Item B3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 13.2012 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes_ No X Department: Planning&Environmental Resources
Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurley.AICP
Director of Growth Management Ext#2517
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
101.5.4 and 101.5.5 of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to address the land dedication of
wetland parcels as well as the dedication of parcels designated as Tier III-A within the allocation point
system.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Upland habitat is protected through the Tier System and the permit allocation system. Under the Tier
System, all lands, outside of mainland Monroe County, are designated into three general categories for
purposes of land acquisition and smart growth initiatives. These three categories are Tier I (Natural
Area); Tier II (Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and No Name Key only); and
Tier III (Infill Area, which includes Tier III-A, Special Protection Area). To provide additional
protection to wetland communities and further direct growth to disturbed and scarified areas, an
lir .....amendment is proposed to the permit allocation scoring system to assign points for the dedication of
parcels that contain wetlands as well as the dedication of Tier III-A (Special Protection Area-SPA)
parcels. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan does not include Tier III-A parcels under land dedication
crieteria of the permit allocation system.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: None
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes_ No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty x OMB/Purchasing_ Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included x Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM#
�qI
II31 IN
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 101.5.4 AND 101.5.5 OF THE
MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ASSIGN POINTS,
UNDER ROGO AND NROGO, FOR THE DEDICATION OF PARCELS THAT
CONTAIN WETLANDS OR THE DEDICATION OF PARCELS DESIGNATED
AS TIER III-A (SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA).
WHFREAS,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 proposed amendment to
the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan amending Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5 to assign points,
under ROGO and NROGO, for the dedication of parcels that contain wetlands or the dedication of parcels
designated as TIER III-A(Special Protection Area).
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners support the requested text amendment;
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 to
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review and comment in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 163.3184, 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.
Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to
the Director of Planning.
1
f PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,Florida,
` at a special meeting held on the 13th day of February,2012.
Mayor David Rice
Mayorpro tern Kim Wigington
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY,FLORIDA
BY
Mayor David Rice
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK MO dROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
'✓� A PROVED AS O FORM
Date:
kw DEPUTY CLERK
L
2
4,0i4m
ift
MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORDINANCE NO. -2012
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.4 AND 101.5.5 OF THE
MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ASSIGN POINTS,
UNDER ROGO AND NROGO, FOR THE DEDICATION OF PARCELS THAT
CONTAIN WETLANDS OR THE DEDICATION OF PARCELS DESIGNATED
AS TIER III-A (SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA); PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING
FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
kWHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed
amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17th day of October,2011; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the Is`day of December, 2011,the Monroe
County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the
State Land Planning Agency, for review and comment, a proposed amendment to the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS,the Monroe County Planning Commission made the following Findings:
1. All lands, outside of mainland Monroe County, are designated into three general categories
for purposes of land acquisition and smart growth initiatives. These three categories are Tier
I (Natural Area); Tier II (Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and No
Name Key only); and Tier III (Infill Area, which includes Tier III-A, Special Protection
Area).
2. While the Tier System directs growth away from upland habitat to infill areas,the criteria for
the tier designations does not include wetlands (as confirmed in the State of Florida,
Department of Community Affairs Final Order DCA07-GM-166A (DOAH Case No. 06-
2449GM). The Comprehensive Plan does have other protective measures for wetland
communities, such as requiring 100%open space for certain wetland communities.
L
Page 1
f 3. The amendment will provide additional protection to wetland communities and Tier III-A
�I designated parcels and further direct growth to disturbed and scarified areas.
4. The amendment furthers the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of
Critical State Concern.
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows: (Deletions are
stfiekeirthrough and additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.5.4
Monroe County shall implement the residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its land
development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification as set forth under Goal
105. The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwelling units in a
manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed areas with existing
infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages development in areas
with environmentally sensitive upland habitat which must be acquired or development rights
retired for resource conservation and protection.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+0 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] on Big Pine Key and No Name Name Key.
+10 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+10 Proposes development within areas designated Tier II [Transition
and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.]
+20 Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
+20 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will result in the
clearing of upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
Page 2
`, Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
+30 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will not result in the
clearing of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
2. Big Pine and No Name Keys - The following negative points shall be cumulatively assigned to
allocation applications for proposed dwellings to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Habitat Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master Plan.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-10 Proposes development on No Name Key.
10 Proposes development in designated Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit
-
habitat or buffer areas as designated in the Community Master Plan.
10 Proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as designated in the
Community Master Plan.
411, 3. tot-Aggregation - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
encourage the voluntary reduction of density through aggregation of legally platted buildable lots
within Tier II and Tier III areas.
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot which is
+4 aggregated in a designated Tier III area outside of Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specifieds
Each additional contiguous vacant,legally platted lot which is
+3 aggregated in a designated Tier II or III area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specified.
*Exception:
No points for lot aggregation will be awarded for any proposed
development that involves the clearing of any upland native
vegetation in a Tier III Special Protection Area.
f 4. Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
�/ encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant,buildable land within Tier I designated areas,end
Page 3
Tier III-A Special Protection Areas (SPA), and parcels which contain undisturbed wetlands for
the purposes of conservation, resource protection, restoration or density reduction and, if located
in Tier III outside of Special Protection Areas, for the purpose of providing land for affordable
housing where appropriate.
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one vacant, legally platted
+4 lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant, legally platted
lot of 5,000 square feet or more in size,designated as Residential
+1 for each 5,000 square Low with a maximum net density within a Tier I area and containing
feet of lot size sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot of at least 5,000 square feet in size within a Tier I area,
+0.5 designated as Residential Conservation,or Residential Low with no
maximum net density,containing sufficient upland to be buildable.
- - - Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one(1) acre of
vacant,unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one(1)acre of
vacant,unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1)vacant, legally
+2 platted lot which contains undisturbed wetlands. Each additional
vacant,legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned
requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot, designated as Tier III-A(Special Protection Area-SPA)
+2 of sufficient minimum lot size and containing sufficient upland area
to be buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that
meets the aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Page 4
ihe *Exception:
Applications for a dwelling unit on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
shall be awarded points for land dedication in accordance with
Action Item 3.2.2 C of the Livable ConmiuniKeys Master Plan for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
5. Market Rate Housing in Employee or Affordable Housing Project-The following points
shall be assigned to allocation applications for market rate housing units in an employee or
affordable housing project:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes a market rate housing unit which is part of an affordable or
+6 employee housing project;both affordable and employee housing
shall meet the policy guidelines for income in Policy 601.1.7 and
other requirements pursuant to the Land Development Regulations
6. Special Flood Hazard Areas—The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications
for proposed dwelling unit(s)to provide a disincentive for locating within certain coastal high
flood hazard areas:
41100 Point Assignment Criteria:
4 Proposes development within"V"zones on the FEMA flood
insurance rate maps.
7. Central Wastewater System Availability—The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
S. Payment to the Land Acquisition Fund—Up to two (2)points shall be awarded for a monetary
payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase of lands for
conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary value of each point shall be
set annually by the County based upon the estimated average fair market value of vacant,
privately-owned,buildable IS/URM zoned, platted lots in Tier I.
9. Perseverance Points — One (1) point shall be awarded for each year that the allocation
application remains in the allocation system up to a maximum accumulation of four(4)points.
Page 5
Policy 101.5.5
Monroe County shall implement the non-residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its land
development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification pursuant to Goal 105.
The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
1. Tier Designation — Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed non-residential
development in a manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed
areas with existing infrastructure, commercial concentrations, and few sensitive environmental
features, and discourages development in areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat,
which must be acquired or development rights retired for resource conservation and protection:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
Tier I [Natural Area], except for the expansion of lawfully
+0
established non-residential development provided under"exception"
below.
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
+10 Tier II [Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key].
Proposes non-residential development that will result in the clearing
+10 of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection Area in
Tier III.
+20 Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
Tier III [Infill Area].
*Exception:
Any lawfully established non-residential development shall be
assigned+20 points contingent upon no further clearing of upland
native habitat and no addition to and/or expansion of the existing lot
or parcel upon which the existing use is located.
2. Intensity Reduction - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
encourage the voluntary reduction of intensity:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+4 An application proposes development that reduces the permitted
floor area ratio (FAR)to twenty three percent(23%)or less.
L
Page 6
3. Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I and Tier II (Big Pine
Key and No Name Key) designated areas, and Tier III-A (Special Protection Areas-SPA), and
parcels which contain undisturbed wetlands for the purposes of conservation, resource
protection,restoration or density reduction and, if located in Tier III outside of Special Protection
Areas, for the purpose of providing land for affordable housing where appropriate.
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1)vacant, legally
platted lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be
+4 buildable. Each additional vacant,legally platted,buildable lot
which is dedicated that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the additional points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant legally planed lot
of five thousand(5,000) square feet or more in size, designated as
+1 for each 5,000 square Residential Low with maximum net density within a Tier I area and
feet of lot size containing sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot,that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1)vacant,legally
platted lot of five thousand(5,000) square feet or more within a Tier
+0.5 I area designated as Residential Conservation, or Residential Low
with no maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one(1)acre of
vacant,unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one(I) acre of
vacant,unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn the points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(I) vacant, legally
+2 platted lot which contains undisturbed wetlands. Each additional
vacant,legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned
requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot, designated as Tier III-A(Special Protection Area-SPA)
+2 of sufficient minimum lot size and containing sufficient upland area
to be buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that
meets the aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Page 7
L 4. Special Flood Hazard Area - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
discourage development within high risk special flood hazard zones:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
4 Proposes development within"V"zones on the FEMA flood
-
insurance rate maps.
5. Perseverance Points - One(1) or two (2)points shall be awarded for each year that the allocation
application remains in the system.
6. Highway Access - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to encourage
connections between commercial uses and reduction of the need for trips and access onto U.S.
Highway l:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 The development eliminates an existing driveway or access-way to
U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The development provides no new driveway or access-way to U.S.
Highway 1.
7. Landscaping and Water Conservation - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the planting of native vegetation and promote water conservation:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
The project provides a total of two hundred percent(200%) of the
+3 number of native landscape plants on its property than the number of
native landscape plants required by this chapter within landscaped
bufferyards and parking areas.
