The URL can be used to link to this page

Item M1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: November 20, 2013 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department: Marine Resources Office Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Richard Jones 289-2805 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation by the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) of the completed `Monroe County Marina Siting Plan', including a `Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County' to implement adopted Comprehensive Plan Objective 212.4 (and associated policies) and to serve as the data and analysis for proposed new marina siting Comprehensive Plan policies (to be processed with the EAR -based amendments). ITEM BACKGROUND: Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Objective 212.4 requires an analysis of the need for additional marina facilities and the development of criteria for marina siting (marinas are defined in LDC Sec. 101-1 as a facility for the storage (wet and dry), launching and mooring of boats together with accessory retail and service uses, including restaurants and live-aboards, charter boat and sport diving uses, except where prohibited, but not including docks accessory to a land -based dwelling unit limited to the use of owners or occupants of the dwelling unit). Additionally, Policy 212.4.6 states the siting of new marinas is prohibited until full utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a five mile radius of a proposed new marina site. Previously, a drafted Marina Siting Plan and accompanying comprehensive plan amendment was approved by the BOCC for transmittal to DCA on September 17, 2007. At that time the proposed amendment was found to be deficient in the December 7, 2007, Objections, Recommendations, and Comment (ORC) Report from DCA (attached), with objections such as data and analysis was not submitted indicating the needs analysis for additional marina facilities was completed. In order to satisfy Comprehensive Plan Objective 212.4 requirements and lift the prohibition of new marina development the County approved an Inter -Local Agreement (ILA) with SFRPC on August 17, 2011 to revise and update the Marina Siting Plan, perform a needs analysis, develop marina siting criteria, and draft a comprehensive plan amendment with marina siting criteria for adoption into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. SFRPC has reviewed the adopted Comprehensive Plan policies and state rules and statutes related to marine facility development, as well as completed a Needs Analysis (Appendix E of the attached Marina Siting Plan) pursuant to Policy 212.4.6 in order to determine if existing marinas will meet the needs of future demand. Further, SFRPC drafted a comprehensive plan amendment (attached) creating recommended Marina Siting Criteria (Appendix G of the attached Marina Siting Plan) for new marinas which will be processed with the EAR -based Comprehensive Plan amendments. SFRPC staff presented the draft amendment with the siting criteria for new marinas (included in the draft Conservation and Coastal Management element) to the Planning Commission (PC) at its September 23, 2013 meeting. The PC did not suggest any changes to the proposed amendment. The draft amendment includes components of projected public need and environmental criteria, as follows (see attached Comprehensive Plan Amendment for complete language): 1. Siting of new marinas with three or more slips shall be prohibited until full utilization (90% occupancy) of existing marinas has occurred within a five mile radius of a proposed new marina site. 2. The following criteria shall be addressed to minimize or avoid impacts on resources: a. Benthic vegetation and hard bottom communities b. Adequacy circulation and tidal flushing c. Adequate water depth and access d. Minimal shoreline modification e. Quality of upland areas and degree of alteration necessary f. Propeller dredging problem areas g. Impact of boats on Florida manatee, American crocodile, and sea turtles h. Other significant resources To familiarize the Board with the findings of the marina siting study, SFRPC staff is presenting the findings of their analyses and drafted policies, including the `Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County', which will serve as data and analysis supporting the Marina Siting Criteria policies in the comprehensive plan. (Of note, the 2009 FWC Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study indicates that Monroe County has the highest number of commercial marinas in the state, and there is a projected decrease of 16.83% in boating demand through 2025). This proposed amendment, if adopted, will lift the prohibition on new marinas in Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.1 and the DEP submerged land lease moratorium in Rule 18-21.0041 (see attached). If the Marina Siting Criteria policies in the EAR -based Comprehensive Plan amendments for new marinas are adopted, staff also recommends developing additional strategies to encourage the redevelopment of existing marinas in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the EAR -based amendment draft includes exemptions from NROGO. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: September 2006- Approval of ILA with SFRPC to develop a Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan, a Marina Siting Plan, comprehensive plan amendments, and land development regulations. September 2007- Approval to transmit Marina Siting Plan and comprehensive plan amendment to DCA. August 2011- Approval of ILA with SFRPC to revise the Marina Siting Plan, perform a Needs Analysis, develop Marina Siting Criteria, and draft a comprehensive plan amendment. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a Approval to move forward with EAR -based Comprehensive Plan amendments, including Marina Siting Criteria policies and update the Technical Document with Marina Siting Plan and Needs Analysis. TOTAL COST: n/a INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No I1' 1 1un W W 04.4 COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year :244WIOMB/Purchasing APPROVED BY: County Atty Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required. DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # 18-21.0041 Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria. (1) These policies and criteria shall be applied to all applications for leases, easements or consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in Monroe County for multi -slip docking facilities. The following General Policies and Specific Criteria shall be used in developing recommendations to approve, approve with conditions or deny the use of state owned sovereignty submerged lands for multi -slip docking facilities. (a) General Policies — special attention and consideration shall be given to the following: 1. The proximity to and potential adverse impacts on any rare, threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, or their habitat, or on any portion of the entire Florida Reef Tract and other corals, including but not limited to those in the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, and Everglades National Park; and 2. Eliminating any adverse impacts on wetland or submerged vegetation or benthic communities; and 3. Requiring adequate tidal flushing and/or circulation; and 4. Maintaining or enhancing water quality at levels within or above State water quality standards; and 5. Requiring adequate water depths to avoid dredging and other bottom disturbance; and 6. Requiring consistency and conformity with local government land use plans, zoning, and other land use or development regulations; and 7. Requiring consistency and conformity with Chapters 27F-8, 27F-9, 27F-10, 27F-11, 27F-12, 27F-13, and 27F-15, F.A.C., as amended, "Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern." Should any of these provisions conflict with the Sovereignty Lands Management Rules, the Board shall advise staff which provision shall take precedence. (b) Specific Criteria. 1. There shall be a moratorium on the approval of all leases of state owned submerged lands for multi -slip docking facilities from Tea Table Channel north to the Monroe County Line. This moratorium shall be maintained until rules are adopted for the currently proposed Florida Keys -Monroe County Aquatic Preserve or the revised Monroe County Comprehensive Plan with marina siting policies is adopted, whichever occurs first. 2. No docking facilities shall be approved which require either dredging or filling to provide access by canal, channel, road, or any other means. This restriction shall also apply to widening or deepening any existing canal or channel, but not to regular maintenance dredging of existing canals, basins, or channels, providing such maintenance does not exceed currently acceptable water depths. 3. Water depths requirements. Docking facilities shall only be approved in locations having adequate water depths in the boat mooring, turning basin, access channels and other such areas to accommodate the proposed boat use. a. A minimum water depth of -4 (minus four) feet mean low water shall be required. b. Greater depths shall be required for those facilities designed for, or capable of, accommodating boats having greater than a 3 (three) foot draft, so that a minimum of one foot of clearance is provided between the deepest draft of a vessel and the bottom. c. These depth requirements shall also apply to the area between the proposed facility and any natural or other navigation channel, inlet or deep water. Where necessary, marking of navigational channels shall be required. At the Board's discretion, the conditions of the lease may stipulate the number, lengths, drafts and types of vessels to be moored in a facility. 4. Requirements for the size of the dock. a. No dock shall be approved if its length exceeds 500 feet, unless the Board determines that it is not contrary to the public interest. b. No dock shall be approved if its length preempts in excess of 20% (percent) of the width of the affected waterbody. c. No dock for the use of a private residence, which is not subject to obtaining a lease, shall exceed four (4) feet in width. Such a dock may have a terminal platform the total area of which shall not exceed 160 feet, and the width of which shall not exceed eight (8) feet. 5. A specific lease condition for any new or expanded docking facility for 10 or more boats will be that the lessee shall maintain water quality standards as provided by Chapter 403, F.S. To assure compliance, the lessee shall maintain a water quality monitoring program approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. Water quality data will be periodically reviewed by the Department of Environmental Protection. In the event that water quality violations occur and water quality standards provided by Chapter 403, F.S., are not maintained, the lessee will be given written notice to correct the problem. Such notice shall require any Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Adopting Marina Siting Criteria Objective 212.4 and shall develop GriteFia fGF FAariRa siting whiGh shall Fneet or ex6eed state standards. [9i 5.012(3)( Marina facility development shall be consistent with the proiected public need and marine resource constraints as indicated in the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan, by South Florida Regional Planninq Council dated August 5 2013 including the Needs Analysis which is based on 2009 aerial data. PGIOGy • 44 e m •n Alc having thre (3) OF mere clins shall he pFehihited ,moil• Policy 212.4.21 Monroe County shall Gemplete a suFvey maintain data on marine facilities (as available), including existing recreational and commercial marinas, such as. Surah suFvey shall inGlude, 1. number of wet and dry slips; 2. usage rates of wet and dry slips; 3. breakout of slips by boat size; 4. on -site amenities including the number of parking spaces; 5. surrounding uses and any known or potential compatibility problems; 6. availability for public use (recreational marinas only); 7. number of boat ramps provided and the boat lanes for each ramp; 8. condition of facilities; 9, existing DER aGGepted dOGUmentatien of wateF quality tFen location and condition of adjacent navigational aides; 10. availability of pump -out facilities; and 11. , 2,3 and -controlling depth. Policy 212.4.32 er c eagFass beds Sper.ifiG GFiteda fOF FnaFina siting shall be developed eensistent with DER Rule 17 312, ., DNR Rule and Fegulatiens of AGGE. They shall FefleGt rensideFatien of the folio ., 1henthin vegetation and faunal assemblagesi , 3. a er:, nss to deep water through existing ohannels of adequate depth (See Deliey 212.5.2y, ; G quality and size of „pland areas and degree of alterntien neoessa Fy; v. 6. ability te resteFe and enhanre FnaFiRa FeseUFGe values at sites subjert te past , B. impaGt of beats OR t f and t t t The development of new marina facilities shall be located in areas where maximum physical advantages exist and where no unreasonable or excessive impacts are foreseen on marine resources. Proposed new marina facilities shall meet the following requirements. 1. _Siting of new marinas with three (3) or more wet slips shall be prohibited until full utilization (90% capacity) of existing marinas has occurred within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new marina site. The Monroe County Marina Siting Plan and Needs Analysis are the data and analysis which shall be used to provide the relevant and appropriate data of a full utilization zone, unless an applicant demonstrates existing marinas have exceeded full utilization (90% capacity) within a five mile radius and the Planning Commission accepts the amended data and analysis by Planning Commission resolution. 2. If a proposed marina is located within a full utilization zone and there is a projected need for additional marina facilities, then the following criteria shall be met for the proposed marina site to minimize or avoid impacts of development on natural resources and other significant resources: a. Benthic Vegetation and Hardbottom Communities. Siting of marinas in areas of seagrass or hardbottom (including hard and soft corals) should be avoided. Boat mooring sites (slips or docks) shall not be located over a seagrass bed community or hardbottom community regardless of water depth. No impacts to seagrass beds or hardbottom communities should result from the construction or use of new marina development. b. Adequacy of Circulation and Tidal Flushing. The proposed marina site shall exhibit adequate circulation and tidal flushing. The waterway upon which the marina is proposed to be sited shall meet or exceed State water quality standards, and must currently have "Good" water quality as indicated in the County's most current canal inventory and assessment data. New marina development shall not adversely impact the quality of water during construction or use. c. Adequate Water Depth and Access. There shall be a minimum of four (4) foot of water depth at mean low water at the marina site (including the mooring slips, turning basin, and access channels), and the water depth shall be continuous to open water over a channel width of twenty (20) feet. Water depth shall be adequate for the proposed vessel use such that there be a minimum of one (1) foot clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel and the bottom at mean low water. Greater water depths shall be required for those facilities proposed for accommodating vessels having greater than a three (3) foot draft. Sites shall not reauire dredaina or fillina to rovide access. d. Minimal Shoreline Modification. Marinas shall not be sited adiacent to unaltered shorelines as defined in Sec. 101-1 of the Land Development Code. Minimal modification to the shoreline shall be permitted per County Land Development Code Section 118-1. 118-12(m), and (o). e. Quality of Upland Areas and Degree of Alteration Necessary. Marinas shall not be sited on lands designated as Tier I or Tier III -A, if clearing is proposed. Marina development shall not adversely impact the upland area of, or adiacent to, a proposed marina site. Additionally, marinas shall not be permitted on offshore islands or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). f. Propeller Dredging Problem Areas. Sitinq of marinas in areas of seagrass propeller scarring should be avoided. Marinas shall not be located adjacent to areas of severe seagrass scarring, based on the most current data available from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. g. Impact of Boats on Florida Manatee, American Crocodile. and Sea Turtles. Marinas shall be sited so as to prevent impacts to the Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and marine turtles and protect their habitat by avoiding areas of known American Crocodile range, areas with high watercraft Florida Manatee mortality, or areas that include a beach known to be used for marine turtle nesting. Site characteristics can be assessed using current data from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. h. Other Significant Resources. No adverse impact shall be permitted on archaeological or historic resources/sites. Applicants for new marina development shall be responsible for providing existing physical and environmental site data specific to the proposed site to demonstrate the marina siting criteria described above is met. Policy 212.4.43 Applicants for development approval of marinas with three (3) or more slips shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria (See Policy 212.4.3-2); 2. Monroe County's dock siting criteria (See Objective 212.5 and related policies); and 3. criteria of Rule 17-312 oar 2-312 and Rule 18-21.004, F.A.C. ; Policy 212.4.64 Applicants for development approval of docking facilities for fewer than three (3) slips shall meet the following criteria: 1. Monroe County's dock siting criteria (See Objective 212.5 and related policies); and 2. criteria of Rule 17 312 PaFt 2-312 and Rule 18-21.004, F.A.C. PGliGy 212 A C Siting of new FnaFiRas with thFee (3) OF rneFe slips shall be pFahibited until full utilization of existiRg has GGGUFFed within a five (6) mile Fadius of a pFoposed new FnaFina site. [9i ,3 and , Policy 212.4.75 Applicants F .. to deve'^^ proposing a new marina facility shall obtain necessary permits from all applicable state and federal regulatory agencies , ] Prepared for: Monroe County By: South Florida Regional Planning Council August 5, 2013 This page left blank intentionally. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 1111111111111111 ! LIST '. ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF APPENDICES /' .....................................................11 .......................................................111 .....................................................lv .......................................................v I. MONROE COUNTY MARINA SITING PLAN................................................1 A. Background........................................................................................................1 B. Introduction to Marina Siting in Monroe County..............................................3 C. Regulatory Environment....................................................................................4 1. Jurisdiction...................................................................................................4 2. Federal Regulation.......................................................................................5 3. State Regulation...........................................................................................7 4. County Regulation.......................................................................................8 II. MARINA FACILITY SITING...........................................................................10 A. General Requirements......................................................................................10 1. State Regulations.......................................................................................11 2. Existing Monroe County Policies and Regulations...................................12 B. Comprehensive Plan Marina Siting Criteria....................................................14 1. Benthic Vegetation and Hardbottom Communities...................................15 2. Adequacy of Circulation and Tidal Flushing.............................................16 a. Water Quality.......................................................................................17 b. Stormwater...........................................................................................18 3. Adequate Water Depth and Access..............................................................18 4. Minimal Shoreline Modification................................................................19 5. Quality of Upland Areas and Degree of Alteration Necessary ................ 20 6. Propeller Dredging Problem Areas............................................................21 7. Impact of Boats on Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and Sea Turtles........................................................................................................22 a. Crocodiles............................................................................................23 b. Manatees..............................................................................................24 c. Turtles..................................................................................................29 8. Other Significant Resources...................................................................... 31 C. Evaluating Marina Facilities and Site Suitability............................................32 1. Boating Facilities in Monroe County.........................................................32 2. Needs Analysis.......................................................................................... 33 3. Site Suitability............................................................................................34 a. Screening..............................................................................................35 b. Policy...................................................................................................35 c. Mitigation.............................................................................................36 D. Conclusion.......................................................................................................37 E. Recommendations............................................................................................38 LITERATURE VIEWED..............................................................................41 APPENDICES......................................................................................................46 Monroe County Marina Siting Plan Figure 1. Monroe County Marine Facility Density Figure 2. Upper Keys Marine Facility Density Figure 3. Upper Keys Boat Ramp Density Figure 4. Middle Keys Marine Facility Density Figure 5. Middle Keys Boat Ramp Density Figure 6. Lower Keys Marine Facility Density Figure 7. Lower Keys Boat Ramp Density Figure 8. Incorporated Areas in Monroe County Figure 9. Marine Facilities — Unincorporated Upper Keys Figure 10. Marine Facilities — Unincorporated Middle Keys Figure 11. Marine Facilities — Unincorporated Lower Keys `All figures located in Appendix D. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan ii Table 1. Number of Manatees Sighted During Synoptic Surveys, 1991 — 2011................. 25 Graph 2.Total Manatee Mortality in 13 "Key" Counties, 2000 — 2010 ............................... 27 Table 3. Monroe County Marina County by Use and Ownership ....................................... 33 Table 4. Public Marina Utilization....................................................................................... 34 Monroe County Marina Siting Plan iii ACCC Area of Critical County Concern BOCC Board of County Commissioners CFR Code of Federal Regulations CUES Catanese Center for Urban and Environmental S1luti1w5 DCA Florida Department of Community Affairs DEO Florida Department of Economic Opportunity DEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection DRI Development of Regional Impact FAC Florida Administrative Code FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory FR Federal Register ITS Florida Statutes FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWRI Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Geographic Information System IDO Interim Development Ordinance INBS Index Nesting Beach Survey LDR Land Development Regulation MMSP Marine Management Strategic Plan NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OFW Outstanding Florida Water SFRPC South Florida Regional Planning Council SNBS Statewide Nesting Beach Survey SPGP State Programmatic General Permit USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WWPMP Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan Monroe County Marina Siting Plan iv Appendix A. Selected Permit Requirements.... ....................................................................... 47 Appendix B. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Map..................................................48 Appendix C. Monroe County Zoning and Land Use..............................................................49 AppendixD. Supporting Figures............................................................................................50 Appendix E. Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County.......................................51 Appendix F. Marina Site Suitability Maps.............................................................................52 Appendix G. Recommended Marina Siting Criteria for Monroe County...............................53 Monroe County Marina Siting Plan v The Monroe County Marina Siting Plan and the appendices within are supporting documents aimed to guide the sound development of marinas throughout unincorporated Monroe County. The Plan serves as the data and analysis for Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.2 (adopted by County Ordinance #[Placeholder]) which identifies the requirements of Marina Siting Criteria and of demonstrating the need for a new marina facility that an applicant must meet. Please note, this Plan applies to unincorporated Monroe County only and shall not supersede, preempt, or nullify applicable federal, state, or municipal rules, regulations, or requirements that apply. Compliance with the provisions of this Plan does not imply approval of other permitting requirements. In 2004, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) acknowledged the urgent need to address the loss of both recreational and commercial "working waterfronts" since the Florida Keys had experienced the conversion of waterfront marine facilities and their associated businesses and employment to non -water dependent uses and privatization of waterfront, thereby reducing public water access. The BOCC adopted Interim Development Ordinance (IDO) No. 017-2005 in July 2005, imposing a moratorium on the conversion of marine facilities to non -water dependent uses. Concurrently, the BOCC directed the County's Marine Resources Department (Department) to prepare a countywide Marina Siting Plan to fulfill the requirements of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (previously Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.1)1. In 2005, the BOCC further addressed the need to preserve working waterfronts by contracting with the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) to prepare a Monroe County Marine 1 Prior to County Ordinance #[Placeholder], Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.1 read "New marinas have three (3) or more slips shall be prohibited until: 1. a marina survey is completed; and 2. marina siting criteria are adopted by Monroe County and approved by DER, DNR, and ACOE". Monroe County Marina Siting Plan Management Strategic Plan (MMSP) for unincorporated Monroe County. The MMSP provides a comprehensive strategy with proposed action steps for protecting and preserving the County's working waterfronts. The Final Report of the MMSP was submitted to the County in January 2006. The findings of the report were accepted by the BOCC on March 15, 2006. Z While the action steps of the MSSP were not initially implemented, the principles described in the report provide strategic guidance for addressing working waterfront preservation and set the path for future policy development. In June 2006, the BOCC directed the County to extend the IDO and adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to help preserve working waterfronts. As part of the IDO extension and as a follow-up to the MMSP, Monroe County retained the SFRPC for a second project phase, to be known as the Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan (WWPMP)3. The WWPMP was designed to enhance the understanding of existing water dependent uses, and included: 1) an updated marine facilities database (last generated in 1993), 2) amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for working waterfront preservation, and 3) development of a Marina Siting Plan (to be adopted into the comprehensive plan by reference). Transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment and Marina Siting Plan were approved by the BOCC on September 19, 2007. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA, now known as the Department of Economic Opportunity, or DEO) review of the amendment and Marina Siting Plan resulted in issuance of an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC). The ORC cited numerous objections to the comprehensive plan amendment and determined that the Marina Siting Plan was found to have incomplete and inaccurate data. Over the following several years, redevelopment and resulting conversion of working waterfronts became less of an issue due to economic decline. This reworking of the Marina Siting Plan and comprehensive plan amendment would focus on satisfying existing comprehensive plan requirements which place a moratorium on new marina development until full utilization of marinas occurs within five miles of proposed marina sites and marina siting criteria are adopted. In 2012, the 2 The Monroe County Marine Management Strategic Plan is available online at LitMr;' .s c.com/inM n s .h . 3 The Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan is available online at t .irwvvsv,sfr�ac.or cia CWorlcWater orl�in Waterfronts rese atio astcrPla anal,Pcif. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 2 County contracted the SFRPC to rework the proposed Marina Siting Plan, conduct a Needs Analysis (Appendix E) for new marinas, and develop Marina Siting Criteria to be adopted through a new comprehensive plan amendment. The Marina Siting Plan and Needs Analysis serve as the data and analysis to support the Marina Siting Criteria. In January 1983, the Governor's Blue Ribbon Marina Committee issued its final report with recommended criteria that formed the basis for future policies regarding marina siting. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan contains Goals, Objectives, and Policies that have or which incorporated many of the committee's recommendations. For example, prior to County Ordinance #[Placeholder], Policy 212.4.3 of the Comprehensive Plan included the following caveat: In general, marinas will be located in areas where maximum physical advantages exist and where no unreasonable or excessive impacts are foreseen on marine resources. Marina construction will not involve destruction of any significant marine wetlands or seagrass beds. The policy directed the County to adopt criteria for new or expanding marina facilities with three of more slips to address the following criteria: 1. benthic vegetation and faunal assemblages; 2. adequacy of circulation and tidal flushing; 3. access to deep water through existing channels of adequate depth; 4. impact of boats on crocodiles, manatees, and turtles; 5. minimal shoreline modification; 6. quality and size of upland areas and degree of alteration necessary; and 7. propeller dredging problem areas. The above criteria are consistent with the Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria set forth in Section 18-21.0041, Florida Administrative Code, FAC, regarding Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 3 To date, Florida counties that have adopted marina siting plans have been required to do so under a 1989 Executive Order of the Governor and Cabinet entitled, Recommendations to Improve Boating Safety and Manatee Protection for Florida Waterways: Interim Boating Facility Expansion Policy and County MPPs. While Monroe County is not among those required by law to prepare a manatee protection plan, which includes a boat facility siting element, the necessity of preparing marina siting criteria has been mandated by the Comprehensive Plan to enhance the sound development and effective management of shoreline uses countywide. Comprehensive Plan Objective 212.4 and related Policies directs marina development to demonstrate a public need for new facilities; comply with existing marine resource constraints (Marina Siting Criteria); and to meet various county and state code and/or rules. Site suitability for new marina development is based on these guidelines and, to the extent data currently exist; the Marina Siting Criteria have been mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques to visually demonstrate potential areas for suitability in unincorporated Monroe County (see Appendix F). C. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 1. Jurisdiction It is important to note at the outset that the marina siting guidance in this Plan applies to unincorporated Monroe County only and shall not supersede, preempt, or nullify applicable federal, state, or municipal rules, regulations, or requirements that apply. Any entity intending to develop or renovate a marina within a municipality's boundaries must consult that municipality's comprehensive plan and land development regulations. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain the necessary permits from all applicable state and federal regulatory agencies. Compliance with the provisions of this Plan does not imply approval of other permitting requirements. The complex set of local, state, and federal laws and regulations guiding land development and natural resource protection in Monroe County provides an extensive framework that has resulted in limiting marina development and expansion in many areas of the County. For example, the Marina Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 4 Site Suitability Maps accompanying this Plan in Appendix F visually demonstrate those areas that may be deemed unsuitable for marina siting or expansion based on the existing regulatory framework. The major mechanisms in place that affect marina development in the Keys is provided immediately below in parts 2 through 4 (see Appendix A for a more complete listing of federal and state permit requirements). This is followed by specific regulatory authority that addresses the Marina Siting Criteria identified in the Comprehensive Plan and which forms the basis for the Suitability Maps in Appendix F. 2. Federal Regulation The U.S. Congress enacted the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and Protection Act in 1990. Under this Act and the implementing regulations, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) established five types of marine zoning to assist resource users in the Keys: (1) Wildlife Management Areas, (2) Ecological Reserves, (3) Sanctuary Preservation Areas, (4) Existing Management Areas, and (5) Special -use Areas. The geographic boundaries of these areas are delineated on the map in Appendix B and specified in 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections 922.160-922.168. Wildlife Management Areas are designed to protect endangered or threatened species while providing opportunities for public use with water use restrictions that include "no -access buffer" zones, "no -motor" zones, "idle speed only/no wake" zones, and "closed" zones. Ecological Reserves protect areas that represent the full range of diversity of resources and habitats found throughout the sanctuary by limiting consumptive activities but continuing to allow activities that are compatible with resource protection. Sanctuary Preservation Areas are designed to enhance the reproductive capabilities of renewable resources by reducing user conflicts in high use areas. Existing Management Areas delineate the existing jurisdictional authority of other agencies (i.e., state parks, aquatic preserves, sanctuaries, and other restricted areas) and may require additional regulations or restrictions to adequately protect resources. Special -use Areas are set aside for scientific research and educational purposes, restoration, monitoring, or to establish areas that confine or restrict activities, such as personal watercraft operations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior administer a number of national wildlife refuges in Monroe County, including the National Key Deer, Key West, Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 5 Great White Heron, and Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuges. These areas offer a variety of recreational and other uses, and public entry may be prohibited by law in certain places. Mainland Monroe County consists primarily of lands within Everglades National Park, which is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior. (Because of this federal jurisdiction, the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan applies to the Florida Keys portion of the County and not to the Everglades National Park area.) There is only one Everglades in the world: Everglades National Park is the largest subtropical wilderness in the United States. The area boasts rare and endangered species, such as the American crocodile, Florida panther, and West Indian manatee. It has been designated an International Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, and a Wetland of International Importance, in recognition of its significance to all the people of the world. The open waters of Florida Bay and the Ten Thousand Islands represent roughly one-third of the park's total acreage. Boats are the perfect way to explore some of the more remote areas of the park (Source: http://www.nps.gov/ever/index.htm.) At the federal level, marinas and other boating facilities are also regulated by various laws, which include: • Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 • Clean Water Act of 1972 • Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 • Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 • Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 • Endangered Species Act of 1973 • Magnuson -Stevens Act (Essential Fish Habitat) of 1996 The primary federal agency responsible for issuing permits for marina facilities is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Federal permits for marine facilities will require either an individual permit (single family dock permit) or a joint permit filed with both the USACE and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In many cases, the USACE will also require a dredge and fill permit application, especially for large marina facilities. In an attempt to streamline the permitting process, the 2005 Florida Legislature enacted House Bill 989, which created Monroe County Marina Siting Plan subsection 373.118(4), FS, directing DEP to adopt by rule one or more general permits to authorize local governments to construct, maintain, and operate public marina facilities and public boat ramps. To date, the rules implementing this law for marina facilities has not been developed. 3. State Regulation Monroe County was declared an Area of Critical State Concern in 1975 (Chapter 380.05, FS) to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Keys. Issues such as protecting the natural environment and character of the Keys were a major concern. Also, the declaration was intended to address concerns for affordable housing, to maintain adequate public facilities, to support a sound economic base, to protect property rights, and to require adequate emergency planning and post -disaster planning to ensure public safety. As required by state law, Monroe County prepared the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to address these concerns, but after a series of legal challenges, the County was ordered to initiate a five-year work program to make planning improvements and a Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study to assess the ability of the Keys' ecosystem to protect against the impacts of additional land development activities. The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) has jurisdiction to review all local development projects in Monroe County and to review and approve amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. The SFRPC also has authority to review certain local development orders in the County. At the state level, boating and marina activities are regulated by several different state agencies through a variety of law and code. The following is a listing of the major laws under which marina facilities are currently regulated (and see Appendix A): • Chapter 164, FS: Intergovernmental Programs • Chapter 253, FS: State Lands • Chapter 258, FS: Aquatic Preserves • Chapter 373, Parts I and IV, FS: Water Resources Act • Chapter 379, Part II, FS: Marine Turtle Protection Act and Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act • Chapter 376, FS: Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal • Chapter 380, FS: Land and Water Management • Chapter 403, FS: Environmental Control Among other requirements, these laws provide that the construction or modification of marina facilities calls for an Environmental Resource Permit to be submitted to the State of Florida. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 7 Together, DEP and the appropriate Water Management District reviews permit applications, depending upon the type of project proposed. Environmental Resource Permitting rules and regulations are contained within Chapter 62-300, 40E-40, and 40E-4.091, FAC. Moreover, Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria are specifically described in Section 18-21.0041, FAC, regarding Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management. Significant provisions are excerpted in Section II.A.I., below. In addition, Section 163.3178(6), FS, which is implemented by DEO, directs Florida's coastal counties to establish marina siting criteria in the Coastal Management Element of those counties which have adopted a marina siting plan as part of the comprehensive plan. Previously, Section 380.0651, FS, had defined the threshold at which new or expanded marinas would be reviewed as Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs), subject to certain exemptions if a local government had adopted a boat facility siting plan or policy as part of its comprehensive plan. However, the 2006 Florida Legislature enacted House Bill 683, which amended Section 380.06(24)(k), FS. This provision currently states: "Waterport and marina development, including dry storage facilities, are exempt from this section" (i.e., the DRI review process). 4. County Regulation The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Code of Ordinances, and accompanying LDRs have a number of policies and requirements in place to address both boat facility siting and the protection of natural resources. As these requirements relate to the marina siting criteria and potential site suitability evaluation process described in this Plan, they are discussed in greater detail in Section II.A.2., below. The Future Land Use Plan as well as land use districts (zoning code) delineate a number of areas specifically for water dependent uses, such as those related to recreational and commercial working waterfronts (see Appendix Q. Monroe County has taken steps to complement specific federal and state regulations. Similar to the boating restrictions found in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the County has adopted "Boat Restricted Zones" in various areas countywide (see Sections 26-69, et seq., Monroe County Code). In addition, the County has identified a number of Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC); these places, which include Big Pine Key, North Key Largo, and Ohio Key, have been Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 8 determined to have special planning and regulatory needs (see Sections 106-1, et seq., Monroe County Code). The Technical Document accompanying the Future Land Use element of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan describes the extensive planning initiatives undertaken for these areas and the rationale for creating and designating them as Areas of Critical County Concern. Monroe County developed the "Tier System" to guide the future development of land that is in private ownership and remains vacant today. The Tiers are categorized into three levels: (1) Conservation, Restoration, and Protection, (2) Transition, Reduce Sprawl, and (3) Redevelopment and Infill Development. Maps depicting Tier designation are used to overlay onto current zoning maps to determine appropriate use and intensity of future development or redevelopment. Tiers will also be used as part of Monroe County's 20-year land acquisition program. Tier I land will be the most aggressively pursued due to its environmentally sensitive designation. These areas will be set aside for conservation, restoration, and protection and are often found adjacent to existing publicly owned lands and/or high quality habitat. Tier II land consists of subdivisions that are less than 50 percent built out, lacking necessary infrastructure, or contain less than four acres of isolated environmentally sensitive land. Tier III land is greater than 50 percent built out, presently equipped with infrastructure, or currently planned for development. Finally, major planning efforts has been made throughout unincorporated Monroe County to work in conjunction with other planning mechanisms currently in place, such as the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program which focuses on addressing local community needs through individual Master Plans (Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.20). Livable CommuniKeys Plans are now completed for Stock Island/Key Haven, Big Pine and No Name Keys, Tavernier Creek to Mile Marker 97, Key Largo, and the Lower Keys. The incorporated areas of the County have been engaging in similar planning initiatives, such as the Marina Siting Plan for the City of Marathon and related activities in Islamorada and the City of Key West. Having the benefit of extensive community involvement, these plans often provide recommendations on the desired development level of boating facilities and the County's recreational and commercial working waterfronts. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 9 FEW 51013 ". e A marina siting plan provides information and guides marina development through siting criterion, maps, or a combination of both, as is the case with this particular Plan. It is based on collection and analysis of data on marina uses, natural resources, and recreation issues. Such a plan is usually manifested through a set of goals, objectives, and policies adopted in a local government comprehensive land -use plan and implemented through local ordinances, including land development regulations. This section identifies existing legal requirements for marina siting in Monroe County. Because the mainland portion of the County consists largely of Everglades National Park, as noted earlier, this Plan addresses marina siting in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern only. The critical factor or criterion in marina siting and expansion in the Keys is water depth. Highlighted in this section are a number of state and county regulations defining the threshold for various types of boating facilities as minus four feet mean low water. This depth is based on considerations of light penetration for seagrass growth as well as minimizing impacts to seagrass, an essential habitat resource in the Keys and elsewhere around the State of Florida. Additional guidance on marina siting can be found in FWC's Boat Facility Siting Guide (FWC 2000), FWC's Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study (FWC 2009), and DCA's manual, Preparing a Boating Facility Siting Plan: Best Management Practices for Marina Siting (DCA 2003). This section is followed by the specific Marina Siting Criteria that has been incorporated in Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.2 and provides the basis for the maps upon which portray potential Site Suitability (see Appendix F). Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 10 1. State Regulations As noted above, Section 18-21.0041, FAC, sets forth State of Florida regulations implemented by DEP and which specifically address Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria: 2. No docking facilities shall be approved which require either dredging or filling to provide access by canal, channel, road, or any other means. This restriction shall also apply to widening or deepening any existing canal or channel, but not to regular maintenance dredging of existing canals, basins, or channels, providing such maintenance does not exceed currently acceptable water depths. 3. Water depths requirements. Docking facilities shall only be approved in locations having adequate water depths in the boat mooring, turning basin, access channels and other such areas to accommodate the proposed boat use. a. A minimum water depth of -4 (minus four) feet mean low water shall be required. b. Greater depths shall be required for those facilities designed for, or capable of, accommodating boats having greater than a 3 (three) foot draft, so that a minimum of one foot of clearance is provided between the deepest draft of a vessel and the bottom. 10. No application to lease state owned sovereignty submerged lands for the purpose of providing multi -slip docking facilities shall be considered for approval unless there are no benthic communities present where the boat mooring area, turning basins, mooring piles or other structures are to be located, excepting any main access docks required to cross benthic communities to reach acceptable areas. This shall not preclude them from applying for consent to use state owned submerged lands for the purpose of using the minimum amount necessary to obtain reasonable ingress and egress. Recognizing that the natural water bodies of the Keys and Monroe County are an "irreplaceable asset which requires special protection," Section 62-312.430, FAC, specifies permitting requirements for marinas in the County. These DEP rules relate to dredge and fill activities in those waters of the Keys (Sections 62-312.400 through 62.312.460, FAC) designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), excluding all artificial water bodies, as identified in Section 62-302.700, FAC, and is in addition to regulations relating to environmental resource permit and grandfathered dredge and fill permit applications under Part IV of Chapter 373, FS. Section 373.414(1), F.S., specifically speaks to the importance of recognizing that activities in OFW are required to meet higher water quality standards in the permitting process. (Note that `artificial water bodies' include any water body created by dredging, excavation, or by the filling in of its boundaries, including Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 11 canals, and borrow pits or waters resulting from rock mining activities.) Section 62-312.430, FAC, provides the DEP permit requirements for marinas: Marinas shall be evaluated on the following criteria. For the purpose of this Part a marina shall be defined as a dockage facility providing ten or more wet storage slips or providing commercial marine products or services. (1) Fueling facilities shall have automatic shutoff valves. (2) Fuel storage or pumping facilities shall not be located on over -water structures. (3) Spill containment equipment shall be located on site sufficient to prevent the discharge of pollutants into state waters beyond the marina boundary. Personnel trained in the use of the containment equipment shall be in attendance during all operating hours. At any time such personnel are not in attendance, fuel facilities shall be adequately secured to prevent use. (4) Sewage pumpout facilities shall be provided. (5) Water depths at the specific mooring sites shall not be less than four feet mean low water. (6) The applicant shall affirmatively demonstrate to the Department that adequate depths exist for ingress and egress of boats to the mooring sites and in no case shall the depths of the access area be less than the minimum depth specified in subsection (5). (7) Proposed construction techniques shall protect the viability of a seagrass bed community or other biological communities as listed in paragraph 62-312.410(1)(a), F.A.C. (8) Boat mooring sites shall not be located over a seagrass bed community or coral reef regardless of water depth. The minus four foot mean low water depth threshold is again specified as in the state sovereignty submerged lands rule under Section 18-21.0041, FAC (also excerpted above). 2. Existing Monroe County Policies and Regulations This section excerpts a number of existing provisions in the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policies and Code of Ordinances applicable to marina siting issues and specifications. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.5.2 — [S]iting of single family docks, boat ramps, and boat slips on manmade water bodies shall require minus four (4) feet mean low water (MLW) depths at the terminal end. These structures must have continuous access to open water at depths of minus four (4) feet (MLW) or greater over a channel width of twenty (20) feet, or access to open water via marked, federally and state approved navigation channels. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 12 1. Docking facilities may be developed on any shoreline if there is a mean low water (MLW) depth of at least minus four (4) feet at the terminal end of the docking facility, and continuous access to open water, or 2. Docking facilities may be developed on the shoreline of lots in a subdivision if the docking facility is located in a channel or canal or basin that connects five or more contiguous lots which was dredged before 1986, and if there is a mean low water (MLW) depth of at least minus four (4) feet at the terminal end of the docking facility. Policy 212.5.3 — The minimum water depth requirement at the mooring site shall be minus four (4) feet mean low water. Policy 212.5.4 — The following restrictions shall apply to all structures built over or adjacent to water (including but not limited to boat docks, fishing piers, swimming piers and observation decks): 1. The maximum permitted length of docks shall be commensurate with the shoreline width of the land parcel at which the dock is located, subject to a maximum length of 100 feet from the mean low water line; 2. The length of docks shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the width of the waterbody as measured laterally across the waterbody.... Monroe County Code Section 118-10(4) — Mangroves, Wetlands, and Submerged Lands All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located, and constructed such that: (a) Generally: Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, ...boat shelters ... shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. These restrictions shall not apply to disturbed wetlands... lawfully converted into uplands through filling. (b) Protection of circulation patterns. Shoreline structures shall be designed to protect tidal flushing and circulation patterns. (c) Dredging. The following restrictions shall apply to dredging activities: 1. No new dredging shall be allowed the county except as specified for boat ramps in section 118-12(1) (shoreline setback, boat ramps); 2. No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hard bottom communities except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels; 3. In order to facilitate establishment of bottom vegetation, maintenance dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than six (6) feet at mean low water (MLW). This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 13 4. All dredged spoil materials shall be placed on permitted upland sites designed and located to prevent runoff of spoil material into wetlands or surface waters. 5. All dredge activities require approvals by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to issuance of a county permit. Monroe County Code Sections 26.33 through 26.40 — County Mooring Fields [M]ooring fields shall be managed so as to eliminate abandoned and derelict vessels, ensure compliance with the Clean Vessel Act, minimize benthic damage, and provide a safe, secure harbor for transient and long-term recreational vessels. Of particular importance is Monroe County Code Section 118-12, which sets forth the shoreline setback regulations for different types of structures. Because many of these requirements and restrictions are applicable to specific marina siting criteria, they are described further in II.B, below. This section describes the criteria to be considered in finding suitable locations for development of new marinas in Monroe County. Please see the complete policy language in the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 212.4.2). In summary, the Monroe County Marina Siting Criteria (described in full in Appendix G) requires that A), the siting of new marinas with three (3) or more slips shall be prohibited until full utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new marina site; and B), if a need exists, then the following criteria shall be met for the proposed site to minimize or avoid impacts of development on natural and other significant resources: 1. Benthic Vegetation and Hardbottom Communities 2. Adequacy of Circulation and Tidal Flushing 3. Adequate Water Depth and Access 4. Minimal Shoreline Modification 5. Quality of Upland Areas and Degree of Alteration Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 14 6. Propeller Dredging Problem Areas 7. Impact of Boats o Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and Sea Turtles 8. Other Significant Resources The adopted criteria is defined below with further explanation and related references to existing regulations. An initial County Needs Analysis was conducted and described in Section II.C.2 and in Appendix E. 1. Benthic Vegetation and Hardbottom Communities "Siting of marinas in areas of seagrass or hardbottom (including hard and soft corals) should be avoided. Boat mooring sites (slips or docks) shall not be located over a seagrass bed community or hardbottom community regardless of water depth. No impacts to seagrass beds or hardbottom communities should result from the construction or use of new marina development. " The Florida Keys are characterized by vast areas of subtropical nearshore benthic communities of seagrass beds and hardbottom systems. The federal regulations governing the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary define `seagrass' as "any species of marine angiosperms (flowering plants) that inhabit portions of the seabed in the Sanctuary. Those species include, but are not limited to: Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass); Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass); Halodule wrightii (shoal grass); Halophila decipiens (paddle grass), H. engelmannii (star grass), H. johnsonii (tape grass); and Ruppia maritima (ditch -grass). In addition, the term `hardbottom' refers to "a submerged marine community comprised of organisms attached to exposed solid rock substrate. Hardbottom is the substrate to which corals may attach but does not include the corals themselves." (15CFR922.162(a).) Seagrasses are presently threatened throughout Florida by water quality degradation, physical damage from boat propellers, shading from moored vessels or docks, dredging and filling projects, and muck sediment deposition. Hence, protection of benthic resources is a primary consideration in developing marina siting criteria. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 15 Seagrass beds represent essential components of both the marine environment and the economy of a coastal state such as Florida. Seagrass leaves help maintain water clarity by trapping fine sediments and particles; their rhizomes and root systems stabilize bottom sediments. Seagrass communities provide food and shelter for numerous marine organisms, including the Florida manatee. Because more than 70 percent of Florida's recreational and commercial fish, shellfish, and crustacean species spend part of their lives in seagrass communities, the environmental and economic values provided by seagrasses are substantial4. Hardbottom communities are valuable nursery areas for many faunal assemblages and invertebrates and fishes of both the patch reef and seagrass communities, providing microhabitats for many juvenile fishes. The benthic vegetation and hardbottoms occurring in Monroe County are described in greater detail in such documents as the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (with accompanying Technical Documents) of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan (with environmental impact statement), among others. SITING: The presence of benthic vegetation and hardbottom communities will have to be determined on a site -specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. 2. Adequacy of Circulation and Tidal Flushing "The proposed marina site shall exhibit adequate circulation and tidal flushing. The waterway upon which the marina is proposed to be sited shall meet or exceed State water quality standards, and must currently have "Good" water quality as indicated in the County's most current canal inventory and assessment data. New marina development shall not adversely impact the quality of water during construction or use. " 4 Conserving Florida's Seagrass Resources: Developing a Coordinated Statewide Management Program (FWC 2003). Available online at ttc.c�arelrsacbitat/sa,rassosipttbli�atioa corasrir�-fi- s�� Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 16 a. Water Quality Water quality has been a major concern in the Florida Keys at the federal, state, and local levels. The scope of the issue ranges from water quality impacts due to regional and mainland development to local efforts to replace septic tanks with central sewage treatment facilities. Marina -generated water quality impacts have prompted two main efforts: provision of sewage pump -out and treatment for live-aboards and cruisers, and proper treatment and disposal of site -generated stormwater and wastes. The design and location of water bodies in which marinas are developed may also influence the level of water quality problems that may ensue. In general, the policy is to encourage the development of new marinas or modifications of existing marinas at sites with good tidal flushing and turnover rates (i.e., adequate circulation). Note also that Section 18-21.0041(b)6., FAC, states that marina development in the Florida Keys shall be encouraged to locate in already developed or disturbed areas. In Monroe County, as it has been noted, new dredging is restricted by existing regulations and creation of new water bodies for marinas is prohibited. This prohibition also applies to the deepening of existing water bodies (Section 18.21.0041(1)(b)2, FAC). Therefore, the current configuration of waterways, boat basins, and available natural deep water sites cannot be physically altered in ways that could potentially result in water quality degradation. It has already been mentioned that Section 62-302.700, FAC, prohibits the degradation of water quality in such Outstanding Florida Waters as those of the Florida Keys (Section 62- 302.700(9)(i)13.c, FAC). This includes all waters except artificial water bodies, such as canals. Waters within the OFW are afforded the highest level of water quality protection at the state level. One federal law that affects marinas and mooring fields is the creation of the Florida Keys No Discharge Zone, in effect since June 2002. This law prohibits the discharge of sewage from all vessels into state waters within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, whether the sewage is treated or not (see also, Monroe Code Section 26-1 and 26-6). Monroe County has adopted some requirements for live-aboards regarding sanitation and sewage disposal. In addition, the DEP has established the Clean Marina program statewide, and marinas in the Keys that are not already certified under this program may decide to consider applying for certification. This will result in improved water quality in areas surrounding the marina. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 17 This siting criterion mainly applies to manmade channels and residential canals in unincorporated Monroe County. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., prepared a report entitled, Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment (MACTEC Report), in 2003 to address water quality issues in the canals and wide-ranging recommendations for water quality improvement were presented. Potential sites for marinas and boat ramps will be evaluated for these impacts pursuant to the Marina Siting Criteria. Monroe County Code Section 118-10(4)b provides that shoreline structures must be designed to protect circulation patterns and tidal flushing (see also Section 118-10 regarding environmental design criteria for specific habitats). Any potential changes that may result from a project must meet with County approval. b. Storwater Monroe County adopted a stormwater ordinance in the early 1990s. New development must comply with this ordinance. During construction, some canals and boat basins were dug fairly deep but not designed to flush back out to open water. These so-called "dead end canals" collect pollutants derived from stormwater runoff, septic tanks, and other debris. Most canals are perpendicular to the shoreline and, depending on location, serve as a natural trap for floating vegetation, which sinks and decays on the bottom, resulting in an anoxic condition. Dredging to create new water bodies and access is prohibited; hence, water body design is not a major concern in siting new marinas (Section 18.21.0041(1)(b)2, FAC). SITING: The adequacy of circulation and water quality will have to be determined on a site -specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. 3. Adequate Water Depth and Access "There shall be a minimum of four (4) foot of water depth at mean low water at the marina site (including the mooring slips, turning basin, and access channels), and the water depth shall be continuous to open water over a channel width of twenty (20) feet. Water depth shall be adequate for the proposed vessel use such that there be a minimum of one (1) foot clearance Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 18 between the deepest draft of the vessel and the bottom at mean low water. Greater water depths shall be required for those facilities proposed for accommodating vessels having greater than a three (3) foot draft. Sites shall not require dredging or filling to provide access. " Section 922.163(a)(3)(v) of 15 CFR Ch. IX (NOAA regulations governing the FKNMS) prohibits drilling into, dredging (including prop -dredging), constructing or placing structures, and/or material on the seabed of the Sanctuary except as an incidental result of certain activities, which include the construction and repair of legally authorized docks, piers, or marinas with fewer than 10 slips. Monroe County Code Subsections 118-12(1) and (m) provide additional regulations for boat ramps and docking facilities relevant to this criterion. Section 18-21.0041, FAC, Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management, outlines the Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria. SITING: The adequacy of water depth and access will have to be determined on a site -specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. 4. Minimal Shoreline Modification Marinas shall not be sited adjacent to unaltered shorelines as defined in Sec. 101-1 of the Land Development Code. Minimal modification to the shoreline shall be permitted per County Land Development Code Section 118-1, 118-12(m), and (o). A shoreline, as defined by the County Land Development Code, is the interface between land water, extending seaward of the mean high water to include fringing mangroves and adjacent shelf, and may include a transitional zone landward of mean high water (MHW). Unaltered shorelines are generally located along natural nondredged waterways and open waters. Only minimal shoreline modification should be allowed. See Section 118-10, Environmental design criteria for specific habitat types. SITING: The extent of shoreline modification necessary will have to be determined on a site - specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 19 5. Quality of Upland Areas and Degree of Alteration Necessary Marinas shall not be sited on lands designated as Tier I or Tier III -A, if clearing is proposed. Marina development shall not adversely impact the upland area of, or adjacent to, a proposed marina site. Additionally, marinas shall not be permitted on offshore islands or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). The Monroe County Tier System (Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan) rates the environmental sensitivity of a parcel of land, its potential for development, and prioritizes lands for public acquisition to assist with allocating and awarding development permits to appropriate areas. The Tier System applies to all areas outside of mainland Monroe, excluding the Ocean Reef planned development. The Tier System includes: Tier 0: assigned to right-of-ways, some submerged lands and mapping errors, and property in Ocean Reef. Tier I: assigned to Natural Areas, may contain threatened or endangered species, and have minimal existing development or infrastructure. These lands can be publically acquired and restored for conservation and environmental resource protection. Tier II: assigned only to Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys Planning Area, containing lands that have some environmentally sensitive lands but can be developed. Tier III: assigned as Infill Areas and represents the majority of developable acreage in the County. Tier III -A: assigned as Special Protection Areas, lands that have one acre or more of native upland habitats. Monroe County contains over 200 offshore islands, not connected to US-1 or other roads or bridges. These islands are composed of sediment and characterized by environmentally sensitive lands containing mangrove forests, salt marsh, buttonwood wetlands, salt ponds and freshwater wetlands; home to endangered and threatened species habitats; and their associated submerged lands support seagrass beds. Federal, state and local regulation limit development on offshore islands. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 20 The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) which discourages development on coastal barrier islands. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Objectives 102.8, 209.3, 215.2 and related policies discourage public and private development in the CBRS. SITING: The quality of upland areas and degree of alteration necessary will have to be determined on a site -specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. 6. Propeller Dredging Problem Areas Siting of marinas in areas of seagrass propeller scarring should be avoided. Marinas shall not be located adjacent to areas of severe seagrass scarring, based on the most current data available from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Propeller damage is the most common type of direct human impact upon seagrass beds in the Florida Keys. Boat propellers and large ships have damaged over 30,000 acres of seagrass in Monroe County according to the FWC's Florida Manatee Management Plan (2007, page 148). According to the Monroe County Updated Technical Document to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (2012), propeller damage is the single -largest threat to seagrasses, occurring when recreational boaters take watercraft and jet skis through shallows, cutting through seagrass beds and shallow sediments. Damage from a single propeller scar recovers slowly, if at all. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Objective 203.6 & related policies direct the county to coordinate development and implementation programs and regulation to protect the living marine resources of the Florida Keys with federal, state and local authorities. Policy 203.4.5 directs the County to develop and implement a boating impacts management program which shall address the problem of propeller damage to seagrasses and Policy 203.3.5 directs the County to reduce seagrass propeller scarring from boating impacts through identifying problem areas, establishing criteria and priorities for identifying channels and shallows to be markers through coordination with NOAA and FWC. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 21 SITING: The presence of propeller dredging problem areas will have to be determined on a site - specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. 7. Impact of Boats on Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and Sea Turtles Marinas shall be sited so as to prevent impacts to the Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and marine turtles and protect their habitat by avoiding areas of known American Crocodile range, areas with high watercraft Florida Manatee mortality, or areas that include a beach known to be used for marine turtle nesting. Site characteristics can be assessed using current data from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan contains objectives and policies related to crocodiles, manatees, and turtles. The following excerpts provide specific information on each of these macrofaunal species. Objective 207.8 — Monroe County shall implement activities to prohibit the destruction of the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus), American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), and marine turtles, as well as to protect the habitat of these species. Species of marine turtles to be protected shall include the Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta), Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Atlantic Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), and any other marine turtle using Monroe County beaches as nesting habitat. Policy 207.8.3 — By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall develop and implement a boating impacts management program for protection of marine turtles and manatees. (See Objective 203.6 and related policies). Policy 207.8.6 — By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall adopt a turtle protection ordinance. Regulations of this ordinance shall apply to existing and new development and shall generally accomplish the following: 1. prohibit activities disruptive to marine turtles; 2. establish standards for preventing interior lighting from illuminating nesting areas during nesting season; 3. establish standards for mechanical beach cleaning; 4. and protect marine turtle from predation. Policy 207.8.7 — Monroe County shall protect marine turtles, crocodiles, and alligators from land development activities. Regulations shall generally accomplish the following: Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 22 1. restrict existing and prohibit new beachfront outdoor lighting in the vicinity of nesting areas; 2. prohibit structures within fifty (50) feet of the crest of the beach/berm for any beach which is known to serve as an active nesting area; 3. establish general standards for coastal construction in the vicinity of active nesting areas; and 4. require removal of invasive exotic vegetation from development sites in beach/berms as a condition of development approval for adjacent uplands. a. Crocodiles In 1975 the American crocodile was listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, when estimates of nesting females ranged from only 10 to 20 in a small area in northeastern Florida Bay; however today the species is in recovery with more than 100 nestings reported annually. Its federal listing has been downgraded to threatened in the State of Florida. Much of the remaining crocodile habitat in South Florida has been acquired by federal, state, and county agencies and is protected from development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in coordination with Monroe County (pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Objective 103.2 and Policy 103.2.6) created Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 1980, encompassing more than 5,000 acres and covering a significant part of north Key Largo off Card Sound Road on the Gulf of Mexico side. Administered by the National Key Deer Refuge, the refuge is currently closed to general public use due to the sensitivity of the six federally threatened and endangered species inhabiting the refuge. These protected areas should allow the crocodile population to expand and may provide additional nesting opportunities. Besides the American crocodile, this area is critical habitat for the Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola), Key Largo wood rat (Neotoma floridana smalli), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Stock Island tree snail (Orthalicus yeses), and Schaus' swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus). Crocodiles are now observed throughout most of their historical range in Florida, including Biscayne Bay, Key Largo, and Florida Bay. Nests have occasionally been spotted on the southwest coast and Marco Island. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 23 At this writing, research has not uncovered a database of documented impacts of boats on crocodiles. Instead, statistics are kept with respect to impacts of automobiles on crocodiles, according to information provided by such sources as FWC and FWS. b. Manatees Manatees, Florida's state marine mammal since 1975, are members of the scientific Order Sirenia, large air -breathing aquatic mammals that inhabit both fresh- and salt -water areas, including oceans, estuaries, rivers, canals, and dredged channels. The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) has long been observed along the eastern seaboard of the United States from Florida to Georgia (FWS 2001). Recognized as an integral part of Florida's ecology for millions of years, this "sea cow" has evolved from four -footed land mammals more than 60 million years ago. Their 45 million -year -old fossils have been found in the state. Manatees are protected by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act and federally protected by the Marine Mammal Protection and Endangered Species Act. To determine the presence and abundance of this federally listed endangered species (listed as threatened in Florida), synoptic surveys of the state's manatee population are legislatively mandated (Section 379.2433, FS). Surveys are performed annually by FWC during the winter to coincide with the passage of major cold fronts, periods when manatees gather at various warm water refugia around the state. Counts are generally performed on the same two days per year throughout Florida from fixed -wing aircraft to survey manatees in places and at times when they are most concentrated. The number and dates of surveys may vary from year to year depending on weather conditions. No surveys were conducted in 1993, 1994, and 2008 because of the lack of strong winter cold fronts (FWS 2001a). Water clarity/visibility, weather conditions, and time of day significantly affect observations of manatees during these surveys. As such, it remains unknown what percentage of the total manatee population is actually counted in the synoptic surveys. Survey results (1991-2011) are indicated in Table 1. The Monroe County and Florida totals listed in the table represent the highest single count for each year synoptic surveys were flown. Location data from the synoptic surveys was mapped using the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS® (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.) to generate the surface density of manatees within Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 24 the waterways of Monroe County. Data reveal that manatees are primarily found in mainland Monroe (Everglades National Park) and along the bayside of Key Largo. Synoptic surveys show manatees as far south as Marathon, but in small numbers. Aerial surveys to determine manatee abundance and distribution are presently only flown in the Upper Keys because manatee use of the Lower Keys does not seem to justify aerial surveys at this time. Areas of relatively low abundance (among areas surveyed) include Marathon, Long Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, and Upper Matecumbe Key. Large numbers of manatees have been found to congregate in the estuaries where the Everglades meet Florida Bay. 1991 94 1,478 6.4% 1992 114 1,844 6.2% 1995 102 1,823 5.6% 1996 104 2,630 4.0% 1997 160 2,241 7.1 % 1998 90 2,018 4.5% 1999 101 2,360 4.3% 2000 126 2,223 4.8% 2001 118 3,300 3.6% 2002 29 1,758 1.6% 2003 216 3,127 6.9% 2004 80 2,505 3.2% 2005 240 3,143 7.6% 2006 249 3,113 8.0% 2007 189 2,817 6.7% 2009 181 3,802 4.7% 2010 110 5,077 2.2% 2011 119 4,843 2.5% Source: FWC-FWRI. In Florida, there has been a clear increase in the number of manatee deaths over the last quarter - century (FWS 2001a). Manatees are subjected to a variety of threats, both human and non -human related. Red tide, disease, and cold stress are among the natural causes of mortality. Human activities affect manatees both directly and indirectly. Watercraft strikes, entanglement in or ingestion of fishing line and gear, poaching, and crushing in water control structures are among the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 25 direct impacts. Indirect impacts result from activities that degrade manatee habitat, such as dredging, water quality degradation resulting from coastal development, loss of warm water refugia, and propeller scarring of seagrass beds. This section describes the causes and spatial distribution of mortalities documented within Monroe County. Information on manatee mortality is derived from FWC's manatee salvage and rescue program, which has recorded information on the location, time of year, and cause of manatee deaths since April 1974. Mortalities are assigned by FWC to one of nine categories: Category 1: Watercraft -related Category 2: Floodgate/canal lock Category 3: Other human -related Category 4: Perinatal (dependent calf) Category 5: Cold stress Category 6: Other Natural Category 7: Carcass verified but not recovered Category 8: Undetermined (too decomposed) Category 9: Other undetermined The information presented in this section is derived from data collected by FWC between 2000 and 2010 (available from http://www.myfwc.com). Within that timeframe, there have been 4,220 manatee mortalities statewide; Monroe County accounts for 243 (5.7%) of these deaths. During the same timeframe, 910 confirmed watercraft -related manatee mortalities have occurred statewide; 27 (3%) of which occurred in Monroe County. It is recognized that the use of mortality data as a screening criterion is limited. Some manatees whose deaths have been assigned to "undetermined" may also have been struck by boats, so the percentage of watercraft -related deaths may be conservative. In addition, manatee mortalities record the site of carcass recovery, which may not be the site of injury, and therefore data may be skewed by mortalities that occurred in Miami -Dade and/or Collier counties. A manatee struck and killed by a boat may drift a significant distance before its carcass is recovered. Additionally, a manatee hit by a boat may not die immediately and may swim some distance before it succumbs to the injury. Nonetheless, carcass recovery locations represent the best available information for estimating the general area of the County where manatees have an increased probability of being mortally wounded by a boat collision. Graph 2 shows all manatee mortality in Monroe County in comparison with Florida's 13 "key" counties required to prepare Manatee Protection Plans. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 26 Graph 2. Total Manatee Mortality in 13 "Key" Counties 2000-2010 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 a 4 4 Q� ® Total Watercraft Related Deaths ■ Total Deaths Mortality total is based on reported deaths of manatees in the Florida Keys, excluding mainland Monroe County. Source: FWC-FWR►. Mainland Monroe and the surrounding area accounted for 80 percent of the total manatee mortality countywide; the Keys made up the remaining 20 percent. While Monroe County is not considered to be an important manatee area and is not required to have a Manatee Protection Plan, protective measures are in place that provide for the health and safety of manatees. The FWC provides information signs to homeowners to post along canals indicating the need to boat safely in the presence of manatees. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has established kiosks at boat ramps and marinas throughout the Keys that provide a variety of boating and environmental information, including the need to watch for manatees. Moreover, various agencies have created boating restricted areas that either exclude boats or require boaters to operate at idle or slow speed. Monroe County has provided the greatest protection to both manatees and humans through a variety of measures. The Monroe County Boating Impacts Management Plan (1992) describes criteria for improved channel marking and the creation of boating regulatory zones. These measures were designed to ensure that boaters operate safely and are restricted when operating near Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 27 environmentally sensitive areas. Channel marking was further developed in the Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys (1998). Both channel marking and boating regulatory zones were implemented by the county throughout the 1990s with the establishment of over 400 channel markers and the designation of 20 boating regulatory zones. While initially created for human life and safety, the zones (all permitted by FWC) have the direct effect of protecting manatees as well. Boating regulatory zones include idle speed and slow speed zones, in addition to areas that require engines to be turned off or where vessels are excluded altogether. The FKNMS also provided protection with federal regulations requiring vessels to operate at idle speed within 300 feet of all residential shorelines. Additional idle speed zones have been created by Monroe County that apply to all man-made canals, harbors, and boat basins. The Village of Islamorada has installed regulatory buoys surrounding the islands within its jurisdiction requiring vessels to operate at idle speed within 300 feet of shore. The cities of Key Colony Beach and Key West have implemented idle speed zones as well. Enforcement officers with the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, FKNMS, FWC, FWS, and Everglades National Park are authorized to enforce the regulations of the numerous boating regulatory zones described above. FWC released its Florida Manatee Management Plan in December 2007. The Upper Keys area of Monroe County (north of Marathon) have been identified in this plan as one area of the state that is a possible candidate for the evaluation of new manatee protection speed zones (p. 41). The following factors will be considered when the FWC begins the process of prioritizing the need for review of areas for new zones: • There is an identified manatee risk from watercraft impacts that requires immediate attention. • There are no zones or only limited zones in place and the area could benefit from a review to ensure protection of manatees and their habitat. [Note that Monroe County does have a variety of protective measures in place, as described in the immediately preceding section.] • Manatee and boating data have been collected recently and are available to use in the analysis. • The Boating and Waterways Section (BWS) is considering the need for boating safety zones in a county. In these cases, consideration of manatee zones (where appropriate) at the same time could result in increased agency efficiencies. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 28 • A county requests new manatee zones and provides a detailed rationale and discussion supporting its request. For example, counties may request zone reviews to facilitate coastal development permits that add boat traffic to an area. New manatee protection speed zones could be established in the Upper Keys, but this action is dependent upon the collection of both boating data and new or additional manatee data, according to the plan. Emphasis is also placed on the significant seagrass habitat in the Keys: "Almost half of the state's seagrass beds are located in the Florida Keys, with Monroe County having the most seagrass scarring (30,050 acres)" (p.150). Manatees are among the many species that forage upon seagrass, and it is thought that manatee protection speed zones can have the added benefit of safeguarding seagrass beds, as well as reducing the potential for manatee/boat interaction. e. Turtles Marine turtles are protected under a number of local, state, and federal laws and regulations. For example, the State of Florida, through the FWC, coordinates the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey (SLABS) program under a 1979 cooperative agreement between FWC and FWS. This initiative is aimed at implementing the state's responsibilities under the Florida Marine Turtle Protection Act and the federal Recovery Plans for five species of threatened or endangered marine turtle — loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate), and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii). Monroe County currently provides for specific protection of marine turtles, especially with respect to nesting activities (Policy 212.2.1). Monroe County Code Section 118-12(k) provides for the restoration of suitable turtle nesting habitat and also prohibits the permitting of bulkheads, seawalls, riprap, and other shoreline hardening structures in beach areas known (or with potential) to be marine turtle nesting sites. Section 118-12(p) specifies setback requirements for development near nesting sites (e.g., maximum total setback of 100 feet from mean high water; see also Section 9.5- 348(c)(5) regarding environmental design criteria for marine turtle beaches), in addition to mandating certain habitat restoration activities. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 29 The County's sea turtle protection ordinance, Sections 13-114 through 12-210, Monroe County Code, places restrictions on outdoor and indoor artificial lighting that apply to all development on or near nesting beaches. These requirements also apply to marina development, including outdoor and waterfront lighting. For Florida's Model Lighting Ordinance for Marine Turtle Protection, see 62B- 55, FAC. In addition, Section 12-115, Monroe County Code, which implements Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.2.1 and Policy 212.2.3 regarding shoreline setbacks, provides the following: (b) Prohibiting storage or placement of any material in the nesting area. The storage or placement of any material such as but not limited to construction material, rip -rap, trash and debris, mulch or other organic material, landscaping material, fill, vehicles, or boats, that has potential to impede movement of hatchlings or adults between ocean and nesting areas, or that may cover existing nests or nesting sites is strictly prohibited. (c) Development. All development shall be set back a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any area which serves as an active or potential nesting area for marine turtles. The fifty (50) foot setback will be measured from the landward toe of the most landward beach berm or from fifty (50) feet landward of mean high water (MHW), whichever results in the smaller total setback. The maximum total setback shall be one hundred (100) feet from MHW. Park use is subject to certain restrictions also: Policy 1201.11.3 — Park management plans shall be designed so as to avoid and/or mitigate adverse impacts of park use upon sensitive natural resources. Such areas include, but are not limited to the following: 1. high quality undisturbed pineland and hammock vegetation; 2. documented habitat of species designated as rare or endangered by the state and federal governments; 3. undisturbed beach/berm (particularly turtle nesting beaches); 4. undisturbed mangrove, salt marsh, buttonwood and freshwater wetlands. Public use shall be directed away from or minimized in such areas through controlled access and limitations on permitted activities. Three species of marine turtle, the loggerhead, the green, and the leatherback, which routinely nest on Florida beaches, are the primary focus of the SNBS in Monroe County. For example, the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, which stretches north of Marathon to north of Key West on the Gulf side and covers nearly 124,000 acres of islands and marine environment accessible only by boat (i.e., "the Backcountry"), provides habitat for loggerhead, green, leatherback, and Kemp's Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 30 ridley turtles. Moreover, the Key West National Wildlife Refuge, which encompasses 2,019 acres of land on 26 islands and more than 300 square miles of open water, has both loggerhead and green turtle nests and is also said to serve as the only breeding site in the United States for the endangered hawksbill turtle. Another program, the Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS) created in 1989, has coordinated detailed sea turtle nesting -trend monitoring in conjunction with the SNBS. Approximately 30 percent of Florida's SNBS beach length is surveyed under INBS criteria. Information on distribution, abundance, and seasonality of sea turtle nesting sites is collected by a statewide network of permit holders, including volunteers, academics, consultants, private conservation groups, and local, state, and federal agency personnel. Survey results are analyzed to evaluate and help reduce impacts to turtles and their nesting and foraging habitats from such human activities as recreation, coastal construction, and beach renourishment. Based on this data, recommendations for enhanced protection and land acquisition can be made. Lighting, debris, and nesting beach protection are the primary issues upon which public education efforts are centered. Current programs are focused on the loggerhead, as approximately 90 percent of the world's largest loggerhead nesting population occurs in Florida, while leatherback and green turtle nesting populations are regionally significant. Green turtles and leatherbacks have overlapping but different nesting seasons and are not fully represented in the data. SITING: The impacts of boats on the Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and Sea Turtles will have to be determined on a site -specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. rel r, „I ff i '' No adverse impact shall be permitted on archaeological or historic resources/sites. Monroe County has 649 documented archeological sites and 369 ship wreck sites. Fifty-nine sites are registered on the National Register of Historic Places and the State's Florida Master Site File has identified 391 historic sites, 222 of which are housing. The County has also designated three segments of the Overseas Railroad Bridge as historic landmarks and include the Long Key, Bahia Honda and Seven Mile railroad bridges. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 31 Although Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan maintains a comprehensive inventory of archaeological and historic resource sites for reference, County Policy 103.2.11 notes that no building permit or development approval be issued until an archaeological/historical review of the proposed development site is performed. SITING: The presence of archaeological or historic resources or sites will have to be determined on a site -specific basis as projects are submitted for permit approval. In general terms, if one examines all aspects of habitat preservation, permit regulation, educational initiatives, and law enforcement activity already in place in Monroe County, it becomes readily apparent that multiple layers of protection currently exist with regard to preserving the County's unique and valuable natural resources. It has been said that this results in restrictions on the level of new development and redevelopment that could occur countywide. Much of the land in the Keys with potential for boating facilities of some kind has already been developed with those uses. New development and redevelopment must meet stringent regulatory standards for approval. It is anticipated that very few new marinas will be proposed in the future. Moreover, the trend for redevelopment or expansion of existing facilities may center on reconfiguration of existing slips and changes in use rather than the addition of slips, again due to such factors as physical constraints and existing regulatory limitations. 