Loading...
Item B4BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: April 18, 2013 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Staff Contact Person/Phone #:_Christine Hurley 289-2517 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider a resolution to transmit to the State Land Planning Agency a proposed ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending the text of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, within the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to: 1) define the term "re -dredge" and prescribe the specific, limited conditions to be considered a re -dredge; 2) establish sub -area re -dredge policies that can be applied county -wide with required site -specific parameters (including mitigation) which defines the scope of re -dredging historically -dredged, privately -owned submerged lands for navigational access; where a comprehensive plan text amendment for a specific geographic area is adopted as a re -dredge sub -area policy; 3) establish a limit to the establishment of re -dredge sub -area policies to two (2) per year; and 4) establish the "Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Lands (Re -dredge Sub Area 1)" with specific, limited conditions and restoration (mitigation of benthic resources) requirements. ITEM BACKGROUND: Sandra Walters, SWC, has submitted a request on behalf of the Little Conch Key Development Corporation to amend the text of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to create sub -area policies applicable to a specific geographic area of submerged lands to enact site - specific parameters for the re -dredging of historically -dredged, privately -owned submerged lands for navigational access and to amend policies to define the specific, limited circumstances, conditions and restoration (mitigation) which shall be met to allow the re -dredging of privately -owned access channels and basins with benthic resources. Little Conch Key Development Corporation is proposing to develop the first re -dredge sub -area, called the "Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Lands (Re -dredge Sub Area 1)." Currently, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels. The County does allow maintenance dredging to occur when no benthic resources are present. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) do not provide definitions for public navigation channels, channel or maintenance dredging. The LDC provides a definition of dredging ("means excavation below water level or in wetlands"). The LDC also provides an overall definition of maintenance ("means that action taken to restore or preserve the functional intent of any facility or system"). This applicant would not qualify for maintenance dredging under the existing Comprehensive Plan Policies 202.8.3 and 203.2.3, as the applicants channel has benthic resources (40- 45% seagrass coverage) and is not considered a "public navigation channel," pursuant to the State definitions. The text amendment has been drafted to apply only to privately -owned submerged lands. Additionally, multiple conditions (see proposed amendment) have been proposed to narrow the scope of potential re - dredge sub -area amendments. Also, to ensure that potential future re -dredge projects are individually reviewed thoroughly by the local, state and federal agencies, the re -dredge sub -area requires a site - specific comprehensive plan amendment (similar to the adopted Goal 107 Sub -area policies) for any proposed re -dredging of historically -dredged, privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin that could meet the conditions of the policies. By requiring a comprehensive plan amendment for each geographic area, a proposed re -dredge sub -area will need to go through multiple public hearings at the County, be transmitted to the State for a consistency review (by DEO and other reviewing agencies, including Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Education, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of State, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Transportation, South Florida Regional Planning Council, South Florida Water Management District, and the Military Installation), be considered for adoption at a public hearing by the County and, ultimately, reviewed and found in -compliance by the State -- before the applicant can apply for building permits and commence any re -dredge activities. This proposal, while providing multiple conditions that must be satisfied for a re -dredge sub -area, would also establish a procedure to allow other property owners of historically -dredged, privately - owned channels or boat basins in unincorporated Monroe County to request site -specific comprehensive plan amendments for re -dredging to facilitate their navigational access and prevent continued scarring of the surrounding seagrass beds — provided they meet the conditions of the policies. Staff estimates this could be applicable to approximately 20 locations. To limit the potential scope of the proposed amendment and provide County staff with time to evaluate and conduct a coordinated review of any proposed re -dredge applications, the County has added a provision to limit establishment of re -dredge sub -area policies to two per year. The Monroe County Planning Commission (PC) considered the proposed amendment at a public hearing on November 14, 2012. The Monroe County PC passed Resolution 53-12 recommending transmittal of the proposed amendment to the BOCC. If the BOCC votes to transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the State Land Planning Agency, then State Land Planning Agency will review the proposed amendment and issue an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, addressing any issues with internal consistency, data and analysis, or consistency with the statutes or the Principles for Guiding Development. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the BOCC will have 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendments. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: NIA CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: NIA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approvals TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management _ DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO. - 2013 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY A PROPOSED ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE POLICIES WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ESTABLISH SUB -AREA POLICIES APPLICABLE TO A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF SUBMERGED LANDS; TO ENACT SITE SPECIFIC, TAILORED PARAMETERS FOR THE RE -DREDGING OF PRIVATELY OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS AND TO AMEND POLICIES TO DEFINE THE SPECIFIC, LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS WHICH SHALL BE MET TO ALLOW THE RE -DREDGING OF PRIVATELY OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed text amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 14'b day of November, 2012, for review and recommendation on the proposed text amendment, and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. Seagrass meadows are the dominant habitat found throughout most of the coastal areas of the Keys on both the bay and ocean sides, and are a highly productive area, attracting a variety of commercial and recreational user groups. P. l of 3 2. The nearshore seagrass meadows experience additional impacts due to the proximity to populated shoreline areas and adjacent deeper water destinations. 3. Improved channel marking is a means of minimizing shallow -water resource damage. 4. Channels within Monroe County have experienced sedimentation, which in certain instances has affected navigation. 5. County staff, in conjunction with State and federal agencies have evaluated the various rules and regulations used by the agencies for comprehensive planning as well as dredge and fill activities to develop strategies, site -specific evaluations and criteria for re -dredging channels. 6. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 7. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission passed Resolution No. P53-12 recommending transmittal of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, at a special meeting held on the 18t' day of April, 2013, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners supports transmitting the requested text amendment; NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed amendment to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in accordance with the State Coordinated Review process pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. Section 2. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment. Section 3. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Director of Planning. P. 2 of 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a special meeting held on the day of April, 2013. (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Mayor George Neugent Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthers Commissioner Danny Kolhage Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Commissioner David Rice BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA D1.15 Mayor George Neugent ,roc�i3O COUNTY ATTORNEY �PPFI ' D AS TO FORM: SU N M GRIMSLEY Al"ISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY IV P. 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. -2013 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE POLICIES WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ESTABLISH SUB -AREA POLICIES APPLICABLE TO A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF SUBMERGED LANDS; TO ENACT SITE -SPECIFIC, TAILORED PARAMETERS FOR THE RE -DREDGING OF PRIVATELY - OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS AND TO AMEND POLICIES TO DEFINE THE SPECIFIC, LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS WHICH SHALL BE MET TO ALLOW THE RE -DREDGING OF PRIVATELY -OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) do not provide definitions for "public navigation channels", "channel" or "maintenance dredging;" and WHEREAS, areas within Monroe County have experienced sedimentation which in certain instances may affect navigation; and WHEREAS, County staff, in conjunction with State and federal agencies have evaluated the various rules and regulations used by the agencies for comprehensive planning as well as dredge and fill activities to develop strategies, site -specific evaluations and meaningful criteria; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2012; and WHEREAS, at a meeting held on the 14th day of November, 2012, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency of a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and recommended transmittal of the amendment; WHEREAS, on Planning Agency the BOCC voted to transmit the ordinance to the State Land NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows: (Deletions are stf-ieken dff and additions are underlined.) Objective 202.8 Monroe County shall adept maintain Land Development Regulations which implement county policies preventing the continued loss of benthic resources and controlling pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge and fill activities. Policy 202.8.1 Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the permitting of dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent regulations adopted by Monroe County shall be maintained. Policy 202.8.2 No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County. Policy 202.8.3 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic resources), except for maintenance in public navigation channels. In limited circumstances, the re -dredging of privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins with benthic resources may permitted pursuant to Policy 202.8.4 and through the adoption of a re - dredge sub -area policy into the Com rehensive Plan, applicable to the specific geogEaRhic area of historically -dredged, privatel -owned submerged landspursuant to Objective 202.9 and other applicable policies. Policy 202.8.4 In order to facilitate navi ational access and vrevent continued scarring of sea ass beds in adjacent shoals, re -dredging of historically -dredged, privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins may be permitted, in limited circumstances. As used in this policy, re -dredging may occur within historical ly-dredg d _privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins vegetated with benthic resources, if there is a continued threat to these communities due to pre-existing upland development and docking facilities. Re -dredging shall only be permitted to preserve or restore the function of the historically_dredged, privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin. Re -dredging of historically -dredged, privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins vegetated with benthic resources may be permitted if all of the following conditions are met: 1. There is an existing_ privately -owned_ access channel and/or boat basin, evidenced by permits or dated historical_ aerial photography showing a historically -dredged, privately -owned channel 2. There is an existing, lawfully -established upland development and docking facility erved by the historical l -dredged,privately-owned access channel and/or boat basin. 3. The submerged land within the historically -dredged access channel and/or boat basin is privately owned by the owner of the contiguous upland property containing the lawful iy-established upland development and docking facility served by the access channel and/or boat basin. 4. Natural shoaling has reduced the upland property owner's reasonable access too en water. 5. There is a demonstrable threat of continued scarring to the surrounding seagass beds. 6. The re -dredging cannot be used to dredge natural or manmade barriers separating a canal or canal system from adjacent wetlands and/or other surface waters. 7. Prior to the re-dred-ging of an access channel the adoption of a re -dredge sub -area poligL pursuant to Objective 202.9, shall be required delineating the specific geographic area of the proposed work and the mitigation. The re -dredging of the historically -dredged, Privatel -owned access channel and/or boat basin shall be designed to protect natural resources and shall provide reasonable assurance that the activity will prevent continued scarring of _surrounding seagrass_ beds through the provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage, channel markers and/or buoys by the contiguous upland 12roRerty owner or owners. The re -dredging methodology shall not cause de adation of water quality or secondary and/or cumulative impacts to surrounding benthic resources. Turbidity controls shall be used to prevent reduction of light availability to seagrasses and increased sedimentation of adjacent surface waters and benthic resources. No re -dredging shall occur on a known marine turtle nesting beach and re -dredging, work shall avoid injuries to manatees, in accordance with Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission guidelines. In addition issuance of a County permit will include conditions that all applicable State and federal permits be obtained _before commencement of work; that the applicant shall receive a "Notice to Proceed" from the County before commencement of work, a requirement that copies, of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times, and that lack of the State and federal l2ermits at any inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. Applicable State and federal permits shall include applicable permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Additional mandatory conditions shall include, but are not limited to: 1. The. applicant shall notify the County Biologisthours in advance of any re-dredgingactivities commencing, to accommodate monitoring and inspections. 2. Any restoration activities to address sea ass impacts will be provided consistent with the Final Pro rammatic Environmental Impact Statement PEIS or Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary adopted in 2004. 3. Quantity of mitigation for seagrass impacts will, at a minimum, meet or, if owner volunteers exceed the requirements specified by the State_ of Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). 4. Any restoration activities must be monitored for success for a minimum period of five (5) Years. a. Annual reports shall be provided to the County Biologist documenting the restoration success rates. The property owner(s) must grant permission for _inspection of the premises by the County Biologist. Reports shall, include: 1) Permit Number 2) Date of monitoring 3) Percent cover by seagrass 5) Observations of water depth and tidal flow 6) Antecedent weather conditions 7) Tidal stage 8) Photo/video documentation b. At the end of five (5) years, the restoration area shall have a seagrass density of 80% percent coverage of the seagrass habitat surrounding, the restoration area. 5.. A performance bond in an amount of 120% of the cost to re -dredge and complete required restoration, guaranteeing that the re-dredgingof f the privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin will be performed according to the permit and its conditions including the required restoration shall be provided to the County prior to permit issuance. a. The property owner(s) shall conduct the re -dredge and mitigation in accordance with the conditions and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code and County issued permit. b. The bond must be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office and filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners prior to issue of a County permit. c _The bond must be kept in full force and effect for the term of the permit plus the five (5) years of monitoring of the restoration activities. d. At the end of monitoring the restoration area and achieving the 80 percent coverage, the performance_ bond may be released. e. The property owner(s) shall reimburse the County via bond„ call for any and all expenses and costs the County incurs as a result of the property owners failing to comply with all the conditions and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code and County issued building_ permit and restoration requirements. 