversity and density of terrestrial wildlife of an area
depends on many factors. These may include but are not limited to the
availability of suitable habitats for feeding and reproduction, distance
from point of origin and colonization ability, degree of isolation and
geological time span for speciation, and natural and man-made disturbances.
The above mentioned factors are those which have had the greatest effects
on the terrestrial wildlife of the Florida Keys. In general, the Keys are
depauperate in terms of the terrestrial wildlife components that include
birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians when compared to the North
American mainland. The mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and land birds
found in the Keys are principally of North American origin. They represent
either species at the southernmost fringe of their natural range or sub-
species which have evolved as a result of their island isolation. This
is in contrast to the native vegetation which is of tropical origin.
The terrestrial wildlife (excluding sea and wading birds) exists along a
gradient from the Upper to the Lower Keys. Higher populations and a
greater variety of both mainland and endemic forms are found in the Lower
and Upper Keys. Probably owing to less collective land mass in the Middle
Keys, these islands support less wildlife than either the Upper or Lower
Keys. During geological periods of lower sea levels many terrestrial
species were able to cross from the mainland to the Keys. Subsequent
isolation by rising sea levels provided for the evolution of new sub-
species. But due to the "young" age of the Keys as compared to other
Caribbean island groups, the time was not sufficiently long to evolve
distinctly new species. Further, immigration into and through the Keys
was limited to those species capable of traversing the expanse of water
between the mainland and the Keys, and between the individual Keys them-
selves. Thus, species capable of flight would seem the most likely recent
colonists. But bats, for instance, are rare in the Keys with the few
sightings attributed to stragglers and accidents. Land bird populations
are low in variety and abundance in much of Florida, including the Keys.
Pine woods inthe Keys, for instance, do not support the types nor numbers
of land birds typical of more northern coniferous forests.
The typical habitats that provide support for the majority of terrestrial
vertebrates in the Keys (excluding the wading birds again) may be grouped as
tropical hardwood hammocks, pinewoods, fresh water marshes, and to some
extent, mangroves. While the relative scarcity of the former three types
as suitable habitats may affect the presently residing populations, this
does not appear to have been a factor in determining which species were to
become residents.
The habitats most utilized by the wading birds include freshwater marshes,
intertidal wetlands such as mangroves and seagrass beds, and beaches. Many
species of wading and sea birds extend further north during the summer and
fall but return to South Florida and the Keys during winter and spring to
nest. The result is a -marked seasonal increase in wading bird populations
D-1
during the winter and spring months.
The Keys also play a very important part as a wintering area for land birds
that come down from the north. These wintering migrants constitute a very
significant part of the Keys' annual avian biomass. In some cases, the
wintering birds remain here for a longer period than some breeding birds;
therefore, the habitats of the Keys are equally critical to these birds.
The terrestrial habitats of the Florida Keys support a generally depauperate
fauna. Their hold is a weak one that has been recently established. As
such, these rare and endemic wildlife species represent resource whose
worth is measured in terms of their educational, ecological and scientific
value.
WILDLIFE HABITATS IN THE KEYS:
Hammocks
Tropical hardwood hammocks probably support the greatest variety and numbers
of terrestrial wildlife in the Keys. This is because the greater variety
of vegetation provides different types of food, cover, and nesting sites
for resident animals. All of the species of Keys mammals, except bats, have
been observed in hammocks. The majority of the reptiles, amphibians, and
land birds are also found in hammocks.
PinPwnndc
The pinewood areas in the Lower Keys represent a habitat most closely
resembling upland vegetation of the mainland. As such, about 40 percent of
the terrestrial mammalian species may be found there. Due to the drier soil
conditions and the resulting increased susceptibility to fire,a lower
percentage of reptiles and amphibians are found in this habitat. The po-
tential use of this habitat by North American land birds is obvious but in
reality the pinewoods of the Keys are comparatively birdless. In fact, the
pinewoods of mainland South Florida are scarcely better populated. The
reason appears to lie in a generally unfavorable climate rather than the
physical suitability of the vegetation. It is possible, however, that some
subspecies of North American land birds which have become acclimated in the
West Indies and are frequent visitors to the Keys may find this habitat
suitable.
Freshwater Marsh
The popularity of fresh water sources with terrestrial animals in terrain
so dominated by the marine environment as in the Keys needs little ex-
planation. Indeed, the smaller mammals, frogs, many snakes, and even the
alligator may be seen in the vicinity of any excuse for standing fresh
water. Fresh water marshes also support wading birds such as Ibises and
Herons.
Mangroves
Although mangrove communities are most often considered in the context
of their importance to the nearshore marine environment, they are also
important as a habitat for wading birds of West Indian origin in the Keys.
D-2
The association of mangroves and intertidal seagrass beds provide nesting
and feeding sites for these unique birds. Mangroves are also important
to several species of wintering passerine birds who rely upon this habitat
heavily. Also mammals such as raccoon, oppossum, and bobcats may be found
foraging in this shoreline community.
Beaches
Although not as diverse and developed as elsewhere along the Florida coast-
line, this habitat is utilized by wading birds, a large group of shore
birds, and some mammals such as the racoon and marsh rabbit principally
as a food foraging area. Tidal exposures provide a variety of marine
arthropods, worms, and stranded fish as food for these terrestrial animals.
Urban and Developed Areas
Included in this category, along with actual areas of human habitation, are
all those land uses that fringe man's dwellings, such as industrial develop-
ment, utilities, roadways, recreational areas, and waste disposal. Many of
the naturally occurring and endemic species of wildlife are excluded from
these areas. But some species have learned to adapt and actually utilize
this habitat. The Keys grey squirrel for instance is found in residential.
areas of Key Largo. Racoons and oppossum frequently forage in residential
areas. Several species of birds such as the Common Nighthawk and Common
Grackle have actually extended their range into South Florida apparently
in resonse to man's alteration of the environment. Additionally, man has
introduced and harbored in residential areas exotic species which have
become well established in residential areas. Perhaps, the best examples
are the black rat and the house mouse. Other species of birds, however,
may have found or will find the exotic vegetation used in landscaping of
residential areas to be a suitable habitat and thus may also become
established.
hlot 1 u n�S
In the context referred to here, this habitat may be best described as land
entirely or periodically (i.e., seasonally or tidally) submerged. Interior
wetlands may border or overlap marshes and coastal wetlands in the broadest
sense would include mangroves, seagrass beds, bays, and estuaries. These
habitats have their greatest significance in terms of terrestrial wildlife
as applied to wading and other water birds.
WILDLIFE CATEGORIES
Terrestrial Mammals
Of the fifteen species of terrestrial mammals currently considered to
inhabit the Florida Keys, seven are considered to be endemic subspecies,
found only in the Keys, and six of these are threatened or endangered. The
number of mammalian species in the islands is small, but could be increased
by adding such species as bear, Florida panther, skunk, flying squirrel,
and several additional species of bats. However, some of these species
D-3
are not verified by actual specimens and cannot be considered valid
records.
Few of the terrestrial mammals of the Keys could be considered as common.
The Keys Cotton Rat is probably ubiquitous and numerous on the Upper and
Lower Keys as its relatives are on the mainland of South Florida. The
Keys Raccoon and the oppossum are also probably widespread through the
Keys but the sizes of their populations are unknown and must be con-
sidered scarce. Most common in areas of man's influence are the Black or
Roof Rat (Rattus rattus) and the House Mouse (mus musculus); although, black
rates are very common in almost all areas of the Keys with trees, even the
offshore mangrove islands. Both of these species, however, have been
introduced to the Keys by man.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Reptiles and amphibians, along with birds are often among the first wave
of colonists to islands and are often best able to adapt to life there.
