Loading...
Item S6BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS County of Monroe A Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3 ( T$ne Florida Keys (, Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent, District 2 t� ) ��` �� �' Danny L. Kolhage, District 1 David Rice, District 4 Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5 County Commission Meeting July 20, 2016 Agenda Item Number: S.6 Agenda Item Summary #1811 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Mayte Santamaria (305) 289-2500 3:00 PM AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider a resolution transmitting to the State Land Planning Agency an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by creating a definition of offshore island; amending Policies 101.6.8 and 101.13.3 within the Future Land Use Element and Policy 206.1.2 within the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to further clarify the development of offshore islands; providing for severability; providing for repeal of conflicting provisions; providing for transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and the Secretary of State; providing for inclusion in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan; providing for an effective date. (Legislative Proceeding) ITEM BACKGROUND: A special BOCC public hearing was held on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December 2014 BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to process separate amendments to address these topics. A transmittal hearing was set for January 14, 2015 for the proposed Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. During the special January 14, 2015, BOCC transmittal hearing, the BOCC directed the Planning & Environmental Resources Department to process an interim development ordinance which defers the acceptance of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. During the regular January 21, 2015 BOCC meeting, the BOCC adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROGO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity). The BOCC held a public hearing on April 15, 2015, and adopted Ordinance 011-2015 to defer the approval of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands, commencing January 21, 2015, until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. The proposed interim development ordinance shall provide for a sunset date no greater than 365 days from its effective date or when the comprehensive plan amendments become effective, whichever comes first. [365 days from effective = July 22, 2016] County staff separated the proposed text amendments for offshore islands into a stand-alone amendment. The Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2015 and January 26, 2016, and incorporated revisions based upon public input. The Monroe County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on February 24, 2016 and recommended approval to the BOCC. The Planning Commission recommended an edit to Policy 206.1.2 to include: that the County Biologist will verify data and surveys submitted to document a bird rookery; and to include semi -colonial birds as a basis for prohibiting development on offshore islands. The PC recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the BOCC. The BOCC held a public hearing on March 23, 2016, to review and consider transmittal of the proposed amendments pertaining to offshore islands to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(l)(c), F.S. for review and comment. The transmittal hearing was continued to the July BOCC meeting due to an omission in the published proposed ordinance related to the PC recommended change to Policy 206.1.2 and to provide legal and staff an opportunity to further evaluate the proposed change. Analysis of Policy 206.1.2 proposed chance: The 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policy 207.1.2 stated: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, as identified on the current Protected Animal Species Map. The newly adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 206.1.2 states: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey. The new change in the updated policy simply allows the use of best available data. Based on the recommended changes from the PC meeting, staff has been researching bird colonies/colonial birds (describes bird species that nest and breed in close proximity as a group, often sharing communal behaviors for the benefit of the entire group). Both Planning staff and Legal staff (see Exhibit 9 to staff report) have been researching semi -colonial birds but have not located a definition or standard for semi -colonial. Colonial birds are generally described as gregarious birds (describes a bird species that is sociable and form large flocks - live together/nest together) and typically include coastal water birds, such as brown pelicans, great egrets, great blue herons, great white herons, white ibis, snowy egrets, and cormorants (see exhibit 14to staff report). The County has adopted a definition for bird rookery - means a communal nesting ground for gregarious birds. Based on the definition, the 2010 Comp Plan Policy 2017.1.2 and the newly adopted 2030 Comp plan Policy 206.1.2 already prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial nesting birds. Under the proposed amendment with the PC recommendation to Policy 2016.1.2, development would be prohibited on offshore islands with colonial nesting birds and semi -colonial birds. Staff is concerned with this addition, as we cannot definitively answer what bird species would be considered semi -colonial or what number of nests would be considered semi -colonial. Dr. Lorenz, from Audubon, provided public comment during the PC meeting, on behalf of Last Stand and the Florida Keys Environmental Fund, stating white -crowned pigeons are classified as a semi -colonial species, which simply means they can nest in colonies or they can nest individually. Staff assumes the addition of semi -colonial birds was to specifically capture white -crowned pigeons. It is unclear if other bird species were intended to be included and, again, staff has not found a standard definition for semi -colonial nor a list of specific semi -colonial bird species. Based upon the January 2016 updated Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species list produced by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the white -crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) is a State -designated Threatened (ST) species. It is clear that avoiding any disturbance to active white -crowned pigeon nesting colonies is important, but based on information identified for white -crowned pigeons, it appears that they typically nest isolated mangrove islands (exhibit 10 to staff report). Mangrove habitat is already protected by the County and State agencies and based upon the adopted comprehensive plan and land development code, mangroves would not have development potential (requires 100% open space and no density or intensity is assigned to mangroves). Development is already restricted within mangrove habitat, regardless of the proposed amendment to Policy 206.1.2. Staff recommends not including semi -colonial birds and to avoid adding an undefined term to the comprehensive plan which may further limit or reduce property rights and which may cause vague, problematic, and inconsistent application of the proposed restrictions and potentially prohibit development without any appropriate data and an analysis identified to be the basis for the further restrictions. Analysis of THE/TDR policy change: The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan allowed the transfer of ROGO exemptions (TREs) to Tier III receiver areas within the same ROGO-subarea. Further, the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan allowed Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) to be transferred off specific habitat types (hammock, wetlands, etc.) and certain zoning districts, such as lands designated as Offshore Island (OS) zoning category, to receiver sites with a max net density [2010 Comp Plan Policy 101.13.3 - The Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of TDRs, and shall not exceed the maximum densities established in this plan] . With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (effective June 20, 2016), the THE and TDR procedures allow the transfer from locations designated in a Tier I, II, III -A, or III; including any tier within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact Overlay [i.e. sender sites] to locations with map designations that allow the use, meet the density standards, includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.), are not a CBRS unit and that have a Tier III designation [i.e. receiver sites]. The proposed text amendment continues to disallow the transfer of TREs or TDRs to Tier I, II and III -A or to properties with a FLUM designation without a maximum net density. In addition, the proposed amendment also adds for clarification purposes that TREs and TDRs cannot be transferred to any offshore island. A definition of offshore island is also proposed as follows: an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. 1 by a bridge, road or causeway. All privately owned offshore islands (see Exhibit 6 of staff report) identified have either a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRs permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs), or are undesignated (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs). See below table below. FLUM Approx. Zoning '.: Approx. Estimated Estimated Map Name FLUM Residential Residential Zoning + Residential Residential Tier Upland Acres Total Allocated Development Allocated Development Based on GIS Acreage Density Potential Density '.Potential Data Undesignated /i//i/i/i//i%%/i/i/ /i//i/i//a/i//i/i/%7 '. Palo Alto Keys (no FLUM no max net density c nnot a /i /i GS 0.10 0.00 (cannot be a receiver sae for TREs or 0.00 0.36 be receiver site for TDRs) TDRai ORCA RM Pumpkin Key (no max net density -cannot be 1/10t 17 IS 1 Jot 17 (not subject to Ter designations 8 24.18 25.05 _eca vein site for TDRs) units subject to Vested Development Rights recognized and issued by DEO) RM Undesignated (no max net density -cannot be 1.00 0.71 CS 0.10 0.07 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.71 66.62 e r site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) Card Sound Road RM Undesignated.. (no max net density -cannot be 1.00 0.16 CS 0.10 0.02 (currently cannot be a receiver site for'. 0.16 7.19 e r site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) RC Undesignated. (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiwrste for 0.00 30.18 Cotton and Wilson eceve site for TDRs) TREs or TDRa) Keys RC Undesignated'. (no mix net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 19.32 e r site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) RC Undesignated. Spoil Island - MM 73 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 vier site for (currently cannot be receiver 0.00 3.43 _ecaver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) j Toms Harbor Keys RC (*boundary survey) (no _td_ity -cannot be 0.25 2.66 CS 0.10 1.07 (cannot be a receiver sae for TREs or 10.65* 49.40 e r site for TDRs) TDRa) RC Undesignated. Molasses Keys (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot bea receiver site for'.. 0.00 6.38 e r site for TDRs) TREa or TDRsj i RC Undesignated i... Little Money Key (no max net dens -cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 1.55 .eceve r site for TDRa) TREs or TDRs) RC Undesignated Money Key (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 1.10 e _ r site for TDRs) TREs or TDRa) RC Undesignatedy Rachael Carlson Key (no max net density-cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for', 0.00 1.05 e r site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) j MC Little Palm Island (max net density of 18dr /buildable 6.00 25.20 f"R 1 0C 4,20 (cannot be a receiver site fore TREs or. 4.20 4.20 res) aRC TDRa) Undesignated Gopher Key (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 7.87 e r site for TDRs) TREs or TDRa) t C Undesignated. Buttonwood Key (no max net density -cannot be 0.00 0.00 CS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 0.21 r site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) Undesignated /i//i/i/i//i/i//i/i/ /i//i/i//a/i//i/i///% West Harbor Key (no FLUM no max net density -cannot % %/ %% / / / / CS 0.10 0.00 (cannot be a receiver site for TREs or 0.00 50.17 be receiver site for TDRs) ��/��//� j/�� �//���//�/�� TDRs) Undesignated Undesignated Wisteria Island (no FLUM no max net density cannot/i//i/i/i//i/i�/i/i//i//i/i//a/i//i/i///% / /ii/i/ii/ii/i/ /ii/ia/ii/i GS 010 1.87 I {currently cannot bearecerversite for 18.70 39.03 be receiver site for TDRs) � � /� � � � � � TREs or TORS) Undesignated ,a aaa as as ,a as as as a %%/%%%/%%/%/ %%/%%/%%/s/ ///��///��°��/ ///��/�/��/��� Undesignated Ballast Key a (no FLUM no max net density -cannot CS 0 10 1.v1 (currently cannot be a receiver site for, 13.10 14.28 be receiver sitefor TDRs) TREs or TDRs) PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On July 23, 2014, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on all the proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC continued to hearing to October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency. On October 7, 2014, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on all the proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC continued to hearing to December 10, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency. On December 10, 2014, the BOCC held a public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan related to height and offshore islands. The BOCC continued the transmittal hearing to January, 14, 2015, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency. The BOCC directed staff to process separate amendments for height and offshore islands (not to include within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan) On January 14, 2015, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and voted to transmit the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency (without the amendments for height and offshore islands). On January 21, 2015, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROGO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity). On April 15, 2015, the BOCC held a public hearing and adopted Ordinance 011-2015 to defer the approval of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands, commencing January 21, 2015, until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. The proposed interim development ordinance shall provide for a sunset date no greater than 365 days from its effective date or when the comprehensive plan amendments become effective, whichever comes first. The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on March 23, 2016, to review and consider transmittal of the proposed amendments pertaining to offshore islands to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), F.S. for review and comment. The transmittal hearing was continued to the July BOCC meeting due to an omission in the advertised proposed ordinance related to the PC recommended change to Policy 206.1.2 and to provide legal and staff an opportunity to further evaluate the proposed recommended change. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Policies 101.6.8 & 101.13.3: As noted above, based upon the recently adopted 2030 Comp Plan, the new THE and TDR policies currently restrict offshore islands from being receiver sites for TREs and TDRs [All privately owned offshore islands identified have either a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRs permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs), or are undesignated (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs)]. The proposed recommendation simply provides a clarification that is very clear that offshore islands cannot be receiver sites for TREs and TDRs]. The policy change is consistent with the County's policy of directing growth to those areas already developed, with little to no habitat and with existing infrastructure. The intent is to direct the remaining growth to those areas most appropriate without creating further infrastructure demands, degrading sensitive habitat or causing issues with public safety and incompatibility with hurricane evacuation requirements. Policy 206.1.2: The proposed amendment with the inclusion of semi -colonial birds is not recommended. The inclusion of semi -colonial birds creates an undefined term which could limit or reduce property rights in an inconsistent manner without any appropriate data and an analysis identified to be the basis for the further restrictions. As such, the following options were considered: OPTION 1 is the PC recommendation with semi -colonial birds Anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term OPTION 2 is a staff recommendation, replacing semi -colonial with "white -crowned pigeon" and adding "colonial coastal water birds" to provide additional clarity Not anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term OPTION 3 is a staff recommendation, eliminating semi -colonial and white -crowned pigeons and adding "colonial coastal water birds" to provide additional clarity Not anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term OPTION 1 Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or semi -colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eus and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. OPTION 2 Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds or white -crowned pigeons nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eus and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. OPTION 3 Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eus and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. BOCC OPTIONS: a. Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and 206.1.2 (prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial or semi -colonial birds). • Not recommended b. Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and staff recommendation, Option 2 for 206.1.2 (with Option 2 -prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial coastal water birds or white -crowned pigeons). • Recommended as a BOCC option, but not anticipated to be a necessary amendment, as data suggests white -crowned pigeons nest within mangrove habitats which are already protected c. Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and staff recommendation, Option 3 for 206.1.2 (with Option 3 -prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial coastal water birds). • Recommended as a BOCC option, as the proposed changes to the THE and TDR policies provide additional specificity and the proposed change to Policy 206.1.2 (with option 3) is not anticipated to increase development restrictions anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term. d. Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and do not transmit change to 206.1.2 (retain existing policy). • Recommended as a BOCC option, as the proposed changes to the THE and TDR policies provide additional specificity and existing Policy 206.1.2 already prohibits development of offshore islands with established bird rookeries. o Transmit changes to THE and TDR policies to specifically state offshore islands cannot be receiver sites for TREs and TDRs and continue to direct growth to those areas most appropriate to support additional development. o Existing/Effective Policy 206.1.2: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey. e. Do not transmit amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) or Policy 206.1.2 (prohibit development on offshore islands). • Recommended as a BOCC option, as the existing THE and TDR policies already restrict offshore islands from being receiver sites for TREs and TDRS and existing Policy 2016.1.2 already prohibits development of offshore islands with established bird rookeries. o Retain existing policies as the new THE and TDR policies currently restrict offshore islands from being receiver sites for TREs and TDRs [All privately owned offshore islands identified have either a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRs permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs), or are undesignated (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs)]. o Existing/Effective Policy 206.1.2: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey. DOCUMENTATION: Transmittal Reso Offshore Island BOCC_Ordinance - CP offshore island options Ex. 1_DRC 03.24.15 SR offshore islands _BOCC_July 2016options Ex. 2 DRC 05.26.15 Ex. 3 DRC 08.25.15 Ex. 4 DRC 10.27.15 Ex. 5 DRC 01.26.16 Ex. 6 PC 02.24.16 Ex. 7 Privately owned offshore islands table Ex. 8_Offshore Island parcels map pages Ex. 9_Semi-Colonial Legal Memorandum_6-27-16 Ex. 10_white-crowned pigeon _FWC Ex. 11_Wilmers 2011 White -crowned Pigeon Surveys 2000-2011 Ex. 12_White-crowned-Pigeon-BSR Ex. 13_White-Crowned-Pigeon-Species-Action-Plan-Final-Draft White-Crowned-Pigeon-Species-Action-Plan-Final-Draft Ex. 14 whichbirdscolonial FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: Additional Details: REVIEWED BY: Mayte Santamaria Completed Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley 06/30/2016 3:46 PM Steve Williams Completed Bob Shillinger Completed Jaclyn Carnago Completed Mayte Santamaria Completed Kathy Peters Completed Board of County Commissioners Pending 06/29/2016 10:51 PM Skipped 07/01/2016 3:25 PM 07/05/2016 8:45 AM 07/05/2016 12:25 PM 07/05/2016 2:39 PM 07/05/2016 2:58 PM 07/20/2016 9:00 AM 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO. - 2016 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AMENDING MONROE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.6.8 AND 101.13.3 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 206.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the Florida Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment of the proposed amendments to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan which is identified as the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners support the requested text amendments; NOW THEREFORE, 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, attached as Exhibit A, for adoption in the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Director of Planning. P. 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of 2016. (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Mayor Heather Carruthers Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Commissioner David Rice Commissioner Sylvia Murphy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 10 Mayor Heather Carruthers MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY �,,, y., A V�EDU AS T P M: Aw —4TF-VEN T. VVIL0,11tM8 ASSISTANT NTyy ATTORNEY Date P. 2 of 2 Exhibit A MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDINANCE NO. -2016 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.6.8 AND 101.13.3 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 206.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, at a special meeting on January 14, 2015, unanimously passed a motion to direct staff to impose a temporary moratorium upon certain development applications of Offshore Islands due to pending legislation; and WHEREAS, Monroe County was in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which includes updated and revisions on policies regulating development on all lands within the County, including Offshore Islands; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners directed that pending and proposed new Comprehensive Plan amendments specifically concerning Offshore Islands and building height restrictions be removed from the larger Comprehensive Plan update project and that each be considered as a separate and distinct comprehensive plan amendment to be voted upon and submitted to the State of Florida separately from the rest of the cumulative Comprehensive Plan update project package; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan update was a pending and an ongoing process, an ordinance to prohibit new applications from being processed was necessary to ensure new Amendment(s) regarding Offshore Islands were fully evaluated, including the provision of public participation in the planning process; and WHEREAS, during a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to consider the transmittal of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment package on January 14, 2015, a discussion was held and motion made and passed to direct staff not to accept any applications regarding Offshore Islands that would involve a Transfer of Development Rights to Offshore Islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to Offshore Islands, and Map Amendments or Text Amendments that would bring about increased density or intensity to Offshore Islands; and File 2015-007 Exhibit A WHEREAS, during the regular January 21, 2015 BOCC meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROGO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity); and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on April 15, 2015, and adopted Ordinance 011-2015 to defer the approval of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands, commencing January 21, 2015, until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. The proposed interim development ordinance shall provide for a sunset date no greater than 365 days from its effective date or when the comprehensive plan amendments become effective, whichever comes first; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered proposed amendments for offshore islands at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2015 and January 26, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission considered proposed amendments for offshore islands at a regularly scheduled meeting held on February 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended revisions be made to Policy 206.1.2 specifying that the County Biologist will verify data and surveys submitted to document a bird rookery; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended revisions be made to Policy 206.1.2 pertaining to including semi -colonial birds and recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on March 23, 2016, provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process, to transmit comprehensive plan amendments to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners continued a public hearing on March 23, 2016 to July 20, 2016, due to an omission in the advertised ordinance and to provide for additional staff and legal review; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on July 20, 2016, to review and consider transmittal of proposed comprehensive plan amendments for offshore islands to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment; and File 2015-007 2 Exhibit A WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ; and WHEREAS, on , the State Land Planning Agency issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. The ORC report states _ and WHEREAS, as a response to the ORC Report, Monroe County NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan is amended as shown. (Deletions are sti4 ke *4e and additions are underlined.) Policy 101.6.8 Monroe County shall maintain a Transfer of ROGO Exemption (TRE) program, that allows for the transfer off -site of dwelling units, hotel rooms, campground/recreational vehicle spaces and/or mobile homes to another site in the same ROGO subarea, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. Dwelling units may be transferred as follows: a. between sites in the Upper Keys ROGO subarea; b. between sites in the Lower Keys ROGO subarea; c. between sites in the Big Pine Key and No Name Key ROGO subarea; i. units from the Big Pine Key and No Name Key ROGO subarea may also be transferred to the Lower Keys ROGO subarea. No sender units may be transferred to an area where there are inadequate facilities and services. Sender Site Criteria: 1. Contains a documented lawfully -established sender unit recognized by the County; and 2. Located in a Tier I, II, III -A, or III designated area; including any tier within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver Site Criteria: 1. The Future Land Use category and Land Use (Zoning) District must allow the requested use; 2. Must meet the adopted density standards; File 2015-007 3 Exhibit A 3. Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.); 4. Located within a Tier III designated area; a*d 5. Structures are not located in a velocity (V) zone or within a CBRS unit-; and 6. Is not an offshore island. Policy 101.13.3 Transfer of Development Rights program sender and receiver sites are subject to the following transfer conditions: Sender Site Criteria: 1. Property has development rights to transfer, and 2. Located in a Tier I, II, III -A, or III designated area; including any tier within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver Site Criteria: 1. The Future Land Use category and Land Use (Zoning) District must allow the requested use; • Liveable CommuniKeys Community Centers shall be encouraged as receiving areas for transfer of development rights. 2. Must have an adopted maximum net density standard; 3. Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.) 4. Located within a Tier III designated area; a*d 5. Is not located within a designated CBRS unit-; and 6. Is not an offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or semi -colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eus and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. File 2015-007 4 Exhibit A Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds or white -crowned pigeons nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eus and raises its votmO. The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eus and raises its votmO. The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. Glossary: Offshore Island means an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. 1 by a bridte, road or causeway. 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 Planning Department to the Florida 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 State of Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance, and if challenged until such challenge is resolved pursuant to Chapter 120, F.S. Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment shall be incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. File 2015-007 Exhibit A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2016. Mayor Heather Carruthers Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Commissioner David Rice Commissioner Sylvia Murphy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA :1 (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Mayor Heather Carruthers File 2015-007 6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 24, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Emily Schemper, Principal Planner Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item 1 is delayed. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015, DRC meeting as is. MEETING New Items: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN 1 INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) (1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Items 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were proposed within the 2030 comp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three times to ensure revisions can be made with public input. Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required. The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for wind turbines currently. Alicia Putney commented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20-25 miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms. Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FKEC's two wind turbines located on Cudjoe Key before proceeding with this policy. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural features just above the 35-foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features could exceed the 35-foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no habitable space up there. Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club. Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35-foot height restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights. Mr. Reed agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from PA Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre- existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to - slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building. Because the flyover space in this building is limited, the ability to have productions in this building is limited also. Mr. Reed suggested that a height of 65 feet would accommodate that flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the roadway. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing heights. Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11-foot slab -to -slab allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr. Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more adaptable building into the future is built. Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master plan for Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reef s own development internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms. Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction. Ms. Santamaria noted that the reason the BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as long as this does not affect the rest of the County. Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated and gated, the public will expect the same consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for 3 Ocean Reef. Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner has expressed that sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt and/or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which policies and where they will apply to. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate their structures up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to elevate above flood. The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for. Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a voluntary basis. Dottie Moses from the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS looks at encouraging people not to build in low-lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is somehow encouraging building in a very low-lying area where roads will eventually no longer be maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number 1 is applicable when people tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes built before FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms. Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that. Ms. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to protect their homes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp :l plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santamaria will try to run an analysis of the flood zone of the vacant parcels in the County. Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has to proceed under existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing the municipality to maintain a road in a low-lying area so that the people would have access to their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered view line in an area. Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 35-foot height limit raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses' comments. Mr. Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 40 feet and the space created under the first floor should be non -habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed to new construction receiving an exception to the 35-foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot. The expense of that process was discussed. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four-story condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone may result in loss of a story of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned why it is perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe 61 County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA along with any additional voluntary clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary. Mr. Reed does not like the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet. Ms. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to - slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Moses is concerned about taking people's property rights away from them. Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should be eliminated. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the session of the BOCC at the October meeting to address a different height maximum for very low, low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated Tier III. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more land than the County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the affordable housing limit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written. Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms. Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. The BOCC hired the FSU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County's affordable housing issue. Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing," which are defined terms. "Work force housing" is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly 11 affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units above base flood. Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be included in the staff report and will be back before the DRC again for more comments. 1.Playa Largo Resort, 97450 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 97.5: A public meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177-unit hotel and associated accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as Tracts 4B and 513, Amended Plat of Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TIIF Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real estate number 00555010.000000. (File 2015-031) (2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several deviations and time extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their max number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plan. All of the required criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schemper recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria commented that the Planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic studies so they can take that data into account in their decision -making and make sure that it is compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper. Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition 8, the transportation shuttle for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that "clearing" is the removal of any native vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted 7 for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances. Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms. Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US-1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non-native species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms. Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory dock, not a marina. 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) (2:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as well as where the development would be directed to. Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will be handled today more like a workshop -type item. Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to address all of the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and designating all offshore islands as Tier L Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies N. put an inordinate burden on the property owners. These property owners have some development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be built: Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but the property is designated Tier L This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee- keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of how it would operate. Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not property -specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that while the policy has direction of discouraging development by designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier L That designation would have to go through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that this policy is not a huge change regarding the TREs and the TDRs. This is a proposed change based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development. Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund thanked staff for the workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented that there are some inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that under Policy 206.1.2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made consistent with the Tier I criteria. Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated were discussed. A Ms. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. 10 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: June 24, 2016 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.6.8 AND 101.13.3 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 206.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; CL PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING E PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE 00 00 DATE. (File 2015-007) Meeting: July 20, 2016 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is proposing an amendment to revise the policies related to the development of offshore islands, including the use of transfer of development rights (TDRs) and transfer of ROGO exemptions (TREs). IL BACKGROUND INFORMATION BOCC: The County was working on the Comprehensive Plan update and held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to DEO and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. 1of16 File #2015- 007 • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the offshore island policies and process it as a separate amendment. A special BOCC transmittal hearing was set for January 14, 2015 for the proposed Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, at a special meeting on January 14, 2015, unanimously passed a motion to direct staff to impose a temporary suspension upon certain development applications of Offshore Islands due to pending legislation (updates to the Comprehensive Plan). During the regular January 21, 2015 BOCC meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROGO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity). During the regular April 15, 2015 BOCC meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 011-2015 to defer the approval of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands, commencing January 21, 2015, until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. The proposed interim development ordinance shall provide for a sunset date no greater than 365 days from its effective date or when the comprehensive plan amendments become effective, whichever comes first. [365 days from effective = July 22, 2016] DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 1. At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 2. At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to 2of16 File 42015- 007 allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 4. At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and provided for public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5 PC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 24, 2016, the Monroe County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment, provided for public review and comment and recommended approval of the proposed amendments with revisions to Policy 206.1.2, including semi -colonial birds and that the County Biologist will verify data on bird rookeries. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. Minutes from the February 24, 2016 PC are attached as Exhibit 6. III. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are slew and additions are underlined.) The following proposed amendment includes the Planning Commission recommendations: Policy 101.6.8 Monroe County shall maintain a Transfer of ROGO Exemption (TRE) program, that allows for the transfer off -site of dwelling units, hotel rooms, campground/recreational vehicle spaces and/or mobile homes to another site in the same ROGO subarea, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. Dwelling units may be transferred as follows: a. between sites in the Upper Keys ROGO subarea; b. between sites in the Lower Keys ROGO subarea; c. between sites in the Big Pine Key and No Name Key ROGO subarea; units from the Big Pine Key and No Name Key ROGO subarea may also be transferred to the Lower Keys ROGO subarea. No sender units may be transferred to an area where there are inadequate facilities and services. Sender Site Criteria: 1. Contains a documented lawfully -established sender unit recognized by the County; and 2. Located in a Tier I, II, III -A, or III designated area; including any tier within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver Site Criteria: 3of16 File 42015- 007 1. The Future Land Use category and Land Use (Zoning) District must allow the requested use; 2. Must meet the adopted density standards; 3. Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.); 4. Located within a Tier III designated area; 5. Structures are not located in a velocity (V) zone or within a CBRS unit-; and 6. Is not an offshore island. Policy 101.13.3 Transfer of Development Rights program sender and receiver sites are subject to the following transfer conditions: Sender Site Criteria: 1. Property has development rights to transfer, and 2. Located in a Tier I, II, III -A, or III designated area; including any tier within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver Site Criteria: The Future Land Use category and Land Use (Zoning) District must allow the requested use; Liveable CommuniKeys Community Centers shall be encouraged as receiving areas for transfer of development rights. 00 Z 2. Must have an adopted maximum net density standard; 3. Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.) 4. Located within a Tier III designated area; Ord 5. Is not located within a designated CBRS unit-; and 6. Is not an offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or semi -colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. Glossary: Offshore Island means an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. 1 by a bridee, road or causeway. IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT The proposed changes relate to where development, in terms of the transfer of development rights (density) and transfer of ROGO exemptions (lawfully -established units) are directed. 4of16 File 42015- 007 Transfer of ROGO exemptions or TREs: The 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.5.8 allowed for the transfer of units, based on the following criteria: occurs within the same ROGO sub -area, provided the units are lawfully existing and can be accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. In addition, the receiver site shall be located within a Tier III area outside a designated Special Protection Area and for a receiver site on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, the sending site shall also be located on one of those two islands. The newly adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.6.8 expands the criteria to provide additional standards and utilizes the Tier System: Sender Site criteria: • Allows the transfers of lawfully -established units that are recognized by the County • THE must be located in a Tier I, II, III -A or III designated area; including any tier within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver Site criteria: • The Future Land Use category and Land Use (Zoning) District must allow the requested use; • Must meet the adopted density standards; • Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.); • Located within a Tier III designated area; and • Structures are not located in a velocity (V) zone or within a CBRS unit. Transfer of development rights or TDRs: 00 The 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.13.4 (TDR) specified habitat types (hammock, wetlands, etc.) and �- certain zoning districts that were allowable sender sites for TDRs. The Offshore Island (OS) zoning category U) was specifically identified as an eligible sender site (note, this does not mean the general/glossary term of offshore island: an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. 1 0 by a bridge, road or causeway - it is the zoning category). to The newly adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.13.3 utilizes Tier designation to specify allowable sender sites because it reflects both the habitat types and several of the zoning districts utilized in the former (2010 Comp Plan) Policy 101.13.4. Tier designations are based mainly on the environmental characteristics of the land and other items such as: Tier 1 category (Policy 205.1.1) includes lands within state/federal acquisition boundaries; known locations of threatened and endangered species; and lands designated as Conservation and Residential Conservation on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (note, the Offshore Island (OS) zoning category falls under the Residential Conservation FLUM). TDRs are utilized by applicants to get enough density to build proposed dwelling units - both residential and transient. Specifically, maximum net density is the maximum density allowed with the use of TDRs (Policy 101.13.2). The newly adopted Policy 101.13.3 also utilizes Tier designation to specify receiver sites for TDRs. Under the new policy, only parcels designated as Tier III — infill areas, may be receiver sites. The policy also specifies that receiver sites must have an adopted maximum net density standard. Offshore island policy: The 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policy 207.1.2 stated: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, as identified on the current Protected Animal Species Map. 5of16 File 42015- 007 The newly adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy 206.1.2 states: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey. The new change in the updated policy simply allows the use of best available data. Staff has been researching bird colonies/colonial birds (describes bird species that nest and breed in close proximity as a group, often sharing communal behaviors for the benefit of the entire group). Both Planning staff 0 and Legal staff (see Exhibit 9) have been researching semi -colonial birds but have not located a definition or standard for semi -colonial. T L Colonial birds are generally described as gregarious birds (describes a bird species that is sociable and form large flocks - live to ether/nest together) and typically include coastal water birds such as brown pelicans, great g g g ) Yp Y p egrets, great blue herons, great white herons, white ibis, snowy egrets, and cormorants (see exhibit 14). , The County has adopted a definition for bird rookery - means a communal nesting ground for gregarious birds. E Based on the definition, the 2010 Comp Plan Policy 207.1.2 and the newly adopted 2030 Comp plan Policy 206.1.2 already prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial nesting birds. E Under the proposed amendment with the PC recommendation to Policy 206.1.2, development would be prohibited on offshore islands with colonial nesting birds and semi -colonial birds. Staff is concerned with this CL addition, as we cannot definitively answer what bird species would be considered semi -colonial or what number E of nests would be considered semi -colonial. Dr. Lorenz, from Audubon, provided public comment during the PC meeting, on behalf of Last Stand and the 00 Florida Keys Environmental Fund, stating white -crowned pigeons are classified as a semi -colonial species, �. which simply means they can nest in colonies or they can nest individually. Staff assumes the addition of semi- r_ colonial birds was to specifically capture white -crowned pigeons. It is unclear if other bird species were 2 intended to be included and, again, staff has not found a standard definition for semi -colonial nor a list of CL 0 specific semi -colonial bird species. i Based upon the January 2016 updated Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species list produced by Florida 04 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the white -crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) is a State -designated Threatened (ST) species. It is clear that avoiding any disturbance to active white -crowned pigeon nesting colonies is important, but based i on information identified for white -crowned pigeons, it appears that they typically nest on isolated mangrove islands (exhibit 10). Mangrove habitat is already protected by the County and State agencies and based upon the adopted comprehensive plan and land development code, mangroves would not have development potential (requires 100% open space and no density or intensity is assigned to mangroves). Development is already restricted within mangrove habitat, regardless of the proposed amendment to Policy 206.1.2. tr Recent information obtained from FWC (Flight -line counts of nesting white -crowned pigeons (Patagioenas leucocephala) and the impact of hurricanes in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, 2000-2011 - exhibit U) 11), it is noted that nearly all nesting occurs on mangrove islands uninhabited by man and that in the Lower Keys, three widely distributed islands accounted for 46% of all nests: Barracouta Key (= 650.0) in the Key E West National Wildlife Refuge, and East Bahia Honda Key (= 509.9) and Sawyer Keys (= 374.1) in the east U and central sectors, respectively, of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. Based on this information, staff recommends the following alternative proposed amendments to Policy 206.1.2 (as an alternative to the Planning Commission recommendation), as staff from both the Planning & Environmental Resources Department and County Attorney's office has not been able to definitively define 6of16 File 42015- 007 "semi -colonial birds". (exhibit 10 - legal memo) To avoid adding an undefined term to the comprehensive plan which may further limit or reduce property rights and which may cause vague, problematic, and inconsistent application of the proposed restrictions, the following are proposed. Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds or white -crowned pigeons nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its e22s and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. - Not art€c€ attic, tO increase devel rnent restrictions Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its e22s and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. - Not art€c€ attic, tO increase devel rnent restrictions INVENTORY/DATA OF PRIVATELY -OWNED OFFSHORE ISLANDS: During the Comprehensive Plan update, the BOCC requested an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. This information is attached as Exhibit 6 (table) and Exhibit 7 (maps). For these exhibits, staff utilized the previously proposed definition of offshore island which means an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. 1 by a bridge, road or causeway. Additionally, staff utilized the County's GIS data to provide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation, Land Use (Zoning) District, Tier designation and approximate upland acres for each privately owned offshore island. Based on the newly adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, staff evaluated the inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands, to determine which islands were undesignated, which had development potential, and which islands have the ability to transfer TREs or TDRs onto the islands based on the newly adopted policies. 7of16 File 42015- 007 All privately owned offshore islands identified have either a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRs permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs), or are undesignated (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs). See below: FLUM Approx. Zoning Approx. Estimated Estimated Map Name Map RE Number FLUM Residential Residential Zoning Residential Residential Tier Upland Acres Total Page Allocated Development Allocated Development Based on GIS Density potential :Density Potential Data Acreage Undesignated jj jj jj jj Palo Alto Keys 1 00091410-000000 (no FLUM - no max net density -cannot i i� ! i ! i OS 010 0.00 (cannot be a receiver site for TREs to 0.00 0.36 be receiver site for TDRs) TDRs) 00091210-000100,00091210-000200, 00091210-000600, 00091210-000300, 0091210- 000000, 00091210-000700, 00091210-001000, CIRCA 0091210-001400,00091210-001200,00091210- RM Pumpkin Key 2 001500, 00091210-000800, 00091210-000500, (no max net density -cannot be 1(lot 17 .,a 11ot 17 (not subject to Tier designations & 24.18 25.05 00091210-000400, 00091210-001600, receiver site for TDRs) units subject to Vested Development Rights recognized and issued by DEO) 00091210-001100,00091210-000900, 00091210-001300 RM Undesignated 3 00091240-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 1.00 0.71 OS 0.10 0.07 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.71 66.62 receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) Card Sound Road RM Undesignated '.. 