1. Boating Facilities in Monroe County Figures 1 through 7 in Appendix D show the average densities of marine facilities and boat ramps in Monroe County. Appendix D also contains Figure 8, outlining the incorporated areas of Monroe County. Figures 9 through 11 highlight the generalized marine facility locations in unincorporated portions of Monroe County by region (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys). Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 32 The Marine Facilities Inventory that was collected as part of the WWPMP (2007) identified a total of 545 facilities in both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County. The inventory lists facilities including, but not limited to, marinas, boatyards, boat ramps, fish houses, public parks and research centers. 2. Needs Analysis Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.2 requires that the siting of new marinas with three (3) or more slips shall be prohibited until full utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new marina site. Future needs are a function of expected growth in supply and demand. If the demand is greater than the supply, then the need for facilities to meet that demand must be determined. A comprehensive approach, including determining capacity and use of marinas throughout the County and defining a full utilization threshold, was undertaken by the SFRPC in order to gain a snapshot of need through baseline data. To conduct the Needs Analysis in Appendix E, the the Marine Facilities Inventory was revisited to accurately identify which of the facilities from 2007 had a use as a marina and if it still existed. Of the 545 facilities, only 159 have a marina of "principal" or "accessory" use (accessory use were those marina facilities at hotels or restaurants, for example). Of the 159 marinas, only 53 are open to the general public for the storage of watercraft vessels. Table 3 breaks down the Marinas by use and accessibility In Monroe County. Table 3. Monroe County Marina Count by Use and Ownership Use Public Private Principle 77 39 38 Accessory 82 14 68 Total Marinas 159 53 106 The Needs Analysis further evaluated existing marina utilization patterns and levels by counting wet slips from aerial imagery taken in 2006 and 2009 to determine the need for new marinas in Monroe County. The slip utilization analysis reviewed 44 of the 53 marinas open to the public, as nine of the marinas had no true wet slips. Table 4 depicts the marina slip utilization range of public marinas in 2006 and 2009. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 3.3 Table 4. Public Marina Utilization Range 2006 12009 0 to 25% 3 5 26 to 50% 12 13 51 to 75% 15 17 76 to 100% 14 9 Total Marinas 44 44 To address the `full utilization' requirement of Policy 212.4.2, the Needs Analysis based `full utilization' threshold on a threshold of 90 percent, providing a liberal level of incidental vacancy for expected movement and use of vessels. In 2006, a total of four marinas were above 90% utilization and all four were located in Key Largo. In 2009 one marina in Stock Island was at 92.65% utilization. For more details on the methodology and findings, please see Appendix E. A review of the marine facilities and utilization in the Keys are characterized by clusters of existing facilities and the need for new marina development is not pressing. It is anticipated that marina expansion and/or redevelopment of existing marinas will be preferred over new marina development. Given the regulatory and physical factors operating in Monroe County to limit marinas, however, the overall projected increase in the number of slips is expected to be low. This outcome seems consistent with the mandate of Section 18-21.0041(b)6., FAC, that marina development in the Florida Keys "shall be encouraged to be located in already developed or disturbed areas". 3. Site Suitability The Marina Siting Plan identifies in detail the siting criteria for new marinas with three (3) or more slips in Section B1-138 for consistency with Policy 212.4.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Proposed new marinas will be required to first identify a need for development (i.e. full utilization within five miles), then meet specified criteria to minimize impacts on natural resources. To the extent data currently exists, the criteria have been mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques in Appendix F, Marina Siting Plan Maps, indicating areas countywide that may or may not be suitable for marina development. The Plan does not affect single-family docks with fewer than three (3) slips or existing multi -slip facilities unless they are expanding. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 34 It should be noted that the development of the Monroe County Marina Siting Criteria identified and described in this Plan was vetted through the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Service, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. These criteria serve as the basis for the Suitability Maps in Appendix F, which are intended to be used for illustrative purposes only. Land use designations and future land use categories, among other factors, are also considered during permit review processes. . Screening It is important to reiterate that the marina siting guidance in this document applies to unincorporated Monroe County only and shall not supersede, preempt, or nullify applicable federal, state, or municipal rules, regulations, or requirements that apply. Any entity intending to develop or renovate a marina within a municipality's boundaries must consult that municipality's comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Compliance with the provisions of this document does not imply approval of other permitting requirements. The approach recommended in this Plan is criteria -based. Applications for new marinas will be reviewed on a site -specific basis upon provision and review of site -specific data. This Plan is a technical resource intended to satisfy state -agency concerns about natural resource protection. Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to meet with County staff early in the process to resolve any questions prior to the development of any plans or projects. b. Policy New marine facilities shall demonstrate a need for the development, based on full utilization requirements, and meet all of the criteria described in this Plan, as adopted by Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.2. Applicants for new facilities must provide documentation to Monroe County Growth Management Division describing how each site will satisfy need and siting criteria. Please note, the provisions of this Plan shall not preempt or nullify any other applicable federal, state, or local regulations that apply. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 35 c. Mitigation Section 62-312.450, FAC, sets forth the mitigation provisions under DEP's dredge and fill requirements related to permitting a marina in the Keys: Notwithstanding any of the prohibitions contained in this rule, the Department shall consider mitigation pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(b), F.S., and applicable Department rules to determine whether the project may otherwise be permittable. In any application for mitigation, the applicant shall demonstrate before issuance of any permit for the construction of the intended project that the proposed mitigation will be effective. Mitigation shall not be permitted where it appears after due considerations that construction of the intended project will cause irreplaceable damage to the site. Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.5.4 states: A variance procedure, separate from that set forth in the current Land Development Regulations Section 9.5-523, shall be included in the Land Development Regulations to allow the minimum relaxation of the above restrictions which is necessary to provide the upland owner reasonable access to adjacent waters for recreational use. That variance procedure shall incorporate, among other criteria, requirements that such structures not be inconsistent with community character, not interfere with public recreational uses in or on adjacent waters, and pose no navigational or safety hazard. It should be noted that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection uses the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM; see Section 62-345, FAC), which provides a standardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters. This procedure can also be used to determine the amount by which those functions are reduced by a proposed impact and the amount of mitigation needed to offset the anticipated loss. However, UMAM does not assess whether the adverse impact meets other criteria for issuance of a permit, or the extent to which such impacts may be approved. In Florida, the general standard is that a project may request a possible variance if a pressing need is demonstrated and if the facility is used by the general public. If a variance is requested and the project does not meet submerged aquatic vegetation/seagrass requirements then adequate mitigation and restoration of seagrass is required after minimization. If adequate minimization is not possible or mitigation is not expected to be successful, the variance shall be denied. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 36 In addition, Monroe County Code Section 118-8 describes the relationship between mitigation standards and the County's environmental land management and restoration fund. Mention should also be made of Big Pine Key and No Name Key (of which roughly 70 percent is in public ownership with 66 percent managed for conservation). The Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and other protected species serves as the basis for a mitigation plan with respect to incidental take permits. It has been noted that a complex set of local, state, and federal laws and regulations currently exists to guide land development and natural resource protection in Monroe County. This extensive framework has resulted in limiting marina siting and expansion in many areas. The Marina Siting Plan has compiled the legal authority upon which siting decisions are initially based due to constraints of water depth and protected status of environmentally sensitive habitats. Further direction is provided by the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, requiring that new marinas with three (3) or more slips shall be prohibited until full utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new marina site, and if a need exists, the following marina siting criteria shall be met to minimize or avoid impacts of development on natural and other significant resources:: 1. Benthic Vegetation and Hardbottom Communities 2. Adequacy of Circulation and Tidal Flushing 3. Adequate Water Depth and Access 4. Minimal Shoreline Modification 5. Quality of Upland Areas and Degree of Alteration 6. Propeller Dredging Problem Areas 7. Impact of Boats o Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and Sea Turtles 8. Other Significant Resources Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 37 Site suitability is based on these criteria and, to the extent data currently exist, the criteria have been mapped countywide using Geographic Information Software (GIS). Please refer to Appendix F for more details on the datasets used to map the criteria and to view the suitability maps. New marina facilities will be required to meet the criteria outlined in this Plan to minimize impacts on natural resources. Restrictions will be greatest in areas of highest risk to resources and least in areas of lowest risk. The Plan does not affect single-family docks with fewer than three (3) slips or existing multi -slip facilities unless they are expanding. Finally, the work put into revising this Plan —including a literature review of siting criteria in the state of Florida, the collection and updating and data, and the Needs Analysis— has brought to light that it appears marina development in the near future will be guided towards existing marina redevelopment and/or expansion over development of new marinas. E. Recommendations The recommendations highlighted in this section are additional steps that Monroe County may take to protect, preserve, and enhance public water access and boating -related uses. Additional, detailed recommendations can be found on pages 38-54 of the Final Report of the Monroe County Marine Management Strategic Plan (available online at http.,!"ww%v.sfrpc.com/mcmmsp.htm). During implementation of this Marina Siting Plan, it may be most economical and practical for the County to focus on expansions of and/or modifications to facilities located within the existing commercial nodes or clusters of water dependent marine -related uses throughout the Keys. This recommendation is consistent with the requirement of Section 18-21.0041(b)6., FAC, that marina development in the Florida Keys shall be encouraged to locate in already developed or disturbed areas. The County could consider and support efforts to link public water access points and/or commercial nodes of boating -related uses throughout the Keys using a variety of economic and commercial activities (e.g., shoreline restaurants and attractions, boat tours, boardwalks, ecotours) and transportation modes (e.g., bus, water taxis, bicycles, boats). Public/private partnerships could be Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 38 created to implement this recommendation. In addition, residents and visitors should be made aware of these access points through improvements in signage and information about public transportation to these destinations, which may offer a mix of uses. This approach is consistent with the Stock Island and Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan as well. The County could proactively plan for future opportunities for new public recreational and educational experiences on public lands, causeways, and public parks abutting the shoreline. Public lands include local, state, and federal access points. A countywide bond issue could be used as a source of funding to improve existing County parks and public boat ramps to enhance recreational boating access. In addition, infrastructure in these areas should accommodate existing and future public needs. The County may consider the recommendations suggested in DEP's Recreational Boating Access in Florida State Parks study be implemented, in Monroe County (January 2006; available online at htjpL//www.de ,state.fi,us/.parks/ lannin fo sl oatin % 0re ort%2012-2 - O. dl. In furtherance of assessing boater needs, the County may decide to update its countywide boat use and traffic pattern study to gather additional information on user needs and travel routes (points of origin and destination). Such a study should describe the volume and types of boats, seasonal variations of boating patterns, and the types and distribution of boating activities. The study could include partnering with the Florida Department of Transportation to estimate the volume of trailerable boats entering Monroe County to help characterize boat use and the capacity of the Keys to accommodate and provide services to boaters in general. In addition, the findings and recommendations of FWC's Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study is another resource the County can utilize for baseline data of boating facilities, use and determining need of future facilities (August 2009; available online at htt a l / y c.co ediE 2/7/ About core AFI Full 09. d1). The County should consider updating the Marina Siting Plan's Needs Analysis in Appendix F every three years, or within a year of the County capturing new aerial imagery. Building upon the existing slip utilization data from 2006 and 2009 can help the County determine if the 90% `full utilization' Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 39 threshold needs to be decreased or increased accordingly. In conjunction with the Needs Analysis Update, the County could consider the need for future review and updating of this plan The results of the suggested boater needs assessment, the FWC 2009 study, and updating the Needs Analysis data could assist the County in developing a more sound projection of future marina needs. It is worth noting that Section 18-21.0041(b)8., FAC, requires permit applicants to provide documentation to show there is an economic demand for the number of slips being requested if the number is inconsistent with the County's projections of marina needs. The County should consider following up on the recommendations of the Livable CommuniKeys plans as they relate to and are consistent with this Marina Siting Plan. For example, the Livable CommuniKeys Plan for Tavernier Creek to Mile Marker 97 recommends prohibiting the permitting of new marinas in the planning area, while encouraging the redevelopment of existing marinas. This CommuniKeys Plan also recommends improving and expanding existing water access, providing additional shoreline access for residents, and protecting the existing water related and water dependent uses (e.g., marinas, restaurants, commercial fishing), while allowing rebuilding in the footprint if these uses are destroyed. Moreover, the specific recommendations of the master plan for Stock Island and Key Haven could be implemented in conjunction with this Marina Siting Plan. Finally, additional initiatives should be made to foster intergovernmental coordination among stakeholders representing all local, state, and federal agencies, along with other entities, involved in managing and protecting the Keys' unique natural resources, while guiding the future development of Monroe County. Improved communication at all levels should help ensure sound decision - making in the effort to balance competing needs of current and future water access, while preserving valuable natural resources for the enjoyment of current and future generations. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 40 LITERATURE REVIEWED CERP (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) Interagency Manatee Task Force. 2004. Manatee Suitability Survey in the Everglades Region of the Central and Southern Florida Project. November 2004. 26 pp. + appendices. CH2M Hill, Curtis & Kimball Co., John C. Martin Associates, et al., Port of Palm Beach Master Plan 2005- 2015 (in press). Code of Federal Regulations (various sections). Available online at htt ://wow. oaccess. ov: cfrj itidex.Itini. Colorado Herpetological Society. "Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes the American Crocodile in Florida be Downlisted from Endangered to Threatened" in The Cold Blooded News — The Newsletter of the Colorado Herpetological Society (Vol. 32, No. 6; June 2005). Available online at htp: colohe .sor fib..- mews!col- 2! bp 5 6iT Ia roc .t h Etheridge, K., G.B. Rathbun, J.A. Powell, and I.J. Kochman. 1985. Consumption of Aquatic Plants by the West Indian manatee. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 23:21-25. Final Biological Status Review of the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latriostris). 2002. Report by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute. Florida Administrative Code (various sections). Available online at fitt s:// y mdnit , or . Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2003. Preparing a Boating Facility Siting Plan: Best Management Practices for Marina Siting. 98 pp. Available online at llt /,'�y ti .state.._fl.tis/F,DCP/.1: C Pig arina lti .._. z� a, i . c_f. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Recreational Boating Access in Florida State Parks. 54 pp. Available online at litt ;//www.de -),state. fl-usLP arks .la rra for s<.,bQatira �/�2 r`�2 i -2 05. f Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Clean Marina Program. Available online at htW.L/mEK)y.d.ep.state.fl.us/law/clean/-marina/default.htm. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 1996-1998, 2000-2006 Vessel Registration Statistics. Available online at htip://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/html/safety.html and http://w�.vw.hsmv.state.fl.us/ my/vslf ccts.html. Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Recommendations to Improve Boating Safety and Manatee Protection for Florida Waterways. Final Report resented at the request of the Governor and Cabinet. Available online at ttpLJ vc.com/ anatee`docu ents'1989`/�2OReco etidations. df. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007. Draft 2 — Florida Manatee Management Plan Trichechus manatus latirostris. 259 pp. Available online at hti :.i'm fwc.corplrnanatee/MMP Q3r ft2 4- _12-0Tpdf Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 41 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2006. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species Management and Conservation Plan — FY 2005-2006 Progress Report. 90 pp. Available online at 1�tt:/ifwc.comti eriledsecies/pdf/Endnered-Threatened-Species-M t-Phan-F'-2005-006. df. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Manatee Synoptic Surveys, 1991-2006. Available online at http://research. fwc.con�ifeatuzeslvier�article,as?id-1546. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Manatee mortality database, 1977-2006. Available online at 1�tt://rserch,rr�fwc,con�ifeatreslcate:o sub.asp?id=2241. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Imperiled Species Management Section. June 2004. Draft: Manatee Protection Plan Guidelines. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Marine Turtle Research Program. Available online at Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Bureau of Protected Species Management. 2000. Boat Facility Siting Guide. Available online at http:/1wv��u,ca,statc.11,uslfdcpldcpinaarioaitin Iloatsite000. pdf. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. Addendum to the 2002 Final Biological Status Review of the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. Conserving Florida's Seagrass Resources: Developing a Coordinated Statewide Management Program. 59 pp. Available online at http://research.myfwc.com/features/view article.asp?id=23185. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Imperiled Species Management Section (formerly the Bureau of Protected Species Management). November 2000. Attachment K — Manatee Protection Plan Guidelines. Available online at htt .yi ro fwc.com/manatee/documentsfAttachmeiitq�620K.pdf. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute. 2000. Atlas of Marine Resources, R.O. Flamm, L.I. Ward, and M. White, eds., Version 1.3. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2006. Information available online at ttp:, www.florid arine.or/features'view article.s`1id=1.5246. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2005. FWC Conducts Biological Status Review of the Florida Manatee Available on the web at: http://www.floridamarine.org/features/view—article.asp?id=19173. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Available online at htt : ilorida eys.noaa, ovlre cslzrce prof tion/welco e.ht., R1. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan. Available online htt :f",'floridae s.noaaov/regsl5yearreviewE'welcome.ht 1. Florida Statutes (various sections). Available online at h/www.le_g.state,l.usf Statutes. Four Gates Co. 2005. City of Marathon Marina Siting Plan. Available online at ttp ?: www,ci. rathon.11.uslco onlrr�odules =docu entce ter2'docaa_ entview.as ?DID=1655. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 42 Haddad, K.D. 2002. Final Biological Status Review for the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida. Hartman, D.S. 1979. Ecology and behavior of the manatee (Trichechus manatus) in Florida. The American Society of Mammalogists, Special Publication No. 5. 153 pp. Husar, S.L. 1977. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report 7. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 22 pp. Irvine, A.B. 1983. Manatee metabolism and its influence on distribution in Florida. Biological Conservation 25:315-334. Langtimm, C.A. and C.A. Beck. 2001. Lower Survival Probabilities for Adult Florida Manatees in Years with Intense Coastal Storms. Ecological Applications. 13(1), 2003, pp. 257-268. Ledder, D.A. 1986. Food habits of the West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus latirostris, in South Florida, M.S. thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables. 114 pp. Lefebvre, L.W., B.B. Ackerman, K.M. Portier, and K.H. Pollock. 1995. Aerial Survey as a Technique for Estimating Trends in Manatee Population Size — Problems and Prospects. Pages 63-74 In: T.J. O'Shea, B.B. Ackerman, and H.F. Percival (eds.). Population Biology of the Florida Manatee. National Biological Service, Information and Technology Report No. 1. Washington, DC. Lefebvre, L.W., M. Marmontel, J.P. Reid, G.B. Rathbun and D.P. Domning. 2001. Status and Biogeography of the West Indian Manatee. Biogeography of the West Indies Patterns and Perspectives Second Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton. Lefebvre, L.W., J.P. Reid, W.J. Kenworthy, and J.A. Powell. 2000. Characterizing Manatee Habitat Use and Seagrass Grazing in Florida and Puerto Rico: Implications for Conservation and Management. Pacific Conservation Biology 5(4):289-298. Lefebvre, L.W., T.J. O'Shea. Florida Manatees. http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/frame/m4044.htm. Limpus, Colin J., K. J. Currie and J. Haines. 2003. Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report 2002. Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency. Volume 2003 Number 1. MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 2003. Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment. Final Report. Volumes 1 and 2. Manatee Population Status Working Group, 2001. Appendix A and D: Recommendation of Population Benchmarks to Help Measure Recovery. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus manatus latirostris), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 144pp. + appendices. Marmontel, M., S.R. Humphrey, and T.J. O'Shea. 1997. Population Viability Analysis of the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), 1976-1991. Conservation Biology. 11(2):467-481. Monroe County. 2006. Habitat Conservation Plan for Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) and other Protected Species on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida. 86 pp. Available online at htt a'1 0 oc ofl.vi�t itovvnh�ll,net l a cs/Mc ceCoPl Pla i 1pdfs/BILK%20H "Pg`020Fin ll,o2 20O6. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 43 Monroe County Code. Available online at http:,,'iw w.inu igo e.c mlresources atecva .as `�si&9& id=11270. Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Technical and Policy Documents. Available online at l tttp.// o o of%vi.rtualtownhall.net/11 ges ornroeCoFL Growth/Co Plan2010r`index. Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department. 2006. Master Plan for the Development of Stock Island and Key Haven (Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan). 54 pp. Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department. 2004. Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine and No Name Key (Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan). 93 pp. Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department. 2004. Master Plan for the Tavernier Creek Bridge to Mile Marker 97 (Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan).35 pp. National Park Service. Everglades. Available online at http://www.nps.gov/ever/index.htm. North Carolina Waterfront Access Study Committee. 2007. Final Report. 54 pp. Available online at htt ;/1 vonc eagrant.org!rnde ocfrn?fuseaction=pay Elena e=waterfronts.lrtrnl. Pittman, Craig. February 2004. Fury Over a Gentle Giant. Smithsonian. Reynolds III, J.E. and D.K. Odell. 1991. Manatees and Dugongs. Facts On File. Inc. New York, NY. ISBN 0- 8160-2436-7. 192 pp. Runge, Michael. Atlantic Coast Manatee Population Study. Available online at http northflori a,fws gcrvfManateeJDocczrraer�ts%MMP ales/Finall IS 'ppcndices/ I I`Mo e1FEIS ARpLoval. South Florida Regional Planning Council and Florida Atlantic University. 2006. Monroe County Marine Management Strategic Plan. Available online at http://www.sfrpc.com/mcmmsp.htm. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Manatee Key. Available online at htip://www saj usace army mil/permit/Endangered Species/Manatee%20Update%20Aug%202005/conten is updAu Ot; 5.htm. This website also includes the FWC-FWS "Interim II" Process for Evaluating New Watercraft Access in Florida (see lrttp:/Iwww,saa.usace,a y, 11pe it/Endan eyed S ecies anateeg 20tJ date%20Au !,6202005 anat ee%20Key Interi /6 0I lnt.eri %20IIm i 202005. do. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the American Crocodile Distinct Population Segment in Florida From Endangered to Threatened. Available online at lrttp:lJwww.e a.gcr fedr tr/EI' I'EC;IE `2007lMarc e ay-20/e5037.htt . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges - National Key Deer, Key West, Great White Heron, Crocodile Lake. Available online at http://www.fws.izov/southeast/t)ubs/nkdgen.pd U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus manatus latirositris), Third Revision. Atlanta, Georgia. 144 pp. + appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Florida Manatee Recovery Accomplishments 2001 Annual Report. Jacksonville, Florida. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 44 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus manatus latirostris), Second Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 160 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirositris) Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Florida Manatee Recovery Team for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 98pp. Van Meter, Victoria Brook. 2001. The Florida Manatee. Originally written for Florida Power and Light. Available online at http://www.floridaconservation.org/psn /manatee/manatee%20booklet.pdf. Wallace Roberts and Todd, LLC. 2005. Final Report Stock Island Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment and Intra-Island Corridor Enhancement Plan. This Harbor Plan is considered Volume 2 of the Stock Island and Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan. Worthy, Graham A.J. 2000. When is it too cold for a manatee? Save the Manatee Club, The Manatee Zone, p.4. Other Florida County Manatee Protection Plans were also reviewed and are available online at ht- `�n f c.con / anatcc/m p/m p links htrn. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 45 This page left blank intentionally. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 46 Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 47 1 62-312.430, FAC, Permitting Requirements for Marinas Marinas shall be evaluated on the following criteria. For the purpose of this Part a marina shall be defined as a dockage facility providing ten or more wet storage slips or providing commercial marine products or services. (1) Fueling facilities shall have automatic shutoff valves. (2) Fuel storage or pumping facilities shall not be located on over -water structures. (3) Spill containment equipment shall be located on site sufficient to prevent the discharge of pollutants into state waters beyond the marina boundary. Personnel trained in the use of the containment equipment shall be in attendance during all operating hours. At any time such personnel are not in attendance, fuel facilities shall be adequately secured to prevent use. (4) Sewage pumpout facilities shall be provided. (5) Water depths at the specific mooring sites shall not be less than four feet mean low water. (6) The applicant shall affirmatively demonstrate to the Department that adequate depths exist for ingress and egress of boats to the mooring sites and in no case shall the depths of the access area be less than the minimum depth specified in subsection (5). (7) Proposed construction techniques shall protect the viability of a seagrass bed community or other biological communities as listed in paragraph 62-312.410(1)(a), F.A.C. (8) Boat mooring sites shall not be located over a seagrass bed community or coral reef regardless of water depth. Specific Authority 373.414(11)-(16), 373.4145, 403.805(1) FS Law Implemented 373.409, 373.413, 373.414(9), (11), (12)(a), (13), (14), (15), (16), 373.4145, 373.416, 373.418, 403.061 FS. History —New 6-8-88, Formerly 17-12.430, 17- 312.430, Amended 10-3-95. 