Twenty-five percent(25%)of the native plants provided to achieve
+1 the three (3)point award above or provided to meet the landscaped
bufferyard and parking area requirements of this chapter are listed as
threatened or endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
Project landscaping is designed for water conservation such as use
of one hundred percent(100%)native plants for vegetation,
+2 collection and direction of rainfall to landscaped areas,or the
application of re-used wastewater or treated seawater for watering
landscape plants.
Page 8
( 8. Central Wastewater System Availability— The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
9. Employee Housing— The following points, up to a maximum of four (4), shall be assigned to
allocation applications for employee housing units:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 Proposes an employee housing unit which is located on a parcel with
a non-residential use.
10. Payment to the Land Acquisition Fund — Up to two (2) points shall be awarded for a monetary
payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase of lands for
( conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary value of each point shall be
111/ —set—annually by the County based upon the estimated average fair market value of vacant,
privately-owned,buildable IS/URM zoned,platted lots in Tier I.
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. Filing 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 number of the foregoing amendment
may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County 2010
Comprehensive Plan and shall be incorporated into the Monroe County 2010
( Comprehensive Plan.
�/ Page 9
E PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
111/ at a special meeting held on the day of 2012.
Mayor David Rice
Mayor pro tern Kim Wigington
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY,FLORIDA
BY
Mayor David Rice
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
fipr DEPUTY CLERK
Page 10
IIEar ANSI
4 MEMORANDUM
5 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
6 We strive to be caring,professional and fair
7
8 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
9
10 Through: Christine Hurley, MCP,Director of Growth Management
11 Townley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning& Environmental Resources
12 Mayte Santamaria,Assistant Director of Planning&Environmental Resources
13
14 From: Kathy Grasser,Comprehensive Planner
15
16 Date: January 23,2012
17
18 Subject: Request for an amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to
19 address the land dedication of wetland parcels as well as the dedication of parcels
20 designated as Tier ID-A within the allocation point system.
21
22 Meeting: February 13,2012
i
I. REQUEST
25
26 This is a request by Monroe County to amend the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to
27 amend Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5 to assign points, under ROGO and NROGO, for the dedication
28 of parcels that contain wetlands as well as the dedication of Tier III-A (Special Protection Area-
29 SPA)parcels.
30
31 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
32
33 Upland habitat is protected through the Tier System and the permit allocation system. Under the
34 Tier System, all lands, outside of mainland Monroe County, are designated into three general
35 categories for purposes of land acquisition and smart growth initiatives. These three categories are
36 Tier I (Natural Area); Tier II (Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and No Name
37 Key only); and Tier III(Infill Area,which includes Tier III-A, Special Protection Area).
38
39 While the Tier System directs growth away from upland habitat to infill areas, the criteria for the tier
40 designations do not include wetlands (as confirmed in the State of Florida, Department of
41 Community Affairs Final Order DCA07-GM-166A (DOAH Case No. 06-2449GM). The
42 Comprehensive Plan does have other protective measures for wetland communities, such as
43 requiring 100%open space for certain wetland communities.
44
1 Wetland communities provide important storm protection, water quality protection, and wildlife
�2 habitat functions. In particular, the following wetland communities:
3
4 • mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys;
5 • transitional wetlands (salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands) lying landward of the mangrove
6 fringe and oceanward of upland communities;
7 • salt ponds occupying shallow enclosed basins having very restricted tidal influence;
8 • freshwater wetlands and freshwater ponds in areas of freshwater lenses in the Lower Keys.
9
10 To provide additional protection to wetland communities and further direct growth to disturbed and
11 scarified areas, an amendment is proposed to the permit allocation scoring system to assign points to
12 donated parcels that contain wetlands as well as the dedication of Tier III-A (Special Protection
13 Area-SPA) parcels.
14
15 Considering the goals, objectives and policies of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan which protect
16 habitat, there is every reason to protect wildlife habitat by reducing the number of lots available to
17 build on, thereby reducing overall density. This amendment allows the County to accept for land
18 dedication lots with wetlands as well as the dedication of Tier III-A (Special Protection Area-SPA)
19 parcels.
20
21 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
22
f '3 Policy 101.5.4
`/y Monroe County shall implement the residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its land
25 development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification as set forth under Goal
26 105. The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
27
28 1. Tier Designation - Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
29 following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed dwelling units in a
30 manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed areas with existing
31 infrastructure and few sensitive environmental features and discourages development in areas
32 with environmentally sensitive upland habitat which must be acquired or development rights
33 retired for resource conservation and protection.
34
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] on Big Pine Key and No Name Name Key.
+10 Proposes a dwelling unit within areas designated Tier I [Natural
Area] outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
+10 Proposes development within areas designated Tier II [Transition
and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.]
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 2 of 14
111/ +20 Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infi11 Area]
on Big Pine Key or No Name Key.
Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
+20 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will result in the
clearing of upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
Proposes development within areas designated Tier III [Infill Area]
+30 outside of Big Pine Key or No Name Key that will not result in the
clearing of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection
Area.
1
2 2. Big Pine and No Name Keys - The following negative points shall be cumulatively assigned to
3 allocation applications for proposed dwellings to implement the Big Pine Key and No Name Key
4 Habitat Conservation Plan and the Livable CommuniKeys Community Master Plan.
6
Point Assignment: Criteria:
-10 Proposes development on No Name Key.
41/ -10 Proposes development in designated Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit
habitat or buffer areas as designated in the Community Master Plan.
-10 Proposes development in Key Deer Corridor as designated in the
Community Master Plan.
6
7 3. Lot Aggregation — The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
8 encourage the voluntary reduction of density through aggregation of legally platted buildable lots
9 within Tier II and Tier III areas.
10
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot which is
+4 aggregated in a designated Tier III area outside of Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specified&
Each additional contiguous vacant, legally platted lot which is
+3 aggregated in a designated Tier II or III area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key that meets the aforementioned requirements will earn
additional points as specified.
C
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 3 of 14
`r *Exception:
No points for lot aggregation will be awarded for any proposed
development that involves the clearing of any upland native
vegetation in a Tier III Special Protection Area.
1
2 4. Land Dedication — The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
3 encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I designated areas,and
4 Tier III-A Special Protection Areas (SPA), and parcels which contain undisturbed wetlands for
5 the purposes of conservation, resource protection, restoration or density reduction and, if located
6 in Tier III outside of Special Protection Areas, for the purpose of providing land for affordable
7 housing where appropriate.
8
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one vacant, legally platted
lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
[ Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant, legally platted
�I lot of 5,000 square feet or more in size, designated as Residential
+1 for each 5,000 square Low with a maximum net density within a Tier I area and containing
feet of lot size sufficient upland area to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot of at least 5,000 square feet in size within a Tier I area,
+0.5 designated as Residential Conservation, or Residential Low with no
maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be buildable.
Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one (1) acre of
vacant, unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one (I) acre of
vacant, unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one (1) vacant, legally
+2 platted lot which contains undisturbed wetlands. Each additional
vacant, legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned
411184 requirements will earn points as specified.
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 4 of 14
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot, designated as Tier III-A (Special Protection Area-SPA)
+2 of sufficient minimum lot size and containing upland area to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
*Exception:
Applications for a dwelling unit on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
shall be awarded points for land dedication in accordance with
Action Item 3.2.2 C of the Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for
Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
1
2 5. Market Rate Housing in Employee or Affordable Housing Project- The following points
3 shall be assigned to allocation applications for market rate housing units in an employee or
4 affordable housing project:
5
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes a market rate housing unit which is part of an affordable or
+6 employee housing project; both affordable and employee housing
shall meet the policy guidelines for income in Policy 601.1.7 and
other requirements pursuant to the Land Development Regulations
411116
7 6. Special Flood Hazard Areas—The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications
8 for proposed dwelling unit(s) to provide a disincentive for locating within certain coastal high
9 flood hazard areas:
10
Point Assignment: Criteria:
4 Proposes development within"V" zones on the FEMA flood
-
insurance rate maps.
11
12 7. Central Wastewater System Availability—The following points shall be assigned to allocation
13 applications:
14
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
15
16 8. Payment to the Land Acquisition Fund—Up to two(2) points shall be awarded for a monetary
F '' payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase of lands for
conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary value of each point shall be
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 5 of 14
( set annually by the County based upon the estimated average fair market value of vacant,
kw;
privately-owned, buildable IS/URM zoned, platted lots in Tier I.
3
4 9. Perseverance Points — One (1) point shall be awarded for each year that the allocation
5 application remains in the allocation system up to a maximum accumulation of four(4)points.
6
7 Policy 101.5.5
8 Monroe County shall implement the non-residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its land
9 development regulations based primarily on the Tier system of land classification pursuant to Goal 105.
10 The points are intended to be applied cumulatively.
11
12 1. Tier Designation — Utilizing the Tier System for land classification in Policy 105.2.1, the
13 following points shall be assigned to allocation applications for proposed non-residential
14 development in a manner that encourages development of infill in predominately developed
15 areas with existing infrastructure, commercial concentrations, and few sensitive environmental
16 features, and discourages development in areas with environmentally sensitive upland habitat,
17 which must be acquired or development rights retired for resource conservation and protection:
18
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
+0 Tier I [Natural Area], except for the expansion of lawfully
established non-residential development provided under "exception"
ihr below.
Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
+10 Tier II [Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key].
Proposes non-residential development that will result in the clearing
+10 of any upland native vegetation within a Special Protection Area in
Tier III.
+20 Proposes non-residential development within an area designated
Tier III [Infill Area].
*Exception:
Any lawfully established non-residential development shall be
assigned +20 points contingent upon no further clearing of upland
native habitat and no addition to and/or expansion of the existing lot
or parcel upon which the existing use is located.
19
20
4100
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 6 of 14
2. Intensity Reduction - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
3 encourage the voluntary reduction of intensity:
4
Point Assignment: Criteria:
An application proposes development that reduces the permitted
floor area ratio (FAR)to twenty three percent(23%) or less.