3 00091230-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 1.00 0.16 OS 0.10 0.02 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.16 7.19 receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) RC Undesignated 7 00097090-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 30.18 Cotton and Wilson receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) Keys RC Undesignated 7 00097110-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for: 0.00 19.32 receiver site for TDRs) TREs 's r TDRs) RC Undesignated Spoil Island - MM 73 8 00098100-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for: 0.00 3.43 receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) Toms Harbor Keys RC '.. I (*boundary survey) 10 00098970-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 2.66 OS 0.10 1.07 (cannot be a receiver site for TREs or. 10.65* 49.40 receiver site for TDRs) TDRs) . RC Undesignated Molasses Keys 11 00106200-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 6.38 receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) RC Undesignated Little Money Key 12 00106140-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for: 0.00 1.55 receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) RC Undesignated '. Money Key 12 00106180-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver :.site for i 0.00 1.10 receiver site for TDRs) TREs'. or TDRs) RC Undesignated Rachael Carlson Key 13 00105920-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for: 0.00 1.05 receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) 118 MC ' Little Palm Island 00107880-000000 (max net density of 18dulbuildable 6.00 25.20 DR `I.00 4.20 (cannot be a receiver site for TREs or 4.20 4.20 area) TDRs) RC Undesignated Gopher Key 23 00107780-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.25 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiver site for 0.00 7.87 receiver site for TDRs) TREs or TDRs) C Undesignated '.. Buttonwood Key 25 00116780-000000 (no max net density -cannot be 0.00 0.00 OS 0.10 0.00 (currently cannot be a receiversite for 0.00 0.21 receiver site for TDRs) TREs'. or TDRs) Undesignated West Harbor Key32 00116200-000000 omax no FLUM - max net density -cannot OS 0.10 0.00 (cannot be a receiver site for TREs o 0.00 50.17 ce be receiver site for TDRs) � TDRs) Undesignated�� Undesignated Wisteria Island 33 00123950-000000 no FLUM - no max net density cannot ( Y) � � � OS 0.10 1.87 currend cannot be a receiver: site for ( Y 18.70 39.03 be receiver site for TDRs TREs or TDRs ) Undesignated Undesignated Ballast Key 34 00124030-000000 (no FLUM - no max net density -cannot mini OS 0.10 1.331 (currently cannot be a receiver site for'. 13.10 14.28 be receiver site for TDRs) � - /!j /!j TREs or TDRs) approa mat on rr Bdlast Kell Based on the data analyzed, the following offshore islands appear to have residential development potential based upon the estimated upland acreage of the property; however, it should be noted that Wisteria Island and Ballast Key do not have a FLUM or Tier designation — and Pumpkin Key and Little Palm Island have existing development. Approx. Residential :Zoning '.Approx. Residential. Estimated Upland Map Name Map RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Development Zoning Residential Development Tier Acres Based on GIS Estim ated Total Page Allocated Density Potential Allocated Density 'a potential Data Acres 00091210-000100 00091210-000200 00091210-000600 00091210-000300 00091210-000000 00091210-000700 00091210-001000 00091210-001400 Pumpkin Key 2 00091210-001200 RM 1/lot 17 is 1./lut 17 ORCA 24.18 25.05 00091210-001500 00091210-000800 00091210-000500 00091210-000400 00091210-001600 00091210-001100 00091210-000900 00091210-001300 Toms Harbor Keys 10 00098970-000000 RC 0.25 2.66 OS :;. 1- 1.07 1 10.65 49.40 Little Palm Island 16 & 18 00107880-000000 MC 6.00 25.20 DR 1.Oi1 4.20 1 4.20 4.20 Wisteria Island 33 00123950-000000 Undesignated / / / OS :;. 1- 1.87 Undesignated 18.70 39.03 Ballast Key 34 00124030-000000 Undesignated OS :;.7..^, 1.91 Undesignated '. 13.10 14.28 appr.. mation for Ballast Key Density or allocated density means the number of cheeping units or rooms allocated per gross acre of land by the plan. Gross acre means the total area of a site excluding submerged lands. tidally inundated mangroves not to exceed mean high tideand any publicly dedicated rights -of -way. Toms Harbor Keys acreage based on survey data V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101 Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Objective 101.3 Monroe County shall regulate new residential development based upon the finite carrying capacity of the natural and man-made systems and the growth capacity while maintaining a maximum hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours. Objective 101.13 Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which implement a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) program. GOAL 102 Monroe County shall direct future growth to lands which are most suitable for development and shall encourage conservation and protection of environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands, beach berm and tropical hardwood hammock). 9of16 File 42015- 007 Objective 102.3 Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which will direct new development to areas having appropriate topography and soil conditions and to where site disturbance and man's activities will have fewer adverse effects on natural vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, natural landforms and marine resources. Objective 102.6 Monroe County shall regulate land use activities on offshore islands within the legal boundaries of Monroe County. Policy 102.6.1 Within one (1) year of the adoption of the Plan, Monroe County shall adopt land development regulations which will further restrict the activities permitted on offshore islands. These shall include the following: 1. development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery or nesting area based on resource agency best available data or surveys (See Conservation and Coastal Management Policy 206.1.2.); 2. new resource extraction pits shall be prohibited on offshore islands; 3. campgrounds and marinas shall not be permitted on offshore islands; however, temporary primitive camping by the owner, in which no land clearing or other alteration of the island occurs, shall be the only use of an offshore island which may occur without necessity of a permit; 4. the use of any motorized vehicles including, but not limited to, trucks, carts, buses, motorcycles, all -terrain vehicles and golf carts shall be prohibited on offshore islands that do not contain any development; 5. planting with native vegetation shall be encouraged whenever possible on spoil islands; and 6. County public facilities and services, excluding electricity over which the Public Services Commission of the State of Florida exercises jurisdiction, shall not be extended to offshore islands. The extension of public facilities shall be required to comply with Policy 101.12.2. Policy 102.6.2 Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed on offshore islands by methods including, but not limited to, designating offshore islands as Tier I Lands. Objective 102.7 Monroe County shall take actions to discourage new private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). GOAL 203 The health and integrity of living marine resources and marine habitat, including mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, other hard bottom communities and fisheries, shall be protected and, where possible, restored and enhanced. Policy 203.1.1 The open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile -supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings. GOAL 205 The health and integrity of Monroe County's native upland vegetation shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced 10 of 16 File 42015- 007 Policy 205.1.1 The County shall establish the following criteria, at a minimum, to use when designating Tiers: [§163.3177(6)d.2.d., F.S.; §163.3177(6)d.2.h., F.S.] Land located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be designated as Tier I based on following criteria: • Natural areas including old and new growth upland native vegetated areas, above 4 acres in area. • Vacant land which can be restored to connect upland native habitat patches and reduce further fragmentation of upland native habitat. • Lands required to provide an undeveloped buffer, up to 500 feet in depth, if indicated by appropriate special species studies, between natural areas and development to reduce secondary impacts; canals or roadways, depending on size may form a boundary that removes the need for the buffer or reduces its depth. • Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies for conservation and natural resource protection. E • Known locations of threatened and endangered species. • Lands designated as Conservation and Residential Conservation on the Future Land Use Map or E within a buffer/restoration area as appropriate. • Areas with minimal existing development and infrastructure. 2. Lands on Big Pine Key and No Name Key designated as Tier I, II, or III shall be in accordance with C the wildlife habitat quality criteria as defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan for those islands. 0 3. Lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key that are not designated Tier I shall be designated Tier III. 4. Designated Tier III lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key with tropical 00 hardwood hammock or pinelands of one acre or greater in area shall be designated as Special a Protection Areas. 5. Lands within the Ocean Reef planned development shall be excluded from any Tier designation. GOAL 206 Monroe County shall protect and conserve existing wildlife and wildlife habitats. Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey. Objective 206.7 Monroe County shall implement measures intended to protect the critical nesting and resting sites of its bird populations, including permanent and transient species. Policy 206.7.1 Monroe County shall maintain regulations which limit land uses and establish protection measures for nesting areas, including artificial nesting areas, of wading birds, hawks, falcons, seabirds, shorebirds, and any bird species federally or state -listed as endangered, threatened, or a species of special concern. Policy 206.7.2 Monroe County shall include nesting areas, or other critical habitat of bird species federally or state - listed as endangered, threatened, or a species of special concern. as potential acquisition sites for conservation purposes. (See Future Land Use Objective 102.4 and related policies.) 11 of 16 File 42015- 007 GOAL 208 Monroe County shall discourage private land uses on its mainland, offshore islands and undeveloped coastal barriers, and shall protect existing conservation lands from adverse impacts associated with private land uses on adjoining lands. GOAL 215 Monroe County shall provide for hurricane evacuation, shelters and refuges, and communication capabilities to promote safeguarding of the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms. Policy 216.4.2 No County public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded public facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for wastewater facilities, conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety. B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. 12 of 16 File 42015- 007 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan. (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle. C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve t� and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future 00 problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the �- process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law .2 enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of 0 transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements to and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions Section 163.3177(1), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property 13 of 16 File 42015- 007 to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Policies 101.6.8 & 101.13.3: As noted above, based upon the recently adopted 2030 Comp Plan, the new THE and TDR policies currently restrict offshore islands from being receiver sites for TREs and TDRs [All privately owned offshore islands identified have either a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRs permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs), or are undesignated (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRs)]. The proposed recommendation simply provides a clarification that is very clear that offshore islands cannot be receiver sites for TREs and TDRs]. The policy change is consistent with the County's policy of directing growth to those areas already developed, with little to no habitat and with existing infrastructure. The intent is to direct the remaining growth to those areas most appropriate without creating further infrastructure demands, degrading sensitive habitat or causing issues with public safety and incompatibility with hurricane evacuation requirements. Policy 206.1.2: The proposed amendment with the inclusion of semi -colonial birds is not recommend. The inclusion of semi -colonial birds creates an undefined term which could limit or reduce property rights in an inconsistent manner without any appropriate data and an analysis identified to be the basis for the further restrictions. As such, the following options were considered: OPTION 1 is the PC recommendation with semi -colonial birds Anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term OPTION 2 is a staff recommendation, replacing semi -colonial with "white -crowned pigeon" and adding "colonial coastal water birds" to provide additional clarity Not anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term OPTION 3 is a staff recommendation, eliminating semi -colonial and white -crowned pigeons and adding "colonial coastal water birds" to provide additional clarity Not anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term 14 of 16 File 42015- 007 Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been 2 documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or semi -colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its e22s and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been el documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds or white -crowned pigeons nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its e22s and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as _ verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial coastal water birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. BOCC OPTIONS: a. Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and 206.1.2 (prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial or semi -colonial birds). • Not recommended b. Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and staff recommendation, Option 2 for 206.1.2 (with Option 2 -prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial coastal water birds or white -crowned pigeons). • Recommended as a BOCC option, but not anticipated to be a necessary amendment, as data suggests white -crowned pigeons nest within mangrove habitats which are already protected c. Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and staff recommendation, Option 3 for 206.1.2 (with Option 3 -prohibit development on offshore islands with colonial coastal water birds). • Recommended as a BOCC option, as the proposed changes to the THE and TDR policies provide additional specificity and the proposed change to Policy 2016.1.2 (with option 3) is not anticipated to increase development restrictions anticipated to increase development restrictions based on an undefined term. 15 of 16 File 42015- 007 d.Transmit PC recommended amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) and do not transmit change to 206.1.2 (retain existing policy). • Recommended as a BOCC option, as the proposed changes to the THE and TDR policies provide additional specificity and existing Policy 2016.1.2 already prohibits development of offshore islands with established bird rookeries. o Transmit changes to THE and TDR policies to specifically state offshore islands cannot be receiver sites for TREs and TDRS and continue to direct growth to those areas most appropriate to support addition development. o Existing/Effective Policy 206.1.2: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey. e. Do not transmit amendments to Policies 101.6.8 (TRE), 101.13.3 (TDR) or Policy 206.1.2 (prohibit development on offshore islands). • Recommended as a BOCC option, as the existing THE and TDR policies already restrict E offshore islands from being receiver sites for TREs and TDRS and existing Policy 2016.1.2 already prohibits development of offshore islands with established bird rookeries. E o Retain existing policies as the new THE and TDR policies currently restrict offshore islands from being receiver sites for TREs and TDRS [All privately owned offshore CL CL islands identified have either a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRS permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer 0 of TREs or TDRS), or are undesignated (i.e. no transfer of TREs or TDRS)]. o Existing/Effective Policy 206.1.2: Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands 00 00 (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey. 0 CL VIII. EXHIBITS 04 1. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 2. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 3. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 0 m 5. January 16, 2016 DRC Minutes 6. February 24, 2016 PC Minutes 7. Table of privately owned offshore islands within unincorporated Monroe County. 8. Location maps of privately owned offshore islands within unincorporated Monroe County. 9. June 27, 2016 Memo from County Attorney's office 0 10. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003, January 6. Florida's breeding bird atlas: A collaborative study of Florida's birdlife. http://www.myfwc.com/bba/ (Date accessed 06/27/2016). 0 11. Flight -line counts of nesting white -crowned pigeons (Patagioenas leucocephala) and the impact of U) hurricanes in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, 2000-2011. Tom Wilmers, Wildlife Biologist. 12. Florida Fish And Wildlife Conservation Commission. White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report. March 31, 2011. .c 13. Florida Fish And Wildlife Conservation Commission. A Species Action Plan for the White -Crowned Pigeon Patagioenas leucocephala Final Draft November 1, 2013 14. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Which Birds are Colonial? 16 of 16 File 42015- 007 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 26, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28, 2015, DRC meeting with one correction of a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech. MEETING New Items: 1.99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 99: A public meeting concerning a request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk-in cooler and to increase the size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non-residential floor area on the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended Plat of Curry's Corner, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33, Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in metes and bounds is provided in the application/file), having real estate number 00497540.000000. (File 2015-093) (1:01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of the building for a walk-in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not met is regarding the variance requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that the applicant has submitted a variance application. Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which takes away from the cooler/freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the front. The only setback issue is for the cooler/freezer. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms. Moses likes the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right-of- way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address the flooding problems. The tides also affect the drainage in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan. 2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) 2 (1:12 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BOCC asked staff to process this as a separate stand-alone amendment. This was before the DRC in March where a lot of comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there would be an exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in high -risk areas. Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones. Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance. For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping process currently. It will be 2018 before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of those maps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will increase. Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has some of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes in the Florida Building Code coming up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms. Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the BOCC gave staff direction to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens' investments. Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM parking spaces were required to be under homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms. Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning -specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be amenable to some give-and-take in the loss of some habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the people interested in more living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms. 3 Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps coming out and want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community. Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter mentioned different scenarios of what could fall under the definition of "elevate." Ms. Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms. Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts are given for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40-foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms. Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CRS is completely different. The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing structures in AE10 through VE10. That came from the comments made at prior DRC meetings about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas. Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live under the 35-foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35- foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms. Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues. There is no real hardship in that instance. Naja Girard, Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas. Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high -risk areas is credited under the CRS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities. Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a distinct community character. The planning process in Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head 4 room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr. Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multi -story building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number of stories up to 11 feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct community character. Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County. Mr. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean Reef has a very effective self -governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then explained for Ms. Girard how Ocean Reef is self -governed. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel that the 35-foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go through the height barrier. Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to the FEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to properties in AE10 or VE10 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter that reconstructed structures in Policy 101.5.33 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt. Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height is done on a building -by -building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane. Ms. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out. 5 Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise. Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in that regard. The other item in this stand-alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked at with specific considerations in mind. Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for community -specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items: One as a comp plan and an LDR for more discussion and more input. 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) (2:38 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan update and process it as a stand-alone amendment. The definition of "offshore island" has been included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an offshore island. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development 11 of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier I. That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas like Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat, would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term "significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the definition is determined to be of "significant upland habitat" and have no prior development would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply policy, not property specific. Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a definition for "significant upland habitat." Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland, whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from Wisteria Island are on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs and is basically facing build -out. Ms. Santamaria clarified that this is not a property -specific amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments made and will look at defining "significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input before taking it to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 25, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Roberts announced Items 5 and 6 will be heard first. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting. MEETING New Items: 5.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING 1 FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment. The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30 adds mechanical equipment to the 35-foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no exceptions to the height limitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non -habitable architectural decorative features that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are Land Development Code amendments to reflect these policies. Policy 101.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit. New buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the 35-foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of a new structure would not fit within that definition. Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height limit. Ms. Moses asked who is requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff -initiated at the direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms. Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns. Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33 applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was a pre-existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural 2 feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab heights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be in the Land Development Code portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled. Ms. Schemper responded that the full amount of data in those issues has not been received by staff at this point. 6.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item originally contemplated during the comp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria. The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The sender site must be located in Tier I, II, or III -A, or any tier designation if it is within the military installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Tier III can be receiver sites and they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the 3 comp plan. Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites. Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the receiver site criteria in the staff report seems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a well -thought-out definition. Mr. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance makes logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands. Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore islands and include benthic resources that the comp plan directs the County to protect. Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier I, which could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on these islands. LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA (CFA) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940.000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, AS PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2012-069) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations and comments report on the FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential 4 development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernmost L-shaped parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to become commercial with no residential density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed comp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character. Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the adoption of the FLUM amendment. Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms. Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added that the requirement to sound -attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to the site -specific zoning. 2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-047) 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, 5 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-048) Ms. Schemper presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is 11 acres and currently has a FLUM designation of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non-residential density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef s desire to increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the FLUM amendment from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this. Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking to enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S. Fish & Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing requirements would fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the tier clearing limits in the code. 4.PL OCEAN RESIDENCES, 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE MARKER 98: A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS 11 AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000, 00090840.000100, AND 00090860.000000. (File 2015-049) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24 attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency sake. The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units. Ms. Schemper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan. Ms. Schemper continued to report that most of the non -shoreline setbacks are in compliance at this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time of permit application. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and the URM boundary buffers are being shown. 7 Ms. Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S.1, but also needs to comply with FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the building permit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units, and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the staff report. Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a gatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demolished. Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers on the site plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a chance to review this proposal and there are so many items still not deemed to be in compliance. Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30-day notice that goes out that says the Planning Director intends to issue the minor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning Director's decision will not be made until these items are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will be available through the Planning Department. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 27, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, October 27, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present STAFF Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Ms. Santamaria asked that Items 2 and 3 be read together. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of July 28, 2015, August 25, 2015, and September 29, 2015. MEETING New Items: LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28500 AND 28540 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, LITTLE TORCH KEY, MILE MARKER 28.5 OCEANSIDE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND IN A PART OF U.S. GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 66 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, LITTLE TORCH KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00113570-000000, 00113570-000100, 00113570-000200, 00113590- 00000E AND 00113620-000000, AS PROPOSED BY PATRICK R AND DIANE COLEE, DOLPHIN MARINA ASSOCIATES LTD AND TORCH KEY PROPERTIES LTD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (2015-152) Mr. Bond presented the staff report. Mr. Bond reported that this is a land use district map amendment from Suburban Commercial to Mixed Use. The property is located oceanside on Little Torch Key and serves as a land base for the Little Palm Island. There is no FLUM change required for this proposed amendment. The property was described. Mr. Bond stated the change in development potential between the two districts would result in a reduction of eight permanent residential units, a slight increase in max net density, a net zero change in transient development potential and no change in commercial development potential. The change would open up the possibility of some uses that are currently prohibited within the SC district. Staff has evaluated the proposed amendment and found it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the request does fall under two provisions of the code: Number 4, new issues; and 6, data updates, primarily due to the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP). It is consistent with the Lower Keys LCP. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment. James Hendrick was present on behalf of the applicant and commended staff on their memorandum. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, asked why the applicant is changing the zoning Ms. Santamaria replied that the applicant wants to have a use their current zoning does not allow, which will reduce the overall allocated density, but they can transfer in up to 11 more units through TDRs. Mr. Hendrick assured Ms. Moses that the applicant is definitely not interested in having a light industrial use on the property. Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf Key resident, asked for clarification on the justification for the request. Mr. Bond explained that there are seven different factors by which map amendments are to be evaluated. Any one of those factors can be a justification for map amendment approval. Number 4 is new issues, the new Lower Keys LCP, which was not in effect prior, and Number 6, data updates, which is the LCP that was not in effect at the time of their original zoning. The Lower Keys LCP is not inconsistent and is new data in the County's files. Mr. Hendrick noted that the applicant has other rationale for the proposed change. Deb Curlee, Cudjoe Key resident, asked for clarification on what is being proposed to be on the property. Ms. Santamaria responded that this is a map amendment only and the specific development is not the subject of the amendment. Mr. Hendrick offered to e-mail Ms. Curlee an outline of the proposed development. Mr. Bond explained for Ms. Curlee that with the map amendment staff evaluates what the potential is, not what they specifically may or may not be planning to do. Anything listed as a major or minor conditional use would go through the review process and, if the applicant meets all of those conditions staff would have no basis for saying no and would approve it. Ms. Creech and Mr. Bond confirmed that no negative feedback was received from any neighbors. PA Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. 2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 42015-171) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fourth DRC meeting on the proposed comp plan amendments for the height provisions. The BOCC asked staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process them separately so that they could be fully vetted and worked through as one topic versus within the entire comp plan update. The previous various staff reports are attached to show how these amendments have been revised. Ms. Santamaria stated there is a proposed policy change to Policy 101.5.3 to incorporate the height definition that is in the code today into the comp plan as well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the structure." Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean Reef -specific, related to non -habitable architectural decorative features. This would allow these features to be above the roof line of those homes up to five feet. The overall height of those structures still cannot exceed a 40-foot height imit. There are no differences between this version and what was presented at the last DRC meeting regarding this policy. 3 Mr. Hendrick, present on behalf of Ocean Reef, stated Policy 101.5.31 does not address Ocean Reef s needs. Ocean Reef had asked for three things. Mr. Hendrick acknowledged that staff has not received the additional information it had requested. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef contains several buildings which now greatly exceed the 35-height limitation, do not comply with flood, and Ocean Reef would like for them to be elevated. Mr. Hendrick submitted a document detailing what Ocean Reef is asking for with regard to the corresponding Land Development Code. Mr. Hendrick continued to explain that Ocean Reef is most concerned about the lawfully established existing buildings which exceed 35 feet and do not meet flood. There is no mechanism in the proposed policies which allows for those buildings to be made flood - compliant as -of -right. Mr. Hendrick pointed out that Ocean Reef is a master -planned community, completely isolated from the rest of Monroe County, and they have established their own community character, which is not 35 feet in height. Ocean Reef would ask for a policy which enables them to replace their existing buildings, floor for floor, to allow for flood compliance. Ocean Reef would also like to increase their slab -to -slab height in building to be consistent with what people expect when they go to a luxury resort. Mr. Hendrick then stated Ocean Reef is concerned about their cultural center because that building cannot accommodate the fly space that is needed. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that staff has not received information from Ocean Reef that they have requested. Staff needs more information so they can evaluate and understand what is being requested. Staff has not received information on the Ocean Reef Cultural Center. Dottie Moses, speaking on behalf of Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowners, voiced concern these policies could spill over into Unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Curlee agreed. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff would like to start to move this item toward the Planning Commission unless members of the public would like to have another DRC meeting to get more input. Alicia Putney, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, reiterated what Ms. Moses stated regarding spillover into Monroe County. Ms. Santamaria then reported that the next proposed amendment is to Policy 101.5.32, and this is to create a flood protection height exception up to five feet above the 35-foot height limits to allow buildings to go three feet above their base flood elevation. In no event under this policy will a building be over 40 feet. The policy is specific to new buildings and for existing buildings. If the building is not being elevated to meet at least the required base flood elevation this exception cannot be used at all. This exception would not be provided for buildings located in the very hazardous flood zones. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be allowed with the 35-foot height limit remaining. Ms. Moses does not see the need for this amendment for new construction. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff does not know how many homes there are in the County below base flood right now. Staff is working on getting information from the Property Appraiser to see if somehow that information can be extrapolated, but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 35-foot height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the :l language has been reorganized a bit, but it is the same information. Language has been added that if a building is not being elevated to at least meet base flood it is not eligible for this exception. This exception shall also apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not. Ms. Putney stated that it would be helpful to know what the FEMA maps will show. Ms. Putney then noted that with new construction, although there may be a hardship involved, it can be made to work within the 35-foot height limit. Ms. Moses stated the Federation opposes raising the 35- foot height limit on new construction. Ms. Moses shared a newsletter written by Dennis Henize, a retired meteorologist, stating that communities should be thinking in terms of decelerating growth, especially in the eyes of sea level rise. Ms. Putney pointed out that pre -FIRM, January 1, 1975, people built on the ground mostly and built a small enough house that they could afford to lose. With insurance, houses got bigger, higher and fancier. Citizens need to open up their minds to reverting back to smaller homes given sea level rise and FEMA. Ms. Santamaria then reported that Policy 101.5.33 is another flood protection height exception, but this is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height limit. If a lawfully established existing building which already exceeds the 35-foot height limit wants to rebuild over 40 feet, they would have to go before the BOCC and meet specific criteria. The BOCC would then decide and specify the height that they could build to. Ms. Santamaria reviewed the criteria used by the BOCC to evaluate the request. The BOCC would have to pass a resolution stating which height a homeowner could build to. Ms. Santamaria explained there are condo structures where clearly units would be lost if redeveloped at the 35-foot height limit. Ms. Moses pointed out the amendment, as written, does not apply to only multi -tenant buildings, but would apply to any building. Ms. Santamaria added that the public can suggest a provision that this is for multi -family structures only. Ms. Curlee agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Moses noted that previously Legal staff had referred to a Bert Harris implication when discussing this. Ms. Santamaria stated at the next meeting there will be an attorney present who will be able to address that. Mr. Hunter asked if there are any commercial buildings that fall into this category. Ms. Santamaria is unaware of any, but stated that does not mean there is not one in existence. Ms. Moses asked what effect raising some of the low roads would have on this. Ms. Santamaria explained that grade is either natural elevation or crown of the road, whichever is higher. Ms. Moses believes that could exacerbate things. Mr. Hendrick commented that there are many commercial buildings throughout the County over 35 feet. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef has a boat barn well over 35 feet. They have real concerns because they would like to elevate, but if they do they are going to lose rack space when they already cannot supply the need that they have. Mr. Hendrick then asked that the words "building envelope" be substituted with "building footprint" to be able to modernize these spaces. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Mr. Hunter that boat barns would fall within the definition of "building." Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. 61 4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTy7u65IVE DATE. (File 2015-007) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the comp plan update in dealing with amendments that prohibited transferable ROGO exemptions and transferable density from going to an offshore island. After numerous public comments the BOCC asked staff to extract those amendments from the overall comp plan update and process them separately. This amendment reflects the comp plan update. This proposed amendment is to Policy 101.6.8, which is the transfer of ROGO exemptions. The existing text in the staff report for this policy is already included in the comp plan update and has been transmitted to the State with the exception of Receiver Site Criteria Number 6, which says it is not an offshore island. This is a separate stand-alone amendment so focus can be placed on this one topic. Policy 101.13.3, which is the transfer of development rights, has been transmitted to the State with the EAR -based amendments except for Receiver Site Criteria Number 7, which states it is not an offshore island. That also reflects the initial amendment in the comp plan update the BOCC asked staff to extract and process separately. Policy 206.1.2 had an added statement not transmitted with the comp plan update regarding discouraging the development of offshore islands. This added statement has been struck for consideration and still includes existing policies in the comp plan that offshore islands should be designated as Tier I and it has the existing policy that development shall be prohibited on offshore islands, including spoil islands which have been documented as an established bird rookery based on resource agency best available data or survey. Staff is proposing a definition for the entity "offshore island" as "Offshore Island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not directly or indirectly connected to US-1 by a bridge, road or causeway." Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Lance Kyle, owner of an offshore island in Monroe County, asked for an explanation of "severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance and keeping it from becoming effective. Ms. Santamaria further explained for Mr. Kyle that she believes the ten -acre size determination came from the '86 code. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr. Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US-1 does not give it any kind of special consideration. Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner 11 only. Law enforcement would have to be called for trespassers on an offshore island. Mr. Hendrick confirmed that the ten -acre determination did come from the ' 86 code, if not before. Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to look closely at whether it is necessary to prohibit transferring TREs onto offshore islands because TREs take pressure off of the allocation system and offshore islands are already limited in density to .l per acre. There are restrictions in place that require all of the development potential be in place with the correct development requirements. Mr. Smith agreed with the prior comments made by Ms. Dick on behalf of Last Stand regarding the redundancy of the language in 206.1.2 because that is already provided for in the policy as written. Mr. Smith believes the citation to the ALJ order from 2006 regarding the four -acre threshold was incorrect. Mr. Smith stated now that the language that defines "significant upland habitat" has been eliminated and the term "offshore island" is being added to the defined terms of the glossary the policies identify when development on offshore islands should be prohibited is based on the documentation of an established bird rookery or nesting area. Those terms are not defined in the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations and should be. Without having a quantifiable or objectionable criteria for what an established bird rookery or nesting area is it could be left to interpretation. FEB Corp. has retained Phil Frank, a well -respected biologist in the community, to put together a proposed definition for "established bird rookery or nesting area." Copies of the definition were submitted to staff. Mr. Frank then explained how he worked through the definition and what he reviewed in order to come up with that definition. Mr. Frank stated the common theme in the definitions as cited by different authorities is the words "communal nesting, gregarious birds, prominent colonies, colony forming, gregarious colony." Mr. Smith read aloud the proposed definition. Mr. Smith believes if this term that is utilized for the absolute prohibition of development is not defined it will be left open to interpretation that will be fought over for years to come. Ms. Santamaria stated that part of the reasons a definition for "bird rookery" is not proposed in this amendment is that in the comp plan update the definition as "A communal nesting ground for gregarious birds" was included, as well as a definition for "nesting area." This has been transmitted to the State. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the definition for "nesting area." Mr. Frank pointed out that passerine birds are not listed in the definition and should be. Mr. Smith stated he is concerned that the definition for "nesting area" is too broad and could prohibit development on any offshore island. Ms. Curlee noted that solitary birds, which are not included in the definition, are equally as important. Ms. Curlee does not agree with Mr. Frank's definition, but does agree with staff s. Mr. Smith believes the definition needs to be clarified so that arguments are not made that all offshore islands are nesting islands. Julie Dick of the Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund, re-emphasized that offshore islands are the last place to be encouraging development because they are not connected to public facilities and are some of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the entire Keys. Development rights should not be moved to offshore islands because they are the hardest areas to evacuate. Ms. Dick disagreed with Mr. Smith that TREs should not have the restriction on transferring receiver sites to offshore islands. 7 Ms. Dick appreciates staff removing the confusing and redundant new language in Policy 206.1.2, but continues to believe the entire policy should be removed. Ms. Dick stated Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund will likely support staff s existing definition over what has been proposed today, but will need time to confer on that. Mr. Hendrick, speaking on behalf of himself, stated he fully supports the idea of protecting bird rookeries, but feels that it seems illogical to focus and protect nesting areas on offshore islands because nesting areas are located everywhere. Ms. Santamaria clarified Policy 206.1.2 does not actually refer to nesting areas. Mr. Frank commented when the comp plan was written back in 1986 the bird rookeries were teased out as special resources. Mr. Smith noted that is why using one definition is preferable. Ms. Dick clarified Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund fully supports the language protecting nesting areas. Ms. Dick then noted that Mr. Smith is here on behalf of FEB, who does not own Wisteria Island, and questions their interest in the matter. Ms. Santamaria emphasized the ordinance does not speak to a particular island, but would apply to anything that falls within the definition of offshore island. Mr. Kyle asked whether the term "nest" implies that the island has to have some sort of tree canopy of bush canopy. Mr. Roberts replied not necessarily, because there are a number of shore birds and wading birds that are ground -nesters. Mr. Kyle then commented that 90 percent of the speck islands in the County are transient, so the evacuation time issue seems to be somewhat discounted. Ms. Santamaria then explained to Mr. Kyle in detail how the phased evacuation process occurs. Ms. Dick re-emphasized that evacuation is a real concern for Monroe County citizens and it is a safety threat for everyone in the county if the evacuation predictions are not correct. That situation adds further weight to the need to reduce added risk to the evacuation formula by allowing further development on offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Ms. Santamaria asked the public if they prefer to bring this back to DRC one more time or move this forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith, on behalf of FEB Corp., stated they would like to see how concerns over nesting areas are going to be resolved prior to bringing it to the Planning Commission because it affects all offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria agreed to bring this matter back to the DRC one more time for safe measure. