Loading...
Item B1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY L Meeting Date: February 13, 2012 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes No X Staff Contact Person/Phone#: Christine Hurley x2517 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Consideration of a resolution to transmit to the State Land Planning Agency an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Policies 101.4.22, 101.4.24, 101.4.25, 205.2.7 and creating Policy 101.4.23 to address the clearing of upland native vegetation, as required to address the tasks identified in the 30-day Reports from the Administration Commission. ITEM BACKGROUND: The 2008, 2009 and 2010 Administration Commission 30-Day Report to Monroe County included a task to implement Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C., Work Program Tasks Year Six, Task C and Year Eight, Task F. The Work Program tasks listed above, implement the carrying capacity study by requiring the adoption of all necessary plan amendments to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands and to ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine system to accommodate additional impacts. The tasks from the 30-Day Report required Monroe County, in conjunction with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Islamorada and Marathon, to collaboratively evaluate the adopted clearing limits for high quality and moderate quality tropical hammocks and to make recommendations to bring parity between the local governments and to strengthen the protection of hardwood hammocks. In 2010, the County, in conjunction with DCA, Islamorada and Marathon evaluated the various policies and standards used by the three local governments for the clearing of tropical hardwood hammock. This evaluation was included in the DCA's Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern 2010 Removal of Designation Report. This amendment implements the recommendations, provided by DCA, regarding the clearing of tropical hardwood hammock in the 2010 Removal of Designation Report. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: N/A CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM# V Ar w kta >11 MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO. -2012 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICIES 101.4.22, 101.4.24, 101.4.25 AND 205.2.7 OF THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CREATING POLICY 101.4.23 OF THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADDRESS THE CLEARING OF UPLAND NATIVE VEGETATION. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public ( hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency a �r proposed amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment; and NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance for adoption of the proposed text amendment. Section 2: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed amendment as part of a set of comprehensive plan amendments for 2012 to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in accordance with the State Coordinated Review process pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment. ce P. 1 of 2 kar Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Director of Planning. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a special meeting held on the day of February,2012. Mayor David Rice Mayor pro tem Kim Wigington Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Heather Carruthers BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Mayor David Rice kaur (SEAL) MONROE COUNTY ATT NEY ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK // APPROVED. 410 - DEPUTY CLERK P.2 of 2 Arit4) -14 ORDINANCE NO. -2012 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICIES 101.4.22, 101.4.24, 101.4.25 AND 205.2.7 OF THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CREATING POLICY 101.4.23 TO ADDRESS THE CLEARING OF UPLAND NATIVE VEGETATION, AS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE TASKS IDENTIFIED IN THE 30-DAY REPORTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. L WHEREAS, the Administration Commission directed Monroe County within its 30-Day Report, pursuant to Section 380.0552(4)(c), F.S., to collaboratively evaluate the adopted clearing limits for high quality and moderate quality tropical hammocks and to make recommendations to bring parity between the local governments and to strengthen the protection of hardwood hammocks; WHEREAS, County staff, in conjunction with the State Land Planning Agency, Islamorada and Marathon evaluated the various policies and standards used by the three local governments for the clearing of high and moderate quality tropical hardwood hammock and provided recommended revisions; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 7th day of June, 2011; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 18th day of October, 2011, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency of a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the amendment; WHEREAS, at a special meeting held on 13th day of February, 2012,the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendment. L 1 [ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY fir' COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows: (Deletions are and additions are underlined.) Policy 101.4.22 All development shall be subject to clearing limits defined by habitat and the location of the property in the Land Use Tier Overlay District Maps and the wetland requirements in Policy 102.1.1. The clearing limits of upland native vegetation areas (hardwood hammock, pinelands, and beach berm) for properties in the Ocean Reef planned development shall be limited to 40 percent of the existing upland native vegetation. Except as defined in Policy 101.12.4, clearing of upland native vegetative areas (hardwood hammock, pinelands. beach berm, cactus hammock and palm hammock) in the Tiers I, II, end-III and Tier III-A shall be limited fec to the portion of the property containing upland native vegetation in the following percentages or maximum square footage: Tier Permitted Clearing* 20% or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; but no greater than 7,500 square feet of upland native vegetative area. The clearing of parcels in Tier I shall be limited to 7,500 square feet per parcel. For parcels greater than 30,000 square feet, with the exception of parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width I is permitted to provide reasonable access to the property for each parcel and shall be exempt from the maximum clearing limit of 7,500 square feet. Clearing for a driveway shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed driveway design shall minimize fragmentation, avoid specimen trees, and take the shortest reasonable route. In no case shall clearing, including the driveway, exceed 20 percent of the entire site. 40% or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; but no greater than II 7,500 square feet of upland native vegetative area(Big Pine Key and No Name Key). L 2 ♦+ 40% or 3,000 square feet s-€, whichever is greater; however, the maximum amount of clearing shall be no more than 7,500 square feet, of upland native vegetative area. The clearing of parcels in Tier III shall be limited to 7,500 square feet per parcel. For parcels $eater than 30,000 square feet, with the exception of parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width III is permitted to provide reasonable access to the property for each parcel and shall be exempt from the maximum clearing limit of 7.500 square feet. Clearing for a driveway shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed driveway design shall minimize fragmentation, avoid specimen trees, and take the shortest reasonable route. In no case shall clearing, including the driveway, exceed 40 percent of the entire site. 40% or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater: however, clearing shall not exceed 7.500 square feet of upland native vegetation. The clearing of parcels in Tier III-A shall be limited to 7,500 square feet per parcel. For parcels greater than 30,000 square feet, with the exception of parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width III_A is permitted to provide reasonable access to the property for each Special Protection Area parcel and shall be exempt from the maximum clearing limit of 7.500 square feet. Clearing for a driveway shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed driveway design shall minimize fragmentation, avoid specimen trees, and take the shortest reasonable route. In no case shall clearing, including the driveway, exceed 40 percent of the entire site. * Palm or cactus hammock is limited to only 10%. Policy 101.4.23 Notwithstanding the clearing limits established in the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plans adopted by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan by Policy 101.20.2, the permitted clearing established by Policy 101.4.22 shall control. L 3 kir Policy 101.4.23 24 Notwithstanding the density limitations set forth in Policy 101.4.21, land upon which a legally-established residential dwelling unit exists shall be entitled to a density of one dwelling unit per each such unit. Such legally-established dwelling unit shall not be considered as non-conforming as to the density provisions of policy 101.4.21 and the Monroe County Code. Policy 101.4.24 25 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings,transmission towers and other similar structures. Policy 205.2.7 Clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the percentage and maximum allowed in Policy 101.4.22. For applications that receive points for lot aggregation under the Permit Allocation System for residential development, clearing of upland native vegetation shall be limited to a maximum of 7 500 3,000 square feet or as specified in Policy 101.4.22. The immediate development area shall include the area of approved clearing shown on the approved site plan. The immediate development area shall be fenced throughout the duration of construction. During construction, there shall be no disturbances of the ground surface and vegetation within areas of native upland vegetation not approved for clearing. 1/ Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such validity. Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 5. Filina and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable appeal periods have expired. Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and shall be incorporated in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 4 ir PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of . 2012. Mayor David Rice Mayor pro tern Kim Wigington Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Heather Carruthers BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA BY Mayor David Rice (SEAL) ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK �r DEPUTY CLERK kor c.-s(xvo MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT We strive to be caring,professional and fair To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Through: Christine Hurley, AICP, Director of Growth Management Townsley Schawb, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayte Santamaria, Assistant Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Date: January 20, 2011 Subject: Request for an Amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to address the clearing of upland habitat. Meeting: February 13 2012 I. REQUEST This is a request by Monroe County to amend Policies 101.4.22 and 205.2.7 of the Monroe County 2010 Lir Comprehensive Plan and to create Policy 101.4.23. The County is renumbering existing Policy 101.4.23 to 101.4.24 and renumbering existing Policy 101.4.24 to 101.4.25. These amendments are proposed to address the clearing of upland native vegetation and implement the recommendations of the Administration Commission and the state land planning agency(Department of Community Affairs). II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Section 380.0552(4), Florida Statutes (ES.), directs the state land planning agency (Department of Community Affairs) to submit a report to the Administration Commission, describing in detail the progress of the Florida Keys Area toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program and to provide a recommendation as to whether substantial progress toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program has been achieved. Pursuant to Section 380.0552(4)(c), F.S., if the Administration Commission finds that the requirements for recommending removal of designation have not been met, the Administration Commission shall provide a written report to the local governments within 30 days after making such a finding detailing the tasks that must be completed by the local government. The 2008, 2009 and 2010 Administration Commission 30-Day Report to Monroe County included a task to implement Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C., Work Program Tasks Year Six, Task C and Year Eight, Task F. These Work Program tasks implement the carrying capacity study by requiring the adoption of all necessary plan amendments to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands and to ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine system to accommodate additional impacts. V The task from the 30-Day Report required Monroe County, in conjunction with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Islamorada and Marathon, to collaboratively evaluate the adopted clearing limits for high quality and moderate quality tropical hammocks and to make recommendations to bring ( parity between the local governments and to strengthen the protection of hardwood hammocks. 11/ In 2010, the County, in conjunction with DCA, Islamorada and Marathon evaluated the various policies and standards used by the three local governments for the clearing of high and moderate quality tropical hardwood hammock. The evaluation is provided in Exhibit 1 (Page 11 of the Department of Community Affairs' Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern 2010 Removal of Designation Report). This evaluation noted that in high quality hammock areas, Monroe County allows twice as much clearing as Islamorada and Marathon. Regarding moderate quality hammock, the municipalities allow a greater amount of clearing for lots over 15,000 square feet but lesser amounts of clearing for lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. The following recommendations were developed to bring parity between the local governments and strengthen the protection of tropical hardwood hammocks. • In Monroe County, the clearing of lots in Tier I shall be limited to 7,500 square feet per principal dwelling unit and associated accessory structures per buildable acres. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet, clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width is permitted for each parcel and shall be exempt from the clearing limitations to provide reasonable access to the property. Clearing for a driveway that is exempt from clearing limits shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. In no case shall clearing exceed 20 percent of the entire site. • In Monroe County, the clearing of lots in Tier II (Big Pine and No Name Key) shall be limited to 3,000 square feet or 40 percent, whichever is greater; however, clearing shall not exceed 7,500 square feet, regardless of the amount of upland native vegetation. • In Monroe County, add clearing limits for Tier IIIa (Special Protection Area). Clearing of Tier IIIa (Special Protection Area) shall be limited to 3,000 square feet or 40 percent, whichever is greater; however, clearing shall not exceed 7,500 square feet, regardless of the amount of upland native vegetation. • For Marathon, Islamorada, and Monroe County, a minimum clearing area of 3,000 square feet shall be allowed to provide reasonable use of property. • Revise Monroe County Policy 101.5.4(3) to allow ROGO points for aggregated Tier IIIa Special Protection Area lots provided that no more than 7,500 square feet of upland native vegetation clearing is proposed. • Revise Monroe County Comprehensive Plan lot aggregation policies, land development regulations, and Rule 28-20.120(4)(e), P.A.C., to limit clearing of aggregated lots that receive points in the building permit allocation system from 5,000 square feet to a maximum of 7,500 square feet. The proposed amendments are to implement the recommendations from the Department of Community Affairs and the direction from the Administration Commission. For additional participation and feedback, the proposed amendment was discussed and reviewed by the Tier Designation Review Committee (TDRC) on August 25, 2011. TDRC members provided comments, which have been incorporated into the proposed amendment. `The Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2011, to consider the transmittal of this proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to the State Land Planning Agency and recommended approval of the amendment. 2 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Policy 101.4.22 All development shall be subject to clearing limits defined by habitat and the location of the property in the Land Use District `zoning) Overlay Tier Overlay District (zoning) Maps and the wetland requirements in Policy 102.1.1. The clearing limits of upland native vegetation areas (hardwood hammock, pinelands, and beach berm) for properties in the Ocean Reef planned development shall be limited to 40 percent of the existing upland native vegetation. Except as defined in Policy 101.12.4, clearing of upland native vegetative areas (hardwood hammock pinelands, beach berm, cactus hammock and palm hammock) in the Tiers I, II, and ILIA shall be limited fez to the portion of the property containing upland native vegetation in the following percentages or maximum square footage: Tier Permitted Clearing * 20% or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; but no greater than 7,500 square feet of upland native vegetative area. The clearing of parcels in Tier I shall be limited to 7.500 square feet per parcel. For parcels greater than 30,000 square feet, with the exception of parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width is permitted to provide reasonable access to the property for each parcel and shall be exempt from maximum clearing limit of 7,500 square feet. Clearing for a driveway shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed driveway design shall minimize fragmentation; avoid specimen trees; and take the shortest reasonable route. In no case shall clearing, including the driveway, exceed 20 percent of the entire site. 40% or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; but no greater than II 7,500 square feet of upland native vegetative area(Big Pine Key and No Name Key). 40% or 3,000 square feet s.€, whichever is greater; however, the maximum amount of clearing shall be no more than 7,500 square feet, of upland native vegetative area. III The clearing of parcels in Tier III shall be limited to 7.500 square feet per parcel. For parcels greater than 30,000 square feet, with the exception of parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width is permitted to provide reasonable access to the property for each 3 parcel and shall be exempt from maximum clearing limit of 7,500 square feet. Clearing for a driveway shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed driveway design shall minimize fragmentation; avoid specimen trees; and take the shortest reasonable route. In no case shall clearing, including the driveway, exceed 20 percent of the entire site. 40% or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; however, clearing shall not exceed 7,500 square feet of upland native vegetation. The clearing of parcels in Tier IIIA shall be limited to 7,500 square feet per parcel. For parcels greater than 30,000 square feet, with the exception of parcels on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width III-A is permitted to provide reasonable access to the property for each Special Protection Area parcel and shall be exempt from maximum clearing limit of 7,500 square feet. Clearing for a driveway shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. The proposed driveway design shall minimize fragmentation; avoid specimen trees; and take the shortest reasonable route. In no case shall clearing, including the driveway, exceed 20 percent of the entire site. * Palm or cactus hammock is limited to only 10%. Policy 101.4.23 Notwithstanding the clearing limits established in the Community Master Plans adopted by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan by Policy 101.20.2, the permitted clearing established by Policy 101.4.22 shall control. Policy 101.4.23 24 Notwithstanding the density limitations set forth in Policy 101.4.21, land upon which a legally-established residential dwelling unit exists shall be entitled to a density of one dwelling unit per each such unit. Such legally-established dwelling unit shall not be considered as non-conforming as to the density provisions of policy 101.4.21 and the Monroe County Code. Policy 101.4.24 25 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures. V Policy 205.2.7 Clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the percentage and maximum allowed in Policy 101.4.22. For applications that receive points for lot aggregation under the Permit Allocation System for residential development,clearing of upland native vegetation shall be limited to a maximum of 7 500 5,,000 square feet. 4 The immediate development area shall include the area of approved clearing shown on the approved site ( plan. The immediate development area shall be fenced throughout the duration of construction. During hr construction, there shall be no disturbances of the ground surface and vegetation within areas of native upland vegetation not approved for clearing. IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,THE FLORIDA STATUTES,AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically,the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 102.2.2: Monroe County shall adopt revised environmental standards and environmental design criteria as indicated in policies adopted pursuant to Conservation and Coastal Management Objective 205.2. These revised standards and criteria will protect native upland vegetation and promote restoration of habitat values of native upland communities, including hardwood hammocks and pinelands. Goal 205: The health and integrity of Monroe County's native upland vegetation shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Objective 205.2: To implement Goal 105 of this Plan and the recommendations in the Florida Keys L - Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), Monroe County shall adopt revisions to the Land Development Regulations which further protect and provide for restoration of the habitat values of upland native vegetated communities, including hardwood hammocks and pinelands. Policy 205.2.2: Monroe County shall discourage developments in Tier I and within tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands of one acre or more in area to protect areas of native upland vegetation. Goal 207: Monroe County shall protect and conserve existing wildlife and wildlife habitats. B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area,Section 380.0552(7),Florida Statute. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be - --construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. 5 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic ( development. IW (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (t) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of t wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), �/ as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan. (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle. C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically,the amendment furthers: 163.3161(5), F.S. - It is the intent of this act to encourage and ensure cooperation between and among municipalities and counties and to encourage and ensure coordination of planning and development activities of units of local government with the planning activities of regional agencies and state government in accord with applicable provisions of law. 163.3177(4)(a), P.S. - Coordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities, the county, adjacent counties, or the region; with the appropriate water management district's regional water supply plans approved pursuant to s. 373.709; and with adopted 6 rules pertaining to designated areas of critical state concern shall be a major objective of the local comprehensive planning process. 163.3177(6)(a)3.f., F.S. - Ensure the protection of natural and historic resources. 163.3177(6)(d), F.S. - A conservation element for the conservation, use, and protection of natural resources in the area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, waterwells, estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood plains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals, and other natural and environmental resources, including factors that affect energy conservation. 163.3177(6)(d)2., F.S. - The element must contain principles, guidelines, and standards for conservation that provide long-term goals and which: d. Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects minerals, soils, and native vegetative communities, including forests, from destruction by development activities. e. Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and marine habitat and restricts activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. f. Protects existing natural reservations identified in the recreation and open space element. g. Maintains cooperation with adjacent local governments to conserve, appropriately use, or protect unique vegetative communities located within more than one local jurisdiction. 163.3177(6)(g), F.S. - For those units of local government identified in s. 380.24, a coastal management element, appropriately related to the particular requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) and meeting the requirements of s. 163.3178(2) and (3). The coastal management element shall set the forth the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies policies that shall guide the local government's decisions and program implementation with respect to the following objectives: 2. Preserve the continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and marine life. 3. Protect the orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources. 4. Avoid irreversible and irretrievable loss of coastal zone resources. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to Policies 101.4.22, 101.4.24, 101.4.25, 205.2.7 and the creation of Policy 101.4.23. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will further protect upland habitat, provide consistency between jurisdictions and implement the direction and recommendations of the Administration Commission. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning Sr Environmental 7 Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County L Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed �r comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to the State Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment VII. EXHIBITS 1. Department of Community Affairs' Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern 2010 Removal of Designation Report(pgs. 11-16) 2. Table 1: Evaluation of Proposed Clearing Limits 3. Excerpt from 2008 Administration Commission 30-Day Report to Monroe County(October 30,2008) 4. Excerpt from 2009 Administration Commission 30-Day Report to Monroe County(December 17, 2009) 5. Excerpt from 2010 Administration Commission 30-Day Report to Monroe County(December 30, 2010) 6. Excerpts from the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plans - Goals, Strategies and Action Items regarding the clearing of upland habitat L L 8 • Exhibit 1 f, n s. } Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern 2010 Removal of Designation Report jz , t .cy, 14.,yr s . s 0 .,.., . lirt4 . 