Of the nine species of amphibians known to inhabit the Florida Keys, five
are considered rare. Twenty One(21) of the 35 species of reptiles
recognized from the Keys are considered rare, endemic, threatened, or
endangered. Like the mammals, the reptile and amphibian inhabitants are
primarily derived from North American mainland stock.
Birds
The origins of land wading birds found in the Florida Keys have been
discussed previously. The listing of birds which is contained herein is
comprised of only those birds which are commonly observed in the Keys
during at least one season of the year. Of the 148 species of commonly
observed birds listed, at least 49 species are presumed to nest on one or
more of the islands.
In the wake of receding ranges of North American birds, West Indian land
birds have been consolidating or extending their range on the continent
northward. Some of these species, presently nesting in the Keys may be
lost even as winter residents as a result of this northern range extention.
Again these changes are probably the result of climatic changes about
which man can do nothing. On the other hand, conservation of the presently
almost birdless pinelands of the Lower Keys may induce reinvasion of the
West Indian subspecies of Pine Warblers and American Kestrals.
As pointed out earlier, the wintering land birds are a very important part
of the Keys' avifauna. Many species of these birds are in the Keys for a
longer period than some breeding birds. The land bird population is much
higher in numbers of individuals and in diversity of species from mid -
August to mid -May than it is during the late spring and summer months. In
view of this fact, it is realized that meagre fresh water resources of the
Keys could be of critical value to moving migrants and should be afforded
due weight in deliberations concerning resource management decisions.
D-4
II. MAN'S INTERACTION WITH RESOURCE
The most widespread and serious impact of man's activities in the Florida
Keys on wildlife falls under the general category of degradation or
destruction of suitable habitats. The major activities in this category
are associated with landscape alteration for man's purposes.
Dredge and fill operations have most often been contested with concern for
the marine environment. But this activity also affects terrestrial wildlife.
Shoreline alteration by dredging and filling destroys foraging areas of
wading birds. Upland dredging may also hasten saltwater intrusion into
fresh water marshes and interior wetlands destroying this critical focal
point for terrestrial animals and birds.
Land clearing for development for housing, businesses, roadways, utilities
rights -of -ways, etc., also results in the reduction of vegetative habitat
for wildlife. Clearing and "table -topping" disrupts surface water flow
over natural contours which can ultimately lead to the eventual, although
indirect, destruction of a hammock or marsh.
Urban requirements for solid waste disposal (land -fill) present compound
problems on the effects on wildlife. The land clearing results in the
inevitable habitat destruction. In addition, there is the increased danger
of fire and the inevitable maintenance of populations of unwanted introduced
species such as the black rat.
Historically, man's activities such as lumbering,specimen collecting,
poaching, mosquito ditching, and commercial plummage collecting, when
conducted on a large scale, greatly affected wildlife populations. These
activities are no longer publicly condoned but may still exist on a
smaller individual scale. As such, they continue to threaten the already
scarce wildlife populations of the Keys, but perhaps, not as much as the
wholesale destruction of habitats.
On the other hand, man's alteration of the landscape has opened new
habitats for the invasion of additional wildlife as well as hastening the
dispersal of already established species. The development of residential
areas, waste disposal land fills, golf course, and airports has apparently
aided such bird species as the Common Nighthawk and Common Grackle in
extending their ranges into the Keys. It is also apparent from wildlife
records that the dispersal of the Keys raccoon throughout the Keys was
greatly aided by the building of the railroad and subsequent highway
bridges.
The spraying of insecticides for mosquito control is still conducted in
the Florida Keys. Although the effects of insecticides on the water birds
of northern coasts has been well studied and documented, the effects of
these chemicals in the aquatic systems of Florida are as yet unknown. High
concentrations of persistent insecticides have been found in the eggs of
some estuarine birds, but the only direct mortality established to date
was due to chemical misuse in Homestead. No decline in the populations of
the species considered the most susceptible (Brown pelican, Bald Eagle,
�r Osprey) can be directly traced to pesticide contamination.
D-5
The use of exotic vegetation in residential landscaping provides a made -to -
to order habitat for many species of exotic animals introduced as pets.
Escapees may find it possible to survive and out -compete pressured native
species for food and breeding grounds. Florida, as a whole, already
sustains alarmingly diverse populations of such escapees.
The offshore lighthouses have been responsible for killing a large number
of migrating birds in years past. This, however, has little effect on the
native species. But, since the Keys lie across one of the major migration
routes to the Caribbean and South America, this certainly is a matter of
concern. It also brings to light the possibility of an impact on birdlife
of TV antennas, communication towers and powerlines.
The proximity of the shipping lanes to the Keys raises the possibility of
oil spills. The greatest impact on the wildlife component would be felt
by the water and shore birds. Past oil spills in the vicinity of the Keys
have been localized and infrequent. Incidents on a worldwide basis have
been increasing steadily in frequency. Groundings of tankers and accidents
on offshore oil wells have taken their toll of water birds on other coasts.
Since water birds are one of the most diverse wildlife components in the
Keys, the possibility of an oil spill is of particular concern.
III. EXISTING CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Federal Level
Concern for conservation and protection of wildlife resources
is reflected, directly or indirectly, in a wide range of Federal
Legislation requiring a number of Federal agencies to implement
necessary programs or exercise regulatory controls. Among such'
agencies are:
Department of Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Bureau of Land Management
Department of Commerce
National 114arine Fisheries Service
Department of Agriculture
Animal Health & Plant Quarantine
Consumer Protection Service
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Treasury Department
Bureau of Customs
Environmental Protection Agency
The most significant responsibility for wildlife protection rests with the
Fish & Wildlife Service which carries out its functions in this regard
primarily thru the following three programs:
AM
Although not directly related to wildlife protection, the Shoreline
Protection Ordinance and the Site Clearing & Tree Protection Ordinance,
by way of minimizing destruction of natural vegetation, also play an
effective role in protecting wildlife habitats.
H•
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
LEGEND:
u Population Status
1= Rare
2= Endemic
3= Threatened
4= Endangered
o Location (See Maps) Specific Keys
A= Upper Keys
1=
Key Largo
B= Middle Keys
2=
Lignumvitae
C= Lower Keys
3=
Big Pine
4=
Torch Keys
5=
Cudjoe
6=
Sugarloaf
7=
Stock Island
8=
Key West
NOTE:
Number codes refer to specific
Keys from which animals have been
recorded.
o Natural Habitat Types
1. Hammocks
5.
Beaches
2. Pinewoods
6.
Residential
3. Marsh
7.
Standing fresh water
4. Mangroves
8.
Wetlands, coastal and/or
inland
Notes:
1. Scientific names listed only for those species of special concern, i.e.,
Endemic, rare, threatened or endangered.