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 26, 2016 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, January 26, 2016, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Debra Roberts DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Matt Coyle, Principal Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Janene Sclafani, Planner Present Mitzi Crystal, Transportation Planner Present Debra Roberts, Staff Assistant Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of December 15, 2015, with no changes. MEETING New Items: LHenderson Building, Overseas Highway, Big Pine Key, mile marker 30: A public meeting concerning a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 8,000 square foot building with 2,600 square feet of commercial retail, low -intensity and office uses and six attached dwelling units designated as employee housing. The subject property is described as a parcel of land in Section 26, Township 66 South, Range 29 East, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida, also known as Lots 12 and 13 of an unrecorded Plat of survey by C.G. Bailey, Reg. Florida Land Surveyor, No. 620 and dated September 19, 1952, having real estate number 00111560.000000. (File 2015-218) Mr. Coyle presented the staff report. Mr. Coyle reported that this property is 3,331 square feet, is zoned Suburban Commercial, designated a Tier III property and has a FLUM of Commercial. The site was previously developed, so it is disturbed and scarified, but also has some protected pineland habitat and some protected trees on the property. Relevant County actions on the property were described. A letter of understanding from 2008 addressed issues related to access from US-1 to the property. Although that redevelopment proposal was found to be consistent with a number of the comp plan policies, as well as the Big Pine and No Name master plan, some extra development controls were placed on the property because it was mixed use and has pineland habitat. It can only be low intensity commercial retail. Mr. Coyle continued to report that the current building and the development proposal was found consistent with the community character of that part of Big Pine. The design minimizes adverse effects and visual impacts on adjacent properties. Six affordable housing ROGO allocations will be required for the development. Mr. Coyle suggested that the applicant consider doing a BOCC reservation since only six affordable housing ROGO allocations for Big Pine were available at the time of the staff report. No NROGO is needed since only 2600 square feet is being developed and the applicant is exempt over 6,000. The residential density and floor area, as well as open space, setback requirements and height limit are all in compliance. Preliminary drainage plans were found to be consistent with the County's requirement, but complete stormwater plans will be required during the building permit process. All of the environmental issues were found to be in compliance. A bicycle rack and wheel stops for the parking spaces up against the setback or required buffer yard need to be shown on the plan. The loading space needs to be made larger or that requirement needs to be reduced. All of the buffer yards and landscaping meet code. There are a few issues related to access to the site. There is not enough space between the existing curb cuts to meet the County's requirement. If the applicant wants to maintain access on US-1 a Planning Commission variance would need to be applied for and received. The County's transportation planner believes the applicant's existing curb cuts would meet FDOT requirements. The County's traffic consultant, as well as Judy Clarke from the Engineering Department, found the sight distance of the Sandy Circle access unsafe and proposed relocating that driveway further south which would make a T intersection. Mr. Coyle recited the nine conditions as listed in the staff report. John Arrieta, the County's traffic consultant, joined the meeting by phone. Barbara Mitchell, of Mitchell Planning and Design, was present on behalf of the applicant, Ginger Henderson, and her husband, Bruce Schmitt. Her clients were introduced. The applicant's architect, Bill Horn, and traffic consultant, Karl Peterson, were also present. Ms. Mitchell pointed out that this was an existing site and was developed for many years. A sewage treatment plant remains on the property that will be closed down and removed as part of this project. There has been historical access to this site from US-1 for many years until the Overseas Heritage Trail was installed in that section. Historically this site has had a high intensity commercial development use. The applicant is proposing a low density use, a real estate office, and six units of affordable housing. The applicant has avoided using the portion of the property that contains pinelands. Ms. Mitchell then clarified that the commercial square footage is the 2,605 square feet as demonstrated on the floor plans, which fixes the loading zone issue. PA Ms. Mitchell then discussed the access issue. Ms. Mitchell stated FDOT earlier last summer indicated that they wanted an ingress -only access from US-1 on this site, which has been proposed. That reduces the traffic impact on US-1 by 50 percent. Commercial access is needed for this project or it is not going to work. Ms. Mitchell submitted an e-mail received from FDOT confirming that their requirements have been fulfilled except for an area of eight feet that would require an administrative FDOT variance. Ms. Mitchell stated through her search through County actions and in discussions with previous County Planning Directors and Planning Commissioners an example of the 400-foot standard for curb cuts could not be found. Ms. Mitchell pointed out that FDOT has a standard of only 245 feet from either side of the curb cut. The Overseas Heritage Trail implementation has eradicated the opportunity to use a parallel access road as an option. Ms. Mitchell believes Monroe County Code needs to be amended to reflect current FDOT standards. Ms. Santamaria responded that although staff is willing to work on future amendments, today the code has not been amended. For the applicant to come into compliance in that regard a Planning Commission variance would be needed, which is not an overly burdensome process. Ms. Mitchell reiterated that this standard has not been applied in the past and the code should be applied in a fair and consistent manner. Ms. Santamaria replied that the standard has been applied in the past and applicants have redesigned or included parallel access, but ignoring the code is not an option. Another possibility is applying for a code change, which is timely, but a Planning Commissioner variance is an easier route to go through in terms of time frame, but a text change can be applied for. Staff will be going over the code with the BOCC on March 1, 2016, and April 13, 2016, and that could become effective in June or July. Karl Peterson, traffic engineering consultant for the applicant, stated FDOT has reviewed this and determined it meets substantial compliance with the criteria. The eight -foot variance that is required can be handled at the administrative level. Bruce Schmitt, partner in this project, stated in all of the many projects he has been involved in, the standards that the County has set in this particular project could never have been met. Mr. Schmitt said there are areas where this standard has not been implemented by the County and feels like they are being targeted. $50,000 have been invested to this point on a project that will likely cost over $2 million. The issue brought about of an ingress point because of this 400-foot rule makes no sense to Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Schmitt wants to discuss this further with Ms. Henderson and put this application on hold until then. Ms. Mitchell asked to discuss the Sandy Circle access since everybody involved is present in the room in case the project does go forward. Ms. Mitchell stated the right-of-way on Sandy Circle is encumbered by significant vegetation, making the line of sight at this intersection very dangerous. The applicant's access point was considered and selected very carefully. The applicant is trying to locate the accessory uses adjacent to the building. Mr. Peterson explained that a 30 percent clearance 30 feet back from the proposed driveway would not only benefit the driveway location proposed in the current plan, but it fixes an existing roadway problem that currently exists. Creating a stop condition on both legs of the approach would be another option, although not as ideal. Ms. Mitchell added that the property is County right-of-way. Mr. Arrieta pointed out that although it is an existing condition, Mr. Peterson's suggestion adds to a less -than -ideal situation by putting more vehicles in a less desirable location. Also, it then 3 becomes the onus of the County to maintain and have permanent clearing in that area. Putting the driveway in without proper sight distance significantly increases the potential for a crash because it creates more traffic conflicts. That is why the County proposed making a T intersection where a stop sign will be controlling one of the approaches, which is probably going to be the southbound approach. Mr. Peterson emphasized that, regardless of whether this project goes forward or not, this area is what is known as a horizontal sight distance obstruction. Again, there are two solutions: Clearing the vegetation in that corner to address an existing sight distance issue or creating a stop control condition at that intersection to address the lack of adequate horizontal sight distance there. Ms. Santamaria noted that the County does not regulate the right-of-way. If the applicant wishes to table this item, staff will have the ability to continue to work with them and explore the options that are available. Ms. Mitchell clarified for Ms. Santamaria that the garbage containers will be rolled out to the street, so Waste Management will not be required to back onto the property to empty a dumpster. Mr. Arrieta again discussed the fact that although conflicts are present or introduced every time a driveway is introduced, additional conflicts should not be introduced when there are sight distance issues. Mr. Schmitt commented that the Sandy Circle issue can probably be negotiated, but there is no reason to negotiate if there is no settlement on the ingress issue. Mr. Schmitt asked to table this discussion. Ms. Mitchell asked if the fees for the variance would be waived due to the inconsistency in the way the code is written. Ms. Santamaria and Mr. Williams agreed there would not be a waiver of fees. Mr. Williams pointed out that to get a variance the applicant will have to show a hardship. Ms. Santamaria also stressed that if the applicant proposed the change to the BOCC, the BOCC would have to choose to include it in the Land Development Code being processed now. If not, the applicant would have to do their own separate amendment. Ms. Mitchell requested tabling this item. Joyce Newman of Big Pine Key asked for and received information regarding the property owners adjacent to the Sandy Circle corner lot. 2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT :l PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 42015-171) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the most recent draft of five of the County's height amendments. Starting with the comp plan, Policy 101.5.30 is being amended and the definition of "height" is being incorporated within the policy. Policy 101.5.31 is being created, which is specific to Ocean Reef as a master -planned community to allow for non -habitable architectural decorative features up to a max total of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.32 is being created, which creates a new flood protection height exception up to a five-foot increase to allow for elevating to meet or exceed FEMA base flood elevations. Policy 101.5.33 is being created, which is a flood exception policy for lawfully established and existing buildings that already exceed the 35-foot height limit to elevate their structure to meet base flood provided they have the same intensity, floor, area, building envelope, density and type of use. If proposing to go over 40 feet, then they would have to go before the BOCC for review and a determination for the max height that they would be allowed. Ms. Santamaria then reported on the amendments to the Land Development Code. Section 130- 0 187 has been amended to highlight the exceptions that are created in the policies: Provision A for Ocean Reef to have their decorative features and Provision B for the flood exception. Brand 00 00 new buildings can have three feet to exceed FEMA base flood. Lawfully established existing �- multifamily buildings can either meet or exceed FEMA base flood up to five feet. These options are only eligible if at least FEMA base flood is met. This exception will not be provided in N AElO or VE 10 or greater because those are riskier areas and the County does not want to incentivize the flood exceptions in those areas. Existing multifamily buildings which already exceed the height limit are allowed to elevate up to 40 feet. Lawfully existing multifamily structures that already exceed the 40-foot height limit would have to go before the BOCC for a public hearing and state which criteria they meet. The BOCC would have to specify their w findings of these criteria and set the max total height of what the building could be rebuilt as. Ms. Santamaria asked for staff and public comments. Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked for clarification of the term "redevelop" for buildings that already exist over 35 feet. Ms. Santamaria explained that could include a tear -down, but it states specifically a lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope, floor -to -floor height, density and type of use. So they are confined to the existing footprint and envelope. Joyce Newman, Big Pine Key resident, asked about the slab -to -slab height increase request from Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria stated that has not been included in this draft. Ocean Reef was to provide certain information to staff to give a general picture of what the heights would amount to, and that information has not been received to date. Ms. Newman noted that Last Stand believes it is not a good idea to have these height increase requests go directly to the BOCC because that completely politicizes the whole process. The Planning Commission is the logical body to review these requests because they know the right questions to ask and is considerably less political. Ms. Newman added that Last Stand remains opposed to the exception to the height limit of 35 feet for new buildings because there is no burden that exists there. Construction of new buildings can adhere to the existing 35-foot height limit and provide two stories over parking while adding voluntary clearance to BFE. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, feels that the new building exemption can be taken advantage of by somebody who has to choose between either elevation or an extra story, but because of sea level rise and how Monroe County is going to adapt to it, Mr. Hunter supports the new building height exemption as it is written. Ms. Santamaria asked for further staff or public comment on this item. There was none. 4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fifth DRC meeting on this item and this amendment is very similar to the previous drafts. This stems from the comp plan update when the BOCC asked staff to move the provisions related to offshore islands out of the comp plan update and process it separately as a stand-alone issue. The amendments in this draft reflect what was already transmitted to the State in terms of Policy 101.6.8 and Policy 101.13.3. The new changes from the last meeting are only to Policy 206.1.2. Policy 206.1.2 relates to nesting areas of birds and states "Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery based on resource agency best available data or survey." New text included in today's draft is: "As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial birds nest. The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in rocks, burrows and cavities." Policy 101.6.8 includes language that the receiver site for TREs will not be an offshore island and Policy 101.13.3 includes the criteria that an offshore island will not be a receiver site for TDRs. Ms. Santamaria asked for staff and public comments. 11 Bart Smith, Esquire, on behalf of FEB Corp., asked Mr. Roberts if he was involved in drafting the additional definitions in the glossary. Mr. Roberts replied that he reviewed them. Mr. Roberts then pointed out that the definition of an established bird rookery is specific to this policy and is not overriding throughout the comp plan. Mr. Smith explained that Phil Frank, a biologist on behalf of FEB Corp., suggested utilizing the term "colonial nesting water birds" in Policy 206.1.2 since the colonial nesting birds in the Florida Keys are water birds. Mr. Smith then read aloud a proposed definition of the term "colonial nesting water birds." Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Frank's proposed definition mirrors Wikipedia's definition of that term. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Frank also suggested the language "Bird rookery means communal nesting ground for colonial nesting water birds." Mr. Roberts agreed that the birds that are addressed when talking about colonial nesting birds are water fowl, but stated there are other birds that nest colonially that are not water birds that use the Atlantic flyway. Mr. Hunter asked if solitary birds like the white crown pigeons would be protected under the proposed definitions. Mr. Roberts explained that generally speaking the density of nests in a rookery are much closer than what you find in a white crown pigeon nesting situation, but Mr. Roberts will look at the literature to see if the experts consider white crown pigeons to be a colonial nesting bird. Ms. Santamaria agreed that staff will review this because there are other policies in the comp plan related to listed species and threatened species. Ms. Newman noted that there are a lot more birds that nest on these spoil banks than just wading birds and water birds. Julie Dick from the Everglades Law Center on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund voiced concerns with respect to Policy 206.1.2. The reference to "based on resource agency best available data or survey" should be opened up to include just "best available data and survey" so as not to be limited to a specific source of information. Ms. Dick also believes that an on -site verification from the County biologist would be appropriate to determine the existence or lack thereof of bird rookeries or nesting sites or areas. "Nesting area" should be included so there is consistency in the use of terminology throughout the plan. Naja Girard of Key West stated she is vehemently opposed to shrinking this definition down to just water fowl. Any species that are in any way protected through special designations by the State or the Federal Government should be spelled out as well. Ms. Girard agreed with Ms. Dick that the County should be open to whatever credible data and survey might come its way. Ms. Curlee asked that the importance of these spoil and offshore islands be emphasized for birds migrating through as resting spots. Ms. Dick followed up on that and stated that a rookery can be a roosting area as well as a nesting area. Mr. Smith commented that Policy 206.1.2 is an absolute prohibition on development of the entire island. Mr. Smith suggested that there are other suitable means to protect the nesting area to allow for birds to land that make more sense with policies that deal with the actual area that it is in than to have an express and blanket prohibition. Ms. Santamaria then asked for comments on the policies that relate to TREs and TDRs. 7 Julie Dick, on behalf of Last Stand and the Florida Keys Environmental Fund, voiced full support for the criteria for receiver sites in both Policies 101.6.8 and 101.13.3 that a receiver site may not be an offshore island. Ms. Dick asked that the same definition be used in the offshore island zoning designation and the offshore island definition in the comp plan so that owners of offshore islands may not be able to use this in the future to manipulate the intent to make some offshore islands receiver sites. Ms. Santamaria clarified that offshore island zoning is not included in the comp plan as a term that is defined, but she will review this further. Mr. Smith agreed that it is superfluous to include the language "as defined in the glossary" and that it may imply any other time the term is used it is not being defined by the glossary. Mr. Smith then commented that the bank of ROGOs makes building in the County like energy: Lots are not going to be able to be created or destroyed; just transferred. Mr. Smith does not believe it is a good utilization of resources to have a prohibition on TREs for offshore islands and requiring owners to compete in ROGO and ultimately having the County faced with purchasing an island. Ms. Santamaria responded that the County, in terms of the comp plan update and code, is trying to incentivize through the ROGO process donation and dedication of lots to the County. Ms. Newman stated that someone who has the means to buy and develop an island should not be put in any better position than someone who has their hopes and dreams based on retiring and living in the Florida Keys. Julie Dick noted that Monroe County is at its limit in terms of being able to evacuate this county within 24 hours in the face of a hurricane. For that reason, whatever incentive built into the comp plan that moves development away from the areas hardest to evacuate should be fully supported. Ms. Girard does not agree with Mr. Smith's logic of sending ROGOs to offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria concluded by stating all comments will be taken into consideration before taking this to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m. A PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016 Meeting Minutes The Planning Commission of Monroe County conducted a meeting on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, beginning at 10:01 a.m. at the Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL by Gail Creech PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Denise Werling, Chair Present William Wiatt, Vice Chair Present Elizabeth Lustberg Present Ron Miller Present Beth Ramsay-Vickrey Present STAFF Mayte Santamaria, Sr. Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present John Wolfe, Planning Commission Counsel Present Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present Matt Coyle, Principal Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Janene Sclafani, Planner Present Gail Creech, Sr. Planning Commission Coordinator Present COUNTY RESOLUTION 131-91 APPELLANT TO PROVIDE RECORD FOR APPEAL County Resolution 131-92 was read into the record by Mr. Wolfe. SUBMISSION OF PROPERTY POSTING AFFIDAVITS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Ms. Creech confirmed receipt of all necessary paperwork. SWEARING OF COUNTY STAFF County staff members were sworn in by Mr. Wolfe. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Ms. Creech asked to have Items 4 and 5 read together with separate votes taken on each. The applicant of Item 3 is delayed and that item will be heard out of order when they arrive. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Commissioner Wiatt made a motion to approve the January 27, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. MEETING New Items: LA PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND FINALIZE THE RANKING OF APPLICATIONS IN THE DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR OCTOBER 14, 2015, THROUGH JANUARY 12, 2016, ROGO (2n QUARTER YEAR 24). ALLOCATION AWARDS WILL BE ALLOCATED FOR ALL UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY. (File 2015-192) (10:04 a.m.) Ms. Stankiewicz presented the staff report. Ms. Stankiewicz stated that this report is for the quarterly ROGO. Ms. Stankiewicz recommended approval of the market rate allocations as specified in the report and there were no affordable housing applications. Chair Werling asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Miller asked for a ballpark figure of Tier I properties that have been developed in the last ten years. Ms. Santamaria will collect that information and provide it to Commissioner Miller. Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion for approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. 2.A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND FINALIZE THE RANKING OF APPLICATIONS IN THE DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR THE BIG PINE KEY/NO NAME KEY SUBAREA. ALLOCATION AWARDS TO BE ALLOCATED, IF AVAILABLE, TO APPLICANTS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED WITHIN THE BIG PINE KEY/NO NAME KEY SUBAREA. (File 2015-192) (10:05 a.m.) Ms. Stankiewicz presented the staff report. Ms. Stankiewicz reported that the Planning Department recommends approval of the release of the remaining three deferred allocations at this time. Chair Werling asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. 2 Motion: Commissioner Lustberg made a motion for approval. Commissioner Ramsay- Vickrey seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. 4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHESIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) 5.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-171) (10:07 a.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that both the comp plan and the Land Development Code will be addressed together today. Ms. Santamaria explained that during the October 7, 2014, BOCC meeting the Commissioners asked staff to set aside the height and offshore policies and sections and provide additional information on those topics. Then in December of 2014 the BOCC decided to separate these topics totally from the 2030 comp plan and process them separately. Five DRC meetings have been held since March of 2015 on these issues. Ms. Santamaria provided the definitions for "height" and "grade." Those terms are critical to understand because each property may be different depending on what their natural elevation, their grade is or their crown of the road. A depiction was shown of how this generally works. Ms. Santamaria continued to report that there are going to be upcoming changes with the FEMA maps. Staff anticipates that flood zones will likely go up because sea level rise projections will be included in the new maps. FEMA is trying to make the rates consistent with a property's actual risk. With this legislation if a structure is elevated up to three feet above base flood discounts can be received on flood insurance. 3 Ms. Santamaria explained the first policy change is to Policy 101.5.30, which is the policy that includes the 35-foot height limit. The definition of "height" has been included directly into the policy as well as the proposed exceptions to the height limits. There is a policy for the Ocean Reef master planned community for non -habitable architectural decorative features on the roof line up to five feet. Section 130-187A of the code contains the matching language. The structure itself with the decorative features cannot exceed 40 feet. The first flood protection height exception is proposed Policy 101.5.32, which allows up to a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit to a total maximum of up to 40 feet for flood protection. This is specifically to allow property owners to better protect their property and potentially receive discounts on their flood insurance. Section 130-187B of the code has two provisions: Number 1 is for new buildings that would have the opportunity of a maximum of up to three feet above the 35-foot height limit to a maximum height of 38 feet; Number 2 is for lawfully existing buildings, not multi -family, up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. The reasons five feet was provided here instead of three feet is these structures may be below base flood and may need an opportunity to get to base flood and hopefully will have a foot or two more to go above and better protect themselves and receive discounts. It is proposed that no structure will ever be more than 40 feet. FEMA base flood would have to be met for this opportunity to be afforded to a property owner. Also, those properties located in AE10 or VE 10 or greater are not afforded this opportunity because those are riskier areas for development. A table of FEMA flood zones with the number of private vacant parcels in the county was shown. Most of both the existing parcels and the private vacant parcels exist in AE5 through AE9. These ordinances, therefore, would cover the majority of the parcels in the County. Ms. Santamaria then explained that another flood protection height exception is for those lawfully established buildings that exist today and already exceed the 35-foot height limit. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet the required FEMA base flood elevation provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet. If a building already exceeds the 40-foot height limit and cannot rebuild within that provision of the 40-foot max, a hearing before the Planning Commission and the BOCC would be required to set what would be their maximum height. There is criteria created in the code to address that situation. Lawfully existing multi -family buildings that exceed the 35-foot height limit that would need to go beyond 40 feet would again require a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the BOCC to set a maximum height. The criteria to address this situation were illustrated. Ms. Santamaria recommended approval to both the comp plan amendments as well as the Land Development Code amendments. Commissioner Lustberg asked for clarification between an existing house and a new house. Ms. Santamaria clarified that existing homes can be elevated to 40 feet, a new home can be built to 38 feet, and replacement of a demolished home can go to 40 feet because of a ROGO exception. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested exploring the difference between a damaged rebuild and a voluntary tear -down and rebuild. Chair Werling asked for public comment. 4 Burke Cannon, resident of Tavernier, cited examples of discrepancies that would exist in his neighborhood. The neighborhood would change dramatically. Mr. Cannon asked that more consideration be given to these ordinances. Mel Montagne, president of Fair Insurance Rates of Monroe County (FIRM), asked to show a four -minute video put together by Scott Fraser, who is the FEMA coordinator and flood plain manager for the City of Key West, which highlights the potential savings in a video format. That video was presented. Mr. Montagne then commented that FIRM supports Monroe County's referendum that will allow homeowners to protect their property by elevating structures up to five feet above base flood level, but in no case exceeding a maximum building height of 40 feet. FEMA is expected to redraw flood insurance rate maps in Monroe County over the next several years and the National Flood Insurance Program will be reauthorized in 2017, which may result in rates less than favorable to Monroe County. A referendum with similar changes passed easily in the City of Key West. Mr. Montagne asked the Commissioners to adopt proposed amendments that allow elevation to mitigate flood risk. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the cost of building a home higher has not been deducted in the figures shown by Mr. Montagne, which could actually negate 20 years of savings to a home. Mr. Montagne replied that the figures on the video were Key West -specific and based on a 30-year payout. Also, catastrophic events should be considered in those figures. Commissioner Miller does not believe this ordinance should be passed before knowing what the flood maps will be. Dottie Moses, representing the Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowners Associations, stated that although the Federation has been a supporter of the FIRM organization, they object to raising the 35-foot height limit on new construction. The Federation is not against raising the base flood elevation, but believes that can be done under the 35-foot height. The flood insurance premiums should in themselves be a motive for people to want to build higher without being given another higher elevation, but this is voluntary. Ms. Moses then commented that although recent sea level rise workshop data is being used as support for elevating, the executive summary from that project says their results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to elevate flood plain residential. Ms. Moses pointed out that Key West is an older community and has more homes that are in lower elevations than Unincorporated Monroe County. Voluntarily tearing down a house and then being allowed to rebuild it to 40 feet should be looked at very closely and should be treated as new construction. Ms. Moses clarified for Commissioner Lustberg that she personally supports the ability to elevate an existing house to 40 feet, but not for any new construction, including a teardown. Commissioner Miller asked where in the LDRs it states you can build to 40 feet if you tear your house down. Ms. Santamaria pointed out Section 130-187B. Ms. Santamaria then explained that she misspoke earlier and clarified that this exception shall apply to the substantial improvements of buildings, whether voluntary or not, who would be able to rebuild to 38 feet, not 40 feet. Bill Hunter of Sugarloaf Key asked what the maximum height would be if he bulldozed his home to build a new one. Ms. Santamaria replied the maximum would be 38 feet. Alicia Putney, resident of No Name Key, explained that the height of 35 feet was determined by the height of the existing tree line so that trees would be higher than the buildings. Throughout the Keys members of homeowners associations and environmental groups fought for that height 5 limit to keep the Florida Keys a unique and special place. Ms. Putney pointed out that there are only three land use determinants for the 2010 comp plan and LDRs: The carrying capacity limitations; natural resource protection; and the enhancement of community character. Policy 101.2.24 limits the height of structures to 35 feet. To be able to change the comp plan new issues or a change in circumstance need to be shown using data and analysis. The only new data being presented today is the need to allow existing buildings to be elevated for flood protection. Ms. Putney suggested the following ways to address this agenda item on height issues: Allow an exception to the 35-foot height limit when the reasons to elevate the existing structure is for FEMA reasons to a maximum of 38 feet; allow an exception to the 38-foot height limit to allow grandfathered structures to elevate the structure for FEMA reasons; and allow an exception to the 35-foot height limit limited to Ocean Reef where the community character is distinct from the rest of the Florida Keys provided there is legal protection from this allowance setting a precedent for the rest of the Keys and provided the exceptions are based in a Livable CommuniKeys planning initiative which would result in an overlay district. Allowing new construction to those owners who desire a third story that would exceed 35 feet is encouraging development in the lowest areas of the Florida Keys where development should be discouraged. There is no need to change the rules for new construction. Ms. Putney asked the Commissioners to consider these recommendations prior to voting on this important issue. Joyce Newman of Big Pine Key spoke on behalf of Last Stand. Ms. Newman stated that Last Stand has participated in all of the meetings related to change of height in the county and wholeheartedly supports a mechanism that would allow an existing home to be raised five feet above base flood elevation as protection against sea level rise and increased flood insurance premiums. However, Last Stand is opposed to a blanket exemption to the 35-foot height that would change the community character of the Florida Keys. A variance procedure should be attached to any changes proposed above the 35-foot level, which would allow the Planning Commission to look carefully at these requests on a case -by -case basis. Last Stand does not support new construction being afforded the ability to go beyond the 35-foot level because there is no burden on new construction to achieve the BFE elevations. Last Stand continues to object to special considerations for Ocean Reef because of the precedent this might set. However, the suggestion of going through the Livable CommuniKeys process might provide legal protections to avoid the precedence being set. Ms. Newman believes this is not ready to go before the BOCC because of the recent changes and the contention and lack of consensus that still exists. Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Club to speak on Agenda Item 4 as it pertains to Ocean Reef Club. Mr. Reed stated Ocean Reef has been represented at all of the meetings regarding this issue over the last two years. This is a key and critical issue for Ocean Reef and the language does not go far enough to protect existing structures that are already exceeding the height limit. Mr. Reed displayed proposed language to be included under Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Reed attempted to assuage the concerns that language applicable to Ocean Reef would spread to the rest of the community by explaining the policy, as written, is a policy unique only to Ocean Reef and is not applicable to other parts of the County. Ocean Reef is the only community that meets the gated master planned community in the definitions of the code today. Additional items that Ocean Reef is asking to be put in is that the existing structures that already exceed the 35- foot height restriction could be built back. Ocean Reef is asking that two community buildings that are key and essential to the community, the cultural center and the boat barn, would have a 11 65-foot height restriction. Mr. Reed described Ocean Reef as distinct in that it is isolated, inaccessible and does have a distinct community character. There is no visual impact due to the buildings in Ocean Reef. Commissioner Miller pointed out that Ocean Reef can be seen clearly from the water. Mr. Reed continued to explain that Ocean Reef has design guidelines and an architectural committee that reviews for all architecture that happens in all buildings in Ocean Reef. Photographs of Ocean Reef were shown from different times and different vantage points. Mr. Reed stated that Ocean Reef is more restrictive than Monroe County as far as setbacks, building envelope requirements and architectural restrictions. Mr. Reed stated the County has no regulations to date to protect buildings that are lawfully established buildings that exceed the height limits that are part of the Ocean Reef community. Pictures were displayed of some of these buildings. Ms. Santamaria clarified that a table of the proposed changes for the buildings at Ocean Reef is contained in the backup for some policy language in Exhibit 11, although the table is mostly blank. Mr. Reed stated that he will fill in the updated information and provide it to staff and to the Commissioners afterwards. Mr. Reed then continued to show the different buildings as examples in the community. Mr. Reed stated some of the buildings have aged and have passed their useful life because of the restrictions and not allowing these building to be rebuilt with an increase in height is not a benefit to the community or to the overall value of that community. Some buildings have outdated ceiling heights and Ocean Reef is asking those buildings be allowed to be built back with 11 or 12 feet slab -to -slab height. Some buildings would lose units if built back to current height restrictions. To build the boat barn back within codes to maintain the same number of boats stored there it would need to go up to 65 feet. The boat barn currently is at 37 feet. The cultural center has asked to go to 65 feet because of the space needed for the type of productions that are put on for the community. Mr. Reed reiterated that Ocean Reef Club is a distinct community and isolated. Ocean Reef Club is managed by its board of directors and the homeowner piece of it, Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA), has not only a board, but an architectural committee as well. Both the club and the community association are in support of this request and believe it is a necessity for Ocean Reef. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey discussed the difference in height of the cultural center and the boat barn currently and what is proposed by Mr. Reed. Commissioner Wiatt asked Mr. Reed about ownership of the different structures in the table provided. Mr. Reed replied that the commercial buildings are all owned by Ocean Reef Club and the condominium buildings are all owned within the community association. Commissioner Wiatt expressed sympathy for the owners that may have obtained these properties prior to the 35-foot limit, but believes owners that obtained them after the 35-foot limit came into place should have known they could only be built back to 35 feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that the 35-foot height restriction came into being in 1986. Commissioner Lustberg disagreed in that many things in the County are grandfathered in and when purchasing something that violates the rules owners believe continuing that use is generally allowed. Mr. Reed commented again concerning neighbor impact due to a change that Ocean Reef Club is isolated and has their own rules and regulations that guide development and their community members are part of that entire process. Mr. Reed went over Number 2 and 3 to Policy 101.5.31 that Ocean Reef is requesting be added to the policy language. Mr. Reed confirmed for Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey that Number 2 would allow replacement of a building at an additional height. Commissioner Miller asked what the flood zone is for Ocean 7 Reef. Mr. Reed replied that the Amberj ack Hotel is in a V 11-13 zone and the others are AE 9 and AE 10. Jim Hendrick of Key West was present on behalf of ORCA. Mr. Hendrick exaplained that Ocean Reef Club is the actual ownership entity and ORCA is the local governance for Ocean Reef that has its own architectural standards, its own boards and committees. Mr. Hendrick noted Kay Thacker's passing. Mr Hendrick stated that Ms. Thacker fought for preserving a measure of limitation on buildings within the island communities along the US-1 chain, but recognized that the community character of Ocean Reef is very distinct from the rest of the Keys. Ocean Reef is the only community that is exempted from ROGO because it is isolated. Mr. Hendrick pointed out that under the regulations that are currently being proposed all owners of a condominium could not be accommodated. A special policy is needed for Ocean Reef because there are no standards given to guide the exercise of granting an exemption. A special rule can be accomplished for Ocean Reef without setting an adverse precedent because the policy contains the reasons why Ocean Reef is unique: Because it is a gated master -planned community; it is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community; and has a distinct community character. Mr. Hendrick believes the suggestion that this be worked through a Livable CommuniKeys program has merit, but pointed out that Ocean Reef s proposed policy gives very clear and specific guidelines as to what will and will not be allowed in Ocean Reef. The Ocean Reef community is speaking with one voice on this and no one speaks against it. Naja Girard of Key West asked since when is a property owner allowed to make their own rules. Ms. Girard asked if the County wants to encourage walled -up, exclusive, gated communities throughout the Keys. Ms. Girard asked that this issue be considered very carefully. Deb Curlee of Cudjoe Key stated that she attended all of the DRC meetings on this issue and this is the first time the proposed changes or additional language from Ocean Reef has been seen. Ms. Curlee asked Ms. Santamaria to confirm that Ocean Reef is part of Monroe County. Ms. Santamaria answered in the affirmative. Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked to discuss Ocean Reef first. Commissioner Ramsay- Vickrey agrees that Ocean Reef is a distinct community and agrees with the five-foot exemption for the decorative features. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey commented that the proposed language by Ocean Reef contained in Number 2 and Number 3 has not gone through staff review or a public process. Therefore, she is opposed to voting on that today. Commissioners Wiatt and Miller agreed with that. Commissioner Lustberg believes there has been substantial public discussion on many things before coming in front of the Planning Commission and this is what is before the Commission today. Commissioner Lustberg feels that Ocean Reef is largely protected by the language allowing for the variance process in order to build beyond the 40 feet because it would be considered a hardship for somebody to lose a unit. That would be considered differently in Ocean Reef with a condo than it might for an individual homeowner. Commissioner Miller asked if the 15,000 excluded properties in AE-10 and VE-10 throughout the County would also apply to Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria responded that there are properties in Ocean Reef that are AE-10, VE-10 or greater. So the proposed policy that allows for existing multifamily structures to exceed the 35-foot height limit and go beyond 40 feet would not be available for those that exceed the 10-foot level. Ms. Santamaria then noted that the previous submission from Ocean Reef, Exhibit 11 of the staff report, contains 90 percent of the same language, but the table related to the request was never submitted previously. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey repeated that should go through staff and a public process before coming before the Planning Commission on those issues. Commissioner Wiatt noted that even though the height restrictions were originally put in place to address aesthetics and the height of the trees, they have morphed into something more than that. There are really only two things right now that have any control over residential floor area: setbacks and height restrictions. Therefore, the only way Commissioner Wiatt will be comfortable with increasing height restrictions is to make sure language is in place that does not allow for an increase in floor area in the guise of raising properties for flood. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that there is no limit in the text currently relating to floor area. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested limiting this height rise to only single- and two-story homes. Commissioner Miller voiced concern that the height increase in new construction will result in a density increase. Commissioner Miller distributed graphs showing the potential changes that will result from the height increases. Commissioner Miller explained how to read the graphs. Commissioner Miller pointed out that these increases will incentivize those people who want to maximize their number of floors and believes protecting our homes and getting reduced FEMA premiums can already be accomplished without the proposed increases. Taking the residential units out of the equation may make for a better product. Commissioner Wiatt commented that Policy 101.5.33 limits existing lawfully established floor area to the building envelope. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that B2 does not include that language. C contains that language for multi -family. Ms. Schemper explained that new construction is sandwiched in between base flood and the 35-foot height limit, so an additional story is not able to be added. Commissioner Miller disagreed with that. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey again suggested limiting the increases to new buildings to single- or two-story homes. Commissioner Lustberg stated new construction gets the increase only if the house is elevated that three feet above base flood. Ms. Santamaria agreed that the increment is only what is gone above base flood. Mr. Williams explained the house stays the same size, but just gets moved up or down. Commissioner Miller insisted that his graph of showing the changes is correct and suggested having a workshop on this matter. Commissioner Wiatt would like to include multi -family in the limitation to single - or two-story structures. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey voiced concern because of the effects that may have on affordable housing. Commissioner Miller agreed with limiting the new construction to single- or two-story homes, but wants the community concern addressed. Ms. Santamaria explained if three stories could be built under the 35-foot limit, then those three stories could be built under the 38-foot limit because it is just being shifted up. Chair Werling stated there are already buildings in the very hazardous flood areas and they are getting no advantage to rectify their situation with these proposed changes. Ms. Santamaria explained that they can still build back within the 35 feet and take advantage of actually adding a couple feet above base flood, but the County does not want to incentivize construction in those riskier areas. They would be rebuilding smaller homes in those areas. Staff tried to capture in the language where the majority of the existing parcels and the majority of the existing development occurs, which is AE-6 through 10. Chair Werling asked if homes in those lower P7 areas could be considered on a case -by -case situation because it is not known what FEMA's numbers on their maps are going to be. Mr. Williams explained how the LiDAR works when creating these new maps and stated some counties who have had the LiDAR used to create their maps have seen as much as a foot change in their elevation. Chair Werling is bothered that no exception is given to those homes in the low-lying areas. Commissioner Miller questioned why the County would not wait for the map changes before voting on this ordinance. Ms. Santamaria replied to give people the opportunity to be better prepared and better protect their homes with potential changes coming out. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked to add language this is to be reviewed every time there is an issuance of new maps. Chair Werling agreed. Commissioner Lustberg does not believe that the height should be tied in to where base flood goes because that could go on forever. At this point a concession is being made to people who have an existing property to allow them to use it the same way, but to make it safer for flooding and to reduce their premiums. Commissioner Lustberg feels that this ordinance tries to take into effect where it is appropriate to build back and how much is appropriate to grant people in order to be able to have insured houses without allowing for inappropriate development that slips in. Otherwise, only people who do not need a mortgage can afford to live here. Commissioner Miller made three points: It is more equitable if the 35-foot rule applied to all of the properties in the Keys; under no circumstances should there be increased capacity in the number of floors that could be built under this exemption; and consideration should be given to the fact that our communities have been built under the 35-foot height limitation successfully for years. Ms. Santamaria proposed the following language to limit the 38-foot height exemption to one- or two-story homes: "For new single-family or multi -family buildings, which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required base flood elevation, an exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above base flood elevation. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height or two floors of habitable space." Ms. Santamaria explained the proposed language for new development will not adversely affect those property owners who can build three floors currently at 35 feet. The Commissioners agreed to keep the language in B2 as is. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked that these same changes to new and existing development decided on for Item 5 be made to Item 4. Ms. Santamaria clarified that language will be added to specify in Policy 101.5.32 that limits new single-family and multi -family to 38 feet and two stories and existing to 40 feet to match the code. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested in Policy 101.5.33 changing "The Planning Commission" to "The Planning Director shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC." Commissioner Lustberg and Chair Werling believe that language shall remain "The Planning Commission" to allow for public input. Chair Werling stated that nobody should be exempt in Number 5 of the LDC, especially if the maps are going to change. Ms. Santamaria explained the rationale for that language was public comment received during the DRC that redevelopment should not be facilitated or encouraged in the riskier areas. They could still build under the 35-foot height limit, but would not have the ability to go the extra height. Commissioner Miller believes that would allow for the creation of more habitable space in those homes. Commissioner Wiatt noted that the language is covered under existing development and the limitation of two floors covers it under new development. The people that have structures in low-lying areas can continue to have those structures, but they are not getting any more floor 10 area. Commissioner Miller pointed out that in the lower elevations this will create more habitable space Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey proposed the language "No exception shall be provided to new buildings located in" AE 10 and greater or VE 10 and greater. That would discourage development in the most sensitive and flood prone areas for new development. Chair Werling added that there are a lot of restrictions in obtaining a permit in those areas already. Commissioner Lustberg asked to hear the proposed language again. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the changes in Item 4, Policy 101.5.32: "Within one year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three feet above FEMA base flood elevation and a Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow new buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions are in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building exceeding a maximum height of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet." Ms. Santamaria then read aloud the proposed changes to Item 5, B 1: "For new single-family and multi -family buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required base flood elevation, an exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above base flood elevation. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height or two habitable floors. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not." Ms. Santamaria explained that "multi -family" will be stricken from B2 and B5 will read: "No exception shall be provided to new buildings located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone." Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion on Agenda Item Number 4 to approve with the language adjustments as read by staff as directed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. Commissioner Lustberg asked Legal staff about unintended consequences these changes will bring about. Mr. Williams stated that there are always consequences, but as long as the County does not infringe on property owners' rights as they currently exist everything should be fine. Chair Werling clarified that the information submitted today by Ocean Reef is not included in this motion. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey added that the Planning Commission is willing to address those requests when they comes before the Commission through the existing process. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. 11 Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion on Agenda Item Number 5 to approve with the changes as read by the Planning Director as directed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Santamaria repeated the changes for Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. A brief recess was held from 12:36 p.m. to 12:48 p.m. 6.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) (12:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that, similar to the height amendment, this item started in the comp plan update and the BOCC in December 2014 asked staff to take it out of the comp plan update and process it separately. This has also gone to the DRC five times since that time period. Three amendments are being proposed to the comp plan. The language in Policy 101.6.8 that allows the transfer of ROGO exemptions from one area to the other has already been transmitted to DEO and voted on and supported by the BOCC. The new addition is that the receiver site of these existing units transferring from one location to the other would not be to an offshore island. The language in Policy 101.13.3 allowing for the transfer of development rights, the transfer of density and not units, has also been transmitted to the State of Florida. The new addition, Number 6, states an offshore island will not be a receiver site for extra density. Policy 206.1.2 has the following new language beyond what has already been transmitted: "As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depression in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows and cavities." A definition of "offshore island" for the glossary that was previously included in the comp plan update and removed is included here. It is not for offshore island zoning, but for the specific term of the physical island, itself. "Offshore island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not directly or indirectly connected to US-1 by a bridge, road or causeway." Ms. Santamaria recommended approval of the amendments before the Planning Commission today. Chair Werling asked for public comment. Naja Girard, resident of Key West, questioned why the amendments relating to offshore islands are being brought separately from the general comp plan update with no new data that contradicts the original technical document. Ms. Girard stated during the final BOCC hearing on the comp plan update one of FEB Corp's attorneys claimed to speak on behalf of a client who 12 owned a spoil island to the west of Key West when, in fact, the gentleman was not really his client and the island is not really a spoil island. That maneuver was used as the pretext that set in motion the sidetracking of the comp plan update as it pertains to offshore islands. Ms. Girard urged the Commissioners to keep in mind that today there are 60 privately -owned offshore islands and what is done here today will affect many islands that have remaining development potential. Ms. Girard asked that the comp plan policies retain the clear language that has been in place for decades that states that all offshore islands are Tier I, that development must be low density and even prohibited if the island is a bird nesting colony site and that no development rights or ROGOs may be transferred to offshore islands. Offshore islands are protected not only for the upland habitat they provide, but also because of the important ecosystem that is found in the waters that surround them. Spoil islands are uniquely inappropriate for residential development because they are highly prone to erosion. Ms. Girard concluded by stating that there is no legitimate reason and no data that supports the weakening of protections for offshore islands. Nicholas Batty, attorney on behalf of FEB Corp., thanked staff for their hard work in this matter. Mr. Batty stated FEB Corp. supports this proposal except for one facet of the ordinance to which FEB takes exception: The prohibition of offshore islands as receiver sites for TREs. It is completely acceptable to eliminate the transfer of TDRs to offshore islands because there is no maximum net density for islands within the offshore zoning category, but not every offshore island has ROGO attached and the prohibition of offshore islands as receiver sites forces the property owners to look to the ROGO allocation system which is already crowded and takes the possibility of purchasing and transferring ROGO exemptions in the market system off the table. There is no justification for the blanket prohibition against transfers to offshore islands. If a site on offshore islands meets all of the required criteria, why should it not be eligible for a THE transfer? Mr. Batty respectfully requested the Commission approve the language of the amendment as written with the exception of the THE receiver prohibition. Alicia Putney, resident of No Name Key, pointed out to the Commissioners that the final order for the 1995 challenge to the current comp plan adopted by the BOCC in 1993 includes findings of facts that specifically pertain to the goals, objectives and policies of the current year 2010 plan. Maps showing the offshore islands that were considered in the development of the comp plan were attached to that final order. Ms. Putney recited certain language from the technical document about offshore islands and their importance in the ecosystem of the Florida Keys. Ms. Putney stands firmly behind staff in the concept of offshore islands not being eligible to be a receiver site. There has been no data or analysis brought forward to justify changing the restrictions on development of offshore islands. To do so will not only be in violation of the comp plan, but also the principles for guiding development. Offshore islands are environmentally sensitive by definition and the protections should not be lowered. Julie Dick from Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and the Florida Keys Environmental Fund, thanked staff for all of their work that has gone into developing this language and these policies. Ms. Dick stated her clients are fully supportive of keeping offshore islands from being receiver sites. Being able to transfer ROGOs to offshore islands would exacerbate very serious problems in terms of evacuation. Ms. Dick addressed some definitions in the policies. Ms. Dick proposed the language "Development shall be prohibited on offshore 13 islands (including spoil islands) which have a nesting area or an established bird colony site, based on best available data or survey and on -site verification by the County biologist." Ms. Dick explained the words "been documented as" should be removed because whether or not an offshore island has previously been documented as a nesting area or a bird rookery or colony site is irrelevant. The important thing is whether the bird rookery or colony site is on that offshore island and it may be documented in the future. The addition of "nesting area" is suggested because Policy 102.7.2 has almost mirror -image language except it lists rookery and nesting area. Nesting areas are critical to protect. In the definitions and the glossary "Nesting Areas" cover endangered and threatened species and species of special concern at the State and Federal level. Ms. Dick explained that "resource agency" should be removed so that the County does not have to wait for information that is needed when there may be other available data. Also, it should be verified by the County biologist to provide for on -the -ground verification of what is really on these islands in terms of colony sites or nesting areas. Ms. Dick stated Dr. Jerry Lorenz, the Florida Research Director for Audubon Florida, will address the fact that "bird rookeries" is an ambiguous term and refers to crows. A colony site is a more scientifically accurate reference. The definition for colony site should mirror what staff proposed in Policy 206.1.2 so there will be consistency throughout the comp plan. Policy 207.9.1 references anticipation of an updated list of offshore islands with bird rookeries where development shall be prohibited. That update has not been done, so Ms. Dick asked that the policy be taken out altogether. Dr. Jerry Lorenz, marine biologist representing National Audubon Society and Audubon Florida, stated that in order to make some of the language more consistent scientifically "rookery" should be changed to "colony site" because a rookery is much broader as it is defined whereas a colony site is a nesting habitat. Dr. Lorenz stated these islands are environmentally sensitive and are critical to bird life in the Keys and to the rest of the country because of the migration flyways through this area. A number of birds nest on these islands that are classified as colonial or semi - colonial, which are distinctly different. White -crowned pigeons are classified as a semi -colonial species, which simply means they can nest in colonies or they can nest individually. The white - crowned pigeon is critical to the upland habitat in the Keys because the hardwood hammocks are dependent upon them for moving around seeds. They are classified as threatened by the State of Florida and are a critical component of the ecosystem. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey noted that changing "rookery" to "nesting site" narrows the language. Dr. Lorenz reiterated that "rookery" is incorrectly defined in the language. All colonies are rookeries, but not all rookeries are colonies. Mr. Roberts agreed that Dr. Lorenz' proposed language would afford less protection to the area. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the Merriam -Webster definition of "rookery." Dr. Lorenz noted that that definition is not scientifically correct. Dr. Lorenz stated these lands are environmentally sensitive and he would like the comp plan to be as specific as possible to protect these nesting habitats. Dr. Lorenz pointed out again when using the term "colony site" that both colonial birds and semi -colonials birds need to be included. When birds form in groups to sit on a nest it is a bird colony no matter what the bird is classified as. Dr. Lorenz then explained that bird colonies are ephemeral. The islands will be used by birds when appropriate and not used when not appropriate. A colony site is a place where birds would go to nest, not necessarily that birds are nesting there at a certain time. Commissioner Miller suggested adding the word "suitable" habitats. Dr. Lorenz agreed that would be much more restrictive and much more protective if it said "suitable habitats for semi -colonial or colonial nesting birds." 14 Commissioner Lustberg asked if every offshore island would be suitable. Dr. Lorenz replied that all offshore islands he is familiar with are environmentally important to all avian species even though they may not necessarily be a nesting location. Offshore islands are critical to all species of bird that migrate through the Florida Keys going to Cuba or the Yucatan Peninsula. Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked Mr. Roberts for his opinion regarding the broad definition of rookery, which could include turtles. Mr. Roberts explained that protections are in place for turtles. This policy protects offshore islands relative to the transfer of development rights and the transfer of ROGO exemptions. Mr. Roberts agreed that "resource agency" can be deleted and agreed the term "or semi -colonial" could be added. That would close a narrowly open door. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey does not want "resource agency" taken out because then it is unknown who will make the determination that it is suitable habitat. Commissioner Ramsay- Vickrey does like the receiver site criteria adding that it is not an offshore island and does like the definition of "offshore island" mirroring what has been discussed at the comp plan level. Chair Werling suggested adding "best available data verified by the County biologist." Mr. Roberts explained that the resource agencies that have a presence in the Keys are U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Florida DEP, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the County. Commissioner Lustberg pointed out that there is not one entity the County should be dependent upon to get the data, but also does not want to rely on the applicants for that data. Mr. Roberts proposed the language "based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County biologist." Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey agreed with that proposal. Chair Werling asked to change "established" to "suitable" in that same paragraph. Commissioner Lustberg pointed out that would mean there would be no development allowed on any offshore island and right now this language allows development on offshore islands so long as it can get the appropriate ROGO units, that it complies with all the land use maps, but no development or ROGO units can be transferred to the properties. Commissioner Miller asked to open this up to the idea of designating all offshore islands as Tier I. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 directs the County to discourage development proposed on offshore islands by methods, including but not limited to, designating offshore islands as Tier I lands. Each property is evaluated based on the tier criteria that has been adopted into the comp plan and code to see if they meet the criteria for the designation. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the proposed amended language for confirmation: "Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or semi -colonial birds nest together (referring to a location where a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depression in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities." Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion to approve with the amendments as read by the Planning Director as directed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. 15 3.PLAYA LARGO RESORT, 97450 OVERSEAS HWY, KEY LARGO, MILE MARKER 97.4: A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A 6COP-S ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW BEER, WINE, AND LIQUOR IN CONNECTION WITH OPERATION OF HOTEL, MOTEL, MOTOR COURT OR CONDOMINIUM; SALE BY THE DRINK FOR CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES AND PACKAGE SALES IN SEALED CONTAINERS. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 4B AND 5B OR AMENDED PLAT OF MANDALAY ON KEY LARGO, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ALSO A TRACT OF SUBMERGED LAND IN THE BAY OF FLORIDA FRONTING SAID TRACT 513, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00555010-0000000. (File 2016-014) (1:43 p.m.) Mr. Rains presented the staff report. Mr. Rains described the location and zoning of the property. Mr. Rains reported that the property is under substantial development at this time and is in for an application for special use permit to allow alcoholic beverage sales in connection with a hotel resort application. Mr. Rains described prior County actions on this property. Mr. Rains explained that within an application for variance from the parking it became evident that this was a closed resort to guests of the facility. Photographs of the property were shown. Surrounding properties that include alcoholic beverage use permits were listed. Mr. Rains recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were then outlined. Nicholas Mulick, Esquire, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mulick requested that C Condition Number 2 refer to "guests of the hotel" as opposed to "registered guests of the hotel." 0 Mr. Williams explained this is normally not an issue, but some of the variances received on this property expressly related to the parking issues on site. Mr. Williams suggested all people attending a special event could register as guests. co c, Jorge Cepero of Playa Largo was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and stated every weekend there will be some kind of event, so to have every guest register for every single event is not realistic. Mr. Cepero suggested using the language "hotel related uses." Commissioner Wiatt emphasized the fact that parking is the concern if the bar is open to non -registered guests. Mr. Cepero responded that the applicant is only restricted in not advertising for people to come into the bar and be served at the bar. Mr. Wolfe explained parking for a hotel contemplates functions like weddings. What is not covered and is specifically excluded is traffic from people coming into the bar. Ms. Santamaria clarified that the parking variance approved by Planning Commission Resolution Number P39-07 states "Alcoholic beverage sales shall be limited to registered guests of the hotel and registered guests at events at the hotel facility." Mr. Mulick asked to broaden the language slightly to include special events or catered events. Commissioner Lustberg noted that guests of a conference would be registered guests even if staying elsewhere. Mr. Cepero noted that is often controlled by people putting on the wedding or the event, not by the hotel. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey supports the Commission's attorney and County staff on this item. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked if the applicant would like to take a continuance for a month to go back and meet with staff and try to work out the language so it would be acceptable to all. Mr. Mulick stated the applicant is fine with Ms. Santamaria's language as read 16 from the resolution. Mr. Williams pointed out that the concern is not with the present applicant, but with what may happen two or three owners down the road who are not aware of everything that is agreed to here. Ms. Santamaria re -read Planning Commission Resolution P39-07 aloud. Chair Werling asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, resident of Key Largo, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then asked Mr. Cepero if the restaurant at the waterfront was no longer going to be open to the public as was previously believed. Mr. Williams pointed out that public comment is not an opportunity for the public to question the applicant. Ms. Moses stated that she had been told that the waterfront apartment was for employee housing only, which is not being called a commercial unit. The two residential areas on either side of this resort are members of the Federation of Homeowners Associations and are very concerned about any kind of impact the parking, traffic and noise will cause in those neighborhoods. Ms. Schemper added that some of these issues were dealt with during the conditional use approval. The approval on that site is for a hotel with restaurant and bar areas that are accessory uses to the hotel. The commercial apartment was approved as a commercial apartment, which means it can be for either employees or the owner to use on the site. One of the conditions in the conditional use permit is that there will be no outdoor entertainment past 10 p.m. Ms. Moses stated the noise ordinance in place now is not working. Joyce Newman, resident of Big Pine Key, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then repeated the story from a prior meeting about a piece of property on Big Pine Key that was proposed as a family restaurant and in short time became Coconut's Lounge. Ms. Newman cautioned the Commissioners to keep the big picture in mind. The neighbors of this resort are not only dealing with a drastic change in community character, but the whole community is dealing with a loss of affordable housing, so the developer ought to be able to give up something. Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Wiatt pointed out in fairness to the applicant that they have supplied affordable housing for their workers, but stated he is not willing to compromise on the parking. Chair Werling and Commissioner Miller agreed. Motion: Commissioner Wiatt made a motion to approve staffs recommendation with the language read by the Planning Director at the request of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMENTS Ms. Santamaria reminded the Commissioners that on March 1 and April 13 the adoption hearings for the Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan will be held. Staff is trying to organize a training session for the Planning Commission on March 17 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. on fair and effective zoning hearings. Commissioner Lustberg stated she will be out of the country, but would be happy to read any written minutes of the meeting. Ms. Santamaria will check to see if the video can be purchased for those who cannot attend. 17 Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Palo Alto Keys 1 00573440-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0,00 0.80 Palo Alto Keys 1 00091370-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 15.66 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573490-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.70 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573470-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.77 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573610-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.34 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573410-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.41 Palo Alto Keys 2 00573540-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573400-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.30 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573210-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573260-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.36 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573140-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0-00 1 0.00 0.35 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573170-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573310-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 1.06 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573390-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Palo Alto Keys 1 00091470-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 8.28 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573450-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.94 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.28 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573350-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.56 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573360-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.32 Palo Alto Keys 2 00573290-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.41 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573250-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.55 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573570-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.25 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573190-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573560-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573430-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.70 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573580-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.25 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573420-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.54 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573530-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.33 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573230-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.21 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573500-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.60 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Palo Alto Keys 1 00573480-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.77 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573320-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.97 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573460-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.79 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573340-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.65 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573270-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.25 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573180-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.19 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573520-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.40 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573150-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.28 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573330-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.79 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573280-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.27 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573220-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.18 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573600-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.33 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573620-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.43 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573240-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.33 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573300-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.70 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573380-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Palo Alto Keys 1 00091350-000000 RC 0.25 1.91 0S 0.10 0.77 1 7.65 66.81 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573200-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.11 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573160-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573550-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573370-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.22 Palo Alto Keys 1 00573510-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0,00 0.42 Palo Alto Keys 1 00091410-000000 Unclesignamd ............... ................. 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.36 Palo Alto Keys 1 00091360-000000 RC 0.25 0.62 0S 0.10 0.25 1 2.49 19.01 Palo Alto Keys 1 00091300-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 7.57 Palo Alto Keys 1 00091310-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 00 .1 0.00 I0.00 10.93 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Approx. Residential Zoning Approx, Residential Estimated Upland Map FLUM Residential Estimated Total Map Name RE Number FLUM Development Zoning Residential Development Tier Acres Based on GIS Page Allocated Density Acres Potential Allocated Density Potential Data 00091210-000100 00091210-000200 00091210-000600 00091210-000300 00091210-000000 00091210-000700 00091210-001000 00091210-001400 00091210-001200 Pumpkin Key 2 RM 1/10t 17 Is 1/lot 17 ORCA 24.18 25.05 00091210-001500 00091210-000800 00091210-000500 00091210-000400 00091210-001600 00091210-001100 00091210-000900 00091210-001300 3 00091240-000000 RM 1.00 0.71 as 0.10 0.07 Undesignated 0.71 66.62 Card Sound Road 3 00091230-000000 RM 1.00 0.16 05 0.10 0.02 Undesignated 0.16 7.19 4 00091630-000000 RM 1.00 4.06 05 0.10 0.41 1 4.06 0.40 Main Key 4 00091640-000000 RC 0.25 1,02 as 0.10 0,41 1 4.06 141.82 5 00083840-000000 C 0.00 0.00 as 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 7.60 5 D0083800-000000 C 0,00 0.00 as 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 154.32 Rattlesnake Key 5 D0083810-000000 C 0.00 0.00 as 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 26.43 5 00083860-000000 C 0,00 0.00 as 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 14.36 6 D0091710-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 as 0A0 0,00 1 0.00 11.35 Tavernier Key 6 00091720-000000 PC 6,00 0.00 as 0A0 0.00 1 0.00 20.65 7 00097090-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 as 0.10 0.00 Unclesignated 0.00 30.18 Cotton and Wilson Keys - 7 D0097110-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 as 0.10 0.00 Undesignated 0.00 19.32 Spoil Island - MM 73 8 00098100-000000 PC 0,25 0.00 as 0,10 0.00 Undesignated 0.00 3.43 9 00098940-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 as 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 7.90 ChannelKey 9 00098950-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 os 0'10 0.00 1 0.00 6.41 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Toms Harbor Keys 10 00098970-000000 RC 0.25 2.66 0S 0.10 1,07 1 10.65 49.40 Molasses Keys 11 00106200-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0.00 Unclesignated 0.00 6.38 Little Money Key 12 OD106140-000000 RC 0.25 D.00 0S 0.10 0.00 Unclesignated D.00 1.55 Money Key 12 00106180-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 Undesignated 0.00 1.10 Rachael Carlson Key 13 00105920-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0.00 Unde5ignated 0.00 1.05 Big Mangrove and Don Quixote 14 00107220-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 2.78 Keys 14 00317250-000100 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.77 15 00107950-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 6.20 15 00107920-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 4.51 15 DD1078SO-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 5.10 Newfound Harbor Keys - 15 00112110-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 10.15 15 00107860-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 23.94 15 00107890-000000 RC 0,25 0,75 0S 0,10 0,30 1 2.99 13.63 16 00107910-000000 RC 0.25 1.08 0S 0.10 0.43 1 4.32 80.79 16 00107900-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 CIS 0,10 0,00 1 0.00 30.17 Newfound Harbor Keys 16 00114330-000000 RC 0,25 0.87 0S 0.10 0.35 1 3.48 15.49 16 00107870-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 22.27 16 OD107830-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S OAR 0,00 1 0.00 4.78 Little Palm Island 16 & 18 00107880-000000 MC 6.00 25.20 DR 1.00 410 1 4.20 4.20 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-000000 RC 0.25 0.05 Cis 0.10 0.02 1 0.19 0.29 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-002700 RC 0.25 0.10 0S 0.10 0.04 >s 1 0.38 0.90 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-002600 RC 025 0.04 0S 0.10 0.02 1 0.16 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-000700 RC 0,25 0.06 0S 0,10 0.02 1 0.23 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003100 RC 0.25 0.14 0S 0.10 0.05 1 0.54 0.69 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Cooks Island 15 & 17, 00107930-002400 RC 0,25 0.05 0S 0,10 0.02 1 0,19 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-001S00 RC 0.25 0.05 0S 0.10 0.02 1 0.21 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003303 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.76 Cooks Island 15 & 17 D0107930-000500 RC 0.2S 0.03 0S 0A0 0.01 1 0.12 0.35 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-001300 RC 0,2S 0,08 0S 0,10 0,03 1 0.31 0.43 Cooks Island 15 & 17 OD107930-001900 RC 0.2S 0.02 0S 0.10 0.01 1 0.09 DAS Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-001100 RC 0,25 0.08 0S 0,10 0.03 1 0.33 0.55 Cooks Island 15 & 17 OD107930-000300 RC 0.25 0.06 0S 0.10 0.03 1 0.25 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 OD107930-001000 RC 0,25 0.07 Cis 0,10 0,03 1 0.26 0.40 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003300 RC 0.25 0.09 0S 0.10 0,04 f 1 0.35 0.68 Cooks Island 15 & 17 OD107930-003306 RC 0,25 0,05 0S 0,10 0,02 f 1 0.19 0.97 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003304 PC 0.25 0.06 0S 0.10 0.02 1 0.22 0.46 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003000 PC 0.25 0.09 0S 0.10 0.04 1 0.36 0.90 Cooks island 15 & 17 00107930-000200 RC 0.25 0.07 0S 0.10 0.03 1 0.26 0.38 Cooks Island 15 & 17 D0107930-001800 RC 0.2S 0.05 ()S 0.10 0.02 1 0.19 0.34 Cooks island 15 & 17 00107930-000600 PC 0.25 0,06 0S 0,10 0,02 1 0.22 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-002900 RC 0.25 &04 0S 0A0 0.02 1 0.17 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-001400 RC 0.25 0.06 05 0.10 0.02 1 0.23 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-002100 RC 0.25 0.04 0S 0.10 0.01 1 0.14 0.34 Cooks Island 15 & 17 DD107930-002701 RC 0,25 0.04 Cis 0,10 OX)l 1 0.14 0.22 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003305 RC 0.25 0.04 0S 0.10 0,02 1 0.16 0.36 Cooks Island 15 & 171 D0ID7930-003307 RC 0,25 0,05 0S 0,10 0,02 1 0,18 0.66 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00I07930-000900 RC 0.25 0.23 0S 0.10 0.09 1 0.92 18.02 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-002500 RC 0.25 0.25 0S 0.10 0.10 1 0.99 1.38 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003401 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.01 7.09 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-003400 RC 0.2S 0.01 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.03 7.07 Cooks island 15 & 17 00107930-003402 RC 0.25 0.13 0S 0.10 0.05 1 0.51 7.80 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-001700 RC 0.25 0.02 0S CIAO 0.01 1 0.08 0.17 Cooks island 15 & 17 00107930-002200 RC 0,25 0.08 0S 0.10 0.03 1 0.32 0.94 Cooks Island 15 & 17 OD107930-002800 RC 0.25 0.15 0S 0.10 0.06 1 0.58 1.55 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Cooks Island 15 & 17, 00107930-002000 RC 0,25 0.02 0S 0,10 0.01 1 ss 0,09 0.18 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-001600 RC 0.25 0.02 0S 0.10 0.01 1 0.08 0.18 Cooks Island 15 & 17 00107930-000100 RC 0,25 0.02 0S 0,10 0.01 1 0.07 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228810-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232630-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228010-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232670-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231700-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230430-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229150-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233100-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232260-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227650-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232070-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230290-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232610-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232790-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233780-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226960-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.10 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231300-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232010-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230580-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231970-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230690-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229280-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232320-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232560-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231360-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234110-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231940-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232380-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232440-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233850-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.30 Pieces of Eight Key 19 002297SO-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232660-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230100-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231840-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232280-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234080-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234120-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233060-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232960-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227120-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.10 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227000-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.25 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232080-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229990-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228950-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232800-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231660-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230400-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229120-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232210-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230550-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226620-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231760-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226920-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227160-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.06 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228980-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234160-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229600-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230120-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229540-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.30 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233900-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227630-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226660-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227410-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230380-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231410-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234060-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227980-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226850-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231820-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232950-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233890-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230040-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226880-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231690-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226860-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.34 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231810-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231870-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232180-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228500-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228480-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233790-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232430-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234170-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232160-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228190-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228460-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233770-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229530-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233410-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226730-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226900-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.37 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231520-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228600-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228560-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230140-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229020-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228960-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227260-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.06 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230280-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229550-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233740-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226800-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226790-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232820-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228690-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232530-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231630-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227970-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229820-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228650-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231280-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230960-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226720-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231680-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227670-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228050-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229100-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231980-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227370-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230190-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232980-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233930-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229030-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232410-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231540-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233080-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231610-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229170-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232020-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231580-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232540-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226680-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233120-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232220-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230480-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229860-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233870-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227300-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229040-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233020-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232520-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226930-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229740-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227210-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.10 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227640-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229390-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227240-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.05 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232930-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227400-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232500-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228030-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227380-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227250-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.07 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230540-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229950-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231830-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227010-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.11 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226950-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.09 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228910-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233880-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228140-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230000-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232840-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231650-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228550-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231470-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231480-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232910-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234240-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232040-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.28 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232030-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227680-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229110-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227320-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231330-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227990-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227350-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230220-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230350-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229870-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228470-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232170-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227360-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228090-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231770-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232550-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231930-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226840-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227220-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.03 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230560-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230710-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232370-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231950-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231490-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228990-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232620-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231780-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230260-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228530-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226760-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230440-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233860-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231270-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231600-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226700-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228630-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.44 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233970-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233830-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229880-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227620-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230170-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229610-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234040-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226600-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.09 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233420-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231750-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230340-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230180-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231350-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228490-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230090-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232000-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232870-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232200-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234100-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233760-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228750-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.27 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229960-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228880-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232780-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227610-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233390-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231260-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227390-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231560-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233820-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228610-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.27 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232140-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231710-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234070-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231900-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229980-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231800-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227060-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232150-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228900-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230050-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232340-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233190-000000 PC 0.25 0.04 0S 0.10 0.01 1 0.14 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234140-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227290-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227190-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.21 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233050-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233180-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.01 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232510-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227270-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.04 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230460-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231960-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229770-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234270-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.07 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232920-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230330-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231420-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232990-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231850-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.44 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228170-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230310-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232760-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231400-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226750-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233430-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.26 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227180-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.06 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232060-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230570-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234090-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229970-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229630-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230720-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228680-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230300-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232810-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227170-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.05 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233910-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227020-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.11 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232600-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231340-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226970-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226980-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227960-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228130-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229160-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.27 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227040-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226830-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229620-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230530-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232740-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226820-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230060-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226940-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.09 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228180-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227340-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232310-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231620-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233920-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233730-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.25 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228160-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233200-000000 PC 0.25 0.04 0S 0.10 0.01 1 0.14 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226690-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227280-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.25 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233110-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231670-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232880-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229760-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230070-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231740-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.21 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231460-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231720-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227110-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.09 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228830-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228660-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230450-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231430-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229010-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230200-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232690-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226990-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226780-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229140-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230370-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231310-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231510-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227310-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227230-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.03 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228020-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232590-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233990-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229560-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226770-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230080-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234150-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231550-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226170-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230110-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227130-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.09 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233720-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.21 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228200-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229270-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232640-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228940-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232470-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234250-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230250-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228970-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232860-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232330-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231370-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.25 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230360-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232830-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229850-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230210-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232090-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233950-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230410-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227330-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231730-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228740-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226710-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233010-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 002290SO-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232490-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231570-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228510-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227090-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231380-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232270-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232240-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227140-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.06 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228720-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231790-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226870-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232710-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228760-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.63 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226610-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.04 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227600-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233090-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232290-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228890-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 002266SO-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229130-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 002281SO-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229670-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.25 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228520-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229930-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232400-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230490-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230320-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232450-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.21 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229290-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233000-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231880-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230950-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232730-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228840-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226740-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228710-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227150-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.06 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232350-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228000-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230130-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233840-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228120-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234050-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229640-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234000-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.21 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230230-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232580-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227080-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226630-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.03 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230030-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232680-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232390-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229890-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232190-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234230-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231500-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229730-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233070-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231290-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 002322SO-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227200-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233810-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231320-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227100-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.09 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232360-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232900-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226640-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.26 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228730-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.21 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227070-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229060-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226890-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.49 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228580-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.27 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231440-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230020-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233980-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232460-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231890-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232890-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233960-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 002327SO-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233940-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230470-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226810-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227830-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227750-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227730-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232850-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228220-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227780-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227760-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228300-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228380-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227460-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228360-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227420-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.25 