5
6 3. Land Dedication - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
7 encourage, the voluntary dedication of vacant, buildable land within Tier I and Tier II (Big Pine
8 Key and No Name Key) designated areas, and Tier III-A (Special Protection Areas-SPA), and
9 parcels which contain undisturbed wetlands for the purposes of conservation, resource
10 protection, restoration or density reduction and, if located in Tier III outside of Special Protection
11 Areas, for the purpose of providing land for affordable housing where appropriate.
12
Point Assignment:* Criteria:*
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(1) vacant, legally
platted lot of sufficient minimum lot size and upland area to be
+4 buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted, buildable lot
which is dedicated that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn the additional points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of a vacant legally platted lot
of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more in size, designated as
+1 for each 5,000 square Residential Low with maximum net density within a Tier I area and
feet of lot size containing sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional vacant,
legally platted lot, that meets the aforementioned requirements will
earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one (1) vacant, legally
platted lot of five thousand(5,000) square feet or more within a Tier
+0.5 I area designated as Residential Conservation, or Residential Low
with no maximum net density, containing sufficient upland to be
buildable. Each additional vacant, legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of at least one (1)acre of
vacant, unplatted land located within a Tier I area containing
+4 sufficient upland to be buildable. Each additional one (1) acre of
vacant, unplatted land that meets the aforementioned requirements
will earn the points as specified.
13
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 7 of 14
L Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one(I) vacant, legally
w +2 platted lot which contains undisturbed wetlands. Each additional
vacant, legally platted lot that meets the aforementioned
requirements will earn points as specified.
Proposes dedication to Monroe County of one (1) vacant, legally
platted lot, designated as Tier III-A(Special Protection Area-SPA)
+2 of sufficient minimum lot size and containing upland area to be
buildable. Each additional vacant. legally platted lot that meets the
aforementioned requirements will earn points as specified.
1
2 4. Special Flood Hazard Area - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to
3 discourage development within high risk special flood hazard zones:
4
Point Assignment: Criteria:
4 Proposes development within"V" zones on the FEMA flood
insurance rate maps.
5
6 5. Perseverance Points - One (1) or two (2) points shall be awarded for each year that the allocation
7 application remains in the system.
8
6. - Highway Access - The following points shall be assigned to allocation applications to encourage
0 connections between commercial uses and reduction of the need for trips and access onto U.S.
11 Highway 1:
12
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+3 The development eliminates an existing driveway or access-way to
U.S. Highway 1.
+2 The development provides no new driveway or access-way to U.S.
Highway 1.
13
14
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 8 of 14
t 1 7. Landscaping and Water Conservation - The following points shall be assigned to allocation
applications to encourage the planting of native vegetation and promote water conservation:
3
Point Assignment: Criteria:
The project provides a total of two hundred percent (200%) of the
+3 number of native landscape plants on its property than the number of
native landscape plants required by this chapter within landscaped
bufferyards and parking areas.
Twenty-five percent(25%) of the native plants provided to achieve
+I the three(3)point award above or provided to meet the landscaped
bufferyard and parking area requirements of this chapter are listed as
threatened or endangered plants native to the Florida Keys.
Project landscaping is designed for water conservation such as use
of one hundred percent(100%) native plants for vegetation,
+2 collection and direction of rainfall to landscaped areas, or the
application of re-used wastewater or treated seawater for watering
landscape plants.
4
5 8. Central Wastewater System Availability — The following points shall be assigned to allocation
4.5 _ applications:
Point Assignment: Criteria:
Proposes development required to be connected to a central
+4 wastewater treatment system that meets the BAT/AWT treatment
standards established by Florida Legislature and Policy 901.1.1.
8
9 9. Employee Housing — The following points, up to a maximum of four (4), shall be assigned to
10 allocation applications for employee housing units:
11
Point Assignment: Criteria:
+2 Proposes an employee housing unit which is located on a parcel with
a non-residential use.
12
13 10. Payment to the Land Acquisition Fund — Up to two (2) points shall be awarded for a monetary
14 payment by the applicant to the County's land acquisition fund for the purchase of lands for
15 conservation, and retirement of development rights. The monetary value of each point shall be
16 set annually by the County based upon the estimated average fair market value of vacant,
privately-owned, buildable IS/URM zoned,platted lots in Tier I.
19 2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 9 of 14
( 1 CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
�/2 THE FLORIDA STATUTES,AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
3
4 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of
5 the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
6
7 Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure
8 the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
9
10 GOAL 102: Monroe County shall direct future growth to lands which are intrinsically most
11 suitable for development and shall encourage conservation and protection of environmentally
12 sensitive lands.
13
14 Objective 102.1: Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall require
15 new development to comply with environmental standards and environmental design criteria
16 which will protect disturbed wetlands, native upland vegetation and beach/berm areas.
17
18 Policy 102.1.1: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space
19 requirement shall be one hundred(100) percent of the following types of wetlands:
20
21 1. submerged lands 2. mangroves 3. salt ponds 4. fresh water wetlands
22 5. fresh water ponds 6. undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and
25 undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable
26 development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater
27 ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity.
28
29 Policy 105.2.6: Monroe County shall implement a land acquisition program to acquire most
30 privately owned vacant private lands within areas designated as a Transition and Sprawl
31 Reduction Area (Tier II) on Big Pine Key and No Name Key and patches of tropical
32 hardwood hammock or pinelands of one acre or greater in area identified as a Special
33 Protection Area within a designated Infill Area(Tier III).
34
35 Policy 105.2.7: Monroe County shall implement an acquisition program to acquire
36 privately owned vacant lands disturbed or scarified properties for affordable housing within
37 areas designated as an Infill Area (Tier III).
38
39 Policy 105.2.8: The preferred method for acquisition of environmentally sensitive privately
40 owned vacant non-platted lands shall be fee simple purchase, donation, or dedication or the
41 retirement of development rights through transfer of development rights or similar
42 mechanisms.
43
44
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 10 of 14
�1 Policy 105.2.9: The preferred method for acquisition of vacant platted lots shall be fee
r2 simple purchase, donation, or dedication or the retirement of development rights thorough
3 transfer of development rights or similar mechanisms; however, wherever appropriate,
4 platted lots may be purchased in partnership with adjoining property owner(s) subject to a
5 conservation easement that may allow limited accessory residential uses.
6
7 GOAL 204: The health and integrity of Monroe County's marine and freshwater wetlands
8 shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced.
9
10 Policy 204.2.1: To protect submerged lands and wetlands the open space shall be 100 percent
11 of the following types of wetlands:
12 1. submerged lands;
13 2. mangroves;
14 3. salt ponds;
15 4. freshwater wetlands;
16 5. freshwater ponds; and
17 6. undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands.
18
19 Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and
20 undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development
21 rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and
22 mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity.
4104 Objective 205.2: To implement Goal 105 of this Plan and the recommendations in the
25 Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), Monroe County shall adopt revisions to the
26 Land Development Regulations which further protect and provide for restoration of the
27 habitat values of upland native vegetated communities, including hardwood hammocks and
28 pinelands.
29
30 Goal 207: Monroe County shall protect and conserve existing wildlife and wildlife habitats.
31
32 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida
33 Keys Area,Section 380.0552(7),Florida Statute.
34
35 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan
36 with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles
37 shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation
38 from the other provisions.
39
40 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that
41 local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical
42 state concern designation.
43 (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
44 seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 11 of 14
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native
tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and
3 beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
4 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
5 economic development.
6 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida
7 Keys.
8 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural
9 environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character
10 of the Florida Keys.
11 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
12 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
13 proposed major public investments, including:
14
15 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
16 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
17 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
18 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
19 5. Transportation facilities;
20 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
21 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
22 properties;
1'3 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
25
26 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,
27 maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage
28 collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and
29 maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
30 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and
31 operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss.
32 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by
33 central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems.
34 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the
35 Florida Keys.
36 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida
37 Keys.
38- (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of
39 a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
40 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
41 maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
42
43 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the
44 Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
45
411,
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 12 of 14
06,1 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute
1 (F.S.).Specifically,the amendment furthers:
3
4 163.3177(6)(a)3.f., F.S. - Ensure the protection of natural and historic resources.
5
6 163.3177(6)(d), F.S. - A conservation element for the conservation, use, and protection of
7 natural resources in the area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, waterwells,
8 estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood plains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests,
9 fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals, and other natural and environmental
10 resources, including factors that affect energy conservation.
11 1. The following natural resources, where present within the local government's boundaries,
12 shall be identified and analyzed and existing recreational or conservation uses, known
13 pollution problems, including hazardous wastes, and the potential for conservation,
14 recreation, use, or protection shall also be identified:
15 a. Rivers, bays, lakes, wetlands including estuarine marshes, groundwaters, and springs,
16 including information on quality of the resource available.
17 b. Floodplains.
18 c. Known sources of commercially valuable minerals.
19 d. Areas known to have experienced soil erosion problems.
20 e. Areas that are the location of recreationally and commercially important fish or
21 shellfish, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities, including forests,
22 indicating known dominant species present and species listed by federal, state, or
41; local government agencies as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern.
25 163.3177(6)(d)2., F.S. - The element must contain principles, guidelines, and standards for
26 conservation that provide long-term goals and which:
27
28 d. Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects minerals, soils, and native vegetative
29 communities, including forests, from destruction by development activities.
30 e. Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and
31 marine habitat and restricts activities known to adversely affect the survival of
32 endangered and threatened wildlife.
33 f. Protects existing natural reservations identified in the recreation and open space
34 element.
35 g. Maintains cooperation with adjacent local governments to conserve, appropriately
36 use, or protect unique vegetative communities located within more than one local
37 jurisdiction.
38 h. Protects and conserves wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands.
39 i. Directs future land uses that are incompatible with the protection and conservation of
40 wetlands and wetland functions away from wetlands. The type, intensity or density,
41 extent, distribution, and location of allowable land uses and the types, values,
42 functions, sizes, conditions, and locations of wetlands are land use factors that shall
43 be considered when directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands. Land uses
44 shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands.
45 The protection and conservation of wetlands by the direction of incompatible land
l`/ uses away from wetlands shall occur in combination with other principles, guidelines,
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 13 of 14
1 standards, and strategies in the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses
are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for
3 loss of wetlands functions.