6. _Additionally,_a_post-construction survey of the re -dredge of the privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin footprint and depth shall be conducted„ by a State -licensed surveyor and provided to the County for review, and if physical characteristics including depth, exceed 15 percent from that specified in the permit, the applicant will be required to correct the errors prior to release of the performance bond. Policy 202.8:4.5 In order to facilitate establishment of bottom vegetation; after maintenance dredging in artificial waterways or the re -dredging of a historically -dredged privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin, the maintenance dredging or re -dredging, shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water or on inal design depths as documented in the on final permit specifications of the dredged area whichever is more restrictive the shallowest depth shall control). If the original construction or maintenance dredging of the channel occurred and no previous permit has. been 4 issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District or the United States Army Corps of Engineers or Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (e.g., occurred prior to_ permit requirements), the re -dredging shall not exceed depths greater than minus five (-5) feet mean low water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor. Policy 202.83.6 All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging or the re -dredging of a historically -dredged privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin shall be placed on permitted upland sites where drainage can be contained on -site unless utilization of the dredged spoil can be incorporated as an element of a seagrass restoration project consistent with the PEIS and the State of Florida's UMAM process that provides reasonable assurance of no negative impacts to water quality,. species or habitats. Policy 202.8:6.7 No "after -the -fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill regulations. All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated. Policy 202.8�8 Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and equitable penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these violations shall be set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement projects. Policy 202.8.9 As used in the policies under Objective 202.8 and 202.9 definitions are as follows: Access channels means artificially -created channels, constructed. through excavation, serving as waterways for watercraft, and providing access to open water. Access channels do not include propeller -dredged channels. Benthic resources means an area vegetated with seagrass communities attached macroal ae or other hardbottom communities. Boat basins means artificially -created basins, constructed through excavation, serving, as basins for the mooring of watercraft. Hardbottom communities, also known as live bottom habitat, means an area characterized by the presence of coral (species of phylum Cnidaria) and associated reef organisms or worm reefs created by the Phragmatopoma species. Public navigation_ channel means a channel that is constructed or maintained by a public entity such as a federal or state agency, local government, or inland navigation district listed in Cha-pter 374, F.S., or that is part of a public navigation project, public water management project or a deepwate_r port listed in Section 403.021(9)(b), F.S. Privately -owned access channel means a channel that is owned and maintained by private entities to provide access to or from such locations as private residences, marinas, yacht clubs, vessel repair facilities, or other revenue- generating facilities. Privately -owned access channels do not include channels in public ownership or control by means of lease, deed, dedication, or easement. Re -dredging means the preservation or restoration of.a historically -dredged, privately -owned access _channel and/or boat basin vegetated with benthic resources. Re -dredging shall only be permitted to preserve or restore the function of a privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin and cannot exceed the depths, widths and configurations that were previously achieved by previous dredging. Maintenance dredging means the preservation or restoration of a historically -dredged area that is not ve etated with benthic resources exce t for maintenance in Rublic navigation channels. Maintenance dredging shall not exceed the depths, widths, and configurations that were previously achieved by previous dredging_ Objective 202.9 By 4, 199W, Mefffee-Gounty shall develop -m implement inspeetien . Monroe County shall regulate the re -dredging of historical ly-dredg ed privately -owned access channel and/or boat basins with benthic resources through Comprehensive Plan sub -area policies applicable to a specific geographic area. These sub -area policies identify parcels of submerged land and the site -specific regulations developed in order to confine potential impacts to a specific area and document the mitigation for the proposed impacts. The development parameters established for each sub -area shall be based on data and conditions s ecific to the site in relation to the protection of natural resources. Policy 202.9.1 The establishment of a maximum of two (2) re -dredge sub -area policies shall be considered annually, after the contiggous upland proverty owners served by the historically -dredged, privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin have applied for permits from the applicable state and federal agencies. Coordination with the state and federal agencies is necessary to secure the data and conditions specific to the site and corresponding mitigation (the requirements specified by UMAM)_and _ensure that consistent data is reviewed. Policy 202.9.2 Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submersed Lands (Re -dredge Sub Area 1) This policy. shall document the specific geographic area of the re -dredging_ permitted on the Walker's Island privately -owned submerged lands and the required conditions and mitigation for the resource impacts. The re -dredging_ described in Table 1 and Figure(below) shall be allowed on the submerged land parcel documented as the Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area, subject to conditions listed below. Conditions: The re -dredging at the Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Lands, as depicted on Figure 1, shall be subject to all the restrictions set out below: 1. The re -dredging of the historical) -dredged Privately- owned channel and basin shall be limited to no more than the acreage specified in Table 1 to facilitate navigational access to the existing, lawfully -established upland development and docking facility. 2. The re -dredging shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet below mean low water or to depths of refusal the shallowest depth shall control) as measured by a depth survey conducted by a State -licensed surveyor, whichever is more restrictive. 3. Recordation of a conservation easement in favor of the South Florida Water Management District prohibitingall ll impacts on, and requiring perpetual maintenance of, 26.93 acres of submerged land, having real estate number 00099110-000000. The area to be conserved is delineated in Figure 4. The provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage at the docking facility,channel markers for. the access channel or cautionary and shoal marker buoys by the property owner(s), as depicted on Figure 1. 5. The restoration and maintenance of 0.9 acres of submerged lands (0.5 acres basin, 0.13 acres of onsite boat -damage and 0.27 acres near bank boat damage), as depicted in Figure 1. After five ears the restoration area shall have a sea ass density of at least 809o'ercent coverage of the seagrass habitat surrounding the restoration area. 6. A performance bond for the re -dredging and restoration provided to the County prior to permit issuance, in an amount of 120% of the cost to re -dredge and complete required restoration, including the 5 years of monitoring the restoration success rates. Table 1: General Description Real Estate Number Total Acreage of Submerged Lands Parcel Maximum Impacted Acres Minimum_ Mitigation_ Conservation Easement Acreage 00099110-000000 27.22 0.63 26.93 Description: 15 65 34 LITTLE CONCH KEY BAY BOTTOM NE'LY SE'LY & SW'LY & ADJ TO LITTLE CONCH KEY OR371-544/50 OR804-1163D/C OR820-575 OR1351-519/W1LL CASE #95- 10270-CP-10 OR2197-1977/78 OR2326-612/16 Figure 1: Scope of Proposed Work Figure 2: Minimum Conservation Easement Legend 0 Subject Parcel #00099110-000000 ® Conservation Easement Walker's island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area 1 (Mile Marker 62.5) N 0.1 0.2 © Miles Objective 203.2 Monroe County shall protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to seagrasses. Policy 203.2.1 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall prohibit the location of mooring sites over submerged land which is vegetated with seagrasses or characterized by a hardbottom community, regardless of water depth, except as may be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This prohibition shall not -al -se apply to uAblic mooring fields. Policy 203.2.2 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall prohibit the termination of docking facilities and piers over submerged land which is vegetated with seagrasses or characterized by a hardbottom community, regardless of water depth, except as may be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Design criteria to permit sunlight to reach the bottom shall be adopted. No boat shelters or gazebos shall extend over submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses or over hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic resources). 9 Policy 203.2.3 Monroe County shall: 1. Pprohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and 2. Prohibit maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels. (See Objective 202.8 and related policies.) 3. In limited circumstances, the re -dredging of privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins with benthic resources may be permitted pursuant to Objective 202.8 and corresponding policies and through the adoption of a sub -area policy applicable to a specific geographic area, pursuant to Objective 202.9 and corresponding_ policies. Policy 203.2.4 By julyAugust Monroe County shall s. upport NOAA, EPA and DEP regarding their development of sapperefscientific studies of stresses on seagrass ecosystems in the Florida Keys region. This agmeffi.eifit 1-40-All be developed following eempletien ef the Rer-ida Keys Natienal Mefine Sanetttafy Managemem Plan. This plan shall Policy 203.2.5 Monroe County shall continue to support the public education program for users of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as outlined in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Revised Management Plan (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, 2007 in pr-epa&a lee). This program shall promote user education related to, among other items, seagrass bed conservation and navigational safety in nearshore waters. Policy 203.2.6 , Monroe County shall enter digital information describing the location of seagrass beds in the Florida Keys into the County's Geographic Information System. These Ddata shall be made available from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Program. Objective 204.2 Monroe County shall eliminate the loss of undisturbed wetlands and shall eliminate the net loss of disturbed wetlands. Policy 204.2.1 To protect submerged lands and wetlands the open space shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: 1. submerged lands; 2. mangroves; 3. salt ponds; 4. freshwater wetlands; 5. freshwater ponds; and 6. undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands. 10 Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 204.2.2 No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile -supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except; 1. as specifically allowed by Objective 212.6 and subsequent policies; 2. to fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, _boat basin or swimming pool if the Director of Planning and Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impacts on marine or wetland communities; or 3. as needed for shorelines stabilization, seagrass restoration or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as determined by the Directors of Planning and Environmental Resources. Ail sueh pr-ejeets Shah . Issuance of a Counterpermit will include conditions that all applicable state and federal permits be obtained before commencement of work_; and that the applicant shall receive a notice to proceed from the County before commencement of work,• a re uirement that coRies of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times: and that lack of the state and federal permits at an inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. Applicable state and federal permits may include permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management_ District, the U.S. Army_ Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuar. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such validity. Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable challenges have been resolved. Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County Year 2010 11 Comprehensive Plan and shall be incorporated in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a special meeting held on the day of , 2013. (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Mayor George Neugent Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthers Commiss ioner Danny Kolhage Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Commissioner David Rice BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Mayor George Neugent 12 1 2 ID 3 4 MEMORANDUM 5 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURGEs DEPARTMENT 6 We strive to be caring, professional and fair 7 8 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 9 10 Through: Christine Hurley, AICP, Director of Growth Management 11 Townley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources 12 13 From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Assistant Director of Planning 14 15 Date: April 1, 2013 16 17 Subject: Request of the Little Conch Key Development Corporation (Walker's Island Project) to 18 amend the text of Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to establish sub -area 19 policies applicable to a specific geographic area of submerged lands, create site -specific 20 parameters for the re -dredging of privately -owned submerged lands with benthic 21 resources to facilitate navigational access and to define the specific, limited 22 circumstances and conditions which must be met to allow the re -dredging. 23 24 Meeting: April 18, 2013 25 26 I REQUEST 27 Sandra Walters, SWC has submitted a request on behalf of the Little Conch Key Development 28 Corporation (Walker's Island Project) to amend the text of Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive 29 Plan to create policies within the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to establish sub- 30 area policies applicable to a specific geographic area of submerged lands to enact site -specific, 31 tailored parameters for the re -dredging of privately -owned submerged lands for navigational access 32 and to amend policies to define the specific, limited circumstances, conditions and restoration 33 (mitigation) which shall be met to allow the re -dredging of privately -owned access channels and 34 basins with benthic resources. 35 36 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 37 38 A. Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies 39 40 Currently, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow 41 maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom 42 communities (e.g. benthic communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels. The 43 County does allow maintenance dredging to occur when no benthic resources are present. The 44 County has processed 42 permits for maintenance dredging since 1997. 45 46 Policy 202.8.2 No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County. 47 1 Policy 202.8.3 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or 2 characterized by hardbottom communities except for maintenance in public navigation channels. 3 4 Policy 203.2.3 Effective upon plan adoption, Monroe County shall: 5 1. Prohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and 6 2. Prohibit maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for 7 maintenance dredging in public navigation channels. 8 9 Note, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) do not provide 10 definitions for public navigation channels, channel or maintenance dredging. The LDC provides a 11 definition of dredging ("means excavation below water level or in wetlands"). The LDC also 12 provides an overall definition of maintenance ("means that action taken to restore or preserve the 13 functional intent of any facility or system"). 14 15 Florida Department of Environmental Rule 18-21.003, F.A.C., provides definitions for private and 16 public channel, as follows: Rule 18-21.003 Definitions. When used in these rules, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (46) "Private channel' means a channel that is dredged or maintained by private entities to provide access to or from such locations as private residences, marinas, yacht clubs, vessel repair facilities, or revenue - generating facilities. (50) "Public channel" means a channel that is constructed or maintained by a public entity such as a federal or state agency, local government, or inland navigation district listed in Chapter 374, F.S., or that is part of a public navigation project, public water management project, or a deepwater port listed in Section 403.021(9)(b), F.S. (52) "Public navigation project" means an activity primarily for the purpose of navigation which is authorized and funded by the United States Congress or by port authorities as defined by Section 315.02(2), F.S. 32 This applicant would not qualify for maintenance dredging under the existing Comprehensive Plan 33 policies 202.8.3 and 203.2.3, as the applicants channel has benthic resources and is not considered a 34 "public navigation channel" pursuant to the State definitions. 35 36 B. Request 37 38 In 2010, Sandra Walters, SWC, on behalf of the Little Conch Key Development Corporation, 39 submitted a request for a text amendment [Policies 202.8.3, 202.8.4, 202.8.5, 202.8.6, 202.8.7, 40 2020.8.8, 203.2.3 and 204.2.2] to the Comprehensive Plan to allow maintenance dredging within 41 access channels vegetated by seagrass beds, subject to certain limitations and conditions. The 42 proposed text amendment for the Walker's Island project would have allowed maintenance 43 dredging in areas that contain benthic resources beyond that currently allowed in public navigation 44 channels, subject to limitations and conditions. These amendments would have also allowed the 45 use of dredged spoil for seagrass restoration projects (placement of dredged spoil within submerged 46 lands). The proposed amendments, while proposed and affecting the Walker's Island project, as the 47 amendments were originally drafted, could have also affected other privately -owned submerged 48 lands in unincorporated Monroe County (e.g. county -wide application). 2 I Based on the submitted amendment in 2010, staff has coordinated via teleconferences, meetings and 2 emails with) and other local, state and federal entities/agencies that are involved with comprehensive 3 planning as well as dredge and fill activities. The participants included representatives from Monroe 4 County (Planning, Environmental Resources and Marine Resources staff), SWC (applicant's 5 consultant), Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO - formerly the Department of Community 6 Affairs), Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), South Florida Water Management District 7 (SFWMD), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Army Corps of Engineers 8 (ACOE), Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), Environmental Protection Agency 9 (EPA), the City of Marathon and the Village of Islamorada. 