18-21.0041, FAC, Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria (1) These policies and criteria shall be applied to all applications for leases, easements or consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in Monroe County for multi -slip docking facilities. The following General Policies and Specific Criteria shall be used in developing recommendations to approve, approve with conditions or deny the use of state owned sovereignty submerged lands for multi -slip docking facilities. (a) General Policies — special attention and consideration shall be given to the following: 1. The proximity to and potential adverse impacts on any rare, threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, or their habitat, or on any portion of the entire Florida Reef Tract and other corals, including but not limited to those in the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, and Everglades National Park; and 2. Eliminating any adverse impacts on wetland or submerged vegetation or benthic communities; and 3. Requiring adequate tidal flushing and/or circulation; and 4. Maintaining or enhancing water quality at levels within or above State water quality standards; and 5. Requiring adequate water depths to avoid dredging and other bottom disturbance; and 6. Requiring consistency and conformity with local government land use plans, zoning, and other land use or development regulations; and 7. Requiring consistency and conformity with Chapters 27F-8, 27F-9, 27F-10, 27F-11, 27F-12, 27F-13, and 27F-15, F.A.C., as amended, "Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern." Should any of these provisions conflict with the Sovereignty Lands Management Rules, the Board shall advise staff which provision shall take precedence. Appendix A (b) Specific Criteria. 1. There shall be a moratorium on the approval of all leases of state owned submerged lands for multi -slip docking facilities from Tea Table Channel north to the Monroe County Line. This moratorium shall be maintained until rules are adopted for the currently proposed Florida Keys -Monroe County Aquatic Preserve or the revised Monroe County Comprehensive Plan with marina siting policies is adopted, whichever occurs first. 2. No docking facilities shall be approved which require either dredging or filling to provide access by canal, channel, road, or any other means. This restriction shall also apply to widening or deepening any existing canal or channel, but not to regular maintenance dredging of existing canals, basins, or channels, providing such maintenance does not exceed currently acceptable water depths. 3. Water depths requirements. Docking facilities shall only be approved in locations having adequate water depths in the boat mooring, turning basin, access channels and other such areas to accommodate the proposed boat use. a. A minimum water depth of -4 (minus four) feet mean low water shall be required. b. Greater depths shall be required for those facilities designed for, or capable of, accommodating boats having greater than a 3 (three) foot draft, so that a minimum of one foot of clearance is provided between the deepest draft of a vessel and the bottom. c. These depth requirements shall also apply to the area between the proposed facility and any natural or other navigation channel, inlet or deep water. Where necessary, marking of navigational channels shall be required. At the Board's discretion, the conditions of the lease may stipulate the number, lengths, drafts and types of vessels to be moored in a facility. 4. Requirements for the size of the dock. a. No dock shall be approved if its length exceeds 500 feet, unless the Board determines that it is not contrary to the public interest. b. No dock shall be approved if its length preempts in excess of 20% (percent) of the width of the affected waterbody. c. No dock for the use of a private residence, which is not subject to obtaining a lease, shall exceed four (4) feet in width. Such a dock may have a terminal platform the total area of which shall not exceed 160 feet, and the width of which shall not exceed eight (8) feet. 5. A specific lease condition for any new or expanded docking facility for 10 or more boats will be that the lessee shall maintain water quality standards as provided by Chapter 403, F.S. To assure compliance, the lessee shall maintain a water quality monitoring program approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. Water quality data will be periodically reviewed by the Department of Environmental Protection. In the event that water quality violations occur and water quality standards provided by Chapter 403, F.S., are not maintained, the lessee will be given written notice to correct the problem. Such notice shall require any problems or violations to be corrected within 120 days, or less in the case of severe violations, or demonstrate to the Board's satisfaction that the violations are caused by other than the docking facility, or associated activities on the adjacent riparian uplands, including stormwater runoff. If the lessee is the cause of the violations, and does not correct the problem within the specified time, then the lease shall be subject to cancellation by the Board with the resultant removal of the docking facility and other structures within the lease area. 6. In reviewing applications for new docking facilities or expansions to existing facilities, attention shall be given to identifying ways to improve, mitigate or restore adverse environmental impacts caused by previous activities. This may include filling in over dredged areas in order to make them a depth acceptable for propagation of benthic biota, restoring wetland or submerged vegetation, improving circulation, installing sewage pump -out facilities, or marking navigational channels. Such mitigation or restoration may be required as a condition of approval for new or expanded facilities. Marina development shall be encouraged to locate in already developed or disturbed areas. 7. In addition to the threshold specified by paragraph 18-21.005(1)(b), F.A.C., all applicants proposing docking facilities designed to moor 10 (ten) or more boats shall be required to obtain a lease. 8. All applicants will be required to provide documentation to show that there is an economic demand for Appendix A 2 the number of boat slips requested, if the number requested is not consistent with the Department's Projections of Marina Needs for Monroe County. 9. No application to lease state owned sovereignty submerged lands for the purpose of providing multi -slip docking facilities shall be considered for approval unless there are no benthic communities present where the boat mooring area, turning basins, mooring piles or other structures are to be located, excepting any main access docks required to cross benthic communities to reach acceptable areas. This shall not preclude them from applying for consent to use state owned submerged lands for the purpose of using the minimum amount necessary to obtain reasonable ingress and egress. 10. The Board may grant special consideration to the approval of leases or other consent to use state lands for projects which are approved by the Department of Community Affairs which are for the purpose of furthering the commercial fishing village or commercial fishing enterprise zone concept. Specific Authority 253.03(7) FS. Law Implemented 253.03 FS. History —New 2-25-85, Formerly 16Q-21.041, 16Q-21.0041. Appendix A 3 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Map. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 48 APPENDIX B FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY MAP F1 cu U V J I m N � N g T� z L.L. Q Q i = z K fly 2 a 86 O fj Be Appendix B Monroe County Zoning and Land Use. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 49 F3. 29W��-r. Policy 101.4.21 Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described in Policies 101.4.1 through 101.4.171. [See chart below, which reflects current standards adopted through County Ordinance #032-2012] Futmie Lind Use Densities and intensities RA" Land Use Category Allocated Dextsity" Maxinnmt Net Density C*(b)t`) Max mtun 1noensity And Conesponding Zomag (per —) (per buildable acre) (floor ana ratio) Agrictilture (A) 0 du N/A 0.20-0.25 (no 0 toms/ N/A Airport(AD) 0 du NIA 0.10 (AD zoning) 0 rooms/spaces N/A Consenatiou(C) 0 du NIA 0.05 (CD zoning0 aces N/A EducationMw 0 dtt NIA 030 (no directly correspondmg 0 sornuy N/A West ial m 1 du 2 du 0.25-0.60 and MI zcniu) 0 tomr.1spaces NIA 1n5uhitional (INS) 0 du NfA 0.25-0.40 (no daecdy g zouargJ 3-15 roomsl 6-24moms/spaces MainlandNative Q. 0 0.01 du NIA 0.10 O roan MA Military (M) 6 dtt 12 du 030-0.50 (IvIF 10roons/ 20roomi/spaces Mixed Use/Conmxtcial (MG) 0.10-0.45 (SC. UC, DR R� MU and 1-6 du 2 -18 du (SC, UC, DR RV, and MU 1vII zoning) 5-15 rooms/spaces 10-25 rooms/spaces zoning) 1 du (MI zoning) 2 du"mang) 0.30-0.60 (MIzoning) Mixed Use/Coamiemal Fishing (MCF)w Approx 3-8 du 12 du 0.25-0.40 (CFA- CF4 e� CFSD zmng) 0 rooms/ 0 room/spaces; Public Facilities (PF) 0 du NIA 0,10-030 m dittictly 0 rooms/es NIA Public Buildmgs(Gro mds (PB) 0 du N/A 0.10-0.30 (no 0 rooms/ N/A Recreation (R) 025 du NIA 020 CPR zoom 2 romiWWaces NIA Residential Conservation (RC) 0-025 du NIA 0-0.10 OS and NA 0 rooans/ N/A Residential Loa' (RL) 025-0.50 du 5 du 020-025 (SS(� SR- and SR-L zor * 0 rooms/spaces %41 Residential Medaun (Rh1) approx. 0.5-8 du NA 0 (IS —MV) (1 dalot) N/A 0 moms(spaces Residential high (Ri1) approx 3-16 du 12 du 0 (LSDt°). URbi«. and URA zoning} (1-2 du40t) 20 mcroslspaces 10 roortnl Appendix C Notes: (a) " N/A" means that mamumi netdensitybomnses shall mt beavailable. (b) The allocated densities for submerged lands. salt ponds, freshwaterponds. and maugoves shall be 0 and the maximum, net densities bomues shall not be available. (c) The allocated density for CFV zoning shall be 1 dazllmg unit per lot and the maxinnunnet density bomtses shall not be available (d) Maximu mnet density bomnes shall not be available to the SS district (e) The allocated density for IS-D and URM zoumtg shall be 2 and 1 dwelling inuts per lot iespecti * and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. (fl The maximum net density for the UR district shall be 25 for units where all traits are designated as affordable housing. Ve For properties consisting of hammocks, pinelands or disturbed wetlands within the Mixed Use/ Commercial and Mixed Use/ Commercial Fishing land use categories. the floor area ratio shall be 0.10 and the maxuuum stet residential density bonuses not apply. (b) Uses under the categories ofAgicuhurr. Education, histmational, Public Faces and Public Buildings and Uses, winch have no directly corresponding zoning, may be mcogx ated into new• or existing zoning districts as appropriate. n TheMaximiun Net Density is the nxunnmrn density allowable with the tie of TDRs. G) A mixhre of uses shall be na bored for panels designated as M1 zoning district that are within the MC fiuure land use category Working waterfi rot and water dependent uses. suds as manna, fish housemasiret boat repair, boat building. boat storage. or other similar we. shall comprise a minimum of 35% of the upland area of the property, pursuant to Policy 101.4.5. In addition, Monroe County has the following zoning designations in place to help implement the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. For further information see Section 130-27 through 130-50, Monroe County Code. Urban Commercial District (UC) designates areas for high -intensity commercial uses intended to serve retail sales and service, professional services and resort activity needs at a regional or multiple planning area scale. This district should be established at discrete nodes along U.S. 1 and should be designed to serve the needs of both residents and visitors. Urban Residential District (UR) provides areas appropriate for high -density residential uses designed and intended for occupancy by persons gainfully employed in the Florida Keys and creates areas to provide for vacation rental use of detached dwellings, duplexes, and multifamily dwellings. This district should be established at or near employment centers. Urban Residential Mobile Home District (URM) recognizes the existence of established mobile home parks and subdivisions, but does not create new such areas, and provides for such areas to serve as a reservoir of affordable and moderate -cost housing in Monroe County. Urban residential Mobile Home -Limited District (URML-L) recognizes the existence of parks and subdivisions which consist exclusively, or almost exclusively, of mobile homes, but does not create new such areas, in order to permit property owners in such areas to replace or establish mobile homes below base flood elevation as authorized by certified federal regulations. Suburban Commercial District (SC) establishes areas for commercial uses designed and intended primarily to serve the needs of the immediate planning area in which they are located. The district should be established at locations convenient and accessible to residential areas without use of U.S. 1. Appendix C Suburban Residential District (SR) establishes areas of low to medium density residential uses characterized primarily by single-family detached dwellings. Suburban Residential District — Limited (SRL) establishes areas of exclusive low to medium density residential uses. Sparsely Settled Residential District (SS) establishes areas of low density residential development where the predominant character is native or open space lands. Native Area District (NA) establishes areas that are undisturbed, with the exception of existing solid waste facilities, and because of their sensitive environmental character should be preserved in their natural state. Mainland Native District (MN) protects the undeveloped and environmentally sensitive character of lands within Monroe County that are located on the mainland of the Florida Peninsula Offshore Island District (OS) establishes areas that are not connected to U.S. 1 as protected areas, served by cisterns, generators, and other self-contained facilities. Improved Subdivision District (IS) accommodates the legally vested residential development rights of the owners of lots in subdivisions that were lawfully established and improved prior to the adoption of this chapter. For the purpose of this section, improved lots are those which are served by a dedicated and accepted existing road of porous or non porous material, that have a Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority approved potable water supply, and that have sufficient uplands to accommodate the proposed use in accordance with the required setbacks. This district is not intended to be used for new land use districts of this classification within the county. Destination Resort District (DR) establishes areas suitable for the development of planned tourist centers providing on -site residential, recreational, commercial, and entertainment facilities of a sufficient magnitude to attract visitors and tourists for tenancies of three or more days. Destination resorts are contemplated to contain (1) single-family homes as of right, or (2) one or more resort hotels as the principal use, to utilize the water -related natural resources of the Keys, and to be located on sites of at least ten gross acres where the location and character of the site and the development itself and amenities are such that off -site impacts will be reduced. Recreational Vehicle District (RV) establishes areas suitable for the development of destination resorts for recreational vehicles. This district contemplates developments that provide on -site recreational, commercial, and resort facilities. Commercial Fishing Area District (CFA) establishes areas suitable for uses which are essential to the commercial fishing industry, including sales and service of fishing equipment and supplies, seafood processing, fishing equipment manufacture and treatment, boat storage, and residential uses. Appendix C 3 Commercial Fishing Village District (CFV) establishes areas where limited commercial fishing activities, including the mooring of boats, the non -mechanized off- loading of catches, the storage of a limited number of traps, and residential uses, can be integrated. Commercial Fishing Special District (CFS) establishes areas where various aspects of commercial fishing have been traditionally carried out while prohibiting the establishment of additional commercial fishing uses which are inconsistent with the natural environment, immediate vicinity, or community character of the area. Mixed Use District (U) establishes or conserves areas of mixed uses, including commercial fishing, resorts, residential, institutional, and commercial uses, and preserves these as areas representative of the character, economy, and culture of the Florida Keys. Industrial District (I) establishes areas that are suitable for the development of industrial and manufacturing warehousing and distribution uses. Maritime Industries District (I) establishes and conserves areas suitable for maritime uses such as ship building, ship repair, and other water -dependent manufacturing and service uses. Military Facilities District (MF) establishes areas for military facilities and installations and ensures to the maximum extent allowed by federal law, that all development activity within such areas is consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Airport District (AD) prohibits the development of residential, educational, or other uses which are characterized by the regular presence of large numbers of people within the hazard areas of civil and military airports. Park and Refuge District (PR) establishes and protects areas like parks, recreational areas and wildlife refuges. Conservation District (CD) provides an area acquired for conservation purposes or subject to deed restrictions limiting the use of the property for conservation purposes. Appendix C Ell 2 Supporting Figures. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 50 z z 0 z v] 4-1 Z J �^ N 4 0 6 IT (13 4 co _ ra U O co . .,a 12 N Q. a Q Q 0 v Q) a o R Lo O O m E a, N M U W (D r N r cc c° co � 3 LZ C y 2 ai = - �OC�11 0 z lie U Ul o Y N J O �U a m o 0 n .D C N Q a a un w R, v c m Q CL] r- cn J� r 4/ N Q O 00 C U - _ N �r 'i►J Q o o � _ U a a w W � g . LO � E a E a co E o o zo •'�. m n 1 Ci O 0 cN o m w * cm w C r _3 _ U U J G Nv U a =O n F c a) a a Q O N o` M C) N it N n n Q 1-2 C6 LZ us 0 ca m c U N o V � Cep Gi W C Q Wt 0 EiNo c co � c co m m U V c _ C 0 N f_ co N 0 W D 0 Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 51 The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) prohibits the development of new marinas until marina siting criteria are adopted (Policy 212.4.1) and full utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new marina site (Policy 212.4.6). This Needs Analysis addresses marina utilization, focusing on the distribution of marinas in the Keys and associated slip capacity, and is intended to serve as data and analysis supporting Policy 212.4.6. The Needs Analysis evaluates existing marina utilization patterns and levels to determine the need for new marinas. In the absence of the need for new marinas, the development of additional slips will likely be guided to the expansion or redevelopment of existing marinas. The components of this Needs Analysis include methodology, findings, and conclusions for future marina development. Methodology The methodology for determining the need for additional marinas was based on the level of utilization of vessel slips at existing marinas. Marinas were identified using the Marine Facilities Inventory (Inventory) from the 2007 Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan, which identifies 545 total marine facilities throughout unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County. Marine facilities listed in the Inventory include, but are not limited to, marinas, boatyards, boat ramps, fish houses, public parks, and research centers. Those marine facilities listed as marinas are further categorized as principal use or accessory use (e.g. hotels or condominiums with marinas). For the purpose of the Needs Analysis only those marine facilities listed as marinas, and that are open to the public were included in the slip utilization analysis. Marina facilities such as those at residential condominiums or at commercial boatyards or fish houses were not included in the analysis, as those marina facilities are not open to the general public for the dockage of vessels and would not apply to evaluating the need for additional marinas in the Keys. In summary, only marinas that are open to the general public for the storage of vessels were included in the slip utilization analysis. Data on marina slip numbers and occupancy (utilization) were generated from aerial imagery and analyzed using the computer application of ArcGIS 9.3. The primary data sources were the: ■ 2006 Monroe County aerials (flown January 2006); and ■ 2009 Monroe County aerials (flown January through February 2009). The aerial images provide a snapshot of marina slip capacity and utilization at the time they were captured. Aerials from both time periods were utilized to provide baseline data and document any temporal changes (which may be pertinent due to the Nation's economic downturn following the time frame of the 2006 aerials). Both sets of aerials were taken during winter, which is 'season in the Keys and presents the optimal time frame for capturing maximum slip occupancy. Counts for total slip capacity and slip occupancy were determined visually for each marina. Broadside dockage was not included in the analysis, as there is no feasible means to determine what portions of broadside dockage, if any, at any given marina, are used for vessel storage. Broadside dockage at marinas is often reserved for fuel docks, service vessels, and various uses other than vessel storage. In addition, Monroe County does not currently have a standard or calculation to apply to broadside dockage for the length of dock required for an average vessel length. While the use of aerials alone is not a conclusive representation of the maximum capacity and utilization at an existing marina, counting slips provides Monroe County with the best current available data with which to demonstrate dockage needs. In support of the aerial data analysis, additional data on marina property boundaries and marina use were collected and verified using taxroll and parcel data obtained from the Monroe County Geographic Information System (GIS) Department and the Monroe County Page 1 Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office. Google Maps containing 2012 aerial imagery and websites hosted by hotels, marinas, yacht clubs, and restaurants further assisted in confirming slip capacity, identifying if a marina has been closed or demolished since the 2007 Inventory, or whether a marina was open to the public or restricted to private use by residential, business owners, or private slip owners (such as yacht clubs or dockominium slips). To further verify the distinction between private or public use, marina owners and/or managers were queried via phone. Findings Of the 545 total marine facilities listed in the Marine Facilities Inventory (Inventory),159 were identified as having a marina of "principal use" or "accessory use'. Table 1 shows the breakdown of marinas by use (principal or accessory) and whether the marina is open to the public or restricted to private use. Table 1: Monroe County Marina Count by Use and Public Accessibili Use Public Private Pnnci al 77 39 38 Accesso 82 14 68 Total Marinas 1a9 53 106 Only 53 of the 159 facilities were identified as open to the general public for the storage of vessels. However, nine of those marinas had no true slips, providing only broadside dockage, and were excluded from the analysis for reasons described in the Methodology section. Thus, 44 marinas were included in the final slip utilization analysis. Table 2 indicates total marina slip data for the 44 marinas evaluated for both 2006 and 2009. The complete dataset for the 44 public marinas can be found in attached Appendix A. In summary, the County has a total slip capacity of approximately 1,968 slips. Sixty-four percent (1,253 slips) were utilized in 2006 and 58 percent (1,140 slips) in 2009, representing only a 6 percent decrease in utilization between 2006 and 2009. Table 2: Monroe County Public Use Marina Slip Oc upancy and Utilization Use Slip Capacity 2006 2009 Slips Occupied Utilization Rate Slips Occupied Utilization Rate Principal 32 1,519 1,049 69.06% 929 61.16% Accessory 12 449 204 45.43% 211 46.99% "Total 44`' 1,968 4,253 ' 63.67%' 10140' S793% Marina slip utilization was further broken down into percentile ranges, as indicated in Table 3 below. The utilization ranges illustrate the number of marinas at various occupancy levels in 2006 and 2009, providing an overview of the presence, or lack of, marinas that are at maximum capacity for vessel storage. Table 3: Public Use Marina Utilization Range 2006 2009 0 to 25% 3 5 26 to 50% 12 13 51 to 75% 15 17 76 to 100% 14 9 Total Marinas 44 44 Page 2 Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County Overall, marina utilization levels between 2006 and 2009 were similar with the exception of the "76 to 00%" utilization range. In 2006,14 marinas were above 76% utilization, whereas only nine marinas were above 76% utilization in 2009, a drop of five marinas out of said range. In 2006, 31.2% of public use marinas were above 75% utilization and 20.5% were above 75% utilization in 2009. In both surveyed years more than half of the public use marinas in the County were at 51 % or above utilization: 29 marinas in 2006 and 26 marinas in 2009. The slip count data indicates there was less utilization of public use marinas in 2009 than 2006. To address the 'full utilization' requirement of Policy 212.4.6, it was necessary to establish what 'full utilization' is for purposes of the Needs Analysis. It is recognized that it is not practical to require 100% of slips at any given marina to be occupied to exhibit 'full utilization' due to marina tenant turnover, vessel movement for servicing, or a vessel simply leaving the slip temporarily to go boating (or other incidental reasons that would cause a slip to be vacant during any given day when aerials were flown). The maps in Appendix B were produced using GIS analyses to illustrate areas of the County within 5 miles of public use marinas which were below 95% and 90% occupancy, represented by the green buffer zone. Those maps indicated no difference in geographic coverage between the two occupancy levels, providing confidence that establishing 90% as the 'full utilization threshold captures the intent of the Comp Plan requirement, while providing a liberal level of incidental vacancy for expected movement and use of vessels. A total of four marinas were above 90% utilization (Facility Number 3 at 90.91 %, Facility Number 155 at 94.44%, Facility Number 154 at 100% and Facility Number 34 at 100%). All four marinas were located in Key Largo. In 2009 one marina in Stock Island (Facility Number 485) was at 92.65 % utilization. Additional considerations included in the evaluation of the need for additional marinas and/or slips were based on vessel registration data and findings of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study (2009). Figure 1 shows Monroe County vessel registration data, collected by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, from 2001 to 2011. The first half of the ten-year period shows a gradual increase in vessel registration, peaking at 29,990 in 2005, followed by two sharp registration declines in 2007 (28,235 vessels) and 2009 (26,330 vessels). From 2009 to 2011, the annual average of registered vessels in the County dropped to approximately 26,250 vessels, or 12.5 percent fewer registered vessels in the County than at peak registration. Page 3 Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County The FWC Study (2009) reveals that Monroe County has the highest total number of marinas, dockominiums, private clubs, hotels, and restaurants with associated boating facilities in the state. It also estimated future recreational boating demands by forecasting the number of launches that will occur at publically owned ramps/other facilities (i.e. marinas, hotels, restaurants) that allow public access to coastal waterways. Although the data used to forecast boating demands is not specific to marina slips, it provides an indication of the pattern of public access needs for recreational boating. The study concluded the County will experience a decline in boating demand by approximately 17 percent by 2025. The declines are due to shifts in the projected demographic composition of boat owners, who are overwhelmingly male, of the age 35 to 65. Conclusion Based on a'full utilization' threshold of 90% occupancy, GIS analyses indicated 9% of public use marinas were at full utilization based on the 2006 aerials, and 2% based on the 2009 aerials; however, these marinas are within a 5-mile radius of existing marinas below the 'full utilization' threshold. The maps in Appendix B further illustrate those areas in the County not at full utilization (the green buffer zone), thus not meeting the criteria (Comp Plan Policy 212.4.6) for new marina development. For example, the Map 1 shows the buffer area of the Middle Keys from mile marker 88 to 47 that is below full utilization. Map 1. Marina Utilization Area Middle Keys :�! r ® Public Access Marinas + Mile Markers « Marina Utilization Area below 90% huYaw. a " A r Y ap- " �.. A, r n A r �J" r X r r— « a �J K Y S r +. r Y' r Sources FYVC. Monroe Count' SFRPC Nole: For plamdnp purposes erk A! dia" areapproximate _^0 is 2 a 9 12 01 With the exception of an approximately 15-mile stretch of land along Overseas Highway in the Lower Keys (Mile Markers 11 through 26) where no public use marinas (with slips as opposed to broadside dockage) were identified, there is limited potential for new marina development in the County (see Map 2). If a proposal for new marina development were to be submitted to the County, the potential site will be subject to 1) County Comp Plan Policy 212.4.6 requiring 'full utilization' of all marinas within a five - mile radius of the proposed site and 2) the adopted marina siting criteria within the County Comp Plan. Page 4 Needs Analysis for New Marinas in Monroe County Map 2. Marina Utilization Area Lower Kevs ® Public Access Marinas Mile Markers Marina Udlization Area below 90% Ar N L O q N N A'., ' K" WM Noce. For O 125 2.5 5 75 10 A thorough review of Monroe County vessel registration data, the FWC Study (2009), and the public use marina slip utilization analysis and 'full utilization' determination reveals that boating has been on the decline in Monroe County and the existing public use marina infrastructure is meeting current demands for vessel storage. while new marina development applications may be accepted by Monroe County (subsequent to revision and/or potential deletion of Comp Plan Policy 212.4.1) and subject to established marina siting criteria, this Needs Analysis recognizes that the development of new vessel slips in the foreseeable future will be primarily guided towards expansion and/or redevelopment of existing marinas. _ _ _ Page 5 APPENDIX A .................... .. This page left blank intentionally. U) 0-880c000 000 . . . . 00. 0 n 0 0 go 0 coca g �R a 0 a a 0.0000 c 0 0 a 0 coca 0 0 0 z a9a99999,999 9 9 0 -0-0 00. 