4
5 163.3177(6)(g), F.S. - For those units of local government identified in s. 380.24, a coastal
6 management element, appropriately related to the particular requirements of paragraphs (d)
7 and (e) and meeting the requirements of s. 163.3178(2) and (3). The coastal management
8 element shall set forth the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies policies that shall
9 guide the local government's decisions and program implementation with respect to the
10 following objectives:
11
12 2. Preserve the continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and
13 marine life.
14 3. Protect the orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound
15 conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources.
16 4. Avoid irreversible and irretrievable loss of coastal zone resources.
17
18 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
19
20 Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5.
21
22 VI. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
25 Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
26 interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review
27 and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review
28 Committee and the Planning Commission.
29
30 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
31 review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
32 Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
33 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the
34 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the
35 transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff
36 recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not
37 recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to the
38 State Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections,
39 Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has
40 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the
41 amendment.
42
43
44
4111/
2011-108 Land Dedications Wetlands Page 14 of 14
Data & Analysis
CIO MINUTES OF THE
TIER DESIGNATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tier Designation Review Committee
Thursday,August 25,2011
Key Largo, Florida
A meeting of the Tier 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.
( APPROVAL OF MINUTES
�Y 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 Tier 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 Tier 3 landscape. Discussion was had regarding how to
treat disturbed wetlands. Mr. Roberts clarified that protection of disturbed wetlands is not being
undermined in anyway.
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 nonwetland, it is not a ROGO eligible she. Dr. Frank clarified that this
policy would only apply to 100 percent open space lots, making this an additional layer of protection.
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 Tier 1 property. Mr. Kruer believes "adjacent" or "contiguous" language would be
important to include here,except for U.5.1 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 Tler 3 parcels, and while in
y 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, it 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
�r as used before,which is not broken by a road.
2
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 Tler 1 parcels receive negative points,and that
any parcel that is part of the 100 percent open space wetland contiguous to the property by Induded.
Curtis Kruer seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice Duquesnel,
Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Randy Gnu,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 infill.
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
communities will do the same thing as countywide rezoning, without the expense of rezoning. Ms.
Santamaria again reminded the Committee these are for parcels with wetlands that require 100 percent
open space, not wetlands that can be filled. Mr. Gnu 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. Gnu 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 R 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
�/ agreed.
3
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
4111. 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 is 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.Santamaria 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 it 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
the 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 CommunlKeys 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.
c.. Mr.Roberts then clarified for Ms. Duquesnel 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 Grau made a motion that the language under Tier 1 permitted clearing"per principal
Ldwelling unit" In the first paragraph be replaced with "per parcel," and that the proposed language
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
4111/
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.
err 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 remainder of the parcel is Tler 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.
MAP A
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
err' 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
111/
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 Tler 3. Mr. Kruer'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
v 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, .58 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;
Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Disagreed.
7
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 Grau 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,Tier 3,by the Committee. Winston Hobgood seconded
the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Randy Grau,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,
thir Agreed._
MAP
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 Grau, 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 Tler 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 Grau, disagreed due to disturbance on
ems' that parcel.
8
41111, MAP 1
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.
Cheon 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.
L 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.
MAP K
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.
Janhxe-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: Custis 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
Gnu,Agreed;and Janice Duquesnel,Agreed.
9
MAP
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.
MAPO
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
Infill. 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
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 Tier 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 Grau,Agreed.
A brief recess was held from 2:37 p.m.to 2:53 p.m.
MAP R
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 Grau seconded the motion. A vote was taken with the following results: Janice
Duquesnel,Agreed;Winston Hobgood,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Disagreed.
10
MAPS
Motion: Randy Grau made a motion that the prior designations remain based on finding the
properties to be disturbed on site visits. Winston Hobgood seconded the motion. A vote was taken
with the following results: Julie Cheon,Agreed;Curtis Kruer,Agreed;and Winston Hobgood,Agreed.
MAP T
Mr. Grau remembered that this parcel ended up being less than an acre and was a little bit disturbed.
Motion: Randy Gnu 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 Gnu,Agreed;and Curtis Kruer,Agreed.
MAP V
Mr. Gnu 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.
41/ MAP W
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 infll. 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.Grau made a motion to leave H 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.
ilry
11
MAP
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 Trivette." 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 Tier 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.
( The Administrative Law Judge's recommended order was reviewed. Mr. Kruer pointed out that the
v 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
Duquesne!,Agreed;and Julie Cheon,Agreed.
MAP Y
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 Duquesne!,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
411/
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
4111/ through the process.
The Tier Designation Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
13
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
bleaching, and disease outbreaks, or a synergy of both chronic and acute impacts. Distance
from human habitation has been considered a buffer from the affects of man-made impacts;
however, globally there are many examples of reefs that are remote from civilization that
are similarly in decline (Donahue et al., 2008; Miller and Szmant, 2008). Sea level rise
increases water depths and threatens coral reefs.
3.8,3.4 Potential for Conservation. Use. or Protection of Coral Communities
Monitoring of Florida Keys reefs began in the late 1970s in Biscayne and Dry Tortugas
National Parks through the 1980s. Three large ship groundings in 1989 was the major
impetus for the creation of the FKNMS. The FKNMS Water Quality Protection Plan
monitoring program was established to evaluate the status and trends of the coral
communities throughout the FKNMS. It was finalized following technical meetings in 1994.
Through these and other monitoring programs, it has been learned that a large amount of
coral cover has been lost in the Florida Keys. Monitoring programs have shown an overall
decline in hard coral cover of 44 percent at quantitatively surveyed stations.
Proportionally, the major framework building corals seem to have been most affected (73
percent loss for Acropora palmate, and 37 percent loss for Montastraea annularis)
(Andrews et al., 2008; Donahue et al., 2008). Many of the causes of local coral decline
originate beyond the jurisdiction of the County. For example, algal blooms in the Florida
c Keys are influenced by nutrients and water flows from the Everglades and southwest
Florida. Also, warming ocean temperatures associated with global climate change are a
major factor in coral bleaching. Implementing solutions that will preserve the Florida Keys
coral reef system will require action on local,regional,and global scales.
3.9 Wetlands [Rule 91-5.013(1)(a)1. and (b), F.A.C.)
The biological communities of the Florida Keys include five wetland types which provide
important storm protection, water quality protection, and wildlife habitat functions. These
wetland communities include:
• mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys;
• transitional wetlands (salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands) lying landward of the
mangrove fringe and oceanward of upland communities;
• sail ponds occupying shallow enclosed basins having very restricted tidal influence;
• beachess; and
• freshwater wetlands and freshwater ponds in areas of freshwater lenses in the Lower
Keys.
s Beaches are not considered to be traditional wetlands under State and federal definitions since they are
located in the high wave energy zone; thus, they do not have wetland soil features nor are they vegetated
(although mud flats would meet State and federal definitions of wetlands). However,beaches(as part of the
beach/berm community) are protected by the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs and by State and federal
regulations when they are below the mean high water line. Thus, beaches are mentioned in this section.
Beaches are more fully described in Section 3.10(Beach/Berm Communities).
Conservation and Coastal Management 92 Technical Document: July 2011
( Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
the ADID data did not correspond to the other databases (i.e., the maps did not line up
exactly). The ADID data can be useful for an individual parcel to determine if it contains a
wetland with a KEYWEP score but, because of the mapping limitations, the ADID data could
not be used on a County-wide basis. The County should reconcile the ADID mapping with
parcel-based mapping so that this information can be captured for land use analyses.
3.9.3 Mangrove Communities
Mangrove wetland communities are addressed above in Section 3.8.1 (Mangroves).
Included are discussions of the following:
• Flora of mangrove communities;
• Existing commercial,recreational and conservation uses of mangrove communities;
• Known pollution problems and/or issues related to mangrove communities; and
• Potential for conservation,use, or protection of mangrove communities.
3.9.4 Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
Saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands are tidally influenced transitional wetlands which lie
landward of the mangrove fringe and seaward of the upland community. Two basic
wetland communities occur in the transition zone in the Florida Keys. Salt marshes are the
rower-transitional wetlands. They exist at the interface of land and marine waters,
wherever wave energy is sufficiently low to allow their development and where mangrove
trees are not dense enough to shade out the characteristic vegetation (Montague and
Wiegert, 2001). Buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) associations are generally higher
transitional wetlands, occurring between the salt marshes and the high upland habitats.
The type of transitional association that develops in the Keys is a function of tide and
topography. In the Lower Keys, where the slope of the intertidal zone is very slight, the
broadest expanse of transitional zones occurs. On Sugarloaf, Cudjoe, Big Torch, Little
Torch, and on a number of other keys, transitional zones occupy areas hundreds of feet in
width. On these keys, much of the eroded oolitic caprock is exposed, creating a karst-like
substrate with disjunct, shallow depressions containing marl soils. Most of these areas are
wetted only by the highest normal tides and by storm tides. By comparison, in the Middle
and Upper Keys, there is a relatively steep slope to the high ground. In these areas the
trarisltional zone is quite narrow, with hammock often found within a short horizontal
distance from the high water mark.
Table 3.7 shows the inventory of salt marsh wetlands within the County with a total of
2,552.7 acres. Most are located in the Lower Keys (94 percent) and 18 percent are
privately owned. Table 3.8 shows the inventory of buttonwood wetlands with at total of
3,323.1 acres within the County and like salt marshes, most (72.5 percent) are located in
the Lower Keys. Of that total, 21.7 percent are privately owned.
Conservation and Coastal Management 97 Technical Document July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
11/ 3.9.4.1 Flora of Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
3.9.4.1.1 Flora of Undisturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
Several environmental factors control species distribution in transitional wetlands. These
are functions of elevation and tidal influence and are linearly related to distance from mean
high water. They include duration of tidal submergence; duration of exposure; and
frequency of submergence. Because of the low tidal amplitude (3 feet) in the Keys, the
inundation of the transition zone may be affected by several other factors, including wind
direction and velocity, shoreline exposure, slope, elevation and microrelief. As a result, the
position of an individual plant population within the transitional zone reflects an adaptive
response to a complex set of environmental gradients.