10 11 The group discussion generally revolved to the importance of seagrasses to ecology of the Keys, the 12 causes of degradation (such as scarring, nutrients, climate), how to avoid extreme degradation as 13 well as the recovery of the resources. Additionally, the group discussed the sedimentation issues of 14 existing channels. Discussions of the group revolved around the definition of maintenance dredging, 15 how to define maintenance dredging and how to distinguish new dredging from maintenance 16 dredging. The SFWMD and DEP described statutory [Section 403.813(1)(f), F.S.] and Rule [40E- 17 4.051(2)(a), F.A.C.] exemptions for maintenance dredge projects (see staff report section V. Florida 18 Statutes And Florida Administrative Code Related To Maintenance Dredging And Disposal Of 19 Dredged Spoil). DEP stated that if a project does not qualify for an exemption, then the project is 20 not considered a maintenance dredge. DEP and SFWMD also noted that maintenance dredging 21 cannot exceed the depths, widths, and configurations that were previously achieved by previous 22 dredging. 23 24 During one of the teleconferences, NOAA also stated that dredging, either new or maintenance, is 25 prohibited in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary pursuant to 15CFR922.163 (a)(3) [see 26 below] unless an applicant can get a permit. Federal conservation laws that are in effect and enforced by Sanctuary Officers are the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA), the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Lacey Act (LA), all of which apply to resources residing within or transiting through the FKNMS. Law specifically in affect which apply to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are found under the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 15. Sec. 922.163 Prohibited activities. -Sanctuary -wide. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) through (e) of this section, the following activities are prohibited and thus are unlawful for any person to conduct or to cause to be conducted: (3) Alteration of, or construction on, the seabed. Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise allering the seabed of the Sanctuary, or engaging in prop -dredging; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material, or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary, except as an incidental result of- (i) Anchoring vessels in a manner not otherwise prohibited by this part (see Secs. 922.163(a)(5)(ii) and 922.164(d)(1)(v)); (ii) Traditional fishing activities not otherwise prohibited by this part; (iii) Installation and maintenance of navigational aids by, or pursuant to valid authorization by, any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction; (iv) Harbor maintenance in areas necessarily associated with Federal water resource development projects in existence on July 1, 1997, including maintenance dredging of entrance channels and repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of breakwaters or jetties; (v) Construction, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of docks, seawalls, breakwaters, piers, or marinas with less than ten slips authorized by any valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction. (4) Discharge or deposit of materials or other matter. (i) Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter, except: (A) Fish, fish parts, chumming materials, or bait used or produced incidental to and while conducting a traditional fishing activity in the Sanctuary; (B) Biodegradable effluent incidental to vessel use and generated by a marine sanitation device approved in accordance with section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 1322 et seq.; (C) Water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g., deck wash down and graywater as defined in section 312 of the FWPCA), excluding oily wastes from bilge pumping; or (D) Cooling water from vessels or engine exhaust; (ii) Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality, except those listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) (A) through (D) of this section and those authorized under Monroe County land use permits or under State permits. (A) Those listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) through (a)(4)(i)(C) of this section; (B) Sewage incidental to vessel use and generated by a marine sanitation device approved in accordance with section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1322 et seq.; (C) Those authorized under Monroe County land use permits; or (D) Those authorized under State permits. (5) Operation of vessels. (i) Operating a vessel in such a manner as to strike or otherwise injure coral, seagrass, or any other immobile organism attached to the seabed, including, but not limited to, operating a vessel in such a manner as to cause prop -scarring. (ii) Having a vessel anchored on living coral other than hardbottom in water depths less than 40 feet when visibility is such that the seabed can be seen. (iii) Except in officially marked channels, operating a vessel at a speed greater than 4 knots or in manner which creates a wake: (A) Within an area designated idle speed only/no wake; (B) Within 100 yards of navigational aids indicating emergent or shallow reefs (international diamond warning symbol); (C) Within 100 yards of the red and white "divers down' flag (or the blue and white "alpha" flag in Federal waters); (D) Within 100 yards of residential shorelines; or (E) Within 100 yards of stationary vessels. (b) Notwithstanding the prohibitions in this section and in §922.164, and any access and use restrictions imposed pursuant thereto, a person may conduct an activity specifically authorized by. and conducted in accordance with the scope. purpose, terms, and conditions of. a National Marine Sanctuary permit issued pursuant to §922.166. (c) Notwithstanding the prohibitions in this section and in §922.164, and any access and use restrictions imposed pursuant thereto, a person may conduct an activity specifically authorized by any valid Federal. State, or local lease_ permit. license. approval, or other authorization irisued after the effective date of these regulations, provided that the applicant complies with §922.49, the Director notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not object to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies with any terms and conditions the Director deems reasonably necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Amendments, renewals and extensions of authorizations in existence on the effective date of these regulations constitute authorizations issued after the effective date of these regulations. (d)(1) All military activities shall be carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practical any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities. The prohibitions in paragraph (a) of this section and §922.164 do root apply to existing c,a,,ses of military activities which were conducted prior to the effective date of these regulations. as identified in the Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Sanctuary. New military activities in the Sanctuary are allowed and may be exempted from the prohibitions in paragraph (a) of this section and in §922.164 by the Director after consultation between the Director and the Department of Defense pursuant to section 304(d) of the NMSA. When a military activity is modified such that it is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a Sanctuary resource or quality in a manner significantly greater than was considered in a previous consultation under section 304(d) of the NMSA, or it is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a Sanctuary resource or quality not previously considered in a previous consultation under section 304(d) of the NMSA, the activity is considered a new 0 54 activity for purposes of this paragraph. If it is determined that an activity may be carried out, such activity shall be carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practical any adverse impact on Sanctuary resources and qualities. (2) In the event of threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality resulting from an untoward incident, including but not limited to spills and groundings caused by the Department of Defense, the cognizant component shall promptly coordinate with the Director for the purpose of taking appropriate actions to prevent, respond to or mitigate the harm and, if possible, restore or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality. (e) The following prohibitions do not apply to Federal. State and local officers while perfi)rmin,, enforcement duties in their official capacities or responding to emergencies that threaten life, property. or the environment: (1) Those contained in paragraph (a)(4't of ¢hi+ section ojily as It pertains; to discharges of sewage incidental to vessel use and generated by a marine sanitation device approved 'm accordance with section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended.3.3 U.S.C. 1322 et seq.: and (2) Those contained in paragraph (a)(5) of this section- (f) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section and paragraph (a) of §922.168, in no event may the Director issue a permit under §922.166 authorizing, or otherwise approve, the exploration for, leasing, development, or production of minerals or hydrocarbons within the Sanctuary, the disposal of dredged material within the Sanctuary other than in connection with beach renourishment or Sanctuary restoration projects, or the discharge of untreated or primary treated sewage (except by a certification, pursuant to §922.167, of a valid authorization in existence on the effective date of these regulations), and any purported authorizations issued by other authorities after the effective date of these regulations for any of these activities within the Sanctuary shall be invalid. (g) Any amendment to these regulations shall not take effect in Florida State waters until approved by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. Any fishery regulations in the Sanctuary shall not take effect in Florida State waters until established by the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission. Sec. 922.1166 Permits other than for access to the Tortugas Ecological Reserve --application procedures and issuance criteria. (a) National Marine Sanctuary General Permit. (1) A person may conduct an acvivity prohibited br Sera. 922.163 or 922.164. other than an activity involving the survey/inventor ,r, researchlrecover.i. or deaccessionlo-ansfer of Sanctuary historical re. ourcert, if such at:tivitr is spccifrcaliv arrrhorized hi-, and proOded such acdvitr� i conducted in accordance aith lire scope, purpose, reruns aad crmditioms of. a National Marine Sanctuary General permit issued under thie paragraph (a). (2) The Director, at his or her discretion, may issue a General permit under this paragraph (a), subject to such terms and conditions as he or she deems appropriate, if the Director finds that the activity will: (i) Further research or monitoring related to Sanctuary resources and qualities; (ii) Further the educational value of the Sanctuary; (iii) Further the natural or historical resource value of the Sanctuary; (iv) Further salvage or recovery operations in or near the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty; (v) Assist in managing the Sanctuary; or (vi) Otherwise further Sanctuary purposes, including facilitating multiple use of the Sanctuary, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection. (3) The Director shall not issue a General permit under this paragraph (a), unless the Director also finds that: (i) The applicant is professionally qualified to conduct and complete the proposed activity; (ii) The applicant has adequate financial resources available to conduct and complete the proposed activity; (iii) The duration of the proposed activity is no longer than necessary to achieve its stated purpose; (iv) The methods and procedures proposed by the applicant are appropriate to achieve the proposed activity's goals in relation to the activity's impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities; (v) The proposed activity will be conducted in a manner compatible with the primary objective of protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities, considering the extent to which the conduct of the activity may diminish or enhance Sanctuary resources and qualities, any indirect, secondary or cumulative effects of the activity, and the duration of such effects; (vi) It is necessary to conduct the proposed activity within the Sanctuary to achieve its purposes; and (vii) The reasonably expected end value of the activity to the furtherance of Sanctuary goals and purposes outweighs any potential adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities from the conduct of the activity. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Additional discussions of the groups revolved around ideas and strategies to limit the scope of the potential future dredging activities to ensure there are not excessive impacts to our resources as well as to ensure that the resource agencies had an opportunity to provide input on proposed dredging proposals. Discussions included ideas to consider site -specific evaluations and meaningful criteria to limit the extent of impacts. This intergovernmental coordination and review has been important as Monroe County has extensive resources and protected areas. Florida Ke}ts Management Areas Of NA'IiOWAL PAx1: * STATEXECFXATMARPA blarfCn '� r 4 Es�da N�oml Pwk } 1mF 1� 5® Iiwamm Ate. - --+ � - t � � R= t STATEEQSTCIRIC SM L r"°m� vad ii LaYaBn Suu Hmec 5s d FwZk-Wn TsyW Sm. EGsmcc Stu 6 ?Lt'[SGtt IA.N.IDE eESLx� - aW���trmL�anea�tvmmR*,!.,a -1'� l7mae�1 A'IAd.P�hv is 8 1� Sus 9aaobl Sv.�y .9-i�aw.6q Su B.OsAsir , } STATE PAW. - kha cmLR«csaw P"a AQUA g,socaAi�orP"«e.. rs+ 1 Atlantic Ocoan LfiL T S _ t 6er ?Tm[ b.T T *� �,. W -- — S b.1sh.a Ffae lCer e..r Ea, cLx, S., LL.r K40sECEAS s.c�xs+s WLES N 0 M P 10 Benthic Communities of the Florida Keys Legend 0 H.*.no,o wsth Perceptible Seapws Q Seapass 0 Bate substrate �Odm L�� Gulf Of .►, } iAO' Ocean f 6 I While this review and coordination between agencies was taking place, various significant statutory 2 changes were also being adopted. Specifically, during the 2012 legislative session, Florida 3 Legislature adopted House Bill 503 (amending Section 125.022, F.S.) which states: 4 5 For any development permit application filed with the county cjfter July 1. 2012. a counh, 6 may not require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit that can 7 applicant obtain a permit or opproval from any state or federal aa;enc-v unless the agency 8 has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit before the county 9 action on the local development permit. Issuance of a development permit by a county 10 does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from 11 a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for 12 issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the 13 obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a 14 violation of state or federal law. A count• mad catach vtch a disclaimer to the oswmce of 15 a development permit and mar.' inchtele a permit condition that Lill Tither applicable state 16 orfederal permits be obtained before conrmencenient of the developinetat This section 17 does not prohibit a county from providing information to an applicant regarding what 18 other state or federal permits may apply 19 20 This new statute provision, does not allow the County to require a state or federal permit prior to 21 issuance of a County permit, as the current Comprehensive Plan policies and LDC stipulate. Note: 22 the County has developed a `Notice to Proceed' process and now places a condition on permits that 23 all other applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the 24 development. 25 26 C. Revised Request 27 28 Based upon these various meetings, agency discussions, information received from the agencies and 29 the new statutory provision, the applicant submitted a revised application on April 16, 2012. The 30 new proposal includes the creation of sub -area policies applicable to a specific geographic area of 31 submerged lands to enact site -specific, tailored parameters for the re -dredging of privately -owned 32 submerged lands and to amend policies to define the specific, limited circumstances and conditions 33 which shall be met to allow the re -dredging of historically -dredged, privately -owned access 34 channels and boat basins (see proposed amendment), with the restoration of other impacted benthic 35 resources. M. 37 The proposal has been drafted to apply only to privately -owned submerged lands. Additionally, 38 multiple conditions (see proposed amendment) have been proposed to narrow the scope of potential 39 dredge proposals. Also, to ensure that potential future re -dredge projects are individually reviewed 40 thoroughly by the local, state and federal agencies, a site -specific comprehensive plan amendment 41 is required (similar to the adopted Goal 107 Sub -area policies) for any proposed re -dredging of 42 historically -dredged, privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin that could meet the 43 conditions of the policies. By requiring a comprehensive plan amendment, a proposal will need to 44 go through multiple public hearings at the County, be transmitted to the State for a consistency 45 review (by DEO and other reviewing agencies, including Department of Agriculture and Consumer 46 Services, Department of Education, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of State, 47 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Transportation, South Florida 7 I Regional PIanning Council, South Florida Water Management District, and the Military 2 Installation), be considered for adoption at a public hearing by the County and, ultimately, reviewed 3 and found in -compliance by the State — before the applicant can apply for building permits and 4 commence any re -dredge activities. 5 6 The applicant's comprehensive plan amendment proposal was also provided to the State and federal 7 agencies for review and comment. Recommendations from the agencies have been incorporated 8 into the draft amendment. This is reflected in an updated draft submitted by the applicant on 9 September 7, 2012. In addition, County staff has continued to review relevant information, review 10 the drafts submitted and has suggested revisions. 11 12 The Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the proposed amendment 13 at a regularly scheduled meeting held on September 25, 2012. Additionally, the applicant 14 submitted several revisions to the proposed amendment Ianguage at the DRC meeting. 15 16 The Monroe County PIanning Commission (PC) considered the proposed amendment at a public 17 hearing on November 14, 2012. The Monroe County PC passed Resolution 53-12 recommending 18 transmittal of the proposed amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. 19 20 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENT INCLUDING COUNTY RECOMMENDATIONS 21 (blue= new text since the PC public hearing) (PC version included as Exhibit 3) 22 23 Objective 202.8 24 By Jffiiiiafy 4, 1997,-Monroe County shall adept maintain Land Development Regulations which 25 implement county policies preventing the continued loss of benthic resources and controlling 26 pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge and fill activities. 