3; .aet,.. Florida Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning Areas of Critical State Concern Section iiii ...„,,, Community ' Affairs .,.„ Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary ' ' `` f Jeff 6Vppie co BACKGROUND Section 380.0552(4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), directs the state land planning agency to submit a report to the Administration Commission, describing in detail the progress of the Florida Keys Area toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program and to provide a recommendation as to whether substantial progress toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program has been achieved. Section 380.0552(4), F.S. provides that: (b) Beginning November 30, 2010, the state land planning agency shall annually submit a written report to the Administration Commission describing the progress of the Florida Keys Area toward completing the work program tasks specified in commission rules. The land planning agency shall recommend removing the Florida Keys Area from being designated as an area of critical state concern to the commission if it determines that: 1. All of the work program tasks have been completed, including construction of, operation of, and connection to central wastewater management facilities pursuant to Section 403.086(10), F.S. and upgrade of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems pursuant to Section 381.0065(4)(1), F.S.; 2. All local comprehensive plans and land development regulations and the administration of such plans and regulations are adequate to protect the Florida Keys Area, fulfill the legislative intent specified in subsection(2), and are consistent with and further the principles guiding development; and 3. A local government has adopted a resolution at a public hearing recommending the removal of the designation. FINDINGS The Work Program referenced above is based in Rule 28-20.110, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Administration Commission issued Monroe County, the City of Marathon and the Village of Islamorada a 30-Day Report on November 17, 2009, outlining the strategies necessary for completion of work program tasks and potential removal of the designation as an Area of Critical State Concern. The 30-Day Report is in the form of a table, organized by major themes, listing both the tasks under the work program that must be accomplished for substantial progress to be achieved and the specific,proposed strategies that were developed with the Florida Keys communities to achieve the work program tasks. The Department utilized the 30- Day Report as a template for its 2010 Removal of Designation Report. The Department's 30-Day Report contains the status of Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C., work program tasks in the third column (column C) as either "substantial progress achieved"or"substantial progress not achieved." Additionally, the Department provides Page 2 L the status of the proposed work program strategies in the third column (column C) as either "complete" or "incomplete." The strategies in the 30-Day Report originate from the original tasks of the work program, found in rule 28-20.110, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) and located on the following page. The strategies in the 30-Day Report provide specificity that, if completed, will lead to the achievement of the original work Program Tasks. The 30-Day Report includes comments and information submitted by Monroe County, the City of Marathon, the Village of Islamorada, Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District, Florida Department of Health, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The Executive Summary should be used in combination with the 30-Day Report to expedite review. In the Department's 2009 report to the Administration Commission, the Department recommended that the Administration Commission make a determination that substantial progress had not been made on the following table of work program tasks found in Rule 28-20.110, Florida Administrative Code(FAC): L L Page 3 MONROE COUNTY 10-YEAR WORK PROGRAM WORK PROGRAM TASKS REMAINING INCOMPLETE OR IN PROGRESS YEAR FOUR(July 13,2000 through July 12,2001). A. Continue implementation of Wastewater Master Plan, execute interagency agreements to define construction schedule by phases, and continue developing facility plans for selected Hot Spots in each ROGO area. Secure funding to implement the Wastewater Master Plan. Document that reduction in nutrients has been achieved within each of the sub-areas. YEAR SIX(July 13,2002 through July 12,2003). A. Continue construction of wastewater facilities in Hot Spots begun in previous year. Contract to design and construct additional wastewater treatment facilities in Hot Spots in accordance with the schedule of the Wastewater Master Plan. Continue implementation of Wastewater Master Plan with emphasis on Hot Spots. C. Implement the carrying capacity study by, among other things, the adoption of all necessary plan amendments to establish a rate of growth and a set of development standards that ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine system to accommodate additional impacts. Plan amendments will include a review of the County's Future Land Use Map series and changes to the map series and the "as of right" and "maximum" densities authorized for the plan's future land use categories based upon the natural character of the land and natural resources that would be impacted by the currently authorized land uses,densities and intensities. YEAR SEVEN(July 13,2003 through July 12,2004). A. Finalize construction and begin operating wastewater facilities in Hot Spots. Continue implementation of Wastewater Master Plan with continued emphasis on Hot Spots. YEAR EIGHT(July 13,2004 through July 12,2005). F. Adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index, and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands. M.Complete projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan. Q. Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes. YEAR NINE(July 13,2005 through July 12,2006). A. In coordination with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Key Largo Sewer District, initiate the process to obtain$80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees. B. Secure site for lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities YEAR TEN(July 13,2006 through July 12,2007). A. Award contract for design, construction and operation for the lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. B. Begin construction of the lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater plants. C. Initiate connections to lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater systems. D. Complete construction and hookups for Baypoint, Conch Key and Key Largo Trailer Islamorada/Key Largo Park. E. Obtain$80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees. Page 4 L In November 2009, the Administration Commission directed the Department of Community Affairs to place draft Administration Commission rules in abeyance while the Florida Keys communities proposed legislation to amend Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida. The legislation was needed to extend the deadline from 2010 to 2015 for the upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities to advanced treatment standards in the Florida Keys. Senate Bill 550 was enacted and provided an additional 5 years for the local governments to seek financing and construct wastewater treatment facilities. The schedule for construction of the wastewater facilities is found within the draft Administration Commission rules for Marathon, Islamorada, and Monroe County. The schedule for completion of wastewater treatment facilities has been moved forward one year to accommodate the time taken to have the legislation enacted. This narrative summarizes the attached 2010 30-Day Report tables for Monroe County, Islamorada and Marathon and is organized by the major themes (i.e., Carrying Capacity & Habitat Protection, Hurricane Evacuation and Water Quality) that are the basis for the region's designation as an Area of Critical State Concern. The narrative additionally contains recommendations regarding hurricane evacuation modeling and clearing of tropical hardwood hammock. Completion of the remaining strategies in the 30-Day Report is critical to the completion of the years 4-10 Work Program Tasks. Many of the incomplete strategies may be considered to be in progress; however, the construction of wastewater facilities will require several years to complete. Of the strategies assigned, Marathon and Monroe County completed approximately 50 percent. The strategies completed by Marathon focused on constructing wastewater and stormwater facilities that will result in improvements in near shore water quality. The strategies not completed were administrative in nature and are going through public hearings at the time of this report's preparation. Monroe County made substantial progress addressing habitat protection with the implementation of the Tier Review Committee and subsequent recommendations for parcels previously challenged in an administrative proceeding. The strategies not completed for Monroe County primarily relate to wastewater facilities in the Lower Keys. While Monroe County did not meet some of the scheduled wastewater strategies for the Cudjoe Facility, they contributed funding to the Key Largo Wastewater District, completed the Big Coppitt wastewater facility, and contributed funding for the Duck Key wastewater facility. Out of the strategies assigned, Islamorada completed 20 percent. The strategies completed by Islamorada are related to growth management issues. Islamorada made no advances in wastewater, abandoned any progress made to date in wastewater and has no definite plan for the future as to how it will address wastewater upgrades that must be met by 2015. On October 25, 2010, the Department provided a letter to the Village of Islamorada indicating the Department is considering a recommendation to the Administration Commission to reduce the building permit allocation by 20 percent due to lack of substantial progress and the forfeiture of$22 million of federal, state and local funding. Page 5 `. When Islamorada incorporated and adopted a comprehensive plan in 2001, the Village requested that the Department allow the Village to move forward without an adopted rule with a stipulation that if substantial progress was not achieved on schedule, a rule could be adopted. Existing Rules 28-19.100 and 28-19.200, F.A.C., relate to the purpose of the Islamorada transitional comprehensive plan and do not address permit reductions or contain a wastewater construction schedule. Rule adoption is needed for the Village to establish a wastewater treatment construction schedule and funding program that is consistent with the intent of the Administration Commission's 2009 30- Day Report. The Monroe County Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C., provides that the Department of Community Affairs shall annually report to the Administration Commission documenting the degree to which the work program objectives for the work program year have been achieved. The Commission shall consider the fmdings and recommendations provided in those reports and shall determine whether substantial progress has been achieved. If the Commission determines that substantial progress has not been made, the unit cap for residential development shall be reduced by at least 20 percent for the following ROGO year. Rulemaking for the Village of Islamorada is necessary because major wastewater projects identified in the 2009 30-Day Report have not been completed. The Village does not have committed funding sources to construct identified wastewater treatment facilities. If the Village of Islamorada makes progress during the 2011 annual report, the building permit allocation may be restored through a comprehensive plan amendment. RECOMMENDATIONS Section 380.0552(4)(b), F.S., directs the Department to provide a recommendation regarding whether substantial progress has been made towards accomplishing the tasks of the work program. The Department makes the following recommendations: (I) Accept the 2010 Annual Report for Monroe County, City of Marathon and Islamorada; (2) Accept the Department's recommendation that substantial progress toward accomplishing the strategies of the work program have been achieved for Marathon and Monroe County; (3) Accept the Department's recommended completion dates for strategies in the 2010 30-Day Report; (4) Determine that the Village of Islamorada has made substantial progress in addressing • habitat protection through revisions to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations,but has not made substantial progress toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program with respect to wastewater planning, financing and construction. As a result the Department recommends the Administration Commission accept the Page 6 Department's recommendation that substantial progress toward accomplishing the strategies of the work program has not been achieved for the Village of Islamorada and consider the following: (5) Determine that the Village of Islamorada has made substantial progress in addressing habitat protection through revisions to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations, but has not made substantial progress toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program with respect to wastewater planning, financing and construction. As a result the Department recommends the Administration Commission accept the Department's recommendation that substantial progress toward accomplishing the strategies of the work program has not been achieved for the Village of Islamorada and consider the following two options: (a) Resume rulemaking and reduce the Village of Islamorada building permit allocations by twenty percent; or (b) Direct the Village of Islamorada to provide a report by June 1, 2011, that includes a wastewater financing plan. The requirement to adopt a wastewater facility treatment construction schedule is found in the legislation recently enacted in Section 403.086(10)(6), F.S. In the event the Village does not satisfy the June 1, 2011, reporting requirement, the Department recommends the Administration Commission promulgate rulemaking that would result in an amendment to the comprehensive plan reducing building permit allocation by twenty percent as provided in Section 380.0552(9)(b),F.S. (6) Authorize staff of the commission working with the Department to resume rulemaking to adopt the schedule for wastewater, stormwater and carrying capacity tasks for Monroe,Marathon, and Islamorada. 11111/ Page 7 '. Habitat Protection Page 8 L 30-Day Report Strategy: The Administration Commission directed Monroe County and the Department of Community Affairs to establish a Tier Designation Review Committee with representatives from the Department of Environmental Protection, US Fish and Wildlife, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, Monroe County, the Department of Community Affairs and other relevant interests. Using best available data, the committee was directed to adjust the Tier I and Tier IIIA boundaries to more accurately reflect the criteria for that Tier as amended by Final Order DCA07-GM-166A and implement the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study. Status: This strategy is partially complete. Monroe County's permit allocation and Tier System were developed to direct growth to areas served by paved roads, electricity, potable water and sewer and to guide development away from sensitive environmental areas. Monroe County adopted the Tier System criteria and Tier Overlay District Maps into the Land Development Regulations in March 2006. The Department's final orders approving these amendments were challenged in July 2006.1 The Final Order issued for the challenged Tier Overlay District Maps requires Monroe County to complete additional refinements to address map inaccuracies and revise certain challenged Tier System criteria. The Department has established a Tier Designation Review Committee with L representation from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services, Monroe County, the environmental community and other relevant interests. While this strategy is partially complete, significant finding, time, and effort have been expended in creating maps and conducting approximately 80 hours of committee meetings to evaluate the tier designations. The recommendations are currently being considered by the Monroe County Planning Commission. During the past year, the Tier Designation Review Committee has reviewed 3,200 parcels to consider the appropriateness of the tier designation. The County hired a consultant who assisted the County biologists and committee members in conducting site visits. The committee conducted public hearings and heard testimony from the property owners prior to making a final recommendation regarding the parcel's designation. A court reporter was employed to ensure proper record keeping. Aerial photography notebooks were mailed to each committee member prior to the 5 committee meetings. Two of the committee members and DCA staff traveled to the Keys to participate in the meetings. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners will take action on the proposed adjustments to the Tier I and Tier ILIA boundaries during the first quarter of 2011. 411, State of Florida,Department of Community Affairs Final Order DCA07-GM-166A(DOAH Case No. 06- 2449GM) Page 9 L 30-Day Report Strategy: The Administration Commission directed the local governments to develop a process to coordinate the acquisition of land for which building permits have been denied for four years for property located within an area targeted for land acquisition. Depending upon the natural resources of the parcel and available funds, the Division of State Lands will consider the parcel for purchase. The County Land Authority shall submit a report annually on the land acquisition funding and efforts in the Florida Keys. Status: The coordination process has been adopted into the comprehensive plans by Monroe County and the Village of Islamorada. Marathon anticipates transmitting a plan amendment adopting the procedure within the next 30 days. The coordination procedure was developed to ensure that the Division of State Land or the local government has an opportunity to offer to purchase environmentally sensitive land that has been targeted for acquisition prior to the local government offering a building permit through the administrative relief procedure. During this period, Monroe County purchased two parcels scheduled for administrative relief. The Village of Islamorada and the City of Marathon had no applications for Administrative Relief. Land acquisition and management is also a critical component to the protection of the natural resources and quality of life in the Florida Keys. The Monroe County Land L Authority is empowered to acquire and dispose of property for a range of public purposes, including recreation, affordable housing, environmental protection, and the protection of private property rights. The Land Authority serves all the Keys, not just unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County adopted a Land Acquisition and Management Master Plan in August 2006 to address strategies, funding, and non-funding sources for acquisition and management of conservation lands, retirement of development rights, and acquisition of affordable housing sites. This report projected a need for approximately $443 million to purchase lands targeted for acquisition. The Land Authority receives funding from two sources of recurring revenue. One source contributes approximately$400,000 per year from a surcharge on admissions and overnight occupancy at state parks within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. Additionally, the Land Authority receives a half-cent of tourist impact tax revenue charged on lodging in the Keys, which generates approximately $1 million per year within both the Florida Keys Area of Critical Concern and the Key West Area of Critical Concern. However, revenue generated within the City of Key West and provided to the Land Authority must be spent within the area where the funding was collected. During the 2009-2010 work program reporting year, the Land Authority acquired 19.9 acres (35 parcels) for $674,423. The Department of Environmental Protection has also acquired an additional 5 parcels, totaling 33.84 acres, for $7,605,013.94. No land was purchased by Islamorada or Marathon during this year. Marathon and the County submitted applications for land acquisition financing this year, however neither application has been funded to date. Marathon submitted an application to the Coastal Page 10 L Zone Management Program and may receive funding from Department of Environmental Protection toward the acquisition of Boot Key Island. Islamorada did not apply for funding. Clearing Tropical Hardwood Hammock 30-Day Report Strategy: The Department and the Florida Keys communities were directed by the Administration Commission to collaboratively evaluate the adopted clearing limits for high and moderate quality hammocks and to make recommendations to bring parity between the local governments and to strengthen the protection of hardwood hammocks. If necessary, amend the comprehensive plan to implement the recommendations. Status: This strategy is partially complete. The recommendations need to be amended into the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. This strategy requires the collaboration between Monroe County, Marathon, and Islamorada, to evaluate the adopted clearing limits for high and moderate quality tropical hardwood hammocks. The allowable amount of clearing of hardwood hammock is determined by the quality of the hammock. Both Marathon and Islamorada classify hammock as low, moderate, or high quality. Monroe County classifies Tier I as high v quality; Tier II as moderate quality and Tier III and Tier IIla(Special Protection Area) as low quality. Monroe County implements its clearing limits through the Tier System. The Tier system assigns the Tier designation for parcels based on the extent of hammock. Parcels designated Tier I contain large intact hammocks and allow clearing of 20 percent of the native vegetation on the site. Islamorada and Marathon allow parcels that are vegetated with high quality hammock to clear 10 percent. Islamorada considers any parcel consisting of 5 acres of hammock to be high quality, whereas Marathon requires 12.5 acres to be considered high quality. The County originally mapped any 4 acre contiguous hammock or land targeted for acquisition by the state as Tier I—high quality hammock. In Monroe County, parcels designated Tier IIIa Special Protection Area that contain significant hammock fragments may clear 40 percent of the native vegetation on the site or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater; however, the total clearing of native vegetation cannot exceed 7,500 square feet. Parcels that are 18,075 square feet are at the breakeven point, where 40 percent clearing equals the 7,500 square foot clearing maximum. All parcels greater than 18,075 square feet are limited to 7,500 square feet of clearing. Islamorada and Marathon allow 30 percent clearing in moderate quality hardwood hammock with no cap on clearing. The local governments also have additional land development regulations that address clearing where lots have been united in order to gain points in the competitive building permit allocation system. 411,1 Page 11 1111100 Islamorada and Marathon use site evaluation processes to determine the quality of the hammock and the clearing allowed on a parcel. The following chart compares the clearing limits for the three local governments based on lot size and quality of hammock. Page 12 Existing Scenarios: Permitted Clearing by Lot Size in Square Feet High Quality Hammock Clearing Allowed Lot Size Monroe(Tier I) Marathon amoraga_ 20% Clearing 10%Clearing T 10% Clearing 108,900 21,780 10,890 ``' 10,890 87,120 17,424 8,712 8,712 65,340 13,068 6,534 6,534 43,560 8,712 4,356 4,356 25,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 20,000_ 4,000 2,000 2,000* 15,000 3,000 1,500 _ 1,500* 10,000 2,000 1,000 1,000* 5,000 1,000_ 500 500* 3,000 600 300 300* Moderate Quality Hammock Clearing Allowed Monroe Monroe Marathon Islamorada (Tier II) (Tier III-A) 30% Clearing 30% Clearing Lot Size 40% Clearing 3,000 or 40% (Big Pine &No but no more Name) than 7,500 108,900 43,560 7,500 32,670 _2. 87,120 34,848 7,500 26,136 = 6.136 illiie 65,340 26,136 7,500 19,602 i.9,602 43,560 17,424 7,500 13,068 '' ? 3,068 25,000 10,000 7,500 7,500 '7,500 20,000 8,000 7,500 6,000 ;A 6,000* 15,000 _ 6,000 6,000 4,500 4,500* 10,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000* 5,000 2,400 3,000 1,500 1,500* 3,000 1,200 3,000 900 900* Low Quality Hammock Clearing Allowed Lot Size Monroe(Tier III) Marathon Islamorada 3,000or 40%but no greater than 7,500 50% Clearing 50% Clearing 108,900 7,500 54,450 54,450 87,120 7,500 43,560 43,560 65,340 7,500 32,670 32,670 43,560 7,500 21,780 21,780 25,000 7,500 12,500 12,500 20,000 7,500 10,000 10,000 15,000 6,000 7,500 7,500 10,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 _ 1,500 . 1,500 *Residential Medium(RM) future land use categories that score as High or Moderate quality and are one-half acre or less in size may allow 50 percent clearing. Iiiir Page 13 Scenarios Resulting from Recommendations by Lot Size in Square Feet High Quality Hammock Clearing Allowed Monroe(Tier I) Marathon Islamorada 3,000 or 20% but no greater than 3,000 or 10% 3,000 or 10% Lot Size 7,500 but no greater but no greater than 7,500 than 7,500 108,900 7,500" 7,500^ 7.500^ 87,120 7,500^ 7,500" 7,500^ 65,340 7,500^ 6,534^ 6,534^_ 43,560 7,500^ 4,356^ 4,356^ 25,000 5,000^ 3,000^_ 3,000^ 20,000 4,000^ 3,000^ 3,000^ 15,000 3,000^ 3,000^ 3,000^* 10,000 3,000 3,000 3,000* 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000* 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000* Moderate Quality Hammock Clearing Allowed Monroe Monroe Marathon Islamorada (Tier II) (Tier III-A) 3,000 or 30% 3,000 or 30% 3,000 or 40%but 3,000 or 40% but but no greater but no greater Lot Size no greater than no greater than than 7,500 than 7,500 7,500 7,500 (Big Pine and No Name) ) 108,900 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 87,120 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 65,340 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,5001 43,560 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,5001 25,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500.E 20,000 7,500 7,500 6,000 _s 6,000' 15,000 6,000 6,000 4,500 4,500*£ 10,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 ,000*' 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 ,000*1 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 •,e,:e 0,,!, In High Quality Hammock, one driveway of reasonable configuration shall not count toward the clearing area in order to provide reasonable access to the property. *Residential Medium(RM) future land use categories that score as High or Moderate 411) quality and are one-half acre or less in size may allow 50 percent clearing. Low Quality Hammock Clearing Allowed Low Quality Hammock distinction removed. Page 14 Conclusions In high quality hammock areas, Monroe County allows twice as much clearing as Islamorada and Marathon. The 10 percent allowed by the two municipalities is low for lots less than 15,000 square feet in size and may result in a clearing allowance that is not large enough to provide a buildable area. In the County,the amount of clearing allowed is high for lots 1 acre in size and larger. Regarding moderate quality hammock, the municipalities allow a greater amount of clearing for lots over 15,000 square feet but lesser amounts of clearing for lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. Consensus Recommendations: As a result of this analysis by the planning staff from the Department of Community Affairs,Monroe County, the city of Marathon and the Village of Islamorada,the following recommendations were made: 1. In Monroe County, the clearing of lots in Tier I shall be limited to 7,500 square feet per principal dwelling unit and associated accessory structures per buildable acres. For lots greater than 10,000 square feet, clearing for one driveway of reasonable configuration up to 18 feet in width is permitted for each parcel and shall be exempt from the clearing limitations to provide reasonable access to the property. Clearing for a driveway that is exempt from ---- ----clearing limits shall be recommended by a County biologist and approved by the Planning Director. In no case shall clearing exceed 20 percent of the entire site. 2. In Monroe County, the clearing of lots in Tier II (Big Pine and No Name Key) shall be limited to 3,000 square feet or 40 percent, whichever is greater; however, clearing shall not exceed 7,500 square feet, regardless of the amount of upland native vegetation. 