2. Bird species marked with * are presumed to nest in the Florida Keys.
D-10
�✓ TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
FLORIDA KEYS
Common/Scientific Name
Population
Location
Natural
Status
Habitat Type
MAMMALS: Species of Special Concern
Key Largo Cotton Mouse
2,4
A,l
1
Paromyscus gossypinus allapaticola
Key Largo wood rat
Neotoma floridana smalli
2,3,4
A,1,2
1
Orange rice rat
Oryzomys palustris coloratus
1
A,1
1,3
Everglades cotton rat
Sigmodon hispidus spadicipygus
3
A,1
1
Keys cotton rat
Sigmodon hispidus exputus
2
A,C
1,2,3
Keys grey squirrel
Scturus carolinensis matecumbei
2
A,1
1,6
Bobcat
Lynx rufus
1
A
1,2,3,4
Keys raccoon
Procyon lotor auspicatus
2,3
A,B,C
1,2,3,4,5
Marsh rabbit
Sylvilagus palustris paludicola
1
-
1,3,5
Key Deer
Odoeoileus virginianus clavium
2,4
C,3,4,5
1,2,3
Silver rice rat
Oryzomys (new species)
2,4
5
1,3
Opossum
Didelphis virginiana
1
3,8
1,2.4
Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus subflovus floridanus
1
6
-
D- 11
IM
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
FLORIDA KEYS
Common/Scientific Name Population Location
Status
AMPHIBIANS: Species of
Special Concern
Southern Toad
Bufo terrestris
Oak Toad
Bufo quercicus
Narrow mouthed toad
Gastrophryne caroiinensis
Green tree frog
Hyla cinerea
Squirrel tree frog
Hyla squirella
AMPHIBIANS: Common species
Spade foot toad
Green house frog
Cuban tree frog
Southern leopard frog
1
REPTILES: Species of Special
Concern
American crocodile 4
Crocodylus acutus
American alligator 3
Alligator mississippiensis
Key mud turtle 2,3
Kinosternon bauri bauri
Diamond(mangrove) backed terrapin 1,2
Malaclemys terrapin rhozophorarum
Peninsula cooter 1
Chrysemys floridana peninsularis
C,3,8
3
C,4
C,3
C,3
A,C,4
A,B,C
C
C
3,7
Natural Habitat
Type
1
D- 12
(4w
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
FLORIDA KEYS
Common/Scientific Name
Population
Location
Natural Habitat
Status
Type
Reef Gecko
2
C
1
Spaerodactylus notatus
notatus
Ocellated gecko
1
8
1
Spaerodactylus argus
Yellow headed gecko
1
8
1
Gonatodes albogularis fuscus
Brown(Key West) anole
2
A,B,C
1
Anolis sa rei stejnegeri
Green bark anole
1
8
1
Anolis distichus domincensis
Ground skinks
1
A,B
1
Leiolopisma laterale
Southeastern five -lined skink
1
C,3,4
1
Eumeces inexpectatus
Keys red-tailed skink
2
A,B,C,4
1
Eumeces egregius egregius
Mangrove water snake
1,2
A,B,C
Natrix fusciata compressicauda
Peninsula ribbon snake
1,3
C
1,7
Natrix sauritus sackeni
Florida DeKay's (brown) snake
1,3
C,3,4
1
Storeria deKayi victa
Key ring necked snake
2,3
3.4
1,2,3
Diadophis punctatus acricus
Eastern indigo snake
3
C
1
Drymarchon corais cou eri
Corn (red rat) snake
3
1
Elapheguttuta utg tuta
D-13
CW
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF
THE
FLORIDA
KEYS
Common/Scientific Name
Population
Location
Natural
Status
Habitat
Type
Rim rocks crowned(Miami)
Black -headed snake
2,3
1
-
Tantilla oolictica
Coral snake
1
1
-
Micrurus fulvius fulvius
REPTILES: Common Species
Striped mud turtle
Florida box turtle
Mediterranean gecko
Ashy gecko
Green anole
Six lined race runner
Black racer
Keeled(rough) green snake
Florida cottonmouth
Diamond backed rattlesnake
Yellow rat snake
Scarlet King snake
BIRDS: Species of Special Concern
* Mangrove cuckoo
1
A,B,C,
1,4
Coccyzus minor
* Bald eagle
3
A,B,C
8
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
* Magnificant frigatebird
3
C
8
Fregata magnificens rothschildi
* Great white heron
2,3
A,B,C
8
Ardea herodius occidentalis
* Osprey
3
A,B,C
8
Pandion haliaetus
* Brown pelican
3
A,B,C
8
Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis
D-14
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
FLORIDA KEYS
Common/Scientific Name
Population
Location
Natural
Status
Habitat
Type
* White corwned pigeon
2,3
A,B,C
1,4
Columba leucocephala
* Least tern
3
A,B,C
5
Sterna albifrons
* Roseate tern
3
A,B,C
5
Sterna dougalli
* Black wiskered vireo
1
A,B,C
1,4
Vireo altiloquus
* Prairie warbler
1
A,B,C
1,4
Dendroica discolor paludicola
BIRDS: Common species
common at least during one season per year)
*Bird species marked with * are presumed to nest in the Florida Keys.
(See the following pages)
D-15
Smooth -billed ani
Western kingbird
*
Red -winged blackbird
Belted kingfisher
Bobolink
Ruby -crowned kinglet
Indigo bunting
*
Swallow-tailed kite
Painted bunting
Knot
*
Cardinal
Common loon
Catbird
Purple martin
*
Double -crested cormorant
Red breasted merganser
Black -billed cuckoo
*
Mockingbird
*
Yellow -billed cuckoo
Bahamian nighthawk
Dowitcher
*
Common nighthawk
*
GNound dove
Baltimore oriole-
*
Mourning dove
Orchard oriole
Dunlin
Ovenbird
*
Cattle egret
*
Barn owl
Common egret
*
Burrowing owl
Reddish egret
*
Great -horned owl
Snowy egret
*
Screech owl
Peregrine Falcon (duck hawk)
Black -bellied plover
*
Common flicker
Piping plover
Yellow -shafted flicker
Semipalmated plover
*
Great -crested fly catcher
*
Wilson's plover
Scissor -tailed fly catcher
*
Clapper rail
Common gallinule
American red start
Gannet
Robin
Blue -grey gnatcatcher
Sanderling
American goldfinch
Least sandpiper
*
Common grackle
Semiplalmated sandpiper
Horned grebe
Solitary sandpiper
Pied -billed grebe
Spotted sandpiper
Blue grosbeak
Stilt sandpiper
Bonaparte's gull
er
Western sandpiper
*
Laughing gull
Yellow -bellied sapsucker
Herring gull
Lesser scaup
Ring -billed gull
Audubon's shearwater
Broad -winged hawk
Black skimmer
Marsh hawk
Common snipe
Pigeon hawk
Sora
Sharp -shinned hawk
House sparrow
*
Red -shouldered hawk
Savannah sparrow
Sparrow hawk
*
Roseate spoonbill
*
Great -blue heron
Starling
*
Little -blue heron
*
Black -necked stilt
*
Green heron
Barn swallow
*
Louisiana heron
Tree swallow
*
Yellow -crowned -right heron
Black tern
Ruby -throated hummingbird
Bridled tern
*
White ibis
Caspian tern
Killdeer
Common tern
Eastern kingbird
Forsters tern
*
Gray kingbird
Noddy tern
D-16
Royal tern
Sandwich tern
Sooty tern
*
Brown thrasher
Ruddy turnstone
Blue -headed vireo
Red -eyed vireo
*
White -eyed vireo
Yellow -throated vireo
Turkey Vulture
Black and white warbler
Black -throated blue warbler
Black -throated green warbler
Black -poll warbler
Cap -may warbler
Myrtle -warbler
Orange -crowned warbler
Palm warbler
Parula warbler
Prothonotary warbler
Tennessee warbler
*
Yellow warbler
*
Yellow -throated warbler
Louisiana waterthrush
Northern waterthrush
*
Chuckwill's widow
Whip -poor -will
Willet
*
Pileated woodpecker
*
Red -bellied woodpecker
*
Carolina wren
House wren
Greater yellowlegs
Lesser yellowlegs
Common yellowthroat
D-17
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. CONANT, ROBERT, 1975. A Field. Guide to Reptiles & Amphibians of
Eastern & Central North America. Houghton Nifflin, Boston, 429pp.
2. DUNFORD, DAN. "Protecting Habitat: Can We Hold On?" in 1976 Florida
Wildlife, Vol. l(1).
3. Florida Committee on Rare & Endangered Plants & Animals, July 1976.
Inventory of Rare & Endangered Biota of Florida, Florida Audubon
Society.