27 28 Policy 202.8.1 29 Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the permitting of 30 dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent regulations adopted by 31 Monroe County shall be maintained. 32 33 Policy 202.8.2 34 No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County. 35 36 Policy 202.8.3 37 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or 38 characterized by hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic resources), except for maintenance in public 39 navigation channels. 40 41 In limited circumstances, the re -dredging of privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins with 42 benthic resources may be permitted pursuant to Policy 202.8.4 and through the adoption of a 43 dredge sub -area policy into the Comprehensive PIan, applicable to the specific geographic area 44 historical -dredged. ri,atel -owned submer ed lands. pursuant to Objective 202.9 and other 45 applicable policies. 46 8 1 Polig 202.8.4 2 In order to facilitate navigational access and fire,. ev continued scarrineof seagrass beds, in adjacent 3 shoals,re-dredging of historically -dredged, privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins may 4 be permitted, in limited circumstances. As used in this policy, re -dredging may occur within 5 historically_ dredged, privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins vegetated with benthic 6 resources, if there is a continued threat to these communities due to p existing upland development 7 and docking facilities. Re -dredging shall only be permitted to preserve or restore the function of the 8 historical l-ydred2ed_Private1%-owned access channel and/or boat basin. 9 10 Re-dredgingof historical ly-dred ed..Privately owned.aggg.5 channels and/or boat basins vegetated 11 with benthic resources may permitted if all of the following conditions are met: 12 1. There is an existing_ privately-ovAied access channel and/or boat basin, evidenced by permits or 13 dated historical aerial photogKgRhy showing a historically -dredged, V y channel. 14 2. There is an existing_ lawfully -established upland development and docking facility served by the 15 historically -dreg, access channel and/or boat basin. 16 3. The submerged land within the historically -dredged access channel and/or boat basin is privately 17 owned by the owner of the contiguous upland property containing the lawfully -established 18 u land development and docking facility served by the access channel and/or boat basin. 19 4. `°natural shoaling, has reduced the u land property owner's reasonable access too en water. 20 5. There is a demonstrable threat of continued scarring to the surrounding seagrass beds. 21 6. The re -dredging cannot be used to dredge natural or manmade- barriers separating a canal or canal 22 system from adjacent wetlands and/or other surface waters. 23 7. Prior .to the re -dredging of an access channel, the adoption of a g sub -area policy, 24 pursuant to Objective 202.9, shall be required delineating_ the specific geographic area 25 proposed work and the mitigation. 26 27 The re -dredging of the hi-storicaly-dredged. orivately-owned access channel and/or boat basin shall 28 be designed to protect natural resources and shall provide reasonable assurance that the activity will 29 prevent continued scarring of surrounding sea ass beds through the provision and perpetual 30 maintenance of educational signaize, channel markers and/or buoys by the contiguous, upland 31 pLoRerty owner or owners. The re-dred&g methodology shall not cause degladation of water 32 quality or secondary and/or cumulative impacts to surrounding benthic resources. Turbidity controls 33 shall be used to prevent reduction of light availability to sea asses and increased sedimentation of 34 adiacent surface waters and benthic resources.. No re -dredging shall occur on a known marine turtle 35 nesting beach and re -dredging work shall avoid injuries to manatees, in accordance with Florida Fish 36 & Wildlife Conservation Commission guideline~, 37 38 In addition issuance of a County Vennit will include conditions that all a licable State and federal 39 permits be obtained before commencement of work; that the gpolicant shall receive a "Notice to 40 Proceed" from the County before commencement of works a requirement that copies of these 41 permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times: and that lack of the State and 42 federal permits at any ins ection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stoR work order. 43 Applicable State and federal permits .,hall inc'Iq ie app. ticabie permits from the Florida D artment of 44 Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District, the U.S. Army Corps of 45 Engeers, and the Florida Kevs National Marine Sanctuarv. I Additional mandatory conditions shall include, but are not „limited to: 2 3 1. The a licant shall notify the County Biologist 48 hours in advance of any re-dred&& activities 4 commencing, to accommodate monitoring and ins ections. 5 2. Any restoration activities to address sea air ss impacts will be provided consistent with the Final 6 Prokrammatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida 7 Keys -National Marine Sanctuary, adopted in 2004, 8 3. Quantity of mitigation for sea ass impacts will meet or, if owner volunteers 9 exceed• the requirements specified by the State of Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment 10 Method (UMAM). 11 4. Any restoration activities must be monitored for success for a minimum period of five (5)„years. 12 a. Annual reports shall be provided to the County Biologist documenting the restoration success 13 rates. The property owners must gralit permission for inspection of the premises by the 14 County Biologist. Reaorts shall include: 15 I Permit Number 16 2) Date of monitoring 17 3)_ Percent cover by seaarass 18 5) Observations of water depth and tidal flow 19 6) Antecedent weather conditions 20 7) Tidal stage 21 8 Photo/video documentation 22 b. At the end of five (5) years, the restoration area shall „have a seagrass density of 80% percent 23 coverage of the seagrass habitat surrounding the restoration area. 24 A performance bond in an _amount of 120°'0 of the cost to re-dred-ge and complete required 25 restoration guaranteeingthat the re-dredgingof the rivatel -awned access channel and/or boat 26 basin will be perfornied according to the ermit and its conditions includin the required 27 restoration shall be provided to the County prior to permit issuance. 28 a. The property owner(s)_ shall conduct the re -dredge and mitigation in accordance with _the 29 conditions and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Land Development Code and 30 County issued permit. 31 b. The bond must be reviewed and approved -by -the County Attorne 's office and filed with the 32 Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners prior to issue of a Count er"'it. 33 c. The bond must be kept in full force and effect for the term of the permit plus the five (5) years 34 of monitoring of the restoration activities. 35 d. _At _the end of monitoring the restoration area and achieving the 80 percent coverage, the 36 perfonnance bond may be released. 37 e. The property ownei shall reimburse the County via bond call for,. any and all exTtenses and 38 costs the County ncurs as a result of the property owner(s) failing to comply with all the 39 conditions and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code and 40 County issued building permit and restoration requirements. 41 6. Additionally. apost-construction survey of the re -dredge of the privately -owned access channel 42 and/or boat basin footprint and depth be conducted by. a State -licensed surveyor and 43 provided to the County for review, and if physical characteristics, including depth, exceed 15 44 percent from that specified in the permit, the applicant will be required to correct the errors prior 45 to release of the performance bond. 46 47 10 I Policy 202.8:4.5 2 In order to facilitate establishment of bottom vegetation; after maintenance dredging in artificial 3 waterways or the re -dredging of a historically -dredged privately -owned access channel and/or boat 4 basin the maintenance dredging. or re-dredginv shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) 5 feet mean low water or original design depths as documented in the original permit specifications of 6 the dredged area whichever is more restrictive the shallowest depth shall control). if the original 7 constiuctionor .maintenance dredgi i,--of _the channel occurred and no previous permit „has been 8 issued by the Florida_ Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management 9 District or the United States Anny Corps of Engineers or Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 10 (e.g., occurred prior to permit requirements), the re-dredging_shall not exceed depths greater than 11 minus five (-5) feet mean low water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key 12 West Harbor and Safe Harbor. 13 14 Policy 202.8.3.6 15 All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging or the re -dredging of a historically -dredged 16 privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin shall be placed on permitted upland sites where 17 drainage can be contained on -site unless utilization of the dredged spoil can be incorporated as an 18 element of a seagrass restoration project consistent with the PEIS and the State of Florida's UMAM 19 process that provides reasonable assurance of no negative impacts to water _quality_species or 20 habitats. 21 22 Policy 202.84.7 23 No "after -the -fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill regulations. 24 All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated. 25 26 Policy 202.8.7.8 27 Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and equitable 28 penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these violations shall be 29 set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement projects. 30 31 Policy 202.8.9 32 As used in the policies under Objective 202.8 and 202.9, definitions are as follows: 33 34 Access channels means artificially -created channels. constructed through excavation, serving as 35 waterways for watercraft and providing access to open water. Access channels do not include 36 propeller -dredged channels. 37 38 Benthic resources means an area vegetated with seagrass commLirlities,_ attached macroalgae or 39 other hardbottom communities. 40 41 Boat basins means artificially -created basins, constructed through excavation, serving as basins 42 for the mooring of watercraft. 43 44 H ardbottoin coinniunities also known as live bottom habitat. means an area characterized by the 45 presence of coral (species of 12hylum Cnidaria and associated reef organisms or worn reefs created 46 by -the Phraginatop_on-ia species. 11 2 Public nuirigation clicunnel means a channel that is constructed or maintained by_,a. public entity 3 such as a federal or state agency. local zovernment _or inland navigation district listed in Ch� 4 374, F_S_, or that is part_ of a public navigation project, public water management project, or a 5 deepwater port listed in Section 403.02t(9)(b), F.S. 7 Privatel •-ow necl access c•hunnel means a channel that is owned and maintained by private entities 8 to provide access _to_or from such locations_ as private residences, ma;rinati;yacht clubs, vessel repair 9 facilities, or other revenue -generating facilities. Privately -owned access channels do not include 10 channels in public ownership or control by means of lease, deed. dedication, or easement. 11 12 Re -dredging means the preservation or restoration of a historically -dredged. privately -owned 13 access channel. and/or boat basin vegetated with benthic resources. Re -dredging shall only be 14 permitted to preserve or restore the function of a private) -owned access channel and/or boat basin 15 and cannot exceed the depths, widths. and configurations that were previously achieved by previous 16 dredging. 17 18 Maintenance clredgin,Q means the preservation or restoration of a historically -dredged area that is 19 not vegetated with benthic resources except for maintenance in public navigation channels. 20 Maintenance dredging_shall not exceed the depths, widths, and „configurations that were previously 21 achieved by previous dredging. 22 23 24 25 Objective 202.9 26 , ifispeetien, and 27 28 Monroe Count 29 shall regulate the re -dredging of historically -dredged privately -owned access channel and/or boat 30 basins with benthic resources throueh Comprehensive Plan sub-gmLpolicies applicable to a specific 31 geoarQhic area. These sub -area policies identify parcels of submerged land and the site -specific 32 regulations developed in order_ to confine potential impacts to a specific area and document the 33 mitigation for the prol2osed im acts. The development parameters established for each sub -area shall 34 be based on data and conditions siDecific to the site in relation to the Drotection of natural resources. 35 36 Policy 202.9.1 37 The establi.shme_nt ..of a maximum of two Q re -dredge _ sub -area .policies shall be considered 38 annually, after the contiguous upland property owners served by the historically -dredged. 39 privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin have applied for permits from the applicable state 40 and federal agencies. Coordination with the state and federal agencies is necessary to secure the data 41 and conditions specific to the site and corresponding_mifiga_tion (the regUirements specified by 42 UMAM) and ensure that consistent data is reviewed. 43 •- --�. 44 45 46 12 I Policy 202.9.2 Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Lands (Re -dredge Sub Area 1) 2 This policy shall document the specific geographic area of the re -dredging_ permitted on the Walker's 3 Island privately -owned submerged lands and the required conditions and mitigation for the resource 4 impacts. 6 The re -dredging described in Table 1 and Figure 1 (below) shall be allowed on the submerged land 7 parcel documented as the Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area subject to 8 conditions listed below. 10 Conditions: 11 The re -dredging at the Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged_ Lands, as depicted on Fhguree 1, 12 shall be subject to all the restrictions set out below: 13 14 1. The re -dredging of the historically -dredged, privately -owned channel and basin shall be limited to 15 no more than the acreage specified in Table 1 to facilitate navigational access to the existing, 16 lawfully -established upland development and docking facility. 17 2. The re -dredging shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet below mean low water or to depths of refusal 18 {(he shallowest depth shall control) as measured_ by a depth survey conducted by a„State-licensed 19 surveyor, whichever is more restrictive. 20 3. Recordation of a conservation easement in favor of the South, Florida Water Management District 21 prohibiting all im acts on and reguiring pegpetual maintenance of 26.93 acres of submerged 22 land having real estate number 00099110-000000. The area to be conserved is delineated in 23 Figure 2. 24 4. The provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage at the dockingfacility, channel 25 markers for the acce_ss_chappel or cautionary and shoal marker buoy -by the prokerty owners}, as 26 depicted on Figure 1: 27 5_ The restoration and maintenance of 0.9 acres of submerged lands (0.5 acres basin, 0.13 acres of 28 onsite boat damage and 0.27acres near bank boat damage), as depicted in Figure 1. After five 29 years, the restoration area shall have a seagrass density of. at least, 80%n percent coverage of the 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 seagrass habitat surrounding the restoration area. 6. A performance bond for the re-dredeiiie and restoration_ provided to the County trios torermit issuance. in an amount of 1207o of the cost to re -dredge and cons lete required restoration including. the 5 years of monitoring, the restoration success rates. Table 1: General Description Real Estate Number Total Acreage of Submerged Lands Parcel Maximum Impacted Acres Minimum Mitigation: Conservation Easement „Acreage 00099110-000000 27.22 0.63 26.93 Description: 15 65 34 LITTLE CONCH KEY BAY BOTTOM NE'LY SE'LY & SW'LY & ADJ TO LITTLE CONCH KEY OR371-544/50 OR804-1163D/C OR820-575Q OR 1351-5191WH-L CASE #95- 10270-CP-10 OR2197-1977n8 OR2326-612/16 Figure 1: Scope of Proposed Work 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Figure 2: Minimum Conservation Easement Legend Subject Parcel #00099110-000000 E�Z Conservation Easement Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area 1 (Mile Marker 62.5) 0 01 0.2 Mites Objective 203.2 Monroe County shall protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to seagrasses. Policy 203.2.1 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall prohibit the location of mooring sites over submerged land which is vegetated with seagrasses or characterized by a hardbottom community, regardless of water depth, except as may be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This prohibition shall not-a6e apply to un blic mooring fields. Policy 203.2.2 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall prohibit the termination of docking facilities and piers over submerged land which is vegetated with seagrasses or characterized by a hardbottom community, regardless of water depth, except as may be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Design criteria to permit sunlight to reach the bottom shall be adopted. No boat shelters or gazebos shall extend over submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses or over hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic resources). Policy 203.2.3 Effeetive upon plea Monroe County shall: 15 I 1. Pprohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and 2 2. Pprohibit maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for 3 maintenance dredging in public navigation channels. (See Objective 202.8 and related policies.) 4 3. In limited circumstances, the re-dredging__of privately -owned access channels and/or boat 5 basins with benthic resources may be permitted pursuant to Objective 202.8 and corresponding 6 policies and throe the adoption of a sub -area policy applicable to a specific geographic area, 7 _pursuant to Objective 202.9 and cones o ndinoli= 8 9 Policy 203.2.4 10 By julyhkugust , Monroe County shall supportNOAA, 11 EPA and DEP—DER regarding their development of suppe-Ft. of scientific studies of stresses on 12 seagrass ecosystems in the Florida Keys region. 13 14 15 16 Policy 203.2.5 17 Monroe County shall continue to support the public education program for users of the Florida Keys 18 National Marine Sanctuary as outlined in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Revised 19 Management Plan (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, 2007 in-pr-epar-aim). This program shall 20 promote user education related to, among other items, seagrass bed conservation and navigational 21 safety in nearshore waters. 