3. In Monroe County, add clearing limits for Tier IIIa (Special Protection Area). Clearing of Tier Illa (Special Protection Area) shall be limited to 3,000 square feet or 40 percent, whichever is greater; however, clearing shall not exceed 7,500 square feet, regardless of the amount of upland native vegetation. 4. In Marathon, limit clearing of high quality hammock to a 7,500 square foot footprint for the principle structure. Additionally, allow one driveway no wider than 18 feet per parcel in high quality hammock that is exempt from clearing requirements; however, in no case shall clearing exceed 10 percent of the entire site. 5. In Islamorada and Marathon,limit the clearing of moderate quality hammock to 7,500 square ------ ----feet or 30 percent, whichever is less. 6. For Marathon, Islamorada, and Monroe County, a minimum clearing area of 3,000 square feet shall be allowed to provide reasonable use of property. 7. Revise Monroe County Policy 101.5.4(3) to allow ROGO points for aggregated Tier lila Special Protection Area lots provided that no more than 7,500 square feet of upland native vegetation clearing is proposed. 8. Revise Monroe County Comprehensive Plan lot aggregation policies, land development regulations, and Rule 28-20.120(4)(e), F.A.C., to limit clearing of aggregated lots that Page 15 kW receive points in the building permit allocation system from 5,000 square feet to a maximum of 7,500 square feet. 9. Revise Marathon Land Development Regulations to require that any parcel located within a contiguous hammock 5 acres in size shall be considered high quality hammock. 10. Eliminate the distinction between low and moderate quality hammock. w Page 16 `. c Water Quality Page 17 'a' 30-Day Report Strategy: The Administration Commission directed the local governments to continue implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan,to define construction schedule by phases, to develop facility plans and secure funding to implement the plan. Local governments were also directed to complete projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan. Status: This task is incomplete. The construction of modem, centralized wastewater infrastructure is essential to the marine environment, public health, and quality of life and economy of the Florida Keys. Both the Florida Legislature and the Florida Cabinet, acting as the Administration Commission, through the Area of Critical State Concern Work Program, have established specific requirements for completion of central wastewater facilities. Beginning in 1987, the Administration Commission promoted a comprehensive wastewater system strategy for the Keys. The strategy involves construction of local government wastewater facilities, higher levels of treatment, better methods of disposal, and elimination (through connection to the central systems) of small, older wastewater plants and most septic tanks and cesspits. Based on significant evidence that poor water quality in the Keys was related to inadequate wastewater management, the Legislature enacted Section 6 of Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, as amended, to require all sewage facilities in Monroe County, including septic tanks, package plants and t( cesspits,to comply with the treatment standards by 2010. • - — In November 2009, the Administration 2015 Wastewater Treatment Standards Commission also directed the Wastewater facilities having design capacities of less than 100,000 Department of Community Affairs to gallons per day and onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. place draft Administration Commission a. Biochemical Oxygen Demand(CBODS)of 10 mg/I. rules in abeyance while the Florida b. Suspended Solids of 10 mg/I. Y c. Total Nitrogen,expressed as N,of 10 mg/I. Keys communities proposed legislation d. Total Phosphorus,expressed as P,of I mgn to amend Chapter 99-395, Laws of Wastewater facilities having design capacities greater than or equal Florida. The legislation was needed to to 100,000 gallons per day. extend the deadline from 2010 to 2015 a. Biochemical Oxygen Demand(CBODS)of 5 mill. for the upgrade of wastewater treatment b. Suspended Solids of 5 mgn. c. Total Nitrogen,expressed as N,of 3 mill. facilities to advanced treatment d. Total Phosphorus,expressed as P,of I mg/1. standards. Senate Bill 550 was enacted and provided an additional 5 years for the local governments to seek financing and construct wastewater treatment facilities. Marathon and the Key Largo Wastewater District are making good progress in building the facilities necessary to serve their citizens and protect local water quality. They have developed construction programs and financing plans and continue to take advantage of available state and federal resources to assist their efforts. Monroe County and Islamorada have stated hesitancy to continue moving forward unless the state and federal governments pay a much larger share of the cost of the facilities. Monroe County and Islamorada's serious funding shortages are slowing their progress. Additionally, Islamorada has experienced delays because of the Plantation Key facility lawsuit. Page 18 L Marathon-Wastewater and Stormwater Marathon has made great strides in providing central wastewater to the 7 wastewater sub- areas. Three of the 7 sub-areas are complete with connections increasing daily. Two systems are more than 85% complete. The Knight's Key facility was delayed by a lawsuit; however, the plant and collection system design is complete and construction is underway and anticipated completion date is December 2010. The Tom Harbor facility is under construction with completion anticipated in 2011. Marathon has the financing in hand to complete the construction of its planned wastewater facilities. Marathon's financing strategy includes more than $57 million in assessments. As of this writing, Marathon has completed 9% of the connections and has spent more than $11 million during the evaluation period on wastewater projects. Within this section is a table that indicates the progress of planned connections for each facility in the Keys. As the wastewater collection lines are installed, Marathon is also constructing stormwater treatment facilities. Marathon has applied for and received $300,000 in stormwater funding. In addition, two direct stonnwater discharges were eliminated this year. Monroe County-Wastewater and Stormwater The Key Largo Wastewater District spent $46 million this year on wastewater projects and received $12 million in grants this year. The total cost of the facility is estimated at $121 million with assessments of$5,000 per user. The District is currently inspecting final residential connections at a rate of approximately 100 per week. The County has upgraded the Hawk's Cay facility and construction is underway to serve residents on Duck Key. The County has $9.6 million in committed funds for fiscal year 2011 and another$3 million in committed funds in fiscal year 2012. Construction of the Big Coppitt facility is complete and more than 70%of connections have been made. The design for the Cudjoe Regional facility is complete,but is not expected to be bid out until February 2011. Funding for the Cudjoe facility has not been identified and assessments have not been levied. The projected cost for the facility is approximately $180 million with connection fees estimated at$23,000 per household. It is unlikely that the County will be able to complete this system by the 2015 deadline. If committed funding is not identified quickly, the County should designate the area as a non-service area and take steps to notify residents of their responsibility to upgrade the existing septic systems and package plants and develop an enforcement program in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection. The County has agreed to schedule an agenda item during the first quarter of 2011 to discuss assessments for the Cudjoe Regional facility. Construction of stormwater facilities was completed at mile marker 11-12 through an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation. Monroe County has also applied for stormwater funding and received$250,000. L Page 19 L. Islamorada-Wastewater and Stormwater There has been inadequate progress in the construction of central wastewater facilities to bring about improvement of near shore water quality as required by Section 380.0552, F.S. Islamorada has refunded approximately $4 million in property assessments that had been collected for the construction of central wastewater facilities and has returned over$5 million in funding from the Environmental Protection Agency that would have upgraded septic tanks. Islamorada also returned over $6 million in funding from the Army Corps of Engineers. As a result, Islamomda was unable to execute loan agreements offered by the Department of Environmental Protection for another $6 million for the construction of wastewater facilities. Consequently, more than $22 million has been forfeited. Islamorada does not have a viable plan or funding to meet the December 2015 deadline for meeting the advanced wastewater treatment standards required by Section 403.086(10) and Section 381.0065(4)(1), F.S. Islamorada and the Plantation Key contractor are in litigation. The litigation and equipment failures have contributed to the lack of progress in constructing wastewater. A contingent from Islamorada recently travelled to a suburb outside of Mobile, Alabama to view a Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) system as a wastewater management option. The costs and feasibility of these systems have not yet been determined. Islamorada is also negotiating with the Key Largo Wastewater District to treat wastewater originating in the Village of Islamorada. kW Islamorada did not apply for stormwater funding and has not identified any stormwater projects in the 30-Day Report or the capital improvements program. Wastewater Connection Progress Total Assessment Percent Monroe Potential EDUs Connected EDUs Assessment to be Collected Connected Baypoint 429 379 2,700 1,158,300 88% Conch Key 150 112 2,700 405,000 75% Duck Key 1,302 909 4,500 5,859,000 70% Big Coppitt 1,711 1,237 4,500 7,699,500 72% Stock Island 1,100 1,000 2,700 2,970,000 91% Basin a 1,066 175 4,970 5,298,020 16% Basinb 1,784 165 5,050 9,009,200 9% Basin c 1,034 393 5,050 5,221,700 38% Basin d 1,004 379 4,970 4,989,880 38% Basin e 1,353 1,035 4,770 6,453,810 76% Basin f 2,470 93 5,200 12,844,000 4% Basing 2,051 0 5,200 10,665,200 0% Basin h 768 0 5,200 3,993,600 0% Total Monroe 16,222 5,877 $76,567,210 36% Islamorada 9,268 750 8% Marathon 10,087 880 5,730 $57,798,510 9% Page 20 L Recommendations • The Department recommends that Marathon continue with its excellent progress on completing wastewater and stonnwater projects. • The Department encourages Monroe County to identify funding for the Cudjoe wastewater system or develop an alternate plan to consider the area a non-wastewater service area and determine how upgrades and enforcement will be implemented. • The Department encourages the Village of Islamorada Council to make a decision regarding how wastewater treatment facilities will be upgraded; and to submit a wastewater construction schedule that can be adopted into a rule or designate Islamorada a non-service area and develop a notification and enforcement procedure that will ensure that package plants and onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems will meet the 2015 treatment standards. L L Page 21 L L Hurricane Evacuation Page 22 L Introduction One of the guiding principles of growth management is the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The most common threat to public safety in the Florida Keys is the potential loss of life and property from storm surge, flooding, and high winds associated with hurricanes. The Florida Keys are located within an area of high hurricane activity. The area's elongated configuration of coastal barrier islands,single evacuation route, and extensive shoreline in a high hazard zone make the area extremely vulnerable. US Highway 1 is a long causeway(146 miles) connecting multiple islands, with the majority of the roadway segments limited to two lanes. Widening the two lane segments of US Highway 1 is impractical due to potential marine, wetlands and sea grass impacts, engineering constraints, cost, etc. Past efforts in 2000 to widen the highway resulted in litigation. Since 2000, some improvements have included the elevation and addition of a northbound lane along the 18 Mile Stretch of US Highway 1 and the replacement of Jew Fish Bridge. The ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys in the event of a hurricane is a limiting factor that affects growth in the Florida Keys. The Florida Division of Emergency Management requires that barrier islands be evacuated during category 3-5 hurricanes and also discourages the construction of hurricane shelters. Any population remaining during a mandatory evacuation would be vulnerable after a hurricane event due to potential damage to bridges,water supply and electricity. Power and potable water originate in Florida City on the mainland. There are no designated hurricane shelters within Monroe County for major hurricane events because the 41/ Florida Keys are coastal barrier islands. Further, hurricane evacuation within the Florida Keys is regulated by Section 380.0552, F.S., which provides the following regarding hurricane evacuation: (9) MODIFICATION TO PLANS AND REGULATIONS.— (a) Any land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys Area may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by a local government, but the enactment, amendment, or rescission becomes effective only upon approval by the state land planning agency. The state land planning agency shall review the proposed change to determine if it is in compliance with the principles for guiding development specified in Chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, and must approve or reject the requested changes within 60 days after receipt. Amendments to local comprehensive plans in the Florida Keys Area must also be reviewed for compliance with the following: 1. Construction schedules and detailed capital financing plans for wastewater management improvements in the annually adopted capital improvements element, and standards for the construction of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or collection systems that meet or exceed the criteria in Section 403.086(10), F.S. for wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or Section 381.0065(4)(1), F.S., for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. Page 23 '. 2. Goals, objectives, and policies to protect public safety and welfare in the event of a natural disaster by maintaining a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of no more than 24 hours. The hurricane evacuation clearance time shall be determined by a hurricane evacuation study conducted in accordance with a professionally accepted methodology and approved by the state land planning agency. 30-Day Report Strategy: The Administration Commission directed the Department of Community Affairs and Monroe County to update the data for the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model utilizing professionally acceptable sources of information such as the Census, American Communities Survey, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, and other studies. Status: This strategy is complete Since adopting its first comprehensive plan, Monroe County has recognized the finite ability to evacuate its population safely with only one route out of the Keys and has limited the number of new dwelling units that can be constructed annually to ensure the safe evacuation of the public. The comprehensive plans for the Florida Keys communities contain policies requiring the maintenance of a 24 hour hurricane evacuation clearance time for major storms. Other policies include a phased evacuation procedure that is implemented 48 hours prior to the forecasted landfall of tropical storm winds. The Department has utilized the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model (also known as the "Miller Mode!") to determine hurricane evacuation clearance time for the Florida Keys since 1999. The Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model evolved from a US Army Corps of Engineers Traffic Flow model that was modified by the Post, Buckley, Shuh & Jernigan consulting firm in 1990. In 2001,the model indicated that evacuation clearance time was 25 hours and 32 minutes. This clearance time was based upon the simultaneous evacuation of tourists and permanent residents. In 2005, a Hurricane Evacuation Committee convened by the Department of Community Affairs recommended the formal adoption of an existing practice that advised tourists to evacuate 48 hours prior to the forecasted landfall of tropical storm winds. Each local government, with the exception of the city of Key West, adopted the phased evacuation procedure into its comprehensive plan. Using phased evacuation, the evacuation clearance time was reduced to 22 hours and 6 minutes. To address direction provided by the Administration Commission to update the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model, the Department assembled a technical focus group that included several transportation engineers and behavior experts who have developed evacuation models in Florida. Human behavioral expert, Dr. Jay Baker from Florida State University also participated on the focus group. The Florida Department of Transportation provided funding to update human behavioral studies in Monroe County. The Florida Department of Transportation also engaged Dr. Brian Wolshon, an expert on transportation and emergency evacuation from Page 24 L Louisiana State University, to provide input regarding the Florida Keys Model. The technical focus group has conducted numerous meetings over the past two years to evaluate hurricane modeling approaches. The technical focus group reviewed the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model assumptions and variables and noted that, while there are more modem dynamic models available, the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model is an "acceptable" mechanism to measure clearance time. The technical focus group recommended that the highway capacity levels be re- evaluated. Highway capacity levels represent the number of cars that can be processed through a particular link per hour. Capacity levels assumed in the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model were established by a 1999 committee of state and local representatives. The committee used the Florida Highway Capacity guide to establish the capacity of each link and reduced the highway capacity by up to 30 percent to account for background traffic and side friction created by automobiles entering the highway. The technical focus group recommended that the Florida Department of Transportation conduct additional traffic studies and update the link capacities to provide more confidence on the capacity numbers utilized in the model. As a result of the focus group discussion, the Florida Department of Transportation consulted with professional transportation engineers to evaluate the sustainable capacity of US Highway 1 and made adjustments to the capacity for the various links. These adjustments resulted in an overall decrease in capacity. Additionally, the technical focus group recommended that the Florida Department of Transportation provide a table indicating any changes to the evacuation clearance time that have resulted from the improvements to US Highway 1 that have been completed to date and to project any changes that would result to the evacuation clearance time from any funded improvements listed in the Florida Department of Transportation 5 Year Construction Plan. The technical focus group discussed the need to clarify the definition of clearance time. Utilizing phased evacuation, clearance begins when the permanent population has received the evacuation order for a Category 3-5 hurricane event and ends when the last car arrives at U.S. Highway I at the Florida Turnpike in Homestead/Florida City. This definition is based in part on an Administrative Law Judge's Final Order (DOAH Case No. 04-2756RP). This location is preferred as it is situated outside the Category 3 vulnerability zone concurrent with behavioral studies, and allows for the dispersal of Florida Keys evacuees into multiple directions. Additionally, human behavioral studies indicate that less than 3 percent of the population will go to---emergency shelters, so an out-of-county terminus is warranted. The Department recommends adding this definition of clearance time to the draft rules. 411/ Page 25 L 30-Day Report Strategy: Monroe County shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Marathon, Islamorada, Key West, Key Colony Beach and Layton after a notice and comment period of at least 30 days for interested parties. The memorandum of understanding shall stipulate, based on professionally acceptable data and analysis,the input variables and assumptions, including regional considerations, for utilizing the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model or other models acceptable to DCA to accurately depict evacuation clearance times for the population of the Florida Keys. Status: This strategy is incomplete. The Department has not engaged the local governments to develop the memorandum of understanding. Instead the Department has invested significant time in exploring hurricane evacuation clearance time models and obtained guidance from a number of experts. During this exploratory phase, the Department worked with the Division of Emergency Management and the South Florida Regional Evacuation Study's uniform modeling methodology. During this evaluation it has become clear that the outcomes of the model runs are influenced more by the assumptions of the model than the type of model used. It will be necessary through model run scenarios how the assumptions of the model impact clearance time in order to develop the memorandum of understanding. Monroe County Hurricane Evacuation Study To advance the reliability of the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model, Monroe County hired Dr. Reid Ewing to update the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model with current dwelling unit data and to reflect the phasing evacuation procedures. The Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model has been updated using the best available data from recent transportation and behavioral studies, the 2000 Census, American Communities Surveys, and building permit data through 2008. The Ewing report can be found in the Technical Appendix. Table 32 of the report provides results for several scenarios. The hurricane evacuation scenarios below assume: • Tourists and mobile home occupants responded to the early evacuation notice; • One hundred percent of the mobile home occupants participate in the evacuation; • The response curve is 12 hours; • The storm event calls for an evacuation of Monroe County only; and • The evacuation event is modeled to US Highway 1 at the Florida Turnpike in Homestead/Florida City. 41110 Page 26 411/ Table 32 Low Occupancies High Occupancies Highway Configuration (27-67%) (32-84%) Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Low High Low High Participation Participation Participation Participation (70-75%) (90-95%) (70-75%) (90-95%) A. 2001 Lanes/Miller Flow 16 hours 16 18 hours 50 18 hours 32 22 hours 6 Rates minutes minutes minutes minutes B. 2001 Lanes/FDOT Flow 18 hours 58 22 hours 28 22 hours 8 27 hours 2 Rates minutes minutes minutes minutes C. 2015 Lanes/FDOT Flow 16 hours 16 16 hours 16 16 hours 16 18 hours 40 Rates minutes minutes minutes minutes D. 2015 Lanes/FDOT Flow 16 hours 16 17 hours 16 17 hours 4 20 hours 16 Rates (without shoulder minutes minutes minutes minutes from mile marker 90 to mile marker 106) Line A of the table provides the evacuation clearance time scenarios based upon the traffic flow rates used in the original Florida Keys Model combined with phased evacuation. Line A of the table is based on the capacity of US Highway 1 in the year 2000. The Florida Department of Transportation is the agency with the authority to determine the sustainable traffic flows of US Highway 1; therefore this scenario has only been included as a historical reference. �/ Line B of the table provides four scenarios when combined with the values from the Occupancy Rate of permanent dwelling units. Scenario 1 utilizes the updated sustainable flow rates for US Highway 1. Scenario 1 assumes a low participation rate of 70-75% of the permanent population will evacuate and assumes a low occupancy rate of permanent dwelling units of 27 to 67 percent. Scenario 1 provides an evacuation clearance time of 18 hours and 58 minutes. If the participation rate is increased to 90-95% from Scenario 2, the evacuation clearance time rises to 22 hours and 28 minutes. Line B, Scenario 3 also provides an evacuation clearance time based upon low participation rate of 70-75% of the permanent population with a higher occupancy rate of 32-84 percent of the permanent dwelling units. This result provides an evacuation time of 22 hours and 8 minutes. Line C of the table provides a projection of the evacuation time in 2015. The model assumes that all the work projects included within the Florida Department of Transportation 5- year plan have been constructed and that a continuous enhanced shoulder 10 feet wide has been added between mile markers 90-106 that would count toward evacuation capacity. This scenario provides a clearance time of less than 24 hours using low and high participation and low and high occupancy rates. Line D of the table provides a projection of the evacuation time in 2015. The model assumes that all the work projects that have been included within the Florida Department of Transportation 5 Year Plan have been constructed and that an enhanced shoulder four feet wide Page 27 k. has been added between mile markers 90-106 that would count toward evacuation capacity. This scenario provides a clearance time of less than 24 hours using low and high participation and low and high occupancy rates. This scenario does not include the potential 2015 population and additional dwelling units. Scenario 3 with the high participation rate, low occupancy rate and clearance time of 22 hour and 8 minutes is the evacuation clearance time that DCA supports as the most probable and the most credible. This scenario is based upon limited data provided by the American Communities Survey and the limited survey may not