4. FRYE, O.E., JR., 1974. "Threatened Species of Florida Wildlife" in
Florida Wildlife Vol. 27(12): 15-19.
5. LAYNE, JAMES N., "Land Mammals of South Florida", in Gleason, Ed.:
Environments of South Florida: Present & Past, Memoir 2, Miami
Geological Society: 386-413, 1974.
6. LAZELL, JAMES D., Terrestrial Vertebrates of the Florida Keys,
Massachusetts Audubon Society. 10 pages.
7. ROBERTSON, W.B., JR., and J.A. KUSHLAN, The Southern Florida Avifauna,
Everglades National Park, 414-452.
8. SIMPSON, C.T., 1932, Florida Wildlife, MacMillan Co.,New York.
9. U.S. Department of the Interior, Birds of the National Wildlife
Refuges on the Florida Keys. Refuge Leaflet 150-RZ, May 1970.
10. WEINER, ARTHUR H., Summary Report of The Florida Keys Hardwood
Hammock Project: Phase I,
FQW
APPENDIX E
SCENIC RESOURCES
SCENIC RESOURCES
I. INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 specify that visual values in the environment
be given full consideration, and that standard methods be developed
to facilitate evaluations of the visual quality in the environment.
In pursuance of these acts, a number of visual quality research
projects have been undertaken. While testing and experimentation
have yielded results, little practical application of these results
has ensued.
The existing assessment techniques largely focus on one of two
visual -cultural variables: visual landscape complexity and visual
landscape compatibility.2 The results of the early research indicate
that landscapes which are visually complex provide a greater degree
of "pleasingness" or "interestingness" than do undifferentiated land-
scapes. Based on the values of landscape contrast and diversity and
on their contribution to the value of landscape complexity, landscape
architects can identify areas of "high visual quality". The visual
landscape compatibility variable is much less understood than is land-
scape complexity. But it is agreed that the land uses neighboring any
special visual -cultural resource seem to be extremely important to the
value attached to that resource.
Furthermore, it has been proven by recent studies that disturbance of
natural landscape elements affects the visual quality of the overall
landscape.
A study of the visual quality of the tidal creeks of Southwest Floridal
indicated that within creeks of similar eco-systems the least disturbed
creeks rank highest in visual quality and the most disturbed creek the
lowest. The results of the study suggest that lack of a diversity of
natural vegetation and the presence of seawalls, residential develop-
ment and other man-made objects, if not properly located and designed,
have the potential to drastically lower the scenic quality of a
landscape. Furthermore, it was learned that people prefer natural
landscapes over urban -suburban landscapes and that a variety of
vegetational features such as well developed, overhanging canopies,
species diversity, and scaler variations contribute most to the scenic
quality of a landscape.
II. NATURE OF SCENIC RESOURCES IN MONROE COUNTY
The Florida Keys' landscape derives its particular brand of charm from
the unique blend of its natural resources in an exotic physical set-up.
The high visual quality of this landscape attracting both tourists and
residents to this area gives scenic resources a value far greater than
E-1
(W any other natural resource. But unlike most other resources which
can be precisely defined, quantified, and objectively dealt with,
the scenic value of a landscape is an intangible resource dealing
mainly with sucjective matter - people's preference and perception.
However, by examining various factors which contribute to the scenic
quality, the nature of this resource can be understood.
The very physical make-up of the Keys - a long and narrow chain of
islands linked by a number of bridges - in itself sets up a stage
for unique visual experience. Perhaps the most integral component
of the Keys' landscape is the view of open water in perfect blend
with mellow skyline. The waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf
of Mexico, and the sky create a backdrop for a variety of natural
features to manifest. Such natural features primarily include
beaches and shoreline, wide assortment of islands in the surrounding
waters, vegetative communities such as mangroves, hardwood hammock
and pineland, and wildlife. Together they create a landscape in
which the visual profile is more horizontal than vertical since the
relative flatness of the Keys' topography prevents land masses from
protruding high enough against the horizon.
Identification of the Keys' scenic resources is a necessary step
toward their protection. Despite the sporadic occurence of urban-
ization, which in most cases has a degrading effect on the landscape,
the entire stretch of the Florida Keys can still be viewed as a scenic
area. The natural scenic quality of the Keys is created by the
intense inter -relationships of the Keys' scenic landscape characteris-
tics and features.
Scenic Landscape Characteristics: The basic landscape characteristics
of the Keys are addressed below:
1. Skylines are the very sensitive junctions between land or
water masses and the sky throughout the Keys.
2. Island masses are the non-contiguous small and large
islands covered with vegetation and viewed against a
background of blue sky.
3. Land and Water Junctions include beaches and shoreline
areas.
4. Vegetative, Soil or Rock Masses are the large areas of
vegetation, soil, and rock which form the colored and
textured surfaces which comprise the natural scenic
mosaic of the Keys.
Landscape Features: The following landscape features further define
the Keys' scenic resources:
1. Unique Vegetative Forms including unique plant communities,
large individual plants, and uncommon plants in the Keys.
E-2
2. Water Forms including ponds, swamps, wetlands, channels,
and ocean/beach areas.
3. Man-made Forms including historical sites, structures of
historical or architectural significance, and interesting
and creative engineering constructs such as some of the old
bridges.
4. Ephemeral Elements include projected and reflected images
shadows, mirror images of objects by still water), atmos-
pheric and weather conditions (clouds, sunrises, sunsets),
and animal occupancy (bird and other animal sightings).
III. MAN'S INTERACTION WITH MONROE COUNTY'S SCENIC RESOURCES
The visual quality of scenic resources of the Keys' has been greatly
affected by man-made alterations of the natural landscape resulting
primarily from activities such as road construction and residential
and commercial development. These types of alterations historically
have had long-term impact upon the visual environment. There has
been great resistance to removing these alterations after they have
been constructed because of the large initial capital outlays in-
volved and the great expense of returning a developed area to its
original natural state. Development in itself does not necessarily
cause visual resource degradation. But development practices, such
as were typical of the Keys in the past, which induce indiscriminate
destruction of natural vegetation, alteration of shoreline,
obstruction of the open view of water, and uncontrolled proliferation
of billboards, modify the natural landscape to a degree where its
scenic value is greatly reduced or totally destroyed. Discordant
and jarring architectural styles further add to the cumulative
impact of the above factors.
The scenic resources of the Keys have high degree of sensitivity
to man-made alteration. Practically any structure in the Keys is
likely to affect some landscape elements, and if located on, in,
or near a unique feature, such a structure can be destructive,
permanently removing or covering the feature, thus affecting larger
viewshed.
The long and narrow configuration of the land area increases the
sensitivity of visual landscape to alteration by making most
alterations clearly visible from the main scenic corridor - the
Overseas Highway. In addition to affecting the capacity of this
highway to function as a major traffic artery of the Keys, the
strip commercial development along the Overseas Highway has pro-
duced a strong visual impact causing modification, deterioration,
or destruction of the natural landscape.
Basically, development activities in the Keys create a negative
impact on the Keys' natural landscape by: 1) creating urban forms
\rr (buildings, roads, billboards, power lines, telephone cables, etc.
E-3
which do not conform or blend with the characteristic landscape
of the Keys; 2) by indiscriminate clearing or natural vegetation from
development sites which are left, in some cases, without any
vegetative cover for years; and 3) by placing development (including
billboards) in areas where it would obstruct the open view of water,
particularly along major scenic corridors. Other factors critical
in controlling visual impact of development on the landscape are,
1) distance of a structure from the main corridor and the shoreline;
and 2) height of the structure itself. The closer a building comes
to scenic corridors and shoreline, the greater is likely to be its
visual impact. The cumulative visual impact will multiply ex-
ponentially as the building increases in height as it gets closer
to the scenic corridor and shoreline. In order to minimize visual
impact generated by the factors described above, a structure should
be designed properly to relate to the natural environment, sited
carefully to retain natural landscape features, and adequately set
back from scenic corridors, highways, and shoreline. Those
alterations that become apparent should be visually screened from
roadways, bikeway routes, and scenic corridors.