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232050-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.26 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227770-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228420-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227480-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227850-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228400-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232700-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.24 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228040-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228800-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232300-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232130-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234220-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230670-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00234130-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232230-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229000-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231530-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232940-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227030-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.10 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230700-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228540-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232970-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226670-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233800-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233380-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228620-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.31 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232770-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227660-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230390-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232420-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231910-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233750-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231920-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232720-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233400-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228570-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.22 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229580-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.27 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232480-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230240-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230270-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228210-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228640-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233030-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226180-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227810-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231450-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.30 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228340-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231250-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228320-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.28 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227820-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231640-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228410-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228290-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227430-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227860-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227720-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228390-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228330-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227510-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228430-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227470-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232120-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.21 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228350-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227440-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227840-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228440-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228310-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227500-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227490-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228370-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227870-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227710-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227700-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228280-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.18 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228450-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.25 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227580-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227450-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227690-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.00 0.15 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227520-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228820-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231390-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231990-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00230420-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228670-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227050-000000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.16 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232570-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228700-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00228790-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233040-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 0.14 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00232650-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.12 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00226910-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.19 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00229570-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 V)o 1 0.00 0.21 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00231860-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.13 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00227740-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.17 Pieces of Eight Key 19 00233130-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 0.15 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres 20 00107630-000000 RC 0,25 1.14 0S 0,10 0,46 1 4,57 6.66 20 00107590-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 13.45 Surnmerland and Howell Keys >s 20 00107620-000000 RC 0,25 0,59 0S 0,10 0.24 1 2.36 3.46 20 00114460-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 15.88 20 00114420-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 11.83 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 D0114410-000401 RC 0.25 0.41 0S 0.10 0.16 1 1.62 3.36 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114410-000200 RC 0,25 0.40 05 0,10 0.16 1 1.61 2.66 Knock-Enn-Down Keys 21 00107500-000108 PC 0.25 0.50 0S 0.10 0.20 1 1.99 3.94 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 OD107500-000106 RC 0,25 0.38 0S 0,10 0.15 1 1.53 3.52 Knock-Enn-Down Keys 21 DD114400-000200 RC 0.25 0.00 Cis 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 6.11 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 DD114400-000600 RC 0,25 1.21 0S 0,10 0A8 1 4.82 6.35 Knock-Enn-Down Keys 21 0D107501-000104 RC 0.25 0.09 0S 0.10 0.04 1 0.35 0.95 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114400-000700 PC 0.25 0.55 0S 0.10 0.22 1 2.19 8.61 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114410-000600 RC 0.25 0.17 05 0.10 0.07 1 0.68 3.99 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 D0107500-000101 RC 0.25 D.29 C)s 0.10 0.12 1 1AS 7.48 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114400-000500 PC 0.25 0,17 0S 0,10 0,07 1 0.66 9.71 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114380-000100 RC 0.25 031 0S 0A0 013 1 1.25 2.98 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114400-000300 RC 0.25 0.63 05 0.10 0.25 1 2.53 7.39 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00107500-000102 RC 0.25 0.29 0S 0.10 0.11 1 1.14 4.64 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 DD107500-000105 RC 0,25 0.33 Cis 0,10 0.13 1 1.31 3.69 Knock-Enn-Down Keys 21 OD107450-000000 RC 0.25 0.70 0S 0.10 0,28 1 2.80 10.31 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114410-000700 RC 0,25 0'00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 7.79 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 0D114390-000100 RC 0,25 0.80 OS 0.10 0.32 1 3.18 7.95 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114410-000900 RC 0.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 3.66 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114360-000000 RC 0.25 0.41 05 0.10 0.16 1 1.62 18.98 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114410-000000 RC 0.25 0.06 0S 0.10 0.02 1 0.22 4.30 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114800-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 31.40 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114370-000100 RC 0.25 0A2 0S CIAO 033 1 3.29 10.56 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114410-000100 RC 0,25 1.68 0S 0.10 0.67 1 6.72 8.25 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 0D114370-000300 RC 0.25 0.33 0S 0.10 0.13 1 1.33 2.77 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00107500-000103 RC 0,25 0.23 0S 0,10 0,09 1 0.90 4.05 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114370-000400 RC 0.25 OAS 05 0.10 0.06 1 0.60 2.89 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114400-000100 RC 0,25 1.37 05 0,10 0.55 1 5.47 12.10 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 D0107500-000107 RC 0.25 O.So 0S 0A0 0.20 1 1.99 4.28 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00114370-000000 RC 0,25 0,08 0S 0,10 0,03 1 0.32 2.48 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 OD114370-000200 RC 0.25 0.13 0S 0.10 0.05 1 O.S3 2.72 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00107460-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 0.92 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 00107420-000000 RC O.25 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 1.04 Knock-Em-Down Keys 21 0D114410-000500 RC (3,25 0.08 Cis 0,10 0,03 1 0.31 8.72 Knock -Ern -Down Keys 21 OD114410-000400 RC 0.25 0.30 0S 0.10 0,12 1 1.21 3.38 Crab Key 22 0D115200-000000 RC 0,25 0.20 0S 0,10 OM 1 0.79 6.08 22 00115180-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 11.76 Gopher Key 23 00107780-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 Undesignated 0.00 7.87 24 00107290-000100 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 1.40 24 00107290-000200 RC 0.25 D.OS 0S 0.10 0.02 1 D. 18 2.60 24 00107290-000901 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 2.63 24 00107290-000501 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 1.33 24 00107290-001000 RC 025 0.00 05 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 1.08 24 00107290-000300 RC 0.25 0.07 05 0.10 0.03 1 0.28 2.49 Budd Keys 24 00107290-000000 RC 0,25 0,03 0S 0,10 0X)1 1 0.13 1.26 24 00107290-000900 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 1.27 24 00107290-000800 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 1.40 24 00107310-000100 PC 0.25 0.28 0S 0.10 0.11 1 1.10 1.39 24 00107310-000100 RC 0.25 0.28 05 0.10 0.11 1 1.10 1.28 24 00107310-000100 C 0.00 0.00 0S 0.10 OA1 1 1.10 0.47 Buttonwood Key 25 00116780-000000 C 0.00 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 Undesignated 0.00 0.21 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres 26 1 00120040-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 8.00 26 00119970-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 1.50 26 00119920-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0.00 4.85 26 00119960-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 9.28 Saddlebunch Keys 26 00119950-000000 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 7.54 26 00120020-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 I. 1 0.00 11.73 26 00119910-000000 RC 0,25 0.00 05 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 2.45 26 00120010-000000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 5.85 Half Moon Key 27 00117100-000000 RC 0,25 0,08 0S 0,10 0,03 1 0.32 8.42 Half Moon Key 27 00117020-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 63.28 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-001300 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 2.95 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000500 PC 0.25 0.08 0S 0.10 0.03 1 0.33 4.21 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-001000 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 6.30 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-001200 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0.00 5.42 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000300 RC 0.25 0.00 C)s 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 2.60 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000700 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 4.24 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000701 PC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 2.92 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000400 RC 0,25 0.10 05 0,10 0,04 1 0.38 4.66 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000201 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 1.39 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000100 RC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0.00 1 0.00 2.86 Half Moon Key 27 00117090-000900 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 5.67 Half Moon Key 27 00117080-000000 PC 0,25 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0,00 10.43 28 00117140-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 24.37 28 00117150-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 8.85 Similar Sound 28 00117170-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 20.18 28 00117190-000000 PC 0.25 0.51 0S 0.10 010 1 2.03 129.94 28 00122130-000000 RC 0.25 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 5.23 NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM FLUM Residential Allocated Density Approx. Residential Development Potential Zoning Zoning Residential Allocated Density Approx, Residential Development Potential Tier Estimated Upland Acres Based on GIS Data Estimated Total Acres Mallory Key 29 00116560-000000 C 0,00 0,00 0S 0,10 0,00 1 0.00 37.71 Marvin Keys 30 00116300-000000 C 0.00 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 26.54 30 D0116290-000000 C 0.00 0.00 0S 0.10 0,00 1 0.00 7.79 Mudd Keys 31 00116500-000000 C 0.00 0.00 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 16.26 West Harbor Key 32 00116200-000000 Undesignated ............... ................................ ............... ............... ............................... ................................ ............... I ................. ................. I ................. I ................. 0S 0.10 0.00 1 0.00 50.17 Wisteria Island 33 00123950-000000 Unclosionatcd ............... ................................ ............... ............... ................. ................. 0S 0,10 1.87 Undesignated 18.70 39.03 Ballast Key 1 34 1 00124030-000000 1 Undesignated ................................ ................................. ................................ t ................. 0S I 0,10 131 I Undesignated I 13.10 I 14.28 I approximation for Ballast Key Density or allocated density means the number of duelling units or rooms allocated per gross acre of land by the plan. Gross acre means the total area of a site excluding submerged lands, tidally inundated mangroves, not to exceed mean high tide, and any publicly dedicated rights-opossr. NOTE, acreage provided is an estimate. A property owner may submit a sealed boundary survey which shows mean high water lines in accordance with Florida Statutes and specifically provides the numeric amount of land situated above mean high water. Map 1 - Pala Ago Keys Northeast of Ocean Reef 56 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 149A FLUM: Residential Conservation (RC) and Undesignated Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier 1 w*st s iYata Srrur .hAgruuv Grun9y- ruwih. e9 mem-GIs Northwest of Ocean Reef 17 Parcels Parcel Acreage-, 25,05 FLUM: Residential Medium (RM) Zoning-, Offshore Island (OS) Una signate)Tier M Map 3 - Card Sound Road North of Card sound Reed Marcel Parcel Acreage: 73,81 FLUM: Undesigndted Zoning-, Offshore Island (OS) Undeslgnated filer N s' 0al.13, a A9 vv COL" - Growfi N9aft g*M ns - WS Map 4 - Main Key Barnes Sound W South of Card Sound Road Parcels Parcel Acreage 142,22 FLOW Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier l w' Daia $owm: Ma:snn '..�sunty Groirth Manage Gis Map ) ?R§$##Raee Key East of Key Largo# %R( ]f+?% Parcel Acreage, 202,71 PLUM: Conservation(C) Zoning: Offshore + d ƒ \ Tier As � / \ Map ' - Tavernier Key East of Tavernier r of MM 92 2 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 2 FLUM, Residential Conservation (FCC) Zoning; Offshore Island (OS) Tier l S 111*1, Data Source: be!ro"Y-G M-nmem-GIs.. Mafia 7 ® Cotten and Wilson Keys North of Windley Frey at Mtn 84 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 49,5, FL UM: Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning, Offshore Island (t ) Undesignated Titer N w - is 9rb : h2anra¢ Gbunty C;ru tvtanagement •+aiS Map 8 - Spoil Island - Mile Marker 73 Perth ofAnnes Beech at M M 73 1 Parcel Marcel Acreage: 3A3 FI:UM: Residential Gonservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore;Island (OS) Undesignated Tier V D2ta SwrM 4b—o County CkPwhmUTNaguwCm-Gt5 Map 9 - Channel Key North of Duck Key at MM 61 2 Parcels Parcel Acreage, 14,31 FLUM: Residential Conservation (RC) ZoninOffshore island (OS) Tier I 8 Map 1Toms, Harbor Keys Toms Harbor Channel between Grassy and Chuck Keys I Parcel Parcel Acreage: 49:4 FLUM: Residential Conservation (FCC) Zoning: Offshore island (OS) Tice l w 1ala.S... ";*only-^G—th GIs Map 11 _ Molasses Days South of even -Mile Bridge - MM 42 1 Parcel Paroel Acreage: 6.39 FLUM: Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Undesignated 'Tier N s 12 r Money and Map 13 - Rachael Carlson Key South of Ohio Key at MM 39 1 Parcel Parcel Acreage: 1.05 FLAN: Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Undesignated Tier N NV Df. 4*wm M,-. C ... tyC.-A. M-g-M, GIS Map 14 - Big Mangrove and Don Quixote Keys' Spanish Harbor - South of No [dame Key Parcels Parcel Acreage: 3.55 FLUM-. Residential Conservation (R Zoning: Offshore Island (08) Fier I N D to aemcn: Ma C+wnty ii h h inagement --GM Map 15 - Newfound Harbor Keys South of Big Pine }fey - Newfound Harbor 44 Parcels Parcel Acreages 12064 LUM: residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier 1 N Data Sanrce: Monroe County Cnw4r #rianugcment-G:S Map 16 - Newfound Harbor Keys Pine Channel - South of Little Torch Key 6 Parcels Parcel Acreage; 157�71 FLUM: Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) and Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning, Offshore Island (OS) and Destination Resort (DR) Tier I Map 1 - Cooks Island Newfound Harbor- South of Big Fine Key 8 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 57.11 PLUM: Residential Conservation (RC) and Residential Low (RL) Zoning'. Offshore Island (OS) Tier l N * r Data a- h#nrreo C.-ly- &.mh ag-mmm GIs lamm Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) EMEMIMEEMM West of tattle Torch Key -Torch Ramrod Channel FLUM-. Residential Conservation (RC) Map 20 - Surnmerland and Howell bays North of Surnmeriand Key 5 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 51.29 FLUM: Residential Conservation;(RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier. I r� W* 7n{a $sass. F#9 - C—tp - G & ant m - GIs North of Surnmedand Key 34 Parcels Parcel Acreag a-, 222.89 FLU M: Conservation (C) and Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier I Map 22 - Crab0`e South at S rnmerland Key 2 Parcels Parcel Acreage! 17,84 FLUK residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier i N w s C34.wh mwap.m -GIs Map 2 - Gopher Key South of Cudjoe Key I Parcel Parcel Acreage: 7W FLU - residential Conservation,( ) Zoning: Offshore'Island (OS) Undesigneted Tier Map 24 - Budd Keys North of Cudjoe Key 12 Furls Parcel Acreage` 18,6 LUM: Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier I w 4 Dw.8- ftRt55iM.Yt! GIs Mafia 25 r Buttonwood Key North of Park Ivey at MM 18 1 Parcel Parcel Acreage-. 0.21 PLUM: Conservation ( ) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Und signafed Tier N W_* 0'" $.01cw W'g'o0 c.vnCy - G.vAh .M3wm ,l - GIs Map 2 - ddl bun h Keys' Southwest of Sugarloaf Key of MM 13 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 51. FLUID: Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier I N W*E Map 27 Half Moon Key North of Big Coppitk and Shark Keys at M M 10 14 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 125.35 FLUM: Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning: Offshore island (OS) Tier i N ��• - r s iiala Stiwc�: RtK+�tt4 ^�ntlniy- Girowm hiarii jN:!v t4 GI&. Map /% - Similar Sound \ Southeast R Geiger Key 2ƒ{cel¥ ParcelAcreage: 183,57 FLUM, Residential C2R o �Zoning: Offshore .Island Tier i Map 29 - Mallory Key Florida Pay - North of Big Copgitt Key 9 Parcel Parcel Acreage: 37Y1 FLUM: Conservation () Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier I N Mfg Sacacn:. Mantua C...1V Srnw:':h agemenK-�aIS Map 30 - Marvin Keys 2 Parcels Parcel Acreage: 34-33 FLUK Conservation (C) Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Tier I 0 Florida Bay - North of Big Coppitt Key I Parcel FLUM-. Conservation (C) Zoning, Offshore Island (OS) Tier! Map 3 - West Harbor Key Gulf of Mexico e North of Key Wes Parcef Parcel Acreage: 50,17 FLUM: Residential Conservation (RC) Zoning; Offshore Island (OS) Tier l w-W .,....___.. 3 S-c: Aianroe t;t:unty �rtw#h ht cmeni Gk� ... ...... . . . .. ........ . RR \\ © WisteriaIand Northwest/ y West 4 Parcel \ \ParcelAcreage ; 390 ` QSig% \m>tAeeeIsland S » Undesignatedf¥ Map 34 - Ballast Key Gulf of Mexico - Southwest of Key West 1 Parcel Parcel Aticreaga: 14.28 FLUM: Undeaignatdd Zoning: Offshore Island (OS) Undesignated Tier �r S. FJAIASOua..#.iunrve Courdy-Growth mg®inert.-GIS. Memorandum To: Mayte Santamaria and Christine Hurley CC: Bob Shillinger From: Steve Williams Date: 6/27/2016 Re: "Semi -colonial" Issue: If we add "semi -colonial" bird rookeries to the policy prohibiting offshore island development, what legal ramifications might the County be expose to? Short Answer: The exposure and risk of including the language will likely be greater than if "semi -colonial" is omitted. No legal benefit to including the additional and undefined language can be found. Analysis: The Planning Commission has suggested the following language to be added to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource a eel cy best available data or survev as verified by the Count gist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or semi - colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depression in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. a7� identoed The issue has been raised as to whether the addition of "or semi -colonial" birds is a necessary or beneficial addition to the Comprehensive Plan. This language has never existed in previous versions any Monroe County Ordinance, Resolution or Plan of any type. Further research indicates that "semi -colonial" is not included in any other regulation in the State of Florida that I could locate. Using Munipro to search the Ordinances and Resolutions for every jurisdiction in Florida using Municode, I conducted searches for "semi -colonial", "semicolonial", "semi -colonial rookery" and "semicolonial rookery". All searches came back with either zero results or results that iJ June 27, 2016 merely included the word "semi". There were no relevant search results for the whole state. To the best of my legal and online searching and inquiry of staff, "semi -colonial" is an undefined term. At best, I was able to locate a report entitled "North Dakota Colonial and Semi -colonial Waterbird Inventory 2-14-2015" (http://www.birdeonservanc .org/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/NDColonialWaterbirds FinalReport 2015. )ddf). Despite using the phrase "semicolonial" throughout the report in the context of "colonial and semicolonial", it fails to define the term. Westlaw, our traditional legal research tool, has no definition, or even mention, of semi -colonial in any search I performed. In contrast, and by no means traditional legal research sources, Merriam Webster - Dictionary and Wikipedia have no mention of semi -colonial rookeries. The Wikipedia page devoted to "Bird Colony" has no mention of "semi -colonial" at all. I only raise the Wikipedia and dictionary examples as there is simply a dearth of any information attempting to define this term. The term is rarely used and no working definition has been put forward that even mildly be said to be accepted largely in the scientific community. "When a term is undefined by statute, `[o]ne of the most fundamental tenets of statutory construction' requires that we give a statutory term `its plain and ordinary meaning.' When necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning `can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary.' Further, it is well -settled rule of statutory construction that in the absence of a statutory definition, courts can resort to definitions of the same term found in case law." Pct. Dep `t of Revenue v. New Sect Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 So.2d 954, 961 (F1a.2005) (quoting Rollins v. Pizzcrrelli, 761 So.2d 294, 298 (F1a.2000) (citations omitted)). In the instant case of "semi -colonial", not even a dictionary helps. If the County were to incorporate language into its Comp Plan that is not defined, the County's exposure to matters ranging from takings cases to unintended moratoria may result. An attempt to draft language that would include "semi -colonial" birds with an eye toward a particular offshore island would subject all offshore islands to the same definition. It is not, and perhaps can not, be known what subjecting every offshore island in Monroe County to the "semi -colonial" limitation would do to the property rights and development potential of every offshore island. If we attempted to stop development on an offshore island that was not contemplated at any point during the discussion of the policy for a species never mentioned, I do not foresee the defense of such an action going well for the County. 2 This resource is based on the following source: Kale, H. W., II, B. Pranty, B. M. Stith, and C. W. Biggs. 1992. The atlas of the breeding birds of Florida. Final Report. Florida Game ai Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. This resource can be cited as: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003, January 6. Florida's breeding bird atlas: A collaborative study of Florida's birdlife. http://www.myfwc.com/bba/ (Date accessed mm/dd/yyyy). White -crowned Pigeon Columba leucocephala This tropical pigeon breeds on the Florida Keys, the Bahamas, and in the Antilles, the Cayman Islands, and islands of the western Caribbean Sea (Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Habitat. The White -crowned Pigeon typically nests on mangrove keys from southern Biscayne Bay south through the Marquesas Keys. This pigeon requires two distinctively different habitats to produce young successfully (Strong et al. 1991; Bancroft 1996). Nesting requires isolated mangrove islands that are free of predators. It feeds in hardwood forests that bear fleshy fruit. Nesting and feeding habitats typically are separated by several miles of water. The limited extent of suitable feeding habitat defines where nesting occurs. Breeding adults in Florida Bay fly 5 to 40 km (3 to 25 mi) on feeding trips to the mainline keys or to the southern mainland (G. T. Bancroft, unpubl. data). The birds build a stick nest placed anywhere from ground r N'Skxt, level to high in the canopy (Wiley and Wiley 1979; G. T Bancroft, unpubl. data). Two white eggs are laid, and bothy. parents share in incubation and brooding duties and Illustration © 1995 Diane Pierce, All Rights Reserved. feeding the young. Incubation takes 13 to 14 days. Young birds leave the nest when they are 16 to 20 days ol( but, generally do not leave the nesting keys until 25 to 40 days old (G. T. Bancroft, unpubl. data). White -crowned Pigeons feed almost exclusively on the fruit of tropical hardwood trees. Poisonwood, blolly, shoi leaf fig, and strangler fig are extremely important, especially during the breeding season. After the breeding season, fruiting trees such as strongbark, snowberry, mastic, pigeon plum, and sea grape are also important. Seasonal Occurrence. In Florida Bay, White -crowned Pigeons nest from early May through September. Generally, 2 major periods of nesting occur one in late May to early June and a second, larger peak in late July early August. K The White -crowned Pigeon is a locally abundant resident of the Florida Keys and the southern mainland tip fror April to September. During the remainder of the year, populations decrease to only a fraction of summer numbers. Most White -crowned Pigeons in Florida migrate to the Bahamas, Cuba, and the Greater Antilles durin the fall. Status. Major nesting concentrations occur in Florida Bay (Strong et al. 1991; G. T. Bancroft, unpubl. data) an on mangrove islands in the lower Keys. A few birds have been found nesting on the human -inhabited keys and on the mainland. On 22 June 1991, the northeastern breeding record was established when a nest with eggs w found along a canal near Chapman Field Park in Dade County by Ginni Hokanson. The northwestern edge of th( breeding range was determined by Curtis Kruer, who observed fledged young near Shark Point in Monroe Cour in 1990. It is suspected that small numbers of White -crowned Pigeons breed along the west coast of Everglade National Park, possibly as far north as Cape Romano, but the inaccessibility of this area makes confirmation difficult. Nests are relatively easy to find because adults flush in a characteristic manner when a person passes within about 9 m (30 ft) of the nest. Presence of cooing birds is not a reliable indicator of nesting, because bird coo while on feeding grounds. The species is threatened in Florida as well as throughout much of its Caribbean distribution (Arendt et al. 197� Bancroft 1996). Over hunting has reduced its numbers in the Caribbean. In Florida, its decline is due to habitat destruction; and it is listed as a threatened species by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission [editor: now Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] (Wood 1991). Protection of the remaining fragments of tropical hardwood forest in the Florida Keys and of wintering grounds the Bahamas and the Greater Antilles is critical for the preservation of this species in Florida (Bancroft 1996). G. Thomas Bancroft Sponsored by Stella Elkins Reeves Possible1 1• Probable• A al Confirmed 9 o' rr t 0 Flight -line counts of nesting white -crowned pigeons (Patagioenas leucocephala) and the impact of hurricanes in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, 2000-2011. Tom Wilmers Wildlife Biologist October 7, 2011 Abstract Flight -line counts of White -crowned Pigeons (WCPI) were performed from 2000-2011 to obtain an index to the number of nests. Using the highest annual count for each island (n — 246), a mean of 3,300.5 nests per year (range = 2,322 — 4,642) and 161.0 nests per count were recorded. Three widely distributed islands accounted for 46% of all nests: Barracouta Key (i, _ 650.0) in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge (KWNWR), and East Bahia Honda Key (. _ 509.9) and Sawyer Keys (I = 374.1) in the east (GWHE) and central (GWHC) sectors, respectively, of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge (GWHNWR). Of 12 islands that averaged more than 100 nests annually, 6 were in GWHE, 3 in GWHC, and 3 in the KWNWR. In GWHE, the availability of sizable foraging areas in multiple directions is the likely causal reason for the high number of nesting birds there. Hurricanes drastically impacted WCPI in 2005. Nesting virtually ceased in July after Hurricane Dennis. Hurricane Wilma (October) severely damaged upland foraging areas and further devastated the mangrove nesting areas. In 2006, the number of nests in the study area was lower than any other year. Before Hurricane Wilma, Barracouta Key held more than twice as many nests (r = 946.0) than any other island, but during the next 6 years averaged 591 fewer nests (63% decline) per year. In sharp contrast, nesting in the GWHNWR rose sharply after 2007, and from 2008-2010 nest numbers were higher each year than any of the other previous 8 years. In 2010, counts on 6 islands, 5 in GWHE, were the highest on record. Possible reasons for the marked post-2005 differences between refuges in the recovery of the nesting populations are discussed. The WCPI nesting population in the U.S. is limited to a single county and complacency is unwarranted. Foraging areas in the Florida Keys have already been diminished greatly by development. Ominous threats to foraging areas arise from climate change, including projected increases in the frequency and severity of hurricanes and droughts, the latter of which was the likely cause in 2011 for a 40% decline in the number of nests in the GWHNWR. Acquisition of remaining hardwood hammocks -- regardless of size -- and encouraging landowners to plant fruit - producing trees favored by WCPI are recommended. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 METHODS 4 RESULTS 5 A. All counts 5 B. High counts only, all sectors 6 a. Islands that averaged > 100 white -crowned pigeon nests 6 b. Barracouta Key 6 c. Post 2003 decline at Mule Key 7 C. Hurricanes impacts and post -hurricane population trend 7 a. Hurricane Dennis (July 9 2005) 7 b. Hurricane Wilma (24 October 2005) 8 c. Hurricane impacts and post -hurricane population trend on Barracouta Key 8 d. Hurricane impacts on other islands in the KWNWR 9 e. Hurricane Impacts and Population Trend in GWHNWR after the 2005 hurricane season 10 D. The 2011 drought 10 DISCUSSION 10 IMPLICATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS 14 LITERATURE CITED 15 APPENDICES 27 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of all counts, including replicate counts. 18 Table 2. Highest counts only for each island (n=246), 2000-2011. 18 Table 3. Peak count by island and year, 2000-2011 19 Table 4. Mean of the highest yearly flight -line counts (HQ 20 Table 5. Summary of the highest flight -line counts by year and sector 21 Table 6. The 12 islands that averaged more than 100 nests per year 22 Table 7. Percent of annual nests for 12 islands with the highest mean counts. 22 Table 8. Mean and percent of nests in the study area for the 12 largest colonies 23 Table 9. Number and percent of nests on Barracouta Key 23 Table 10. Highest counts on Barracouta Key before and after the 2005 hurricanes 24 Table 11. Mean number of nests in the Key West NWR, 2000-2005 and 2006-2011 24 2 Table 12. Number of WCPI nests in the Great White Heron NWR before and after the 2005 hurricanes 24 Table 13. Percent change in the number of nests after the 2005 hurricane season for for 6 GWHNWR islands surveyed > 11 years 25 Table 14. Highest counts for 9 islands in the Great White Heron NWR in 2010 and 2011, a year of severe drought 25 Table 15. Highest counts for 5 islands in the KWNWR in 2010 and 2011, a year of severe drought 26 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Number of WCPI nests, 2000-2011. 26 Figure 2. Mean of the highest annual counts at 13 islands surveyed for >_ 11 years 27 Figure 3. Number of WCPI nests in 2005 for the 8 islands surveyed before and after Hurricane Dennis 27 Figure 4. Percent decrease in the number of WCPI nests in 2005 for 7 islands surveyed after Hurricane Dennis 28 Figure 5. Islands with the largest mean number of WCPI nests, 2000-2005 28 Figure 6. Peak number of nests on Barracouta Key, 2000-2011 29 Figure 7. Mean of the highest WCPI counts in the KWNWR 29 Figure 8. Percent change in the number of nests for two 6-year periods 30 APPENDICES Appendix 1. List of the 39 islands surveyed for nesting White -crowned Pigeons 31 Appendix 2. Acronyms and their corresponding island names 32 Appendix 3. Charts for WCPI colonies that were surveyed for >_ 11 years and averaged > 100 nests 33 Appendix 4. Boxplots showing mean, median and range of annual nests at WCPI colonies that were surveyed for > 11 years and averaged > 100 nests 37 ki I' INTRODUCTION The White -crowned Pigeon (WCPI) nests from the northern Florida Keys south to the coastal margins of the Caribbean (Bancroft and Bowman 2001), where its population has been decreasing over a wide area (Dammaman 1977, Arendt et al. 1979, Wiley 1979, McNair 2008). In the U.S., nesting is limited to the Florida Keys. Nearly all nesting occurs on mangrove islands uninhabited by man (Bancroft 1996). Islands populated by raccoons (Procyon lotor) may be shunned (Strong 1991). Considered an obligate frugivore (Strong and Bancroft 1994, Bancroft and Bowman 2001), in Florida it is a Threatened Species because of continuing destruction of its foraging habitat: tropical hardwood forests in the Florida Keys (Bancroft 1996). Nesting birds forage on fruits in tropical hardwood forests on the mainline keys (islands linked by U.S. Highway 1) (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). However, some radio -tagged birds nesting in the KWNWR consume seed at bird feeders in Key West (Meyer and Wilmers 2006), a highly - developed tourist mecca. WCPI begin nesting in mid- to late May, with two pronounced peaks: one late May -June, the other from mid -July through August (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). By October, some 90% of the birds have migrated from the U.S. (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). A research priority is assessing WCPI nesting populations (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Lacking this information precludes formulation of a comprehensive strategy for this species (Bancroft 1996). Substantive data on islands used for nesting and the distribution and numbers of nesting pairs in the Lower Florida Keys were nonexistent before the present study was initiated. Objectives were to assess distribution, numbers, and population trend of nesting WCPI in the FKNWR. METHODS From 2000-2011, 415 flight line counts (Strong et al. 1994) were conducted at 39 islands (range = 14-33 per year) in the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge (GWHNWR) and Key West National Wildlife Refuge (KWNWR) (Appendix 1). All counts were made from 0820-1010 hours, a period when 85% of WCPI returning to an island are breeding males (Strong et al. 1994). Thus, for each island, the number of incoming males multiplied by 0.85 is an index to the number of nests. All count data reported herein have been multiplied by 0.85, the product of which in this report is used synonymously with the number of nests and nesting pairs. Surveyed islands ranged from 0.4-47 ha. In GWHNWR, islands were selected on the basis on size, accessibility, ease of counting, or prior knowledge of high nesting density. Random selection was not used because: 1) over flights, in which a WCPI passes over an island but does not stop, w could not be accurately monitored at all islands; 2) some larger islands could not be accurately ;j surveyed by one person; and 3) flight lines for some islands were obscured by neighboring keys. a) 11 Because of the very short distance between the individual islands in the Sawyer Keys, the group was considered a single island during counts. In all other instances, counts were made at individual islands. Marked differences in the shapes and sizes of islands and their direction to available foraging areas precluded making counts from a standardized distance or direction. However, careful measures were taken to maximize detection of incoming birds. First, in all instances, the boat was stationed strategically between the surveyed island and the mainline keys (islands linked by U.S. Highway 1), where the pigeons forage. Second, WCPI flying toward a surveyed island may be difficult to see, especially when flying low over the water, because their dark color may blend in with the vegetation of islands along the flyway. Therefore, the boat was positioned to reduce the vegetative backdrop of non surveyed islands and thus maximize the view of birds flying to a surveyed island. Including replicate counts at some islands, 25 to 45 counts were made annually. Because all surveyed islands in the west sector of GWNWR had very low numbers of WCPI (see Wilmers 2002) for 5 consecutive years, counts in that sector were discontinued in 2004 so that: 1) replicate counts could be performed at islands with higher WCPI nesting populations; and 2) to perform counts at selected islands not previously surveyed. Performing replicate counts at islands with larger WCPI nesting populations enhanced the likelihood that an island would be counted during the peak of each breeding season. Because the same islands were not surveyed each year and the number of replicates per island differed among years, using yearly totals alone cannot provide an index to the population trend. However, 13 islands were surveyed for 11 or more years. From 1 to 36 counts were performed at the 39 islands during the study period, with individual islands surveyed as many as 6 times in a single nesting season (Bahia Honda Key). For islands surveyed more than once per nesting season, only the highest count was used to determine the number of nests. The highest annual count for each island was summed to obtain total nests for the study area each year. Of the 415 counts, only the highest count per nesting season for each island (n =246) is used for analyses. Each island was assigned to one of four geographic sectors: the KWNWR sector and three sectors in GWHNWR: East (GWHE), Central (GWHC), and West (GWHW) (Appendix 1). Acronyms for islands are used in tables and figures. A list of acronyms and their respective islands is provided in Appendix 2. RESULTS A. All counts -- White -crowned pigeons nested on each of the 39 islands. The mean of the 415 counts (includes replicate counts) was 179.9 (SE = 9.8) (Table 1). Hereafter, only data for the highest annual counts (n=246) for each island are considered. E 5 B. High counts only, all sectors — The effects of the 2005 hurricane season and the post -storm population trend will be discussed later in this report. A total of 39,606 nests, a mean 3,300.5 nests per year and 161.0 (SE = 13.7) nests per count were recorded (Table 2). The total number of nests per year ranged from a low of 2,322 nests in 2006 (the year after Hurricanes Dennis and Wilma) to 4,642 nests in 2010 (Fig. 1). Although many refuge islands were not censused, the number of nesting pairs during 10 of the 12 years exceeded Bancroft and Bowman's (2001) casual estimate of 2,500 pairs for the entire Lower Florida Keys (Table 2). High counts ranged from 6 on Pigeon Key to 1,306 on Barracouta Key (Table 3). Mean high counts for islands surveyed 3 or more years varied from 5.0 on Fish Hawk Key (GWHW) to 650.0 on Barracouta Key (KWNWR) (Table 4). Mean high counts by sector ranged from 11.4 nests (GWHW) to 197.3 nests (GWHE) (Table 5). The highest annual mean number of nests in GWHW was only 20.0 in 2004. The highest mean number of nests per sector in a single year was 493.3 nests in GWHE in 2010 (Table 5). Thirteen islands were surveyed for 11 or more years. Of these, means and peak annual counts were lowest on Crawfish Key and highest on Barracouta Key, followed by East Bahia Honda, Sawyer, and Crane Keys (Fig. 2). a. Islands that averaged > 100 WCPI nests: Twelve islands had mean high counts in excess of 100 nests per year and as group averaged 279.0 nests per year (Table 6). Of these, 6 (East Bahia Honda, Horseshoe, Teakettle, Coconut, West Bahia Honda, and Hardup) were in the GWHE sector, 3 (Sawyer, Crane and Riding) in the GWHC sector, and 3 (Barracouta, Archer and Mule) in the KWNWR. Seven islands had a mean high count of more than 200 nests during the study period (Table 6). For perspective, in the GWHW sector, the highest single count at an island in GWHW was only 26.0 nests (Marjoe Key). These 12 islands accounted annually for 80 to 99 percent of all nests (Table 7). Although the number of colonies surveyed after 2005 was decreased to allow replicate counts at larger colonies, even before then these 12 islands still accounted for as much as 92% of all nests (i.e., 2002, Table 8). Three islands, Barracouta, East Bahia Honda, and Sawyer Keys accounted for 49% of all nests during the study period. Excepting Horseshoe and Archer Keys which were surveyed for 5 and 8 years, respectively, the other 10 islands were surveyed for 11 or more years. Charts showing the annual number of nests for each of these 10 islands are provided in Appendix 3. w b. Barracouta Key -- That Barracouta Key averaged nearly 150 more nests per year than any other island -- despite a drastic reduction after the 2005 hurricane season (discussed later) -- E manifests the importance of this island prior to Hurricane Dennis. It accounted for 68% of all nests in the KWNWR (Table 9) and 20% of all nests in the study area. For 6 consecutive years i! (2000-2005), the highest single count in the study area was recorded at this island. For 3 years this island contained more than 1,000 nests (peak = 1,306 nests in 2003) and in one other year held 993 nests (Table 9). For perspective, only one other island in the study area, East Bahia Honda Key, contained more than 800 nests (2010) during a single count. The next highest counts (each 700 nests) were recorded on East Bahia Honda Key (2008 and 2009) and Crane Key (2010). c. Post-2003 decline at Mule Key — In 2002, a steep decline (77%) occurred at Mule Key (KWNWR), an island where counts were performed for 12 consecutive years. In 2000 and 2001, high counts of 325 and 392 nests, respectively were recorded (mean = 359 nests). In 2002, the highest count was only 91 nests, a 77% decline. Number did not increase thereafter: from 2003- 2011, mean annual high counts averaged only 55.4 nests (range = 8-108, Table 3). The reason(s) for this drastic reduction are unclear but may be related to human disturbance at the nesting colony. For many years, 10 or more kayakers have disembarked from a commercial boat(s) -- perhaps daily -- and circumnavigated Mule Key. The year this began is not known. Nesting WCPI are sensitive to human disturbance (Bancroft and Bowman 2001), but the effect of kayakers is unknown. C. Hurricanes Impacts and Post -hurricane Population Trend The 2005 hurricane season in the Florida Keys was the most active in recorded history. Two hurricanes, Hurricane Dennis (July) and Hurricane Wilma (October) greatly impacted nesting WCPI, with the latter a more severe (Category 3) storm. a. Hurricane Dennis (July 9 2005) -- Of the two distinct peaks in the WCPI nesting season, the second (beginning in mid -July) is higher (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Hurricane Dennis, a rare July hurricane (see StormPulse 2011), struck the Florida Keys on 9 July 2005 and drastically impacted WCPI nesting. The storm defoliated WCPI nest trees throughout the study area and greatly reduced or caused the cessation of nesting. Eight islands (Barracouta, Coconut, Crane, Crawfish, East Bahia Honda, Hardup, Sawyer, and Teakettle) were surveyed in 2005 before Hurricane Dennis. At these sites, the number of nests declined by an average of 87 percent (range = 47-99) after the storm (Fig. 3). This severe decline was likely greater, perhaps even 100%. For example, East Bahia Key had the lowest post -storm decline (47%) in 2005. During the highest (July 12) of the two post -storm counts at this island, virtually all of the incoming birds, which by protocol had to be counted, landed in the tops of trees, sometimes near other WCPI, and lingered. It is my belief that all WCPI nests, which are flimsily constructed, were destroyed by the storm and that the incoming birds were acting on latent instinct to return to their nesting island, even though the nests were destroyed. Regardless, since WCPI nesting peaks in mid -July, in the absence of a hurricane, June counts should be lower, not greatly higher than July. Excepting 2006, the total number of nests in 2005 was far lower than any other year of the 12- year study. The 16 June 2005 count on Barracouta Key (n = 1030 nests) was made prior to the hurricane and accounted for 44% of all nests in the study area in 2005. Had that count not been E performed before the hurricane, total nests in 2005 for the entire study area would have numbered %I only 1,335. After the storm's passage, a 19 July count revealed only 31 nests, a post -storm decline of 97% (Fig 3). Seven other islands (sectors cited below in parentheses) that had not yet been surveyed prior to Hurricane Dennis but had been surveyed in previous years -- including the year before the storm -- were surveyed in July 2005 after the storm: Big Mullet (KW), Horseshoe (GWHE), Little Mullet (KW), Mule (KW), Riding (GWHC), Sandfly (GWHE) and West Bahia Honda (GWHE). Means (highest annual count for each island) for the counts of previous years (for Horseshoe Key 2004, the only available data) were compared to the July counts after Hurricane Dennis. Declines averaged 88% (range 53-100) for these islands (Fig. 4). As noted earlier, the reported declines, large as they were, likely are underestimates, with perhaps no nesting whatsoever occurring in 2005 after Hurricane Dennis. b. Hurricane Wilma (24 October 2005) — Hurricane Wilma was a category 3 storm. Its winds W and storm surge (> 2 m) severely damaged not only the WCPI's mangrove nesting islands but a. 0. also the bird's upland foraging areas on the mainline keys (islands linked by US Highway 1). E Both nesting and foraging habitats were in poor condition in 2006, when the number of nests was 0 the lowest of the 12-year period. Co c. Hurricane Impacts and Post -hurricane Population Trend on Barracouta Key -- The storm wreaked havoc on the Barracouta Key nesting area. Ground surveys in 2002 revealed that a large number of WCPI were nesting in the black mangrove forest on the island's interior. Hurricane I Wilma's storm surge transported marl from the bay bottom to the island's interior, smothering the CD black mangrove's pneumatophores and killing virtually all the trees (Wilmers per obs). Six years >. later, the area that once harbored the black mangroves is still barren (see Plates 1-4). The red 2.1 mangroves were defoliated but had largely recovered by 2009 (see Plate 3). Plates 1-4. The zone of dead black mangroves billed by Hurricane Wilma on Barracouta Key, 23 December 2005 to 17 December 2010. To date, the once prime black mangrove nesting habitat remains barren. Red mangroves (outer fringe) were defoliated but recovered. Plate 1. 23 December 2005 Plate 2. 14 November, 2006 E:3 Plate 3. 19 February 2009 Plate 4. 17 December 2010 The importance of Barracouta Key as a nesting area prior to the hurricanes of 2005 cannot be overstated. For 6 consecutive years, (2000-2005, includes the 2005 count made prior to Hurricane Dennis), the mean highest counts on Barracouta Key (T' = 946.0 nests) were more than twice that of the next largest colony, Sawyer Key (I = 410.7 nests) (Fig. 5). Mean high counts averaged 63% less (591 fewer nests per year) than the previous 6-year period (Table 10). In 2011, a high count of only 248 WCPI nests was recorded, the lowest of the 12-year period and 1,058 fewer nest than the highest count in 2003. Despite this severe decline, Barracouta Key accounted for 72% all nests in the KWNWR during the study period. The magnitude of nesting at the Barracouta Key colony before the 2005 hurricane season may have been even greater than documented. From 2000-2005, no more than 2 counts were made annually at the island (Fig. 6). Numbers of nests may vary throughout the nesting season, thus, the peak of the nesting season may have been missed during any or all years because too few surveys were performed. Following the storm, survey intensity was increased, with 4-6 annual counts made from 2006-2011 (Fig. 6) to increase the probability of counting during the peak of the nesting season. The severe, prolonged decline at Barracouta Key manifests the impact of the 2005 hurricanes on WCPI and their vulnerability to stochastic events. The devastation of nesting and, especially, foraging habitat by Hurricane Wilma -- a far more severe hurricane than Hurricane Dennis -- is the likely cause for the marked drop in WCPI nests in the KWNWR. d. Hurricane Impacts on other islands in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge -- The mean number of nests for each island was assigned to one of two periods: 2000-2005 (Period 1) and 2006-2011 (Period 2), the period after the 2005 hurricane season. At 5 of 6 islands in KWNWR, the mean number of nests declined during Period 2 (Table 11). During Period 2, the mean number of nests increased at only one island, Little Mullet Key. Although the sample sizes for each island are small for each year, they do provide evidence that there was no large shift from w Barracouta Key to other islands. An additional island in KWNWR, Archer Key, was not C considered because it was surveyed only once before the 2005 hurricane season, precluding E calculation of a pre -storm mean value. Z Including Barracouta Key, the mean high count for islands in KWNWR has been markedly lower every year since the 2005 hurricane season (Figure 7). e. Hurricane Impacts and Population Trend in the GWHNWR after the 2005 hurricane season -- Unlike KWNWR, WCPI nesting in GWHNWR rebounded — albeit slowly in 2006 and 2007 -- largely due to the robust increase in GWHE (discussed below). The three highest counts in GWHNWR were recorded from 2008-2010 (Table 12). In 2010, for the first time, the sum of the high counts in GWHNWR totaled more than 4,000 nests. In that year, the mean high count per island was 468.6 (SE= 77.7, range = 130-881). Record high counts were found at 6 islands, each of which contained more than 300 nests (range = 321- 881): Coconut, Crane, East Bahia Honda, Horseshoe, Teakettle, and West Bahia Honda. Except for Crane Key (GWHC), all of these islands were in the GHWE sector. For perspective, 2010 accounted for 15% of all nests recorded in the GWHNWR during the 12-year study period. Given manpower constraints, performing replicate counts at the largest colonies likely provides greater insight into the peak number of nesting pairs. For 8 islands in GHWNWR that were surveyed for 11 or more years, mean high counts after 2005 increased markedly at 5 of them, rising from 64 to 322 percent (Table 13). The small � decreases at both Riding and Sawyer Keys (both in the GWHC sector) may be due to a shift to nearby Crane Key, the island with the largest increase (333%) in the number of nests after 2005 CD (Table 12).Cq D. The 2011 drought and number of WCPI nests -- During 2011, a severe drought occurred in the Florida Keys. The period from January -June was the driest on record in Marathon and the third driest on record in Key West (National Weather Service 2011). In GWHNWR, 1,679 fewer nests were recorded in 2011 than 2010, a decline of 40% (Table 13). The highest count was lower for each of the 9 surveyed islands (Fig. 9), with declines ranging from 16% on Riding Key to 64% on Horseshoe Key (Table 14). In KWNWR, the highest count at 4 of 5 surveyed islands was lower in 2010 than 2011, with an overall decline of 16% (Table 15). Of particular note was Barracouta Key, where the highest count of 248 nests in 2011 was the lowest of the study period, 19% lower than 2010. DISCUSSION Data presented here have limitations because both the number of islands surveyed each year and the number of replicate counts per island differed among years. As noted, after 2004 the number E of surveyed islands was reduced to increase the number of replicate counts at islands with the highest number of nests in previous years. More, variability in the onset and termination of WCPI nesting due to food availability (Bancroft et al. 2000) was not considered. I did not know if counts were made at the peak of the nesting period for any individual colony. Thus, the data reported here represent minimum numbers of E nests. 