provide data that is reliable enough for county-wide application. The occupancy rate of permanent dwelling units needs to be monitored and confirmed when the 2010 Census data is released. Lines C and D and the resulting scenarios do not include an evaluation of the time necessary to set up cones on the bridges or requirements for dedicated police officers at each bridge to direct traffic. In addition, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution indicating support for only four feet of the proposed ten feet shoulder enhancements proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation between mile markers 90- 106. The Department agrees that the enhancements will improve safety conditions and allow for emergency vehicles and areas for vehicles to be pushed off the highway. The Department does not have sufficient information to support the 2015 projection scenario that uses shoulder l enhancement as the basis for capacity. Division of Emergency Management Statewide Studies Section 163.3178, F.S., requires the Division of Emergency Management to manage the update of the statewide hurricane evacuation studies, ensure that the studies are done in a consistent manner, and ensure that the methodology used for modeling storm surge is that used by the National Hurricane Center. The Division of Emergency Management has contracted with Florida's Regional Planning Councils to carry out statewide regional evacuation studies in collaboration with county emergency management agencies to facilitate consistent methodology integrated mapping and analysis of evacuations across Florida. The model includes updated elevation data, surge modeling, behavioral analysis and an evacuation transportation analysis. Section 163.3178, F.S., also requires comprehensive plans to address hazard mitigation and protection of human life against the effects of natural disaster, including the capability to safely evacuate the density of coastal population proposed in the future land use plan element in the event of an impending natural disaster. Further, local governments must maintain their adopted level of service for out-of-county hurricane evacuation for a category 5 storm event. The Division of Emergency Management has developed a statewide modeling approach that included hazards, behavioral, shelter and regional evacuation transportation networks analysis. Behavioral surveys were conducted in each region. Planning assumptions regarding evacuation participation rates, perception of risk, destination assignments, and vehicle usage, were identified. The surge zones for each region were delineated. The analysis considers a wide variety and complexity of regional evacuations and multiple scenarios. The modeling tested 4111/ Page 28 4110 various evacuation routes, timing strategies, shelter/refuge strategies, and traffic control measures in order to minimize clearance times. Regional (multi-county) and multi-regional impacts, as well as impacts from or evacuees crossing from one county to another to other counties in the state were evaluated. Impacts on county and regional shelter supply, and the county and regional evacuation routes clearance times were determined based on scenarios, which affect part of the region, the entire region, and multiple regions. The modeling analyzes how evacuation can be handled for multiple regions evacuating at the same time For example, the South Florida Regional Evacuation Study, sponsored by the Division of Emergency Management, is based on values that are proximal to the Florida Keys Model which yields a similar evacuation clearance time, relying upon similar assumptions. The South Florida Regional Evacuation Study model and the Florida Keys Model utilize the 2000 Census data updated by subsequent building permit data provided by the local governments. Both models utilize occupancy rates, participation rates, response curves, and the revised flow rate capacities for US Highway I provided by the Florida Department of Transportation. Both models assume that tourists and mobile home occupants left when the phased evacuation order was issued. The primary differences between the models pertain to participation and occupancy rates. The South Florida Regional Evacuation Study model uses a participation rate of 100 percent in f its base scenario instead of the 90-95 percent participation rate used in the Florida Keys ` Hurricane Evacuation Model. The South Florida Regional Evacuation Study model relies upon the 2000 Census data for the occupancy rate because the Census data is more reliable with a broader base. The Florida Keys Model discounts the occupancy rate by 20 percent in recognition of the American Communities Survey which shows a decline in the occupancy rate for permanent units Consistent with Section 163.3178, F.S., the base scenario of the South Florida Regional Evacuation Study will be used to evaluate requests for plan amendments that increase density and intensity within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Operational scenarios depict evacuation from Monroe County based upon hurricanes approaching from different directions. Operational scenario 8 of the operational scenarios indicates that the evacuation time for permanent residents with no other area being evacuated is currently 22 hours and 30 minutes. While the South Florida Regional Evacuation Study results have not been published at the time of report preparation, preliminary results indicate that a regional evacuation from Monroe County and Miami-Dade County for an order requiring simultaneous evacuation would result in a clearance time that exceeds 24 hours. Conclusions The hurricane evacuation clearance time has been estimated utilizing different models, highway configurations and behavioral data. The resulting clearance times are between 16 hours and 16 minutes to 27 hours and 2 minutes. Both the Florida Keys Models and the South Florida 4 Regional Evacuation Study provide model runs that reflect a clearance time of 22 hours and up Page 29 L to 30 minutes. Over the past two years the Department has updated the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model assisted by numerous technical experts. It is clear that hurricane evacuation models provide different outcomes based upon the assumptions made. When reliable data are available, additional modeling should be done to evaluate how hurricane evacuation clearance time will be affected by the increase and distribution of development along US Highway 1 and the increase in occupancy of permanent units that are occupied on a seasonal basis. The results of the 2010 Census will begin their release in April 2011, with other data such as demographic profiles, summary files of aggregated data, and reports becoming available through September 2013. The 2010 Census data should be used to refine the occupancy rate for future model scenarios. The Department proposes to conduct workshops over the next six months with the local governments, the Division of Emergency Management, and the South Florida Regional Planning Council to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding, evaluate the model parameters and the modifiable assumptions of the model. The Memorandum of Understanding should address the model that will be utilized as well as the assumptions that will be employed by the local governments and the Department to run the model. Workshop discussions will also include an evaluation of the continued usefulness of the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model. The model was created more than ten years ago and more sophisticated, dynamic models are currently available, such as the South Florida Regional Evacuation Study. This model developed by the Division of Emergency Management which utilizes uniform criteria and modeling parameters that have been developed for use throughout Florida. The Memorandum of Understanding should address the model that will be utilized in the Florida Keys as well as the assumptions that will be employed by the local governments and the Department to run the model. The results of the evacuation clearance time are necessary to evaluate the number of new dwelling units that can be constructed in the Keys and still maintain the 24-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time. Additional dialogue is needed among the Department, the Florida Keys local governments, the Division of Emergency Management and the Florida Department of Transportation to evaluate the use of South Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study and to reach consensus on the assumptions that will be used in the model. Decisions are needed regarding the utilization of the South Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study for hurricane evacuation in the future. Additional modeling should be conducted at the local government level to evaluate how evacuation clearance time is affected by the distribution of units along US Highway 1. A sensitivity test of the values and assumptions of the South Florida Regional Evacuation Study should be conducted. Page 30 L. Build Out Capacity of the Florida Keys 30-Day Report Strategy: The Department of Community Affairs shall apply the derived clearance time to assess and determine the remaining allocations for the Florida Keys Areas of Critical State Concern.The Department will recommend appropriate revisions to the Administration Commission regarding the allocation rates and distribution of allocations to Monroe County, Marathon,Islamorada,Key West, Layton and Key Colony Beach or identify alternative evacuation strategies that support the 24 hour evacuation clearance time. If necessary,the Department of Community Affairs shall work with each local government to amend the Comprehensive Plans to reflect revised allocation rates and distributions or propose rulemaking to the Administration Commission. Status: This strategy is incomplete. Building permits in the Florida Keys have been limited to an annual building permit cap since 1996 in order to maintain a 24-hour evacuation clearance time. Monroe County, Marathon, and Islamorada allocate the permits based on a competitive point system which guides development toward areas with infrastructure and away from velocity zones and environmentally sensitive areas such as habitat for threatened or endangered species. When a building permit application is received, it is scored by the local government and enters the building permit L allocation pool. The pool is evaluated at quarterly intervals and the top ranked applicants receive an allocation. Those applications that are not awarded remain in the building permit pool and accumulate perseverance points for a maximum of four years. Applicants that are not successful in obtaining a building permit within four years may continue to wait for an allocation. If the property is in an area targeted for land acquisition, the local government may offer to purchase the property. If the parcel is not located within an areas targeted for acquisition, the local government may grant a permit under the existing Administrative Relief provisions of the land development regulations. Table 1 below provides allocation by local government. Table 1 -Annual Allocation by Local Government Local Government Annual Allocation Monroe County 197 Marathon 30 Islamorada 28 Key West* 92 Layton 3 Key Colony Beach 10 *Key West currently has no annual allocation because it is prohibited from amending their plan until the EAR based amendments and other statutory requirements are met. Land owners whose applications do not compete well in the building permit allocation r system due to the environmental sensitivity of the parcel sometimes file lawsuits claiming the ` property has been taken by inverse condemnation. Regulations that have been adopted to protect Page 31 L highly functioning wetlands and to limit clearing of tropical hardwood hammock that provides habitat for endangered species are often cited as the basis for filing Bert Harris Private Property Rights, or takings, cases against the local government and the Department of Community Affairs. These cases are expensive and time consuming to litigate. Currently, the Department is a co-defendant in nine cases, some with multiple petitioners. The Department has utilized the Office of the Attorney General to assist in litigating takings cases. Reducing the permit allocation in the Keys may increase the exposure to takings cases and must be carefully balanced against development limitations. As the Memorandum of Understanding is discussed, there will be concurrent workshops with local governments regarding allocations and distributions that will form the basis for a build-out scenario. 41/ Page 32 y In A W 'uN, N "' m 0 0 0, 0 XO O0. O O O Pa N 8 2 rA s, o x r, x, r., .x. x x X Cr L 5agag8 8 0 0 0 0 •`� 0 0 0 8fD '"1 A O 000 lk to - ten W J 0 .CJNi N 0 o,-o.. C11 O to r, Er 00 lJ 1 i '1 A pO pO 11 O `1 O O O O O O O O 0 0 O r O O O O O O O O O V] A co d _ _ o to O W A ) ) J 00 J O, t!� vP ? W co N — —: (D x N - �1 A O O 8 O �1 O O N O g Q,� 1n O 'V t!� OD "'' J A �.. V' O O O O In O O O O �. O 00 � O . O00 N N O O O O O O O C. O '00 00 0 O CA N fD () O a A W N rN N " ryp W A J W 00 J Os V. VP ? W W W W co ..S. 0 ^i f) O 1 1 J A 0 O Vi O - O O O O O '0 y 0 '� "" to 00 J A O O O O O to O O O O 00 0 .. W O Ooo ON O A O00 N N o o O O O O O O O = A, A O Z152 M la 12 V. . J -.I ,o J -a J J J 0 . W W W W W '� ...4 O "V. IA Vi IA 'VI 1/1 'V. it "CD C u, "0 �l '0 O 'CO 'CO �, z O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 cy O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 O 0 0 0 C `.N 0) x CD w N . ' ' H 'O x' c d ® ,O to _ � — N O v� ., Oo ? �p ut N + O O O O O O O Co O a'$ �' O W C� N N O� O O OP)y w O O00 Os 00 00 N O O co p„ n y co 00 O\ t1A . W N '-. '. ." V 1 VO IV W VP. O� J . N O Co . . .A Is.) N = tp x• A — O� 'N.) 'VI 4P VO O O O O O O O O O g ma y^. 00 0 NO N O O00 O\ A 00 O O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 - R 0) 00 (IQ rj Fo , o ir rw o" A Z7 m 00 01 U) .A W N — �-' .•+ _ o S o D V 1 V O N W ? O� J .P N O oo J O, A co W �. A co O LL ., ON N VI 00 ►-' A. NO O O 0 O O O O O O Q' ~ W y O ON N O Ooo a. A A O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 n cis y 2 .9 CD •,Oq FM P) H tta '"' y b O 0 V.1 v 1 V.1 v l V.1 ',I ...1 V 1 V 1 J v 1 V 1 --I ON �P W W 'r) J O s 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V, O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 p, iC O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0) '-e y X y 'El P. J G'� A W N — , _ — ff N ;Ocr, N A O. V 1 Oo .� �. •cn iji in '✓- 0 O O � •p a' O a c O O Of+ N O 0000 A A O O 0 0 0 p„ C0D ® 5.b = =ccoo c 0 co.E. $ N Er g I if o tw 0 '&b Ero ro y,;; EXHIBIT 3 r'r STATE OF FLORIDA office of tfje Qotrernor 5-1 1HE CAPITOL • TALLAHASSEE FLORID 32399-G001 'p w 1R N- . www.flgov.com CHARLIE CRIST 850-488-7146 GOVERNOR 850-487-0801 fax October 30,2008 Honorable Mario Di Gennaro,Mayor Monroe County Florida Keys Marathon Airport 9400 Overseas Highway Suite 210 Marathon, Florida 33050 Dear Mayor Di Germaro: For many decades,the Florida Keys Area has been recognized as a significant L .....Florida resource for its environmental, natural, and historical characteristics. The Florida Keys designation as an Area of Critical State Concern and the 10-year Work Program have served as critical steps toward protecting water quality,habitat areas, and citizen safety. It is through our continued partnership with county, state,and federal government principals that our goals for sustaining this valuable resource can be achieved. Enclosed are the actions taken by the Commission at the October 28, 2008, meeting. These include the 30-Day Report as required by section 380.0552(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Final Order granting Monroe County's Petition for Variance from or Waiver of 20 Percent Rate of Growth Ordinance Allocation Reduction. Additionally,the Commission adopted the following directive to state agencies: "The Commission directs the Departments of Community Affairs, Environmental Protection, and Transportation to work with Monroe County and other state and federal entities as part of a working group to --- -- ---- help develop strategies to secure protection of environmentally sensitive kinds through local, state and federal programs. Furthermore,the Commission directs the Department of Community Affairs to assist Monroe County in its efforts to secure legislation to amend section 380.0552(4), FS. The purpose of the legislation is to provide a process for the removal of the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designation that recognizes the current status of the Work Program tasks and provides a process for completion of additional tasks necessary for removal of the designation, including those related to the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and affordable housing." Honorable Mario Di Gennaro October 30, 2008 Page Two In the next few weeks, the Commission will initiate rulemaking to update and establish the expectations for completion of the Work Program tasks. The Commission welcomes your input and participation in this process as we expect this to be a collaborative effort with Monroe County. The Commission appreciates your continued commitment and service to the public in meeting the objectives of the Area of Critical State Concern designation. Should you have any questions regarding the 30-Day Report or the proposed rule and rulemaking process,please contact Lisa Saliba at(850)487-1884. Sincerely, Jerry L. McDaniel, ecretary Administration Commission JLM/lks Enclosures cc: Members of the Administration Commission Secretary Thomas G. Pelham, Department of Community Affairs Secretary Michael W. Sole, Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Stephanie Kopelousos, Department of Transportation 0 o N ¢; N o 2 a N N a c w E E O U a 7 W N C a7 e '6 EgE a.° .o x E aaa m U E a a 0 m a tt ~ E E C x C Ct0 3 — V .o ,a m O d2 8 ° or 8O C U to U ti C0 O 2 ` 0 0 rn � �o .m o L O . N x O E c d K a H E as o i. Ca U3No - Q C N M W N 0) al A c s 7 3 of CU d 44 N N M 7 0 ( .' O Id a0 it gE. coa and g E. 1O q �y d m 111 g ^c .$BOm 'S - .2 g m IQ r- m c.g o g � 2 g2g co a Ss" g s E2 =13 `° g o: a S'sg ?VI . ? 3E o a st 8 g Iii ! !Mil Oi a u E2w1==- she, m 1. .mat .off k,a 2t 2 ~ c`g at c� a jfl: Ea E . 4tg.m i iI 111111 aid SM. g CO i. I i EEe 0E . . g2 2 2 )- '4! #§ I x . CCA I 22 ; § - O '4, ; e ) ] \ \�Iii �� \ U) o } 8 .6 g — - - 5E20 ^ x ' JA 12 ] }} - -. , tc, a U \ V } ) k ) \) o -co « , fe $}� /)" ( f{/ .g.. 8\/ ..)k) £ e & & } i \ k) 62 6 .2X 2 @ § )Rk w ; f) }))2 to \\- k\) fi ° \kCD k � 3+® �� ®k7f / _ \ # gy ) a .227;g E t g 2 w {51 . ' J» /0= m- ga 2 2�■ t, E $ § y® £ � ! ! «2]5 � e t� #e !§ § 8 £ \) ) IIM- i ® iz | & » �Ja k a� #ftGa)$ § 2a. f 7 fKƒ 2/ )}2k)kfƒ7. , J §{a 7 ° k§ k¥ § ■- } k � �a ee \n . § e ! ii . . /} k , [! {2) k] //k\/� \f}ƒ{ ()§ | -2 ! a Z 76 pt=13 §1< /:k ,g) ,2- = f)& ®, t .8_ %ik#fk t/« k! 0 llt •tIIitii; u _ ,2\\ �Il { ■)ii � sx- 2, kk2 2/2y ® t G :\. ggE .\a & = I| ! �. ° ,• 7ƒ\ /k ) kt/)j± � \ 2 / k\ faƒ) !— `f f )! Ez g g f a N 0 C o O U 0 a 0 0 C C a EE C.D l x x OFX Ea 6 H £ 2 x x x x x wo , o145 gg _ c. em= W R 8 o L me _ 0 O 2 0 C N x x x x x 0 0 0 C 410 t 20 mac 8$ A AP, r� T' D coo U U Y U'4 U 0 0 0 l g 2 rm- ird r�� - Y 7 7 t-m r-M f-m r-ac rM OVM Mt Mt Mt Mt Mt Me 0 - > > >- r r co V a 'ao g 21 . 3 E ` ..cE ma f aIhi cm gQma �vg ot. o m Q y m g.E 3 m P, S o I i LL .0 gag 8 .� g C Cm N : C N ,g = m N C m$ CE.G i N. 3 g- E 8-. 182 g- i m U 3 O L' - L 2 m = L' O 3 v c m y o 5 c € o c `g c m S g N o °' E c • � d aE 'S A €o 2 S▪u 61 m' u- mii . m 2E8.75 -�� $ = g m .-cc o �' �q g c m .. L N ' o m 6 U c� m E o m m 1 ar E a i i. H 5 0, ? m `—O ti dQi w T. v u'g LL d r c E iL§� m c.a � l i " m e.€ c o i 8“ cc 4 2 y .. a g. di! R� , 8 l.§ c g-- `2 E g • • o E c m a. m g Z$LL 3 a .5.0. 3 0 M' a' ...2 r c 3 g m y 3 `g . d m - E i ' g Kta `2- o � $ B 3 -v 2- z-v .c a 4c U2 ig li s,g tE 3 c�' C2t t 'c .gym “ °2 $Q S2 .A Em p A LL 3 a� g v� 3 g o§ g Ag a 0 m 8'2 2 Y'. e $7 g8L'aY• v3c .Q n3 • g(6, o V � a y EQI � g▪ &F `2 o W zc o Y $1 eaIi3 rac §-' g §tcV 8� <@H STATE OF FLORIDA EXHIBIT 4 Office of the l,;_oiterxor I k S A. HE `Ate rS. - • HI I i.OR(D aH A�Si.t- ApRiDA i2lg4ry1111 Uwe www.flgm.com C'HA RLIF.GRIST 850-388-7146 GOVERNOR 850-487-0801fax December 17, 2009 The Honorable Sylvia Murphy, Mayor Monroe County Murray E. Nelson Government& Cultural Center 102050 Overseas Highway Suite 234 Marathon, Florida 33037 Dear Mayor Murphy: The Florida Keys Area has been recognized as a significant Florida resource for its environmental, natural, and historical characteristics. The designation as an Area of Critical State Concern and the 10-year Work Program in Administration Commission Rule 28-20.110, FAC, have served as critical steps toward protecting water quality, habitat areas, and citizen ---- --------------safety in the Florida Keys. It is through our continued partnership with county, state, and federal government principals, and environmental and citizen organizations, that our goals for sustaining this valuable resource can be achieved. Enclosed are the actions taken by the Commission at the November 17, and December 8, 2009, meetings. These include the 30-Day Report as required by section 380.0552(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Final Order issued on December 10, 2009, granting Monroe County's Petition for Variance from or Waiver of 20 Percent Rate of Growth Ordinance Allocation Reduction. During the reporting process, the Department of Community Affairs and the County proposed changes to the Work Program Tasks. These changes will be considered for inclusion in the Administration Commission rule subsequent to legislative action on the consensus legislation presented to the Commission on December 8, 2009. The Commission appreciates your continued commitment and service to the public in meeting the objectives of the Area of Critical State Concern designation. Should you have any questions regarding the 30-Day Report, please contact Lisa Saliba at(850) 487-1884. Sincerely, )l F Jerry L. McDaniel, Secretary Administration Commission JLM/Is Enclosures f The Honorable Sylvia Murphy December 17, 2009 Page Two cc: Members of the Administration Commission Secretary Thomas G. Pelham, Department of Community Affairs Secretary Michael W. Sole, Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Stephanie Kopelousos, Department of Transportation State Surgeon General Ana M. Viamonte Ros, M.D., M.P.H., Department of Health V Vi Ss 0� 2 II 4€ r r ,....• to a E o c°a E Q Ev K i S E a 0 I ,2u a tv8 L ✓ N N C IL 1. gag I O U a F D m Egg U _ _ 0 0 2 RI'i i , 4 3 CCEE@ C o ar U s o; Ec 8` S° t I 0 p 9 OS o O M P i & l b. r v 1111 - �,'k :7 ;iiu hi ig a 6if di r n8 s uiii IIt I'l i 5 g S i .11 : gg L is 5 r as PE' o ...g 0' !_ p? •' IsA , n171 CA 0. 5 k O ODqn 2 / o `� 'l {n 1! .il:y LL H g � vA- l I 1? fit In it it H 111fl1 IDia" e o I• hH1fl1 H gfr y N. - t2 k i n y g ei '1 1 2rc o o g �p Sr• ' C 8t a s rg - d grQc affi i , b [y1, F , Q S v } } ay p --'-- L I I ., aC O Ni B c€ < r g ;;�KK .a i r SE�E e u' I II! 2 R '- 2 K 2 Spa a 1 11. 1 1 PAa I Zo E c a UEa R 'o o 2 7Z R �Z EE n U 8 'oQ Ic - K G c > 2 > 3 s= F.P f p K t a 1 4, .ka Si- It EP i.$s iitki '$ 111 E $$ sh all & a '57.44, 2 `v o $ 2. 4 o Ia g a bX. �9 w a 2=- 8 ist a� z W a €' L dimlim / ] o z '4_ fag s =` Y o R lit$h :;I 1ggs 3 8a14 � t 2rilx 'fit}3 ; i0 9 C b d E 2 } III 8 5 g P S S p>g$ t ill - * I-I 31 o I ; a a'� Vii 911.1 UI! H . i l 5 a 1!411 ii! c Ga o183a 8�4-4 �9$ _ a EXHIBIT 5 s STATE OF FLORIDA ; ii: ffire of tfie dot traor IA. �- #n1f THE CAPITOI. j. -N. . A• IALL:1H n CSEa. iORIDA 32340-0001 w T. www.flgov.cam CHARLIE CREST 850-488-7146 GOVERNOR 850-487-0801 fax December 30, 2010 Honorable Heather Carruthers, Mayor Monroe County 530 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Mayor Carruthers: The Florida Keys Area has been recognized as a significant Florida resource for its environmental, natural, and historical characteristics. The designation as an Area of Critical State Concern by the Florida Legislature and the 10-year Work Program in Administration Commission Rule 28-20.110, FAC, have served as critical steps toward protecting water quality, habitat areas, and citizen safety in the Florida Keys. It is through our continued partnership with county, state, and federal officials as well as environmental and citizen organizations, that the goals for sustaining this valuable resource t can be achieved. fir' Enclosed are the actions taken by the Commission at the December 7, 2010, meeting. These include the 30-Day Report as required by section 380.0552(4)(a), Florida Statutes,and the approved proposed rule language for Monroe County. The Governor and Cabinet in their capacity as the Administration Commission, appreciate your participation at the December meeting, your support for the staff recommendation and your continued commitment and service to the public in meeting the objectives of the Area of Critical State Concern designation. Should you have any questions regarding the 30-Day Report, please contact Barbara Leighty at (850)487-1884. Sincerely, 7,) 7-F" )Jerry L. McDaniel, $ecrptary Administration Commission JLM/bl Enclosures cc: Members of the Administration Commission L Secretary Thomas G. Pelham, Department of Community Affairs \r' Secretary Mimi Drew, Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Stephanie Kopelousos, Department of Transportation State Surgeon General Ana M. Viamonte Ros, M.D., M.P.H., Department of Health y R o m ! hii 8 ° g$ F g -� jSy n o , S¢i7 m ymK g! i 8 w --g nu ,P 0f265 ; 13 m o� 2ly 7 S_ ? n f?S33SS u g a: e6 53 Q 4 m.c R s •'`Q. gi W 3 c.d + °', c 7 O c{ D O O iIiI3 '''c h W pl. m •x n NMI " v, S g `�' A E '= c orN o 0 $ 3 �.0 y °' 0 6 on O c 77 4`e R,u,, v v�. ca. 3 n $. $ S 3 ... fl S di Y o` �` - ! a v c3 - m y = n m A K n 5 3 �N =C 5 ocSc� m �• Nm i" amg Ty L? 8 "o`. � 3m N W>X rn ,, ,n m m c� f.TG1 rOgd m8m S o, o" 3on O2o W m 3 S' GL off � m� 0 cg 3 0 n8 � '� °c * coo : 3 ggla� S.8• � ,'.� co0 An 0 Y' ." 3 3 age m o, •-4Z m fl;flfl _ o -13 m `2 ti o n v v,„ a - o lgR 3c x)5. ,.�o S`� n_ 3 mco 0 as doocua i. A I fin ra < `�� T S3 2. � 32 y 0 'S c/� z-1 eli_ D t cIuht $ g S 'S m y� fg X n d s g3gd. a s `7g = 6 Nh ,—n ,,3 O R3- n03 3. rs o 3.�' - oN) 3 cp N N O 2 m ,O V O p y m 0 5 O N fl OO 3 0 y g o o a ro 3 m T o N C N 3 y ,u 2 ; �3 m m iv ,° o m o o,°� c N c 5. cg w, a §.F © cg 0 g5 C)Wo S 'gym ,g3 � �o N 4 n " 97 NV N P a V� a 5_ � l np , ( cFp: g. y N• 41 b. �gp G Q N V' 0 N O O 0.5 _ �i 8 k c tmn n n, 3 I m0. ? 8 ' d ss 0,3 = fin , 0 S. H 87 gc'� o y Q . � S. 3 0 0-'y a50 u - g n a � � o 15 3 s ngp' c �+ in n ,g n> D g gs 4. QL J o 6i O y _ C G0 m 2 c m VE a o m v P. m m o Ca tn 7 g w n c cr z. 3 0 S o c C m m I 0 p to G O w m G 11) vAp co m < m o-• a ma a n c� o 3 m E Fi3z A. c E Z o0 c o — 7 7 D = d a y O, c0 _ 0 0 0 3vs `- 5- m 7 0 0 0 ~ O O n *Ia 88 c c H O O -- O c, N 7 cp 0 c £ ✓aa2 o+ a N 0 n O O t O W y H ▪3 m y-a. ... O cp 7 0, (6- ____, -0 n 0t O { pc -< WA m 00. W m 3 7 0 7 m Exhibit 6 koc Excerpts from the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan Policy 101.20.2 The Community Master Plans shall be incorporated into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan as a part of the plan and be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following Community Master Plans have been completed in accordance with the principles outlined in this section and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, dated August 2004 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 2004 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. Amended by Ordinance 020-2009. 