IV. EXISTING CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Most of the existing Federal, State, and Local environmental regu-
lations contribute in one way or the other toward protection of
scenic resources. At the local level, these indirect controls spring
from the County adopted ordinances which provide for the land use
regulation and environmental protection. In accordance with the
setback requirements and height restrictions established in the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the minimum setback for a structure
abutting the Overseas Highway is 50', and generally the maximum per-
missible height is 45'. The ordinance also controls outdoor
advertising (signs and billboards) and establishes minimum screening
and landscaping requirements. The desirability of adequate setback
from the shoreline is addressed in the Shoreline Protection Ordinance
which establishes protection zone along the shoreline at 50' land-
ward from the edge of mangrove and restricts uses within this zone.
The Site Clearing &"Tree Protection Ordinance provides for the
conservation and management of hardwood hammock and prevents in-
discriminate clearing of land.
As a major step toward uplifting the visual environment along the
Keys' major scenic corridor - the Overseas Highway, the County
government in 1977 took an affirmative action in appointing the
Highway Beautification Advisory Committee. The Committee
representing a broad cross-section of the community is commissioned
to study and investigage the nature and magnitude of problems
affecting the visual environment along the highway, and make
recommendations on community actions necessary to alleviate the
existing problems and enhance the visual quality of the highway.
The initial efforts of this committee are primarily directed
toward the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to
screening and landscaping requirements; ornamental landscaping
along the highway, litter control; and control of outdoor adver-
tising. Such a broad range of controls along the Overseas Highway
E-4
will certainly help in retaining much of the natural character and
improving the urban aesthetics of this scenic corridor. In
furtherance of this action on the part of the community, efforts must
be made to promote architectural designs and forms which will be
compatible with and complement the natural landscape and bring
harmony and continuity in the urban counterpart.
Specific County policies and programs are needed governing man -
induced alterations such as development of public facilities and
private land uses.
Without policies and further controls such man-made alterations may
cause a deterioration of the scenic qualities of the Keys or
destructive overuse could occur through over -intensive recreation
and commercial activity.
Scenic policies and management programs which require that man -
induced alterations be in conformance with natural scenic landscape
characteristics need not be in direct conflict with development plans
and programs. Further, such policies need not conflict with con-
servation efforts involving wildlife, vegetation, air, climate,
water, or cultural resources. The use of these resources, however,
must be carefully managed so that conflicts with scenic quality
standards are avoided or readily resolved.
E-5
(W
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. BAKER, CHARLES SCOTT, THERESE HAYES and DAVID SMOLKER.
"Visual Quality of the Tidal Creeks of Southwest Florida".
The Fourth Annual Conference on the Restoration of Coastal
Vegetation in Florida, Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, Florida, May, 1977.
2. FABOS, JULIUS GY. and STEPHANIE J. CASWELL.
Composite Landscape Assessment, Massachusetts Agricultural
Experiment Station and University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Mass., Research Bulletin Number 637, January, 1977, pp 98-117.
3. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE.
National Forest Landscape Management Volume 1.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
February, 1973.
4. TURNER, WALTER M., JR., Urban Forester, Division of Forestry,
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. A
Special Report on the Keys' Scenic Resources submitted to
the Monroe County Planning Department.
E-6
IM
APPENDIX F
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CULTURAL RESOURCES
I. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Cultural resources of Monroe County, in particular the Florida Keys,
can essentially be divided into: 1. Prehistoric sites which once
were the living cultural centers of the early Indians who inhabited
the Keys long before the early settlers landed here; and 2. Historical
sites and structures which belong to the new era that started with the
exploration of the Keys by Juan Ponce deLeon in 1513.
The prehistory of the Keys is believed to have begun as early as 500
B.C.; however, most of the archaeological evidence found so far belongs
to the latter millenium. The archaeological remains discovered indicate
that there were small Indian tribes and family groups that inhabited
Monroe County at different times in history. The most prominent of these
were the Calusas who outnumbered the smaller tribes - the Tequestas,
the Matecumbeses, and the Lower Keys Indians; and whose dominance
presided throughout the Keys at the time when the Spaniards dis-
covered the Keys. The artifacts and refuse composed Indian middens
and remains in the mounds found on Sugarloaf Key, Big Pine Key, and
the Matecumbe Keys, also indicate that smaller groups once inhabited
the Keys some 500 years before their discovery in the early part of
the Sixteenth Century. By 1763, the Indians had disappeared from the
Keys.
Soon after the Spanish began using the Gulf Stream for commerce, the
Keys became a notorious stronghold of the pirates who, lured by the
possibility of obtaining wealth, exploited the geographical features
of the Keys in attacking the ships. The pirates of the Keys,
hurricanes, and tropical storms that wrecked many ships in the shallow
reefs, deprived Spain of a great deal of wealth lost in the Florida Keys.
After the United States purchased Florida from Spain in 1818, a special
anti -pirate squadron, led by Commodore David Porter of the United States
Navy, put an end to piracy in the Keys. With the increase in shipping,
Key West emerged as one of the greatest maritime centers in the world.
Recognizing its strategic location astride the major shipping lanes
as crucial for defense purposes, the U.S. Military established a port
in 1831 and began building a number of forts by 1845. Fort Jefferson
and Fort Taylor were about half complete when both the East and West
Martello Towers were constructed during the Civil War. Fort Taylor and
the Martello Towers were built primarily to protect Key West; whereas
Fort Jefferson, located on Garden Key in Dry Tortugas, was planned as
the largest fortification structure in the seacoast defense chain ex-
tending from Maine to Texas. With the exception of Ft. Taylor, none of
these Forts were ever finished. The principal use of Fort Jefferson
during and after the Civil War was as a prison. The Fort was abandoned
by the Army in 1874, but used as a Naval Base during the Spanish-
American War, a Seaplane Base in World War I, and an Observation Post
in World War II. It was declared a National Monument in 1935.
In 1822, Key West became the first recorded permanent settlement south
of St. Augustine, whose early inhabitants were transients and wreck
survivors, and later immigrants from England, Spain, the Carolinas,
F-1
the Bahamas and Cuba. Monroe County, named after President James
4r Monroe, became the sixth oldest County in the State when it was
formed in 1823, and included all of Florida south of Lake Okeechobee.
The Keys' economy in the early days depended upon salvaging the ship-
wrecks, fishing, salt making, charcoal making, and limited agriculture.
The Upper Keys, then, were nearly self-sufficient communities which
produced their own food and collected drinking water from shallow
wells supplemented by cisterns collecting rain water, but Key West
then, as now, depended upon many preserved food imports and cattle
stock brought from the mainland.
Wrecking remained the chief industry in the Keys for many years
attracting settlers from the Bahamas, and from Europe. But it de-
clined with the success of the lighthouse construction program. After
the Civil War, salt making industry in Key West also collapsed due to
the lack of slave labor. But during the Spanish-American War, Key
West gained in wealth and fame as a result of escalated military
activity and the success of cigar making industry.
When Henry M. Flagler started to build the Florida East Coast Railroad
through the Keys in 1906, the population of the Keys grew temporarily
in the vicinity of the railroad camps. With the completion of the
railroad in 1912, Key West was linked with the mainland. The new
transportation mode facilitated housing development and sportfishing
in the Keys and escalated business activities in Key West. A hurricane
in 1935 damaged the railroad, which was replaced from 1935 to 1938 by
the Overseas Highway constructed with financial assistance from the
Federal Government. The Highway was the major factor that was to
trigger the economic recovery of the Keys, especially Key West, after
the closing of the Naval Station and then the depression. In 1939,
the Navy re -opened the Seaplane Base and the Naval Station, and built
many facilities in Key West. In 1942, a large airfield was built on
Boca Chica Key. A pipeline was built by the Navy in 1942, which
brought a constant supply of potable water to people who had been
forced to rely upon rainwater trapped by roof gutters and held in
cisterns, or from wells.