10 That 6 of the largest colonies were present on the same islands in GWHE over a protracted period may be due to a number of factors. First, was the widespread availability of foraging areas in multiple directions from the nesting colonies (Fig. 10). Figure 10. Islands in the east sector of Great White Heron NWR showing colony size and location in relationship to available foraging areas (arrows). During some counts, it was clear that most incoming WCPI flew to an island from a single direction. Depending on the date and , concentrations of incoming birds were observed funneling from the direction of Marathon, Bahia Honda State Park, West Summerland Key, No Name Key, and/or Big Pine Key, islands as much as 32 km apart (Fig. 10). On a few counts, some incoming birds flew to East Bahia Honda Key from a direction that appeared to be northeast of Marathon, possibly Curry Hammock State Park or other nearby hammocks, a distance of ca 25 km. On windy days (> 15 knots), flying into the wind to reach a foraging area may be energetically inefficient for WCPI, hence the likely advantage of available foraging areas in multiple directions. Second, is the variation in fruiting phenology among foraging areas. Although poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum) is the most important food during the nesting season (Bancroft and Bowman 2001), it is unavailable during the early part of the breeding cycle and may also be differentially available by area over the course of a nesting season. t Having a number of foraging areas available on islands situated in a wide arc from the nest site .. may thus provide a more reliable food source throughout the nesting season. In this regard, East Bahia Honda Key, the largest nesting colony in GWHE each year, is instructive. The island is 12 E km from the nearest foraging area -- more distant from a single foraging area than any other island surveyed in GWHE. Yet, taken as a whole, for East Bahia Honda Key available foraging areas (Marathon --including Crane Point Hammock, Boot Key, and hammocks near Marathon Airport -- Bahia Honda State Park, No Name Key, Big Pine Key, and perhaps Curry Hammock State Park) are more uniformly distributed than for any other island in GWHE (see Fig. 10), with distances ranging from 12 km (Bahia Honda State Park) to 18 km (a large hammock near the Marathon Airport used by a radio -tagged WCPI). Within the limits of the WCPI's normal foraging range (see Bancroft and Bowman 2001), the distance to a foraging area may be a secondary factor for nest selection. As with East Bahia Honda Key in GWHE, in both GWHC and KWNWR the islands with the mean highest counts, Barracouta Key and Sawyer Keys, were farther from the nearest foraging area than any other surveyed island in their geographic sectors. White -crowned pigeons are territorial (Wiley and Wiley 1979, Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Thus, other factors being equal, more nesting pairs would be expected on a large than a small island. Data support this premise. Mean high counts during the study period were highest on the three largest islands within each sector: 26.0- 46.7 ha on East Bahia Honda, Sawyer and Barracouta, respectively. Hurricanes Impacts and Other Factors Affecting Population Recovery -- As evidenced by the virtual cessation of WCPI nesting in both GWHNWR and KWNWR after July's Hurricane Dennis, even a moderate hurricane may be consequential during the nesting season. Since young from the June broods likely suffered high mortality during Hurricane Dennis, recruitment in 2005 minimally was halved in both GHWNWR and KWNWR. Post -hurricane recovery of WCPI nesting populations differed greatly between geographically proximal refuges. a. Hurricane Recovery in the KWNWR -- Damage to both nesting and foraging habitat during the 2005 hurricane season -- particularly by Hurricane Wilma -- were the likely causal reasons for the protracted decline in WCPI nesting in KWNWR. That the nesting population was greatly concentrated on one island, Barracouta Key, and that no apparent post -hurricane shift to less damaged islands has occurred, warrants concern. Radio -tagged WCPI nesting in KWNWR foraged exclusively in the City of Key West (Meyer and Wilmers unpubl. data). Hurricane damage to WCPI foraging areas in Key West was not critically evaluated, but was clearly evident in December 2005 at the City's parks: Little Hamaca Park and The Indigenous Park (Wilmers pers obs). Of special significance are the exceptionally large fruit -bearing trees, many non native, in the Old Town residential section of Key West. Before the hurricane, not all trees in Old Town were E species that bore fruit eaten by WCPI, but those that did, because of their large size, provided a significant food source. Hurricane damage to these trees was not quantified but was readily apparent during drives through various roads there (Wilmers per obs). w The City of Key West Tree Commission oversees protection of these trees for aesthetic reasons. Whether the Commission's efforts will ensure long-term protection is uncertain. Each year it is E likely that because of storm damage, advanced age, safety concerns (see DeSantis 2012), nuisance 12 (leaf or fruit cleanup) issues or a desire for less shade, or other reasons, there are requests to remove trees. That the large WCPI nesting population in KWNWR was at least partially a result of measures to perpetuate trees for aesthetic reasons in a largely developed tourist mecca is not only ironic but cause for concern. Although a Historic Tree Commission exists to protect trees, large trees are sometimes cut (DeSantis 2011, DeSantis 2012). More, land use policies and practices in Key West may change over time. Further, replacement of storm -damaged trees in Key West, while laudatory, may not include species that produce fruit for WCPI (see Miles 2011). Technical assistance provided by WCPI scientists and botanists to the Tree Commission and/or citizens of Key West might promote consideration of the WCPI's foraging needs and the importance of Key West as a foraging site. On city -owned property, there are severe inherent constraints given the residential setting of Key West. For example, fallen fruits may be slippery and cause human injury (C. Domenech-Coogle, pers. comm). Larger fruit -bearing trees may uproot sidewalks, their fallen branches may damage vehicles, and their fruits may stain home or automobile paint. Lastly, the gooey mess created by tropical whitefly invasions on trees in Key West (see DeSantis 2011) and throughout the Florida Keys has created a nuisance. In sum, the WCPI's future is tenuous in KWNWR and cause for concern. The nesting population is largely dependent on fruit -bearing trees on private lands with myriad owners in a bustling tourist town. The WCPI nesting population remains suppressed 5 years after Hurricane Wilma. Barracouta Key, where the bulk of WCPI nested in KWNWR, remains severely damaged — the large area once harboring black mangroves remains barren. Hurricane Recovery in the GWNWR -- Post -hurricane recovery in GWHNWR required 2 years, but nesting thereafter greatly increased and exceeded pre -storm levels. Possible reasons why the population recovered in GWNWR but not KNNWR merits discussion. First, surveyed islands in the GWHNWR, while severely damaged, were composed primarily of red mangrove, many of which by 2008 had resprouted and created nesting cover, unlike the large black mangrove forest on the interior of Barracouta Key in the KWNWR which even today is barren. Second, unlike WCPI in the KWNWR, those nesting in the GWHNWR were not limited to foraging on a single island, particularly in GWHE. Further, the size of the foraging areas available to birds nesting in GWHNWR was much larger than that available to birds in the KWNWR. Even in GWHC, on various counts incoming birds nesting on Crane, Riding and Sawyer Keys were observed coming from the direction of the Torch Keys, Cudjoe Key, and Sugarloaf Key, a huge area. Again, it is not know how many of the enormous fruit -bearing trees in Key West were killed during the 2005 hurricane, but the loss of relatively trees may have been consequential. The strong recovery of the nesting population in GWHNWR does not diminish the threat of future hurricanes to WCPI nesting in the U.S. The entire population is restricted to a very small area and a category 4 or higher hurricane has not struck the Keys in 50 years (i.e., Donna). w The 2011 Drought — Bancroft et al. (2000) reported that rainfall, fruiting phenology and WCPI nesting were linked. Given the severity of the 2011 drought in the months leading up to the WCPI's nesting season, it is likely that reduced fruit production was the causal factor for the 13 year's marked reduction in the number of nests. This is cause for concern: the frequency and severity of droughts are expected to rise as a result of global climate change (Hoerling and Kumar 2004, Brashears et al. 2005, Ryan et al. 2008, Karl et al. 2009). Other considerations The White -crowned Pigeon is an excellent barometer of the ecosystem for several reasons. The bird requires two distinctly different habitats: mangrove islands for nesting and the fruits of upland hardwood species for feeding. The former is protected and abundant, but is susceptible to hurricanes, the damage from which may be protracted on some islands. The bird's foraging habitat, while partially protected, inexorably continues to diminish. Occurring primarily at an elevation of < 1 m AMSL, it is vulnerable to even moderate sea level rise. The WCPI's food supply is inconstant between years. Within the same year, the phenology and quantity of fruit -production for the same trees species may differ among islands because, for example, differences in rainfall. Further, the foraging areas are susceptible to hurricane damage, with recovery relatively swift for some areas (e.g. GWHE, GWHC) and slow, if at all, in others (KWNWR). . The very low number of nests in GWHW merits discussion. The surveyed islands are similar in appearance to those in each of the other three sectors, and have an abundance of red (Rhizophora mangle) and black mangroves (Avicennia germinans) favored for nesting. A lack of high -quality foraging areas within normal foraging distances may be the ultimate factor for the low numbers of nests. Even before the Florida Keys were developed, few tropical hardwood forest foraging areas were proximal to GWHW. The nesting population there may have been low there even before the Florida Keys were developed by man. The distribution of WCPI nesting colonies is supposedly nearly parapatric with the distribution of raccoons (Strong et al. 1991). This mammal was not confirmed in GWHW, but if it were present, that alone cannot account for the low number of WCPI there. Raccoons were confirmed in adjacent GWHC on several islands, including Sawyer Key (Wilmers pers. obs.), which had the second-largest number of nests in the study area. Other factors being equal, birds nesting on smaller islands (< 1 ha) are more prone to human disturbance. Such sites essentially have no buffer to disturbance — even birds nesting in the island's center are only a short distance from the island's periphery. For this reason, small islands warrant special attention to curb trespass and disturbance. Although WCPI were found nesting on all surveyed islands, a few widely distributed islands harbor the bulk of the nesting population. While preservation and protection of these islands are especially important, all islands merit preventive law enforcement measures to guard against trespass. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WCPI nesting colonies are within protected federal and state refuges and parks in the Florida Keys, but much of the bird's foraging habitat is not. Foraging areas in the Florida Keys have E already been diminished greatly by development (Strong and Bancroft 1994) and, given current 14 land use practices, further losses are inevitable. The future of the WCPI in Florida, then, is inextricably tied to preservation of foraging areas. Preservation or enhancement of foraging areas is recommended (see Bancroft and Bowman 2001). This could be in the form of a cooperative management agreement, with incentives provided for private landowners, or preferably, by land acquisition. An innovative outreach program is needed to promote the planting of native trees that produce copious fruit for white - crowned pigeons yet have growth habits commensurate with small lot sizes, particularly in Key West lots. Blolly, black torch, and pigeon plum (Coccoloba diversifolia), among others are ideal for such settings. It would be unrealistic to suggest planting poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), a plant that may cause severe skin rash. Bancroft and Bowman (2001) prudently recommended acquiring all remaining tropical hardwood forests greater than 5 ha in the Florida Keys. However, in the Lower Florida Keys, few such tracts remain in private ownership. Thus, attention must be focused on smaller tracts as well. Loss of this habitat continues to occur on a lot -by -lot basis. Where food is abundant, WCPI may forage regularly and heavily in tracts of less than 0.1 ha (Meyer and Wilmers umpubl. data). Complacency is unwarranted regards the WCPI's future in the Florida Keys. In the KWNWR the number of nests remains greatly reduced 6 years after the 2005 hurricane season. The frequency and intensity of droughts and hurricanes are projected to rise as a result of climate change (Webster et al. 2006, Breshears et al. 2005). The WCPI population on the Caribbean islands has been drastically reduced (Wiley 1979), yet large scale hunting continues in that region (E. Carey, pers. comm.). The latter may impact the U.S. population since nearly all WCPI nesting in the U.S. overwinter on Caribbean islands (see Bancroft 1996). Preserving foraging and nesting habitat throughout the WCPI's range should be a conservation priority. Preservation of tropical hardwood forests is further merited because it is a globally imperiled habitat that is under intense pressure from development. Literature Cited Arendt, W.J., T.A. Vargas Mora, and J.W. Wiley. 1979. White -crowned Pigeon: status range wide and in the Dominican Republic. Proc. Annual Conf. Southeast Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 33: 111-122. Bancroft, T.G. 1996. White -crowned Pigeon (Columba leucocephala). Pp. 258-266 in J.A. Rodgers, H.W. Kale 11, and H.T. Smith, eds. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, vol. V. Univ. Presses Fla., Gainesville, FL. N Bancroft, T.G., R.B. Bowman, and R.J. Sawicki. 2000. Rainfall, fruiting phenology, and the nesting season of White -crowned Pigeons in the Upper Florida Keys. Auk 117: 416-426. E Bancroft, G. T., R. Bowman, R. J. Sawicki, and Allan M. Strong. 2000. Relationship between the reproductive ecology of the white -crowned pigeon and the fruiting phenology of tropical hardwood hammock trees. Florida. Fish and Wildl. Conservation Commission, Final w Report,. Tallahassee. 156 pp. + vii. Bancroft, T.G. and R. Bowman. 2001. White -crowned Pigeon (Columba leucocephala). The Birds of North America No. 596. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA. I1ki Blankinship, D.R. 1977. Studies of White -crowned Pigeon populations, natural history and hunting in the Bahamas. Pp.36-39 in Proceedings of the International White -crowned Pigeon Conference. Bahamas National Trust, Nassau, Bahamas. Breshears, D.D. N. S. Cobb, P. M. Rich, Kevin P. Price, C. Allen, R. G. Balice, W.H. Romme, J. H. Kastens, M. L. Floyd, J. Belnap, J.J. Anderson, O. B. Myers, and C. W. Meyer. 2005. Regional vegetation die -off in response to global -change -type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:15144- 15148. .mac Dammaman, A.E. 1977. The White -crowned pigeon in the U.S. Virgin Islands, with notes from the Lesser Antilles. Pp. 23-24 in Proc. International White -crowned Pigeon Conference. Bahamas National Trust Fund. DeSantis, J. 2011. Virginia Street trees coming down. Key West Citizen, December 8, 2011. DeSantis, J.D. 2012. Champion tree will likely not be spared. Key West Citizen. a http://keysnews.com/node/42121. Accessed 9 September, 2012. Hay, D.B. 2008. Report of the White -crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) Working _ Group. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 21:110-112. C- Hoerling, M. and A. Kumar. 2004. The perfect ocean for drought. Science 299: 691-694. E Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York Meyer, K. D., and T. J. Wilmers. 2006. Foraging habitats, winter residency, survival, and co philopatry of adult white -crowned pigeons (Patagioenis leucocephala) in the lower Florida Keys. Final Report NG03-013 to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Cq CD McNair, D.B. 2008. Conservation implications of the current breeding distribution and abundance of the White -crowned Pigeon Patagioenas leucocephala at St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Caribbean Journal of Science 44: 311-320. National Weather Service. 2011. Drought information statement. Issued 6 July 2011. htlp:///www.srh.noaa.gov/productview.php?pit=DGTKEY&max=61. Accessed September r_ 30, 2011. Miles, M. 2011. Donation replants Georges -damaged trees. htlp:Hkeysnews.com/node/29308. 'a. Accessed 22 January 2011. Rivera-milan, F. 1996. Nest density and success of columbids in Puerto Rico. Condor 98:100- 113. Ryan, M.G., S.R. Archer, R.A. Birdsey, C.N. Dahm, L.S. Heath, J.A. Hicke, D.Y. Hollinger,; T.E. Huxman, G.S. Okin, R. Oren, J.T. Randerson, and W.H. Schlesinger. 2008. Land -� resources: Forests and and lands. Pp. 75-120 In The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. StormPulse. 2011. July landfall hurricanes. htlp://www.stormpulse.com/storm-archive/us- i2 landfalling-hurricanes/jul. Accessed 6 January 2011. E Strong, A.M., R.W. Sawicki, and G.T. Bancroft 1991. Effects of predator presence on the nesting distribution of White -crowned Pigeons in Florida Bay. Wilson Bull. 103:415-425. Strong, A.M., R.W. Sawicki, and G.T. Bancroft 1994. Estimating White -crowned Pigeon population size from flight -line counts. J. Wildl. Manage. 58-156-162. w Strong, A.M. and G.T. Bancroft 1994. Postfledgling dispersal of White -crowned Pigeons: implications for conservation of deciduous seasonal forest in the upper Florida Keys. Conserv. Biol. 8: 770-779. c� 16 Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, and H. R. Chang. 2006. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. 2006. Science 16:1844-1846. Wiley, J.W. 1979. The White -crowned Pigeon in Puerto Rico: status, distribution, and movements. J. Wildl. Manage. 43: 402-413. Wiley, J.W. and B.N. Wiley. 1979. The biology of the White -crowned Pigeon. Wildl. Monograph 43: 1-54. Wilmers, T.J.1998. An aerial survey of great white heron nests and evaluation of damage to islands after Hurricane Georges. Unpubl. rep. Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, November 2, 1998. 5pp. Wilmers, T.J. 1999. Notes on recovery of selected backcountry islands 13 months after Hurricane Georges. Unpubl. rep. Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, October 28, 1999. 4pp. Wilmers, T.J. 2002. A survey of nesting White -crowned Pigeons (Patagioenas leucocephala) in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, 2000-2002. 17 Table 1. Summary of all counts (n = 415), including replicate counts, 2000-2011. Year Counts Mean SE Sum Max' _ 2000 26 100.5 30.4 2613 705 2001 27 110.0 39.4 2970 1022 2002 24 118.5 40.7 2843 650 2003 45 138.3 38.3 6224 1306 2004 35 167.3 37.7 5854 993 2005 25 114.8 42.6 2870 1030 2006 42 97.2 16.0 4083 416 2007 38 211.3 23.8 8029 568 2008 42 216.6 24.8 9097 700 2009 34 250.5 27.2 8515 700 2010 34 362.7 38.6 12332 881 2011 43 214.7 23.4 9232 677 Total 415 179.9 9.8 74662 Highest yearly count at a single island. Table 2. Highest counts only for each island (n=246), 2000-2011. Year Counts Mean SE Sum Maxi 2000 26 100.5 30.4 2613 705 2001 27 110.0 39.4 2970 1022 2002 24 118.5 40.7 2843 650 2003 33 113.7 43.6 3751 1306 2004 26 166.2 43.2 4321 993 2005 15 157.6 68.5 2365 1030 2006 19 122.2 27.9 2322 416 2007 16 194.1 45.7 3105 568 2008 16 254.3 50.8 4069 700 2009 15 243.4 54.0 3651 700 2010 14 331.6 73.0 4643 881 2011 15 196.9 48.5 2953 677 Total 246 161.0 13.7 39606 -Highest yearly count at a single island. Table 3. Highest count for each island by year, 2000-2011. Key 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Maxi arch 392 139 81 42 59 392 bcou 705 1022 621 1306 993 1030 337 568 324 348 306 248 1306 bfind 10 4 7 16 13 16 bmul 54 34 19 49 65 0 18 21 31 34 23 22 65 bspa 9 9 btkcut 14 4 14 Coco 76 85 76 191 150 157 218 325 287 315 512 300 512 coon 1 14 3 3 14 Cott 156 82 22 53 72 41 92 156 crane 89 26 49 275 62 139 337 422 457 700 485 700 crawf 53 41 19 48 22 11 24 31 33 27 13 53 crawl 32 91 48 91 ebho 339 206 579 498 446 206 416 472 700 700 881 677 881 fhawk 2 6 7 7 frie 23 20 20 9 13 28 28 hard 140 42 131 110 193 226 125 53 127 79 212 101 226 hmang 14 8 14 14 hsho 400 16 245 342 511 355 519 188 519 hurr 8 8 jing 27 18 30 21 3 18 30 jkmn 19 34 14 5 1 34 lmul 51 56 36 39 48 3 45 50 84 41 26 19 84 l mk 30 30 lspa 9 11 11 mar 21 37 24 21 27 37 mule 325 392 91 53 108 8 20 97 50 37 43 54 392 chml 57 57 chm2 33 33 pchm3 14 44 44 pigeon 6 6 ridi 57 77 223 65 189 52 26 56 158 117 130 109 223 sandf 28 43 18 28 20 4 24 10 43 sawy 241 247 650 523 437 365 179 337 409 450 428 224 650 scret 43 45 45 teak 127 184 81 349 94 196 246 277 465 422 514 306 514 tkm 24 26 12 14 26 water 9 15 10 15 wbho 86 201 126 168 18 65 119 298 223 321 150 321 whit 10 3 5 6 10 Total 1 2613 2970 1 2843 13751 4321 2365 2322 3105 4069 3651 4643 2953 Highest single count during the study period I LS I. I' Table 4. Mean of the highest yearly flight -line counts (HQ, 2000-2011. Sorted in descending order by the mean HC. Max = the highest count during the study period. No. years Suma Key' surveyed HC HC SE Max bcou 12 7806 650.0 104.0 1306 2! ebho 12 6118 509.9 59.8 881 sawy 12 4490 374.1 39.7 650 0 hsho 8 2576 321.9 59.7 519 teak 12 3040 276.4 67.0 514 crane 11 3261 271.7 41.6 700 Coco 12 2691 224.3 37.5 512 arch 5 1775 161.3 28.3 392 wbho 11 711 142.3 64.5 321 - CL hard 12 1538 128.1 16.9 226 n E mule 12 1277 106.4 35.3 392 0 ridi 12 1258 104.8 17.6 223 Cott 7 517 73.8 16.4 156 crawl 3 171 56.9 17.6 91 scret 2 88 43.8 1.3 45 1 CD lmul 12 479 43.5 6.0 04 84 bmul 12 349 31.7 5.6 65 04 crawf 11 309 30.9 4.2 53 W pchm3 2 58 28.9 15.3 � 44 2.1 mar 5 130 26.0 2.9 37 sandf 8 176 22.0 4.2 43 0 jing 6 116 19.4 3.9 - 30CL tkm 4 76 18.9 3.6 26 frie 6 113 18.8 2.9 28 3 jkmn 5 73 14.6 5.8 34 hmang 3 36 11.9 2.4 14 a; water 3 34 11.3 2.4 15 -� bfind 5 50 10.0 2.1 16 lspa 2 20 9.8 1.7 11 04 pchm4 2 19 9.4 5.0 14 whit 4 24 6.0 1.5 10 E coon 4 21 5.3 3.0 14 fhawk 3 15 5.0 1.5 7 bspa 1 9 9 w hurr 1 8 8 1pmk 1 30 30 pchml 1 57 57 20 Table 3 Contd. No. years Sum 'X Key' surveyed HC HC SE Max pchm2 1 33 33 pigeon 1 6 6 Total 39606 161.1 13.7 See Appendix 2 for a list of islands and corresponding acronyms. Table 5. Summary of the highest flight -line counts by year and sector. GWHE, GWHC, and GWHW = the east, central, and west sectors of Great White Heron NWR. KW= Key West NWR. No. is- GWHC GWHE GWHW KW Year lands Nests Mean Nests Mean Nests Mean Nests Mean Nests Mean 2000 26 2615 100.6 355 59.2 847 94.1 42 10.5 1371 195.9 2001 27 2971 110.0 482 80.3 825 82.5 60 12.0 1604 267.3 2002 24 2846 118.6 981 140.1 1031 147.3 45 9.0 789 157.8 2003 33 3753 113.7 803 89.2 1348 112.3 53 10.6 1549 221.3 2004 26 4321 166.2 991 165.2 1543 154.3 40 20.0 1747 218.4 2005 15 2365 157.7 479 159.7 823 117.6 1063 212.6 2006 19 2325 122.4 344 114.7 1367 170.9 614 76.8 2007 16 3106 194.1 411 137.0 1935 241.9 760 152.0 2008 16 4070 254.4 989 329.7 2388 398.0 693 99.0 2009 15 3653 243.5 1024 341.3 2094 349.0 535 89.2 2010 14 4642 331.6 1258 419.0 2959 493.3 425 85.0 2011 15 2953 196.9 818 272.0 1722 287.0 415 69.2 Total 246 39606 161.1 9272 165.6 18545 197.3 240 11.4 11566 154.2 21 Table 6. Islands that averaged more than 100 WCPI nests per year, 2000-2011. Sorted in descending order by mean high count. No. years Key surveyed Mean SE Sum Maxi bcou 12 651.0 104.0 7808 1306 ebho 12 509.9 59.7 6120 881 sawy 12 374.1 39.7 4490 650 hsho 8 321.9 59.7 2576 519 crane 11 276.4 67.1 3041 700 teak 12 271.7 41.6 3261 514 Coco 12 224.3 37.5 2692 512 wbho 11 161.3 28.3 1775 321 arch 5 142.3 64.5 713 392 hard 12 128.3 16.9 1539 226 mule 12 106.5 35.3 1278 392 ridi 12 104.9 17.6 1259 223 Total 279.0 20.8 36552 IHighest count during the study period. Table 7. Percent of annual nests for the 12 islands with the highest mean counts (HMC) 2000-2011.1 Sorted in descending order by the mean percent of annual nests for each island compared with the total of HMC for all islands in the study area. Percent of all annual nests Mean Key 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 % bcou 27 34 22 35 23 44 14 18 8 10 7 8 20 ebho 13 7 20 13 10 9 18 15 17 19 19 23 15 sawy 9 8 23 14 10 15 8 11 10 12 9 8 11 hsho 9 1 11 11 13 10 11 10 8 teak 5 6 3 9 2 8 11 9 11 12 11 16 8 crane 3 1 1 6 3 6 11 10 13 15 10 7 Coco 3 3 3 5 3 7 9 10 7 9 11 6 7 arch 9 6 2 1 5 4 wbho 3 7 4 4 1 3 4 7 6 7 3 4 hard 5 1 5 3 4 10 5 2 3 2 5 2 3 mule 12 13 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 3 ridi 2 3 8 2 4 2 1 2 4 3 3 2 2 % 80 86 92 84 89 99 93 96 94 97 98 98 92 IBlank values are for years in which counts not performed at an island. Table 8. Mean and percent of nests for the 12 lamest colonies 2000-2011. 22 Highest count Highest count No. all colonies 12 largest colonies Year islands' Mean SE Mean SE % 2000 26 100.5 30.4 232.8 68.7 80 2001 27 110.0 39.4 254.5 91.3 86 2002 24 118.5 40.7 260.2 79.6 92 2003 33 113.7 43.6 349.0 135.0 84 2004 26 166.2 43.2 320.4 71.6 89 2005 15 157.6 68.5 212.3 88.5 99 2006 19 122.2 27.9 179.4 34.7 93 2007 16 194.1 45.7 271.1 51.5 96 2008 16 254.3 50.8 319.2 56.1 94 2009 15 243.4 54.0 295.2 58.5 97 2010 14 331.6 73.0 415.1 74.5 98 2011 15 196.9 48.5 241.5 53.2 98 'Number islands surveyed per year Table 9. Percent of WCPI nests in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge (KWNWR) on Barracouta Key (BCOU), 2000-2011.1 No. islands Nests Nests % nests No. counts Year surveyed KWNWR' BCOU BCOU BCOU 2000 7 1371 705 51 1 2001 6 1604 1022 64 1 2002 5 789 621 79 2 2003 7 1549 1306 84 2 2004 8 1748 993 57 2 2005 5 1063 1030 97 2 2006 8 614 337 55 5 2007 6 760 568 73 4 2008 7 693 324 47 6 2009 6 535 348 65 4 2010 5 425 306 72 4 2011 6 415 248 60 5 Total 11566 7808 68 38 'Based on highest single count per year for each island. w C 0 Table 10. Highest mean annual WCPI counts on Barracouta Key before and P-Al after the 2005 hurricanes. For 2005, the 16 June count, made prior to the year's first hurricane (Dennis, 9 July), was used. No. Mean high- % decline Period counts Maxi est count SE 2006-2011 2000-2005 9 1306 946.0 101.0 2006-2011 28 548 355.2 44.9 63 IHighest count during the period Table II. Mean number of nests in the Key West NWR 2000-2005 and 2006-2011. X = average of highest single count per year for each island. 2000-2005 2006-2011 No. years 11 No. years 1 % Key counted nests counted nests chance Bcou 6 946.0 6 355.2 -63 Bmul 6 36.8 6 24.8 -33 Cott 5 76.8 2 66.5 -13 Crawf 5 35.5 6 23.2 -35 Jing 4 24.0 2 10.5 -56 Lmul 6 38.7 6 44.2 +14 Mule 6 162.6 6 50.2 -69 Total 259.7 93.0 iMean nests during Period 2 divided by mean nests during Period 1. Table 12. Number of WCPI nests in the Great White Heron NWR during two periods. In 2005, 4 islands were surveyed only after Hurricane Dennis (9 July). L PERIOD I PERIOD 2 Year Islands Mean SE Sum Year Islands Mean SE Sum 2000 19 65.5 20.8 1244 2006 11 155.4 36.7 1709 04 2001 21 65.1 16.8 1367 2007 10 232.7 50.2 2327 0 2002 19 108.2 43.1 2055 2008 9 375.0 59.8 3375 E 2003 26 84.7 28.5 2203 2009 9 346.3 63.9 3117 2004 18 143.0 36.1 2574 2010 9 468.6 77.7 4218 2005 10 130.2 37.6 1302 2011 9 282.2 63.5 2454 w Total 113 95.1 10745 57 301.8 17200 a E Table 13. Percent change in the number of nests after the 2005 hurricane W! season for 8 islands in GWHNWR that were surveyed for > 11 years. Period 1 = 2000-2005; Period 2 = 2006-2011. Mean = the sum of the highest single count for each island/number of years surveyed. Island Means Period 1 No. yrs. surveyed Max Means Period No. yrs. surveyed 2 Max % Change Period 2 Coco 122.5 6 191 326.1 6 512 166 crane 100.2 5 275 423.2 6 700 322 ebho 379.0 6 579 640.8 6 881 69 hard 140.3 6 226 116.0 6 212 -17 ridi 110.5 6 223 99.3 6 158 -10 sawy 410.5 6 650 337.7 6 450 -18 teak 171.8 6 349 371.6 6 514 116 wbho 119.8 5 201 195.9 6 321 64 Average of highest annual counts only Highest single count during the period Table 14. High counts for 9 islands in Great White Heron NWR in 2010 and 2011, a year of severe drought. Nests Nests Difference % change Key 2010 2011 2011 2011 Coco 512 300 -212 -41 crane 700 485 -215 -31 ebho 881 677 -205 -23 hard 212 101 -111 -52 hsho 519 188 -332 -64 ridi 130 109 -21 -16 sawy 428 224 -205 -48 teak 514 306 -208 -40 wbho 321 150 -171 -53 Total 4218 2539 -1679 -40 Table 15. Highest counts for 5 islands in the KWNWR in 2010 and 2011, p-Ri a year of severe drought. Key 2010 2011 % change bcou 306 248 -19 bmul 23 22 -4 crawf 27 13 -52 lmul 26 19 -28 mule 43 54 27 Total 425 356 -16 Figure 1. Number of White -crowned Pigeon nests based on the sum of the highest counts for each island, 2000-2011. 5000 4500 4000 U) 4- m 3500 Z 3000 2500 2000 C a) Figure 2. Mean (black bars) of the highest annual counts at 13 islands surveyed OW for >_ 11 years. The black bar show the highest single count during the study period. Islands in the Key West NWR are in upper case text. 1400 1200 1000 c 800 M m 600 400 200 0 u =uj EM-L EM-L EM-L EM-L MEELL MEELL MR-L MR-L MR-L M 6GOJ e'pro 5a �ta�e kea� GOCo��ro rac �xs\ c��J JvC'O Figure 3. Number of WCPI nests for the 8 islands surveyed in 2005 before and after Hurricane Dennis. Y axis shows the post -storm decrease in nests. 100 90 80 70 as 60 as as 50 40 0 30 20 10 0 bcou Coco crane crawf ebho hard sawy teak Fig. 4. Percent decrease in nests for 7 islands surveyed in 2005 after Hurricane Dennis: 27 a comparison of post -storm counts with pre -storm mean high counts of previous years. 100 80 U) N 60 (V C C M W 40 20 0 �J�e 10, Figure 5. Islands with the largest mean number of WCPI nests, 2000-2005 only. Upper case text = islands in the KWNWR. 1000 900 800 700 U) N 600 aD 500 Cu 400 300 200 100 0 1tj11LMLW F�GO�.` �a��r a���do Sear e,`�e � �acdJ Goeo �o�aa vo; Qip� �ay'�,Qya � �ey,�Qya 04.1� Figure 6. Number of counts and highest single count (HQ by year for Barracouta Key. The HC was lower every vear after 2005, despite an increase in the number of counts. The 2005 HC was made in June, prior to Hurricane Dennis (9 Jul 6 1400 No. counts Highest count 1200 5 1000 4 800 3 600 2 400 1 200 0 0 o`O o� Figure 7. Mean highest counts (HQ in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge. The HC in 2005 for Barracouta Key (n =1030) was made prior to July's Hurricane Dennis. 300 250 200 U 2 150 m 100 50 0 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 ti�S� ti��� ti��� re ti�cj� ti��� ti400 ti��� tititiIPN W11 I' Figure 8. Change in the mean highest counts by two 6-years periods for the 13 islands surveyed 11 or more years. Period 1 = 2000-2005; Period 2 = 2006-2011. Upper case text = islands in the Key West NWR. 350 300 250 N c 200 p� 150 an 100 50 0 0 -50 -100 o4� G Figure 9. Number of nests on islands in the GWHNWR during 2010 and 2011, a year of severe drought. 900 • 2010 800 a 2011 700 600 500 ' • s 400 LM = 300 200 • 100 0 LOGO G`a�6 e�N O ra`a ryN O �`a` ya �ea� ��N O 30 Appendix 1. List of the 39 islands surveyed for nesting White -crowned pigeons in Key West National Wildlife Refuge (KWNWR) and three geographic sectors in Great White Heron National Wildlife Refute (GWHNWR). Mane. = Mangrove GHNWR Sectors East Central West KWNWR Coconut Crane Bill Finds Archer Big Spanish' Hurricane' Coon Barracouta Crawl Johnson Key Mang. Johnson Key Mang. Big Mullet East Bahia Honda Fish Hawk Marjoe Cottrell Friend Pine Channel Mang. V Pumpkinn' Crawfish Hardup Pine Channel Mang. 2' Whiting Joe Ingram Horseshoe Pine Channel Mang. 3 Little Mullet Horseshoe Mang. Pine Channel Mang. 4 Mule Little Spanish Riding Sandfly Secret Teakettle Sawyer West Bahia Honda Torch Key Mang. 1 Water (west) 1 Island surveyed for only one nesting season 31 Appendix 2. Islands and their acronymns. Acronym Island arch Archer Key bcou Barracouta Key T bfind Bill Find Key bmul Big Mullet Key 0 bspa Big Spanish Key Coco Coconut Key 0 coon Coon Key Cott Cottrell Key crap Crane Key crawf Crawfish Key crawl Crawl Key ebho East Bahia Honda Key fhawk Fish Hawk Key a. frie Friend Key a hard Hardup Key 0 hsho Horseshoe Key hmang Horseshoe Key Mangrove Key hurr Hurricane Key CO jing Joe Ingram jkmn Johnston Key Mangrove Key (north) lmul Little Mullet Key Cq 1pmk Little Pine Mangrove Key CD lspa Little Spanish Key N marj Marjoe Key mule Mule Key � pchml North Pine Channel Mangrove 1 W pchm2 North Pine Channel Mangrove 2 r- pchm3 North Pine Channel Mangrove 3 pchm4 North Pine Channel Mangrove 4 a. ridi Riding Key sandf Sandfly Key tkm Torch Key Mangrove Key (SW) sawy Sawyer Key scret Secret Key teak Teakettle Key water Water Key (NW) wbho West Bahia Honda Key whit Whiting Key W Appendix 3. WCPI nests (highest single count) by year for 10 WCPI colonies that averaged > 100 nests and were surveyed for >_ 11 years. Coconut and Teakettle Keys 550 500 • Coconut 450 Teakettle 400 350 � • • Z 300 • 250 200 • 150 •' 100 50 ti��" tiIIPII tiI�IP ti%116 tititi1,01, East Bahia Honda Key 900 800 700 600 500 Z 400 300 200 100 04 I 31 I' Hardup and West Bahia Honda Keys The 2005 count at Hardup Key was made before Hurricane Dennis; the sole 2005 count at West Bahia Honda Key was made after H. Dennis. 350 300 250 200 Z 150 100 50 0 700 600 500 0 400 N 0) 300 2 200 100 0 Hardup T West Bahia Honda Crane and Sawyer Keys tizzo ti�ti�ti�10 ti��y ti��6 ti��� 32 Riding Key 240 220 200 180 160 0 0 140 aNi 120 t 2 100 80 60 40 20 tizzy ti��� tip" tip" ti�z" Barracouta and Mule Keys 1400 1200 1000 0 800 4.0 t 600 .oi 2 400 200 0 IS ti��� ti��� tiQp" ti�,� 33 I' Appendix 4. Boxplots of yearly nests' for islands that were surveyed for > 11 years and averaged > 100 nests a year. Horizontal line = median; circle = mean. * = data outliers (years whe re hiLyhest counts are bevond the third quartile ranLye). Vertical line = data ranLye. 1400 1200 1000 800 FA FA 600 400 200- t 0 bcou bmul coco crane crawf ebho hard Imul mule ridi sawy teak wbho Based on the highest count per year for each island. 34 White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report March 31, 2011 1� FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Biological Status Review Report for the White -crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) March 31, 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) directed staff to evaluate all species listed as Threatened or Species of Special Concern as of November 8, 2010 that had not undergone a status review in the past decade. Public information on the status of the white -crowned pigeon was sought from September 17, 2010 to November 1, 2010. The three member Biological Review Group (BRG) met on November 3-4, 2010. Group members were Karl E. Miller (FWC lead), Kenneth D. Meyer (Avian Research and Conservation Institute), and Oron "Sonny" Bass (National Park Service) (Appendix 1). In accordance with rule 68A- 27.0012, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the White -crowned Pigeon BRG was charged with evaluating the biological status of the white -crowned pigeon using criteria included in definitions in 68A-27.001, F.A.C., and following the protocols in the Guidelines for Application of the IUCNRed List Criteria at Regional Levels Version 3.0 and Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (2004). Please visit http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/listing-action-petitions/ to view the listing process rule and the criteria found in the definitions. 00 In late 2010, staff developed the initial draft of this report which included BRG findings W and a preliminary listing recommendation from staff. The draft was sent out for peer review and U) the reviewers' input has been incorporated to create this final report. The draft report, peer reviews, and information received from the public are available as supplemental materials at http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/biological-status/. The BRG concluded from the biological assessment that the white -crowned pigeon met at least one listing criterion. Based on the literature review and the BRG findings, FWC staff recommend listing the white -crowned pigeon as a Threatened species. This work was supported by a Conserve Wildlife Tag grant from the Wildlife Foundation of Florida. FWC staff gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the biological review group members and peer reviewers. Staff would also like to thank Michelle Van w Deventer who served as a data compiler for the species. BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION Life History References — Strong and Bancroft (1994), Strong et al. (1994), Bancroft (1996), Bancroft et al. (2000), Bancroft and Bowman (2001), Wells and Wells (2001), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2003), BirdLife International (2008). White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 2 Taxonomic Classification — The white -crowned pigeon was previously placed in the genus Columba but is now included in the Patagioenas genus of New World pigeons. There are no recognized subspecies (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Geographic Range and Distribution — The white -crowned pigeon is a subtropical frugivorous species occurring in low-lying forest habitats with ample fruiting trees. Breeding range for the species is centered on the Bahamas and Greater Antilles, although populations extend into southern Florida, the Lesser Antilles, and the Caribbean coast of southeastern Mexico and Central America. Its range in the United States is restricted to Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the Florida Keys, although a few individuals probably nest inland in Monroe and Miami -Dade counties (Bancroft and Bowman 2001, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2003). In Florida, nesting occurs almost exclusively on mangrove islands; nesting birds fly to islands to forage on fruit -bearing trees (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). The BRG estimated the range in Florida, or total extent of occurrence, at <5,000 km2 and noted that a large majority of this area was open water; the land area actually occupied by white -crowned pigeons in Florida is probably <1,250 km2. Some white -crowned pigeons that breed in Florida overwinter in Florida, while most migrate south or southeast for the winter (Robertson and Woolfenden 1992, Bancroft 1996). Band recoveries suggest that most white -crowned pigeons breeding in Florida winter in the Bahamas (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Population Status and Trend — Strong et al. (1994) estimated the population of nesting white -crowned pigeons in Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay and Barnes Sound in the upper Florida 00 Keys at 5,055 pairs in 1991. Pairs nesting in other parts of southern Florida and the Florida Keys W were not systematically surveyed during that time period, but were estimated at 2,500 pairs U) (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Estimates for the statewide population range from approximately 7,500 pairs (Bancroft and Bowman 2001) to 10,000 pairs (T. Bancroft, cited in Robertson and Woolfenden 1992) to as many as 12,000 pairs (Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Larger population a. estimates reflect recent and more complete flight -line count data from the lower Florida Keys (3,500 — 5,600 pairs; Meyer and Wilmers 2006), although those data have a wide confidence interval. Population trend is not well understood, primarily because of wide variation in the intensity and geographic coverage of surveys over different time periods. Apparent increases in N population estimates over time likely reflect improved survey methods and more complete coverage of white -crowned pigeon habitat. In Florida Bay, white -crowned pigeon numbers appear to have been declining during the last 15 years (S. Bass, personal communication) but quantitative data are unavailable. In the lower Florida Keys, the species appears overall relatively E stable; annual flight -line counts show steady population declines within Key West National Wildlife Refuge since Hurricane Dennis in 2005 but population increases within Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge during the same time period (T. Wilmers, unpublished data). Trend data for the upper Florida Keys are not available. The Bahamas are estimated to hold up to 30,000 breeding pairs, and the largest nesting population is believed to be in Cuba, although data are lacking (Bancroft and Bowman 2001; A. Kirkconnell, personal communication to K. Meyer). White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report Quantitative Analyses — We are not aware of a population viability analysis using demographic data for white -crowned pigeon in Florida. BIOLOGICAL STATUS ASSESSMENT Threats — The white -crowned pigeon global population is assessed as Near Threatened according to IUCN Red List Category and Criteria due to the fact that it is restricted to low-lying areas subject to intense habitat degradation and deforestation (BirdLife International 2008). Hunting of this species was a threat to populations during the late 1800s and early 1900s, but protection measures have been beneficial to reducing this threat in Florida. However, white - crowned pigeons that breed in Florida continue to be heavily hunted on their wintering grounds, especially in the Bahamas (Bancroft and Bowman 2001, Wells and Wells 2001, Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Bancroft and Bowman (2001) list hunting and harvesting, pesticides and other contaminants, collisions with structures or objects, degradation of habitat, and direct human/research impacts as primary threats to white -crowned pigeons. Nest predation by raccoons and other mammals is also a documented threat (Strong et al. 1991). The Florida white -crowned pigeon subpopulation is contained within Monroe County, where it is vulnerable to hurricane events, both because of its location and its restricted range. C Historical storm records corroborate the vulnerability of these geographic locations. The 0 hurricanes of 2004-2005 eliminated substantial areas of nesting habitat in the lower Florida Keys, including Barrocuta Key, Little Crane Key, Upper Harbor Key, Little Spanish Key Mangrove, and Joe Ingram Key (T. Wilmers, personal communication). Recovery of black 00 mangrove forest has been extremely slow. Increasing frequency of severe tropical storms and W hurricanes (Webster et al. 2006) are expected to degrade and reduce the available nesting habitat for the species. In addition, critical foraging habitat continues to decline. For example, the areal 0 extent of tropical hardwood hammocks in the upper Florida Keys declined by 3 1 % between 1991 and 2004 (Karim and Main 2009). Population Assessment — Please refer to the Biological Status Review Information Findings Table for the findings of the BRG. The white -crowned pigeon met at least one listing criterion; Geographic Range Size and Fragmentation and Decline (B1+2ab(iii)). Regional Assessment of Subpopulations — Please refer to the Biological Status Review N Information Table for the regional assessment of the BRG. There was no change from the initial finding because of a lack of evidence for significant immigration from outside of Florida. w Evidence is lacking for significant immigration into Florida from the Bahamas. Existing band recoveries suggest that white -crowned pigeons banded as nestlings in the Bahamas rarely move to Florida (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). In addition, subpopulations outside of Florida < (especially in the Bahamas) are expected to continue to decline principally because of unregulated hunting pressure and habitat loss and degradation (e.g., Arendt et al. 1979, Wiley 1979, Norton and Seaman 1985, Strong and Johnson 2001, Meyer and Wilmers 2006, Hay 2008). White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 4 LISTING RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend listing the white -crowned pigeon as a Threatened species. SUMMARY OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWS Comments were received from 4 reviewers: Dr. Reed Bowman (Archbold Biological Station), Dr. John Lloyd (Ecostudies Institute), Dr. Jerry Lorenz (Audubon of Florida), and Mr. Tom Wilmers (Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge). All reviewers concurred with the staff recommendation for listing. Lloyd stated "I commend the BRG for providing a thorough review of available data and for providing an analysis that clearly demonstrates why white -crowned pigeons should be listed as Threatened." Lorenz stated that the BRG "used the most appropriate and up-to-date materials" in making their determination. Appropriate editorial changes recommended by reviewers were made to the report. No changes were made that affected the findings or staff recommendations. Peer reviews are available at http://www.myfwc.com. While all reviewers concurred with the staff recommendation, one reviewer suggested E that the species also may have met criterion A4: An observed, estimated, inferred, projected, or r_ suspected population size reduction of at least 30% over a 10-year or 3-generation time period, CL whichever is longer. Bowman suggested that the current population size is likely much lower C than the maximum estimate of 12,000 from Meyer and Wilmers (2006) because of continued 0 impacts from the 2004-2005 hurricanes and because of possible declines in the upper Florida Keys. After reviewing all available information, the BRG determined that wide variation in the intensity and geographic coverage of surveys over different time periods prohibited conclusive co determination of a population trend anywhere near 30%. The most recent population data W (Meyer and Wilmers 2006; T. Wilmers, unpublished data) indicate that population declines in parts of the lower Florida Keys have been at least partially offset by increases in other parts of 0 the lower Florida Keys. Moreover, no information on population trend is available from the as upper Florida Keys.' Two reviewers, Bowman and Lloyd, believed that future threats to white -crowned pigeon habitat were underestimated because predicted sea -level rise was not considered by the BRG. However, the BRG did not consider the future impact of sea level rise on white -crowned pigeon habitat because sea level is not expected to change appreciably within the next 10 years, the time span over which this species was evaluated (see Akcakaya et al. 2006). White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report LITERATURE CITED Akcakaya, H.R., S.H.M. Butchart, G.M. Mace, S.N. Stuart, and C. Hilton -Taylor. 2006. Use and misuse of the NCN Red List criteria in projecting climate change impacts on biodiversity. Global Change Biology 12:2037-2043. Arendt, W.J., T. A. Vargas Mora, and J.W. Wiley. 1979. White -crowned pigeon: status rangewide and in the Dominican Republic. Proceedings from the Annual Conference of Southeast Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 33: 111 —122. Bancroft, G.T. 1996. White -crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala). Pp. 258-266 in Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Volume V. Birds (J.A. Rodgers, Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith, Eds.). University Press of Florida, Gainesville. FCREPA. Bancroft, G.T., and R. Bowman. 2001. White -crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: IMMAMM am Bancroft, G.T., R. Bowman, and R.J. Sawicki. 2000. Rainfall, fruiting phenology, and the nesting season of white -crowned pigeons in the upper Florida Keys. Auk 117: 416 — 426. BirdLife International. 2008. Species factsheet: Patagioenas leucocephala. In: NCN 2010. NCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. Accessed online at 00 00 www.iucnredlist.or2 on 10/04/2010. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. Florida's breeding bird atlas: A collaborative study of Florida's birdlife. littp://www.myfwc.com/bba/ (Accessed 10/04/2010). Hay, D.B. 2008. Report of the White -crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) Working Group. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 21: 110 — 112. Karim, A., and M.B. Main. 2009. Habitat fragmentation and conservation strategies for a rare forest habitat in the Florida Keys archipelago. Urban Ecosystems 12: 359-370. Meyer, K. D., and T. J. Wilmers. 2006. Foraging habitats, winter residency, survival, and philopatry of adult white -crowned pigeons (Patagioenis leucocephala) in the lower w Florida Keys. Final Report NG03-013 to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. E Norton, R.L., and G.A. Seaman. 1985. Post -fledging distribution of white -crowned pigeons banded in St. Croix, Virgin Islands. Journal of Field Ornithology 56: 416 — 418. Robertson, W.B„ Jr., and G.E. Woolfenden. 1992. Florida bird species: an annotated list. Florida Ornithological Society, Special Publication No. 6. White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 6 Strong, A.M., and G.T. Bancroft. 1994. Postfledging dispersal of white -crowned pigeons: implications for conservation of deciduous seasonal forests in the Florida Keys. Conservation Biology 8: 770 — 779. Strong, A.M., and M.D. Johnson. 2001. Exploitation of a seasonal resource by nonbreeding plain and white -crowned pigeons: implications for conservation of tropical dry forests. Wilson Bulletin 113: 73 — 77. Strong, A.M., R.J. Sawicki, and G.T. Bancroft. 1991. Effects of predator presence on the nesting distribution of white -crowned pigeons in Florida Bay. Wilson Bulletin 103: 415 — 425. Strong, A.M., R.J. Sawicki, and G.T. Bancroft. 1994. Estimating white -crowned pigeon population size from flight -line counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 156 —162 Webster, P.J., G.J. Holland, and H.R. Chang. 2006. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. 2006. Science 16: 1844- 1846. Wells, A.C., and J.V. Wells. 2001. Pigeons and Doves. Pages 319 - 325 in C. Elphick, J.B. Dunning, Jr., D.A. Sibley (Eds.). The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior. Chanticleer Press, Inc. New York. Wiley, J.W. 1979. The white -crowned pigeon in Puerto Rico: status, distribution, and movements. Journal of Wildlife Management 43: 402 — 413. White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 7 f: r _. 0 � iV � Q g �,y ' 0 0 a 5 cz -4 � oo o���� � U o 5n, Sn,ct t 7, oA � �r' �-� o o ,k v O f +`�+ C, N O N yea .O \ /^ ti F cz 0 V lot (I} L��i S�y 0 C� . � �^•I U Vcz Q U O t Sz f�l N O 0 O tc3 O Q tot O T3 t v Q O P-.' U tU { C ' ' r _ p Q F++ O Q R 4- 'iJ O s N O O Q H U U + O O It N °? �� Ri tG Q Q V vbmovA p �3" o o cUi N O Gs3 • ai ra-PCs O *� ` o �-+ Loi -cs °� W O' e + � ,�.. fj u c�3 V Q m C i AND at least 2 of the following: a. Severely fragmented or exist in<_ 10 locationsExist in 3-4 "locations" where E Y See B 1 and B2 above. tropical weather events can severely impact all breeding individuals; vulnerability of these geographic locations corroborated by historical storm records for Florida Keys, Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay. b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected in any of the Increasing frequency of severe I, P Y (ii,iii) Meyer and Wilmers (2006); T. following: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, tropical storms and hurricanes Wilmers, unpublished data; Karim and extent, and/or quality of habitat; (iv) number of locations or have caused long-term habitat Main (2009). subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals destruction. Black mangrove nesting substrate especially affected and does not regenerate for decades. Hurricanes during 2004-2005 resulted in partial or complete loss of nesting substrate in large portions of Lower Keys, including Barrocuta Keys, Little Crane Key, Upper Harbor Key, Little Spanish Key Mangrove, Joe Ingram Key. c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following: (i) extent of Annual fluctuation in number of N Bancroft (1996), Strong and Johnson occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or nesting attempts can be extreme, (2001). subpopulations; (iv) ;number of mature individuals possibly tied to variation in food abundance; however, evidence inconclusive for extreme fluctuation in area of occupancy or number of individuals. N7 MR, FIT (C)Population Size and Trend - ��., 7 110- �� ��� .���� og r . Population size estimate to number fewer than 10,000 mature Statewide population likely to be N Meyer and Wilmers (2006). individuals AND EITHER 10,000 - 12,000 pairs. (c)1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 10% in 10 years or 3 N generations, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future) OR (c)2. ''A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred in numbers of mature individuals AND at least one of the following: a. Population structure in the form of EITHER N (i) No subpopulation estimated to contain more than 1000 mature individuals; OR (ii) All mature individuals are in one subpopulation N White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals I I N (D)Population Very Small or Restricted, EITHER El I BPI I Wn�wwplls" (d)l. Population estimated to number fewer than 11000 mature N individuals; OR (d)2. Population with a very restricted area of occupancy (typically less N than 20 km� [8 mi2]) or number of locations (typically 5 or fewer) such that it is prone to the effects of human activities or stochastic events within a short time period in an uncertain future (flQuantitative Analyses el. Showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 10% within 100 years N Initial Finding (meets at least one of the criteria OR Does not meet any of the criteria) TReason (which criteria/sub-criteria are met) Meets at least one of criteria B 1+2ab(ii,iii) Is species/taxon endemic to Florida? (Y/N) N If Yes, your initial finding is your final finding. Copy the initial finding and reason to the final finding space below. If No, complete the regional assessment sheet and copy the final finding from that sheet to the space below, 011- A, � 0011 Final Finding (meets at least one of the criteria OR Does not meet any of the criteria) Reason (Mich criteria/sub-criteria are met) Meets at least one of criteria B 1+2ab(ii,iii) I White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 10 I Species/taxon: White -crowned Pigeon 2 Biological Status Review Information Date: 11/04/10 3 Regional Assessment Assessors: Karl Miller, Ken Meyer, and 4 Sonny Bass 5 6 7 8 Initial fijdjr�*_ " WME 9 No 10 2a. Is the species/taxon a non -breeding visitor? (Y/N/DK). If 2a is YES, go to line 18, If 2a is NO or DO NOT KNOW, go to line 11. 2b. Does the Florida population experience any significant immigration of propagules capable of reproducing in Florida? (YN/DK). If Do not know (suspect No) 11 2b is YES, go to line 12. If 2b is NO or DO NOT KNOW, go to line 17, 12 2c. Is the immigration expected to decrease? (Y/N/DK) . If 2c is YES or DO NOT KNOW, go to line 13. If 2c is NO go to line 16. 13 2d. Is the regional population a sink? (Y/N/DK). If 2d is YES, go to line 14. If 2d is NO or DO NOT KNOW, go to line 15. 14 If 2d is YES - Upgrade from initial finding (more imperiled) 15 If 2d is NO or DO NOT KNOW - No change from initial finding 16 If 2c is NO or DO NOT KNOW- Downgrade from initial finding (less imperiled) 17 If 2b is NO or DO NOT KNOW'- No change from initial finding No change 2e. Are the conditions outside Florida deteriorating? (Y/N/DK). If 2e is YES or DO NOT KNOW, go to line 24. If 2e is 18 NO go to line 19. 2f. Are the conditions within Florida deteriorating? (Y/N/DK). If 2f is YES or DO NOT KNOW, go to line 23. If 19 2f is NO, go to line 20. 2g. Can the breeding population rescue the Florida population should it decline? (Y/N/DK). If 2g is YES, go 20 to line 21. If 2g is NO or DO NOT KNOW, go to line 22. 21 If 2g is YES - Downgrade from initial finding (less imperiled) 22 If 2g is NO or DO NOT KNOW - No change from initial finding 23 If 2f is YES or DO NOT KNOW - No change from initial finding 24 If 2e is YES or DO NOT KNOW - No cj!4M from initial fi in 25 Final finding Meets at least one criterion 26 White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 11 APPENDIX 1. Brief biographies of the White -crowned Pigeon Biological Review Group members. Karl E. Miller received his Ph.D. from the University of Florida and is currently the Upland Nongame Bird Leader for FWC's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Miller has more than 15 years experience implementing research and monitoring projects for imperiled birds and mammals in Florida, with more than 50 articles or book chapters published in scientific journals or popular magazines. Miller's expertise is focused on the population ecology and community ecology of raptors, woodpeckers, and songbirds. Kenneth D. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is Director and Research Ecologist for the Avian Research and Conservation Institute. Meyer has conducted research on the behavioral ecology, migration, and population status of some of Florida's most imperiled and area -restricted bird species, including swallow-tailed kite, short - tailed hawk, and white -crowned pigeon. Meyer also serves as adjunct faculty member in the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the University of Florida. Oron "Sonny" Bass is Supervisory Wildlife Biologist at the Daniel Beard Research Center in Everglades National Park, where he has led research and monitoring projects on imperiled birds and mammals for the past three decades. Bass's expertise includes the conservation biology of bald eagles, ospreys, Cape Sable seaside sparrows, and Florida panthers, especially in relation to habitat quality and water management issues in the Everglades. White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 12 APPENDIX 2. Summary of letters and emails received during the solicitation of information from the public period of September 17 through November 1, 2010. No information about this species was received during the public information request period. White -crowned Pigeon Biological Status Review Report 13 A Species Action Plan for the White -Crowned Pigeon Patagioenas leucocephala Final Draft November 1, 2013 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission " 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Visit us at MvFWC.com WHITE -CROWNED PIGEON ACTION PLAN TEAM WHITE -CROWNED PIGEON ACTION PLAN TEAM Team Leader: Ricardo Zambrano, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Team Members: Randy Grau, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Amy Clifton, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Acknowledgements: Sarah Franklin, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation (formerly) Laura Barrett, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Brian Beneke, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Claire Sunquist Blunden, Office of Policy and Accountability Brie Ochoa, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Mary Ann Poole, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Jerome J. Lorenz, Ph.D., Audubon of Florida John D. Lloyd, Ph.D., Certified Wildlife Biologist, Ecostudies Institute Ken Meyer, Ph.D., Avian Research and Conservation Institute Thomas J. Wilmers, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cover photograph by Robert Epstein Recommended citation: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013. A species action plan for the white - crowned pigeon. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) developed this plan in response to the determination that the white -crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) in Florida should remain listed as Threatened on the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species List. In Florida, the white -crowned pigeon occurs primarily in the extreme south portion of the state. Population decline is largely due to loss of nesting and foraging habitat resulting from human development, habitat degradation, hunting pressures outside of Florida, and frequent and intensive tropical storms. Other threats include predation, human disturbance, oil spills, disease, and sea level rise. The goal of this plan is to improve the white -crowned pigeon's status to the point that the species is secure within its historical range in Florida. The objectives of the plan are to: 1) maintain a stable or increasing population of the white -crowned pigeon in Florida over the next 10 years, 2) a maintain or increase current known area of occupancy (> 400 km2 [> 150 mi2]) of the white- E 0 crowned pigeon in Florida over the next 10 years, and 3) where possible, contribute to efforts to reduce or eliminate threats to the white -crowned pigeon population on their wintering range outside of Florida. co This plan recommends several actions that would benefit populations through habitat management, research, education, collaboration and regulation. The plan outlines methods to improve habitat management for white -crowned pigeon by identifying current breeding and foraging areas and by using this information to guide future acquisitions, regulation, and habitat protection. The actions for research would improve population status by addressing research gaps in knowledge concerning reproductive success and mortality factors. This plan also outlines actions for education and outreach to improve knowledge of the pigeon's life history and habitat requirements. Since most of the white -crowned pigeons breeding in Florida winter outside of the United States, actions concerning international collaboration on hunting pressure and habitat improvements in other countries are vital for protecting local populations. This plan also includes rule and permitting guidance language that will improve and standardize white -crowned pigeon protections. This plan details the actions necessary to improve the conservation status of the white -crowned 6 pigeon. A summary of this plan will be included in the Imperiled Species Management Plan (ISMP), in satisfaction of the management plan requirements in Chapter 68A-27, Florida 0 Administrative Code, Rules Relating to Endangered or Threatened Species. The ISMP will address comprehensive management needs for 60 of Florida's imperiled species and will include an implementation plan; rule recommendations; permitting standards and exempt activities; anticipated economic, ecological, and social impacts; projected costs of implementation and identification of funding sources; and a revision schedule. The imperiled species management w planning process relies heavily on stakeholder input and partner support. This level of involvement and support is also critical to the successful implementation of the ISMP. Any significant changes to this plan will be made with the continued involvement of stakeholders. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission iii TABLE OF CONTENTS WHITE -CROWNED PIGEON ACTION PLAN TEAM............................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... iii LISTOF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... v LISTOF FIGURES....................................................................................................................... vi GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 BiologicalBackground................................................................................................................ 1 ConservationHistory................................................................................................................... 4 Threats and Recommended Listing Status.................................................................................. 5 CONSERVATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES......................................................................... 7 CONSERVATIONACTIONS....................................................................................................... 9 Habitat Conservation and Management...................................................................................... 9 Population Management............................................................................................................ 11 CL CL Monitoringand Research.......................................................................................................... 12 Rule and Permitting Intent........................................................................................................ 15 LawEnforcement...................................................................................................................... 15 Incentives and Influencing........................................................................................................ 16 00 Educationand Outreach............................................................................................................ 16 Coordination with Other Entities.............................................................................................. 17 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................................. 23 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix 1. Fruits known to be consumed by white -crowned pigeons ................................... 27 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission iv LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Conservation Action Table . ............................................................................................ 20 I 1� Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission v LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. White -crowned pigeon.................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. White -crowned pigeons commonly nest on mangrove islands ....................................... 2 Figure 3. White -crowned pigeon breeding distribution for entire range. Adapted from Bancroft andBowman 2001.......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4. White -crowned pigeon breeding and foraging distribution in Florida ............................ 4 Figure 5. Tropical hardwood hammock in the Florida Keys is important foraging and stopover habitat for white -crowned pigeons.................................................................................................. 5 Figure 6. Tropical hardwood hammock on unprotected private property in Marathon, Florida.... 9 Figure 7. Small parcel of tropical hardwood hammock in Marathon, Florida ............................. 10 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission vi GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS ACP: Area Contingency Plan. The ACPs outline sensitive wildlife areas, site manager contact information, species present and special precautions to take in the event of a hazardous material spill such as an oil spill. ARCL Avian Research and Conservation Institute Area of Occupancy: The area within its extent of occurrence which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. This reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur throughout the area of its extent of occurrence, which may contain unsuitable or unoccupied habitats. Breeding Productivity: The number of fledged young produced by a pair or population, usually calculated annually or per breeding season. [Productivity = clutch size * nesting success (fledges per clutch) * number of clutches laid per breeding season]. BSR: Biological status review report, the summary of the biological review group's findings. Includes a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff 00 recommendation on whether or not the species status meets the listing criteria in Chapter 68A-27.001, Florida Administrative Code. These criteria, based on NCN criteria and NCN guidelines, are used to help decide if a species should be added or removed from the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species List. In addition, FWC staff may provide within the report a biologically justified opinion that differs from the criteria -based r_ finding. a. Buffer Zone: Posted areas established around nesting or foraging sites necessary to prevent disturbance of white -crowned pigeon. Chick: A young bird not yet flight -capable and dependent upon adults for food, shelter and/or safety. Clutch: A group of eggs produced by a female in a single breeding attempt. Colony: A congregation of 1 or more species of breeding birds that nest and roost in close proximity at a particular location. Crop: An expanded muscular pouch near the gullet or throat of birds DEP: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Extent of occurrence: The geographic area encompassing all observations of individuals of a species, including intervening areas of unoccupied habitat. Synonymous with range. See Also Area of Occupancy (as defined by NCN). F.A.C.: Florida Administrative Code Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission vii GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS Foraging: Searching for, acquiring, and ingesting food. Frugivorous: An herbivore or omnivore that prefers fruit as a food type. FWC: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the state agency constitutionally mandated to protect and manage Florida's native fish and wildlife species. FWRL Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, the fish and wildlife research branch of the FWC Habitat: The area used for any part of the life cycle of a species (including foraging, breeding, and wintering). Incidental Take: Any taking otherwise prohibited, if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity (as defined in Rule 68A- 27.001(5), F.A.C.). IRC: Institute for Regional Conservation ISMP: Imperiled Species Management Plan IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature, a professional global conservation network. LAP: Landowner Assistance Program, a federal cost -share program administered in Florida by the FWC. LDR: Local government Land Development Regulations. Mangrove: Salt -tolerant hardwood trees found throughout the world in tropical and sub -tropical latitudes. Mangroves mostly occupy low -energy marine and brackish shorelines and can create dense shoreline fringes, extensive forests and entire offshore islands. Three mangrove species occur in peninsular Florida; red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). These 3 species, along with buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), are the dominant trees in Florida's mangrove communities. MCCP: Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The federal statute (16 U.S.C. 703-711) which protects nearly all native birds, their eggs and nests. Specifically, the statute makes it unlawful to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for w p � p � p � p� pp � transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, E or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention ... for the protection of migratory birds ... or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission viii GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS Nest: A structure or place chosen by birds in which to lay and incubate eggs. The nests of white - crowned pigeons are typically frail platforms constructed of 3.2 to 6.4 mm diameter twigs and lined with finer twigs. Nests are typically constructed over water in red or black mangroves and are usually well -camouflaged by surrounding vegetation. No Entry -Zone: A white -crowned pigeon nesting or foraging site with regulations that prohibit entry by persons not specifically authorized to enter. NGO: Non -Governmental Organization NPS: National Park Service Pine Rockland: A natural community unique to extreme south Florida characterized by an open canopy of south Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa) with a diverse understory and herbaceous layer. Rare and endemic plant and animal species are abundant in pine a rocklands. The substrate consists of exposed oolitic limestone with numerous depressions E 0 and solution holes where nutrient poor soil and organic debris accumulate. Pine rockland is a fire dependent natural community and similar habitat occurs in the Bahamas where Caribbean pine (Pinus caribaea) is the dominant pine. 00 Population: The total number of individuals of the taxon. Population numbers are expressed as numbers of mature individuals only (as defined by IUCN). Site: An area or location that contains and supports 1 or more breeding pairs of white -crowned pigeons, their nest(s), and/or dependent young. SLAMM: Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model, a model created by Jonathan Clough of Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. that simulates the dominant processes involved in wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-term sea level rise. Map distributions of wetlands are predicted under conditions of accelerated sea level rise, and results are summarized in tabular and graphical form. Take: As defined in 68A-27.001, F.A.C. (Definitions) to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct. The term "harm" in the definition of take means an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it 0 actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, 9 including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The term "harass" in the definition of take means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. w Tropical Hardwood Hammock: Tropical hardwood hammock: Also called rockland hammock, is a highly diverse upland forest rich in rare and endemic plant and animal species. The E forest floor is mostly covered with a thin layer of well drained organic soil and leaf litter. Exposed limestone and solution holes are common. Over 120 species of native trees and < shrubs can be found in tropical hardwood hammocks. Many of the plant species are also Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ix GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS native to the Bahamas, the West Indies and the Yucatan peninsula and most occur in Florida at the northern limit of their range. Typical canopy trees include gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), wild tamarind (Lysiloma latisiliquum), pigeon plum (Coccoloba diversifolia), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), Jamaican dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum), and West Indies mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni). In the continental U.S., remaining tropical hardwood hammock only occurs in south Florida, where it is restricted to coastal areas of southern Miami -Dade County, the Florida Keys and a small area of Big Cypress Preserve in Monroe and Collier counties. Mesic and maritime hammocks which may also provide foraging areas for white -crowned pigeons are also found in south Florida and although they may share common species, they are biologically and geologically distinct habitats from tropical hardwood hammocks. USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agency mandated to protect and manage the nation's native freshwater fish and wildlife resources. WEA: Wildlife and Environmental Area Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission x INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This plan was developed in response to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FWC's) determination that the white -crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) be recommended for listing as Threatened on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species List. Biological Background Distinguishing Characteristics The white -crowned pigeon was previously placed in the genus Columba but is now included in the Patagioenas genus of New World pigeons. There are no recognized subspecies (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). White - crowned pigeons are obligate frugivores similar in size and shape to the common rock dove or feral pigeon (Columba livia) but with a longer neck and tail. The white -crowned pigeon is dark slate gray, with a white cap on the top half of the head Figure 1). There are greenish, iridescent feathers on the upper back and sides of the neck. The bill is red with a white tip, and the legs are reddish or pink. The bill and legs of males become brighter red during the breeding season. Females, including the iridescent feather patch and cap, are often browner and generally duller than are the males. Figure 1. White -crowned pigeon. Note the white cap and dark slate grey body. Photograph by Randy Juveniles may appear more brownish with the crown Grau, FWC. being dark or absent (Bancroft 1996, Bancroft and Bowman 2001). White -crowned pigeons are strong and fast in flight and are known to travel daily in straight flight -lines, sometimes over 50 km (31 mi), for foraging. They can fly more than 150 km (93 mi) over the water during migration, generally flying low until reaching land. White - crowned pigeons are very arboreal and rarely seen on the ground (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). They are extremely skittish and easily flushed from both nesting and foraging areas (Bancroft 1996, Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Habitat In Florida, 2 specific habitat types are critical for the survival of the white -crowned pigeon: mangrove islands for breeding and tropical hardwood hammock for foraging. White -crowned pigeons primarily nest on tidally inundated mangrove islands and then fly daily to forage in tropical hardwood hammocks and, to a lesser extent, pine rocklands that contain an understory of fruit -bearing trees and shrubs (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). They also feed heavily on individual fruit -bearing trees in small, vegetated patches in suburban environments where a quality food source is present (Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Food In south Florida and the Florida Keys, white -crowned pigeons feed primarily on the fruits of hardwood trees and shrubs in deciduous seasonal forests, mostly in tropical hardwood Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission INTRODUCTION hammocks. They consume the fruits of at least 36 species (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). In Florida Bay, Bancroft and Bowman (1994) found the fruits of 5 native species to be the most important food sources during nesting. These 5 species, combined, made up over 97% of the mass of the fruit found in the crops of nestlings. Poisonwood (Metopium toxiferum) was determined to be the most important, followed by blolly (Guapira discolor). Fruits of strangler fig (Ficus aurea) and wild banyan (F. citrifolia) were combined as the next highest species ingested, followed by black torch (Erithalis ftuticosa). For a comprehensive list of fruit - producing species consumed by white -crowned pigeons, see Appendix l . During nesting, adult white -crowned pigeons produce liquid from their crops, referred to as crop -milk, which they feed to their young. The crop -milk is high in protein and lipids and provides 100% of the chick's diet for the first 2 days. The adults then begin supplementing the crop -milk with fruit, gradually increasing the proportion of fruit to milk as the chicks mature. Adults may continue to provide some crop -milk to the young during the entire nestling period (Bancroft and Bowman 1994). White -crowned pigeons are important seed dispersers. The feeding patterns of white -crowned pigeons and their long-range mobility likely make this species critical to maintaining the biological diversity of imperiled tropical hardwood hammocks in south Florida (Strong and Bancroft 1994). Breeding Behavior and Reproduction White -crowned pigeons breed in south Florida from May to early September where they commonly nest semi -colonially on tidally inundated mangrove islands which provide some protection from predators such as raccoons (Bancroft and Bowman 2001) (Figure 2). Males are semi -territorial on nesting sites and assist females with nest construction (Wiley and Wiley 1979). One to 3 eggs are laid, with 2 being the most common. In the daytime, males care for the eggs and nestlings; females care for them at night. The eggs hatch in 13 to 14 days, usually on successive days. The young will Figure 2. White -crowned pigeons commonly leave the nest after 16 to 22 days, though they nest on mangrove islands. Photograph from may remain in the vicinity of the nest for up Florida Bay by Carol Rizkalla, FWC. to 40 days after hatching (Bancroft 1996). Juveniles will disperse from the nesting islands after 26 to 45 days from hatching (Strong and Bancroft 1994). Distribution The white -crowned pigeon is a subtropical frugivorous species occurring in low-lying forest w habitats with ample fruiting trees. Distributions of local populations in south Florida are influenced by temporal forage availability and level of habitat fragmentation (Bancroft and Bowman 1994). Due to the species' reliance on seasonal fruiting of 5 species of plants, micro - ranges in Florida Bay can vary spatially and temporally (Bancroft and Bowman 1994). Breeding range for the species (Figure 3) is centered on the Bahamas and Greater Antilles, although Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2 INTRODUCTION populations extend into southern Florida, the Lesser Antilles, and the Caribbean coast of southeastern Mexico and Central America (Arendt et al. 1979, Bancroft and Bowman 2001, Bent 1932, Goodwin 1983, Wiley 1979). I Year-round Figure 3. White -crowned pigeon breeding distribution for entire range. Adapted from Bancroft and Bowman 2001. Its breeding range in the United States is restricted to Florida Bay, Barnes Sound, Card Sound, Biscayne Bay, and the Florida Keys, although a few individuals probably nest inland in Monroe ca and Miami -Dade counties (Figure 4; (Bancroft and Bowman 2001, FWC 2003, National Park °P Service [NPS] 2011, Strong et al. 1991). In Florida, nesting occurs almost exclusively on mangrove islands; nesting birds fly to the mainline Keys, uplands on smaller islands, or the r� mainland to forage on fruit -bearing trees (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). In 1987 through 1989, Strong et al. (1991) found that 52% of mangrove keys supported white -crowned pigeon nests in w Florida Bay. More islands close to the mainline Florida Keys supported nests than did islands closer to peninsular Florida, with the highest nest densities in the center of Florida Bay (Strong et E al. 1991). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 3 INTRODUCTION The Biological Status Review (BSR) estimated the species' range in Florida, or total extent of occurrence, at <5,000 km2 (<1,930.5 mil) and noted that a large majority of this area was open water; the land area actually occupied by white -crowned pigeons in Florida is probably <1,250 km2 (<482.6 mi2). Some white -crowned pigeons that breed in Florida overwinter here, while most of the population migrates south or southeast for the winter (Bancroft 1996, Robertson and Woolfenden 1992). Studies suggest that 80% to 90% of white -crowned pigeons breeding in Florida winter in the Bahamas and the Caribbean (Bancroft and Bowman 1994, Bancroft and Bowman 2001, Meyer and Wilmers 2006). White -crowned - �lr . Pigeon,I Patagioena leucocephala A ' r G 49 `vVCPI Breeding Distribution ; WCP1 Foraging Distribution Hardwood Hammock Habitat Mangrove Habitat 'ty,i, 141 ,I r t ' F, +x { �� f4 , 111 Gulf of MexicoI° yt t�i {� � ¥ N i t Hai Sa 0 4.5 9 18 27 36 Miles 0 10 20 40 60 80 4tyrt Kilometers Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Clete.1118113Data Source: FVVC, 2004, tl_vegD3 D Straits of Florida DISCLAIMER The boundaries dspieted on this naap docu—nt are approximate. This map d.cunxent is intended for use only atfhe published scale, These data are intended for informational use only and should not ba cansid... d autimritadve for navigation, .ngin... ing. Vega,..r.Thai sri - p.cific purp.se.. FWC does n.T ..sure any legal liability.r responsbil'dy wising from the use of this product in a manner net intended by the author Figure 4. White -crowned pigeon breeding and foraging distribution in Florida. Conservation History In the late 191h and early 20th Centuries, white -crowned pigeons were hunted and young were collected for food (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Currently, most of the Florida population nests Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 4 INTRODUCTION on public lands in the islands of Everglades National Park (Florida Bay), Key West National Wildlife Refuge, National Key Deer Refuge, and Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, which were established in the early to mid 1900s. This habitat protection likely allowed the population to recover from declines due to hunting, though populations never recovered to historic levels. Although hunting of white -crowned pigeons is no longer allowed in the United States or Puerto Rico and was recently banned in Cuba (M. Acosta, Cuban bird ecologist, personal communication), hunting has continued throughout the most of the remainder of the species' range. Figure 5. Tropical hardwood hammock in the Florida Keys is important foraging and stopover habitat for white -crowned pigeons Photograph by Randy Grau, FWC. Tropical hardwood hammock serves as important foraging and stopover habitat for white -crowned pigeons, but has been severely reduced and fragmented (Figure 5). Remaining habitat in north Key Largo has been protected by the establishment of Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 1980 and Dagney Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park in 1982. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), FWC, Monroe County, and private conservation organizations have cooperated to acquire and manage some of the remaining fragments of hammock, although several significant tracts remain in private ownership. Surveys of nesting colonies have been conducted annually since 2001 in the lower Keys refuges, and law enforcement patrols aim to minimize disturbance to the pigeons (USFWS 2009). Hurricanes in 2005 caused severe damage to nesting and foraging areas. Nesting returned to pre -storm levels by 2007 (Meyer et al. 2008). Body mass of pigeons differed significantly among foraging areas, suggesting that habitat quality may vary spatially (Meyer et al. 2008). The White -Crowned Pigeon Working Group met for the first time in 2007 to discuss conservation efforts throughout the species' range (Hay 2008). Participants from Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Dominican Republic, U.S. Virgin Islands, Haiti, Mexico, Belize, and Florida determined that populations are declining range wide, but most notably in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. Cooperative and collaborative research and conservation in Florida and range wide are essential to reversing this decline. Threats and Recommended Listing Status The global population of the white -crowned pigeon is assessed as Near Threatened according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Category and Criteria due to intense habitat degradation and deforestation (BirdLife International 2008). Protection measures have reduced hunting pressure on this species within Florida; however, white -crowned pigeons that breed in Florida continue to be heavily hunted on their wintering grounds, especially Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 5 INTRODUCTION in the Bahamas (Bancroft and Bowman 2001, Meyer and Wilmers 2006, Wells and Wells 2001). Bancroft and Bowman (2001) list hunting and harvesting, pesticides and other contaminants, collisions with structures or objects, degradation of habitat, and human disturbance impacts as primary threats to white -crowned pigeons. Nest predation by raccoons (Procyon lotor) and other predators is also a documented threat (Strong et al. 1991). Disturbance of nesting colonies by ecotour operators has also been identified as a potential threat M by avian researchers (K. Meyer, Avian Research and Conservation Institute [ARCI], personal 0 communication). The Florida white -crowned pigeon population is contained within Monroe and Miami -Dade counties, where it is vulnerable to hurricane events, both because of its geographic location and its restricted range. Historical storm records corroborate the vulnerability of these geographic locations. The hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 eliminated substantial areas of nesting E habitat in the lower Florida Keys (T. Wilmers, USFWS, personal communication). Increasing frequency of severe tropical storms and hurricanes (Webster et al. 2006) as well as sea level rise due to climate change are expected to degrade and reduce the available nesting habitat for the a species. In addition, critical foraging habitat continues to decline. For example, the area of E 0 tropical hardwood hammocks in the upper Florida Keys declined by 3 1 % between 1991 and 2004 (Karim and Main 2009), primarily due to development. Nest numbers and productivity are strongly correlated to the food supply (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). co Recommended Listing Status The white -crowned pigeon met the following criterion for listing as Threatened: Criterion B Geographic Range. The species occurs only in portions of Monroe County and Miami -Dade County with a total area extent estimated <5,000 km2 (<1,931 mi2). The land area is <25% of extent of occurrence (i.e., < 1,250 km2); at any time no more than 1/3 of keys and islands (ca. 400 km2 [154.4 mi2]) are occupied. The species exists in only 3 to 4 breeding locations, where it is subject to tropical weather events that can severely impact all breeding individuals. The increasing frequency of severe tropical storms and hurricanes has caused long-term habitat destruction (Webster et al. 2006). Nesting substrates in black mangroves (Avicennia germinans) is especially affected and does not regenerate for decades. The hurricanes during 2004 and 2005 resulted in partial or complete loss of nesting substrate in large portions of the lower Keys, including Barracuda Keys, Little Crane Key, upper Harbor Key, Little Spanish Key Mangrove, and Joe Ingram Key (T. Wilmers, personal communication). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission recommends that the white -crowned pigeon remain listed as Threatened on the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species List. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 6 CONSERVATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal Conservation status of the white -crowned pigeon is improved to the point that the species is secure within its historical Florida range. Objectives L Maintain a stable or increasing population of the white -crowned pigeon in Florida over the next 10 years. Rationale -� White -crowned pigeon populations may have declined due to disturbance at their breeding and foraging areas from people, vessels, and aircraft (Conomy et al. 1998; Carney and Sydeman 1999) or mortality from predators and disease. The loss, degradation, and habitat fragmentation of breeding and foraging areas have also been implicated in their decline. Climate change may be a responsible for recent population declines due to more frequent and intense hurricanes. Because E 0 of the small spatial scale of the Florida Keys, habitat shifts are less likely to occur, and net loss of nesting and foraging habitat could be expected. Where possible, threats to the Florida population should be addressed. 00 11. Maintain or increase current known area of occupancy (> 400 km2 or > 154.4 mil) of the white -crowned pigeon in Florida over the next 10 years. Rationale Ongoing declines in extent and quality of habitat threaten existing population levels. Maintaining or increasing current population levels requires stabilizing or increasing suitable habitat. The extent of occurrence of the white -crowned pigeon is approximately 5,000 km2 in Florida; however only about 1,250 km2 of that area is on land. Rising sea levels may reduce white - crowned pigeon nesting and foraging habitat in some areas where mangroves are drowned in place, while increasing it in other areas as mangroves replace other habitats. Data indicates that Atlantic, Gulf Coast, and global sea levels have been steadily increasing since measurements have been conducted (Douglas 1991, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2001). Tidal data from Key West Harbor indicates a mean sea level rise of 0.73 feet has occurred from 1913 to 2006; (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2012). Losses due to sea level rise will require an increase in the extent of suitable habitat within and outside current foraging and breeding areas if we are to meet the conservation objectives . III. Where possible, contribute to efforts to reduce or eliminate threats to the white -crowned pigeon population on their wintering range outside of Florida. Rationale >� w There are no data to indicate that Florida's white -crowned pigeon population is supplemented by immigration from outside the state. An estimated 80% of the Florida breeding population overwinters outside of the United States (Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Florida white -crowned pigeons are subject to high mortality rates due to hunting, as well as habitat loss on their wintering grounds, especially in the Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola (Strong and Johnson 2001). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 7 10,13 'Will I 11�� Though it may be difficult to accomplish, it is critical that conservation planning consider the winter range of Florida's white -crowned pigeon population as they are vulnerable to threats beyond the state's boundaries. I 1� Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission CONSERVATION ACTIONS CONSERVATION ACTIONS The following sections describe the conservation actions that will make the greatest contribution toward achieving the conservation objectives. Actions are grouped by category (e.g., Habitat Conservation and Management, Population Management). The Conservation Action Table (Table 1) provides information on action priority, urgency, potential funding sources, likely effectiveness, identified partners, and leads for implementation. Habitat Conservation and Management Action 1 Reduce clearing and degradation of tropical hardwood hammocks in Florida through coordination and education. Action 2 Maintain or increase tropical hardwood hammock tree species on public lands to provide season -long forage and maintain productivity throughout the entire breeding season. Two specific habitat types support critical life stages of the F= 0 white -crowned pigeon: mangrove islands for breeding and tropical hardwood hammock for foraging. The majority of mangrove habitat in the species' range is provided some type 00 of protection by existing regulations. Foraging areas are most at risk, as foraging takes place on many unprotected properties (Figure 6). Many large tracts of hammock are in public ownership, although there are notable exceptions: Crane Point Hammock, Sugarloaf Keys, and Torch Keys, Figure 6. Tropical hardwood CL hammock on unprotected private among others, contain large tracts that remain in private property in Marathon Florida. ownership. Species experts suggest even very small parcels 0 of tropical hardwood hammock with appropriate forage U Photograph by Carol Rizkalla 5 FWC. species can play an important role in providing habitat for nearby white -crowned pigeon populations Ei gure 7; Meyers and Wilmers 2006). In Florida, research indicates that maintaining the availability of sufficient UP areas of suitable foraging habitat is critical to securing Florida's population of white -crowned r_ pigeons (Bancroft 1996, Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Tropical hardwood hammocks and pine U rockland habitat provide essential nesting and foraging habitat for numerous state- and federally- C- listed species and migratory birds in addition to the white -crowned pigeon (Lott et al. 2006). Tropical hardwood hammocks also provide crucial habitat for other Endangered or Threatened species such as the Schaus' swallow -tail butterfly (USFWS 1999) and the Florida tree snail 9 (Deisler-Servo 1994). In particular, protection of poisonwood and other fruiting trees is critical, as it is often removed and discouraged from planting near urban areas due to its potential to cause skin irritations. Loss of hardwood hammocks and selective removal of fruiting trees, especially poisonwood, can reduce the extent and quality of foraging for white -crowned pigeons. w Land managers on public lands need to manage tropical hardwood hammocks to ensure the habitat remains healthy. This may involve exotic plant removal, native plantings, and restoration E of disturbed areas. The FWC and partners also need to coordinate with local governments to encourage enforcement of local ordinances designed to protect remaining tropical hardwood Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 9 CONSERVATION ACTIONS hammock (Action 26) and provide incentives for private land owners to conserve the fruiting trees Action 24) and the habitat (Action 21). Action 3 Identify and prioritize potential breeding and foraging areas for acquisition and protection inside and outside the species' breeding range, taking into consideration potential habitat shifts caused by sea level rise. Action 4 Manage suitable potential breeding and foraging areas outside the species' range to mitigate for sea level rise. Both large and small tracts of tropical hardwood hammocks containing fruit -producing tree species should be prioritized for acquisition and preservation. Diversity of native species in both the canopy and the understory is also critical to maintaining the integrity and ecological functionality of a healthy tropical hardwood hammock. Because the timing of fruiting varies among hammock species, this diversity also ensures a constant availability of suitable food throughout the white -crowned pigeons annual nesting cycle (Strong and Bancroft 1994). Figure 7. Small parcel of tropical hardwood hammock in Marathon, Florida. Photograph by Carol Rizkalla, FWC. Consideration should be given to the large reduction in habitat in low-lying areas (such as most of the Florida Keys) that will result from sea level rise. Identifying suitable foraging and breeding areas outside of the white -crowned pigeon's present range may be a way to proactively mitigate problems associated with sea level rise by providing alternate habitat for this species and others inhabiting the Florida Keys. This type of proactive management may also help to reduce vulnerability to stochastic events, such as hurricanes, by increasing the amount of currently available habitat for the species. With the assistance of partners and stakeholders, tracts of tropical hardwood hammock not currently in public ownership should be prioritized for acquisition, with emphasis on identified core foraging habitat. Potential sites should be identified using ground truthing in addition to remote sensing and county property records. Priority should be given to tracts with a large diversity of native fruit -bearing trees. Currently, there are no data linking value of a foraging area to its proximity to a nesting site; previous telemetry studies have shown white -crowned pigeons will travel long distances to forage repeatedly day after day (Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Prioritized sites could be purchased through programs such as the Florida Forever program or through partnerships with organizations such as Audubon of Florida or The Nature Conservancy, organizations that on occasion purchase properties and donate to local, state, or federal governments. Management activities should include controlling invasive exotic plants, planting native species, and maintaining the biological integrity of the habitat, especially a diversity of seasonally variable fruiting native food species. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 10 CONSERVATION ACTIONS Action 5 Establish buffer zones or no -entry zones as necessary and post signage to reduce human disturbance from motorized and non -motorized vessels at the largest and most sensitive breeding sites. Human presence near nests can cause white -crowned pigeons to bolt from their nests, sometimes knocking eggs or chicks out of the nest in the process (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Signage and/or brochures should identify the locations, closure dates, and regulations for breeding sites where there are human disturbance issues. Signs should be maintained and visible. Many white - crowned pigeon breeding sites may also be shared with other mangrove nesting birds. Coordination with NPS, USFWS, and other land management agencies is needed to ensure breeding sites of white -crowned pigeon and other mangrove -nesting birds are marked and protected wherever threatened. A combination of buffer zones and no -entry zones will most likely be necessary to protect @ breeding sites. Individual breeding sites should be evaluated to determine which strategy is most a appropriate for minimizing disturbance to the colony while allowing for appropriate recreational E 0 activity (seasonal closures can be sufficiently effective and less restrictive). Nesting sites close to human populations are generally the most vulnerable to disturbance and may require additional protection. The FWC will continue to protect and manage white -crowned pigeon foraging areas 00 in the Florida Keys Wildlife Environmental Area (Florida Keys WEA) and will work with other agencies that manage land where white -crowned pigeons nest to determine where additional buffer and no -entry zones are needed. Buffer zones and no -entry zones will need to be enforced by law enforcement Action 19) Action 6 Post signage and enforce restrictions at core foraging areas where necessary and where feasible. Bancroft and Bowman (2001) found that white -crowned pigeons in foraging areas readily flushed when humans walked or jogged near them. Core foraging areas should be closed to the n public where human disturbance is a problem. Emphasis should be placed on public lands such as FWC's Florida Keys WEA, which contains significant areas of foraging habitat. These areas are already protected from development and can be actively managed through removal of exotic CL vegetation and native tree planting. If identified as a core foraging location, areas within the Florida Keys WEA can also be seasonally closed if necessary. Posting key foraging areas on private lands should be encouraged where feasible and with the cooperation of land owners. Using sea -level -rise inundation studies, such as those found in "Application of the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 6) to Key West National Wildlife Refuge" (Warren Pinnacle 2011) can help inform where vulnerable habitat is located and where less vulnerable habitat may be found for the future. Population Management Action 7 Protect white -crowned pigeon from effects of sea level rise through ex situ conservation (assisted migration) and social attraction techniques if necessary. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 11 CONSERVATION ACTIONS Assisted migration may be used as a tool for management of species in the event of sea level rise (Ross et al. 2009). However, this is not possible with birds since they will generally return to the place of capture immediately. Instead, white -crowned pigeons may have to be attracted to new breeding and foraging areas outside of their range through the use of social attraction techniques, such as decoys and recorded calls. If nesting and foraging habitat is affected by sea level rise, these techniques, which have been successfully used for other avian species, could be used to attract them to new areas (Arnold et al. 2011). Monitoring and Research Action 8 Inventory all breeding sites throughout the white -crowned pigeon's Florida breeding range. Action 9 Maintain a database of all significant breeding sites with status, estimated number of nests, threats, and monitoring dates. The range -wide breeding population and breeding locations of the white -crowned pigeon in Florida is not known. This information is necessary for land managers and environmental agencies and organizations to make informed decisions on habitat and species management. 00 Land managers should undertake a comprehensive survey of all known breeding sites as well as potential breeding areas. Data on the number of breeding pairs per site should be collected. The lower Keys population of white -crowned pigeon has been well -monitored by the USFWS through the use of ongoing flight -line counts. Portions of the upper Keys and mainland population were monitored in the 1990s by the National Audubon Society (Strong et al. 1994), but there has been little to no recent monitoring of breeding populations outside of the lower Keys. Additional surveys need to be completed for breeding populations within the northern part of their breeding range. Precautions will be taken to avoid unnecessary disturbance of the pigeons at their breeding sites while conducting these surveys. The FWC can coordinate with counties, USFWS, and NPS to accomplish needed surveys. The status, number of nesting pairs, threats, and monitoring dates for all significant breeding sites can be entered annually into a long-term database that is accessible to all agencies and land managers. Action 10 Develop a standardized monitoring protocol. Strong et al. (1994) first developed the use of flight -line counts as a non -disruptive method of counting nesting populations of the white -crowned pigeon in the upper Florida Keys. However, some researchers suspect flight -line counts may be a poor index of nesting pair abundance in areas where white -crowned pigeon colonies are small or spread out (Hay 2008). Transect surveys have been used at colonies in Puerto Rico (Rivera -Milan 2001). To date, there has been no targeted research to determine the most accurate methods for long-term population trends. A w feasible standardized survey method that will accurately determine population trends should be developed. Private conservation organizations have done similar surveys on smaller scale and ®P may be the best resource to continue and expand on current research. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 12 CONSERVATION ACTIONS Action 11 Identify core foraging areas throughout the Florida range. Action 12 Determine foraging patterns and ranges for known populations. Foraging areas for white -crowned pigeons nesting in the lower Keys may cover large distances. The species has been found to occur as far north as the upper Keys, Everglades National Park, and Miami -Dade and Broward counties (Bancroft and Bowman 2001, Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Additionally, an unknown percentage of white -crowned pigeons winter in Florida (Hay 2008). More information is necessary to determine the location of important foraging areas for breeding and wintering white -crowned pigeons in Florida. A long-term study on commutes to foraging habitat is needed to gather information on foraging pattern and ranges. It would also be useful in better identifying priority foraging habitats. Information about optimal breeding areas and proximity to foraging sites has not been collected. This information is critical for effectively posting colonies, creating and enforcing appropriate protections, and educating the public so that disturbance may be prevented. Visual reports, banding and telemetry studies will help determine important foraging areas. Action 13 Determine which method is the most effective in preventing human disturbance from 00 00 motorized and non -motorized vessels at breeding sites: buffer zones around island or no -entry zones on the islands. Human disturbance at breeding sites can cause adults to flush from their nests and in the process knock eggs or young off their nests. Eggs or young left on their own are more vulnerable to predators and the elements (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Unfortunately, there is disagreement as to which method — buffer zones or no -entry zones — is the most enforceable and therefore the most effective at reducing human disturbance at white -crowned pigeon breeding sites (T. Wilmers, personal communication). Buffer zones are posted areas established around nesting sites at a certain distance necessary to prevent disturbance of white -crowned pigeons. No -entry zones are white -crowned pigeon nesting sites with regulations that prohibit entry by persons not specifically authorized to enter. Research is necessary to determine which method should be employed. Action 14 Determine population growth rate by estimating adult survival, juvenile survival, and reproductive success at representative sites throughout the white -crowned pigeon's breeding range. The effect of management actions or impacts from human disturbance on breeding populations can only be measured by determining breeding success. When monitoring all colonies is not feasible, monitoring a subset of key colonies throughout the Florida range will give a more accurate estimate of breeding success rather than focusing on a few colonies within a specific w population. Unfortunately, there are no recent studies estimating breeding success in the Florida Keys. Additionally, the true impact of human disturbance on reproductive success and adult 0 survival is not known. Precautions should be taken to avoid unnecessary disturbance of the pigeons at their breeding sites while conducting this research. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 13 CONSERVATION ACTIONS Action 15 Examine impact of disease transmission from bird feeders. Anecdotal information suggests occasional pigeon die -offs (of unknown frequency) in the Key West area may be linked to contaminated birdseed from unclean bird feeders (K. Meyer, personal communication). Further research of this observation may result in information necessary to preventing future disease transmission. There are many options for lab testing include the University of Florida Veterinary School or USFWS National Lab, which may be able to test birds suspected of dying from contaminated bird feeders. Additionally, the FWC has an existing online Avian Mortality Database where agencies or the public can enter information such as the location, species, and number of birds found dead. FWC veterinary and biological staff as well as staff from other agencies monitor that database. If it is deemed necessary, arrangements can be made to collect the bodies of the birds for necropsies to determine the cause of death. Action 16 Determine the susceptibility of white -crowned pigeons to trichomoniasis and other diseases and parasites common to doves and pigeons. Although avian trichomoniasis (also known as canker) is quite prevalent in most white -crowned pigeons, it is thought that this species is mostly resistant to infection (Kocan and Sprunt 1971). 00 00 Nevertheless, die -offs from avian trichomoniasis have been documented in the Bahamas (K. Meyer, personal communication). Lice, mite, and warble fly larvae have all been reported to infect adults and young (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). However, the impact these diseases and parasites have on adult and young survivorship is unknown. This information is necessary to identify potential causes of mortality. Options for lab testing include the University of Florida Veterinary School or USFWS National Lab, which may be able to test dead young collected from nest to test for parasites or diseases. Action 17 Determine the extent of mortality from native predators such as raptors and raccoons on adults and young at breeding sites. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are a primary predator of white -crowned pigeon adults, eggs, and young in the Keys. Red -winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) also prey on eggs. Raptors such as peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) are known to target white -crowned pigeon adults and young (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). Action 18 Determine the impact of non-native species such as cats, rats, pythons, and iguanas on white -crowned pigeon adults, eggs, and young. There have been little to no studies on the impacts of non-native predators on white -crowned pigeons. Feral and free ranging cats (Felis catus) are quite common in the Florida Keys and have been documented preying on adult white -crowned pigeons (Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Brown w rats (Rattus rattus) have been documented depredating nests of white -crowned pigeons in Puerto Rico (Bancroft and Bowman 2001). The Burmese python (Phyton molurus bivittatus) has been 0 recorded consuming at least 25 species of birds in south Florida, among them an unidentified pigeon species (Dove et al. 2011). Direct predation may reduce the white -crowned pigeon population or cause abandonment of nests. Competition for food sources by non-native Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 14 CONSERVATION ACTIONS herbivores such as green iguanas (Iguana iguana) may indirectly reduce fitness and increase mortality. There is anecdotal evidence of green iguana predation of roseate spoonbills (Ajaja ajaja) eggs in Florida Bay (Audubon Tavernier Science Center personal communication) so they may also be a threat to white -crowned pigeon nests. Determining extent of mortality from non- native predators is an appropriate action for university, or private researchers or conservation organizations. Rule and Permitting Intent Rule 68A-4.001 (1), F.A.C, prohibits take of white -crowned pigeons and their nests, eggs, and young, where take is defined as taking, attempting to take, pursuing, hunting, molesting, capturing, or killing (Rule 68A-1.004 [79], F.A.C.). The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703), which has been adopted by the FWC (Rule 68A-16.001, F.A.C.), establishes similar prohibitions. There is a need to protect white -crowned pigeon's from human disturbance at their nesting sites (mangrove islands) and their foraging areas. Provisions for permits to take white -crowned pigeons, including incidental take, will be similar F: 0 to those offered for other species and are provided in Rule 68A-9.002, F.A.C. Specifically, this rule authorizes the Executive Director to issue permits authorizing the taking or possession of white -crowned pigeons or their nests or eggs for scientific, educational, exhibition, propagation, 00 management, or other justifiable purposes. Such permits are only operative if the holder also has a permit from the USFW S for the activity. Some impacts to mangrove islands and tropical hardwood hammocks may result in the "take" of white -crowned pigeons. According to Rule 68A-27.001, F.A.C., take is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct." The term "harm" in the definition of take means an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. Research and Monitoring actions listed in this plan are intended to identify impacts to habitat used by the white -crowned pigeon and may provide guidance for permitting issues. Protection of mangroves is regulated by DEP. Mangroves are protected by the Florida Statues (403.9321 through 403.9333) via the 1996 Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, which includes provisions for mangrove alteration and trimming. Clearing of tropical hardwood hammocks continues legally and illegally. There is a need to protect core white -crowned pigeon foraging areas in tropical hardwood hammocks through better enforcement. Law Enforcement Action 19 Enforce buffer zones or no -entry zones to reduce human disturbance from motorized w and non -motorized vessels at the largest and most sensitive breeding sites. The FWC's Division of Law Enforcement, in conjunction with federal, state, and local partners, is responsible for enforcing Florida's wildlife and fisheries laws. FWC law enforcement officers and USFWS special agents may partner to protect Florida's wildlife and fisheries resources Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 15 CONSERVATION ACTIONS through a Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement. Additionally, Rule 68A-13.002, F.A.C., adopts the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act as state law and applies state penalties for violations. Agents from USFWS and FWC often jointly investigate wildlife. Additional law enforcement staff may be needed to improve protection of colonies and enforcement of posted areas. Maintaining proper signage for no -entry zones or buffer zones (Action S) will also allow for more effective enforcement (USFWS 2009). Action 20 Develop strong coordination between law enforcement officers, land managers, and wildlife biologists. Interagency workshops and increased outreach to law enforcement officers, land managers, and wildlife biologists should be conducted once every Ito 2 years in order to share information, concerns, and data, as well as to develop collaborative strategies that will result in enhanced enforcement and resource protection. Incentives and Influencing Action 21 Develop incentives and cost -sharing agreements or programs for private landowners to conserve and enhance pine rockland and tropical hardwood hammock habitat for frugivorous 00 bird species. Cost share programs, such as FWC's Landowner Assistance Program, which reimburses landowners for managing for imperiled species, provide opportunity for more widespread management of habitats that benefit the white -crowned pigeon. FWC staff from these programs can continue to maintain communication with local landowners to bolster relationships, provide education, and (when and where possible) assist with conservation efforts on private property. Actions that benefit the white -crowned pigeon include protection of tropical hardwood hammocks from development, as well as planting of early -season forage species, such as longleaf blolly. Education and Outreach Action 22 Provide education and outreach to appropriate user groups regarding disturbance of breeding sites. Brochures, public-service announcements, press releases, public meetings, kiosk displays, and effectively placed signs can all be used to inform the public regarding rules and regulations pertaining to protection of white -crowned pigeon breeding sites. FWC Public Information Officers and the Office of Community Relations can partner to develop informational brochures and media releases that can be distributed annually prior to the breeding season. Brochures can be distributed at bait and tackle shops, marinas, and boat -rental facilities. Ecotour operators can w inform the public about the breeding biology of white -crowned pigeons and the importance of maintaining a safe distance from islands with nests. Increased outreach with ecotour operators may equip them with the information necessary to educate their guests about conservation of white -crowned pigeons. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 16 CONSERVATION ACTIONS Action 23 Develop and disseminate aviation guidelines where low -flying aircraft impact mangrove -nesting birds. Aircraft flying low over breeding and non -breeding birds may cause impacts to their foraging and breeding success (Carney and Sydeman 1999, Conomy et al. 1998). Regional and national airports as well as a military naval base all occur near white -crowned pigeon breeding colonies and foraging areas. Additionally, ecotour aircraft are known to approach these areas frequently to provide more scenic views. Guidelines should be developed and disseminated by FWC to local airports and commercial ecotour operations to promote responsible wildlife viewing as well as aircraft safety. Action 24 Educate private property owners on the importance of maintaining or increasing tropical hardwood hammock tree species that produce fruit early in the nesting season. In the Florida Keys, most tropical hardwood hammock species do not produce ripe fruit during the winter and early spring. Species experts have indicated there is a lack of ripe early nesting season forage available for white -crowned pigeons, particularly in the lower Keys (T. Wilmers, personal communication). Typical early season forage species, such as strangler fig and wild banyan are often discouraged from being planted in urban areas due to their size and extensive root systems. Alternative species like the blolly, which is fast-growing, can provide critical early - season forage for fructivorous birds, but it does not have extensive root systems. Bancroft and Bowman (1994) ranked blolly as the second most important forage species for white -crowned pigeons and noted it was used year-round. An important consideration, however, is that while early -season forage is important, breeding productivity is low relative to later in the season. Bancroft and Bowman (2001) found a higher breeding productivity of white -crowned pigeons later in the season when poisonwood fruit is more available, as well as higher productivity in years with more abundant poisonwood fruit availability. Providing education and assistance to the public to ensure sufficient forage is available year-round on private lands would help support productivity for white -crowned pigeons and other fruit -eating birds. The FWC can take a lead role in coordinating with appropriate partners to initiate educational outreach and incentive programs for private landowners interested in growing fruit trees that may increase forage availability for white -crowned pigeons at key times during the year. Further, the FWC can coordinate with various organizations, (local utility companies, parks, garden clubs, and other non -governmental organizations) that sponsor native plant giveaways or low-cost native tree sales. Organizations such as local Audubon chapters, the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, the Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC) and Monroe County, along with the FWC, may be appropriate partners to develop and distribute educational material. The IRC, for example, compiles information on backyard -friendly plants, and may provide excellent opportunities for coordination and public education. The FWC's Office of Public Access and Wildlife Viewing Services can create a brochure to be distributed to interested parties. Coordination with Other Entities Action 25 Ensure white -crowned pigeon colonies are included in updates of Coast Guard Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) for hazardous material spills. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 17 CONSERVATION ACTIONS The FWC has actively been engaged in the development of ACPs. The FWC's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) and other biological staff participate in ACP workshops and oil spill drills. The ACPs outline sensitive wildlife areas, site -manager contact information, species presence, and special precautions to take in the event of a hazardous material spill, such as an oil spill. During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the U.S. Coast Guard's Incident Command actively coordinated with FWC staff to ensure sensitive wildlife areas and species were protected from oil carried in by winds and currents. It is equally important to ensure that sensitive wildlife areas are protected during cleanup efforts; these sensitive areas include the breeding and foraging habitats of the white -crowned pigeon. The FWRI will continue to coordinate with FWC Regional Biologists and agency land managers where white -crowned pigeon breeding sites occur to ensure all active white -crowned pigeon colonies are identified in the ACPs and are protected in the event of a hazardous material spill during the breeding season. Action 26 Encourage enforcement of local codes for protection of tropical hardwood hammock and pine rockland habitats. Privately owned tropical hardwood hammock and pine rockland habitats are not specifically protected by state and federal law. There are some existing development guidelines in place for tropical hardwood hammock habitat within the species' range. This work is already being 00 conducted, to a certain extent, through local governments. Miami -Dade County (2006) cites general hammock protection guidelines in Element 4 of their Comprehensive Development Master Plan — Adopted Components. The items do allow for hammock clearing, but state that impacts should be minimized through buffer zones, zoning, and reduced road widths. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (MCCP) and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) do not specifically address white -crowned pigeons but do have provisions for protection of native habitats (Monroe County 2012). Development in tropical hardwood hammocks and pine rocklands is discouraged by the MCCP and Monroe County codes. The current Monroe County LDRs restrict the amount of native tropical hardwood hammock and pine rockland habitat that may be cleared for new development to a maximum of 40% or 7,500 square feet per parcel based on the designated environmental sensitivity of the habitat (Section 118-9, Monroe County Code). Section 118-10(1) of the Monroe County Code helps to protect white -crowned pigeon habitat by requiring that all areas of tropical hardwood hammock required for open space are maintained in their natural condition, including the preservation of canopy, midstory and understory vegetation, ground cover and leaf litter layer (Monroe County 2012). The management guidelines for natural areas in Miami -Dade and Monroe counties extend some protections for tropical hardwood hammocks; however, current guidelines still allow for some development and clearing of this habitat type (Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Chapter 163.3177, Florida Statutes, requires that county comprehensive growth management w plans include a conservation element. The conservation element must include the identification of areas within the county that are locations of important wildlife or habitat resources, including State -listed species. This element must contain principles, guidelines, and standards for conservation that restrict activities known to adversely affect the survival of these species. The FWC is identified as a state agency authorized to review county growth management plans and, including any amendments to ensure important state fish, wildlife, and habitat resources are Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 18 CONSERVATION ACTIONS adequately considered. In addition, local government land development regulations require conditions for land and water uses that specify how such uses will be administered to be consistent with the conservation element of the county growth management plans. Therefore, interagency collaboration on the review and development of the conservation element of these plans is essential for ensuring that they consider wildlife habitat within the county. Action 27 Expand and restart the Florida Mangrove Nesting Bird Working Group. A working group is an effective way to exchange information and address conflicts between species experts, landowners, and critical stakeholders. A Florida Mangrove Nesting Bird Working Group was started in 2003 and was active until 2008. Its primary focus was the mangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor) and mangrove nesting songbirds but also included the E white -crowned pigeon. This work group should be revitalized and expanded to place more focus on the white -crowned pigeon. Members may be recruited from stakeholders identified during creation of this plan, or they may be solicited once the plan has been finalized. Habitat goals for a white -crowned pigeons are compatible with other mangrove -nesting and fruit -eating bird species E 0 in south Florida. A coordinated effort is an efficient way to provide benefit to a suite of species. Members may include local, state, and federal governments, commercial recreation outfitters, land managers, private landowners, law enforcement officers, and conservation groups. Byco bringing together stakeholders and landowners, information sharing and education is easier and coordinated conservation efforts are more likely. Action 28 Collaborate with public and private organizations and workgroups outside of the United States to support sustainable white -crowned pigeon hunting regulations and promote habitat conservation and restoration. A 6-month hunting season in the Bahamas is open during the same time the Florida breeding population is migrating from and overwintering outside of the United States. Hunting in the Bahamas is poorly regulated. Very high bag limits (50 birds per day) make the Bahamas stand out as the most liberally regulated hunting area within the species' range (Bahamas National Trust 2010a, Bahamas National Trust 2010b, Meyer and Wilmers 2006). Habitat destruction in Jamaica, Haiti, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic has led to population declines of this species (Arendt et al. 1979, Bancroft and Bowman 2001, Wiley 1979). In addition to stronger regulation of hunting in these countries, greater effort should be made to protect remaining white -crown pigeon wintering, nesting, and foraging habitat and to restore degraded or destroyed habitat. International interest in conserving species such as the white -crowned pigeon is increasing, providing coordination opportunities for FWC and other organizations to influence the range - wide conservation of the species. International government entities, such as the Bahamas National Trust; international conservation groups, such as The Society for the Conservation and w Study of Caribbean Birds; and attendees of the 2011 White -crowned Pigeon Working Group meeting (see Hay 2008) may all provide excellent opportunities for coordination and education. The FWC and other conservation partners can explore these and other opportunities. Achieving range -wide conservation will also require education of hunters, landowners, and other user groups. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 19 Table 1. White -Crowned Pigeon (Pateagiolli leaeocePhala) Conservation Action Table Lead for Team Ongoing, Estimated. Objectives) Assigned Action Item'. Action Items Conservation Action Expanded or Authority Man Cost To Funding Implementation: External partners Likely Effectiveness Feasibility Urgent? Addressed Number Category '. Por<ver '. Sources) Programs) ri i Priority Level New Effort? Implement and/or andfor Sections) '.. NGWT Trust 2 1 1 Reduce clearing and degradation oftropical hardwood Habitat Conservation & Mgmt EXPANDED YES YES TBD Fund, Existing HSC DEP, Local governments, Likely. Feasible. No. hammocks In Florida through coordination and education. budget Land owners Maintain or Increase tropical hardwood hammock tree species on public lands to provide season -long forage and third, grant, Trust fu DEP, USFWS, NPS, Local NPS,. 2 2 2 aintain produchanythroughoutthe entire breeding Habitat M Habltat Conservation& EXPANDED YES YES TBD legislature HSC governmen d olmors Likely, Feasible. No. Identify and prioritize potential breeding and foraging 2 1 3 fe as for acquisition and protection inside and outsmethe Habitat Conservation & Mgmt EXPANDED YES YES $0-25k Existing budget HSC, WHM DEP, Local governments, Highly likely. Very feasible. No. species range, gin oconsi po en is takin t deration t t I habitat Land owners shifts caused bV sea level rise. Grant, DEP, NIPS, USFWS, Local 2 5 4 Mona breeding d fora Manage sui[able potential gan foraging areas Habitat Conservation & Mgmt NEW YES YES TBD Legislature, HSC governments, NGOs, Likely. Somewhatfeasible. No. outside the species' range to mitigate for sea level rise. Unknown Land owners Establish buffer zones or no-.ntry zones as necessary and 1 1 5 Post signage to reduce human disturbance from motorized Habitat Conservation & Mgmt NEW YES YES $25-501, Existing budget HSC, SCP USFWS, NEE Highly likely. Feasible with ts. permi No and non -motorized vessels at the largest and most sensitive breeding sites. 1 2 6 Post signage and e nforc, Lostri coons at core foraging areas Habitat Conservation&Mgmt NEW YES YES TBD Existing budget HSC USFWS, NPS Likely. Feasible. No. where necessary and where feasible. Protect v✓ III, -crowned Pigeon sfrom effects of sea level DEP, NPS, USFWS, Local 2 5 7 se through eu situ conservation (assisted migration) and Population Mgm[ NEW YES YES TBD NGWTF, Grants, HSC governments, NGOs, Somewhat likely. Somewhat feasible. No. socialattraction techniques if necessary. Existing budget Land owners 1 1 8 ventary Aid rding sites throughout the white -crowned needa Monitoring &Research EXPANDED YES YES $0-25k NGWTF HSC, SCP, WHIM, M USFWSNPS, Audubon, Highly likely. Very feasible. No. pigeon's Flo, breeding range. ARCI Maintain a database of all significant breeding sites with USFWS, NIPS, Audubon, 1 4 9 status, estimated number of nests, threats, and monitoring Monitoring & Research EXPANDED YES YES $0-25k Existing budget HSC, SCP ARCI Highly likely. Very feasible. No. dates. 1 2 10 Deve lop , standardized monitoring protocol. Monitoring&Research NEW YES YES $50-1001, Existing FWRI ARCI, USFWS Highly likely. Feasible. No. 1 1 11 Identify core foraging areas throughout the Florida range. Monitoring & Research NEW YES YES $25-501, Existing budget HSC, SCP, WHM USFWS, NIPS, Audubon, Highly likely. Very feasible. No. Local government, ARCI 2 1 12 Determine foraging patterns and ranges for known Monitoring &Research EXPANDED YES NO $501 Grants HSC, FWRI ARCI, Audubon Likely Feasible, No. populations. Determine which method is the most effective in 1 2 13 Preventing human disturbance from motorized and" o n- Monitoring &Research NEW YES NO $50-100k Grant FWRI, HSC, SCP Universities, ARCI Likely. Feasible. No. matmized vessels at breeding sites: buffer zones around ands or no -entry zones on the islands. Florida Nish and Wildlife Consewation Cnmmi,sion Table 1. White -Crowned Pigeon (Patai leacocephala) Conservation Action Table Lead for Team ongoing,) Estimated Objective(s) Assigned Action Item' ' ' Action items Conservation Action Expanded or Authority Man Cost To Funding Implementation: External partners Likely Effectiveness Feasibility Urgent? Addressed Priority Level Number Category New Effort? Power Implement Source(s) FWC Rrogram(s) = and{arSeetionl Determine popularmn growth rate by estimating adult 1 3 14 rvi.I juvenilesurvival, and reproductive success at Monitoring &Research NEW YES NO $50-100k Grant FWRI, HSC, SCP ARCI, Audubon Likely. Feasible. No. representative sites throughout the white -crowned pigeon's breeding range, 1 5 15 Examine Impact of disease transmission from bird feeders. Monitoring & Research NEW YES NO $25-50k Grants, Unknown FWRI universities, ki Likely. Feasible. No. USFWS Determine the susce ptibllity of white -crowned pigeon's to 1 5 16 trichomoniasis and other diseases and parasites co mmon Monitoring & Research NEW YES NO $25-50k unknown FWRI USFWS, NIPS, Universities Difficult. Somewhat feasible. No. to doves and pigeons. Determine the extent of mortality from native predators 1 3 17 such as raptors and raccoons on adults and young at Monitoring & Research NEW YES NO $25-50k Grants, Unknown FWRI Universities , NGos, Very likely. Feasible. No. breeding sites. USFWS, NP5 Determine the impact of non-native species such as cats, 1 2 18 rats, pythons and iguana 5 on white -crowned pigeon ad ults, Monitoring & Research NEW YES NO $25-50k unknown FWRI USFWS, NPS Likely. Feasible. No. eggs and young. Enforce buffer zones or no -entry zones to reduce Feasible, contingent on buffer 1,2 2 19 disturbance from motorized and non -motorized vessels at Law Enforcement EXPANDED YES YES TED Existing budget, LE USFWS, NPS Likely. nes r nozones being No. the largest and most sensitive breeding sites. Legislative established. USFWS,NPS, State parks, 1 2 20 Develop strong coordination between law enforcement Law Enforcement EXPANDED YES YES $0-25k Existing budget LE, HSC Local government, Land Likely. Feasible. No. officers, land managers, and wildlife biologists. Develop Incentives and cost -sharing agreements or programs for private l andouvners to conserve and enhance Landowners, Local 1 2 21 pine oclAand and tropl cal hardwood hammock habltatfor Incentives&Influencing NEW YES YES $0-25k Existing budget HSC Government Likely. Feasible. No. fruglvoraus bird species. 1 4 22 Provide education and outreach to appropriate user Education & Outreach EXPANDED YES YES $0-25k Existing budget HSC, SCP USFWS, NPS, NGOs, User Likely. Feasible. Na. groups regarding disturbance of breeding sites. groups D Develop and disseminate aviation guidelines where low- L WS, Local 1 4 23 ft is t man tin birds. flying al rcra pact gro a-nes g Education & Outreach NEW YES YES $0-25k Existing budget HSC, SCP government, DOD, Likely. Feasible. No. Aviation organiza bans Educate private property owners on the importanre of re Grant, Existing USFWS, Local 2 24 al me ining or increasing tropical hardwood hammock tree Education&Outreach NEW YES NO $0-25k budget, NEW HSC Government, NG0, Likely. Feasible. No. species that produce fruit early in the nesting season. Trust fund Native Plant Societies Ensure white -crowned pigeon colonies are included in 1 2 25 updates of Coast Guard Area Contingency Plans for Coordination with Other Entities EXPANDED YES YES $0-25k Existing budget HSC, FWRI USFWS, NPS,DEP, State Highly likely. Very feasible. No. hazardous, spills. Parks, Local Government 2 1 26 Encaura Re enforcement of local codes for protection of budget HSC Local government, Land Likely. Feasible, No. tropical hardwood hammock and pine rockland habitats. Coordination with Other Entities EXPANDED YES YES $0-25k Existing -ens Expand and restart the Florida Mangrove Nesting Bird USFWS, NP5, Local 1,2 3 2] Working Group Coordination with Other Entities NEW YES YES $0-25k Existing budget HSC, SCP, WHM government, Universities, Likely. Feasible. No. NGOs Florida Nish and Wi ldlife Consewation Comtni,sion Table 1. White -Crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leaeocePhala) Conservation Action Table Lead for Objective(s) Team Action item' Conservation Action ongoing,) Man Estimated Funding Implementation: ' Assigned Action items .Expanded or Authority Cost To ', ' External partners Likely Effectiveness Feasibility Urgent? Addressed Priority Level Number Category New Effort? Power Implement Source(s) FWC Program(s) = artd{avSeekion(s) Callabarate with public and private organizations and ARCI,USFWS, NGOs, yes. Unregulated hunting and 3 1 28 orl<graups out,deofth,United St,t,,t,s,pport Coordination with Other Entities NEW YES NO TBD Grants, Unknown HSC Universities, International Likely. Feasible. habitat loss outside of Florida sustainable v✓hite-crowned pigeon hunting regulations and promote habitat conservation and restoration. governments may lead to local extirpation or extinction. Acronyms used in this table: ARCI: Avian Research and Conservation Institute DEP: Florida Department of Environmental Protection FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWRI: Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, the research branch of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission HSC: Habitat and Species Conservation, a Division of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission LE: Law enforcement NGO: Non -governmental organizationls) NGWT: National Guidelines a n Water Tariffs NPS: National Park Service SCP: Species Conservation Planning, a Section ofthe Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Division of Habitat and Species Conservation USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service WHM: Wildlife and Habitat Management, a Section of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Cnmwi,sion LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Arendt, W. J., T. A. Vargas Mora, and J. W. Wiley. 1979. White -crowned pigeon: status rangewide and in the Dominican Republic. Proceedings from the Annual Conference of Southeast Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 33:111-122. Arnold, J. M., L C. T. Nisbet, and R. Veit. 2011. Assessing aural and visual cueing as tools for seabird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3):495-500. Bahamas National Trust. 2010a. Hunters guide for the Bahamas. Nassau, Bahamas. Bahamas National Trust. 2010b. Birds of the Bahamas: white -crowned pigeon. Nassau, Bahamas. Bancroft, G. T. 1996. White -crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala). Pages 258-266 in J A. Rodgers, Jr., H. W. Kale II, and H. T. Smith, editors. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Bancroft, G. T. and R. Bowman. 1994. Temporal patterns in diet of nestling white -crowned pigeon: Implications for conservation of frugivorous columbids. The Auk 111:844-852. Bancroft, G. T., and R. Bowman. 2001. White -crowned pigeon. The Birds of North America 596:1-23. Bent, A. C. 1932. Life histories of North American gallinaceous birds. U. S. Natural History Museum Bulletin 162. BirdLife International. 2008. Species factsheet: Patagioenas leucocephala. NCN 2010. NCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. www.iucnredlist.onZ. Accessed 4 October 2010. Carney, K. M. and W. J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial waterbirds 22(1):68-79. Conomy, J. T., J.. Dubosky, J. A. Collazo, and W. J. Fleming. 1998. Do black ducks and wood ducks habituate to aircraft disturbance? Journal of Wildlife Management. 62(3):1135- 1142. Deisler-Servo, J. E. 1994. Florida tree snail. Pages 134-140 in M. Deyrup, and R. Franz, editors. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. w Douglas, B. C. 1991. Global sea level rise. Journal of Geophysical Research. 96:6981-6992. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 23 LITERATURE CITED Dove, C .J., R. W. Snow, M. R. Rochford, and F. J. Mazzotti. 2011. Birds consumed by the invasive Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) in Everglades National Park, Florida, USA. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 123(1):126-131. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC]. 2003. Florida's breeding bird atlas A collaborative study of Florida's birdlife. http://www.myfwc.com/bba/. Accessed 4 October 2010. Goodwin, D. 1983. Pigeons and doves of the world. Third edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Hay, D. B. 2008. Report of the white -crowned Pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala) Working Group. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 21:110-112. Karim, A., and M. B. Main. 2009. Habitat fragmentation and conservation strategies for a rare forest habitat in the Florida Keys archipelago. Urban Ecosystems 12: 359-370. Kocan, R. M. and A. Sprunt IV. 1971. The white -crowned pigeon. A fruit -eating pigeon as a host for Trichomonas gallinae. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 7:217-218. Lott, C. A., B. E. Langan, M. B. Mulrooney, R. T. Grau, and K. E. Miller. 2005. Stopover ecology of Nearctic-Neotropical migrant songbirds in hardwood hammocks of the Florida Keys. Final report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. Meyer, K. D. and T. J. Wilmers. 2006. Foraging habitats, winter residency, survival, and philopatry of adult white -crowned pigeons (Patagioenas leucocephala) in the lower Florida Keys. Final Report NG03-013 to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. Meyer, K. D., G. M. Zimmerman, P. J. Mahoney, S. Beyeler, and T. J. Wilmers. 2008. Enduring effects of hurricanes and additive human threats for five avian Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Florida Keys. Final Report 06014 to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. Miami -Dade County. 2006. Comprehensive development master plan (CDMP) — Adopted components. Department of Sustainability, Planning and Economic Enhancement. Ordinance No. 08-74, Adopted July 1, 2008. http://www.miamidade.gov/planzone/CDMP.asp. Accessed 6 March 2012. Monroe County. 2012. Monroe County code of ordinances. Chapter 118 Environment and w Natural Resources Protection. http://Iibrary.municode.com/index.aspx?nomobile=l&clientid=14298. Accessed 1 March a 2012. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 24 LITERATURE CITED National Park Service [NPS]. 2011. Biscayne National Park. draft general management plan/ environmental impact statement. Department of the Interior. Miami -Dade County, Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Sea level variations of the United States. 1854-1999. Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 36. Silver Spring, Maryland. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Mean sea level trend 8724580 Key West, Florida. http://tidesandcuirents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?staid=8724580. Accessed 6 March 2012. Rivera -Milan, F. F. 2001. Transect surveys of Columbid nests on Puerto Rico, Vieques, and Culebra Island. The Condor 103:332-342. Robertson, W. B„ Jr., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1992. Florida bird species: an annotated list. Florida Ornithological Society, Special Publication No. 6. Ross, M. S., J. J. O'Brien, R. G. Ford, K. Zhang, and A. Morkill. 2009. Disturbance and the rising tide: the challenge of biodiversity management on low -island ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7:471-478. Strong, A. M., and G. T. Bancroft. 1994. Postfledging dispersal of white -crowned pigeons: implications for conservation of deciduous seasonal forests in the Florida Keys. Conservation Biology 8:770-779. Strong, A. M., and M. D. Johnson. 2001. Exploitation of a seasonal resource by nonbreeding plain and white -crowned pigeons: implications for conservation of tropical dry forests. Wilson Bulletin 113:73-77. Strong, A. M., R. J. Sawicki, and G. T. Bancroft. 1991. Effects of predator presence on the nesting distribution of white -crowned pigeons in Florida Bay. Wilson Bulletin 103:415- 425. Strong, A. M., R J. Sawicki, and G. T. Bancroft. 1994. Estimating white -crowned pigeon population size from flight -line counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:156 — 162. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1999. South Florida multi -species recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2009. Comprehensive conservation plan. Lower Florida Keys Wildlife Refuges. Department of the Interior. Atlanta, Georgia. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 25 LITERATURE CITED Warren Pinnacle Consulting. 2011. Application of the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM 6) to Key West NWR. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, Arlington, Virginia. Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, and H. R. Chang. 2006. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. 2006. Science 16:1844-1846. Wells, A C., and J. V. Wells. 2001. Pigeons and doves. Pages 319-325 in C. Elphick, J. B. Dunning, Jr., and D. A. Sibley, editors. The Sibley guide to bird life and behavior. Chanticleer Press. New York, New York. Wiley, J. W. 1979. The white -crowned pigeon in Puerto Rico: status, distribution, and movements. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:402-413. Wiley, J. W., and B. N. Wiley. 1979. T he biology of the white -crowned pigeon. Wildlife Monographs 64:3-54. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 26 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Fruits known to be consumed by white -crowned pigeons. As determined from nestling crop samples, adult gut contents, visual observations, and fecal samples collected throughout the year in the Florida Keys (from Bancroft and Bowman 2001). ily Species Common names aceae Metopium toxiferum Poisonwood r Schinus terebinthifolia Florida holly aceae Ilex cassine Dahoon holly e Thrinax morrisn Key thatch palm Thrinax radiata Florida thatch palm Boraginaceae Bourreria ovata Bahama strongbark Burseraceae Bursera simarouba Gumbo -limbo Canellaceae Canella winterana Cinnamon bark Celastraceae Schaefferia ftutescens Florida boxwood Celtidaceae Trema sp. Trema Chrysobalanaceae Chrysobalanus icaco Coco plum Euphorbiaceae Drypetes lateriflora Guiana plum Fabaceae Pithecellobium unguis-cati Catclaw blackhead Lauraceae Nectandra coriacea Lancewood Moraceae Ficus aurea Strangler fig Ficus citrifolia Wild banyan Ficus microcarpa Indian laurel fig Myrsinaceae Ardisia escallonioides Marlberry Myrtaceae Calyptranthes sp. Spicewood Eugenia foetida Spanish stopper Nyctaginaceae Guapira discolor Blolly Passifloraceae Pass flora suberosa Small passion vine Polygonaceae Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon plum Coccoloba uvifera Seagrape Rhamnaceae Krugiodendron ferreum Black ironwood Rubiaceae Chiococca alba Snowberry Erithalis ftuticosa Black torch Randia aculeata White indigoberry Sapindaceae Exothea paniculata Inkwood Sapotaceae Bumelia salicifolia Willow bustic Chrysophyllum oliviforme Satin leaf Mastichodendron foetidissimum False mastic Simaroubaceae Simarouba glauca Paradise tree Solanaceae Solanum erianthum Potato tree Surianaceae Suriana maritima Bay cedar Verbenaceae Lantana camas Lantana Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 27 1� Created as a reso Which Birds Are Colonial? International Migratory Bird Day. Contact IMBD(afws.gov About one in eight bird species worldwide nest in colonies. Simply defined, a bird colony is a group of birds nesting together in the same place at the same time. Some colonies are hard to miss -- large, noisy, with thousands, sometimes millions, of birds packed together withir inches of one another. Some colonies are made up of nests scattered across a broad area or include just a fa pairs of birds. In any case, a colony contains birds that frequently communicate and react to eachother. The following is a list of North American bird families in which most species are colonial nesters. Note that most are marine or coastal waterbirds or birds that feed on airborne insects. Albatrosses Shearwaters and Petrels Storm -Petrels Tropicbirds Boobies and Gannets Pelicans Cormorants Anhingas Frigatebirds Herons and Egrets Ibises and Spoonbills Storks Flamingos Gulls and Terns Auks, Murres, Puffins Swifts Swallows and Martins Colonial -nesting birds found outside of North America include penguins, parrots, bee -eaters, and African weavers. Here the nest of a Jabiru, a colonial tropical American stork, houses a colony of Monk Parakeets. their time out at sea, coming to land only to nest. Many fish -eating species are colonial, including puffins and pelicans. Some species that typically nest in colonies, like the Great Blue Heron, will occasionally nest However, flamingos and many other colonial birds alone. will not court or nest unless in a group. Colonial -nesting species are also found in a number of other North American bird families. For example, there are some grebes, ducks and geese, and blackbirds which will nest colonially. Beach -nesting colonial birds, like these Blac Skimmers, often lay their eggs directly o the sand. Purple Martin colonies are almost always found in human - made structures. Western Grebes sometimes nest near colonies of gulls or terns, which may act as sentries for approaching predators. Rusty Blackbirds, and other black- birds and orioles, may nest in loose colonies if food is abundant. The Common Eider builds concealed nests where foxes occur, but joins dense colonies on islands where there are jaegers and other predatory seabirds. P, S Juhz SIC This policy, specifically naming Offshore Island (OS) zoning categories as sender sites for TDRs was removed from the Comprehensive Plan: Policy 101.13.4 In conjunction with the evaluation of the existing TDR program pursuant to Policy 101.13.2, parcels within the following habitats and land use districts shall be designated as sender sites for Transferable Development Rights (TDRs): Any parcel within these zoning categories: Offshore Island (OS) Sparsely Settled (SS) Main land Native (MN) Parks and Refuge (PR) Native (NA) Conservation (C) Habitat of the following types which lie within any zoning category: Freshwater wetlands Saltmarsh/Buttonwood wetlands High quality high hammock High quality low hammock Moderate quality high hammock Moderate quality low hammock High quality pinelands Low quality pinelands Beach/berm Palm Hammock Cactus Hammock Disturbed Wetlands OPTION 2 Policy 206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial I water birds or white -crowned pigeons nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. Lorenz, J.J. - 1 JEROME J. LORENZ CURRENT ADDRESSES Audubon Florida Everglades Science Center 115 Indian Mound Trail 171 Tampa Drive Tavernier, Florida 33070 Tavernier, Florida 33070 (305)852-5092 (305)852-1411 EDUCATION University of Miami, FL. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, January 1994 - August 2000 Ph. D. in Marine Biology and Fisheries University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida School of Forest Resources and Conservation Graduate Program in Wildlife September 1989 - Dec 1993 Graduate Fellow in Fisheries and Wildlife Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Graduate Program in Zoology August 1987 - September 1989 M.S. in Zoology Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky August, 1981 - May, 1983; August, 1984 - May 1987 B.S. in Biology PERTINENT Ethology, Limnology, Animal Physiological Ecology, CLASSES Animal Behavior, Statistics, Linear Regression, Biochemistry, Quantitative Field Ecology, Ecology of Fishes in Subtropical Ecosystems, Biostatistics, Mangrove Ecology, Chemical Oceanography, Physical Oceanography, Biological Oceanography, Tropical Marine Ecology, Elasmobranch Biology RESEARCH "Impacts of water management on Roseate Spoonbills and their EXPERIENCE piscine prey in the coastal wetlands of Florida Bay." Ph.D Dissertation Research under the direction of Dr. S.C. Snedaker. "Biology of the exotic Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma urophthalmus) in the mangroves of Everglades National Park." National Audubon Society Research Project "Roseate Spoonbill monitoring program." National Audubon Society Research Project. "Impacts of Canal C-I I I operation on macrophytes in the mangrove zone of Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay." National Audubon Society Research Project. "The effects of low pH on the ability of brooding convict cichlids (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum) to raise their young." M.S. Thesis Research under the direction of Dr. D.H. Taylor, Professor and Chair of Zoology at Miami University. Lorenz, J.J. - 2 "Interspecific interactions of insects on an extrafloral nectary." Summer 1988. Research Assistant to Dr. T.C. Rambo, Professor of Biology at Northern Kentucky University. RELATED State Research Director WORK 2004-present EXPERIENCE Audubon of FL, Tavernier Science Center, Tavernier, Florida Direct all research activities and supervise all science staff throughout the state of Florida while still functioning as Director of all activities at the Tavernier Science Center. Participate in all fund raising and report writing. Responsible for all budgetary and accounting activities. Participate in science -based conservation efforts throughout the state. Director of Research 1998-2004. Audubon of FL, Tavernier Science Center, Tavernier, Florida Direct all research activities and supervise all staff at the Science Center, Participate in all fund raising and report writing. Responsible for all budgetary and accounting activities. Responsible for buildings, grounds, vehicles and boats assigned to the Center. Participate in conservation efforts focused on the Florida Keys and Everglades landscapes. Principle Investigator, NAS Florida Bay/C-I I I Project September 1989 - present Audubon's Tavernier Science Center, Tavernier, Florida Coordinate field and laboratory activities of NAS C-111 Basin Project. Responsibilities include extensive field time, hiring and supervising all employees, purchasing supplies, purchasing and maintaining boats and vehicles, designing and building field equipment, identifying and analyzing specimens, manipulation and statistical analysis of large data sets. Administrative duties include attendance of professional meetings regarding Everglades restoration, fund raising, financial management, preparation of proposals for funding, contractual reports, publication preparation and public relations. Laboratory Coordinator, January 1988 - May 1989 Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Coordinator of all sections of Principles of Biology Lab. Responsibilities include preparing and supervising lab instructors, preparing laboratories for weekly sessions, purchasing supplies, maintenance of equipment, advising course supervisor on improvements in experiments. Research Assistant, July 1988 - August 1988. Department of Biology, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky. Responsibilities included assisting Dr. T.C. Rambo in data collection in the tropical rain forests of Costa Rica, day and night observations of insect activities, observations of hummingbird activities. Graduate Assistant, August 1987 - January 1988. Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford Ohio. Laboratory instructor for Principles of Biology. Responsibilities included supervision and evaluation of undergraduate work. Teaching Assistant, August 1987 - December 1987. Department of Biology, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky. Lorenz, J.J. - 3 Assistant laboratory instructor for General Biology. Responsibilities included supervision of undergraduate work. OTHER Served eight months active duty in the Navy Reserves EXPERIENCE as a Hospital Corpsman, first aid and hospital care experience, AND SKILLS experienced mechanic, accomplished fresh and salt water aquarist, snorkeling, SCUBA certified (PADI). AWARDS 2008 Volunteer of the Year, Florida Keys National Marine AND HONORS Sanctuary, Key West FL 2007 Golden Egret Award, National Audubon's Society's highest employee award given in recognition of outstanding effort to the National Audubon Society, New York, NY. 2004 Outstanding Alumnus Award; Annual award given for successes and achievements of a graduate, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights KY. 2003 ACE Award, Excellence in team achievement, National Audubon Society, New York, NY 2002 ACE Award, Excellence in team achievement, National Audubon Society, New York, NY 2001 F.G. Walton Smith Award for most Outstanding Dissertation, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Miami FL 2001 ACE Awards, Excellence in individual and team achievement, National Audubon Society, New York, NY 2000 ACE Awards, Excellence in individual and team achievement, National Audubon Society, New York, NY 1999 ACE Award, Excellence in team achievement, National Audubon Society, New York, NY 1995. Datatel Scholarship. Datatel Scholars Foundation, Fairfax, VA. 1992. Link Foundation Scholarship, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Ft. Pierce, FL. 1989 - 1993 Graduate assistantship, University of Florida 1988. Elected graduate student representative to departmental faculty conferences. 1987, 1988. Graduate Assistantship, Miami University. 1988. Summer Fellowship, Miami University. 1984. Honors and Distinction, Naval Hospital Corps School, Great Lakes Naval Base. SELECT GRANTS 2007-2011 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Monitoring the Effect of Hydrologic Changes on Resident Fishes and Aquatic Vegetation in the Mangrove Zone of Northeastern Florida Bay $1,118,358 2007-2010 National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA_NMFS): Monitoring Prey Base Fishes in the Mainland Coastal Wetlands of Biscayne Bay $228,302 2007-2008 South Florida Water Management District. Examination of Forage Fish and Habitat Relationships in the Southern Everglades Mangrove Zone. $30,000 2007. Disney Conservation Award. Roseate Spoonbill Monitoring Program. $17,000 2005-2008 National Park Service: Monitoring of nest success of wading birds: Roseate Spoonbills in Florida Bay $720,000 2005-2007 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Monitor Roseate Spoonbills and Their Prey in Southern Florida: Augmentation and Expansion of Existing Research in an Effort to Better Understand a Critical Indicator Species for this Region $570,000 Lorenz, J.J. - 4 2005-2007 University of Florida: Response of Roseate Spoonbills Nesting in Florida Bay to Hydrologic Restoration: A Performance Measure of Everglades Restoration $178,140 2005-2007 Florida International University (FIU) Aquatic Fauna and Periphyton Production Data Collection $172,000 2005-2007 U.S. Geologic Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD): Methods testing and sampling to design aquatic -biota sampling programs in the Rocky Glades and marsh -mangrove interface of Everglades National Park $472,994 2005-2007National Park Service (NPS): Development and Testing of Protocols for Sampling Fishes in Forested Wetlands in Southern Florida $324,303 2005-2007 USGS-BRD: Development of integrated sampling of fishes in forested wetlands in south Florida with emphasis on food web structure $100,400 2005 U.S. Geologic Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD): Methods testing and sampling to design aquatic -biota sampling programs in the Rocky Glades and marsh -mangrove interface of Everglades National Park $150,000 2005 National Park Service (NPS): Development and Testing of Protocols for Sampling Fishes in Forested Wetlands in Southern Florida $124,000 2005 NPS: Monitoring the Effect of Hydrologic Changes on Resident Fishes and Aquatic Vegetation in the Mangrove Zone of Northeastern Florida Bay $181,000 2005 USGS-BRD: Development of integrated sampling of fishes in forested wetlands in south Florida with emphasis on food web structure $114,000 2005 National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA_NMFS): Monitoring Prey Base Fishes in the Mainland Coastal Wetlands of Biscayne Bay $50,000 2005 USGS-BRD: Response of Roseate Spoonbills Nesting in Florida Bay to Hydrologic Restoration: A Performance Measure of Everglades Restoration $109,000 2005 Florida International University (FIU) Aquatic Fauna and Periphyton Production Data Collection $56,500 2005 NPS: Monitoring of nest success of wading birds: Roseate Spoonbills $124,000 2005 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Monitor Roseate Spoonbills and Their Prey in Southern Florida: Augmentation and Expansion of Existing Research in an Effort to Better Understand a Critical Indicator Species for this Region $191,000 2004. Disney Conservation Award. Roseate Spoonbill Monitoring Program. $20,000 2003-2004. Everglades National Park: Federal Grant No. H5000 010660. "Monitoring CERP Related Changes in Hydrologic Parameters within the mangrove zone of northeastern Florida Bay: Impacts on Resident Fishes, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Roseate Spoonbills" $466,5990 2003-2004. "U.S. Geological Survey -Biological Resources Division. Cooperative Agreement No. OOHQAG0212 Project 00212HS011. "Response of Roseate Spoonbills nesting in Florida Bay to Hydrologic Restoration' $108,621 2003-2004. "U.S. Geological Survey -Biological Resources Division. Copperative Agreement No. OOHQAG0212 Project 00212HS008. "Inventory of Freshwater Fish Species within the Big Cypress National Preserve, with emphasis on methods testing to design a long-term aquatic -biota sampling program." Lorenz and W. Loftus. $188,230 2003-2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Contract No. WC 133F-02-CN-0026. "Monitoring prey base fishes in the mainland coastal wetlands of southern Biscayne Bay". $130,000 2003. Disney Conservation Award. Roseate Spoonbill Monitoring Program. $20,000 2002. National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration, National Seagrant Fisheries Habitat Program, Florida Seagrant College Program. "Multiple habitat utilization by a coastal fish: diel, seasonal and ontogenetic movement of gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus)." J. Luo, S. Sponaugle, J. Serafy and J. Lorenz. $268,338 2002. National Park Service. Freshwater fish inventory Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve. $47,150 1996-2002. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Everglades National Park: "Monitoring CERP Related Changes in Hydrologic Parameters within the mangrove zone of Lorenz, J.J. - 5 northeastern Florida Bay: Impacts on Resident Fishes, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Roseate Spoonbills" $1,672,000 1997. MacArthur Foundation. 'Biological productivity in the mangrove forests of the Florida Bay/Everglades watershed" "Fish community dynamics in the Florida Bay mangrove transition zone" $25,000 1994-1995. South Florida Water Management District: contract #C6606 for $129,500 over 2 years. 1994. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: MIPR # RM-CW-960058 . "Fish community dynamics in the Florida Bay mangrove transition zone" $26,219 1992-1994. South Florida Water Management District: contract #89-0032-A1 for over 3 years. "Influence of hydrology on fish populations in the mangrove dominated of the C-I I I and Taylor Slough basins and Biscayne Bay." $201,666.00 MEMBERSHIP IN American Fisheries Society (Florida Chapter) PROFESSIONAL Estuarine Research Federation SOCIETIES American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Ecological Society of America Florida Academy of Science PUBLICATIONS Rehage, J. S., J. R. Blanchard, R. E. Boucek, J. J. Lorenz, and M. Robinson. 2016. Knocking back invasions: variable resistance and resilience to multiple cold spells in native vs. nonnative fishes. Ecosphere 7(6):e01268. 10.1002/ecs2.1268 Zokan, M., G. Ellis, S.E. Clem, J.J. Lorenz, and W.F. Loftus. 2015. Inland fish fauna of the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Southeastern Naturalist 14(3): 517-550. Lorenz, J.J. 2014. A review of the effects of altered hydrology and salinity on vertebrate fauna and their habitats in Northeastern Florida Bay. Wetlands 34 (Suppl 1):S189—S200, DOI 10.1007/sl3157-013-0377-1 Lorenz J.J. 2014. The relationship between water level, prey availability and reproductive success in Roseate Spoonbills foraging in a seasonally -flooded wetland while nesting in Florida Bay. Wetlands 34 (Suppl 1):S201—S211, DOI 10.1007/s 13157-012-0364-y Kline, J.L., W.F. Loftus, K. Kotun, J.C. Trexler, J.S. Rehage, J.J. Lorenz, and M. Robinson. 2014. Recent Fish Introductions into Everglades National Park: An Unforeseen Consequence of Water -management? Wetlands 34 (Suppl 1):S175— S187, DOI 10.1007/s13157-012-0362-0 Ogden J.C., J.D. Baldwin, O.L., J.A. Browder, M.I. Cook, P.C. Frederick, P.E. Frezza, R.A. Galvez, A.B. Hodgson, K.D. Meyer, L.D. Oberhofer, A.F. Paul, P.J. Fletcher, S.M. Davis, J.J. Lorenz. 2014. Waterbirds as Indicators of Ecosystem Health in the Coastal Marine Habitats of Southern Florida: 1. Selection and Justification for a Suite of Indicator Species. Ecological Indicators 44(2014):148- 163, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.03.007 Ogden J.C., J.D. Baldwin, O.L., J.A. Browder, M.I. Cook, P.C. Frederick, P.E. Frezza, R.A. Galvez, A.B. Hodgson, K.D. Meyer, L.D. Oberhofer, A.F. Paul, P.J. Fletcher, S.M. Davis, J.J. Lorenz. 2014. Waterbirds as Indicators of Ecosystem Health in the Coastal Marine Habitats of Southern Florida: 2. Conceptual Ecological Models. Ecological Indicators 44(2014):128-147. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.03.008 Lorenz, J.J. - 6 Wingard, G.L., and J.J. Lorenz. 2014. Integrated conceptual ecological model and habitat indices for the southwest Florida coastal wetlands. Ecological Indicators 44(2014):92-107, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.007 Kelble C.R., D.K. Loomis, S. Lovelace, W.K. Nuttle, P.B. Ortner, P. Fletcher, G.S. Cook, J.J. Lorenz, J.N. Boyer. 2013. The EBM-DPSER Conceptual Model: Integrating Ecosystem Services into the DPSIR Framework. PLoS ONE 8(8): e70766. doi: 10. 137 1 /joumal.pone.007076 Harrison, E., J.J. Lorenz, J.C. Trexler. 2013. Per capita effects of non-native Mayan Cichlids (Cichlasoma urophthalmus; Gunther) on native fish in the estuarine southern Everglades. Copeia 2013: 80-95. Romaflach, S.S., Conzelmann, Craig, Daugherty, Adam, Lorenz, J.L., Hunnicutt, Christina, and Mazzotti, F.J. 2011, Joint Ecosystem Modeling (JEM) Ecological Model Documentation Volume 1: Estuarine Prey Fish Biomass Availability v1.0.0: U.S Geological Survey Open -File Report 2011-1272, 20 p., available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1272/. Romaftach, S.S., Conzelmann, Craig, Daugherty, Adam, Lorenz, J.L., Hunnicutt, Christina, and Mazzotti, F.J., 2011, Joint Ecosystem Modeling (JEM) Ecological Model Documentation Volume 2: Roseate Spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) Landscape Habitat Suitability Index v1.0.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2011-1273, 23 p., available at httD://nubs.uses.p-ov/of/2011/1273/. Kerfoot, J.R., J.J. Lorenz, and R.G. Turingan. 2011. Environmental correlates of the abundance and distribution of Belonesox belizanus in a novel environment. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Lorenz, J.J., B.Langan-Mulrooney, P.E. Frezza, R.G.Harvey and F.J. Mazzotti. 2009. Roseate Spoonbill Reproduction as an Indicator for Restoration of the Everglades and the Everglades Estuaries. Ecological Indicators 9S:S96-S107. Redwine, J.R., R. Sawicki, J.J. Lorenz, and W. Hoffman. 2007. Ripe fruit availability in the fragmented hardwood forests of the northern Florida Keys. Natural Areas Journal 27:8-15. Lorenz, J.J. and J.E. Serafy. 2006. Changes in the Demersal Fish Community in Response to Altered Salinity Patterns in an Estuarine Coastal Wetland: Implications for Everglades and Florida Bay Restoration Efforts. Hydrobiologia 569:401-422. Green, D.P.J., J.C. Trexler, J.J. Lorenz, C.C. McIvor, and T. Philippi. 2006. Spatial patterns of fish communities along two estuarine gradients in southern Florida. Hydrobiologia 569:387-399. Davis S.M., D.L. Childers, J.J. Lorenz, H.R. Wanless and T.E. Hopkins 2005. A conceptual model of ecological interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florida Everglades. Wetlands 25: 832-842. Faunce, C.H., J.E.Serafy, and J.J. Lorenz. 2004. Density -habitat relationships of mangrove creek fishes within the southeastern saline Everglades (USA), with reference to managed freshwater flows. Welands Ecology and Management 12 :377-394. Serafy, J.E. C.H. Faunce, J.J. Lorenz. 2003. Mangrove Shoreline fishes of Biscayne Bay. Florida. Bullitin of Marine Science 72:161-180. e .. Lorenz, J.J. - 7 Lorenz, J.J., J.C. Ogden, R.D. Bjork and G.V.N. Powell. 2002. Nesting patterns of Roseate Spoonbills in Florida Bay 1935-1999: implications of landscape scale anthropogenic impacts, pp. 555-598,. In: The Everglades, Florida Bay and the Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook. Porter, J.W. and Porter K.G. (eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Faunce, C.H., J.J. Lorenz, J.A. Ley, and J.E. Serafy. 2002. Size structure of gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) within a mangrove `no -take' sanctuary. Bull. Mar. Sci. 70(211-216). Faunce, C.H., H.M. Patterson and J.J. Lorenz. 2002.. Age, growth, and mortality of the Mayan cichlid, Cichlasoma urophthalmus, from the southeastern Everglades. U.S. Fishery Bulletin 100:42-50. Trexler, J.C., W.F. Loftus, F. Jorden, J.J. Lorenz, and J. Chick. 2000. Empirical assessment of fish introductions in southern Florida: evaluation of contrasting views. Biological Invasions 2: 265-277. Faunce, C. H., and J. J. Lorenz. 2000. Nesting and reproduction of the Mayan cichlid (Cichlasoma uropthalmus) within Taylor River, Everglades National Park, Florida. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58:215-225 Lorenz, J.J. 1999. The response of fishes to physicochemical changes in the mangroves of northeastern Florida Bay. Estuaries 22:500-517. Lorenz, J.J., G.V.N. Powell, C.C. McIvor, and P.C. Frederick. 1997. A drop net and removable walkway for sampling fishes over wetland surfaces. Wetlands 17:346-359. Lorenz, J.J. 1996. A comparison of freshwater fish community to changes in the Florida Bay ecotone fish community during the high water event of 1994-1996. In: Armentano, T.V (ed). Ecological assessment of the 1994-1995 high water conditions in the Southern Everglades. Everglades National Park, Homestead FL. Lorenz, J.J. and D.H. Taylor. 1992. The effects of a chemical stressor on the parental behavior of convict cichlids with offspring in the early stages of development. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 315-321. Lorenz, J.J. and D.H. Taylor. 1992. The effects of low pH as a chemical stressor on the ability of convict cichlids (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum) to successfully brood their young. Copea 1992(3): 832-839. SELECTED J.J. Lorenz, D.P.J. Green and P.E. Frezza. 2003. The Effects of the TECHNICAL Interim Operational Plan on the Mainland Mangrove Wetlands of REPORTS Florida Bay: Hydrology, Hydrography, Fish Community Dynamics and Roseate Spoonbill Nesting. Patterns. Final Report. South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead FL. J.J. Lorenz, D.L. Bean, C.H. Faunce, D.P.J. Green, LP McLendon, V. Oshaben and R.J. Sawicki. 2000. Test 7 ecological monitoring results: the effects of changes in Taylor Slough water delivery patterns on the mainland coastal wetlands of northeastern Florida Bay. Final Report. South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead FL. Lorenz, J.J. 1998. Program of experimental water deliveries Test 7 Lorenz, J.J. - 8 ecological monitoring results: an analysis of the hydrology and resident fishes within the mangrove ecotone of Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead FL. Lorenz, J. J. 1997. The effects of hydrology on resident fishes of the everglades mangrove zone. Final Report to the South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead FL., USA. Lorenz, J. L. and C. R. Harrington. 1994. Influence of hydrology on fish populations in the mangrove dominated zones of the C-I I 1 and Taylor Slough basins and Biscayne Bay. Final report to the South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead FL, RECENT CONFERENCES Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Ecosystem Conference WHERE Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Conference PRESENTATIONS National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration HAVE BEEN Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation GIVEN