2. The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for Tavernier Creek to Mile Marker 97 dated February 11, 2005 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 16, 2005 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objective in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 3. The Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Plan Volume I is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in this Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 4. Volume Two (2) of the Stock Island and Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan titled Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment and Corridor Enhancement Plan dated November 2005 and incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in this Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 5. The Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. Exhibit 6 41/ Livable CommuniKeys master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key Strategy 10.1 Revise policies in the comprehensive plan specifically aimed at protection of unique habitat and wildlife communities in the planning area. Action Item 10.1.1: Delete policies 207.7.5, 207.7.7, 207.7.9, 207.7.10, 207.7.11, and 207.7.17 from the Conservation and Coastal Element of the Comprehensive Plan. These policies cover habitat and wildlife protection issues that either have been fulfilled since the policies were written, or are addressed as part of the HCP as implemented in this Master Plan. Action Item 10.1.2: Amend existing habitat analysis policies and regulations to add all hammocks and pinelands located within the planning area (on Big Pine Key and No Name Key) to the "Automatic High Quality" category with corresponding open space ratios applied. Action Item 10.1.3: Limit any clearing of native habitat on parcels to be developed for residential purposes or for local road widening. The total amount of clearing permitted over the 20-year period is no more the .2 percent of the current extent of native habitat (7.1 acres) and no more than 20% of any individual lot with native habitat (for wildfire prevention purposes only). Strategy 4.1 Plan the overall level of non-residential development for the next twenty years to be consistent with the community vision and development plan selected through the Livable CommuniKeys planning process. It shall also be consistent with the incidental take permit and the accompanying Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and Other Protected Species. Action Item 4.1.1: Limit the total amount of new commercial floor area that may be permitted to 47,800 square feet over the twenty-year planning horizon. This amount may be revised at a later time based on data indicating a change is warranted. Action Item 4.1.2: Designate the U.S. 1 Corridor Area as the area defined in the Big Pine/US 1 Corridor enhancement plan, incorporated herein by reference. Action Item 4.1.3: Direct non-residential development and redevelopment to infill in existing non-residential areas on Tier II and Tier III lands, mainly in the U.S. 1 Corridor Area. New commercial development will be limited to disturbed or scarified land - no clearing of pinelands and/or hammock will be permitted. Exhibit 6 Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan—Tavernier Creek to MM97 Strategy 2.1 Limit clearing for new construction to maintain the tree cover in the neighborhoods and along the U.S. 1 corridor area. Action Item 2.1.1: Amend existing habitat analysis policies and regulations to designate all lots in Tier I in this planning area as automatic high quality and limit clearing to a maximum of twenty percent. Action Item 2.1.2: Amend existing habitat analysis policies and regulations to designate all lots containing hammock areas in Tier II and Tier III in this planning area, whether old or regrowth, as automatic moderate quality and limit clearing to a maximum of forty percent. Strategy 6.5 Reduce the permitted clearing of Hammock lots. Action Item 6.5.1: Amend existing habitat analysis policies and regulations to designate all lots containing hammock areas in Tier II and Tier III in this planning area, whether old or regrowth, as automatic moderate quality and limit clearing to a maximum of forty percent. Key Larao Community Master Plan None Master Plan for the Future Development of Stock Island and Key Haven None Data & Analysis MINUTES OF THE TIER DESIGNATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Tier Designation Review Committee Friday,October 1,2010 Key Largo, Florida A regular meeting of the Tier Designation Review Committee convened at 9:15 a.m. at the Murray E.Nelson Government and Cultural Center. Present were Amy Phillips,Department of Environmental Protection;Randy Grau, Fish&Wildlife Conservation Commission; Richard Grosso, Everglades Law Center;Julie Cheon, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority;Tiffany Stankiewicz,Development Administrator, Planning and Environmental Resources;Susan Grimsley,Assistant County Attorney; Christine Hurley,Director,Growth Management Division;Michael Roberts,Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources; Phil Frank,Private Environmental Consultant;Bryan Davisson,GIS Planner, Growth Management;and Rebecca Jetton, Department of Community Affairs. Map Series 4 was revisited by the Committee. Mr.Grau said he thought the Committee had already recommended the two lots in the triangular parcel along U.S.1 be designated SPA. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the two lots in the triangular parcel on Map 4 be designated SPA. Richard Grosso seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon, Agreed;and Amy Phillips,Agreed. it/ Mr.Grau asked staff if they had any data errors to discuss. Michael Roberts stated that was something that could be addressed as it was encountered. ALTERNATIVE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS WETLANDS The wetland issue was discussed. Randy Grau stated that the wetland issue within the tier designation is confusing the public,because Tier III properties are where development is encouraged. Rebecca Jetton proposed the following wording for a possible policy: "For parcels designated Tier III and containing less than X square feet of accessible uplands,the staff biologist shall assign X number of negative points to the ROGO score." Michael Roberts stated he and Tiffany Stankiewicz have discussed the idea of a negative point for any application in ROGO that proposed impacts to a wetland. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there are wetland setbacks in the code,so negative points could also be applied in ROGO to anybody whose applications proposed impacts to that setback as well. Mr. Roberts feels the application of a tier overlay becomes problematic when performing the mapping and identification exercise of thousands of small wetlands scattered throughout the Keys. Phil Frank brought up the fact that the carrying capacity study concluded that tropical hardwood hammock uplands had been developed past their carrying capacity. Mr.Frank asked if mapping the wetlands was necessary given that there are plenty of wetlands and there are protections already afforded to the wetlands. 1 41111/ Mr.Grau said he doesn't feel disturbed salt marsh should get negative points because the Tier III hammocks,which are more endangered,don't get negative points,and the wetland clearing and setbacks are stricter than those of hammock. Mr.Grau suggested adding a disclaimer to the Tier Ill definition that some Tier III lands are wetlands with 100 percent open space. Ms.Jetton asked what the most logical way to approach the issue was,considering the property owner gets points,but the wetland regulations are in place. Christine Hurley said if a property is 100 percent wetlands,even if designated Tier III,it is not buildable. Tiffany Stankiewicz pointed out that if a property owner doesn't have a buildable piece of property,they can't get into ROGO. Mr.Roberts stated that if there are wetland impacts included in an application,it must have the appropriate state and federal permits before being accepted into ROGO. Ms. Hurley further explained that in the ROGO system a property owner would get more points if they do not have to clear. Ms. Hurley suggested a policy change that included a certain amount of space for a house, plus a buffer between the house and the wetlands,then the amount of points given could be edited to differentiate between a clearing of the wetlands versus having an open space on the site with wetlands adjacent to it that would not be disturbed. Randy Grau said he feels that will discourage development in infill areas and consequently put development in Tier Ill hammock elsewhere. Mr. Roberts reminded the Committee that the environmental design standard requires those developments to be sited on the least vulnerable habitation on the parcel, as the habitats are ranked for environmental sensitivity. kW Richard Grosso asked if there is a way to give negative points to a wetland in an important location as opposed to all wetlands. Mr. Hurley stated the County does not want to rank wetlands in ROGO, and suggested the Committee prioritize the lots for getting points. Mr.Grosso recommended giving negative points to wetlands adjacent to Tier I parcels. Julie Cheon was concerned the public at large would assume a Tier Ill property was buildable. Mr.Grau again suggested a disclaimer in the Tier Ill definition. Ms.Jetton reminded the Committee that the Keys Wetland Identification Process evaluated the wetlands in the Keys back in 2000,and any Red Flag wetland would not be allowed to be filled. Ms. Jetton suggested using Red Flag wetlands as criteria to assign negative points. Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion to direct staff to investigate and recommend a ROGO- scoring approach that would apply negative points to wetlands that were worthy of additional protection. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Amy Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. TIER BOUNDARIES Michael Roberts said a determination is needed on how to preserve historical parcel boundaries so the parcels could retain the original tier designation when they are aggregated. Bryan Davisson stated that the parcels in the GIS system are constantly changing and evolving. Mr. Roberts stated the issue is two-fold: A database management issue,and constructing language for either the tier ordinance or ROGO that makes sure the more restrictive designation carry with the master property. Amy Phillips recommended picking a hard date to put in the language for the aggregated parcels. 2 '. Julie Cheon asked how ROGO would work when evaluating one parcel with two tiers. Tiffany Stankiewicz explained the flood zone application: If any portion of the proposed structure is built in the more restrictive portion of the property,the loss of points would apply. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion to amend the tier language to prohibit changes to parcel boundaries resulting in changes to tier designation of Tier I or SPA portions of the parcel. Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Richard Grosso,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. Randy Grau asked if a discussion is warranted regarding different tiers within parcels. Mr. Roberts answered that the County has recommended to some owners of larger parcels to do a lot split. That recommendation would only be applicable to those properties that were large enough or diverse enough to where they could maintain their open space requirements on the developed portion of their property after they change the designation. Mr. Roberts stated there is flexibility in the code to draw the tier designations along habitat signature or natural feature boundaries. Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion that the County use geophysical boundaries to the extent practical or possible where appropriate with distinctions made of,for example,scarified land or developed parcels. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Amy Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. WETLAND CATEGORY Michael Roberts said he felt this has been addressed in the previous conversations. CONFORMING SPA CLEARING LIMITS TO TIER I Michael Roberts explain the SPA is a subset of Tier III. SPA was intended to address hammock areas within Tier III that were of a size and configuration significant enough to warrant some level of additional protection. SPA is afforded protection from the reduction in ROGO points between Tier III and SPA. Mr.Grosso feels SPA areas are more like Tier I than they are like Tier III. Mr. Roberts proposed the language for SPA clearing limits to say 40 percent or 3,000 square feet,whichever is less. Ms.Jetton and Mr.Roberts discussed what exactly Policy 101.4.22 says. Ms. Jetton feels the policy wording could use some improvement. Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion that the clearing limit for SPA read:"40 percent or 3,000 square feet,whichever is less." Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Amy Phillips,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. ONE-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR SPA Michael Roberts explained that the one-acre threshold came about through the County's land acquisition program policies,which are to buy natural areas of an acre or greater within a developed landscape. Mr.Roberts doesn't feel the administrative law judge's final order prohibits the Committee ` from establishing a one-acre minimum if it is done for a non-arbitrary reason. Mr. Grosso suggested 11/ 3 L getting rid of the one-acre criteria in the regulatory process,but leaving it in when it speaks directly to land acquisition. Ms.Jetton clarified that the one-acre threshold came about when DCA was trying to determine if land less than an acre was large enough to provide adequate life-sustaining characteristics for habitat. Mr.Grosso continues to feel the importance of the hammock is what matters,not the size. Mr. Grosso argues that if the language used as the standard criteria for SPA is based on professional judgment,it would hold up in a court of law. Motion: Richard Grosso made a motion to ask staff to analyze and bring back language that would replace the"of one acre or greater in area"with some professionally accepted qualitative standard to represent the definition of SPA. Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. Randy Grau suggested having a minimum quantitative number. Mr.Grosso concurred. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion for staff to consider a lower limit threshold size included within the prior motion. Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon, Agreed;and Richard Grosso,Agreed. PREVENTION OF SUBDIVISION OF TIER III ALLOWING ADDITIONAL CLEARING Michael Roberts felt that this was covered in the previous conversations. REMOVE INCENTIVES FOR ALLOWING EXOTICS TO SPREAD Discussion was had regarding property owners may try to use the 40 percent exotic criteria to have their tier designation changed. Michael Roberts said he thought the presence or absence of exotic vegetation within a natural landscape is a fair indicator of the health of that hammock. Susan Grimsley pointed out that if the one-acre threshold in SPA was gotten rid of and a qualitative description was used,then that all becomes part of the evaluation. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion for staff to look at additional qualitative language to add to the 40 percent exotic criteria such as"and has disturbed substrate"or"and is surrounded by X percent of development." Amy Phillips seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Richard Grosso,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. The schedule of upcoming meetings was discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. 4 MINUTES OF THE TIER DESIGNATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Tier Designation Review Committee Thursday,August 25,2011 Key Largo,Florida A meeting of the Tler Designation Review Committee (TDRC) convened at 9:11 a.m. at the Murray E. Nelson Government and Cultural Center. Present were Janice Duquesnel, Department of Environmental Protection;Randy Grau, Fish&Wildlife Conservation Commission; Curtis Kruer,Everglades Law Center; Julie Cheon, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority; Winston Hobgood, U.S. Fish & Wildlife; Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator, Planning and Environmental Resources; Susan Grimsley, Assistant County Attorney; Christine Hurley, Director, Growth Management Division; Michael Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources; Phil Frank, Private Environmental Consultant; Bryan Davisson, GIS Planner, Growth Management; Townsley Schwab, Planning Director; Mayte Santamaria, Assistant Planning Director;and Rebecca Jetton,Department of Community Affairs. Board of County Commissioner Sylvia Murphy presented Committee Members Julie Cheon, Winston Hobgood and Randy Grau with plaques thanking them for their dedication and participation in the Tier Designation Review effort. (1114, APPROVAL OF MINUTES ` Motion: Randy Grau made a motion to approve the September 30,2010 and October 1,2010 meeting minutes. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Curtis Kruer, Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed. MEETING Mr. Roberts asked for and received permission to make a slight modification to the agenda to move up the review of the tier policies related to wetlands due to some scheduling conflicts. Mr. Roberts framed the Issues for the Committee by explaining per the Administrative Law Judge's recommended order it was determined that wetlands were not part of the tier designation criteria. The TDRC had asked staff to evaluate how the Committee might continue to monitor the development of wetlands, particularly with a Tier 3 landscape. Staff went back and reviewed the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) criteria and scoring in particular to bring wetlands back into the ROGO scoring. Mayte Santamaria presented two proposed comprehensive plan amendments to the ROGO point score and the NROGO point score. Staff is proposing to include scoring criteria for wetlands. The proposed language states: 'The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications on Tier 3 parcels that contain submerged lands and/or wetlands that require 100 percent open space pursuant to policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1, and that are located either adjacent or contiguous to Tier 1 properties." Ms. Santamaria would like to discuss with the Committee the choice of "adjacent" versus "contiguous." Staff was considering a negative score of between two and five, but would like guidance from the Committee as to the number. 1 Mr. Kruer asked how freshwater wetlands surrounded by uplands that are not contiguous with other wetlands would be handled. Ms. Santamaria explained that if any of those types of wetlands were included in a Tier 3, if it were isolated or not, if it were adjacent to Tler 1 it would still receive negative points. Mr. Roberts pointed out that that is a very rare occurrence that there would be any type of habitat of that nature within the Interior of a Tler 3 landscape. Discussion was had regarding how to treat disturbed wetlands. Mr. Roberts clarified that protection of disturbed wetlands is not being undermined In any way. Ms. Hurley stated that staff plans to go through some scoring exercises as examples once the policy parameters are set. New definitions will be developed to clarify the definitions of what is disturbed versus undisturbed. Mr. Kruer commented that he wonders about using the definitions of"adjacent"or "contiguous" to Tier 1 lots as a limitation for the negative points to apply. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff thought it would be duplicative to give negative points for something that cannot be filled, such as isolated wetlands that might have a freshwater pond, If it is not connected to a larger habitat. Mr. Kruer stressed that,while he understands the value of dealing with large ecosystems or large areas of habitat, there are also a lot of value to the fragments of wetlands that remain In the Keys,Just like there is values to the fragments of hammock that remain in the Keys. Ms.Santamaria said that staff is trying to balance the tier system with protection of wetlands as well. Tier 3 parcels have already gone through committee hearings and board approval and have been designated as areas to direct growth to. Ms. Hurley reminded the Committee that if the site does not have 2,000 square feet of developable land, meaning nonhabitat or nonwetiand, it is not a ROGO eligible site. Dr. Frank clarified that this L policy would only apply to 100 percent open space lots, making this an additional layer of protection. err Ms. Hurley further explained that by putting some negative points you get the Tier 3s that are fully scarified to move forward faster in the ROGO system than these others that may have some kind of habitat worthy of protection. This policy would not be retroactive to parcels already designated Tier 3. Parcels entering ROGO after the effective date of this policy change would be subject to it. Ms.Cheon suggested adding language to the contiguous definition that certain properties are part of 100 percent open space wetland that is contiguous to a Tler 1 property. Mr. Kruer believes "adjacent or "contiguous" language would be important to Include here,except for U.S.1 causing a break. Mr. Hobgood stated that a road is normally a break In a wetland because it kills the hydrology. Mr. Hobgood stated that It seems with this policy It would behoove a landowner to break wetlands out of their property and split the property Into two different parcels. Mr. Roberts reminded the Committee that this policy is only applicable to Tier 3 parcels, and while in theory that might work, in reality most property owners would not have a large enough lot to make it two RE numbers and still have enough buildable space on the upland portion to be able to make it work. And In order to dedicate land, R has to be buildable. Mr. Kruer agreed with the comment about roads being a little bit of a concern In adjacency, but not as much as one might think sometimes,and using the term "adjacent as well to pull a little bit of additional wetland protection in larger areas would be appropriate. Mr. Kruer thinks five negative points would be appropriate considering the native habitat that is at stake. Motion: Winston Hobgood made a motion that"contiguous"continue to be used In the same manner ibar as used before,which Is not broken by a road. 2 \s. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the code definitions include both "adjacent" and "contiguous"as stated in this proposal and that U.S.1 does constitute a break. Mr. Hobgood withdrew his motion. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the definition of"adjacent'be used,that Tier 3 parcels with 100 percent open space wetlands that are adjacent to Tier 1 parcels receive negative points,and that any parcel that is part of the 100 percent open space wetland contiguous to the property by Included. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesne!, Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Randy Grau,Agreed. Ms.Santamaria requested recommendations from the Committee on the points. Mr. Kruer feels using this process to provide even more protection to naturally occurring undisturbed wetlands to promote their protection for the future seems to be important. Mr. Kruer believes negative five to negative ten points would be in the range that would be serious or Important enough to put these parcels in a back seat to the parcels that this process is really trying to have developed,which are Tier 3 parcels that are totally disturbed land with no native hammock, pineland or native wetlands on them. Mr. Kruer also believes it Is important to provide information to the public that just because a property is designated Tier 3 does not mean the entire parcel is suitable for In011. Mr. Kruer asked if the County had the ability to Include additional requirements regarding wetlands. Ms. Hurley emphasized staffs desire to get the tier system finished and not continue to modify it countywide. Staff believes that by establishing negative points for parcels that have wetland L communities will do the same thing as countywide rezoning, without the expense of rezoning. Ms. Santamarla again reminded the Committee these are for parcels with wetlands that require 100 percent open space, not wetlands that can be filled. Mr.Grau asked how many open space wetlands end up in conservation easements, and for what reasons would they be in conservation easements. Mr. Roberts answered through Monroe County Code,conservation easements over wetland areas are not required. The County requires a conservation easement over undisturbed upland areas as part of the development process. While agreeing the concept has merit, Mr. Roberts is concerned about the resources that would be required to monitor this. Mr.Grau stated that at least there would be legal record that is recorded and when somebody buys the property they see there is an easement, they know it has protection. Mr. Hobgood added that it is extremely difficult to find somebody to hold the conservation easement. Dr. Frank asked if there was a minimum size threshold. Mr.Roberts also reminded the Committee that they are talking about wetlands that are already 100 percent open space under existing code. Mr. Roberts agreed that size limits might be something that staff may need to try to address. Ms.Jetton believes this underscores the need to map these undisturbed wetlands onto the tier maps so the Committee knows more about what they are talking about. Ms.Jetton stated this idea seems like a good idea. Mr. Roberts thinks it would be a rare occasion that there is a wetland with 100 percent open space within a Tier 3 landscape that this is going to affect. Mr. Roberts stated that,from his perspective, negative four points is consistent with the application of other deductions and additions that are provided for in ROGO, and that negative ten points for all intents and purposes retiers that property, that it is too much. Ms.Cheon believes,when talking about wetlands that are already protected, negative four or five points sounds reasonable. Mr. Hobgood 411/ agreed. 3 'V Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the negative points assigned to this situation in ROGO would be negative five points. Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. Mr. Roberts asked the Committee members if adding a point or two for a conservation easement should be incorporated Into the motion. Mr. Roberts informed the Committee that the biggest advantage to that Is when a violation is documented,there Is a legal instrument to rely on that has an absolute set of restrictions associated with it that the County can come back and enforce. Ms. Cheon suggested including a requirement of a conservation easement Instead of using a point system. Mr. Roberts said he would hesitate to put that as a requirement simply because some easements have very limited value. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the negative five points could be reduced by two points If a conservation easement is entered by the property owner protecting the wetlands and the required buffer. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Julie Cheon,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed. Ms.Jetton asked to hear the Committee Members'thoughts on giving a small amount of positive points to undisturbed wetlands that people would be willing to donate to the County. Mr. Grau believes it would be a worthwhile idea to get as much of that sensitive land and ownership as possible because that is easier than protecting it by regulating. Ms. Cheon thinks it is a valid idea, but wonders if the County would end up with properties they really do not want to manage. Ms.Jetton clarified that she is talking about undisturbed wetlands In Tier 1. Ms. Hurley added that staff is in favor of this. Mr. Roberts clarified that in order for a parcel of land to be used as a dedicatable lot under ROGO, it has to have 2,000 square feet of buildable area, which could be uplands and/or disturbed wetlands that are able to be filled in accordance with the code. Ms.Jetton discussed the Importance of giving these lots a value. Mr.Grau agreed. A brief recess was held from 10:46 a.m.to 10:58 a.m. The clearing limit policy discussion was had. Mayte Santamaria explained that this 1s a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to address the clearing of upland hammock. This is to provide some clarity and consistency between local governments here in the Keys. This Is also a task that the Administration Commission has given to Monroe County to complete. Ms.Santa merle stated that Policy 101.4.22 mistakenly Includes cactus hammock and palm hammock as habitat in Ocean Reef. This policy specifies that it not only applies to Tiers 1 and 2,but it also applies to Tier 3A,the special protection lots. The existing clearing limit for Tier 1 is 20 percent and it does not have a maximum clearing limit. Staff is proposing a clearing limit of 20 percent or 3,000 square feet,whichever is greater, but no greater than 7500 square feet of the upland native habitat area. There would be an exception for driveways, especially if it is a very large Tier 1 parcel. Staff has provided an allowance to allow for a driveway if fragmentation is minimized, specimen trees are avoided and the shortest reasonable route possible is taken. For Tier 2 the existing clearing limit is 40 percent with no maximum. Staff is proposing including 3,000 square feet or a maximum of 7500 for the native upland vegetative area. For Tier 3 K remains the same as the 40 percent, or 3,000 square feet, with a maximum of 7500 square feet. Then on the Special Protection Area,Tier 3A,that is 40 percent,or 3,000 square feet,and 7500 square feet maximum. Both LP' Protection Tier 3 and Tier 3A also have the driveway allowance. 4 Different clearing limits have been provided in the Livable CommuniKeys documents and staff wants to specify that County Policy 101.4.23 controls over the Livable CommuniKeys plans. Policy 101.4.24 is simply renumbering it. Policy 105.2.27 Is just changing the maximum from 5,000 to 7500 square feet. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Mr. Hobgood that the clearing limits are Just for the upland habitat areas. Mr. Roberts added that existing code requires the applicant to cluster their development on the least sensitive habitat first. Mr. Kruer stated that he feels that by giving large property owners a driveway allowance this liberal encourages encroachment into sensitive areas of the hammock. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff is trying to provide options for people and to make sure that the development is sited In the most appropriate areas,and that by adding the language"maximum 7500 square feet"is a dramatic decrease In clearing allowances on large parcels. Dr. Frank agreed that the 7500 square feet maximum clearing allowance is a significant amount of progress in conservation. Mr. Kruer added that the word "endeavor" In the statement"The proposed driveway design shall endeavor to minimize fragmentation" has no real legal requirement and Is not enforceable. Ms. Jetton agreed that the word "endeavor should be stricken. Ms.Cheon pointed out that the language includes"per principal dwelling unit." Ms. Santamaria agreed that it should be"per parcel." Ms. Hurley further explained that when the staff would review development plans they would look at where the house should be located. That has to be decided based on the code. The code right now says it is a joint call between the County biologist and the Planning and Environmental Resources Director. Mr. Roberts then clarified for Ms. Duquesne)that the words "recommended by' are used In the code, �/ but that site plan is subject to review, and if the proposed driveway alignment or house location varies widely from staffs original recommendation, the plans are likely not going to be approved unless the property owner has overriding consideration that results in staff changing their mind or agreeing with the proposed location. Mr. Roberts also explained that the code is based on a broad brush community type and does make the distinction between disturbed and undisturbed, but does not at this point distinguish between low and high quality. Mr. Kruer feels that even though it may be a reduction from what is on the books now, it still seems to go beyond what is needed to allow development of these Tier 1 parcels. Mr. Roberts answered that County Code allows staff to require the minimization of Impact. Ms. Santamaria asked Ms. Jetton to provide the reasoning behind the driveway allowance in the annual report to the Administration Commission. Ms.Jetton explained that it was done to reduce the amount of clearing,and the previous Growth Management Director had made an argument saying that many people want their houses near the water and so these long driveways had to be provided for. Dr. Frank sees the situation that, yes, hammock has been cleared, but a significant amount of hammock has also been preserved. Mr. Grau pointed out that even if a homeowner did build up closer to the road, there would still be a path and clearance to the water one way or another. The need for an 18-foot clearing for a driveway was discussed. The history of the 40 percent clearing limit in Ocean Reef was discussed. Motion: Randy Gnu made a motion that the language under Tier 1 permitted clearing"per principal dwelling unit" in the first paragraph be replaced with "per parcel," and that the proposed language f that says, "The proposed driveway design shall endeavor to minimize..." should be "The proposed ` driveway design shall minimize fragmentation,"and the same where appropriate on the other tiers. 5 L. Janice Duquesne) seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Julie Cheon,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed. Ms. Hurley presented Richard Grosso with his plaque in appreciation for his participation and effort in the tier review process. Mr. Roberts explained that staff has not prepared any proposed language or proposed revisions to existing codes of policies on the combining of lots or the exotic policies because staff was not sure which way to go. Both of these Items were requested by the TDRC for staff to go back and review and evaluate, and the Committee had requested an opportunity to weigh In on that. What has been discussed at the staff level most frequently was the inclusion of language that in the event of a lot split, or the event of breaking a lot into separate RE numbers,that the most restrictive tier designation would hold within the subsequent or new RE numbers. Staff is looking for more input from the Committee. Ms.Cheon believes that there are so many variables, it would be difficult to make a policy decision and put it In writing. Mr. Roberts also said that in the combining of parcels,the most restrictive tier would continue to apply. The incentives for people to combine parcels were discussed. Mr. Kruer believes having a policy that the most restrictive tier designation would apply Is the most logical approach to the problem. Ms.Jetton feels that the County should adopt an LDR that says lots that are aggregated shall take the more restrictive tier unless a rezoning of the property occurs. Mr.Grau asked Mr. Grosso,who was in the audience, for his thoughts on this topic. Mr. Grosso believes that adding that in the code does not take away anything that anybody has now,but Just prevents further changes. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion for a recommendation that the County Include in their LDRs when two parcels of different tiers are combined,the more restrictive tier applies. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesne),Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. A luncheon recess was held from 11:59 a.m.to 1:11 p.m. MAP SERIES MAP 83 Mr. Roberts brought before the Committee Map Series 83. One parcel was inadvertently left undesignated In prior meetings. The remaineder of the parcel is Tier 3 and is essentially part of a mining operation. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to characterize that undesignated parcel as Tier 3. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood, Agreed;Janice Duquesne),Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. MAPA Mr. Roberts explained to Mr. Kruer that the prior process was making sure that the Committee had two opportunities to review the map series. This is the second opportunity for this map series to be reviewed. It is at the Committee's discretion to reevaluate and discuss further or see just what the current designations are and move on. The two small parcels in the upper right-hand corner consisting of 2.36 acres of hammock were recommended to be SPA. Mr. Kruer questioned why those two small parcels together that is contiguous with additional hammock did not rise to the level of Tier 1. Dr. Frank reported that at his site visit he found the north portion to be hammock and the portion out In front to be very disturbed. Ms. Cheon remembered a lot of discussion at prior meetings about the proximity to 6 U.S.1 and it being a very commercialized area. Mr. Kruer recognized it was obviously a fragmented hammock, but a sizeable fragment compared to others that have been designated Tier 1 through the process. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the Committee reconsider the SPA designation for those two parcels considering their size and redesignate them as Tier 1. Mr. Grau agreed that the two parcels were clearly good to medium quality hammock and the rest of It Is basically a parking lot with canopy. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon,Disagreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed. MAP B Mr. Kruer stated that the minutes reflect that Mr. Grau had been to the site and it Is less than high quality hammock and everybody agreed,with one exception,to leave it as Tier 3. Mr.Krue's Interest in suggesting that this be looked at was just for consistency, because it appears to be a parcel with hammock that is directly connected to a bigger hammock and to be consistent it would need to be Tier 1. Site inspection revealed that it Is not of the same quality as the larger hammock to the south. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that no changes be made on this map. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon, Agreed; Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. MAP C ( Mr. Kruer stated that the minutes reflect this remained Tier 3 because it was surrounded on four sides ` by development. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that this remain Tier 3 as previously considered. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Gnu,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed. MAP D Mr. Kruer said that Map D has a hammock fragment that is surrounded by development. Mr. Kruer reminded the Committee that in early consideration of how to approach this, the purpose was to protect and maintain hammock fragments where they continued to exist. Ms.Cheon commented that due to having the large shopping plaza across the way, its located within a heavily Improved subdivision, heavily developed subdivision, she cannot see protecting this little chunk of hammock which does not show high quality hammock from the aerial. Mr. Roberts remembers this particular group as being canopy, not hammock. Mr. Kruer brought out that the minutes, which were just accepted, indicate it was hammock of decent quality. Mr. Kruer believes the less amount of hammock there is In an area,the more important It is to maintain what is there. Ms. Duquesnel informed the Committee that Just north of these parcels is Adams Cut and Just north of the cut are two large parcels owned by the County. Just south of these parcels there is property that is associated with John Pennekamp State Park. Ms. Duquesnel agreed with Mr. Kruer that these fragments do maintain some value because of connectivity. Mr.Grau reported that at his site visit he found the hammock not to be of good quality and the whole understory was ripped out except for most of the edges. Mr. Davisson added that the hammock acreage is a little over a half acre, .S8 acres. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the designation remain by the Committee previously of Tier 3. All of the parcels together were reported to be about.8 acre, a little less than an acre. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; v Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed. 7 `r• MAPE Mr. Kruer stated that the previous decision was to leave them as Tier 3, but there was acknowledgement that there were hammock fragments In there. Mr. Kruer again commented that one of the original goals of this effort is to locate,identify,inspect and try to protect and maintain remaining hammock fragments. Mr. Roberts added the hammock fragments are way less than an acre. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that they remain as designated by the Committee, Tier 3, because there does not appear to be any new Information and they are less than an acre. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed. MAP F Dr. Frank reported that at his site visit he found the parcels to consist of curb and gutter and landscaping. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those parcels identified on Map F remain as Tier 3. Randy Gnu seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. MAP G Ms.Cheon stated that this area appears to be used as some sort of Industrial yard. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that this remain as designated,Tler 3,by the Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel, ( Agreed. MAP Ft Mr. Kruer reported that the minutes reflect that the site had been inspected and it was found to be mostly canopy trees remaining. The minutes reflected that Mr. Grau had been to the site and it is mostly cleared of understory with houses on both sides. Lack of connectivity to hammock was discussed. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the parcel remain Tier 3 as previously designated. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Gnu, Agreed; Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed. MAP I Mr. Kruer reviewed the previous recommendations made on this map. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the two parcels that are on the water be designated as Tier 1,consistent with the parcel immediately to the west. Mr. Roberts read aloud the minutes from the meeting when the prior recommendation was made. Mr. Grau said that at his site visit the parcel to the right had been substantially cleared and there were a lot of scattered structures and buildings all through the parcel. Motion: Based on the reading of the minutes and due to the fact that the left-hand parcel of the two on the water is mapped as a substantial amount of hammock and it Is contiguous with a large native fragment of hammock,Curtis Kruer revised his motion to be that the parcel then be designated Tier 1 instead of SPA. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Julie Cheon, Disagreed; and Randy Gnu, disagreed due to disturbance on 41110 that parcel. 8 MAP J Mr. Kruer explained the thought process going into Everglades Law Center (ELC) making a recommendation here was that there Is enough hammock fragments remaining in this area to give it some special consideration. Ms.Cheon stated that both she and Mr.Grau did extensive site visits in this area. Mr.Roberts explained that the two larger parcels were left as a SPA because it is not connected to anything and the houses constitute a break in the code. Motion: Mr. Kruer made a motion to redesignate the two larger parcels Tier 1 consistent with what is Immediately to the north and based on the existence of native habitat. Mr. Hobgood questioned what extra protection that would afford hammock on this property since it looks like they have already cleared their 40 percent. Ms.Cheon remembered the smaller lot previously being designated SPA and the larger parcel to the right being Tier 1,and stated that she still agreed with those designations. Mr. Kruer compared different parcels and pointed out inconsistencies in designations. Mr. Roberts responded that it was not appropriate to compare properties where the tier designation was not challenged and not reviewed by this Committee with decisions that the Committee made, and the properties should be evaluated based on its existing habitat and value and the criteria of the tier designations as they exist today. Mr. Davisson reported that the large hammock to the northeast is 14.7 acres. The two parcels that are now SPA together are 4.77 acres. Mr. Kruer renewed his motion. Ms. Cheap feels that keeping the designation SPA Is consistent with the other decisions that have been made by the Committee. Ms. Grimsley explained that all state and publicly-owned lands are Tier 1 no matter what is on them. ( Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the larger parcel remain SPA and the smaller parcel be �/ designated Tier 1. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon,Disagreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed. MAPS Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the previous designations for the other parcels on the map remain in place. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed. MAP L Mr. Kruer stated the minutes reflected that this parcel was a half an acre surrounded by development and it fronts on U.S.1. Mr. Kruer again feels that since it is a fragmented hammock that is In decent shape,they should be maintained where possible. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to keep it as previously designated by the Tier Committee,Tier 3. Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau, Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. MAP M Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the designations agreed on Map M remain. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed. 411, MAPN Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the designations previously assigned by the Committee remain the same. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. MAP 0 Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the parcels remain as previously designated by the Committee. Janice Duquesnel seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. MAP P Mr. Grau stated that the only native habitat on the large parcel to the north is mangroves. Mr. Kruer pointed out that the three lots to the south were contiguous with Tier 1. Mr. Kruer believes that those three lots should have been made Tier 1, so as to make it obvious those three lots are not suitable for !dill. Ms.Cheon responded that the Committee could not do it based on the criteria they were given to review these lots. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those three lots to the south be redesignated due to their wetland condition as Tier 1 consistent with what is next to them. Mr. Roberts explained that the Committee cannot revisit every wetland looked at and previously reviewed and wetlands are not part of the tier designation criteria. If there Is not upland habitat on the parcel,then there is no nexus for a SPA and no nexus for Tier 1. Mr. Kruer questioned the Tier 1s on that same page. Mr. Davisson stated they L are-In-Florida Forever. Mr. Roberts explained that there will be 100 percent Tier 1 wetland parcels currently in the code and currently mapped as Tier 1 because they were designated prior to the challenge and prior to the revised tier designation criteria. Mr. Hobgood stated that it seems like the purpose of today's review has changed into a challenge of previous decisions. Mr. Kruer withdrew his motion. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that based on all research done prior,that the parcels remain the same as previously designated by the Tler Committee. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel, Agreed; Winston Hobgood, Agreed; and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. MAP Q Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that this map remain the same as designated by the Tier Committee prior. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Curtis Kruer,Disagreed;and Randy Gnu,Agreed. A brief recess was held from 2:37 p.m.to 2:53 p.m. MAPR Ms.Cheon remembered a lot of discussion on this map previously. Dr. Frank reported that this contains understory completely. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that the decisions made on R stand as applied. Randy Gnu seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Disagreed. 10 'V MAPS Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the prior designations remain based on finding the properties to be disturbed on site visits. Winston Hohgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Julie Cheon,Agreed;Curtis Kruer,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed. MAPT Mr. Grau remembered that this parcel ended up being less than an acre and was a little bit disturbed. Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that it remain Tier 3. Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. MAP U Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion these remain as previously designated by the Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed. MAP V Mr. Grau remembered that there was previously discussion about keeping it as Tier 1, but there were some changes made because of the wetland issue. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion these remain as previously designated. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Gnu,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. -MAP W �r Mr. Kruer again commented that It would seem to be an easy matter to designate this Tier 1 and be done with it. Mr. Kruer suggested Including some statement in the definitions to make it real clear that wetlands on a Tier 3 parcel are not necessarily suitable for inflll. This would be another example where Mr. Kruer would make a motion that these mangrove wetlands be designated Tier 1. Mr. Roberts informed Mr. Hobgood that the Committee previously designated this Tier 3 and it Is 100 percent wetland. Mr.Roberts agreed that there should be some language somewhere that clarifies just because it is Tier 3 does not necessarily mean that it Is developable, and that will probably be addressed in the upcoming year. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion to take these two parcels, which are all tidal mangroves, and redesignate them Tier 1. Mr. Grau agreed with Mr. Kruer and stated that this is one recommendation that will be sent to the BOCC. Mr.Roberts reported that staff will be moving forward with the language revisions discussed this morning as far as the wetland integration into ROGO scoring and the clearing limits,but Mr.Roberts was unsure when this committee would convene again. Ms.Grimsley added that Mr.Grosso had approached her with a suggestion to put something in the land development code that did not require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to the effect that wetlands designated as Tier 3 may have other restrictions,something that would address the concern that people from out of town would come in and buy something unknowingly. Motion: Mr.Gnu made a motion to leave it as previously designated because of the problem with it being 100 percent mangroves. Julie Cheon seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed. 11 L► MAP X Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion that the three homes remain as designated previously by the Tier Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Randy Grau,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed. Mr. Roberts asked the Committee to address the parcel with RE Number 00126420.000000 and 00126430.000000. Mr. Roberts explained that there Is language in the recommended order and in the final order from the Administrative Law Judge that the area designated by Trivette be changed to Tier 3. Unfortunately, nobody has been able to locate the specific map that the Administrative Law Judge was referring to when he said "the area designated by Trluette." The best that can be determined is that the Administrative Law Judge was referring to two parcels,one parcel consisting of 100 percent mangrove and the other parcel consisting of what is locally known as the racetrack. Staff asked that this area be redesignated Tier 3 consistent with the tier designation criteria as they exist today and as directed by the Administrative Law Judge In the hearing process. Motion: Julie Cheon made a motion to designate those two parcels Tler 3 as directed by the Administrative Law Judge and by the fact that there Is no hammock on the property. Mr.Kruer stated that this is a classic case where they are designated Tier 3,even though they are 100 percent open space ratio, and they will have to be dealt with again in the future because of the zoning that was applied to them. Mr.Grau reluctantly seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed. 41111/ The AdministrativeLaw Judge's recommended order was reviewed. Mr. Kruer pointed out that the order states it should be Tier 1. Mr. Kruer stated that the outright rejection of having some wetlands be Tier 1 is not supported by that order. Ms.Cheon withdrew her motion. Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that those two parcels remain designated Tier 1. Randy Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Winston Hobgood,Agreed;Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. MAP V Motion: Curtis Kruer made a motion that all of the Tier 1 designations for the offshore islands represented be maintained. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed. Mr. Roberts announced that was the end of the map review. Mr. Kruer thanked the County for an excellent job in preparing this information and doing the GIS work. Mr. Grau agreed. Mr. Roberts pointed out that was a result of the efforts of Bryan Davisson,Senior GIS Coordinator. The last discussion had was regarding policy and/or strategies to remove incentives for allowing exotics to spread. Mr. Roberts reported that current County Code states that 40 percent or greater nuisance or exotic vegetation coverage breaks the connection with the hammocks. The discussion has been whether or not that particular policy constituted an Incentive for a property owner to allow nuisance and exotic vegetation to expand on their site with the ultimate goal being to break that one-acre connection. Mr. Grau believes that Is a real concern, especially after the public having gotten more educated to that factor by attending the TDRC meetings. Mr. Grau also believes it is arbitrary and disagrees with that as a use to create a boundary or a break. The actual definition within the criteria does not actually reference what vegetation is included. 