Since the second World War, the role of military in the local economy
has gradually decreased with the present trends indicating further
decline in the influence of the military. Commercial fishing has in-
creased in importance in the Keys. But what has truly developed into
a major economic force in the Keys over the years, is the continually
increasing influx of tourists enticed by an exotic blend of natural
beauty and a rich cultural heritage.
II. NATURE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES IN MONROE COUNTY
A. Historical Resources: Because of its cultural and economic
dominance in the past, which assumes a form of antiquity, Key
West has one of the heaviest concentrations of historical sites
and structures in the nation. Needless to say, it dominates the
historical and cultural heritage of the Keys. As can be expected,
a vast majority of the historic places are located in Key West
and are, therefore, primarily under the jurisdiction of the Old
Island Restoration Commission and the Historic Key West
F-2
Preservation Board. The number of historic sites, buildings,
4W and structures, excluding archaeological and shipwreck sites,
outside of Key West, is very insignificant as compared to the
abundance that exists in Key West. An inventory of the few
historic places recognized by the State and/or the Federal
Government in Monroe County, excluding Key West is as follows:
(1) Properties recorded in the National Register of historic
places: National Register of Historic Places is an authoritative
guide used by Federal, State, and Local Governments, private
groups, and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources,
and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection
from destruction or impairment. It identifies districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects significant to the nation's
historic and cultural heritage. This register is maintained by
the National Register Office, National Park Service, U.S. De-
partment of Interior. Nominations of properties for inclusion
in the National Register are submitted by the State Historic
Preservation Officer (Director of Division of Archives, History,
and Records Management, Florida Dept. of State), and are
evaluated by the National Park Service for their quality of
significance in American History, architecture, archaeology and
culture.
The following properties in Monroe County (excluding properties
under the jurisdiction of Key West) are listed in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Place Jurisdiction Location
Ft. Jefferson Nat'l Monument Federal Dry Tortugas
John Pennekamp Coral Reef St. Pk. State Key Largo
Sand Key Lighthouse State Sand Key
Indian Key (Massacre Site) State Indian Key
Ft. Zachary Taylor St. Pk. State Key West
East Martello Tower County Key West
In addition to these, there are three more structures presently
under consideration for inclusion in the National Register. These
are: Old Bahia Honda Bridge, Seven Mile Bridge, and Long Key
Viaduct.
(2) Historical sites and structures listed in the Florida Master
Site File: there are five(5) major sites of historical significance
in Monroe County, excluding Key West, as listed in the State Master
Site File.
1. Lignumvitae Key Stone Structure (8MO14)
Type: Historic Stone Masonry Structure
2. Indian Key (8MO15)
Type: Historic Habitation and Massacre Site
F-3
3. Little Fat Deer Key (8M0117)
4W Type: Historic Campsite or Salvage Site
4. Herrera Wreck Site (8M090 (South of Islamorada)
Type: 18th Century Shipwreck
5. Loggerhead Key (8M0247 (in Dry Tortugas)
Type: Original Lighthouse and out -buildings
In addition to these, there are a number of shipwrecks listed in
the State file. The Florida Master Site File does not list all
sites and structures which are considered by the local populace,
as having cultural significance. The County should maintain a list
of locally significant historical and archaeological sites and
recommendations should be made to the State for inclusion of
significant sites in the State Master File, and to the Federal
Government for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
B. Archaeological Resources: The known archaeological sites within
the County and in Florida are "middens" and "mounds", i.e.,
deposits which are an accumulation of refuse of prehistoric people
often consisting of shells, soil, ash, charcoal lenses, rock
clusters, bones, and artifacts. Typical artifacts include shards
of pottery, hammerstones, shell picks, shell dippers, shell dishes,
shell celts, net sinkers, bone awls, bone projectile points, awls,
and a variety of ornaments made from bones, limestone, and shell.
Evidence of textile or metal work has not been discovered from the
sites of prehistoric cultures in the Keys.
Shell mounds, or middens, exist along the entire American continent
from Chile to Alaska. These remnants of prehistoric cultures which
are scattered all over the State, constitute the major source of
information about the prehistoric cultures that once flourished
in this part of the world. Mounds and middens found in Monroe
County are generally rectangular or circular, ranging in size from
20-30' to 300'. The highest mound located on Key_ Largo reaches
about 8' to 9' elevation, but usually in the Keys they range between
2' to 4' in height.
It is believed that the earliest people who inhabited the Keys
lived here some 2500 years ago. Not much is known about the early
prehistoric tribes, but it is believed that their cultural
tradition stemmed from Georgia and mainland Florida. The pre-
historic culture that flourished in South Florida is termed Glades
culture, which extended from south of Lake Okeechobee into the
Everglades and finally into the Keys. The Indians who lived on
the mainland portion of Monroe County formed two distinct groups:
the Calusas, who inhabited the inland and the coastal region, and
in later time, the Seminoles, who mainly settled inland. The
Indians of the Keys, who originated from the mainland tribes, how-
ever, developed their own distinct culture and formed several
smaller tribes dominant among which was the Matecumbeses. The
Indians who inhabited the Keys were fisherman, hunters, and
gatherers whose life-style was fully adapted to the local
F-4
environment of the Keys. This fact is well articulated by Prof.
John M. Goggin in his treatise on excavations carried out on
Orr' Upper Matecumbe Key in the 40's.
"With the probable exception of the finished clay
vessels, the flint knife, and the cypress canoe ---
there is no evidence to indicate any great
amount of importation of finished products or raw
materials on Upper Matecumbe Key. Rather the
picture is one of adherence to and delimitation by
the local environment: limestone from the Key;
bones (and possibly rawhide) from its animals;
shells from its waters; vegetal materials such as
yucca fiber, palm leaves, bark, and probably local
woods were the principal raw materials.
An interesting development was the apparent change
in economic emphasis from hunting to fishing which
was a local adaptation to environment, with the
people tending to exploit the more readily available
marine resources."
Of nearly 200 historic and prehistoric sites located in the un-
incorporated area of Monroe County and listed in the Florida
Master Site File, a little over 60% fall into the archaeological
category of which approximately 28 prehistoric sites (Indian
middens and mounds) have been identified as located in the Keys.
Most of the sites excavated and investigated to this day are
located in the Upper Keys where major archaeological investiga-
tions led by Prof. John M. Goggin were carried out in the 40's.
These and other investigations have revealed evidence proving
the presence of Indians on nearly every Key; however, there
is little knowledge indicating the existence of villages and
large permanent settlements. Villages appear to have been
located on the Lower Keys where the major prehistoric sites
are yet to be investigated or have already been destroyed by
development. Characteristically, most of the prehistoric
sites found are middens and refuse areas usually located near
the shoreline and often on the edge of the mangroves or
ceremonial and small burial sites often located in the interior,
usually hammock. All these sites, small and large, are valuable
for data collection purposes since it is important to
archaeologists to determine the inter -relationship among sites
in an effort to create the fabric of prehistoric cultures. It
must be noted that the significance of a midden or a mound
usually cannot be determined until it has been excavated and,
therefore, it is not possible to prejudge the importance of
the unexcavated sites within Monroe County.