The transitional habitats of the Keys contain species representative of both the adjacent
mangrove and upland communities. In the most seaward subzone of transitional areas
scrub mangrove communities typically occur. These are dominated by small red and black
mangroves with an understory of Glasswort (Salicornia bigelovif), salt grass (Distichilis
spicata), and key grass (Monanthochloe littoralis). Moving upland, there is a change to a
more diverse plant community with fewer mangroves. Depending on drainage and soil
conditions,this association can be either buttonwood or salt marsh.
gSalt marshes are dominated by salt-tolerant herbs, shrubs, and grasses. Some salt marshes
�I are mixtures of fleshy halophytes, including glasswort (Salicornia bigelovii), purslane
(Sesuvium portulacastrum), and saltwort (Batis maritima). Other marshes are dominated
by grasses, including salt grass, key grass, and dropseed, and occasional marsh fimbry
(Fimbristylis spadicea), sea daisy, saltwort, buttonwood and small mangroves. These
grasses and herbs occur as small, disjunct populations forming a mosaic. In some cases, a
single population will occupy an area of about a half acre, whereas in others, the same
species might be represented by only a few individuals. This distributional variability
probably reflects the area's microrelief,which determines drainage and soil salinity.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Conservation and Coastal Management 98 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
10111, Table 3.7-Inventor of Salt Marsh Wetlands
Ownership,
Site Name 1 Total; Non- Species
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private Recorded
Lower Keys
Bahia Honda
State Park 18.4 KD,MR
Florida Keys
Wildlife and 280.8 0.1 1.2 KD,MR,SR
Environmental
Area2
Great White
Heron National 360.7 20.9 1.5 5.0 KD,MR,SR
Wildlife Refuge
John J.
Pescatello
Torchwood 37.2 KD,MR
Hammock
Preserve
Monroe County 1.9 KD, MR,SR
Managed Areas
National Key 759.8 32.9 KD,MR,SR
Deer Refuge _
Naval Air
Station 248.4 MR,SR
411000 Saddle Bunch
Keys 12.6 KD,MR,SR
Outside of 14.2 62.1 102.8 11.3 436.4 KD,MR,SR
Parks/Refuges
Lower Keys 2,408.2 1,383.1 417.0 104.4 61.1 0 0 442.6
Total
Middle Keys
Lignumvitae
Key Botanical 2.8
State Park
Long Key State -
Park 13.7
Outside of
Parks/Refuges 1'4 21.0
Middle Keys 38.9 0 17.9 0 0 0 0 21.0
Total _ _
Upper Keys
Crocodile Lake
National 0.6
Wildlife Refuge
Cross Key 0.1
Dagney Johnson
Key Largo
Hammock 48.6 SS,IS,WR,CM
Botanical State
Park
Conservation and Coastal Management 99 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
16 Table 3.7- Invento of Salt Marsh Wetlands continued
Ownership 1
Site Name 1 Total Federal State County NOi1 Cities Utilities Private- Species
Profit Recorded'
Everglades
National Park6 4.5
Florida Keys
Wildlife and
Environmental 4'7
Area2
John
Pennecamp
Coral Reef State 37'9 0.2
Park
Monroe County 0.2
Managed Areas
Tarpon Basin 0.9
Outside of 4.1 0.9 2,9
Parks/Refuges
Upper Keys 105.6 5.1 95.5 0.9 1.0 0 0 3.1
Total
Total County 2,552.7 1,388.2 _ 530.4 _ 105.3 62.1 0 _ 0 _ 466.7
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.
4 Ownership information is from the Monroe County Property Appraiser.
5 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; 1S= Eastern Indigo Snake;WR= Key Largo Woodrat; CM
=Key Largo Cottonmouse; SR=Silver Rice Rat; KD= Key Deer;TC=Tree Cactus
6 Portion of the Everglades National Park that extends into Florida Bay; acreage does not necessarily include
Mainland habitats.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
NNW
Conservation and Coastal Management 100 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Abe Table 3.8 - Inventor of Buttonwood Wetlands
Ownership F
Species
Site Name Total Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Recorded
Profit
Lower Keys
Bahia Honda State Park 30.9 KD,MR
Florida Keys Wildlife
and Environmental 323.2 0.8 0.1 8.4 KD,MR,
Area2 SR
Great White Heron 6.4 14.3 0.1 12.3 KD,MR,
National Wildlife Refuge SR
John J.Pescatello
Torchwood Hammock 16.1 KD,MR
Preserve
Monroe County 9 6 KD,MR,
Managed Areas SR
National Key Deer 828.6 92.5 0 1 KD,MR,
RefugeSR
Naval Air Station 272.6 0.1 0.1 MR,SR
Saddle Bunch Keys 0.5 KD,MR,
SR
Outside of 7.2 34.9 136.8 27.9 1.0 586.3 KD,MR,
Parks/Refuges SR
Lower Keys Total 2,410.8 1,114.8 505.5 137.6 44.7 1.0 0 607.2
Middle Keys
Lignumvitae Key 17.0
Botanical State Park
Long Key State Park 54.1 0.4
Outside of 5.4 7.2 37.2
Parks/Refuges
Middle Keys Total 121.3 _ 0 76.5 7.2 0 0 0 37.6
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Conservation and Coastal Management 101 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
�,► Table 3.8 - Inventor of Buttonwood Wetlands continued
Ownership
Site Name Total Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species
Profit Recorded'
Upper Keys
Crocodile Lake National 94.1 0.7 0.3
Wildlife Refuge
Crocodile Lake 0.7 0.3
Sanctuary
Dagney Johnson Key SS,TS,IS,
Largo Hammock 2.1 259.8 CM,WR,
Botanical State Park TC
Florida Keys Wildlife
and Environmental 37.7 0.6 TS,IS,TC
Area2
John Pennecamp Coral 248.7 0.2 TS,IS,TC
Reef State Park
Monroe County 4.0 0.1
Managed Areas 0.2 TS,IS,TC
Naval Air Station 1.7
Tarpon Basin 2.8 TS,TC
Outside of 3.0 40.0 18.6 0.1 78.3 TS,IS,TC
Parks/Refuges
Upper Keys Total 794.0 101.6 590.9 19.0 3.2 0 0 79.3
Total County 3,326.1 1,216.4 1,172.9 163.8 47.9 1 0 724.1
Footnotes are the same as for Table 3.7.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Conservation and Coastal Management 102 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The buttonwood wetland is a transitional wetland that is usually more landward than the
salt marsh and may intermix with more upland communities. Buttonwood becomes
abundant and is generally associated with an understory of sea daisy, dropseed, sea oxeye
(Borrichia arborescens), cordgrass, chestnut sedge, christmas berry (Lyceum carolinanum)
and other small shrubs, herbs and graminoids. The open aspect of the association,
resulting from the branching habit of the buttonwoods, allows sunlight to reach the ground
and generates abundant vegetation beneath the trees, where there is typically soil
accumulation. The wild allamanda (Urechites lutea) and rubber vine (Rhabdadenia bijlora)
are also often found on buttonwoods
Moving upland, the transitional zone grades into tropical hardwood hammock. The
landward extent of the tides is marked by the accumulation of litter on the forest floor and
generally corresponds to the hammock boundary. Often,there are small areas of hammock
species within the transitional zone vegetated by small,salt tolerant trees and shrubs.
3.9.4.1.2 Flora of Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
Vegetation of disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood communities may be either a remnant
of what existed prior to the disturbance or what has colonized the site after the
disturbance. Areas of disturbance which are wetted by spring or storm tides, but do not
contain poorly drained saturated soils, are often vegetated by dense stands of small
_. .' buttonwoods with an understory of sea daisy and salt tolerant grasses. Individual .trees
remain small relative to the stature of buttonwoods growing in undisturbed conditions.
Disturbed areas which are only partially vegetated by buttonwood, but still contain open
zones, are highly susceptible for colonization by invasive plants, such as Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthefolius) and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolio).
3.9.4.1.3 Fauna of Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands
The wildlife found in Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands are discussed in Section
3.12.1.2 (Wildlife Typically Inhabiting Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetland Communities).
3.9.4.2 Existing Commercial. Recreational. or Conservation Uses of Salt Marsh and
Buttonwood Wetlands
No development activities are permitted in undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood
wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent (no clearing is allowed). These
habitats are considered one of the most sensitive habitats, and if present on a development
site, clustering is required. Development is only allowed in lands classified as disturbed
with salt marsh and buttonwood association [Section 118-10 (Environmental Design for
Specific Habitat Types)]. Only those salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands that are
determined by KEYWEP to have moderate or low functional capacity are suitable for filling
with appropriate mitigation,but must also be authorized by FDEP and USACE permits.
Conservation and Coastal Management 103 Technical Document; July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
ihr Most of the undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands are owned by State and
federal agencies and presumably will not be disturbed. Conservation lands [see Section
3.18.3 (Conservation Lands)] in the Florida Keys which encompass large tracts of
undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands include:
• National Key Deer Refuge;
• John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park;
• Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve;
• Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve;
• Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve;
• Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; and
• Everglades National Park.
3.9.4.3 Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Salt Marsh and
Buttonwood Wetlands
Placement of fill for residential development, accessory structures, and accessways is the
primary source of pollution in salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands in the Keys. Placement
of fill disrupts the local natural drainage pattern, thereby affecting adjacent wetland areas
outside of the immediate area of filling. Homeowners typically introduce non-native plant
material in residential landscaping and, with time, expand the area of disturbance further
into-adjacent wetlands. OSTDS serving development sites in salt marsh and buttonwood
wetlands are likely to function improperly due to soil wetness and flooding.
Malfunctioning systems release nutrients and other contaminants into the substrate and
the highly permeable underlying limestone. From there the contaminants move laterally in
groundwater to adjacent wetlands and nearshore waters.
Other pollution problems and concerns related to salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands
include:
• illegal dumping;
• damage from off-road vehicles;
• disruptive activities at the fringe of salt ponds caused by the proximity to developed
land uses;
• _altered hydrology due to mosquito ditches, canals,and roads; and
• sea level rise.
3.9.4.4 Potential for Conservation. Use, or Protection of Salt Marsh and
Buttonwood Wetlands
The current Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs specify setbacks and the ROGO/NROGO
provides restrictions on the development of undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood
wetlands. Off-road vehicle trespassing onto salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands could be
reduced through improved posting of private lands and by stepped-up enforcement of
Conservation and Coastal Management 104 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
411/ trespass laws and illegal use of public lands. Protection against illegal dumping could be
improved by increased enforcement of existing dumping regulations.