22 23 Policy 203.2.6 24 By JanaaFy 4, 1998, Monroe County shall enter digital information describing the location of 25 seagrass beds in the Florida Keys into the County's Geographic Information System. These Ddata 26 shall be made available from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Program. 27 28 29 30 Objective 204.2 31 Monroe County shall eliminate the loss of undisturbed wetlands and shall eliminate the net loss of 32 disturbed wetlands. 33 34 Policy 204.2.1 35 To protect submerged lands and wetlands the open space shall be 100 percent of the following types 36 of wetlands: 37 1. submerged lands; 38 2. mangroves; 39 3. salt ponds; 40 4. freshwater wetlands; 41 5. freshwater ponds; and 42 6. undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands. 43 44 Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed 45 salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these ifl I habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any 2 density or intensity. 4 Policy 204.2.2 5 No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for 6 elevated, pile -supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in 7 submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except; 8 1. as specifically allowed by Objective 212.6 and subsequent policies; 9 2. to fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat basin or swimming pool if the 10 Director of Planning and Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a 11 significant adverse impacts on marine or wetland communities; or 12 3. as needed for shorelines stabilization, seagiass restoration or beach renourishment projects with a 13 valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as 14 determined by the Director- of Planning and Environmental Resources. All sueh pfejeets shall 15 16 . Issuance of a County permit 17 will include conditions that all applicable state and federal permits be obtained before 18 commencement of work,• and that the applicant shall receive a notice to proceed from the Count 19 before commencement of work; a requirement that copies of these permits be available for 20 inspection at the construction site at all times; and that lack of the state and federal permits at any 21 inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work„ order. Applicable state and 22 federal permits may include permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or 23 South Florida Water Management District the U.S. Army CoMs of Engineers, and the Florida 24 Kevs National Marine Sanctuarv. 25 26 17 1 2 IV. ANALYSIS OF RE -DREDGE CONCEPT 3 4 The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, with approximately 40 staff (approx. 9 enforcement 5 staff members) protects 2,900 square nautical miles of waters surrounding the Florida Keys, from 6 south of Miami westward to encompass the Dry Tortugas, excluding Dry Tortugas National Park. 7 8 Within the Sanctuary, pursuant to 15CFR922.163(a)(5), the operation of a vessel in such a manner 9 so as to strike or otherwise injure coral, seagrass, or any other immobile organism attached to the 10 seabed, including, but not limited to, operating a vessel in such a manner as to cause prop -scarring — 11 is prohibited. 1f the sanctuary is aware of the vessel damage, they can survey the injury and make an 12 injury assessment, then the sanctuary can seek damages from those responsible for causing the 13 injuries through enforcement actions. The funds collected are used to implement restoration projects 14 and monitor recovery of the site. The Sanctuary reports that there are hundreds of vessel groundings 15 reported annually in the Florida Keys. (See 3 excerpts below) 1) Excerpt from NOAA website: (httpalflor_i_dakeys.noaa.gov/assessment/welcome.html?s--science) The coral reefs and seagrass meadows of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are productive habitats that support the fishing, diving, and tourism industries of the Florida Keys. The health of these habitats is affected by many factors — ranging from water quality to hurricanes to disease. However, the most immediate injuries to these habitats occur from vessel groundings. Hundreds of vessel groundings are reported annually in the Florida Keys. A boat hitting the reef can topple coral heads or grind coral colonies into tiny fragments, damaging and killing coral which may have taken centuries to build. Vessels that run aground on seagrass cut scars or large swaths through the meadows, creating injuries that may never heal, depriving marine life of important habitat. 2) Excerpt from NOAA document: Steve Thur, Seagrass Restoration Program, Office of Response and Restoration., Memorandum for the Record, July 19, 2005., Subject: Categorical Exclusion for Small Scale Seagrass Restoration Projects. Over 600 vessels run aground in seagrass-dominated communities in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary each year. Many of these groundings result in injury to Sanctuary resources, destroying seagrass communities as a result of boat motor propeller scars, andlor grounding "blowhole" damage, andlor sediment berms. Propeller scars are formed by the dredging effect of the turning propeller or occasionally the vessel's hull as the boat travels over a shallow bank A blowhole is formed from the concentrated force of propeller wash, either from the grounded vessel attempting to power off the bank or the propeller wash of the salvage vessel pulling the grounded vessel off the bank. Sediment berms are produced from the sand, coral fragments, and other substrates that typically accumulate around the perimeter of blowholes, thereby burying healthy seagrass. 3) Excerpt: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement For Seagrass Restoration In The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, August 23, 2004. The cumulative impact of vessel groundings has led to a pervasive scarring of seagrass beds throughout the FKNMS (Sargent et al. 1995). In 2001, it was estimated that 677 boat groundings occurred in the FKNMS, with approximately 60-70% of these occurring on seagrass beds.] Seagrass injuries in the FKNMS typically include a combination of propeller scars, blowholes, and sediment berms. Propeller scars are formed by the dredging effect of the turning propeller(s) as the boat travels over a shallow bank. The width of a propeller scar varies depending on many factors, 18 including the size of the vessel and the extent to which the propeller is forced into the seagrass bed. Blowholes, another common injury feature, are formed from the concentrated force of propeller wash, either from the grounded vessel attempting to power off the bank or the propeller wash of the salvage vessel pulling the grounded vessel off the bank. The depth and area of the blowholes vary depending on many factors, including size of the vessel, extent of power used to remove the vessel, and type of substrate sediment. Berms, a third common seagrass injury feature, are produced from the sand, coral fragments, and other substrates that typically accumulate around the perimeter of blowholes, thereby burying healthy seagrass. Restoration is an important step in reducing the cumulative impact of seagrass injuries throughout the Keys. When the underground seagrass rhizome system is damaged and the surrounding sediment altered by structural injuries such as vessel groundings, the seagrass community often has a difficult time reestablishing itself without supplemental restoration efforts. 16 According to 2010 Census data, the permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and 17 incorporated) declined by 8% (-6,499 people) from the year 2000 (79,589) to 2010 (73,090). During 18 the same period, the total housing units increased by 1,147 units or 2% from the year 2000 (51,617) 19 to 2010 (52,764). The number of occupied units decreased by 2,457 units or 7% from the year 2000 20 (35,086) to 2010 (32,629). Further, according to the County's 2030 population projection, approved 21 by the State Land Planning Agency on April 4, 2011 (included in the County's Technical Document 22 and adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report), indicates the continued loss in permanent population, 23 with likely replacement through an increase in seasonal residents (evidenced by an increase in the 24 trend in auto -traffic volume, an increase in the trend in inflation adjusted retail sales, an increase in 25 non -homesteaded residential properties, and an increase in seasonal population shown in the 26 American Communities Survey). 27 28 Additionally, the Monroe County Tourist Development Council reports approximately 3 million 29 visitors to the Florida Keys (2011 & 2011). Many of the visitors come to the Keys for relaxation and 30 recreation activities, including to boating, fishing, scuba diving, kayaking, snorkeling, wildlife 31 viewing, beach activities, etc. 32 33 Boating activity is significant and increasing in the Keys, often by boaters with little or no previous 34 experience in navigating the numerous shallow flats and complexity of narrow channels in the Keys, 35 which makes the Keys very susceptible to vessel impacts (See Exhibit 7 to this staff report for 36 annual vessel statistics by County and see 2 excerpts below). While the sanctuary has the 37 enforcement authority to seek damages, this is only possible if the responsible party causing the 38 injuries is identified. With the size of the sanctuary and the limited staff of the federal and 39 associated state agencies, it is unlikely the sanctuary can collect damages for all vessel related 40 injuries. 41 42 1) Excerpt: Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay, Associations with Physical 43 and Visitor Use Factors and Implications for Natural Resource Management, SFNRC Technical 44 Series 2008:1. 45 Damage to submerged aquatic vegetation has also long been recognized as a recreational 46 management issue in Everglades National Park (Zieman 1976). Currently, Florida Bay represents 47 one of the premier shallow -water boating and fishing destinations in the world. As a result, 48 recreational angling as well as pleasure boating are becoming increasingly popular within ENP. LLB Ault et al. (2008) estimate that boating use within the boundaries of ENP has increased from 2 to 2.5 times in the past 30 years. In addition, the number of boat registrations in the three southern Florida counties covering Everglades National Park has increased substantially since 1995 (FWC 2007). Results of the prop scarring analyses document that scarred areas are extensive and ubiquitous throughout the shallow waters of Florida Bay. Scarring was limited to shallow areas (<_ 6.5 ft), but did not appear to be restricted to any particular bottom feature, e.g., only on banks, near channels, or near the Florida Keys. Scarring presence is substantially greater than that reported by Sargent et al. (1995) (Fig. 19). Our approach to the quantification of scarring density was different that employed by Sargent et al. (1995); we used a 100 m2 grid cell layer to calculate density, as opposed to using a density scale and hand -drawn polygons around scarred areas. We recommend the grid -based approach for future studies because it eliminates any ambiguity as to where scarred polygons begin or end. Given the limitations of the 1995 map, as expressed by Sargent et al. (1995), it is unclear what portion of the current mapping effort represents an increase in scarring and what portion reflects the availability of better mapping resources. Regardless, the current mapping effort provides an improved baseline of scarred areas inside the Florida Bay portion of ENP. Our comparison of the 2004 imagery to the 2006 higher resolution imagery in north -central Florida Bay suggests that we may have underestimated the number of scars by a factor of - 6.5 and the total length of scars by a factor of - 11.5. Consequently, our results represent a conservative estimate of scarring presence, mean length, total length, and density. We emphasize that the results of this study substantially underestimate total scarring (length of scars and quantity of scars) (Fig. 11) and scarring density based on the following factors. 2) Excerpt: Assessing Boat Damage to Seagrass Bed Habitat in a Florida Park from a Bioeconomics Perspective, March 2008. Seagrass bed habitat is an important biotic community in decline worldwide. Boat damage has long been recognized for its negative impacts on shallow -water seagrass beds, with those along the Florida coast particularly vulnerable in the face of a large human population possessing a large number of boats. Boat scars to Seagrass beds recover slowly, resulting in new damage that often outpaces recovery of existing damage. We examined the rate of accumulation of total area composed of boat scars from 1994 to 2005 at Lignumvitae Key Submerged Land Managed Area, an area containing approximately 3400 ha of seagrass beds. We found the total area of damage increased from 1994 to 1997 by an average of 27.1 ha/y and from 1997 to 2005 by an average of 10.8 ha/y. The rate of accumulation of damage to the LKSLMA seagrass beds from I994-2005 exceeded the rate of healing, producing a steady increase in the total area damaged (Table 1). The average annual rate of increase in damaged area was 2 7. 1 additional hectares per year of damage from 1994 to 1997 and was 10.8 additional hectares per year from 1997 to 2005. The net amount of damage increased substantially during each period. The total value of damage in 1994, grown to present dollars (2005), was $5,069,895, which increased by an average of $3,816,262/y until 1997, when damage was valued at $16,518,682 (Table 1). The average increase in value of accumulated existing damage per year was $1,523,819/y from 1997 to 2005, when total damage was valued at $28, 709, 232 (Table 1). As can be noted by the information in the excerpts above, the data indicates that vessel damage is significant and continuing to increase. Funds are finite for public restoration of vessel damage and to employ additional enforcement staff. In considering and making a recommendation on this proposed amendment, staff considered the vessel damage issue relative to submerged lands under 20 private ownership with pre-existing, lawfully established development and docking facilities - where vessels currently travel to access existing development and may cause new and/or continued damage to the benthic resources around these areas. Rather than ignore this issue, staff considered the proposed amendment and recommends the careful crafting of text to balance the re -dredge concept for those submerged lands under private ownership with existing, lawfully established development and docking facilities -with the need to maintain navigation access for the developed sites and the overall goal minimizing future injuries and protecting the surrounding benthic resources. The proposed re -dredge amendment requires the installation and perpetual maintenance of educational signage, channel markers and/or buoys (see proposed Policy 202.8.4) as a damage prevention tool for any applicant (property owner) that pursues a re -dredge sub -area policy. By marking the re -dredged channel, the markers will direct boaters to the appropriate navigational access points and minimize impacts to the adjacent flats. Additionally, the education signs are intended to increase navigation awareness in and around shallow water areas. The objective is by improving aids to navigation, it will help reduce scarring in areas that are proximal to the channel. Further, the proposed re -dredge amendment requires that any seagrass impacts within a proposed re - dredge footprint be mitigated by the property owner(s). Specifically, in the proposed Walker's Island Re -dredge Sub -area policy, it includes required restoration and maintenance of 0.9 acres of submerged lands, in close proximity to the re -dredge area as well as a conservation easement in favor of the South Florida Water Management District prohibiting all impacts on, and requiring perpetual maintenance of 26.93 acres of submerged lands adjacent to the re -dredge area. Mitigation is to `compensate for environmental damage or loss of habitat through replacement of functions, values, and/or acreage' (Race and Fonseca, 1996). Again, by requiring mitigation and seagrass restoration, the goal is to prevent the existing injuries from expanding in size or increasing in severity, help create the conditions necessary for the injured areas to recover, and compensate the public and the environment for the services lost. Dr. M. Fonseca (2013 Brief Summary of Florida Keys Seagrass Restoration), provides the following information: Seagrass restoration in the Florida Keys appears to enjoy one of the consistently highest levels of success in the U.S. Fonseca et al. (1998) reported that the national average of successful seagrass restoration projects was - 5017o. It is my opinion that this value is probably closer to 70-90% for the Keys proper, a result of the careful application of scientific knowledge regarding the growth requirements and recolonization strategies of the Keys seagrasses to restoration projects. Additionally, the generally high amount of light reaching the seafloor and the tropical water temperatures combine to create an almost ideal growing environment for seagrasses. Seagrass distribution in the Keys is often limited more by available sediment (seagrasses do not grow on rock; depending on their species they require 5-50 cm of loose sediment to persist). Otherwise, it is my opinion that the health of seagrass beds in the Keys is primarily threatened by physical damage from vessel groundings (Sargent et al. 1995, Kirsch et al. 2005). But unlike many other parts of the country (e.g., Chesapeake Bay), restoration of damaged seagrass in the Florida Keys has a very high chance of success when the available data and scientific principles are employed. When taken as a whole, the proposed amendment may result in a net positive result for the Florida Keys - the goal of the amendment is to balance a property owner, with a privately -owned, historically -dredged channel, to maintain their public access and facilitate navigational access - 21 I while preventing continued scarring of seagrass beds in adjacent shoals with additional aids to 2 navigation installed along the channel (reduces the likelihood of new damages), restore damaged 3 benthic resources, and provide for the protection of submerged lands with a conservation easement. 4 5 Currently, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow 6 maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom 7 communities (e.g. benthic communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels. 8 Maintenance dredging can occur when no benthic resources are present. The Monroe County 9 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code do not provide definitions for public navigation 10 channels, channel or maintenance dredging. The proposed amendment would include these 11 definitions (and others) and would provide a mechanism for a property owner that does not qualify 12 for maintenance dredging under the existing Comprehensive Plan Policies to have their projects 13 evaluated. 