III. MAN'S INTERACTION WITH RESOURCE
Even though the precise numbers are not known, it is believed that many
archaeological sites and some historical sites in Monroe County have been
destroyed, knowingly or unknowingly, from the use of land for agriculture and
urban development, and vandalism. Most of the prehistoric sites in the
F-5
heavily urbanized areas ofthe Keys have been completely obliterated or
(W affected to such a degree that their integrity is lost. Some prehistoric
sites were leveled off for agricultural purposes or because the sites
yielded fertile soil. A number of middens and mounds in the Keys have been
mutilated to a great extent by the removal of the soil for gardening and
the shell for road beds. Another source of destruction has been artifact
hunters who sadly have had no interest in scientific data collection. Holes
have been drilled on some prehistoric sites by treasure hunters in search
of a lost treasure or Indian artifacts. While man's activities account for
most of the loss of archaeological resources, nature also had its share
in destruction. Because of the proximity of most prehistoric sites to the
shoreline, many such sites have been ravaged by strong tropical storms and
hurricanes,but their integrity probably still exists. Also destroyed
during hurricanes were many historical structures whose antiquity makes them
highly vulnerable to damage by storms, flooding, and fire. Some culturally
significant buildings and structures have also been destroyed to make room
for new development. But, significant historical sites and structures are
assured of preservation because of the control exercised on such places by
the Local, State, or Federal Government.
Preservation of cultural resources has remained an important societal
function throughout the history. But what has emerged as a fairly recent
development is the expression of widespread public interest in such activities.
With a number of government programs reflecting such public interest,
opportunities of utilizing cultural resources for positive socio-economic
purposes such as educational and recreational uses have been greatly in-
creased.
The potential educational value of historical and archaeological sites has
been enhanced by programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health,
Education & Welfare, and the National Park Service of the U.S. Department
of the Interior. Included among these programs are: 1) National Environ-
mental Study Area (NESA) which can include any kind of environmental study;
2) the Environmental Living Program that utilizes classroom materials of
"NEED", and which uses State Parks and National historic sites for field
study; and 3) National Environmental Education Development (NEED) that
provides supportive classroom materials which can be made available to all
school systems. An ideal location for environmental living program in the
Keys is Lignumvitae Key which in addition to being a National registered
natural landmark is also a location of historical and archaeological sites
can also be used as outdoor educational centers or an Indian village might
be reconstructed on an appropriate site.
Archaeological and historical sites can also be used in many cases for out-
door recreation purposes. If the site can be seen, and its archaeological
and historical significance appreciated in an outdoor setting, the ex-
perience is considered outdoor recreation. Forts and fortifications, Indian
mounds and village sites, and old trails are examples of archaeological and
historical resources that lend themselves well to outdoor recreation
purposes. Some of the sites in the Keys have been acquired and developed
in conjunction with State parks and other major outdoor recreation areas.
Examples of recreation oriented development of historical and archaeological
F-6
sites in the Keys are John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Indian Key
4W State Park (undeveloped), Lignumvitae Key State Park (partially developed),
Ft. Taylor State Park in Key West (undeveloped), and Ft. Jefferson National
Monument, which is under Federal jurisdiction. Another example of the use
of an archaeological site for educational and outdoor recreation purposes is
the Watsons Hammock on Big Pine Key. Guided tours to this site are conducted
several times a year by the Audubon Society. Perhaps this list could be
expanded by incorporating one of the archaeological sites, particularly
the rock mound in the hammock on Key Largo, as an educational and recreational
area.
Some sites could become tourist attractions, especially if other amenities
are present such as scenic value, water, or unusual vegetation. Lignumvitae
and Indian Keys will fall into this category of sites because of their
historic and prehistoric values and the presence of other natural amenities.
Presently, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, which is listed in the
Nstional Register of Historic Places, is attracting hundreds of thousands
of tourists every year. It is important to bear in mind that prior to making
such sites accessible and attractive to tourists and public at large, adequate
measures must be taken to preserve their historic and/or prehistoric values.
IV. EXISTING CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. FEDERAL LEVEL
The most significant Federal control over cultural resources springs from
the combination of Executive Order 11593, the Historic Sites Act of 1935,
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and the Archaeology and Historic Preservation Act of
1974.
Executive Order 11593 states that the Federal Government shall provide
leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural
environment of the Nation. It directs Federal agencies to administer
cultural properties under their control and to initiate measures to direct
their activities in such a way that federally owned properties of historical,
architectural, or archaeological significance are preserved, restored, and
maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the people.
The Historic Sites Act of 1935 charged the National Park Service with
nationwide responsibility for cultural resources. It permitted the NPS
to make a survey of sites of National value anywhere in the United States.
The Act did not restict the NPS to lands under Federal ownership, or to
sites to be destroyed through Federal funding. It did permit the NPS to
make cooperative agreements with State and Local Governments, associations,
or individuals to preserve, maintain, or operate such sites for public use
regardless of ownership.
The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provided for: expansion and maintenance
of a National Register of cultural resources; granting of funds to states
for preparation of comprehensive statewide historic surveys and plans; and,
establishment of a matching grant-in-aid program to states for preservation
of properties significant in American History. Unfortunately, listing a
F-7
site on the National Register does not assure that it will be protected.
The Act does provide that Federal funds or authority cannot be used to
adversely affect a site on the National Register.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL91-190), Federal
agencies are required to consult with the National Park Service regarding
impact on historical and archaeological sites. In conjunction with
projects receivin Federal funding in South Florida, an environmental
impact statement ?(_EIS), as required under NEPA, would be reviewed by the
South Florida Regional Planning Council in its capacity as the areawide
clearinghouse for A-95 review.
The Archaelogy & Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-291) is
designed to allow Federal agencies to use up to one percent of the appro-
priated funds for a federally funded or assisted project to take necessary
measures to protect historical and archaeological sites from the potential
adverse impact of the project.. Under the provisions of this Act, limited
funds are also available through the Interagency Archaeological Services
for this purpose.
Additional Federal legislation affording some protection to historical and
archaeological sites includes: the Antiquities Act of 1906; the Reservoir
Salvage Act of 1960; the Federal -Aid Highway Acts of 1956, 1966, and 1968;
the National Transportation Act of 1966; and, to a limited extent, the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
,B. STATE LEVEL
The Florida Archives and History Act (Chapter 267, Florida Statutes)
establishes as State policy the protection and preservation of historical
sites and properties, buildings, artifacts, treasure trove and objects
of antiquity that have scientific or historical value or are of interest to
the public. The Division of Archives, History & Records Management of the
Florida Department of State, is responsible for administering the Act.
In fulfilling this responsibility, the Division cooperates with State
agencies, museums, historical societies and other organizations to collect,
preserve and exhibit historical and archaeological materials. The Division
maintains an operating agreement with the Department of Natural Resources
(Division of Recreation & Parks) whereby recommendations are made as to
historical and archaeological sites to be considered for acquisition as
part of the state parks system. The Division may also designate a significant
archaeological site or group of sites as a "state archaeological landmark
zone", and by such a designation, regulate and permit any field investiga-
tions conducted in these zones.
In addition to these functions, the Division administers three other
programs which affect land development and resource management:
Florida Inventory of Historic Sites:
Under this program, the Division is presently preparing a Comprehensive
Statewide Historic Preservation Plan which will identify important
historical, archaeological and architectural sites in the State. The
plan is to provide a data base for acquisition, preservation,
restoration and development of historical and archaeological sites.
Lo At the local level, an archaeological, historical, and architectural
survey of Key West has been undertaken by the Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management and the Historic Key West Preserva-
tion Board under this program:
2. State Historic Preservation Grants Program:
This program was begun in 1973 with the designation of the State
Preservation Program Review Council. This body is to review all
requests for State financial assistance for preservation projects
such as site acquisition, research, and the preparation of plans.