12 Lrr Mr.Kruer suggested the County limit the exotics to certain plants and that minimizing the disturbance of hammock is one means of preventing exotic vegetation from spreading. Mr. Roberts added they would not evaluate it from the perspective of ground cover unless It was the dominant and structural component of that upland system. What would be looked at would be whether the component of the canopy of the subcanopy is exotic. Different exotic plants that would outcompete native plants were discussed. Mr.Roberts agreed that a list of exotics In the code needs to be more specific. Mr.Hobgood believes the number 40 percent has no basis in fact. Mr.Roberts believes part of the exotic vegetation problem is the extent of absentee ownership in the Keys and the simple fact that most people who own vacant property in the Keys buy it and don't see it again for ten years. The County does not have the resources to go and do a nuisance and exotic vegetation removal on those parcels. The County does require removal of all nuisance and exotic vegetation from a parcel in conjunction with a development permit. Mr.Grau asked Ms. Duquesne!,Chairman of the Nuisance and Exotic Task Force,if the task force at their next meeting would discuss a possible list to give to the County to use for specifying certain plants in the County Code. Mr. Grau also suggested that the task force should review If 40 percent is the correct percentage to use In determining when a hammock Is no longer a hammock because it is a disturbed hammock,which would constitute a break. Mr. Roberts stated that he does not believe there is any further business that would require the TDRC convening in September because staff needs to take what the Committee has done thus far and run it Lthrough the process. The Tier Designation Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m. 4111/ 13 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 41111/ 3.10.6 Effects of Coastal or Shore Protection Structures on Beach/Berm Communities Coastal protection structures have been used throughout the Keys for purposes of reducing shoreline erosion, including erosion on beaches. Groins and other erosion measures have been used at Bahia Honda State Park (FDEP, 2009). The FDEP has not specifically identified any instances of adverse impacts on beaches associated with shoreline protection structures, such as groins, breakwaters, riprap and bulkheads (FDEP, 2008). 3.10.7 Existing and Potential Beach RenourishmentAreas Beach renourishment projects (discussed above) have occurred at several beaches in unincorporated Monroe County, including beaches at Little Duck Key, Bahia Honda State Park, and Boca Chica Key. In addition, FDEP has evaluated beach and dune restoration options at Long Key State Park. These beach restoration projects have primarily been for post-storm recovery. The County and the USACE are eligible governmental entities under the beach erosion control assistance program. The County and the City of Key West have participated with the FDEP as the local sponsors of beach management projects. In addition, the Florida Division of Recreation and Parks manages state parks on Long Key, Little Crawl Key, Indian Key, Lignumvitae Key, Bahia Honda, and Key West, and is responsible for environmental resource management of all the wet sandy beaches of the keys under the FKNMS program. Project cost estimates and schedules may be found in the Florida Beach Management Funding Assistance Program- Long Range Budget Plan. 3.10.8 Potential for Conservation, Use, or Protection of Beach/Berm Communities The FDEP has completed several beach restoration projects in response to recent hurricanes (Table 3.13). With the exception of unspecified needs to address beach erosion on Long Key, FDEP has no current recommendations. Acquisition is the most direct means of preserving remaining undisturbed beach/berm habitat areas in the Keys. This can be accomplished for some high priority beaches, particularly those which are suitable for recreation use. The County permits a limited number of uses in beach/berm areas. The Tier Overlay Ordinance establishes open space requirements based on the tier [see Section 3.19 (Effects of Future Land Use on Natural Resources)]. 3.11 Upland Vegetation [Rule 91-5.013(1)(a) and (b), F.A.C.] There are two native upland biological communities in the Florida Keys. These are: • tropical hardwood hammocks,the climax terrestrial community,and • pinelands,a fire-climax system. Conservation and Coastal Management 128 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Many upland areas in the Keys have experienced disturbance of some kind which has interfered with natural succession in upland communities. These uplands are referred to collectively as "disturbed lands." The methods used to inventory upland habitats are described in Section 3.8 (Living Marine Resources). Map Series 3.3 depicts the Tropical Hardwood Hammock and Pinelands habitats within the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. 3.11.1 Tropical Hardwood Hammocks Tropical hardwood hammocks constitute the climax terrestrial community of South Florida and the Keys. This community is probably the richest in diversity,with approximately 100 species of wide tropical occurrence, present in the Keys and nowhere else in the continental United States. They are also called Rockland Hardwood Hammock or Rockland Hammock in recent texts because of their location in outcroppings of limestone. The soil of these hammocks consists mostly of a thin layer of partially decomposed organic matter resting directly on a porous limestone substrate. This humus layer allows increased soil moisture relative to other communities in the Keys. Many of the hammock trees generate the leaf litter layer themselves, thus preparing the substrate for other species. The closed canopy of hammocks is insulative, moderating thermal extremes (Olmstead and Loope, 1984; Taylor, 1998; USFWS. 1999) and reducing the loss of soil moisture. The inventory of tropical hardwood hammocks within the Florida Keys is shown in Table 3.14. There is a L total of 7,283.8 acres of hammock in the Florida Keys (incorporated areas and mainland hammocks are not included) and they are found in approximate equal proportions in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. Of the total acreage, 75 percent are protected by federal and State ownership and 20 percent are privately-owned. The structure and composition of tropical hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys are variable and are influenced by several factors, including fire and hurricane disturbances, local gradients of saltwater influence, surrounding vegetation types, and the elevation and character of the limestone substrate (Snyder et al., 1990). Species composition differs between the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys (USFWS, 1999; Ross et al., 1992). Because trees are shallow-rooted, hurricanes can seriously damage a hammock by uprooting or breaking the limbs of large trees. 3.11.1.1 Flora of Tropical Hardwood Hammocks Hammock communities occur as isolated stands of hardwoods or "tree islands". These distinct tree islands consist of broadleaved evergreen hardwood species mainly of a West Indian distribution and are typically surrounded by pinelands or wetland vegetative communities which occur in wetter soils (Tomlinson, 1980; Snyder et al., 1990; Taylor, 1998; USFWS, 1999). They are closely associated with tropical pinelands on the larger keys, most notably on Big Pine Key. The island-like character is most evident on mainland Monroe County, where raised areas among the pinelands and freshwater wetlands harbor hammock forests. In the Keys, the natural topographic configuration of the islands, especially in the Upper Keys, has favored development of large stands of hardwoods (Snyder et al., 1990; Ross et al., 1992). Conservation and Coastal Management 129 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Table 3.14- Inventor of Tro.ical Hardwood Hammock Habitats Ownership'' Site Name ' Total Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species Profit Recordeds Lower Keys Bahia Honda TS,KD,MR, State Park 21.5 TC Florida Keys Wildlife and 0.4 504.4 0.8 12.1 TS,IS,KD, EnvironmentalMR,SR,TC Areal Great White Heron National 216.3 3.5 1.4 3.7 TS,IS,KD, Wildlife Refuge MR,SR,TC John J.Pescatello Torchwood TS,IS,KD, Hammock 32.6 MR,TC Preserve Monroe County 0.2 20.0 0.1 0.2 TS,IS,KD, Managed Areas MR,SR,TC National Key 1,523.2 155.3 0.5 0.6 TS,IS,KD, Deer RefugeMR,SR,TC Naval Air Station 79.2 TS,IS,MR, SR,TC Saddle Bunch TS,IS,KD, Keys 2.9\11, MR,SR,TC Outside of 50.8 126.3 161.3 24.5 1.7 801.0 TS,IS,KD, Parks/Refuges MR,SR,TC Lower Keys 3,744.5 1,870.1 831.6 164.1 60.00 1.7 0 817.6 Total Middle Keys Lignumvitae Key Botanical State 157.3 TS,IS,TC Park Long Key State 77.8 0.7 TS,IS,TC Park Outside of 1.3 2.0 9.6 TS,IS,TC Parks/Refuges Middle Keys 248.7 0 236.4 2 0 0 0 10.3 Total The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank Conservation and Coastal Management 130 Technical Document: Jul 2011 • Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Table 3.14- Inventor of Tro'ical Hardwood Hammock Habitats continued Ownership Site Name 1 Total' Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species Profit Recorded Upper Keys Crocodile Lake SS,TS,IS, National 527.6 74.0 1.1 0.9 CM,WR, Wildlife Refuge TC _ Crocodile Lake SS,TS,IS, Sanctuary 0.2 CM,WR, TC Dagney Johnson Key Largo SS,TS,IS, Hammock 23.5 1,273.7 0.1 1.5 CM,WR, Botanical State TC Park Florida Keys Wildlife and 130.9 0.1 2.6 TS,IS,TC Environmental Area2 John Pennecamp 255.2 6.8 0.36 2.2 Coral Reef State Park ICurry Hammock 2.1 2.7 TS,TC State Park Monroe County 12.9 0.2 0.5 TS,IS,TC Managed Areas Naval Air SS,TS,IS, Station 18.5 3.4 CM,WR, TC Tarpon Basin 9.7 0.1 TS,IS,TC _ Outside of 45.4 161.0 110.7 2.1 1.2 619.4 TS,IS,TC Parks/Refuges Upper Keys 3,290.6 615.0 1,911.1 118.9 14.1 1.3 0.3 629.9 Total Total 7,283.8 2,485.1 2.979.1 285.0 74.1 3.0 0.3 1,457.8 County Unincorporated areas only;does not include mainland hammocks. Footnotes 1-5 are the same as in Table 3.9. 6 Key Largo Wastewater Treatment The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank Conservation and Coastal Management 131 Technical Document: jul 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update The drier climate and well-drained soils of the Keys relative to the mainland also allow establishment of well-developed stands of tropical hardwoods, to the virtual exclusion of temperate species. Hammock vegetation on the Keys may include a higher proportion of species which are rare on the mainland, such as milkbark (Drypetes diversifolia); lignumvitae (Guaiacum sanctum); and princewood (Exostema caribaeum). Hammock vegetation may also include many tropical species that are restricted to the Keys, such as pisonia (Pisonia rotundata), maidenbush, (Savia bahamensis); and cinnecord (Acacia choriophylla) (Tomlinson, 1980; Scurlock, 1996). Early researchers categorized hammocks as "high" and "low" hammocks due to slight differences in their elevations. Recent researchers no longer separate these hammock types due to the high degree of variability among them and their location at the transition between other habitat types (e.g., Pinelands). Many of the species normally occurring in Tropical Hardwood Hammocks are: Common Name Scientific Name Torchwood Amyris elemifera Marlberry Ardisia escallanioides Crabwood Ateramnus lucidus Saffon Plum Bumelia celastrina __.. Willow Rustic Bumelia salicifolia Gumbo Limbo Bursera simaruba Locustberry Btysonima cuneata Spicewood Calyptranthes pall ens Wild Cinnamon Canella winterana Limber Caper Capparisflexuosa Snowberry Chiococca alba Pigeon Plum Coccoloba diversifolia Buttonwood Conocarpus erectus Milkbark Drypetes diversifolia Black Torch Erithalisfruticosa White Stopper Eugenia axillaris Spanish Stopper Eugenia foetida Everglades Velvetseed Guettarda elliptica Black Ironwood Krugiodendron ferreum Wild Lantana Lantana involucrata Wild Tamarind Lysiloma latisiliquum Wild Dilly Manilkara bahamensis Poisonwood Metopium toxiferum Myrsine Myrsinefloridana Lancewood Nectandrea coriacea Jamaican Dogwood Piscidia piscipula Cockspur Pisonia rotundata ` Black Bead Pithecellobium guadalupense Conservation and Coastal Management 132 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Common Name Scientific Name Long Stalked Stopper Psidium longipes Wild Coffee Psychotria nervosa Indigo Berry Randia aculeata Darling Plum Reynosia septentrionalis Maidenbush Savia bahamensis Bahama Nightshade Solanum bahamense Mahogany Swietenia mahogoni Tallowwood Ximenia americana Wild Lime Zanthoxylumfagara Sources: Snyder et al., 1990 and USFWS, 1999 Many plant species of Tropical Hardwood Hammocks in the County are dominated by species of tropical origin. Many are bird dispersed and only a few (e.g., mahogany) are wind dispersed, which explains their West Indian and Caribbean origins. Many of these species are extremely rare and are listed as threatened or endangered by the State of Florida; few are federally listed, although over 170 species are federally listed as species of concern (USFWS, 1999). Tropical Hardwood Hammocks on the Florida Keys tend to be drier than those on the t mainland because of increased ocean breezes and lowered rainfall. They also have a higher ` percentage of tropical species in part because many temperate species, such as live oak (Quercus virginiania),swamp bay (Persea palustris), and sugarberry(Celtis laevigata) reach their southern limits on the mainland or in the northern Keys. Many tropical tree species within Florida, such as rough strongbark (Bourreria radula) and lignum-vitae (Guaicum sanctum) only occur in rockland hammocks of the Keys (FNAI, 2009). In the Keys, there is a structural difference between the rockland hammocks north and south of Big Pine Key. This is at least partially due to differences in geology, groundwater salinity and rainfall. The surface rock in the northern keys from Soldier Key to Big Pine Key is Key Largo Limestone; the south portion from Big Pine Key to Key West is Miami Oolite. The Key Largo limestone is more permeable than the Miami Oolite and therefore hammocks in the Upper Keys tend to have higher groundwater salinities. Rainfall also decreases from the northern to southern Keys (FNAI, 2009). Much taller, more developed tree canopies (near 35 feet tall) occur in the northern section, while the hammocks in the southern section are a more scrubby, xeric form of rockland hammock which average less than 20 feet tall (Snyder et al., 1990). These often impenetrable hammocks in the southern keys have previously been referred to as "low hammock" or "Keys hammock thicket" (Snyder et al., 1990). Thorn scrub is one variant of Tropical Hardwood Hammocks that occurs along the ecotone of hammocks with Keys tidal rock barren or Keys cactus barren or within openings in rockland hammock. Thorn scrub is a low-statured scrubby hammock dominated by spiny ` species such as saffron plum (Sideroxylon celastrinum), blackbead (Pithecellobium ` Conservation and Coastal Management 133 Technical Document: Jul 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update L guadalupense), hog plum (Ximenia americana), and other rockland hammock species (Ross et al., 1992; FNAI, 2009). 3.11.1.2 Existing Commercial. Recreational. or Conservation Uses of Tropical Hardwood Hammocks Since the 1950s, development in coastal uplands of the Keys has resulted in the loss of considerable acreage of tropical hardwood hammocks. This development has occurred throughout the Upper, Middle and Lower Keys and has involved all types of residential, commercial,institutional and government uses. Most (75 percent) of the remaining tracts of tropical hardwood hammocks in the County (excluding incorporated areas and the mainland) are protected through public or non- profit ownership for conservation purposes (Table 3.14). Land acquisition efforts have focused in recent years on the higher quality hammocks. Conservation lands [see Section 3.18 (Areas of Special Concern to Local Government)] with significant tropical hardwood hammock communities are located in: • Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge; • Dagney Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park; • Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Site; • National Key Deer Refuge; • John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park; • Bahia Honda State Park; • Long Key State Recreation Area; • Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge; • The Nature Conservancy; • Everglades National Park; • Florida Keys Land and Sea Trust's Crane Point Hammock;and • Curry Hammock State Park. 3.11.1.3 Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Tropical Hardwood Hammocks Historically, settlers to the Keys in the 1800s and early 1900s lived in and around hardwood hammocks, clearing areas for houses and farming. The majority of hammocks in the Upper Keys were cleared during this time for agriculture, including a large pineapple industry. A hiatus of settlement in the Keys occurred following the 1926 hurricane, which caused great destruction and loss of life, and much of the forest grew back prior to development pressures increased again after World War II. Man's impact to coastal uplands in the Keys has taken many forms, with both long-term and short-term impacts (Kruer, 1991). Tropical hardwood hammock occurs on prime development property and has become globally imperiled (FNAI, 2009). Disruptive land uses have historically included hardwood and buttonwood logging (for charcoal), and Conservation and Coastal Management 134 Technical Document: July 2011 ( Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update l` clearing for railroad beds, roads, agriculture, commercial and residential development and public facilities (Kruer, 1991). Other impacts have resulted from rock pit excavation, dredging of canals, mosquito ditches, plant theft, dumping (especially piles of vegetative and organic debris), mosquito spraying, and regular thinning or mowing of native groundcovers,shrubs and trees (Kruer, 1991). Large-scale loss and alteration of hammocks has generally occurred on a larger scale in the Upper Keys (Kruer, 1991). Several hundred acres are estimated to have been lost since 1980 in the Upper Keys, including some of the most mature high hammock in North Key Largo (Kruer, 1991). Many parcels that have been protected through land acquisition programs occur as islands within developed and developing lands. This poses management problems in terms of edge effects (e.g., trash dumping, exotic plant infestation, exotic and feral animal control) and loss of the natural ecotone that forms between the tropical hardwood hammocks and the adjacent community. Some plants and animals of hammocks (e.g., tree snails, orchids, and bromeliads) are susceptible to collection pressures and must be protected from collectors. Some of these species have been extirpated from the Florida Keys due to over-collection. Exotic plant species infestations are an ongoing problem in hammocks. Species such as Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala), seaside mahoe (Thespesia populnea), latherleaf (Colubrina asiatica), and sapodilla (Mani(kara zapota) invade and displace native species. Dumping of yard waste can lead to the invasion of species such as 411, bowstring hemp (Sansevieria hyacinthoides) and golden pothos (Epipremnum pinnatum) (FNAI, 2009). Tropical hardwood hammocks can be the advanced successional stage of pine rockland, especially in cases where the hammock is adjacent to pine rocklands where hardwood seed rain is high. In such cases, when fire is excluded from pine rocklands for 15 to 25 years, it can succeed to tropical hardwood hammock vegetation that can retain a relict overstory of pine (Snyder et al., 1990). Historically, tropical hardwood hammocks in South Florida evolved with fire in the landscape,which does not proceed into the hammock because of its moist microclimate and litter layer, or a natural moat that can form around hammocks in the Everglades caused by the dissolution of limestone. However, tropical hardwood hammocks are susceptible to damage from fire during extreme drought or when the water table is lowered. In these cases, fire can cause tree mortality and can consume the organic soil layer. Although tropical hardwood hammocks can reestablish within 25 years after fire, maximum development of structure and diversity probably requires more than 100 Ire=free years. The ecotone between tropical hardwood hammocks and pine rockland is abrupt when regular fire is present in the adjacent pine rockland. However, when fire is removed, the ecotone becomes more gradual as hardwoods from the hammock push out into the pinelands (FNAI, 2009). Tropical hardwood hammocks are also sensitive to the strong winds and storm surge associated with hurricanes. Canopy damage often occurs, which causes a change in the microclimate of the hammock. Decreased relative humidity and drier soils can leave ( tropical hardwood hammocks more susceptible to fire. Fragmentation of hammocks can cause wind turbulence resulting in downed trees. Storm surge associated with Hurricane Conservation and Coastal Management 135 Technical Document: filly 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 4150 Georges overwashed the Cactus Hammock on Big Pine Key, resulting in the loss of the hammock's understory(USFWS, 1999). Sea level rise also threatens hammocks. 3.11.1.4 Potential for Conservation. Use. or Protection of Tropical Hardwood Hammocks In the Florida Keys, significant areas of tropical hardwood hammocks have been acquired. However, large areas of hammock remain privately owned. Tropical hardwood hammocks are protected by ROGO/NROGO and the Tier Overlay Districts. In addition to these regulations, the LDRs include a requirement to prepare an Existing Conditions Report and require a Conservation Easement on the required open space portions of the property. Significant work on exotic plant control in tropical hardwood hammocks (as well as other habitats in the Florida Keys) has been completed by the County Land Steward and the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force. The Task Force is composed of federal,State,and local agencies; non-profits; and public utilities. Tropical hardwood hammocks can be restored. A large majority of the existing hammocks in the Florida Keys are secondary growth following the abandonment of agriculture and early settlements (Elliott and Rhodes Keys) (USFWS, 1999). However, with the establishment of exotic species, regeneration of hammocks on disturbed lands would need tube accompanied by an aggressive exotic control program. �+ 3.11.2 Pinelands Pinelands are fire-climax systems dominated by pine trees. Although pinelands formerly existed in the Upper Keys (Alexander, 1953), their occurrence in the County is presently limited to the Lower Keys, primarily on Little Pine Key, Big Pine Key, No Name Key, Cudjoe Key, Sugarloaf Key and on neighboring keys. Because slash pines (Pinus elliottii var. densa) do not tolerate high salinities, Ross et al. (1994) found that sea level rise over the last 70 years has caused a reduction in the areal extent of pinelands. More than 50 percent of the ground surface in pinelands is exposed rock. The low rainfall of this area compared to the mainland imposes more xeric conditions but they bay be flooded by saltwater for brief periods (one to three days) when hurricanes pass over the islands (Snyder et al., 1990). This community is often found in association with tropical hardwood hammocks and short hydroperiod freshwater wetland communities. The inventory of pinelands in the Florida Keys is shown in Table 3.15. All pinelands are found in the Lower Keys and comprise an area of 1,668.1 acres. Most of the pine lands (72.2 percent) are owned by the federal government in the National Key Deer Refuge. Of the total pinelands, 9.2 percent are privately owned. L Conservation and Coastal Management 136 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Table 3.15 - Inventor of Pineland Habitats Ownership4 Site Name ' Total Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species Profit Recorded' Lower Keys Great White Heron National 62.6 0.2 IS,KD,MR, Wildlife Refuge SR Monroe County 1.3 IS,KD,SR Managed Areas National Key 1,128.9 230.5 1.5 IS,KD,MR, Deer Refuge SR Terrestris 8.5 IS,KD Outside of 12.6 2.8 60.8 3.0 1.26 154.2 IS,KD,MR, Parks/Refuges SR Lower Keys 1,668.1 1,204.1 234.6 62.5 11.5 1.2 0 154.2 Total Total County 1,668.1 1,204.1 234.6 62.5 11.5 1.2 0 154.2 Unincorporated areas only. 1 Site names are from the FNAI GIS database. 2 Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Areas are managed by the FFWCC for the preservation of listed species that inhabit mangroves,tropical hardwood hammocks,and salt marshes. 3 Total in acres. ' Ownership information is from the Monroe County Property Appraiser. S Species recorded are those threatened and endangered species recorded by the USFWS for a particular parcel;a blank cell does not necessarily indicate an absence of protected species on that parcel(s). SS=Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly;TS=Tree Snail;IS=Eastern Indigo Snake;WR=Key Largo Woodrat;CM =Key Largo Cottonmouse;SR=Silver Rice Rat;KD=Key Deer;TC=Tree Cactus 6 Cities of Marathon and Islamorada The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank • Conservation and Coastal Management 137 Technical Document: Jul 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 41/ 3.11,2,1 Flora of Pinelands The most extensive and best developed areas of pinelands remaining in the Keys occur on Big Pine Key. On Big Pine Key, pinelands occupy most of the relatively high elevations on the interior of the island. They are comprised of a north and south section, the occurrence of which conforms quite closely to the outline of two underground freshwater lenses (Stewart, 1989; Ross et al., 1992; Ross et al., 1994). Although mature slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa) stems are able to survive at a mean groundwater salinity of 11 percent, salinities in the most extensive pinelands are 2 to 3 percent(Ross et al., 1992). Pinelands are several systems that are less easily characterized biotically than climax hardwood hammock. Slash Pine is the canopy dominant and silverpalm (Coccothrinax argentata), black-bead (Pithecellobium keyense) and the keys thatch palm (Thrinax morrisii) are the primary midstory forms. Species composition of the understory is less easily characterized since it changes depending on its fire history (Ross et al., 1992). Understory plants of rather general occurrence in pinelands are saw palmetto (Serenoo repens), long-stalked stopper (Psidium longipes), pisonia (Pisonia rotundata), and locustberry (Byrsonima lucida). The ground cover consists of a large number of species including golden creeper (Ernodea littonalis), sand flax (Linum arenicola), pine pink (Bletia purpurea), pine fern (Anemia adiantifolia), star rush (Dichromena floridensis), and broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon virginicus). Several endemic plant species of South ----41 /-------------Florida are found in the pinelands of the Keys: � Species Habitat Range Argythamnia blodgettii Pinelands Keys and mainland Cassia keyensis Pinelands Endemic to Keys Chamaesyce deltoidea var.serpyllum Pinelands Endemic to Keys Chamaesyce garberi Pinelands,hammocks, Keys and mainland sand dunes Chamaesyce porteriana var.keyensis Pinelands,sand dunes Endemic to Keys Chamaesyce porteriana var.scoparia Pinelands Keys,possibly Big Cypress Croton arenicola Pinelands,sand dunes Keys and mainland Evolvulussericeus var.averyi Pinelands Keys and mainland Gerardia keyensis(Agalinis) Pinelands Endemic to Keys Linum arenicola Pinelands Keys and mainland Melanthera parvifolia Pinelands Keys and mainland Phyllanthus pentaphyllys var.floridanus Pinelands Keys and mainland Schizachyrium sericatum Pinelands Endemic to Keys Tragia saxicola Pinelands Keys and mainland Source: Avery and Loope, 1980 In the absence of fire, pineland understories tend to develop a subcanopy of hardwood species that eventually expands to replace the pine canopy. Ultimately pinelands succeed into hardwood hammocks - a process that may require about 30 to 50 years (Alexander and Dickson, 1972; Ross et al., 1992). This requires a build up of a wet humus layer that will not burn (Tomlinson, 1980). Hardwood hammock species which are early pioneers in Conservation and Coastal Management 138 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update L the pinelands include species such as Jamaica dogwood (Piscidia piscipula) and poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum). 