3.9.5 Beaches
Beaches are addressed below in Section 3.10 (Beach/Berm Communities). Included are
discussions of the following:
• beaches of the Florida Keys;
• flora of beach communities;
• existing commercial,recreational and conservation uses of beaches;
• known pollution problems and/or issues related to beaches;
• past trends in beach erosion and accretion;
• effects of coastal or shore protection structures on beaches;
• existing and potential beach renourishment areas; and
• potential for conservation, use or protection of beaches.
3.9.6 Salt Ponds
Salt ponds are remnants of former open water areas that have been cut off from tidal
connection by storm-built berms or man-made structures. The result is a shallow
411, imp6undment, which receives saltwater during intense storm events and rainwater on a
regular, seasonal basis. They range in size from less than one acre to tens of acres. The
best known salt pond system is located along the southeastern shoreline of Key West
landward of South Roosevelt Boulevard (State Route A1A). This series of ponds supported
a salt production industry in Key West from 1830 through the 1860s. Other salt ponds are
located on Boca Grande Key, Cudjoe Key, Little Torch Key, Fat Deer Key (Cocoplum Beach),
Ohio Key, and Long Key. Salt ponds are tidal habitats but they are flushed only by the
highest of tides, often just once a year in the fall. For much of the year they can become
highly saline environments (Kalla, 2000). Seasonally variable water depths range from 2
feet to occasionally dry in the late spring. Salinity of pond waters can range from 5 parts
per thousand during heavy rains to as high as 50-100 parts per thousand at the end of the
dry season. Standing water can disappear from all or part of a pond during the dry season
leaving salt deposits on the sediment surface (Kalla, 2000). Because of the typically small
volume of water contained in these ponds, water temperatures approach those of the
ambient air, ranging from 69.4 to 84.9 degrees F (monthly mean, Key West). In the smaller
ponds, and in the large ponds during periods of dry-down, daily water temperature
fluctuations are probably more extreme, with peak summer values in excess of 90 degrees
F.
Salt pond sediments are generally a mixture of organic mud marl and coarser-grained,
calcareous skeletal materials derived from marine organisms. These sediments often have
a reddish color. Their composition reflects a history of both in situ deposition and storm
deposition. In some ponds, there is only a thin (1 to 2 inch) marl layer over the caprock,
whereas in others, sediment depths exceed a foot and are often anaerobic. Although salt
Conservation and Coastal Management 105 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
pond systems are subject to harsh extremes in temperature and salinity, they support a
flora and fauna, which are adapted to these extremes and, as a result of the extremes, can
be continually changing.
Salt ponds are mapped together with freshwater ponds. Thus, they are included in Section
3.9.7 (Freshwater Wetlands).
3.9.6.1 Flora of Salt Ponds
Submerged vegetation is either absent or sparse or it can be seasonal. Dominant salt pond
plants include green algae (Batophora oerstedii) and Acetabularia crenulata on coarse
substrates; and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), algae (Batophora oerstedii) tolerant of
salinity fluctuations, spike rush (Eleocharis cellulose), and shoal grass (Halodule wrightii)
rooted in the sediments. Occasional black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and, less
frequently, red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) are found along the pond banks. The
smaller ponds often contain little or no macroscopic vegetation. In larger ponds the spike
rush and occasional mangroves are restricted to the pond margins, while the central area
usually contains no emergent vegetation.
Probably the best adapted biotic component of the salt ponds is the periphyton, an
association of microalgae (primarily blue-greens) that form mat-like structures composed
( of fine algal filaments. In wetland areas which periodically dry out, these mats appear as
\/ black crusts on the surface of the caprock or sediment.
3.9.6.2 Fauna of Salt Ponds
The wildlife found in Salt Ponds are discussed in Section 3.12.1.3 (Wildlife Typically
Inhabiting Salt Pond Communities).
3.9.6.3 Existing Commercial. Recreational. or Conservation Uses of Salt Ponds
Historically, salt ponds were used for the evaporation of salt for commercial uses. This
practice ended in the 1860s but some of the diversion ditches and berms remain to remind
us of their historic uses. Flooding occurs during the highest tides through culverts,shallow
creeks, broad transitional wetlands or a temporary natural break in the land barrier (e.g.,
Cocopium Beach; Kalla, 2000). Currently, salt ponds on Cudjoe Key and Little Torch Key
are located within the limits of the National Key Deer Refuge. Several salt ponds are
located within the Key West National Wildlife Refuge, most notably the historic ponds on
Duck Key. Salt ponds are now well-known tourist (and local) destinations for bird
enthusiasts.
416,
Conservation and Coastal Management 106 Technical Document; July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3.9.6.4 Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Salt Ponds
Until around 1985, salt ponds in the Florida Keys were filled to provide land for
development. The current Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs (see above) prohibit these
activities and State and federal permits would be needed to fill, drain, or alter salt ponds.
Pollution problems and other concerns related to salt ponds include illegal dumping and
disruptive activities at the edges of salt ponds caused by the proximity to developed land
uses. Illegal dumping is a problem along the perimeter of salt ponds, particularly where
there is vehicular access. Proximity of developed land uses to salt ponds tends to adversely
affect perimeter areas of the wetland. These impacts are typically direct physical effects
caused by landowner dumping of yard debris at the perimeter of residential lots and the
cumulative impacts of homeowners through the years caused by yard improvements, such
as perimeter clearing, minor spot filling, and planting of non-native plant materials.
Disturbance along the edges of salt ponds can cause the colonization of invasive plants,
especially lather leaf (Colubrina asiatico) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius).
Sea level rise also threatens the hydrology of salt ponds.
3.9.6.5 Potential for Conservation. Use. or Protection of Salt Ponds
The Comprehensive Plan policies and Section 118-4 of the LDRs prohibits development
activities in mangroves, freshwater wetlands and in undisturbed saltmarsh and
buttonwood wetlands. The LDRs should be amended to include salt ponds in this
prohibition. However, filling or alteration of salt ponds would be subject to permit
authorization by the SFWMD and/or FDEP and the USACE. Open space buffers are
specified for all wetlands, which would include salt ponds.
Control of exotics should be a priority for the conservation of wildlife functions of salt
ponds. Several restoration projects in salt ponds have been completed by the KERF.
3.9.7 Freshwater Wetlands
A freshwater lens is a small scale aquifer where a shallow pool of water is perched upon
underlying salt water (see Chapter 12.0 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element).
Seasonal high mean sea level in the fall "pushes"the lens above the ground surface in many
areas-(Kalla, 2000). The size of these lenses is controlled by rainfall, freshwater discharge
(seepage, pumpage, runoff, and evapotranspiration), response to tidal fluctuations,
proximity to saltwater bodies, permeability of the subsurface materials, and elevation of
the island above sea level (Klein, 1970; Hanson, 1980; Kalla, 2000). Discharge from these
freshwater lenses is to lower topographic areas. Some groundwater discharge occurs to
mosquito control ditches, where freshwater wetlands dominated by Cattail (Typha spp.)
typically develop.
Permanent freshwater lenses occur on the larger keys, specifically Key West and Big Pine
Key. The largest and best known of the surface freshwater ponds on Big Pine Key is Blue
Conservation and Coastal Management 107 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
`, Hole, a one acre former limestone quarry within the boundaries of the National Key Deer
Wildlife Refuge. Ephemeral or brackish lenses are present on the smaller keys, including
Sugarloaf Key, Little Torch Key, Cudjoe Key, No Name Key, Little Pine Key, and Ramrod Key.
The Lower Keys are more likely to have lenses because of their geometry and geology. By
comparison to those on Big Pine Key, the freshwater lenses on the other keys are much
smaller in size and generally do not have adequate year-round groundwater discharges to
sustain large permanent freshwater pools or wetlands.
Freshwater wetlands were mapped for the Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID).
However, the current County GIS database was used for this inventory. The inventory of
freshwater wetlands is shown in Table 3.9. A total of 961.1 acres of freshwater wetlands
are in the County. All but 0.5 acres are found in the Lower Keys; none were observed in the
Middle Keys. Of the total amount, 12.3 percent are privately owned. The inventory of
freshwater ponds and salt ponds is shown in Table 3.10. Most open water ponds are
located in the Middle and Lower Keys. Of the total pond area, 15 percent are privately
owned.
3.9.7.1 Flora of Freshwater Wetlands
,39711 Flora ofSawgrass Marshes
The most extensive freshwater wetlands in the Keys are the sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense)
tliv marshes of Big Pine Key and adjoining smaller keys. These sawgrass marshes occur along
the edges of the slash pinelands, at slightly lower elevations. The occurrence of the
sawgrass marshes, as well as the pinelands conforms quite closely with the outline of the
two freshwater lenses beneath Big Pine Key (Ross, 1989). The freshwater wetlands include
large, natural, and impounded sloughs in the central portion of Big Pine Key and numerous
smaller interior basins scattered throughout Big Pine Key. The sloughs are important
discharge areas that receive drainage from the freshwater lenses during periods of high
water and, because of their size and extensive ditching, typically contain most of the
surface freshwater on Big Pine Key at any one time (Jackson, 1989). In contrast, the
smaller, interior basins are recharge areas that retain water until it can be absorbed into
the ground and surrounding uplands (Kalla, 2000).
The Sawgrass Marshes are dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis). Other
freshwater marsh species include saw sedge (Cyperus ligularis), white-top sedge
(Rhynchospora floridensis), giant leather fern (Acrostichum damaeifolium), false foxglove
(Agalinis spp.), perennial saltmarsh aster (Symphyotrichum tenuifolius), broom sedge
(Andropogon glomeratus), and buttonwood (Concocarpus erectus). Two vines, mangrove
rubber vine (Rhabdadenia biflora) and wild allamanda (Pentalinom lutea), and a variety of
bromeliads, occasionally occur on the buttonwoods.
Sawgrass occurs ubiquitously in both fresh and brackish wetlands. In areas that contain
brackish water or slightly saline soils, the association often includes other salt tolerant
species including gulf coast spikerush (Eleocharis cellulose), hurricanegrass (Fimbristylis
cymosa), and seashore dropseed (Sporobolus virginicus). In these areas, buttonwood and
Conservation and Coastal Management 108 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
`, mangroves also frequently occur. In small, shallow solution depression on Big Pine, No
Name, Cudjoe, and Sugarloaf Keys, dense stands of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) are
found closely associated with sawgrass.