To date, funding for this program has not been provided, although
ultimately, it will be provided through a general legislative
appropriation. The Program is similar to the National Park Service's
Historic Preservation Program, however, the emphasis is on sites
of local or State significance rather than National .significance.
3. Historic Markers Program:
The Historic Markers Program is a joint program of the Division of
Archives, History & Records Management and local organizations.
Markers are placed at significant historical, archaeological, and
architectural sites throughout the State, with each marker con-
taining an informative text describing the site. Funding for this
program is provided thru 50% State and 50% Local share.
Under the Florida Archives & History Act, it is a misdemeanor to
conduct unauthorized field investigations or to appropriate, deface,
destroy, or otherwise alter any archaeological site or specimen
located upon State lands or within the boundaries of a designated
State archaeological landmark or landmark zone. While it is the
declared intention of the Legislature that field investigation
activities on privately owned lands should be discouraged, the Act
does not provide any direct protection to sites located on privately
owned lands.
C. LOCAL LEVEL
At the County level, the only available tool at this time providing
certain degree of protection to historical and archaeological resources
is the Monroe County Ordinance No. 21-1975. The Environmental
Designation Survey, Section 5(A)(3), required under this Ordinance
includes a review of historical and archaeological sites by the
Division of Archives, History & Records Department, and the Community
Impact Statement, Section 7(B)(2), includes an assessment of the
impact of development on the historical and archaeological resources.
The requirements of the Major Development Ordinance apply to large
scale development projects only (generally projects involving 5 acres
or more land). Projects on smaller parcels, or those which cannot
be designated as major developments are not covered by this or any
other County ordinance in regard to the potential impact of develop-
ment on historical and archaeological resources.
F-9
In addition to rigorously enforcing the Major Development Ordinance
COO to insure preservation and long-term maintenance of historical
and archeological sites, the County should adopt an ordinance
declaring that information contained in sites and structures of
cultural significance is of public concern, and unauthorized damage,
disturbance or excavation of such sites is unlawful. Such an
ordinance should also set forth the procedure to be followed by the
developer when a site of historical or archaeological significance
is proposed for development; or when, during the course of con-
struction, an archaeological site is accidently discovered. Public
education regarding cultural resources, and the laws and regulations
controlling them should also become a vital factor in the manage-
ment of these resources.
F-10
COUNTY
SITE
NUMBER
LISTING OF KNOWN SITES OF CULTURAL
IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
(Excluding Key West)
CORRESPONDING AREA OF
STATE INVENTORY SIGNIFICANCE
SITE NO.(if any)
SIGNIFICANCE
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
1
8MO3
Archaeological
Stone Circle
2
8MO4
11Midden
3
8MO5
Historical (_?)
Not Determined
4
8MO6
Archaeological
Midden ?
5
8MO7
if
Midden
6
8MO8
It
Midden
7
8MO9
Stone Walls, Refuse Area?
8
8MO10
Midden
9
8M011
Burial Mound
10
8MO12
Midden
11
8MO13
Burial Mound
12
8MO14
Historical
Historic Stone Masonry
Structure
13
8MO15
Historic Habitation
14
8MO16
Archaeological
Refuse Area
15
8MO17
Midden
16
8MO18
Refuse Area
17
8MO19
Midden
18
8MO20
Rock Mound
19
8MO21
Rock Mound
20
8MO22
Midden
21
8MO23
Midden
F-11
7
COUNTY CORRESPONDING
SITE STATE INVENTORY
NUMBER SITE NO. (if any)
AREA OF DESCRIPTION OF SITE
SIGNIFICANCE
22
8MO24
Archaeological
23
8MO25
"
24
8MO26
"
25
8MO27
"
26
8MO28
"
27
8MO76
"
28
8MO77
"
29
8MO88
"
30
8MO90
Historical
31
8MO117
"
32
8MO124
Unknown
33
8MO126
Archaeological
34
8MO127
"
35
8MO245
"
36
8MO246
"
Midden
Midden
Midden
Rock Mound over Midden
Rock Mound
Midden
Not Determined
Not Determined
UW-Shipwreck
Historic Campsite or
Salvage Site?
Unknown
Midden
Shell Midden
Midden
Not Determined
F-12
(W SELECTED REFERENCES
1. BAKER, HENRY. Archaeological Investigations at Indian Key,
Florida. Division of Archives,History & Record Management,
Florida Dept. of State, December, 1973.
2. BROOKFIELD, CHARLES M. and OLIVER GRISWOLD. They All Called It
Tropical. The Data Press, Miami, Florida, 1949.
3. FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 41, No. 28- Tuesday, February 10, 1976.
pp. 5902-5909.
4. GOGGIN, JOHN M., "Archaeological Investigations on The Upper Keys",
Teguesta, November, 1944.
5. GOGGIN, JOHN M. and FRANK H. SOMMER, III. "Excavations on Upper
Matecumbe Key, Florida", Yale University Publications in
Anthropology No. 41, 1949.
6. HATHWAY, JAMES A., Key Largo Island Home. The Key Largo Foundation,
Coral Gables, Florida, 1967.
7. STEVENSON, GEORGE B., Key Guide to Key West and The Florida Keys.
Southern Book Service, Hialeah, Florida, 1970.
8. WINDHORN, STAN and WRIGHT LANGLEY. Yesterday's Florida Keys.
E.A. Seemann Publishing, Inc., Miami, Florida, 1974.
RESOURCE INDIVIDUALS
1. Mr. R.L. Blazevic, Local Historian, Key West.
2. Mrs. Betty Bruce, Monroe County Public Library, Key West.
3. Dr. Donald Crusoe, Local Archaeologist, Key West.
4. Mr. Wright Langley, Director, Historic Key West Preservation Board,
Key West.
F-13
A-
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
14P Ptt Mrst Tiff tt
Published Daily
Key West, Monroe County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF MONROE)ss.
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared .
.R�c ard,EggQ� Q............... who on oath says that he is
,44TIVVIV149.1§444ggr, , ... , . , , , . , of the Key West Citizen, a
daily newspaper published at Key West in Monroe County, Florida;
that the attached copy of advertisement, being a, Notice of
Regulation of Land Use.
in the matter of
NOTICE OF'REGULATION
OF LAND USE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA proposes "to regulate.
the use of land within- the area shown in the map in
this advertisement by adoption of the "Coastal
Zone and - Conservation Element" of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public hearings on the proposal will be held at
5;30 P.M. on January -29, 1�980 at the Monroe
County Courthouse, Courtroom "B", 500 Whitehead
Street, Key 'West, Florida and at 5:30 P:M. ' on
February 12, 1980 . at the Plantation Key
Governmental Center, Plantation Key, Florida.
DATED at' Key West, Florida this 17th " day of
Januaary, A:D� 1:980: ---- -----
RALPH W. WHITE
Clerk of the Circuit Court
4rrrrtaq of Statr
STATE OF FLORIDA
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE 32304
(904) 4883680
GF.ORGE FIRESTONE.
SECRETARY OF STATE
February 26, 1980
Honorable Ralph W. White
Clerk of Circuit Court
Monroe County Courthouse
500 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Attention: Virginia M. Pinder, Deputy Clerk.
Dear Mr. White:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes,
this will acknowledge:
Receipt of your letter/s of February 19, 1980
and certified copy/ies of Monroe
County Ordinance/s No./s 80- and 8Q-3
2. Receipt of
relative to:
(a)
which we have numbered
(b).
County Ordinance/s
which we have numbered
We have filed this/these Ordinance/s in this office
February 26, 1980.
4. The original/duplicate copy/ies showing the filing date
is/are being returned for your records.
NK/mb
Cordially,
{s.)
ief,
¢ Kavanaugh
au of Laws.,
2'l5