14 15 The proposed amendment provides criteria to narrow the scope of the potential future re -dredging 16 activities and limits to the creation of re -dredge sub -area policies to two (2) per year to ensure there 17 are not excessive impacts to our resources; and the proposal has been drafted to apply only to 18 privately -owned submerged lands (which further limits the application of the amendment in the 19 future). 20 21 Additionally, to ensure that potential future re -dredge projects are individually reviewed thoroughly 22 by the local, state and federal agencies, the proposed amendment requires a comprehensive plan 23 amendment for each geographic area (a proposed re -dredge sub -area). As such, each proposed sub- 24 area policy will need to go through multiple public hearings at the County, be transmitted to the 25 State for a consistency review (by DEO and other reviewing agencies, including Department of 26 Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Education, Department of Environmental 27 Protection, Department of State, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of 28 Transportation, South Florida Regional Planning Council, South Florida Water Management 29 District, and the Military Installation), be considered for adoption at a public hearing by the County 30 and, ultimately, reviewed and found in -compliance by the State — before the applicant can apply for 31 building permits and continence any re -dredge activities. 32 33 V. ANALYSIS OF THE WALKER'S ISLAND UPLANDS & PRIVATELY -OWNED 34 SUBMERGED LANDS 35 36 There are several upland parcels on Walker's Island (also known as Little Conch Key): 37 38 Applicant of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (in red outline below): 39 Upland parcels having real estate numbers: 00099090-000000 and00099090-000100, contiguous 40 submerged land parcel having real estate number 00099110-000000 (referenced and depicted in 41 the proposed amendment). The County issued a Letter of Understanding in 2003 recognizing 8 42 lawful units on parcels. 43 44 Other property owner and not included in the proposed amendment: 45 Upland parcel having real estate number 00099060-000000, contiguous submerged land parcels 46 having real estate numbers: 00099080-000000 and 00099070-000000. The County issued a 47 Letter of Understanding in 2007 recognizing 16 lawful transient units on parcel. 22 Note, all upland parcels are designated Tier 111. The dock on the property was replaced in 2006/2007 under replacement permits issued by County [062-6450 — permit approval for dock — expansion (100'X15') and rip rap repair); FDEP (44- 0263362-001 and -002 — exemptions for dock repair and repair a riprap revetment) and the USACE (2006-2346 Nationwide Permit #3 — dock repair & shoreline repair). The County has found evidence of a docking structure exiting at this site (see below), at least from December 1985. The County reviewed the pre-1986 code and did not find any regulations relative to the -4 feet MLW of water depth. The County's 1986 Comprehensive Plan (adopted February 28, 1986 — approved by DCA on July 29, 1986) and code do include requirements for -4 feet MLW of water depth for dock, but, again, it appears a dock was constructed prior to this requirement. Excerpt of December 1985 Habitat Classification Aerial Photograph 6 i 2 23 December 1985 Habitat Classification Aerial Photograph: M.QR{DA I . ,. 65 S 34 c 206 24 Another image of Walker's Island Source: Monroe County Public Library http-//www.keyslibraries.org/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keyslibraries) MM00034545x - Aerial of Little Conch Key or Walkers Key. Photo taken by the Federal Government on October 7, 1987. From the Wright Langley Collection. Additionally, turtle nesting has been documented on the adjacent parcel (see yellow below) -- not within the parcels proposing Comprehensive Plan amendment (approx. proposed re -dredge channel in red). Staff from Marine Turtle Research, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC), provided the following documentation on turtle nesting: YEAR BEACH LENGTH LOGGERHEAD LOGGERHEAD FIRST NEST LAST NEST (km) NEST FALSE CRAWL DATE DATE 1998 CONCH KEY 0.1 2 0 6/25/98 7/7/98 alkers Island 1999 CONCH KEY 0.1 0 0 (Walkers Island CONCH KEY 2000 alkers Island 0.1 2 3 5/2/00 7/22/00 2002 CONCH KEY 0.1 2 1 5/10/02 6/27/02 _(Walkers Island 25 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 The Walker's Island channel, which serves eight upland dwelling units, appears to have been dredged in the early 1950's and does not appear to have been maintained since that time. The historic access channel and basin has since experienced significant shoaling (see images below). The Comprehensive Plan amendment application by SWC states: "An entrance channel and boat basin were excavated in the 1950s, prior to the time when State or federal environmental permits were issued for this kind of work ... This entrance channel and boat basin have accumulated extensive sediment during the intervening years and currently the access depth from the nearby open water to the existing dock is quite shallow, ranging from as little as 0.47 feet to 2.86 feet with an estimated average depth of about 1.5 feet." ^ 4bL-. :�.. 27 1963 Aerial Photograph r"1 rj 2009 Aerial Photograph - wt, Y ')006 Aerial Photograph Photo Date: 2002 Y w F T 4� � r � Tf k b x� V yo � _ Excerpts from the County's Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys, dated January 1998, states the following and have some info relative to the Walker's Island area: Pages 8-9: The proliferation of shoreline development contributes to much of the damage found nearshore. Prop scars are often generated from boaters attempting to approach the numerous residences and docks adjacent to very shallow water. It has been a common practice for deep wheel ditches to be illegally created, providing access to canals and subdivisions. In addition, many old access channels are subject to natural filling and are maintained by prop dredging. Some dredged channels and canals abruptly terminate in shallow water where boats repeatedly scar as they enter and exit. Many of the larger, more powerful vessels can cause damage without actually coming in contact with the bottom. Sediment plumes can routinely be seen behind boats as they traverse relatively shallow areas. This `prop dusting', created by the turbulence from large props, often leaves a discoloration at the surface miles long. Dense sediment plumes (in excess of the state standard) have been determined to be a point source of pollution, and causing this excessive turbidity is illegal (ruling of US and FDER vs. M.C.C.). 30 I Pages 67-68: 2 Survey Number: 12 3 Date: 6/ 16/97 4 Region: Middle Keys 5 Area: Duck Key- Oceanside 6 Range: Conch Keys to middle of Grassy Key 7 Assisting Parties: Hawk's Cay Resort-Ecotours, Capt. George Shattuck 8 Launch Location: Hawk's Cay marina 9 Vessel Type: 15' inflatable 10 Conditions: Early morning, winds SE 10-15 kt, visibility fair to poor 11 Time: Approximately 2 hours 12 13 Survey Assessment: 14 There is a small area of light scarring adjacent to the south tip of Conch Key. Any 15 scarring in this area is solely due to commercial fishing boats going in and out of this fishing 16 community. No marking is suggested for this fairly insignificant area. 17 On the west side of Walker's Island there is an area of light to severe scarring. Light 18 scarring occurs adjacent to a well marked (unpermitted) channel going into the most southerly 19 basin. The worst scarring is around the very shallow area adjacent to the rental cottages and 20 docks to the north. Owners of Conch Key Cottages may want to install additional markers and 21 inform renters of the shallow area adjacent to the docks there. 22 The shoals on either side of Toms Harbor Cut incur extensive light to moderate scarring. 23 This good, natural channel is routinely used by yachts going in and out of the north entrance to 24 Hawk's Cay as well as smaller vessels going through the bridge there. Although cruising vessels 25 are advised to use the southerly entrance for entering Duck Key, many vessels attempt to use this 26 easterly approach and ground on the extremely shallow flats. Due to the number of groundings 27 and the planned expansion of Hawk's Cay it would be wise to install gated markers through 28 Toms Harbor Cut, to just beyond the flats near the bridge. An informational sign should be 29 installed on the lead marker indicating the four foot controlling depth. 30 Duck Key Channel is extensively scarred, primarily due to the expansive shallows all 31 around and inappropriate use of the channel. Not far up the channel it comes to a blind end in 32 less than two feet of water. However, the #2 and 4 markers indicated on the chart are helpful for 33 boats entering the Duck Key west inlet and the dredged channel hugging the shoreline, without 34 leading vessels further up the channel. The moderate scarring indicated on the west side of the 35 entrance to the channel could be minimized with the addition of sister markers to #2 and 4. The 36 #4 marker is missing and needs to be re -installed. Extending the marker chain any further is not 37 suggested due to the shoaling beyond #4, as well as the access to deeper water just one half mile 38 to the west at Toms Harbor Channel. It would be helpful to install an informational sign 39 explaining that this is not a through channel, and is only for residential traffic. 40 41 42 31 Additionally, data provided by the applicant indicates that there is 40-45% seagrass coverage within the access channel and less than 5% within the boat basin, as compared to 50-70% coverage in surrounding seagrass beds. To date, the applicant has applied for SFWMD and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits, and has documented extensive coordination with State and federal resource management agencies as part of the application review process. The applicant states, coordination has included several meetings with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and directly incorporating Sanctuary guidance into their re -dredge project design. SFWMD staff has field confirmed the entire project site and both Sanctuary and National Marine Fisheries Service staff have snorkeled the proposed re -dredge project site. The applicant also states coordination has been conducted with the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), which regulate marine signage. 32 Note, the Sanctuary has the option of either participating with the USACE permitting process or requiring issuance of a separate Sanctuary permit, and has not yet indicated which option will be implemented. Continued processing of the USACE permit application was put on hold by the applicant while working with the SFWMD to develop and complete project revision, and the processing of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. When the applicant submitted this environmental resource permit application with the SFWMD, DEO (formerly DCA) provided comments to the SFWMD, pursuant to the federal consistency review process, that the proposed activity was inconsistent with the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the Principles for Guiding Development (Section 380.0552(7), F.S.) because the permit application proposed maintenance dredging in an area with benthic resources. Due to the DEO objection to the environmental resource permit, the applicant submitted an application for a comprehensive plan amendment. This proposal, while it provides multiple conditions that must be satisfied for a re -dredge proposal, would also establish a procedure to allow other property owners of historically -dredged, privately - owned channels or boat basins in unincorporated Monroe County to request site -specific comprehensive plan amendments for re -dredging to facilitate their navigational access and prevent continued scarring of the surrounding seagrass beds. — provided they meet the conditions of the policies. To limit the potential scope of the proposed amendment and provide County staff with time to evaluate and conduct a coordinated review of any proposed re -dredge applications, the County has added a provision to limit establishment of sub -area policies to two per year. Note: staff does not have access to readily available information to determine the exact number of existing "privately -owned channels" or the number of previously dredge channels (historically dredged before State permitting requirements) within unincorporated Monroe County that could utilize the proposed amendment. Based on a basic GIS analysis to simply estimate the number of access channels in the County, it is estimated that there are 200 channels. Additionally, staff reviewed property appraiser data to locate submerged lands that were privately -owned within the identified access channels and it is estimated that there are 20 which are privately -owned (see Exhibit 8). Note, this does not take into account the various other proposed conditions of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, such as lawfully established upland development, existing docking facility, demonstrable threat of scarring to the surrounding seagrass beds, or even a need to re -dredge. Additionally, the applicant has also conducted a GIS analysis to identify potentially affected parcels and has stated, based on their analysis, that less than 83 privately -owned submerged parcels might be affected. This analysis was filtered with other data layers, such as the PC codes for residential, commercial, or vacant land. This is useful information but may or may not accurately reflect the specific conditions in the proposed comprehensive plan policies that there is an "existing, lawfully - established upland development and docking facility." (*Note, neither the applicant nor County staff have data of the existing water depths or exact marine resource coverage of these privately - owned submerged lands). 33 1 VI. FLORIDA STATUTES AND FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RELATED TO 2 MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SPOIL Section 373.403, F.S. Definitions. ---When appearing in this part or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant thereto, the following terms mean: (8) "Maintenance" or "repairs" means remedial work of a nature as may affect the safety of any dam, impoundment, reservoir, or appurtenant work or works, but excludes routine custodial maintenance. (13) "Dredging" means excavation, by any means, in surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1). It also means the excavation, or creation, of a water body which is, or is to be, connected to surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1), directly or via an excavated water body or series of water bodies. (14) "Filling" means the deposition, by any means, of materials in surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1). Section 373A144, F.S. Federal environmental permitting.— (1) The department is directed to develop, on or before October 1, 2005, a mechanism or plan to consolidate, to the maximum extent practicable, the federal and state wetland permitting programs. It is the intent of the Legislature that all dredge and fill activities impacting 10 acres or less of wetlands or waters, including navigable waters, be processed by the state as part of the environmental resource permitting program implemented by the department and the water management districts. The resulting mechanism or plan shall analyze and propose the development of an expanded state programmatic general permit program in conjunction with the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to s. 404 of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, as amended, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq., and s. 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Alternatively, or in combination with an expanded state programmatic general permit, the mechanism or plan may propose the creation of a series of regional general permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the referenced statutes. All of the regional general permits must be administered by the department or the water management districts or their designees. Section 403.061, F.S. Department; powers and duties. —The department shall have the power and the duty to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted and promulgated by it and, for this purpose, to: (24)(a) Establish a permit system to provide for spoil site approval, as may be requested and required by local governmental agencies as defined in 's. 403.1822(3), or mosquito control districts as defined in s. 388.011(5), to facilitate these agencies in providing spoil sites for the deposit of spoil from maintenance dredging of navigation channels, port harbors, turning basins, and harbor berths, as part of a federal project, when the agency is acting as sponsor of a contemplated dredge and fill operation involving an established navigation channel, harbor, turning basin, or harbor berth. A spoil site approval granted to the agency shall be granted for a period of 10 to 25 years when such site is not inconsistent with an adopted local governmental comprehensive plan and the requirements of this chapter. The department shall periodically review each permit to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Such review shall be conducted at least once every 10 years. (b) This subsection applies only to those maintenance dredging operations permitted after July 1, 1980, where the United States Army Corps of Engineers is the prime dredge and fill agent and the local governmental agency is acting as sponsor for the operation, and does not require the redesignation of currently approved spoil sites under such previous operations. (37) Provide a supplemental permitting process for the issuance of a joint coastal permit pursuant to s. 161.055 or environmental resource permit pursuant to part IV of chapter 373, to a port listed in s. 311.09(1), for maintenance dredging and the management of dredged materials from maintenance dredging of all navigation channels, port harbors, turning basins, and harbor berths. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 5 years and shall be annually extended for an additional year if the port is in compliance with all permit 34 conditions at the time of extension. The department is authorized to adopt rules to implement this subsection. 403.803 Definitions. —When used in this act, the term, phrase, or word: (2) "Canal" is a manmade trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of its sides normally above water. (3) "Channel" is a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered entirely by water, with the upper edges of its sides normally below water. Section 403.813, F.S. Permits issued at district centers; exceptions.