While less diverse than the pinelands with which they are typically associated, the
sawgrass marshes contain several State-protected plants, including pride-of-Big-Pine
(Strumpfia maritime),joewood Jacquinia keyensis),and bromeliads (Tillandsia spp.).
3.9.7,1.2 Flora of Cattail Marshes
Cattail (Typha spp.) marshes occur less extensively than the Sawgrass marsh on
Knockemdown, Big Pine, Little Torch, Middle Torch, Sugarloaf, and Cudjoe keys. Because
cattail marshes naturally occur well within the confines of hammocks protected from the
xeric atmospheric conditions characteristic of more open areas, they are probably
subjected to saline influences only during hurricanes or tropical storms.
Where organic soils are deeper, these marshes are characterized by almost pure stands of
Cattail. In some, gulf coast spikerush (Eleocharis cellulose) often occurs in pure stands just
a few inches below the sawgrass. Buttonwoods and occasional mangroves are present on
the borders, supporting mixed populations of bromeliads (Tillandsia spp.) and butterfly
( orchid (Encyclia tampensis).
` In addition to natural cattail marshes, narrow linear freshwater wetlands dominated by
Cattail occur along mosquito ditches throughout the Keys. These ditches are flooded by
freshwater during the wet season and, due to the high water-holding capacity of the deep
organic layer,contain wet to moist soils throughout the year.
3.9.7.2 Fauna of Freshwater Wetlands
Wildlife found in Freshwater Wetlands is discussed in Section 3.12.1.4 (Wildlife Typically
Inhabiting Freshwater Wetland Communities)
3.9.7.3 Existing Commercial. Recreational, or Conservation Uses of Freshwater
Wetlands
The Comprehensive Plan policies and Section 118-4 of the LDRs prohibits development
activities in freshwater wetlands and the open space requirement is 100 percent. Open
space buffers are specified for all wetlands. Most freshwater wetlands are protected by the
Tier Overlay Ordinance and ROGO/NROGO. In addition, filling or alteration of freshwater
wetlands would be subject to permit authorization by the SFWMD and/or FDEP and the
USACE.
The largest freshwater wetlands on Big Pine Key are included in the National Key Deer
Refuge. Outside of Big Pine Key, freshwater wetlands are found on Cudjoe Key, No Name
Conservation and Coastal Management 109 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Key, Ramrod Key, and Sugarloaf Key. Approximately 117 acres remain in private
ownership.
Table 3.9- Inventor of Freshwater Wetlands
Ownership`I
Site Name ' Total` Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species
Profit Recorded
Lower Keys
Florida Keys Wildlife and 57.3 1.1 0.1 0.8 KD,MR,SR
Environmental Area2
Great White Heron
National Wildlife Refuge _ 0 4 KD,MR
Monroe County Managed 2.2
Areas KD, MR,SR
National Key Deer Refuge 363.4 2i5' 0.1 0.1 KD,MR,SR
Naval Air Station 27.0 MR
Saddle Bunch Keys 2.3 KD,MR,SR
Terrestris Preserve 13.8_ KD,MR
Outside of Parks/Refuges 13.4 18.0 78.4 11.0 116.6 KD,MR,SR
Lower Keys Total 961.1 403.8 3 62. 80.0 27.2 0 0 117.5
Middle Keys
11111111, Middle Keys Total _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Upper Keys
Outside of Parks/Refuges _ 0.5
Upper Keys Total 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5
Total County 961.6 403.8 332.6 80.0 _ 27.2 0 0 118.0
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.
4 Ownership information is from the Monroe County Property Appraiser.
5 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
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Conservation and Coastal Management 110 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 3.10 -Inventor of Freshwater Ponds and Salt Ponds
Ownership
Site Name Total'; Non-
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private Species Recorded}
Lower Keys
Bahia Honda 9.2 KD
State Park
Florida Keys
Wildlife and 61.1
Environmental 0.6 KD,MR,SR
Area2
Great White
Heron National 82.3 2.3 12.9 KD,MR,SR
Wildlife Refuge
John J.Pescatello
Torchwood 20.3 KD
Hammock
Preserve
Monroe County 12.9
Managed Areas KD,SR
National Key 313.3 50.8
6.5 KD,MR,SR
Deer Refuge
Naval Air Station 241.5 0.1 KD,MR,SR
Saddle Bunch
Keys 0.5 SR
Outside of 71.0 86.8 26.5 6.6 426.5 KD,MR,SR
Parks/Refuges
Lower Keys 1,431.7 708.1 223.1 26.5 27.4 0 0 446.6
Total
Middle Keys
Lignumvitae Key
Botanical State 22.0
Park
Long Key State 15.7 0.2
Park
Outside of 0.7 1.8 14.0
Parks/Refuges
Middle Keys 1,470.6 1,416.2 38.4 2.0 0 0 0 14.0
Total
Upper Keys
Crocodile Lake
National Wildlife 359.6 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1
Refuge
Crocodile Lake 2.0 3.7
Sanctuary
Cross Key 1.3
Conservation and Coastal Management 111 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 3.10- Inventor of Freshwater Ponds and Salt Ponds continued
Ownership
Site Name Total Non- Species
Federal State County Profit Cities Utilities Private
Recorded'
Dagney Johnson
Key Largo
Hammock 28.2 0.1
Botanical State
Park
Everglades 279.8
National Park6
Florida Keys
Wildlife and
Environmental 58.3 0.1
Area2
John Pennecamp
Coral Reef State 9.5 0.1
Park
Monroe County 6.5
Managed Areas
Tarpon Basin 6.8 1.1 43.7
Outside of
Parks/Refuges 1.9 1.8 3.0 0.1 1.06 117.0
Upper Keys 926.7 650.1 106.1 3.1 49 0 1.0 117.4
Total
Total County 3,829.0 2,774.4 _367.6 31.6 __ 76.4 0 1.0 578.0
Footnotes 1-5 are the same as in Table 3.9.
6 Florida Keys Mosquito Control District
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Conservation and Coastal Management 112 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3.9.7.4 Known Pollution Problems and/or Issues Related to Freshwater
Wetlands
Freshwater wetlands, ponds,and pools are above-ground expressions of freshwater lenses.
The Big Pine Key lens system is probably the most studied and the best mapped. The
effects of urbanization were documented on both the horizontal and vertical extent of the
lenses, especially the southern lens (Kalla, 2000). Areas of saltwater intrusion were
documented due to freshwater withdrawals. Seasonal changes have also been
documented. Seasonal high tides and heavy rains during the wet season develop strong
outflows.
Until 1986, when the County adopted the Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan, freshwater
wetlands in the Florida Keys were filled routinely for purposes of providing dry land for
development. Some were used as borrow pits or for limestone mining. In 1986,the County
adopted its current LDRs,which effectively stopped such activities in the Keys.
Pollution problems and other concerns related to freshwater wetlands which remain today
include:
• illegal dumping;
• disturbance at the fringe of freshwater wetlands caused by the proximity to developed
-- ------------land-uses;
• colonization by invasive plant species;
• groundwater withdrawals from irrigation wells;
• injection wells for storage of stormwater volumes;
• mosquito ditches and seawater canals;and
• sea level rise.
Illegal dumping is a problem along the perimeter of freshwater wetlands, particularly
where there is vehicular access. This is of special concern due to the potential dumping of
uncontained hazardous wastes which can leach into the soil and enter groundwater.
Some freshwater wetlands are disturbed by off-road vehicles. Wetland plants are very
susceptible to compaction. Where they are killed by repeated vehicular use, soil conditions
are usually unfavorable for their recolonization. Once formed, tracks usually remain bare
---- or are revegetated by invasive plant species. Colonization by invasive exotic plant species
is a problem at the edges and within freshwater systems.
Proximity of developed land uses to freshwater wetlands tends to adversely affect
perimeter areas of the wetland. These impacts are typically direct physical effects caused
by landowner dumping of yard debris at the perimeter of residential lots and the
cumulative impacts of homeowners through the years caused by yard improvements, such
as perimeter clearing, minor spot filling,and planting of non-native plant materials.
Conservation and Coastal Management 113 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Horizontal flow of groundwater contaminated with nutrients is the major source of
nonpoint source nutrient transport to surface freshwater resources. On Big Pine Key,
nutrient pollution of groundwater results primarily from inadequate treatment of
wastewater by OSTDS, with secondary contamination from discharges or drainfields
(Lapointe, 1989; Lapointe et al., 1999). Other less significant contaminant sources include
cesspits and fertilizers.
Nutrient-polluted groundwater in the freshwater lenses flows down-gradient into surface
waters as a function of "wet-dry" seasonality (Lapointe et al., 1999). Nutrient
concentrations of surface waters are highest in the spring-summer-fall wet season when
there is greater release of contaminated water from the subsurface freshwater lenses.
During this period there are greater man-made loading rates to groundwater (due to
increased transient residential populations) and greater hydraulic head due to increased
rainfall (recharge).
Historically, wells were installed in freshwater lenses. Many of these were installed by
private landowners for domestic water supply for the house and/or landscaping, but there
were also some commercial uses such as irrigation for nurseries. The amount of water
withdrawn from wells is unknown, but anecdotal evidence suggests that withdrawals have
declined due to closure of several plant nurseries and due to closure of individual private
wells for domestic use. When homes connect to the public water supply,the FKAA requires
E that_homeowners abandon (backfill) their well so that lens water can no longer be
` withdrawn. Hanson's study (1980) of the fresh water on Big Pine Key found that continued
pumping from shallow wells would probably not damage the system. However,he projected
that future increased withdrawals from new residences and new or enlarged plant nurseries
would "increase the stress on the freshwater lens which can only supply moderate amounts
without detrimental effects during most years". Indeed, subsequent investigation showed
that the effects of urbanization were being exhibited by the freshwater lens (Stewart et al,
1989). The southeast lens on the Key has decreased in lateral extent and maximum depth
and is clearly affected by saltwater intrusion due to pumping and canal dredging activities. A
modeled simulation of pre-development and current conditions on Big Pine Key showed that
the total volume of the lens has decreased by 20 percent in response to dredging of canals
(Langevin et al., 1998).