3.11.2.2 Existing Commercial. Recreational or Conservation Uses of Pinelands Since the 1950s, development in coastal uplands of the Keys has resulted in the loss of considerable acreage of pinelands. On Big Pine Key alone losses are estimated at 50 percent in the last 50 years (Ross, 1989). Development in pinelands has involved all types of residential, commercial, institutional, and government uses. Today, there are approximately 1,668 acres of undisturbed pineland remaining in the Keys. Of these, approximately 72 percent are protected through public ownership for conservation purposes. Most protected pinelands are located within the National Key Deer Refuge. 3.11.2.3 Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Pinelands Impacts that affect pinelands are varied and include natural events such as hurricanes and altered fire regime. Man-induced impacts include activities such as land clearing, dredging, ditching, filling, and the introduction of exotic plants. The nature of these impacts depends on the integrity and size of the pineland. Recovery from the impacts depends on the condition, size, and amount of surrounding pinelands, and the type of development on adjacent land. Pinelands have adapted to hurricanes and fire, the principal natural disturbances in the Keys. If undisturbed, pinelands typically fully recover from such events. Fires are essential to the maintenance of pinelands (USFWS, 2009). Consequently, fire exclusion in pinelands eventually generates a proliferation of hardwood species that culminates in a tropical hardwood hammock climax. Since humans discourage fire in the vicinity of habitations, development tends to reduce the extent of pinelands that receive periodic burning. In the absence of fire, a pineland in the Lower Keys may be replaced by hammock after about 50 years (Alexander and Dickson, 1972; Ross et al., 1992). The most damaging human impacts on pinelands occur when they are destroyed by clearing. Once cleared, pinelands are unlikely to become reestablished on a development site. It is estimated that approximately one-half of the pinelands present on Big Pine Key in 1935 have been lost to development(Ross, 1989). Indirect effects associated with drainage alterations and groundwater withdrawals may similarly damage pinelands. Impoundments within pinelands can drastically change the local soil moisture regime and cause the suffocation of roots and the corresponding dieback of plants. The occurrence of pinelands on Big Pine Key, and probably on other Keys, conforms quite closely with the outline of underlying freshwater lenses (Ross, 1989; Ross et al., 1992). Research in the Keys supports the hypothesis that the survival of the pinelands and associated freshwater marshes on Big Pine Key is dependent on maintaining the integrity of the freshwater resource (Ross et al., 1992). Wells penetrate the freshwater 416110 lenses on some keys, withdrawing water for domestic and irrigation purposes. These Conservation and Coastal Management 139 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update (v withdrawals, combined with reductions in recharge brought about by accelerated surface drainage via canals and mosquito control ditches, serve to diminish the freshwater lenses and accelerate saltwater intrusion into them. Sea level rise has been an historic and future concern for the long-term persistence of pinelands in the Keys (USFWS, 1999; USFWS, 2009). The introduction of invasive exotic plants is a serious problem in pineland communities, as it is in tropical hardwood hammocks [see Section 3.11.1.3 (Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Tropical Hardwood Hammocks)]. Exotic animals, including feral cats, are another concern for pinelands and their wildlife. Exotic plant control in pinelands has been undertaken by the County Land Steward and the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force. 3.11.2.4 Potential for Conservation. Use,or Protection of Pinelands Government acquisition of pinelands has preserved significant areas of the remaining pinelands in the Lower Keys, although some areas of pinelands remain privately owned, especially in Big Pine Key. As discussed for tropical hardwood hammocks and other habitats, undeveloped pinelands are protected by ROGO/NROGO and the Tier Overlay Districts tier lands [see Section 3.19.2.2 (Tier Overlay Ordinance in Big Pine Key and No Name Key)]. The Tier Overlay Ordinance is also used as part of the County's 20-year land acquisition program. In addition to these regulations, the LDR includes a requirement to prepare and Existing Conditions Report and requires a Conservation Easement on uncleared portions of the property. 3.12 Wildlife [Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)S. and (b), F.A.C.] The Florida Keys encompass a variety of ecologically unique biological communities providing habitat to diverse wildlife populations, including many species endemic to the Keys; several are globally rare and endangered. This section describes the wildlife generally above the mean water line; fauna found in seagrass beds and coral communities are discussed in Sections 3.8.2 (Seagrass Beds) and 3.8.3 (Coral Communities). The biological communities of the Keys include: Living Marine Resources • Mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys • Seagrass beds on both sides of the Keys and extending offshore to the Florida Reef Tract (fauna of seagrass beds are discussed in Section 3.8.2.2 (Fauna of Seagrass Beds) • Coral and hard bottom communities of nearshore and offshore waters,including the Florida Reef Tract(fauna of coral and hardbottom communities are discussed in Section 3.8.3.1,5 (Macrofauna of Coral Communities) Wetlands • Transitional wetlands landward of the mangrove fringe and seaward of upland communities Conservation and Coastal Management 140 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update withdrawals, combined with reductions in recharge brought about by accelerated surface drainage via canals and mosquito control ditches, serve to diminish the freshwater lenses and accelerate saltwater intrusion into them. Sea level rise has been an historic and future concern for the long-term persistence of pinelands in the Keys (USFWS, 1999; USFWS, 2009). The introduction of invasive exotic plants is a serious problem in pineland communities, as it is in tropical hardwood hammocks [see Section 3.11.1.3 (Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Tropical Hardwood Hammocks)]. Exotic animals, including feral cats, are another concern for pinelands and their wildlife. Exotic plant control in pinelands has been undertaken by the County Land Steward and the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force. 3,11.2.4 Potential for Conservation. Use, or Protection of Pinelands Government acquisition of pinelands has preserved significant areas of the remaining pinelands in the Lower Keys, although some areas of pinelands remain privately owned, especially in Big Pine Key. As discussed for tropical hardwood hammocks and other habitats, undeveloped pinelands are protected by ROGO/NROGO and the Tier Overlay Districts tier lands [see Section 3.19.2.2 (Tier Overlay Ordinance in Big Pine Key and No Name Key)]. The Tier Overlay Ordinance is also used as part of the County's 20-year land acquisition program. In addition to these regulations, the LDR includes a requirement to prepare and Existing Conditions Report and requires a Conservation Easement on uncleared portions of the property. 3.12 Wildlife [Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5.and (b), F.A.C.] The Florida Keys encompass a variety of ecologically unique biological communities providing habitat to diverse wildlife populations, including many species endemic to the Keys; several are globally rare and endangered. This section describes the wildlife generally above the mean water line; fauna found in seagrass beds and coral communities are discussed in Sections 3.8.2 (Seagrass Beds) and 3.8.3 (Coral Communities). The biological communities of the Keys include: Living Marine Resources • Mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys • Seagrass beds on both sides of the Keys and extending offshore to the Florida Reef Tract(fauna of seagrass beds are discussed in Section 3.8.2.2 (Fauna of Seagrass Beds) • Coral and hard bottom communities of nearshore and offshore waters,including the Florida Reef Tract(fauna of coral and hardbottom communities are discussed in Section 3.8.3.1.5 (Macrofauna of Coral Communities) Wetlands • Transitional wetlands landward of the mangrove fringe and seaward of upland 41,0 communities Conservation and Coastal Management 140 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update • Beaches (as part of the Beach/Berm Community) • Salt ponds occupying shallow enclosed basins having restricted tidal influence • Small freshwater wetlands in freshwater lenses in the Lower Keys Uplands • Tropical hardwood hammocks,the climax terrestrial community • Pinelands,a fire-climax system 3.12.1 Wildlife of the Biological Communities of the Florida Keys 3 12 1 1 Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Mangrove Communitie The mangrove communities of the Keys provide food, cover,spawning, nesting, and resting habitat for many species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Many of these species are dependent upon these communities during all or part of their life cycle. A number of food webs are based on primary production of the mangroves and their associated epiflora and epifauna. Energy flows stemming from mangrove-derived carbon begin their movement through these food webs as detritus, dissolved organic compounds, or as the products of direct grazing. Other pathways involve bacteria, fungi, macroalgae, and phytoplankton associated with mangroves. A variety of insects and gastropods graze directly upon arboreal leaf material. Simberloff and Wilson (1969) list 200 species of insects that are associated with mangrove communities. Snails (Littorina sp., Cerithidea sp. and Melampus sp.), isopods (Ligea spp.), and fiddler crabs (lfca spp.) are especially plentiful on the forest floor (Odum and Mclvor, 1990). Mangrove communities also provide feeding nesting and roosting habitat for numerous wading and fish eating birds. Odum et al. (1982) provides a list of 181 species of birds that use mangroves in South Florida. Among these, the following species are a major component of the avifauna of the Keys: Common Name Scientific name Great Egret Casmerodius alhus Snowy Egret Egreta thula Great White Heron Ardea herodias occidentalis Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Reddish Egret Dichromanassa rufescens Tricolored Heron Hydranassa tricolor Green Heron Butorides striatus Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax violcea White Ibis Eudocimus alba ` Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja 111/ Double-crested Cormorant Pyalacrocorax auritus Conservation and Coastal Management 141 Technical Document: Jul 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update L Common Name Scientific name Magnificent Frigatebird Freyata magnificens Osprey Paudion haliaetus Mangrove Cuckoo Coccyzus minor Kingbirds Tyranus spp. Black-whiskered Vireo Vireo altiloquus Warblers Dendroica spp. White-crowned Pigeon Patagioenas leucacephala All of these species nest in mangroves,usually on overwash islands. A number of terrestrial and aquatic reptiles, amphibians and mammals utilize mangrove habitat. Of the several species of marine turtles that inhabit mangroves, the Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta) is relatively common and may use mangroves as nursery areas (Odum et al., 1982). The Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelvs imbricata) and the Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas) are known to feed upon mangrove roots and leaves (Ernst and Barbour, 1972; Carr and Goin, 1955). Other reptiles include several species of snakes and anoles, and the mangrove terrapin. Of the snakes, only one, the mangrove water snake (Nerodia fasciata compressicauda), is entirely dependent upon mangrove areas (Florida DNR, 1991a). Amphibians which inhabit mangroves include those which are suitably adapted to reproduce during brief rainy periods and/or which can use brackish pools for reproduction. Two introduced species, the giant toad (Bufo marinus) and the Cuban treefrog (Hyla septentrionalis), have expanded their range considerably in mangrove areas in the last several decades (King and Krakauer, 1966; King and Krakauer 1968; and Krakauer, 1970). Mammals which most commonly inhabit mangrove association include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and the raccoon (Procyon lotor). Generally the opossum is confined to small populations in proximity to human habitations. Both species are extremely versatile omnivores and are known to forage mangrove habitats (Layne, 1974). Other naturally occurring and introduced mammals which may frequent mangroves include the marsh rabbit(Sylvilagus palustis paludicola) and several species of rodents. The most diverse group of organisms inhabiting the mangrove association are the marine organisms. Detritus and plankton are primary food sources for a large number of invertebrate fauna that attach themselves to prop roots, live in adjacent muds, or swim in the water(Odum and Mclvor, 1990). 3,12.1.2 Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetland Communities Transitional wetlands support a fauna somewhat different from that of mangrove systems, although a number of animals feed in both tidal areas. The most frequently observed invertebrates are various species of insects, mollusks, and crustaceans. Fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) are often found where there is adequate soil for burrowing. The grey peanut-snail Conservation and Coastal Management 142 Technical Document: Jul 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update L (Cerion incanum) is often found in large numbers on the marsh floor or climbing through the low-lying vegetation. Hornsnails(Cerithidea spp.) are also very common in the marsh. A number of reptiles and mammals rely on transitional wetlands habitat. Of these, several are designated as rare,endangered or of special State concern,including: Common Name Scientific Name Key Deer Odocoilius virginianus c/avium Silver Rice Rat Oryzomys argentatus Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Red Rat Snake Elaphaguttatoguttata The importance of the Keys' transitional wetlands to wading bird populations has long been recognized by wildlife biologists. Virtually every wading bird species resident in the Keys forages in tidal wetlands. These birds rely on the shallow water areas of the transitional wetlands for feeding during periods of the year when they are unable to feed in their usual feeding areas because the water is too deep for wading. During these periods, the undisturbed transitional wetlands are critical to the survival of many bird species. Among the most common wading birds that feed in transitional wetlands are: Common Name Scientific name Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja `, Great White Heron' Ardea heriodias occidentalis Great Egret Casmerodius albus Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Snowy Egret Egretta thula Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Green Heron Butorides virescens White Ibis Eudocimus albus Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax violacea Glossy Ibis Plegadisfalcinellus 3.12.1.3 Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Salt Pond Communities Birdlife is a striking component of salt ponds. Because the water levels in salt ponds can vary throughout the year, euryhaline fish, crustaceans, and benthic fauna tend to concentrate during low water periods. This submerged community provides important 'The great white heron was originally described as a distinct species,Ardea occidentalis,but is currently known as A. herodias occidentalis. It is considered to be the white morph (variation) of the polymorphic great blue heron subspecies, The great white heron contains individuals with all white plumage. Unlike the great blue heron, which is widely distributed throughout North America,the great white heron is restricted to south Florida and parts of the Caribbean. The largest known breeding population(approximately 850 breeding pairs) occurs in the Florida Keys (McGuire,2002). 41111. Conservation and Coastal Management 143 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update foraging for wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, such as wood stork (Mycteria americana), great white heron (Ardea herodias), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), plovers (Charadrius sppj, and roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja). The ponds are an important stop for migrating waterfowl such as mergansers (Mergus serrator) and blue-winged teal (Anas discors), which feed on the seasonal abundance of widgeon grass. Several species are at least partly dependent on salt ponds in the Florida Keys, including the reddish egret and black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) (Kalla, 2000). See Section 3.14 (Fisheries) for a list of fish species common to salt pond communities. Birds known to use salt ponds as feeding habitat include: Common Name Scientific Name Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Great White Heron Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias occidentalis Green Heron Butorides virescens Dunlin Calidris alpina Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Great Egret Casmerodius albus Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Little Blue Heron Egretta tricolor �r Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens Snowy Egret Egretta thula White Ibis Eudocimus albus Herring Gull(winter only) Larus argentatus Laughing Gull Larus atricilla Ring-billed Gull(winter only) Larus delawarensis Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromusgriseus Wood Stork Butorides virescens Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax violacea Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarota Forster's Tern(winter only) Sternaternaterna forsteri Common Tern Sterna hirundo Royal Tern Sterna maxima ---- - -- Greater Yellowlegs Triga melanoleucus Lesser Yellowlegs Trigaflavipes Several species of migratory waterfowl are also known to utilize salt ponds seasonally. Species of Fundulus, Cyprinodon, and Poecilia are the primary food fishes of the rare roseate spoonbill and the white ibis (Kushlan, 1979). Similarly, the rare reddish egret is reported to feed primarily on killifish. Conservation and Coastal Management 144 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 3.12.1.4 Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Freshwater Wetland Communities Freshwater marshes normally support a highly diverse and abundant fauna that includes fish, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds. Many of these species (common elsewhere in Florida) are relatively rare in the Keys, largely because of the limited number and locations of freshwater resources. During the dry season these marshes are the only natural sources of water for wildlife in the area. They are particularly critical to the reproductive success of animal populations that bear young during the dry season. Many of the vertebrate and invertebrate fauna listed are locally adapted forms that are biologically distinct and geographically restricted. A partial list of vertebrates (excluding birds) associated with freshwater and non-tidal wetlands on Big Pine Key include: Common Name Species name Mammals Lower Keys cotton rat' Sigmodon hispidus exsputus Lower Keys rabbit 3 Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Lower Keys racoon Procyon lotor incautus Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium Reptiles 4110 American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Striped mud turtle r 2 Kinosternon baurii Florida box turtle Terrapene carolina bauri Peninsular cooter3 Pseudemysfloridana peninsularis Chicken turtle 3 Deirochelys reticularia Florida softshell turtle 3 Trionyx ferox Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina Black racer Coluber constrictor Eastern indigo snake 2 Drymarchan corals couperi Florida brown snake 2 2 Storeria dekayi victa Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus carinatus Key ringneck snake I Diadophis punctatus acricus Mangrove salt marsh snake Nerodia clarkii compressicauda Red rat snake 3 2 Etapheguttataguttata Penninsula ribbon snake 12 Thamnophis sauritus sackenii Eastern diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus Amphibians Oak toad Bufo quercicus Southern toad Bufo terrestris Green treefrog Hyla cinerea Squirrel treefrog Hy/a squirella Little grass frog Limnaoedus ocularis Cuban treefrog3 Osteopilus septentrionalis Narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne carolinensis Southern leopard frog Rana utricularia Greenhouse frog 3 Eleutherodactylus planirostris Conservation and Coastal Management 145 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Common Name Species name Fishes Southern Gulf killifish Fundulus grandis saguanus Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Cichlid 3 Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Diamond killifish Adiniaxenica Mosquitofish Gambusis holbrokii Rainwater killifish Lucania parva Sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus i Species designated rare,endangered,or of special State concern 2 Listings and statuses refer to distinctive Lower Keys populations % Species not native to Big Pine Key(i.e.,introduced) An abundant and varied bird population utilizes the freshwater wetlands. In addition to wetland species that are resident in the Keys, a diverse population of migratory bird species utilizes the wetlands and adjacent uplands on a seasonal basis. Sixty-seven species of birds are known to utilize habitat in the freshwater marshes of Big Pine Key (Jackson, 1989). 0f these,43 species are typically resident populations,and 24 species are migratory populations usually present only during winter months. Nine bird species ranked as endangered, threatened or species of special concern occur, including six species found commonly in the marshes and three which are typically rarely present, as follows: 411/ Common Name Scientific Name Glossy Ibis Plegadisfalcinellus Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens Snowy Egret Egretta thula Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Least Tern Sterna albifrons Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus White crowned Pigeon Columba leucocephala 3.12.1.5 Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Beach/Berm Communities A variety of terrestrial wildlife is associated with the beach and berm community. Beaches provide nesting areas for a variety of shorebirds, primarily terns, as well as important feeding areas for a variety of shorebirds. Invertebrates, such as insects, amphipods, isopods, crabs, mollusks and worms, which are food for shorebirds, utilize accumulated seaweed and other organic beach debris as habitat Sea turtles have always been associated with the Florida Keys, particularly with the beaches of the Dry Tortugas. 41111/ Conservation and Coastal Management 146 Technical Document Jul 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 4111/ 3.12.1.6 Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Tropical Hardwood Hammock Communities The environment provided by the flora of tropical hardwood hammocks is a major determinant of the assemblage of animal species that inhabit these communities. Because of their uniqueness and restricted occurrence, tropical hardwood hammocks provide habitat for many endemic or very restricted species, including several species listed as rare, endangered or of special concern. While amphibians are not abundant in Keys hammocks,many reptiles may be found. These include the Florida box turtle (Terrapene carolina baud), striped mud turtle (Kinosternon baud), the endemic keys mole skink (Eumeces egregius), coral snake (Micrurus fluvius), eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus), key ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus acricus), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi, Florida brown snake (Storeria dekayi victa), rim-rock crowned snake (Tanana oolitica),the Florida ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus sackem) and the red rat snake (Elaphe guttata). While some of these reptiles apparently occur throughout the Keys, others are restricted to only a few Keys, such as the coral snake which is limited to the Upper and Middle Keys. Many species of birds use tropical hardwood hammocks. They are important stopover areas for neotropical migratory birds, especially during inclement weather. Many fuit- eating birds, particularly the white-crowned pigeon depend on tropical hardwood ( hammocks (USFWS,2009). Those known to nest in Keys hammocks are: Common Name Scientific Name Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo Iineatus Osprey Pandion haliaetus Mourning Dove Zenaidura macroura Ground Dove Columbigallina passerina Mangrove Cuckoo Coccyzus minor Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Eastern Screech Owl Megascops asio Chuck Will's Widow Caprimulgus carolinensis Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Red-bellied Woodpecker Centurus carolinus Gray Kingbird Tyrannus dominicensis Great-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus - Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludavicianus Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottus Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum White-eyed Vireo Vireogriseus Black-whiskered Vireo Vireo altiloguus Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicius Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Cardinal Richmondena cardinalis cIW Conservation and Coastal Management 147 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Within the Keys, the range of some of these bird species is quite limited. The pileated woodpecker and Carolina wren,for instance, are known only from Key Largo. Mammals that use Keys' tropical hardwood hammocks include the following: Common Name Scientific Name Opossum Didelphis marsupialis Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis matecumbei Racoon Procyon lotor Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Bobcat Felis rufus Key Largo Wood Rat Neotoma/loridana smalli Key Largo Cotton Mouse Peromyscusgossypinus allapaticola Key Vaca Raccoon Procyon lotor auspicatus Key Deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium 3,12.1.7 Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Pineland Communities Pinelands are utilized as habitat of many animal species, including several forms endemic L to-the Keys. Endemic reptiles that use the pinelands include: �r Common Name Scientific Name Key Mole Skink Eumeces egregius Key Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus acricus Florida Brown Snake Storeria dekayi victa Florida Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus sackeni The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) uses pinelands as corridors between freshwater holes. Most of the Key Deer habitat includes pinelands. 3,12.1.8 Offshore Island Bird Rookeries The backcountry area of Florida Bay contains a large number of bird rookeries, mostly on isolated mangrove islands. These islands are used by a variety of wading birds, shorebirds and marine turtles, including several species designated by the State and/or USFWS as threatened,endangered or of special concern. The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge and the Key West National Wildlife Refuge were established to protect many of these islands, recognizing their wildlife habitat. Approximately 60 islands, not connected by U.S. 1, in the Keys remain in private ownership. These range in size from one acre to several hundred acres. An additional unknown number of offshore islands in Keys' waters are sovereignty lands owned by the State of L Florida. A partial inventory of offshore island bird rookeries contained in these refuges is �/ Conservation and Coastal Management 148 Technical Document: July 2011