8 8 8 ?a 0 .00 0 0 0 6 6 - mmwo - - - - a a a 6 6 6 �9 999000. a ommm 00M am 11 o 0 a 0 1 cc .000. ... coo W W w w w 1 �C �d �4 T y w In W w m m wM w w m LU D LU ie �e �d 000OY W2 z z z 000. - 0 Lu 0 0 W W U W < w w y �4 z z z 0 Ono 55 z Z CD (D w w a W W, 0 0 m am LU 0 (D w (D 0 (D 0 0 00 lwz ... gg jr CC w te W ir w (f 0 - 0 Lli w w w W F= >- w Ll CL 05) z �: 0 z 0 0 < w w w w w w W >- CL w w CL CL w 2 a. < 0 z . � >-<<§ � 2 0 0 0 0 >- >- >- >- >- �w y y �d �4 �e �e w �C �d w :) �e Z) m m C) W 2 2 F - - F - -WWWWW< w w w W > x F- , 0 Ca cc � 0 � . z w I- w M w n W w x z z LU ui w nf .5-`tTM 0 w WTW O'n 0 XJ �w F0 W Z m it w 0: W 0 Cn w w (n (n of if W> Ix 0 w 0 w n z w W W D i2 w w R - w w z W , - > w Z, -W W> 00 0 F0 M<i IWO > 8w W w > > 8 0 0 ff w 0 Z , W F > > > > 2 0 (k 0 ui Z z 0 <2 w co 0 . I F — . . 3 < 'm - 00 'M 'm m Q� 0 o 2 0 a cc Oo0,9M0;:OQHOZW1f-;Eo c 0 w tr > 0 0 1 U- L) . ;; a (D U, w m a a -- —a 0 0 w m .0 2 �s 2 M2 En E -C. E M a m m u >1 C , z 0 2 0 2 Q 02 o > -E 03 2 0 0 m: 8 0 a 21 () 0 S 0 2 �6 0 � 2-2 2 -3 , 0 2. 0 Ca Y E in 0 z , a' m m L) > 'E .2 m 'in 0 Ne I A Fa C,D 83. Y, m (D CL M = 020- M 0 0 M, w A D 9 12 9 V :2 2 .2 ----- 01 01 01 0- 0-,CL.M,[L,(L (L CL, CL (L M CL M 0- M a. ——------- 0- 0. im CL a� 0- (L (L a- a. -- a. m a. a� a- 0-1 m cL cf Of Of 2 0 8 0 0. zzzz 0 0 0 0 0 "a 76 wo 5 mu 70 T5 Unnn "ra "ro '13 -a 'a z W U U "a -cc -a w "a W w z 'U '5 a -a 'Z5 *U Wu "M W la .g.L .5 .5 s s .. .. .. .9 < < < < < a (L 0. a01'al C-L 0, a- 0. a- .1 6- m w m m -E -E -E -E -E -E E -E -E -E E E E m m m m m m m w E w 0 IL (n 0 E 0 B Z X. E E E E o b -6 M, m 0 B Z Z m M MI m m C 'I M w m . 1. HIM . . 0 . . 0 m . C M. m m M C m m m m m L)(.3 ) (.3 1 M; X: T CL M: 02 22 R e alz R yt C4 'R (D C4 o C. 0 q q 04 q M W W 0 W 0 0 .0 v o 0 C, C 0 M Co I U) rl- 00 U) to m a 0 OP a to 11: "Mw ; w- ,ry o a) N hU) r-: oi 6 c6 o c6 6 6 c� to 6 6 vi r-: c6 o r�-. 6 ui C; (4 C� Cli L6 -0 to a . . v �- C4 �! 1 C-4 �2 �2 C14 04 �2 CN4 N m m m O r, C, 10 a, o ION W c 0) M 0 C-4 C', M v m m W C. -Ir 0 m Lo 'D 0 C� V) m 6 tZ, N r�- U) C; 0) 'i 6 w .6 C�, to zowwwoml-t 2 r� 0,�t r-- 6 M o 6 c6 CO M o6 w -�r 00 o N �t C14 N to M w w .0 f- M I o M w o 0 0 UO q 0 w C! M 60 !-.a C14 C) N +H+H V C4 r- o o TO o 0 0 or 'M =1 m N m m ,r v M N m N C". ;> N N pIO mo N < LL N N N2 0 -V w w o o E APPENDIX B This page left blank intentionally. N N M N � I Q E �L $ VI . C-lk Qi N I 6) $ X�-2Cl) I i Y � rJS'*• �o JiL 'N' m aLb cm c o^ m a �w �UU Ei m V/ m •� � � .tea .o E' y°i c �y o � o°. ESaao a 0 Q� , o i l ca�ss', mkt � U /ILI" �COO4. ZS % _ o V ++ z u) u�i r. g m EQc ° ci Q o N ID-= '20a`o c ct°i8� m m W N e o U G o �'a� LLI ®• El Oka CUM m P rn N _R c:, r) CL Lo Lo t- C, o C 0 22 cis C cc o o 2 v F- —I Lo- S MarinaSite Suitability Maps. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 52 Appendix F is divided into the following three sections: F-1: Suitability Utilization F-2: Suitability Maps Group A F-3: Suitability Maps Group B Each section contains three (3) maps, dividing the County by the Upper Keys (Mile Markers 112 to 80), Middle Keys (Mile Markers 80 to 40) and Lower Keys (Mile Markers 40 to 0). F-1: Suitability Utilization shows the areas in the County that are below the Full Utilization threshold of 90 percent (identified as the gray circular buffer area on the map). The 2009 slip utilization data from the Needs Analysis in Appendix E was used to create the maps. Marina development will be prohibited until Full Utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new marina site (Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.1). F-2 and F-3: Suitability Maps Group A and B show potential areas for suitability of marina development to the extent data currently exists. The Marina Siting Criteria discussed within this Plan and adopted by Policy 212.4.2 was used for the basis of mapping suitability. Due to data constraints, not all of the criteria could be mapped. Please note: the Suitability Maps are for visual purposes only. An applicant for new marina development shall be responsible for providing existing physical and environmental site condition data specific to the proposed site to demonstrate that the site meets all marina siting criteria. The Table below identifies for each Marina Siting Criteria the potential or existing data sources, availability and which Group (A or B) the criterion is displayed in the Suitability Maps. The maps have been broken into groups for visual purposes. 1 Benthic Vegetation and Hardbottom A. Seagrasses (FWC) Group A Communities: avoid seagrasses and hardbottoms. B. Hardbottoms (FWC) Adequacy of Circulation and Tidal Flushing: 2 water quality shall meet/exceed State standards and Monroe County Canal Inventory and Group B have "good" water quality per the County's canal Assessment Data (Monroe County) inventory and assessment data. Adequate Water Depth and Access: minimum of 3 four foot of water depth at mean low water and Bathymetry (N/A) N/A continuous to open water. 4 Minimal Shoreline Modification: no marinas Environmental Sensitivity Index, or Group B adjacent to unaltered shorelines. altered shorelines* (NOAA) Appendix F Marina Siting Criteria GIS` Data Layers (and Source)'.Appendix Grou Quality of Upland Areas and Degree of A. Tier 1 and III -A Lands 5 Alteration Necessary: no marinas on lands B. Offshore Islands Group B designated Tier I or Tier III -A, offshore islands, or the C. Coastal Barrier Resources System Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). (all from Monroe County) 6 Propeller Dredging Problem Areas: avoid Seagrass Propeller Scarring Group A seagrass propeller scarring areas. (Monroe County) Impacts of Boats on Florida Manatee, American A. American Crocodile Range (FWS) Crocodile, and Sea Turtles: prevent impacts to B. High Watercraft Manatee Mortality 7 these marine animals in known American Crocodile Areas (FWC) Group A range, areas with high watercraft Florida Manatee C. Beaches Known for Marine Turtle mortality. Nesting (FWC) 8 Other Significant Resources: no adverse impacts to Archaeological or Historic Resource List N/A archaeological or historic resources/sites. (N/A) 'in an effort to keep the maps visually pleasing, the altered shorelines have been displayed instead of unaltered. Altered shorelines have potential for marina development. FWC: Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service N/A: Not Available For questions regarding a specific dataset, please contact the data source identified in the Table. Appendix F E 9 a" �, j - �.y y��}� s��.��; It'd Y�� `j�f�:_ •�- � � ■ N A y WA is �ug4 � N�l'•,F � �„R i` A "� �� 4 LO E. v oE jg N Q G.G O U K�`1 .� •c�g � �pOy U I �gwqocN'�mm R 1 v� A Y CL fli LO ' r-.-.-. w t o m e U E N = o ' . c :Q hd Z o L'AID vJ c0 O '2 @ N _ Y m _ U) ¢ a = U) 0 2 l - Recommended Marina Siting Criteria for Monroe County. Monroe County Marina Siting Plan 53 \ it m �o VIP I � o maac� ai © C N G Yf Q C y. > o E>. w y 0 uyl. jCL„t,G=C { G 01 2 -.r p, 7 o Y C _ F a o to) m3E<CmSVm �msEos E°E°aa6�°Uv EL Z\-7 The Marina Siting Criteria contained herein and set forth in the Marina Siting Plan address the minimum planning requirements for Chapter 163.3178(6) of the Florida Statutes (Coastal Management) and Chapter 18-21.0041 of the Florida Administrative Code (Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria). The criteria shall not supersede, preempt, or nullify applicable federal, state, or municipal rules, regulations or requirements that apply. The Marina Siting Plan (MSP) contains the Data and Analysis for Policy 212.4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The MSP details the unique environmental concerns, marina infrastructure (slips) demand based on a Needs Analysis report for new marinas, regulations related to marina siting, and the application process for new marina development in unincorporated Monroe County. Suitability maps included in the Marina Siting Plan are provided for the general purpose of illustrating marina development potential throughout the Keys on a regional scale. Any proposal for marina development must meet the below requirements, which shall apply to the specific proposed marina site. The development of new marina facilities shall be located in areas where maximum physical advantages exist and where no unreasonable or excessive impacts are foreseen on marine resources. These conditions described above shall be met if the proposed marina meets, and is consistent with, the criteria below. Proposed new marina facilities shall meet the following requirements. 1. Siting of new marinas with three (3) or more wet slips shall be prohibited until full utilization (90% capacity) of existing marinas has occurred within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new marina site. The Monroe County Marina Siting Plan and Needs Analysis are the data and analysis which shall be used to provide the relevant and appropriate data of a full utilization zone, unless an applicant demonstrates existing marinas have exceeded full utilization (90% capacity) within a five mile radius and the Planning Commission accepts the amended data and analysis by Planning Commission resolution. 2. If a proposed marina is located within a full utilization zone and there is a projected need for additional marina facilities, then the following criteria shall be met for the proposed marina site to minimize or avoid impacts of development on natural resources and other significant resources: a. Benthic Vegetation and Hardbottom Communities. Siting of marinas in areas of seagrass or hardbottom (including hard and soft corals) should be avoided. Boat mooring sites (slips or docks) shall not be located over a seagrass bed community or hardbottom community regardless of water depth. No impacts to seagrass beds Appendix G or hardbottom communities should result from the construction or use of new marina development. b. Adequacy of Circulation and Tidal Flushing. The proposed marina site shall exhibit adequate circulation and tidal flushing. The waterway upon which the marina is proposed to be sited shall meet or exceed State water quality standards, and must currently have "Good" water quality as indicated in the County's most current canal inventory and assessment data. New marina development shall not adversely impact the quality of water during construction or use. c. Adequate Water Depth and Access. There shall be a minimum of four (4) foot of water depth at mean low water at the marina site (including the mooring slips, turning basin, and access channels), and the water depth shall be continuous to open water over a channel width of twenty (20) feet. Water depth shall be adequate for the proposed vessel use such that there be a minimum of one (1) foot clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel and the bottom at mean low water. Greater water depths shall be required for those facilities proposed for accommodating vessels having greater than a three (3) foot draft. Sites shall not require dredging or filling to provide access. d. Minimal Shoreline Modification. Marinas shall not be sited adjacent to unaltered shorelines as defined in Sec. 101-1 of the Land Development Code. Minimal modification to the shoreline shall be permitted per County Land Development Code Section 118-1, 118-12(m), and (o). e. Quality of Upland Areas and Degree of Alteration Necessary. Marinas shall not be sited on lands designated as Tier I or Tier III -A, if clearing is proposed. Marina development shall not adversely impact the upland area of, or adjacent to, a proposed marina site. Additionally, marinas shall not be permitted on offshore islands or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). f. Propeller Dredging Problem Areas. Siting of marinas in areas of seagrass propeller scarring should be avoided. Marinas shall not be located adjacent to areas of severe seagrass scarring, based on the most current data available from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. g. Impact of Boats on Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and Sea Turtles. Marinas shall be sited so as to prevent impacts to the Florida Manatee, American Crocodile, and marine turtles and protect their habitat by avoiding areas of known American Crocodile range, areas with high watercraft Florida Manatee mortality, or areas that include a beach known to be used for marine turtle nesting. Site characteristics can be assessed using current data from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. h. Other Significant Resources. No adverse impact shall be permitted on archaeological or historic resources/sites. Appendix 0 An applicant for new marina development shall and environmental site condition data specific to meets the marina siting criteria described above. be responsible for providing existing physical the proposed site to demonstrate that the site Appendix G STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENTF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM vovemcr Secre<-. December 7, 2007 The Honorable Sonny McCoy Mayor, Monroe County 530 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Mayor McCoy: The Department has completed its review of the Monroe County proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA No. 07-2), which was received on October 9, 2007. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. The Department has reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and has prepared the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment. Monroe County is proposing amendments to address the maintenance and enhancement of commercial and recreational working waterfronts by seeking to guide development in a manner that preserves the working waterfront identity of the County. Although the Department generally supports the intention expressed by Monroe County, several concerns must be addressed. The Department has identified objections to the proposed amendments related to internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan, vague language that does not provide meaningful and predictable standards or provide meaningful guidelines for how the activities will be implemented, and the lack of data and analysis to support the amendments. The Department's identified objections reflect the concerns raised by commenting agencies. A detailed discussion is provided in the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100 Phone: 850-488-8466/SUNCOM 278-8466 Fax: 850-921-0781/SUNCOM 291-0781 Website: www.dca.state.fLus COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS OF CWTICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: 85048&236&SUNCOM 278.2356 Phone: 305.289.2402 Phone: 850-488.795&SUNCOM 278-7956 Fax: 650-488.33095UNCOM 278-3309 Fax: 305-289-2442 Fair 850.922-5623(SUNCOM 292.5623 The Honorable Sonny McCoy December 7, 2007 Page 2 -1y staff and I are available to assist the County in addressing the issues identified in our report. If you have any questions, please contact Ivfayte Santamaria, Planner, at (850) 488-47'5. Sincerely, Mike McDaniel Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning MM/ms Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc: Mr. Townsley Schwab, Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Ms. Carolyn A. Dekle Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council 10 1 10 1 H! ! ! ! ! ! fin December 7, 2007 Division of Community Planning Areas of Critical State Concern This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, F.A.C. l f The follo«-ing objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of Monroe County's proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan (DCA number 07-2) pursuant to Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. An objection will include a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. Each objection must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections, which are not addressed, may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non -applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination of the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are advisory in nature. Comments Will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2 MONROE COUNTY CONSISTENCY WITH Ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., Ch. 380.0552 (7), F.S., and Ch. 163, F.S. The Department identifies the following objections, recommendations and comments to the proposed amendment. I. Future Land Use Element Objection 1: Objective 101.4 - This objective is directed toward regulating future development and redevelopment to maintain and "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the community and protect the.natural resources..." The objective lacks a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. The objective does not define the phrase "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the community;" therefore, there is no measurable provision to determine achievement of the objective of flexibly guiding the evolving community character. The proposed amendment is creating an internal inconsistency within the objective with the direction to both "maintain" the character of the community and to flexibly "guide its evolution." [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Rule 9J- 5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Objective 101.4 to either "maintain" the character of the community or to "guide its evolution" to address the internal inconsistency. The objective must include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes progress toward the community character that the County envisions in its comprehensive plan. If Objective 101.4 and its associated policies are revised to "maintain" the character of the community, then the objective and policies need to identify the communities to be maintained. Another objective and associated policies can be established to guide the "evolving communities" to achieve the County's desired outcome for these communities. 1. Objection 2: Policy 101.4.5 - This policy relates to the Mixed Use/Commercial land use category and to allow retail and office uses "consistent with the evolving community character and the natural environment" The policy is also directed to the "maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing" and other related uses "which support the fishing industry." As with Objective 101.4, the policy attempts to address two incompatible actions: maintain and enhance commercial fishing and guide the evolving community character. The policy does not define the phrase "evolving community character" and does not provide meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines for making land use decisions consistent with the "evolving community character" nor are there meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines to encourage "[t]he maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing, and related traditional water dependent and water related uses..." [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(1), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 101.4.5 to include the meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines to guide the evolving community character to the outcome desired and include a definition of the evolving community character or the desired outcome or include the guidelines and incentives that will be used to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing. If the policy and Objective 101.4 will guide the development toward the "evolving community character." then "evolving community character" and the intended outcome needs to be defined. Objection 3: Policy 101.4.6 - The policy lacks meaningful and predictable standards because the policy does not define what is considered "evolving water dependent and water related uses;" and does not specify how affordable and employee housing will be encouraged. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 101.4.5 to define the "evolving water dependent and water related uses." Also, include specific guidelines or incentives that will be used to encourage affordable and employee housing. Objection 4: Policy 101.4.7 — The County has proposed to amend Policy 101.4.7 to include language describing the Maritime Industries (MI) (zoning) District within the Industrial future land use category. The proposed amendment does provide criteria of where or how the MI (zoning) District can be applied, and it relies upon a document that exists outside of the Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Land Development Regulation Zoning Maps). The proposed amendment proposes an allocated density of 8-12 du/10-15 rooms per acre and a maximum net density of 12-18 du/25 rooms per acre for the Maritime Industries (zoning) District within the Industrial future land use category. This proposed amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 101.4.21, the Future Land Use Densities and Intensities Table that assigns the Industrial future land use category a density of ldu/0 rooms per acre and a maximum net density of 2 du per acre. Additionally, data and analysis was not provided to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed density increase with the principal purpose of the Industrial future land use category which is to provide for the development of industrial, manufacturing, and warehouse and distribution uses or with the purpose of the MI (zoning) District which is to establish and conserve areas suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities and maritime uses such as ship building, ship repair and other water dependent manufacturing and service uses. Data and analysis was not provided to evaluate the suitability of the locations with the proposed density increases with natural resources. Data and analysis was not provided evaluating potential impacts to hurricane evacuation by 11 the proposed increase in density. Furthermore, data and analysis has not been submitted to address potential water supply issues from the proposed increase in density. The proposed amendment proposes to allow the construction of public lodging facilities and commercial and industrial non-residential floor area that will serve as storm shelters and recovery centers within the Maritime Industries (MI) district pursuant to Land Development Regulations: Section 9.5-120.4 (d) "Development not impacting hurricane evacuation times" and Section 9.5-124.3 "Development not affected." The proposed amendment defers to the land development regulations to exempt the construction of public lodging facilities and commercial and industrial non-residential floor area outside of the Permit Allocation System. The proposed amendment is internally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because (1) Policy 101.2.6 prohibits new transient residential units including hotel or motel rooms; (2) Policy 101.4.21 does not allocate density for transient residential uses within the Industrial future land use category; (3) Policy 101.3.1 directs the County to maintain the balance between residential and non-residential growth by limiting the square footage of non- residential development to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of new non- residential development for each new residential unit permitted through the Residential Permit Allocation System; and (4) Policy 502.1.1 that directs the County to permit only port and port related land uses within the Safe Harbor/Peninsular port area of Stock Island. Data and analysis has not been submitted to demonstrate how public lodging facilities are a compatible use within the Industrial future land use category. Data and analysis has not been submitted to address potential water supply issues for the proposed increase in density and intensity. • The proposed amendment states that "no development order for new residential uses or structures shall be issued except for portions of the MI District unsuitable for dockage of vessels." This language does not provide meaningful and predictable standards related to determining the suitability of the location for the dockage of vessels or new residential uses. The proposed amendment proposes to allow "dwelling unit allocations attributable to houseboats be transferable to uplands." The proposal to transfer "dwelling unit allocations attributable to houseboat" is internally inconsistent with Policy 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 which state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity as well as Policy 101.4.21 which states that the allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and that maximum net densities bonuses shall not be available. Additionally, allocations attributable to houseboats appears internally inconsistent with Objective 101.5 and Policies 101.5.1, 101.5.2, and 101.5.4 which direct residential allocations to proposed dwelling units that encourage a compact form of residential growth that results in infill development in platted, improved subdivisions and provide disincentives for locating dwelling units within coastal high flood hazard areas. Data and analysis has not been provided to specify that houseboats have been awarded residential dwelling unit allocations or that the density for these structures is recognized under the Comprehensive Plan. Data and analysis has not been submitted to demonstrate if any or how many houseboats have been awarded dwelling unit allocations and through what process such allocations were made. Data and analysis has not been submitted on the locations of the houseboats and meaningful and predictable standards have not been provided to determine or guide where the allocations attributable to houseboat can be transferred. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (c), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3177 (10)(a), (e) and (h); Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2) through (6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(1), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(2)(a) through (e), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Demonstrate, through additional data and analysis that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Permit Allocation System, is consistent with the prohibition on new transient residential, is consistent with maintaining a 24-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time, is internally consistent with density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, maintains the balance between residential and non-residential growth, and is consistent with preserving the port area of Stock Island. Provide data and analysis to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed residential and transient density increase with the purpose of the Industrial future land use category as well as with the purpose of the MI (zoning) District. Provide data and analysis evaluating the suitability of the locations with the proposed density increases with natural resources. Provide data and analysis to address potential water supply issues from the proposed increase in density. Revise the policy to provide standards or meaningful guidelines for determining locations unsuitable for dockage and where new residential uses are appropriate. Revise the policy to remove the inconsistencies with the other Comprehensive Plan provisions that state submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves are not assigned any density or intensity. Provide data and analysis to demonstrate how many or if any houseboats have been awarded dwelling unit allocations. Identify the process by which houseboats obtained allocation(s). Submit data and analysis identifying the locations of the houseboats and provide meaningful guidelines of where the allocations attributable to houseboats can be transferred to uplands. II. Conservation and Coastal Management Element Objection 5: Objective 212.4 and Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, and 212.4.3 Monroe County proposes amending Objective 212.4 to refer to the Marina Siting Plan and to delete Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, and 212.4.3 because of "the adoption of the Marina Siting Plan and completion of the marine facilities survey" (Support Data and Analysis, page 2 of 6). The Marina Siting Plan was not included as an amendment in this package and has not been adopted by Monroe County. The County has not provided data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has completed the marine facilities survey. 1*1 [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.: Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can propose other interim protections and guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Plan. The County also needs to provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has completed the marine facilities survey. The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Obiection 6: Objective 212.4 - The Objective proposes deleting language that requires Monroe County to complete an analysis of the need for additional marina facilities. Data and analysis was not submitted to indicate that the needs analysis was completed or if the study determined a need for additional marina facilities. The proposed amendment defers the standards to be implemented to the `Marina Siting Plan' for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities. The Marina Siting Plan was not included as an amendment in this package and has not been adopted by Monroe County. The objective does not meet the definition of an objective [see Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.] because the objective lacks the specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. In addition, the objective does not define what is considered "maximum physical advantage" and "no unreasonable or excessive impacts ... on marine resources." The objective lacks the specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward the goal of preserving and enhancing existing commercial harbors capable of accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels, including ferries, other passenger vessels, cruisers and fishing vessels. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(g), F.A.C; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Submit data and analysis indicating the needs analysis for additional marina facilities has been completed. The needs analysis is necessary in order to determine if existing marinas will meet the needs of future demand. The County can revise the objective to include the language that directs the County to complete the survey as well as language that directs the County to periodically update the survey to determine the future needs for additional marina facilities. Revise Objective 212.4, as a policy [see Rule 93-5.003(90), F.A.C.] with specific and meaningful standards to define "maximum physical advantage" and "no unreasonable or excessive impacts ... on marine resources." In addition, include a new Objective 212.4 that includes a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable for ensuring the protection of marine resources with the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities. Include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes progress toward the preservation and enhancement of existing commercial harbors capable of accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels, including ferries, other passenger vessels, cruisers and fishing vessels in new Objective 212.4 or include a new objective with associated policies to address this issue. The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved. Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Objection 7: Policy 212.4.2 - The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.2 which requires Monroe County to complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial marinas, including, at a minimum: 1. number of wet and dry slips; 2. usage rates of wet and dry slips; 3. breakout of slips by boat size; 4. on -site amenities including the number of parking spaces; 5. surrounding uses and any known or potential compatibility problems; 6. availability for public use (recreational marinas only); 7. number of boat ramps provided and the boat lanes for each ramp; 8. condition of facilities; 9. existing DER -accepted documentation of water quality trends; 10. availability of pump -out facilities; and 11. potential for marina expansion according to siting criteria (See Policy 212.4.3). The County has not provided any data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has implemented this Policy. The Marina Siting Plan does provide information on the average densities of marine facilities and boat ramps, the total number of marina facilities in the Florida Keys and the types of marine facilities; however, the County has not provided sufficient data and analysis to ensure that Policy 212.4.2 has been entirely implemented. A copy of the Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan was not submitted with this amendment package. The Review Draft Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan (dated April 30, 2007) on Monroe County's website includes a section describing the update of a marine facilities database by surveys conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at FAU. The marine facilities database update may satisfy the tasks of this Policy but data and analysis was not submitted to indicate the surveys were completed. Failure to complete the survey and instead to delete the requirement is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development because this information is an essential part of a marina siting plan, which should both identify the need and how that need can be met consistent with the protection of marine resources. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b). F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.2 if the policy has not been implemented. Provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has implemented Policy 212.4.2. Also include data and analysis evaluating whether existing marinas will meet future demand and, if not, include guidelines and standards in the policy to guide land use decisions toward meeting future demand. Obiection 8: Policy 212.4.3 — The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.3 which directs Monroe County to develop and adopt marina siting criteria and outlines specific criteria to consider when adopting marina siting criteria, such as that marina construction not involve the destruction of any significant marine wetlands or seagrass beds and to consider shoreline modification when siting marinas. It is presumed that this policy was included in the County comprehensive plan because these specific criteria were important to address the protection of natural resources. It is premature to delete Policy 212.4.3 before the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, data and analysis has not been provided to demonstrate that the Marina Siting Plan incorporates all the criteria specified in Policy 212.4.3 for the siting of marinas. Failure to include criteria specified in Policy 212.4.3 and instead to delete the requirement is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development because this information is an essential part of a marina siting plan, which should both identify the need and how that need can be met consistent with the protection of marine resources. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 6), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] 0 Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and revise the policy to include meaningful and predictable standards for ensuring the protection of natural resources with the development and the redevelopment of marine facilities. These standards can be interim guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan with criteria as good or better than the criteria specified in Policy 212.4.3 for the siting of marinas. The County can adopt the 'Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Obiection 9: Policy 212.4.4 - The proposed amendment renumbers this policy to 212.4.1. The proposed amendment states that "applicants for development approval of marinas with three (3) or more slips, other than marinas in existing harbors located in the Maritime Industries (MI) District, shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria set forth in the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan; and 2. Monroe County's dock siting criteria." This is inconsistent with Objective 212.4 which states '`Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Siting Plan for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities." This policy does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan or include meaningful and predictable standards for developing marinas within the Maritime Industries district. This amendment is also inconsistent with Policy 212.5.4 which establishes restrictions that apply to all structures built over or adjacent to water, such as restrictions on the maximum permitted length of docks and the percent of the navigable portion of a man-made waterbody that must remain free from obstruction. This policy does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the dock siting criteria or meaningful and predictable standards for developing marinas within the Maritime Industries district. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Address the internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and revise the policy to delete the reference to the Marina Siting Plan and retain the reference to Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Provide data and analysis to support exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan and dock siting criteria. Revise the policy to include meaningful and predictable standards for the development of marinas within the MI District. The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved. Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting 10 Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Objection 10: Policy 212.4.6 - The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.6 which directs Monroe County to prohibit the siting of new marinas until the full utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a 5 mile radius of the proposed new marina site. The County did not include data and analysis to support the deletion of this policy and its deletion without the adoption of a marina siting plan is inconsistent with the protection of marine resources as specified in the Principles for Guiding Development. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Retain Policy 212.4.6 until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan or provide data and analysis supporting the deletion of this policy. The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved. Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Objection 11: Goal 219 - The County has proposed adding Goal 219 to address the preservation of commercial, recreational and public access to the navigable waters of the State of Florida. While the goal guides the County to address recreational and commercial working waterfronts based upon current and projected demand, the goal does not define the ultimate direction towards ensuring commercial, recreational and public access or how the County will "flexibly balance the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provision of water - related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources as well as evolving local and regional land use needs." [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J- 5.003(52), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Goal 219 to establish what is the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed and accomplished by "flexibly balancing] the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provision of 11 water -related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources as well as evolving local and regional land use needs." Objection 12: Policy 219.1.1 — The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.1. The policy lacks meaningful and predictable standards because the policy does not define what is to be considered "evol-v ing community character," '`public values" or the '`evolving local and regional interests and needs." Item 6 in this Policy, allows public access and the creation of public spaces in the redevelopment of marine facilities "subject to reasonable limits" but does not include guidelines for determining "reasonable limits." Also, item 7 in this Police. provides for variances to be granted to enable traditional uses and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs within the Maritime Industries District, Commercial Fishing Area District, Commercial Fishing Village District and the Commercial Fishing Special District but does not include meaningful and predictable standards for determining what are the "traditional uses ... and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type of variances will be granted or what criteria will be utilized to grant variances. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.1.1 to define the "evolving community character," "public values" and the "evolving local and regional interests and needs." Include guidelines for applying "reasonable limits" on public access and the creation of public spaces in the redevelopment of marine facilities. Also, include meaningful and predictable standards for determining what are the "traditional uses ... and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type of variances will be granted or what criteria will be utilized to grant the variances. Objection 13: Policy 219.1.2 - The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.2 that identifies strategies to protect and enhance recreational and commercial working waterfronts. The Policy further directs the County to "include all land as defined in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, including land utilized as port facilities" to calculate densities and intensities within the Maritime Industries (zoning) District. Chapter 380.31(7), Florida Statutes, defines land as "the earth, water, and air above, below, or on the surface, and includes any improvements or structures customarily regarded as land." This approach is internally inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as it includes submerged lands in the calculation of densities and intensities. Policy 101.4.21 states the allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0. Furthermore, Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 1k 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the policy to explain how densities and intensities within the Maritime Industries (MI) District will be determined and ensure that the methodology is not inconsistent with any Comprehensive Plan provisions. Objection 14: Objective 219.2 and Policy 219.2.1 — The County proposes adding Objective 219.2 to establish a comprehensive program to promote and protect commercial, recreational and public access and Policy 219.2.1 to establish a Working Waterfront Program. The objective and policy lack specificity in accomplishing the policy and achieving the objective because neither the objective nor the policy state when the comprehensive program and the Working Waterfront Program will be established or propose interim protections until the programs are established. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g) and 0), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.] Recommendation: The County should establish a date/deadline for developing its Working Waterfronts Program and include interim standards and guidelines to preserve working waterfronts until new guidelines and standards are adopted based upon the inventories and analyses specified in the policy. Obiection 15: Policy 219.4.1— The County proposes adding Policy 219.4.1 to develop strategies to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access through the identification and implementation of regulatory incentives, but the policy lacks meaningful and predictable standards because it does not provide the incentives or the criteria to be use to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g) and 0), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the policy to include the incentives and criteria to be utilized to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access to navigable waters and provide guidance for developing the more detailed land development regulations. Objection 16: Objective 219.5 — The County proposes adding Objective 219.5 "to promote a No Net Loss Policy" for working waterfronts. The proposed objective states the loss of working waterfront in one geographic area must be balanced by a gain elsewhere. The Objective could result in an oversupply of working waterfronts in one area of the County and an undersupply in other areas. The Objective does not include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards on how to achieve a no net loss in working waterfronts within geographic areas. Ij [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 6), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(g), F.A.C; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2). F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards that defines how the County will achieve no net losses of working waterfronts within each geographic area [e.g. within the same ROGO sub -area, between ROGO sub -areas, within or adjacent to Tier I (Natural Areas) or Special Protection Areas]. Objection 17: Objective 219.6 and Policy 219.6.1 — The County proposes adding Objective 219.6 to ensure an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access to marine and coastal waters. The Objective does not provide guidance for what is considered "an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access." Furthermore, this Objective relies on Policy 219.6.16 to ensure an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access, but Policy 219.6.1, the only associated policy with this objective, does not include meaningful guidelines to achieve the objective. The Policy states that the County "may" establish an acquisition program and the County "may" establish a fund for acquiring lands. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(c) 1 and 9, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise to provide guidelines for what is "an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access" and include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards that define how this "stock" will be achieved. Objection 18: Policy 219.8.1 — The County proposes adding Policy 219.8.1 to provide land use bonuses to encourage the development of commercial, recreational and public access uses. This amendment presents various types of potential bonuses (increased FAR, increased number of slips, parking variances, increased area for water -related uses, or other measure of land use intensity) but does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for assigning or awarding the bonuses and it does not establish the increases in density and intensity that will be granted. 1. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 6), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the Policy to establish meaningful and predictable standards for assigning or awarding land use bonuses and establish the increases in density and intensity that will be granted to encourage the development of commercial, recreational and public access uses. Obiection 19: Policy 219.9.1 and Objective 219.10— The County proposes adding Policy 219.9.1 to consider establishing a working waterfront overlay district to provide for use restrictions, development regulations and guidelines. Additionally, the County proposes adding Objective 219.10 to promote traditional maritime activities in the waterfront overlay district. This creates an internal inconsistency as Objective 219.10 is dependent on Policy 219.9.1 which may or may not be implemented by the County. Policy 219.9.1 also defers the establishment of "Design Guidelines and Development Standards for recreational and commercial waterfronts'" to the land development regulations rather than including meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and meaningful guidelines for the more detailed land development regulations. Furthermore, Objective 219.10 does not define "traditional maritime activities" or provide guidelines for permitting "traditional maritime activities... within all appropriate land use categories." The appropriate land use categories have not been identified and meaningful and predictable standards have not been provided to determine circumstances when "traditional maritime activities" would not be allowed. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the establishment and implementation of the working waterfront overlay districts will be completed. Additionally, the County should develop additional/interim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities and protect recreational and commercial working waterfronts until the overlay districts are completed. Define `Traditional maritime activities" in Objective 219.10 and in the implementing policy provide guidelines for permitting "traditional maritime activities... within all appropriate land use categories." Provide meaningful and predictable standards for when "traditional maritime activities" would and would not be allowed and specify the appropriate land use categories where "traditional maritime activities" are permitted. Revise Policy 219.9.1 to include meaningful and predictable standards to guide the development of recreational and commercial working waterfronts. These standards can be established as interim standards until the Design Guidelines and Development Standards are prepared and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the Design Guidelines and Development Standards by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. 15 Obieetion 20: Policy 219.9.1 & Policy 219.11.1— The County proposes adding Policy 219.9.1 to consider establishing a working waterfront overlay district and, when appropriate, establish design guidelines and development standards in the land development regulations. Additionally, the County proposes adding Policy 219.11.1 to protect the public's view of the «waterfront by enforcing setbacks, height restrictions, etc as set forth in the Design Guidelines and Development Standards. This creates an internal inconsistency as Policy 219.11.1 is dependent on Policy 19.9.1 which may or may not be implemented by the County. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the development of the design guidelines. The County should specify when the design guidelines will be completed, or if need be, provide a schedule for the completion of the design guidelines. The County should develop additional/interim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities and protect the public's view of the waterfront until the design guidelines are completed and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the Design Guidelines and Development Standards by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. III. Marina Siting Plan Oblection 21: The Marina Siting Plan — The Marina Siting Plan is inconsistent with proposed amendment as it refers to Policies 212.4.1 and 212.4.3 in the Comprehensive Plan that are proposed to be deleted and refers to Policy 212.4.7 which is proposed to be renumbered as 212.4.3. The `Marina Siting Plan' includes the Marina Site Suitability Maps that depict several coastal islands from North Key Largo to Key West as conditional areas for marinas. This is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.7.2 which directs the County to restrict the activities permitted on offshore islands, for example marinas are not to be permitted on offshore islands. The Marina Site Suitability Maps are also inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.8.2 which states Monroe County shall not create new access via new bridges, new causeways, new paved roads or new commercial marinas to or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 6), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] 1E Recommendation: Revise the Marina Siting Plan to address the inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) provides the following recommendations: FWC recommends that the N4arina Siting Plan be revised to address the protective measures that would have been provided by following Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 before including it by reference into the comprehensive plan and that it is premature to rely on the FWC management plan for manatees within the Marina Siting Plan because the it has not been approved by the FWC Commissioners. The Department of Environmental Protection also offers recommendations: Section 18- 21.0041(1)(b)9, F.A.C., should be referenced in the Marina Siting Plan and cited in appropriate locations throughout the document, such as on page 10 under State Regulations and on page 39 under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site Suitability Zones listed on pages 13. and the Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional Zones described on pages 40-41 should be revised to reflect this regulation. In addition, the Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection 9.5-349(m)(5) may require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged lands can be built over a benthic community. As stated under the State Regulation section on page 11 of the Marina Siting Plan, most Monroe County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Accordingly, Subsection 373.414(1), F.S., should also be referenced in that section of the Marina Siting Plan, since activities in OFWs are required to meet higher water quality standards. The references contained in the Federal Regulation section (4-6) should also be verified. For example, although the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) was listed, Monroe County is specifically excluded from the SPGP. Thus, that reference should be deleted. CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT The proposed amendments are not consistent with the following Principles for Guiding Development, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute: Principle (a) To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. Principle (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. Principle (c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. Principle (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. 17 Principle (f) To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. Principle (g) To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. Principle (1) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. These Principles for Guiding Development inconsistencies can be resolved by addressing the objections stated above. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendments are not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statute, including the following goals and policies: Goal (6) Public Safety, Policies (b) 22 and 23: Require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents; and require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human lives from the effects of natural disasters. This requirement relates to Objection 4. Goal (7) Water Resources, Policies (b) 5 and 13: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies and identify and develop alternative methods of wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse of wastewater to reduce degradation of water resources. This requirement relates to Objection 4. Goal (8) Coastal and Marine Resources, Policies (b) 4, 6, and 10: Protect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development; encourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources; and give priority in marine development to water -dependent uses over other uses. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 21. Goal (9)-Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Policies (b) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7: Conserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and %%ildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values; acquire, retain, manage, and inventory public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and related public benefits; prohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats; and protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 21. Goal (15) Land use, Policy (b) 6: Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other I:3 natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18. Goal (17) Public Facilities, Policies (b) 1 and 2: Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities; and promote rehabilitation and reuse of existing facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18. Goal (19) Transportation, Policies (b) 5: Ensure that existing port facilities and airports are being used to the maximum extent possible before encouraging the expansion or development of new port facilities and airports to support economic growth. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 9, 10, and 18. Goal (25) Plan Implementation, Policies (b) 2, 3, and 7: Ensure that every level of government has the appropriate operational authority to implement the policy directives established in the plan; establish effective monitoring, incentive, and enforcement capabilities to see that the requirements established by regulatory programs are met; and ensure the development of strategic regional policy plans and local plans that implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and that address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern in a region. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 21. These State Comprehensive Plan issues can be resolved by addressing the objections stated above. 19 w .South Florida II Regional I v\ 4 t Planning _ Council MEMORANDUM AGFNDA ITEM #6d DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 200: TO. COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Introduction On September 25, 2007 Council staff received proposed amendment package #07-2 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for review of consistency with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP). Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rules 9J-5 and 9J- 1I, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Communih• Profile Monroe County, incorporated in 1824, is the southernmost county in the State of Florida. The County consists of a mainland portion (782 square miles) bordered by Collier County to the north and Miami - Dade County to the east, and an archipelago, known as the Florida Keys, extending from northeast to southwest for I20 miles (102 square miles), and separating the Gulf of Mexico from the Atlantic Ocean. The mainland portion is occupied by Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve and is virtually uninhabited. According to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, the unincorporated portion of Monroe County had a population of 36,466 in 2006, an approximately 1.2% increase in the population since 2000. The economy of Monroe County is based on tourism, fishing, retirees, and the military. Monroe County's growth is constrained by a number of characteristics. The vast majority of the County is environmentally sensitive, comprised of mangrove wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and rare and endangered species habitats, with world-renowned coral reefs offshore. With one main highway serving the entire population, traffic is a concern, particularly during hurricane evacuations. Lack of adequate infrastructure for stormwater and wastewater magnifies the effects of population growth on nearshore coastal waters. The desirability of the County as a place to live and the limited amount of developable land have made land costs prohibitively expensive, leading to shortages of affordable housing and adequate school sites. With infrastructure and the environment shoving signs of stress and over 10,000 undeveloped platted lots, most of the Florida Keys has been designated an Area of Critical State Concern, under Chapter 380.05, Florida Statutes. Additional information regarding the County or the region may be found on the Council's website, w«•w.sfrec.com. 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305, 407 and 561 (800) 985-4416 SunCom 473.4416, FAX (954) 985-4417 Siinrom FAX A7'1-AA17 Selmma of Staff Analysis Proposed amendment package #07-2 would revise 10 goals, objectives and polices in the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe Count- Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan regarding recreational and commercial working waterfronts. The general location of the County is exhibited as Attachment 1. The purpose of the :Monroe County Working Waterfronts Program is to implement the relevant provisions of Chapter 2005-157 and Chapter 2006-220 of the Laws of Florida. More specifically, the purpose is to protect and promote Monroe County's recreational and commercial working waterfronts; protect and improve commercial, recreational and public access to the shorelines and the waters of Monroe County; preserve, protect and enhance the cultural heritage and physical character of the area as a working waterfront community; and enhance the aesthetic character of the area by directing development in a manner that maintains the working waterfront identity of the County. Monroe County is experiencing the loss of recreational and commercial working waterfronts and the loss of public access to the water due to the redevelopment of marine facilities, including, but not limited to marinas, boatyards, wet and dry storage, fish houses and commercial fishing vessel dockage, at an unprecedented rate. The County feels that it is important to preserve an acceptable level of working waterfront while still allowing an appropriate mix of water dependent and non -water dependent uses. Fundamental elements of working waterfronts should be preserved to ensure that the ongoing need for working waterfronts is not exacerbated by non -water dependent development or redevelopment of water dependent facilities currently provided in numerous land use districts and distributed throughout the County. In order to address these issues, the proposed amendment would amend existing goals, objectives and policies and would add new goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. According to the October 3, 2007 letter from Andrew O. Trivette, Monroe County Division Director of Growth Management, the proposed amendment is supported by the data and analysis and recommendations of the "Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting Plan". Obiection The proposed amendments to 40 goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan are not clear, contain vague language, are not consistent with the cited documents ("Monroe County Working -Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting Plan") and additional supporting data and analysis has not been provided to support the amendments. For example: a.) Objective 101.4 requires the County to regulate future development and redevelopment to maintain the character of the community and protect the natural resources. The objective would be amended to maintain"and flexibly guide the evolution of "the character of the community and protect the natural resources. However, the amendment is vague, no policies have been included to implement the policy, no data and analysis has been included to support the amendment. b) It is not clear why in Policy 101.4.5 "permanent residential development", other than employee housing and commercial apartments, are being permitted. Data and analysis have not been included to support the amendment. c) It is not clear in Policy 101.4.7 how natural resources would be protected and areas suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, maritime uses, and other water dependent manufacturing and service uses would be conserved if residential (up to 18 dwelling units/25 rooms per acre) and commercial facilities, such as public lodging establishments, are permitted in the "Maritime Industries Distinct." It is also not clear how the residential and commercial facilities would be compatible with the industrial and maritime uses permry itted in the land use categoor if adequate public faculties and services exist to support the residential and commercial uses. d) Policy 219.1.1 contains vague language and it is not clear how the policy will be implemented. Until these issues are resolved, the proposed amendment package is incompatible with the goals and policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP), particularly with the following goal and policies: Goal 4 Enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of the Region by ensuring the adequacy of its public facilities and services. Policy 4.3 Utilize the existing infrastructure capacity of regional facilities to the maximum extent consistent with applicable level of service (LOS) standards before encouraging the expansion of facilities or the development of new capacity. Goal 11 Encourage and support the implementation of development proposals that conserve the Region's natural resources, rural and agricultural lands, green infrastructure and: • utilize existing and planned infrastructure in urban areas; • enhance the utilization of regional transportation systems; • incorporate mixed -land use developments; • recycle existing developed sites; and • provide for the preservation of historic sites. Policy 11.10 Decisions regarding the location, rate, and intensity of proposed development shall be based on the existing or programmed capacity of infrastructure and support services or on capacity which will be programmed to serve that proposed development; in addition, consideration should be given to the impact of infrastructure and support services on natural resources. GOAL 20 Achieve long -tern efficient and sustainable development patterns that protect natural resources and connect diverse housing, transportation, education, and employment opportunities. Policy 20.2 Guide new development and redevelopment within the Region to areas which are most intrinsically suited for development, including areas: a. which are least exposed to coastal storm surges; b. where negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal; and c. where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed or, on an aggregate basis, can be provided most economically. Recommendation Council staff recommends that the amendments to the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan be revised to eliminate vague language, to be consistent with "Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting Plan" and additional supporting data and analysis be provided to support the amendments. Staff will continue to work with the County staff throughout the amendment process. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of the amendment for rt-•. ic%c be the Florida Department of Community Affairs by unanimous vote at its September 19, 2007 County Commission meeting. Recommendation Find proposed amendment package #07-2 to the `tonroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to be generally inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida, particularly with Goats 4, 11 and 20, and Policies 4.3, 11.10, and 20.2. Approve this staff report for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Attachment 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANIENDNtENTS General Location ,i,fap Nfonroe County Proposed .amendment #07-2 4•un'r,: FDEP, SFIVNID. `lonrkl County, SFFf C \otr: For planninC purlxw s onle All di.tana c are apt sot:mah. Florida Department EnvironmentI' Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 tiovember 14, 2007 Mr. D. Rai- Eubanks Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-2 Dear Mr. Eubanks: .wcr The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -captioned package of proposed comprehensive plan amendments submitted by Monroe County (County), under the required provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Department provides the following comments and recommendations to assist your agency in developing the state's response to the proposed amendment. OVERVIEW The transmittal package includes policy modifications related to the recreational, com- mercial and working waterfronts portions of the Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The County proposes the addition of a new Maritime Industries (MI) district to the County's existing Industrial land use category, with changes to various policies intended to establish and conserve waterfront areas for maritime uses. Although the Department generally supports the intention expressed by the County, several concerns must be addressed. The County failed to provide the Department with adequate data and analysis on the potential resource impacts that creation of the new land use district will engender. Among other things, the amendment establishes a new district that allows high -density development, exempts new marinas from the requirements of the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan (MSP), and refers to a policy in the MSP that it proposes to delete. ",l.lore Protection, Less Process" www.dep.srate JI. us Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 2 of 7 DETAILED COMMENTS Policy 101.4.5 According to the Support Data and Analvsis submitted, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to "maintain and enhance the commercial fishing activities within the Mixed Use/Commercial land use category." The proposed policy revision would add the word "evolving" to the description of the community character, which contradicts the stated purpose of maintaining and enhancing commercial fishing activities. The proposed amendment would also add the following underlined phrase: "Employee housing and commercial apartments are also permitted, along with other permanent residential development compatible with the mix of uses allowed." The Department does not believe that the addition of permanent residential development will maintain or enhance the County's commercial fishing industry. Because the proposed text would allow all categories of residential development within the district, it would increase economic pressure on current commercial fishing enterprises to sell out and make way for large residential structures, thus undermining attempts to preserve and enhance working waterfronts. The Department therefore recommends that the added text (including the word "evolving") be deleted from the proposed policy. Policy 101.4.7 The County seeks to add a Maritime Industries (MI) district to the existing Industrial land use category. The stated purpose of the new district is "to establish and conserve areas suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, and maritime uses such as ship building, ship repair and other water dependent manufacturing and service uses." While the stated purpose of the new district is acceptable, several components of the proposal are problematic. No supporting data and analysis was submitted upon which the Department could base an analysis of the proposed text. The new policy language also promotes high -density residential development in environmentally sensitive areas, and allows supportive workforce housing in offsite areas. The proposed density for the M1 district is 8-12 du/acre (or 10-15 rooms/acre), which is comparable to the Residential, High category in the County's comprehensive plan. The amendment contained no information on the general areas of the County that may qualify for the new designation. Also, while the policy states that "no development order for new residential uses or structures shall be issued except for portions of the MI District unsuitable for dockage of vessels[.]" the language provides no details about who would make the suitability determination and the criteria upon which that determination would be made. Other parts of the policy contain vague or contradictory statements. The Support Data and Analysis submitted with the amendment states that the intent of Policy 101.4.7 "is —..Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 3 of 7 to clarify that the MI land use district's main purpose is to establish and conserve areas for maritime uses, including employee housing." The proposal would, however, allow high -density "public lodging establishments," which contradicts the intent of the policy and allows a huge loophole for new hotel/motel development. Other provisions in the policy, such as Id1welling unit allocations attributable to houseboats shall be transfer- able to uplands[,]" create additional questions. How many units could be transferred under that provision? Could uplands located anywhere in the County receive those transferred density credits? What protection measures are in place to ensure that only existing houseboats receive the density transfer? If adopted, Policy 101.4.7 will allow more high -density residential development along the waterfronts of the Florida Keys. In addition to increasing hurricane evacuation times, implementation of the proposed policy could exacerbate existing water quality problems. Recent studies have identified nearshore water quality problems in Monroe County. In a comprehensive 1999 report entitled Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, Effects, and Solutions, William L. Kruczynski states: Historically, development in the Keys relied on the use of cesspits and septic tanks which provide little treatment of domestic wastewater in porous lime rock substrates. In addition, stormwater runs untreated into nearshore surface waters. Lack of nutrient removal from domestic wastewater and stormwater has resulted in the addition of nutrient -rich waste waters into confined waters and adjacent nearshore areas. The cumulative effects of these discharges have led to water quality degra- dation of these inshore areas.' By allowing the development of high -density residential development within the MI district, Policy 101.4.7 avoids application of important environmental protection measures to waterfront development. Objective 212.4 Revised Objective Policy 212.4 states that "Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Siting Plan [MSPI for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities." No further identification of the intended siting plan is contained in the proposed amendment, and the MSP was not appended to or adopted by reference in the amendment. Because the MSP was not Dr. Kruczynski's white paper, prepared under the auspices of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary's Water Quality Protection Program, can be found at the Sanctuary's web site at h!V://floridakeys.noaa.gov/research monitoring/ wgpp white paper.pdf Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 4 of 7 clearly identified in the amendment and has not been adopted into the County's com- prehensive plan, it can be changed at any time by the Board of County Commissioners without going through the comprehensive plan amendment process. The Department is therefore concerned that significant changes can be made to the MSP without review by state and regional agencies. The Department recommends that the MSP or other marina siting criteria be adopted into the County's comprehensive plan. Department staff also notes that the latest draft of the MSP (April 2007) makes several references to Policy 212.4.3, which would be deleted by the proposed amendment. The Department encourages the County to either retain all policies referenced in the MSP or revise the MSP so there are no conflicts or omissions between the two documents. Policy 212.4.1 Proposed Policy 212.4.1 provides that "'[a]pplicants for development approval of marinas with three (3) or more slips, other than marinas in existing harbors located in MI District, shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria set forth in the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan[.]" This provision will exempt marinas in an MI district from the MSP siting criteria, even though Objective 212.4 states that "Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Siting Plan for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities." Exempting new or expanded marinas located in an MI district from marina siting criteria is highly inappropriate, since the proposed amendment deletes nearly all of the County's current siting requirements (Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, 212.4.3, and 212.4.6), and the County has just invested a great deal of time and money to create a siting plan that would protect the County's fragile and valuable natural resources. Additionally, no supporting data and analysis was provided to suggest the areas that might qualify for the exemption or the environmental impacts that could result from application of the exemption, such as degradation of the nearshore water quality. The Department cannot support the changes contained in proposed Policy 212.4.1 and strongly recommends that the County remove the revisions from the proposed amendment. Policy 219.8.1 The County's proposal to encourage certain types of development along waterfront areas is vague, lacks adequate definitions or standards, and will lead to increased development - particularly in conjunction with the County's adoption of the MI district. Policy 219.8.1 states: Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Xfonroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 5 of 7 The County shall provide land -use bonuses to encourage development that provides Commercial, Recreational and Public Access to the shorelines and waters of Monroe County. These bonuses may be granted in the form of increased FAR, increased number of slips parking variances increased area for water -related uses, or other measure of land use intensity appropriate to permitted uses on the parcel(s) proposed for development This policy would encourage more intense development along the shorelines and waters of Monroe County, thereby leading to increased impacts on the surrounding waters. No data or calculations were provided with regard to the amount of increases in intensity that could result from the bonuses. The Department believes Policy 219.8.1 is unnecessary and strongly recommends that the County remove the proposed policy from the submittal. Marina Siting Plan Since the MSP is widely referenced and its criteria relied upon heavily in the proposed amendments, Department staff has reviewed the April 2007 draft document and offers the following comments. Section 18-21.0041(1)(b)9, F.A.C., states as follows: No application to lease state owned sovereignty submerged lands for the purpose of providing multi -slip docking facilities shall be considered for approval unless there are no benthic communities present where the boat mooring area, turning basins, mooring piles or other structures are to be located, excepting any main access docks required to cross benthic com- munities to reach acceptable areas. This shall not preclude them from applying for consent to use state owned submerged lands for the purpose of using the minimum amount necessary to obtain reasonable ingress and egress. Multi -slip docks are defined as three or more slips, and benthic communities includes seagrass beds, hard and soft corals or sponges. This rule should be referenced in the MSP and cited in appropriate locations throughout the document, such as on page 10 under State Regulations and on page 39 under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site Suitability Zones listed on pages 13 and the Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional Zones described on pages 40-41 should be revised to reflect this regulation. In addition, the Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection 9.5-349(m)(5) may require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged lands can be built over a benthic community. Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 6 of 7 As stated under the State Regulation section on page 11 of the MSP, most Monroe County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Accordingly, Subsection 373.414(1), F.S., should also be referenced in that section of the MSP, since activities in OFWs are required to meet higher water quality standards. The references contained in the Federal Regulation section (4-6) should also be verified. For example, although the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) was listed, Monroe County is specifically excluded from the SPGP. Thus, that reference should be deleted. The MSP references the North Carolina Waterfront Access Study Committee Final Report on page 49. The Department can not comment as to its applicability to the MSP, however, since the report was not included in the submittal package. Finally, the maps included in the MSP depict several coastal islands from North Key Largo to Key West as conditional areas for marinas. If those sites remain as conditional marina locations, they must comply with Rule 18-21.004(1)(j), F.A.C., which should be referenced. In addition, the maps appear to designate some mangrove areas, especially on North Key Largo, as conditional marina sites. Mangrove forests are not appropriate locations for marinas, and the Department suggests the maps be reevaluated and edited. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information and analysis submitted, the Department finds that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and is therefore objectionable. The proposed amendment was not supported by adequate data and analysis and contains components that contra- dict the stated intent of the amendment. One of the most troublesome features is that proposed densities for the MI district are comparable to densities allowed in the existing Residential -High land use category. In addition, several policies contain vague language that may lead to further problems as plan policies are implemented. The County should address the issues and questions contained in this letter and provide adequate data and analysis to support the proposed amendment. The County may also wish to review new water supply guidelines developed by the Department, the water management districts and the Department of Community Affairs, which provide detailed information on the data and analysis local governments should submit to support proposed comprehensive plan amendments and the 10-year water supply facility work plan due by August 15, 2008. The Guide can be found on DCA's website at http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcR/publications/finalguidelines pdf. Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 7 of 7 The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendment. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Chris Stahl at (850) 245-2163 or Chris.StahI@dep.state.fl.us. Yours sincerely, Sally B. Mann, Director Office of Intergovernmental Programs SBM/cjs .. November 20, 2007 Mr. Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Florida Fish Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 and Wildlife Conservation Re: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Proposed Amendment 07-02) Commission Dear Mr. Eubanks: Commissioners Rodney Barreto The Imperiled Species Management Section of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Chair Commission (FWC) has coordinated agency review of the referenced document, and provides the Miami following comments and recommendations. Kathy Barco Jacksonville Ronald M. Bergeron Description Fort Lauderdale Richard A. Corbett Monroe County proposes to amend its Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by including an ordinance Tampa to address its needs to promote recreational, commercial, and working waterfronts. Our review is Dwight Stephenson limited to the amendments made under Goal 212 of the Conservation and Coastal Element. This Defray Beach goal states: "Monroe County shall prioritize shoreline land uses and establish criteria for Kenneth W. Wright Winter Park shoreline development in order to reserve and enhance coastal resources and to ensure the �m p Brian S. Yablonski continued economic viability of the County." Objective 212.4 addresses marina siting, and its Tallahassee associated policies provide specific criteria by which marinas will be situ}. The amendment deletes the part of the objective that requires the County to analyze future needs and develop criteria that "meet or exceed state standards" and deletes Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 and Executive Staff 212.4.6. It replaces these by incorporating the Marina Siting Plan by the Catanese Kenneth D. Haddad Executive Director prepared Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at Florida Atlantic University and dated April Victor J. Helier 2007 (available online at httu://s frpe.com;MCWorkwater htm) into Policy 212.4.4.1. Assistant Executive Director The policies that are removed include requirements that: Karen Ventimiglia 1. marina siting criteria must be "approved by DER [Department of Environmental Deputy Chief of Staff Regulation), DNR [Department of Natural Resources) and ACOE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)" (Policy 212.4.1.2); 2. the County "shall complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial Office of Policy and marinas," with stipulations as to what that survey must include (Policy 212.4.2); Stakeholder 3. marinas are to be located in places where C rdiiuna ion a. there is "maximum physical advantages... and where no unreasonable or Director excessive impacts are foreseen on marine resources"; (850) 410.5272 b. do not destroy "significant marine wetlands or seagrass beds"; and (850) 922-5679 FAX c. consider access through existing channels, "benthic vegetation and faunal assemblages"; impacts on crocodiles, sea turtles, and manatees; and "minimization of shoreline modification" and areas where prop -dredging has been a problem; (Policy 212.4.3) Managing for thefish an wildlife resourcesfong- 4. prohibit new marinas with three or more slips until existing marinas within five miles are term well-being and the fully utilized (Policy 212.4.6). berefit of people. The Marina Siting Plan that is to replace this language relies on GIS data, using water depth as 620 South Meridian Street the "critical factor" (see p. 10, first full paragraph), with water quality playing a secondary role in T311ahassee. Flonda the case of conditional areas, to establish three categories of suitability for siting tsarinas: 32399-1600 y g Voice, (850) 488-4676 exclusionary, preferred, and conditional. The Marina Siting Plan includes Marina Siting Hearing/speech impaired: Suitability Maps with polygons showing the locations of preferred and conditional areas. The t800) 955-8771(T) plan provides other data layers (Figures 1 through 43 and in the Map Atlas for Marine Facilities (800) 955-8770 (V) MyFWC.com Mr. Ray Eubanks Page 2 No. ember 20, 2007 Inventory) that meet some of the requirements of Policy 212.4.4, but it is not clear how they were used to establish the suitability categories. The Marina Siting Suitability Maps show conditional areas scattered throughout nearly all of the Keys, except between Crab Key at Mile Marker 25 and Key West at Mile Marker 7. The maps indicate preferred areas primarily in Islamorada, Marathon, Big Pine Key, and Key West. There are no exclusionary areas shown on the maps, and we assume that this is because any area not indicated as preferred or conditional is exclusionary. Concerns and Recommendations The FWC supports the Working Waterfronts concept, and has no objection to the removal of the prohibition of new public access marinas as long as the environmentally protective measures currently in the comprehensive plan are not removed FWC also supports the inclusion of a marina siting plan into the comprehensive plan; however, we do not recommend incorporation until the current marina siting plan has been revised. We have concerns about issues not addressed by the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan. This review does not go into the Marina Siting Plan in detail, but highlights the main problem points that staff identified. Concern: While water depth may be an adequate criterion for the protection of seagrasses, the Marina Siting Plan does not replace all of the planning guidance provided by the removed Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3. For instance: • The plan does not appear to address protection of significant marine wetlands (Policy 212.4.3) or minimization of shoreline modifications (Policy 212.4.3.3.1). Some of the sites are within the Florida Forever acquisition boundary. • The plan discusses crocodiles, manatees, and sea turtles, but guidance appears to be limited to provisions in Objective 207.8.3 ("developing a boating impacts management program for marine turtles and manatees"), with reference to Objective 203.6 and associated policies. Objective 203.6 (see http:4/monroecofl.virtualtownhall net!Paggs/'vtonroeCoFL Growth'CompPlan20lO poiic y) focuses on guidance to coordinate with other agencies, including the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, DER, DNR, and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to identify environmental and regulatory issues and to help formulate plans; it does not appear to provide guidance on the same planning issues that would have been addressed by Policy 212.4.3.3. While it discusses crocodiles, the Marina Siting Plan does not provide specific planning guidance. • The deleted policies require some very specific issues (e.g., number of wet and dry slips, breakout of slips by boat size, availability for public use, availability of pump -out facilities) be taken into consideration in developing marine siting criteria; however, the Marina Siting Plan does not appear to have taken those issues into account. As a result, the Marina Siting Plan does not provide specific planning guidance with respect to an acceptable amount of infrastructure for permitting considerations, including those related to natural resources and listed species. • Policy 212.4.1.2 required approval of marina siting criteria by DER, DNR, and ACOE, and it is reasonable to assume that this requirement would have involved the Marine Patrol and the program that dealt with sea turtles and manatees, both of which were in DNR. Subsequent agency reorganizations have placed both of these programs in the FWC; however, the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan was not coordinated with those components of the FWC. Concern: The Marina Siting Plan also relies on existing county ordinances and agency regulatory programs for setting some of its sideboards, but this approach does not appear to Mr. Ray Eubanks Page 3 November 20, 2007 provide the value that additional planning guidance would provide via a comprehensive growth -management plan. It also relies on FWC's management plan for manatees; however, this plan has not yet been approved by the FWC Commissioners. Incorporating it into the comprehensive plan via the Marine Siting Plan before it is approved would be premature. Concern: The application process flowchart in Appendix A -I indicates that a parcel is considered "conditional" if it is in an area of known American crocodile range. Map 10 (Monroe County American Crocodile Habitats) in Appendix D may inadvertently be confusing because crocodiles have been documented as far as Key West and, once, even in the Dry Tortugas. Recommendation: We believe that the Marina Siting Plan contains useful information and guidance; however, we recommend that it be revised to address the protective measures that would have been provided by following Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 before including it by reference into the comprehensive plan. We strongly recommend that the Marina Siting Plan include policies for the development of land development regulations that would have been addressed by the deleted policies. We would be willing to help with this revision, and believe that doing so would be consistent with the intent of Policy 212.4.1.1. We appreciate the opportunity to review the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan amendments, and hope we can help with addressing issues that we touched in this letter. If you or your staff would like to coordinate further on the recommendations contained in this letter, please contact me at 850-410-5272 or email me at N1arvAnn.Pooic6d-.,MyFWC com and I will be glad to help make the necessary arrangements. If your staff has any technical questions regarding our comments regarding manatees, please contact Mary Duncan by telephone at 850-922-4330 or by email at Mary. Duncan(fi myfwc com. Sincerely, Mary Ann Poole, Director Office of Policy and Stakeholder Coordination map/md Morvoe 07 1067 ENV 1-12-2 cc: Bob Dennis, DCA, Tallahassee Mayte Santamaria, DCA, Tallahassee Rich Jones, Monroe County Kalani Cairns, USFWS, Vero Beach ' • 1 Soum RoRIDA WATER MANAGEmENT DI$TRIC'T • 3301 Gun Club Raad, West Palm Beach, Florida 3--406 • (561) 686-6800 • FL WATS 1-ECG432-2C _3 TDD(-;61) 647-2574 Nlailirg A_! fs: P.O. Box 240 0, Wes, Palm Era:h. Fl-a316-46E0 • tvx asfwrnd.gov GOV 08-20 November 21. 2007 Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator Plan Review and Processing Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments Monroe County, DCA 07-2 Monroe County has proposed text amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element in its Comprehensive Plan to address redevelopment of waterfronts. The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the proposed amendment package. The District recommends that additional steps be taken to address potential water supply issues. The County's proposed change to Policy 101.4.7 significantly increases the residential and transient density in the Maritime Industry District within the Industrial land use category and provides for affordable housing in any land use district. The Policy increases the "Allocated Density° from 1 to 8-12 residential units and from 0 to 10-15 rooms per acre. Further, the Policy increases the "Maximum Net Density° for affordable housing from 2 to 12-18 residential units and from 0 to 25 rooms per acre. The amendment should be modified to address the potential increased potable water demand that could result from higher densities of both residential units and transient rooms in the Maritime Industry District and affordable housing units in all districts. In coordination with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), the County should quantify the additional demand that would be generated by the proposed amendment and demonstrate that water supplies and associated public facilities are available to meet those demands. [see ss. 163.3167(13) & 163.3177(6)(a), F.S]. In particular, the County and FKAA should indicate whether the potential change in demand can be accommodated by the FKAA's consumptive use permit. _ If you have any questions or require additional information, please call John Mulliken, Director, YAter Supply Planning Division, at (561) 682-6649. Water Resources Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator November 20, 2007 Page 2 C M/ke/pv Jerry Buckley, DCA (Keys Office) Carolyn Dekle, SFRPC Bob Dennis, DCA Kate Edgerton, SFWMD Andrew Trivette, Monroe County v. FLOPIDA DEPARTIIE-',�I OF STATE ;curt S. Browning Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES October 30, 2007 Mr, Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Dak Boulevard _ Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Monroe County (07-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Eubanks: According to this agency's responsibilities under Sections 163.3177 and l 63.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Cade, we reviewed the above document to determine if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. We reviewed one proposed text amendment regarding recreational, commercial and working waterfronts, to consider the potential effects of this action on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests that the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the county's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources in Monroe County. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the Division's Compliance Review staff at (850) 245-6333. Sincerely, ? /-- 1) Frederick P. Craske, Director xc: Mr. Bob Dennis 500 S. Bronougb Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 . http:/Avww.fjberjt3gec0M O Director's Office O Archaeoloocal Research ✓ Historic Preservation O Historical Museums (850) 2454" • FAX: 24541M (W) 245,644 • FAX: 245-6452 (850) 245.63M • FAX: 245 W7 (W) 245.6400 • FAX 245-64M ;�1111�111111111 III CHARLFE CRIST Dbuict Six COVE 1000 NW I I I Avenue, MimnL FL 33172 Phone: 305-470-5464 Mr. Ray Eubanks Division of Community Planning OP-355 Shumard Oak Boulevard Taflahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Subject: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Phn (Amendment 07-2) I , I a IU Florida Department of Transportation, District 6, has reviewed the proposed Amendment I2 for Monroe County. Based on our review, the Department has determined that there are no impacts on State Roads. Tlierelbre, we lume no specific objections or recommendations at this time. Please contact Phil steinmiller, at 305-470. 5825, if you have any questions concerning our response. Cc- Aileen Boucle, AICT Phil Steinmiller