The potential effects of sea level rise on freshwater lenses include the decrease in size of
freshwater lens, either on a permanent or seasonal basis. Other factors include a potential
increase in hurricane intensity, which could mean more severe storm surges. Ross et al.
(1994) concluded that sea level rise and associated salinization of groundwater and soil
water is a major factor in the reduction of pine forests of Sugarloaf Key. Ross et al. (1994)
also concluded that as sea level continues to rise,the Florida Keys will experience a decline in
both landscape and species diversity, as species-rich upland communities are replaced by
simpler mangrove communities.
411,
Conservation and Coastal Management 114 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3.9.7.5 Potential for Conservation. Use, or Protection of Freshwater Wetlands
Continued government acquisition of freshwater wetlands in the Lower Keys offers the
greatest opportunity for conservation of these critical resource areas. Acquisition efforts
should continue to focus on freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, buffer areas, and the
critical recharge areas of the groundwater lenses which sustain freshwater flows into the
wetland habitat areas.
KERF has completed a number of freshwater restoration projects, with other projects in
various stages of planning and phased restoration. The Fund has removed fill from 35
acres and has removed 4 miles of abandoned roadbed, and the restored water flows have
assumed benefits to approximately 1000 acres of wetland or nearshore waters (Audubon
of Florida website6).
3.9.8 Disturbed Wetlands
3.9.8.1 General Characteristics of Disturbed Wetlands
Disturbed land is defined as follows in the Monroe County LDRs:
"Disturbed land means land that manifests signs of environmental disturbance
€ which has had an observable effect on the structure and function of the natural
�/ community which existed on the site prior to the disturbance."
The current land use maps do not include a separate category for disturbed wetlands.
Instead, most disturbed wetlands are included in the Undeveloped Land category,although
some disturbed wetlands are mapped as mangrove, buttonwood, or other wetland habitats.
According to the land use cover class maps, undeveloped lands are defined as,
"... open,scarified, or disturbed lands which tend to have uncertain land uses and
may contain native species."
Although this category contains mostly upland disturbed habitats, it may also contain
disturbed wetlands.
Consistent with these definitions, disturbed wetland communities show obvious signs of
environmental disturbance which has had an observable effect on the original wetland
community. The current Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs allow filling only in Disturbed
Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands with appropriate mitigation; all other wetland
categories have open space requirements of 100 percent. Further, only those disturbed
Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Wetlands that have a KEYWEP score below 7.0 (or are
assigned a green flag) are suitable for filling with appropriate mitigation, as determined by
6 http://www.audubonofflorida.ordspecialplaces_FloridaKeys.html,accessed June 2,2010.
Conservation and Coastal Management 115 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
3.1a6 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 Renourishment Areas
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 9]-5.013(1)(a) and (b), F.A.C.]
There are two native upland biological communities in the Florida Keys. These are:
t • 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 Man 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
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 s ical Hardwood Hammock Habitats
Ownership
Site Name 1 Total Federal State County Non- Cities Utilities Private Species
Profit Recorded
Lower Keys
Bahia Honda 21 5 TS,KD,MR,
State Park TC
Florida Keys
Wildlife and 0.4 504.4 0.8 12.1 TS,IS,KD,
EnvironmentalMR,SR,TC
Area2
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 TS,IS,KD,
Managed Areas0"2 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,
‘11re Keys 2.9
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
Li, Table 3.14-Inventor of Tro•ical Hardwood Hammock Habitats continued
Ownership
Site Narne 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
Environmental 2.6 TS,IS,TC
Areaz
John
Pennecamp 255.2 6.8 0.36 2.2
Coral Reef
State Park
NNW Curry
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
Liv
Conservation and Coastal Management 131 Technical Document: Jul 2011
•
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
kir 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
chorrophylla) (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 Bustic Bumelia salicifolia
4111, Gumbo Limbo Bursera simaruba
Locustberry Brysonima cuneata
Spicewood Calyptranthes pallens
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 Eugeniafoetida
Everglades Velvetseed Guettarda elliptica
---- ---- Black Ironwood Krugiodendronferreum
Wild Lantana Lantana involucrata
Wild Tamarind Lysiloma latisiliquum
Wild Dilly Manilkara bahamensis
Poisonwood Metopium toxiferum
Myrsine Myrsine floridana
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 Zanthoxylum fagara
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
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: lul 2011
•
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
41119 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;
•11/ 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
`, 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 asiotica), and sapodilla (Mani/kora zapota) invade and
displace native species. Dumping of yard waste can lead to the invasion of species such as
bowstring hemp (Sansevieria hyacinthoides) and golden pothos (Epiprernnum 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
fire-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: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
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
to be accompanied by an aggressive exotic control program.
�I 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 (Penns 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.
Conservation and Coastal Management 136 Technical Document: July 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 3.15 — Inventor of Pineland Habitats
Ownership'
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 FNA1 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.
4 Ownership information is from the Monroe County Property Appraiser.
5 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
tiro
Conservation and Coastal Management 137 Technical Document: jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
411/ 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. dense) 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
orgentata), black-bead (Pithecellobium keyense) and the keys thatch palm (Thrinax
morrisil) 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 (Serenoa
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
_.. _.._..Florida.are found in the pinelands of the Keys:
Species Habitat Range
Argythamnia blodgettii Pinelands Keys and mainland
Cassia keyensis Pinelands Endemic to Keys
Chamoesyce deltoidea var.serpyllum Pinelands Endemic to Keys
Chamoesycegarberi Pinelands,hammocks, Keys and mainland
sand dunes
Chamoesyce porteriano var.keyensis Pinelands,sand dunes Endemic to Keys
Chamoesyce porteriana var.scoparia Pinelands Keys,possibly Big Cypress
Croton arenicola Pinelands,sand dunes Keys and mainland
Evolvulus sericeus 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
Phvllanthuspentaphyllys 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
L 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
411/ 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
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
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
c 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
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:
Jiving 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
• 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 Communities
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 (Uca 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 albus
-- 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
Double-crested Cormorant Pyalacrocorax auritus
Conservation and Coastal Management 141 Technical Document Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4111, Common Name Scientific name
Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens
Osprey Paudion haliaetus
Mangrove Cuckoo Coccyzus minor
Kingbirds Tyranus spp.
Black-whiskered Vireo Vireo altiloquus
Warblers Dendroica spp.
White-crowned Pigeon Patagioenas leucocephala
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 (Odom
et al., 1982). The Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmoche/vs 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 marinas) 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 Iotor). 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
(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 clavium
Silver Rice Rat Oryzomys argentatus
Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri
Red Rat Snake Elapha guttata guttata
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
sss Roseate Spoonbill Ajafa ajaja
Great White Heron' Ardea heriodias occidental's
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
r 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
tit (McGuire,2002).
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 spp.), 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 alpine
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri
Great Egret Casmerodius albus
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus
Little Blue Heron Egretta tricolor
41111, Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor
Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens
Snowy Egret Egretta thula
White Ibis Eudocimus albus
Herring Gull (winter only) Larus argentatus
Laughing Gull torus atricilla
Ring-billed Gull(winter only) Larus delawarensis
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodramusgriseus
Wood Stork Butorides virescens
Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax violacea
Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola
Forster's Tern (winter only) Sternaternaterna forsteri
Common Tern Sterna hirundo
Royal Tern Sterna maxima
Greater Yellowlegs Triga melanoleucus
Lesser Yellowlegs Triga flavipes
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 I Sylvilagus palustris hefneri
Lower Keys racoon Procyon lotor incautus
Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium
Reptiles
411111, American alligator IAlligator mississippiensis
Striped mud turtle' Kinosternon baurii
Florida box turtle Terrapene carolina bauri
Peninsular cooter 3 Pseudemys floridana peninsularis
Chicken turtle 3 Deirochelys reticularia
Florida softshell turtle 3 Trionyxferox
Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
Black racer Coluber constrictor
Eastern indigo snake ' Drymarchon corals couperi
Florida brown snake 1 2 Storeria dekayi victa
Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus carinatus
Key ringneck snake' Diadophis punctatus acricus
Mangrove salt marsh snake Nerodia clarkii compressicauda
Red rat snake I Etapheguttata guttata
Penninsula ribbon snake 3 Thamnophis sauritus sackenii
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus
Amphibians
Oak toad Bufo quercicus
Southern toad Bufo terrestris
Green treefrog Hyla cinerea
Squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella
Little grass frog Limnaoedus ocularis
Cuban treefrog 3 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 Adinia xenica
Mosquitofish Gambusis holbrokii
Rainwater killifish Lucania parva
Sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus
1 Species designated rare,endangered,or of special State concern
2 Listings and statuses refer to distinctive Lower Keys populations
3 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). Of 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:
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.
thr
Conservation and Coastal Management 146 Technical Document: Jul 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
`, 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 maybe found. These
include the Florida box turtle (Terrapene carolina bauri), striped mud turtle (Kinosternon
bawl), 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 corais couperi), Florida brown snake
(Storeria dekayi victa), rim-rock crowned snake (Tantilla 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
4111/ hammocks (USFWS, 2009). Those known to nest in Keys hammocks are:
Common Name Scientific Name
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Mourning Dove Zenaidura macroura
Ground Dove Columbigallina passerina
Mangrove Cuckoo Coccyzus minor
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Eastern Screech Owl Megascops aria
Chuck Will's Widow Caprimulgus carolinensis
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopuspileatus
Northern Flicker Colaptesauratus
Red-bellied Woodpecker Centurus carolinus
Gray Kingbird Tyrannus dominicensis
Great-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludavicianus
Northern Mockingbird Mimuspolyglottus
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum
White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus
Black-whiskered Vireo Vireo altiloguus
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicius
Common Grackle Quiscalusquiscula
Cardinal Richmondena cardinalis
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 Fells rufus
Key Largo Wood Rat Neotoma fforidana smalli
Key Largo Cotton Mouse Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola
Key Vaca Raccoon . Procyon lotorauspicatus
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
�4 / to the Keys. Endemic reptiles that use the pinelands include:
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
Florida. A partial inventory of offshore island bird rookeries contained in these refuges is
Conservation and Coastal Management 148 Technical Document: July 2011