— (1) A permit is not required under this chapter, chapter 373, chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida, or chapter 25214 or chapter 25270, 1949, Laws of Florida, for activities associated with the following types of projects; however, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, nothing in this subsection relieves an applicant from any requirement to obtain permission to use or occupy lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or any water management district in its governmental or proprietary capacity or from complying with applicable local pollution control programs authorized under this chapter or other requirements of county and municipal governments: (f) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, intake and discharge structures, and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies within drainage rights -of -way or drainage easements which have been recorded in the public records of the county, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material into the waters of the state, provided that no more dredging is to be performed than is necessary to restore the canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies, to original design specifications or configurations, provided that the work is conducted in compliance with s. 379.2431(2)(d), provided that no significant impacts occur to previously undisturbed natural areas, and provided that control devices for return flow and best management practices for erosion and sediment control are utilized to prevent bank erosion and scouring and to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. Further, for maintenance dredging of previously dredged portions of natural water bodies within recorded drainage rights -of -way or drainage easements, an entity that seeks an exemption must notify the department or water management district, as applicable, at least 30 days prior to dredging and provide documentation of original design specifications or configurations where such exist. This exemption applies to all canals and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies within recorded drainage rights -of -way or drainage easements constructed prior to April 3, 1970, and to those canals and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption does not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters. When no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund may fix and recover from the permittee an amount equal to the difference between the fair market value and the actual cost of the maintenance dredging for material removed during such maintenance dredging. However, no charge shall be exacted by the state for material removed during such maintenance dredging by a public port authority. The removing party may subsequently sell such material; however, proceeds from such sale that exceed the costs of maintenance dredging shall be remitted to the state and deposited in the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Rule 40E-4.051 Exemptions From Permitting. Exemptions from permitting under Chapters 40E4, 40E-40 and 40E400, F.A.C. are set forth below. The performance of activities pursuant to the provisions of the exemptions set forth in this section does not relieve the person or persons who are using the exemption or who are constructing or otherwise implementing the activity from meeting the permitting or performance 35 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 requirements of other District rules. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Department from taking appropriate enforcement action pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., to abate or prohibit any activity otherwise exempt from permitting pursuant to this section if the Department can demonstrate that the exempted activity has caused water pollution in violation of Chapter 403, F.S. (2) Maintenance of Systems. (a) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, basins, berths, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into wetlands or other surface waters, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, basins, berths, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the Department, the District or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal, channel, basin, berth or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. Rule 18-21.003 Definitions. When used in these rules, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (46) "Private channel" means a channel that is dredged or maintained by private entities to provide access to or from such locations as private residences, marinas, yacht clubs, vessel repair facilities, or revenue - generating facilities. (50) "Public channel" means a channel that is constructed or maintained by a public entity such as a federal or state agency, local government, or inland navigation district listed in Chapter 374, F.S., or that is part of a public navigation project, public water management project, or a deepwater port listed in Section 403.021(9)(b), F.S. (52) "Public navigation project" means an activity primarily for the purpose of navigation which is authorized and funded by the United States Congress or by port authorities as defined by Section 315.02(2), F.S. Rule 62-312.010 Scope of Part I. This part provides the requirements and procedures for obtaining permits and jurisdictional declaratory statements from the Department pursuant to Sections 403.91 through 403.929, F.S. Dredging or filling which is grandfathered by subsections 403.913(6), (8) and (9), F.S., is governed by Rules 62-312.150 and 62-312.160, F.A.C. The requirements of this part are in addition to and not in lieu of the water quality standards which are required by other portions of these sections. Except for the definitions contained in Rule 62-312.020, F.A.C., which shall also apply to activities regulated under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., the provisions of this Part shall only apply to activities in the geographical territory of the Northwest Florida Water Management District and to activities grandfathered under Sections 373.414(9), (11), (12)(a), (13), (14), (15) and (16), F.S. Rule 62-312.020 Definitions. (7) "Dredging" is the excavation, by any means, in waters of the state. It is also the excavation (or creation) of a water body which is, or is to be, connected to any of the waters listed in subsection 62-312.030(2), F.A.C., directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies. Rule 62-312.400 Intent. (1) Part IV pertains to Outstanding Florida Waters, exclusive of all artificial water bodies, within Monroe 36 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 County, as identified in Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C., and is in addition to all other applicable Departmental rules relating to environmental resource permit or grandfathered dredge and fill permit applications under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Artificial water bodies shall be defined as any water body created by dredging, or excavation, or by the filling in of its boundaries, including canals as defined in subsection 62-312.020(3), F.A.C., and borrow pits or waters resulting from rock mining activities. (2)(a) The Environmental Regulation Commission finds that the waters of the Florida Keys and other Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County are an irreplaceable asset which require special protection. (b) Further, the Florida Legislature in adopting Section 380.0552, F.S., recognized the value of the Florida Keys to the State as a whole by designating the Keys an Area of Critical State Concern. This rule implements Section 403.06](34), F.S., and is intended to provide the most stringent protection for the applicable waters allowable by law. (3) Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7), F.S. (1986 Supp.), the specific criteria set forth in this section are intended to be consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as set forth in Chapter 28-29, F.A.C. (August 23, 1984), and with the principles set forth in that statute. However, the criteria in this rule does not apply to all waters within the Florida Keys. These criteria do not apply to artificial waterbodies within the Florida Keys, as described in subsection 62-312.400(1), F.A.C. In addition, the four foot water depth restriction for piers which do not provide commercial marine supplies or services and which are designed to moor between three and nine boats are not applicable within the Outstanding Florida Waters that are within the boundaries of the City of Key West or within Everglades National Park or areas north of the Park within Monroe County. Docking facilities in those areas shall instead be subject to the three foot depth restrictions specified in paragraph 62-312.420(2)(a), F.A.C. However, all other provisions of this part are applicable in those areas. Rule 62-312.410 General Criteria. (1) Subject to the provisions of the mitigation section of this part (Rule 62-312.450, F.A.C.), no environmental resource permit or grandfathered dredge and fill permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., shall be issued for any activity in Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County if such activity: (a) Alone or in combination with other activities damages the viability of a living stony coral community (Scleraoctinia and Milleporina), soft coral community (Alcynoacea, Gorgonacea and Pennatulacea), macro marine algae community (Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta and Rhodophyta), sponge bed community (Porifera), or marine seagrass (Hydrocharitaceae and Cymodoceae) bed community. This prohibition shall not include algae unattached to the bottom, nor shall it include algae growing landward of the mean high water line or growing as an epiphyte or periphyte on woody plants. For the purposes of this Part a marine seagrass bed or marine macroalgae community means an area dominated by the listed biota having an areal extent of at least 100 square feet. This paragraph does not imply that the Department cannot restrict the impact on smaller areas for such species based on other Department rules; (b) Has been initiated or completed without benefit of an environmental resource permit or dredge and fill permit required by the Department. (2) Subject to the provisions of the mitigation section of this part (Rule 62-312.450, F.A.C.), no permit shall be issued for the placement of fill in Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County unless expressly authorized by this rule or unless the Department determines that under applicable rules a permit may be issued in the following situations: (a) Filling for projects which have been proposed by a governmental entity, public authority or public or private utility; or (b) Filling for any other projects located within the landward extent of wetlands identified solely by vegetative dominance as described in paragraph 62-340.300(2)(b), F.A.C. Such areas do not include open waters or wetlands identified by vegetative dominance as described in paragraph 62-340.300(2)(a), F.A.C., or by the provisions of paragraph 62-340.300(2)(c) or (d), F.A.C. 37 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rule 62-312.450 Mitigation. 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. VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Objective 101.11: Monroe County shall implement measures to direct future growth away from environmentally sensitive land and towards established development areas served by existing public facilities. GOAL 202: The environmental quality of Monroe County's estuaries, nearshore waters (canals, harbors, bays, lakes and tidal streams,) and associated benthic resources shall be maintained and, where possible, enhanced. GOAL 203: The health and integrity of living benthic resources and marine habitat, including mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs and fisheries, shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Objective 203.2: Monroe County shall protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to seagrasses. Objective 203.6: Monroe County shall coordinate development and implementation of programs and regulations to protect the living benthic resources of the Florida Keys with other federal, state and local authorities with jurisdiction over marine activities within the Florida Keys. GOAL 204: The health and integrity of Monroe County's marine and freshwater wetlands shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced. B. The amendment is not inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. 38 I For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan 2 with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles 3 shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation 4 from the other provisions. 48 49 50 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: i. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; ii. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; iii. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; iv. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; V. Transportation facilities; vi. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; vii. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; viii. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and ix. Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan. (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle. Kid C. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3161(6), F.S. - It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared and adopted in conformity with this act. 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. 163.3177(6)(d)l.e., F.S. - Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and marine habitat and restricts activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. 163.3177(6)(g)l., F.S. - Maintain, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values. 40 I 163.3177(6)(g)3., F.S. - Protect the orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, 2 consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone 3 resources. 4 5 163.3178(2)(g), F.S., - A shoreline use component that identifies public access to beach and 6 shoreline areas and addresses the need for water -dependent and water -related facilities, 7 including marinas, along shoreline areas. 8 9 VM. PROCESS 10 Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the 11 Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual 12 interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review 13 and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review 14 Committee and the Planning Commission. 15 16 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall 17 review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & 18 Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the 19 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the 20 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the 21 transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff 22 recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not 23 recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to State 24 Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, 25 Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 26 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the 27 amendment. 28 29 VI. STAFF RECOMAWNDATION 30 Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments, as long as the Monroe County 31 proposed revisions are included in the amendment. 32 33 VII. EXHMITS 34 35 1. Applicant's Application and Rationale for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, submitted on 36 April 16, 2012 and subsequent updated submissions. 37 2. Adopted Goal 107 of Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 38 3. PC Resolution 53-12 39 4. Excerpt of Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement For Seagrass Restoration In 40 The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, August 23, 2004. 41 5. Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options, Florida Marine 42 Research Institute Technical Report TR-1, 1995. 43 6. Monroe County Letter of Understanding, issued January 27, 2003, for Real Estate Number 44 00099090-000000, 00099090-000100,00099100-000000, and 00099110-000000. 41 7. Annual Vessel Statistics by County (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005); Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 8. GIS analysis to estimate the number of privately -owned access channels in unincorporated Monroe County. 9. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay: Associations with Physical and Visitor Use Factors and Implications for Natural Resource Management. South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1). National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 10. Assessing Boat Damage to Seagrass Bed Habitat in a Florida Park from a Bioeconomics Perspective. Richard M. Engeman, Janice A. Duquesnel, Ernest M. Cowan§, Henry T. Smith§, Stephanie A. Shwiff, and Melissa Karlin. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, March 2008. 11. Excerpt of permitting history for Little Conch Key for upland parcels having real estate numbers: 00099090-000000 and00099090-000100 and submerged land parcel having real estate number 00099110-000000. Source Monroe County Alchemy Database. 42 Data and Analysis Documents reviewed by County Staff Note: many of these documents are large and certain documents state: "Provided for non- commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction, or distribution or commercial use." Seagrasses (fact sheet) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Monroe County Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys, dated January 1998 Linking the Economy and the Environment of Florida Keys/Key West (Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys & Key West 2007-08), June 2010 Vernon R. Leeworthy, David K. Loomis and Shona K. Paterson Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Assessing the Impact of Boat Propeller Scars on Fish and Shrimp Utilizing Seagrass Beds. Susan Bell, Margaret Hall, Sheri Soffian and Kevin Madley Department of Biology, University of South Florida Benthic Habitats of the Florida Keys, Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-4, 2000 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay, Associations with Physical and Visitor Use Factors and Implications for Natural Resource Management Resource Evaluation Report, SFNRC Technical Series 2008:1 South Florida Natural Resources Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay, January 2009. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Boating Impacts To Seagrass In Florida Bay, Everglades National Park, Florida, USA: Links With Physical And Visitor -Use Factors And Implications For Management. David E. Hallac, Jimi Sadle, Leonard Pearlstine, Fred Herlingand Dilip Shinde Marine and Freshwater Research, 2012, 63, 1117-1128 A Review Environmental Impacts of Dredging on Seagrasses. Paul Erftemeijer and Roy Robin Lewis, 2006 Marine Pollution Bulletin, Science Direct Seagrass Restoration Eric I. Paling, Mark Fonseca, Marieke M. van Katwijk, and Mike van Keulen 43 2009, Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement For Seagrass Restoration In The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, August 23, 2004 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Florida Department of Environmental Protection Record of Decision for Seagrass Resotoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary NOAA, November 1, 2004. Memorandum for the Record, Categorical Exclusion for Small Scale Seagrass Restoration Projects, July 19, 2005, Steve Thur, Seagrass Restoration Program, Office of Response and Restoration. Assessing Boat Damage to Seagrass Bed Habitat in a Florida Park from a Bioeconomics Perspective Richard M. Engeman, Janice A. Duquesnel, Ernest M. Cowan§, Henry T. Smith§, Stephanie A. Shwiff, and Melissa Karlin. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 2,. March 2008. Scars Under The Water, Propellers Are Scarring Florida's Seagrass Meadows. Can Prop Damage Be Managed? Ken Haddad and Frank Sargent, Florida Marine Research Institute, 1994 Historic Trends of Human Impacts on Seagrass Meadows in Florida Robert Livingston, Center for Aquatic Research and Resource Management, Florida State University Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options F.J. Sargent, T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz and C.R. Kruer Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-1, 1995 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Brief Summary of Florida Keys Seagrass Restoration M. Fonseca, March 24, 2013 Seagrass Restoration efforts at Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Site (Press Release) David Boyd, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Audubon of Florida: Pieces Of The Real Florida Keys Twenty -Five Years Of Habitat Restoration, 1981 — 2006 Keys Environmental Restoration Fund Jeanette F. Hobbs, Patricia L. McNeese and Curtis Kruer Florida Department of Environmental Protection http://www. dep. state.fl.us/coastal/habitats/seagrass/manap,ement/restoration.htm http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/erp/dffact.htm http•//publicfiles dep state.fl.us/dwrm/sleM/erphelp/mer eg dProiects/erphelp/Subject Discussions/Maine nance Dredging htm NOAA http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories20lO/20101215 seagrass.html http://www.dgM.noaa.gov/partner/mini3l2/restore.html 44 http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/assessment/welcome.html?s=science Protecting and Restoring Natural Resources in Florida (State Fact Sheets) http://www.dgM.noaa.gov/factsheet/pdf/Florida/DARRP FloridaREV 08.ndf The restoration and creation of seagrass meadows in the southeastern United States. Pages 153-173. MJ Durako, RC Phillips and RR Lewis (eds.), Lewis, RR. 1987. Proceedings of the Symposium on Subtropical Seagrasses of the Southeastern United States. Fla. Dept. of Natural Resources Mar. Res. Pub. No.42. St. Petersburg, Florida. 209 pp A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Robert J. Orth, Tim J. B. Carruthers, William C. Dennison, Carlos M. Duarte, James W. Fourqurean, Kenneth L. Heck Jr., A. Randall Hughes, Gary A. Kendrick, W. Judson Kenworthy, Suzanne Olyarnik, Frederick T. Short, Michelle Waycott, and Susan L. Williams, 2006. Bioscience 56:987-996 Dredging impacts on seagrass meadows Marine Pollution Bulletin. 52:1553-1572 Erftemeijer, PLA, and RR Lewis. 2006. Guidelines for the conservation and restoration of seagrasses in the United States and adjacent waters. Fonseca, MF, WJ Kenworthy, and GW Thayer. 1998. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analyses Series No. 12. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 222pp. Evaluation of the success of seagrass mitigation at Port Manatee, Tampa Bay, Florida. Lewis, RR, MJ Marshall, SA Bloom, AB Hodgson, and LF Flynn. 2006. Pages 19-40 in SF.Treat and RR Lewis III (Eds.), Seagrass Restoration: Success, Failure and the Cost of Both. Proceedings of the Conference. Mote Marine Laboratory, March, 2003. Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., Tampa, Florida. 175 p Analysis of Seagrass Recovery in Experimental Excavations and Propeller -Scar Disturbances in the Florida Keys Nation Marine Sanctuary W. Judson Kenworhty, Mark S. Fonseca, Paula E. Whitfield, and Kamille K. Hammerstrom. Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NOAA Journal of Coastal Research, 2002 Scientific Evaluation of a Sediment Fill Technique for the Restoration of Motor Vessel Injuries in Seagrass Beds of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. October 2006. W. Judson Kenworthy, Kamille Hammerstrom, and Mark S. Fonseca Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NOAA The Effect of Excavation Depth and Filling on Seagrass Recovery in Experimental Injuries in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. October 2006. W. Judson Kenworthy, Kamille Hammerstrom, and Paula E. Whitfield Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NOAA Manuel Merello Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 45 Comprehensive Seagrass Restoration Planning in Southwest Florida: Science, Law and Management. Althea S. Hotaling, R. Benjamin Lingle, and Thomas T. Ankersen Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Summer 2011) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Construction, Dredge and Fill and Other Activities Adjacent to Coral Reefs. Prepared by PBS&J for the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative Maritime Industry and Coastal Construction Impacts Focus Team and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). February 2008. hLtp://www.dep.state.R.us/coastgUprograms/coraUreports Exhibit 1 DrtCE wE APR 16 2012 Q M. 0-41a il MONROE GO. PLANNING DEPT. RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENTS TO MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Applicant: Little Conch Key Development Corp Agent of Record: Sandra Walters, SWC Prepared by: Panning colo¢�, cal ironm .ntal Communications CONSULT:VGSEVVES 6410 Fifth Street, Suite 3 Key West, FL 33040 April 9, 2010 amended April 16, 2012 Key West •Miami ` HoOyaood • Fort Myers AC Rationale for Comp Plan &LDR Amendments wwwswcinc net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................... 1 2.0 Executive Summary ............................................................ 1 3.0 Boat -Caused Seagrass Damage ......................................... 2 4.0 Seagrass Restoration and Damage Prevention .................. 3 5.0 Walker's Island Project........................................................ 4 6.0 Proposed Comp Plan and LDR Amendments & Rationale 9 7.0 Related Comp Plan Objectives & Policies .......................... 19 8.0 Other Related County Plans ............................................... 21 9.0 Properties Potentially Affected by Amendments ................. 23 10.0 Factors to Consider in Amending Comp Plan and LDRs..... 24 11.0 Conclusion........................................................................... 26 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS No. Description # of Pages A Location and Parcel Map ..................................................... 1 B Key West Citizen Article Regarding Prop Scars .................. 1 C Excerpt from Lignum Vitae State Aquatic Preserve Study... 3 D Excerpt from Everglades National Park Study ..................... 1 E Sebastian Inlet Study.......................................................... 3 FBoot Key Harbor.................................................................. 1 5F Walker's Island Site Photos ................................................. 1 5G-3 1957 Photograph of Property .............................................. 1 5G-4 1955 Aerial Photograph of Property .................................... 1 1 Bathymetric Survey.............................................................1 (11X17) 6H Seagrass Restoration Overview..........................................1 (11X17) 5C 2009 Benthic Resources Map ............................................. 1 613-1 Navigational Approach Map ................................................ 1 613-2 Markers & Signage Map ..................................................... 1 Key West • Miami 3r, Hoilyu+ood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan $ LDR Amendments wrm.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION The intent of this document is to provide the rationale for the proposed Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendments addressed in the application filed by SWC on behalf of the Little Conch Key Development Corp. An analysis of what parcels in unincorporated Monroe County could be affected is included in this document. The applicant has also prepared a particularly detailed explanation of the overall rationale for these amendments, in relation to other related Comp Plan policies and also to Chapter 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes (FS), the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (Principles for Guiding Development). In addition, the amendments address other sections of Florida statutes and rules that apply to the Florida Keys. Great care has been taken to craft the proposed amendments to ensure resource protection, as the special environmental sensitivity of the Florida Keys is both recognized and embraced. The project purpose that is being specifically addressed will protect public health and safety consistent with Ch. 380.0552(7)(1) FS while providing for a realistic approach to protection of benthic resources and their ecological function, and long-term management of those resources to prevent damage in the future. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following briefly describes what is presented in each section of this document. Section 3 describes the extensive nature of boat -caused impacts to submerged marine resources —and most particularly seagrass beds —in the Florida Keys. One State study findound increases in seagrass loss per year of 26-66 acres, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary staff estimate that less than 2% of damage is enforced and much less than that restored. Section 4 describes current approaches in the Keys to address seagrass restoration and prevention of seagrass impacts, citing several recent studies, which conclude that prevention is the best solution and that signage identifying appropriately marked and maintained access channels can be very effective. Section 5 describes the Walker's Island project, which provides the impetus for this amendment application. It discusses how the existing large dock at the property, which serves 8 vested upland units presently being redeveloped, currently is reached by a historically -dredged access channel on privately -owned baybottom that has filled in through normal shoaling processes. The applicant wishes to minimally maintenance dredge a small part of the historic access channel to provide safe boating access. The section describes the exhaustive process the project has undergone in permit application review by the South Florida Water Management District (District), as well as in coordination with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and other federal 1 Key West • Miami Hoiiyuood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 resource agencies, and the resulting extensive commitments by the applicant that will provide regionally -significant benefits to seagrasses through restoration and resource management. However, it notes that permits cannot be issued because of an existing prohibition in the comprehensive plan that prevents the significant environmental benefits that could result from the project and allows for continued resource damage. Section 6 provides the proposed amendments to the Comp Plan and LDRs and the rationale for those amendments. The amendments links a process that allows maintenance dredging in limited circumstances with a new goal and policies that provide site -by -site review of specific locations, along with the requirement that all State and federal permits be acquired prior to construction. The amendments also would allow clean dredge spoil to be used as fill as part of an appropriately -designed and implemented seagrass restoration project. Section 7 presents 10 other related Comp Plan objectives and policies and explains how these amendments are consistent with, and in fact enhance the intent and purpose of, these other provisions better than does the current Comp Plan language. Section 8 describes Monroe County's Boating Impacts Management Plan and Channel Marking Master Plan, and demonstrates how the proposed amendments are consistent with and further the goals and objectives of these plans. Section 9 presents the methodology and results of a GIS analysis conducted to identify potential parcels that could be affected by the proposed amendments, concluding from the data available that less than 83 privately -owned submerged land parcels might be affected. Section 10 discusses how the proposed amendments meet the factors to consider in amending the Comp Plan and LDRs, as listed in the application. Specifically, the amendments address changed assumptions and data updates, new issues, and recognition of a need for additional detail and comprehensiveness. Section 11 concludes that boat -caused damage to seagrass communities in the Florida Keys is severe, only a tiny percentage receives enforcement action or restoration, and seagrass communities in the Florida Keys will be more enhanced and better protected with the proposed amendments than with the current Comp Plan language. 3.0 BOAT -CAUSED SEAGRASS DAMAGE The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) estimates that approximately 600 seagrass propeller scar groundings occur within the Sanctuary annually. A 2008 study conducted by Everglades National Park (ENP) found that the average seagrass area lost due to prop scars alone was approximately 2.1 acres per year, and this does not include large pits called blowholes that many grounded boats create when attempting to power off a shallow flat, which adds substantially to lost acreage. 0J Key West • Miami Hoiymod • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 Attachment B is a news article describing the study and the seagrass carnage resulting from boat activities. A 2008 study conducted at the Lignum Vitae State Aquatic Preserve found that seagrass loss from prop scarring increased by 66 acres per year between 1994 and 1997, and by 26 acres per year from 1997 to 2005 (see Attachment C). While groundings that cause damage to marine resources are prohibited by the Sanctuary, the manager of the Sanctuary Damage Assessment and Restoration Program —Bill Precht—esti mates that less than 2% of these groundings are. subject to enforcement proceedings. Of this small percentage, far less is actually restored, since cases that go to court can be successfully fought as }' with speeding tickets. _ IICOI YY OII�CI J IJIOIIU The ENP study found that even willful prop dredging can be done with no practical way to enforce or prevent it in locations distant from common observation and with inadequate enforcement presence (see Attachment D, which is an excerpt from the 2008 study). Some sites recover naturally over time, although this usually takes 10-20 years, but once a scar is made, currents often erode the edges, causing huge enlargement of the damaged area, sometimes resulting in entire seagrass beds being eroded away. 4.0 SEAGRASS RESTORATION AND DAMAGE PREVENTION To address this serious problem of seagrass loss, the Sanctuary adopted in 2004 the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (PEIS). This document summarizes the considerable amount of research that has been done in the Florida Keys regarding seagrass restoration and concluded that, if done correctly, it can be very successful. The first component of the plan outlined in the PEIS is restoration, with specific appropriate methodologies established. The second component is preventive measures to reduce vessel groundings. Clearly, the best solution to seagrass damage is prevention. Several recent studies have confirmed that providing appropriately marked and maintained access channels can be both effective and cost -productive in preventing and reducing boating impacts to seagrasses, as follows: 3 . . , Key West • M [am! Hoilymmod • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments t www.swcinc net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 • The 2008 Lignum Vitae State Aquatic Preserve study (Attachment C) concluded that "Signage is a relatively low-cost, long-term investment that becomes cost-effective if only [0.07 acres] is averted over the life of the signs." • At Sebastian Inlet, a multi -year study has found that damage was reduced as much as 120 scars in a two year period as a result of appropriate marking of channels with adequate depth and shallow areas to avoid (see Attachment E). • In Boot Key Harbor in Marathon, the City Marina manager reports that marking of a seagrass flat immediately west of the marina access has reduced groundings and seagrass prop scars by more than 90% (see Attachment F). 5.0 WALKER'S ISLAND PROJECTEM9 0"I" Walker's Island is located near MM 63, just- east of Duck Key. The subject property is the easternmost upland area (the western area is_w comprised of guest accommodations called Conch Key Cottages). A spit of mangrove- vegetated land extends to the south from the southeastern corner of the upland, and isa- contained in a large parcel of privately -owned submerged land contiguous to the upland and extending to the south and west (see Location and Parcel Map, Attachment A). The Walker's Island project has an environmental resource permit (ERP) application currently under review by the South Florida Water Management District (District), and many attachments to this report are excerpted and retain the labels from that application. The property currently has a large dock that accommodates up to seven vessels and was recently reconstructed following damage from Hurricane Wilma (see photos this page and Photo 1 in ERP Application Attachment 5F). ra An access channel and boat basin were excavated in the 1950s, prior to the time when State or federal environmental permits were issued for this kind of work (see ERP Application attachments 5G-3 and 5G-4). This w access channel and boat basin have accumulated extensive sediment during the intervening years and currently the access depth from the nearby open water to the existing dock is quite shallow, ranging from as little as 0.47 feet to 2.86 feet with an estimated average depth of about 1.5 feet (see bathymetric survey, ERP Application Attachment 1). 4 Key west • Miami HoUyuood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 The upland area of the property is vested for 8 units, and redevelopment of all 8 units is presently taking place. The residents of these units will certainly use the existing dock, and will, in all likelihood, attempt to navigate good-sized vessels to and from the dock across the shallow approach between the boat basin and open water, and in point of fact, there is no legal impediment to their doing so. As discussed above in Section 3, what inevitably happens when existing docking facilities are not reachable by access channels with adequate depth and appropriate marking is that vessels run aground occasionally on the shallow flats, creating scars and blowholes in the seagrass communities that can take many years, if ever, to recover. Both propeller scars and blowholes can get increasingly larger following the damage as the result of erosion from water currents that are redirected through the new deeper artificial "channels" in the seagrass bed. In addition, boats not associated with the existing dock can similarly cause damage to seagrass beds through poor navigation. Examples already exist both on the subject privately -owned submerged land and adjacent State submerged lands, as can be seen on ERP Application Attachment 6H. This boat -caused damage to benthic resources throughout the Florida Keys has been thoroughly documented and described by the Monroe County Marine Resources Department and the Sanctuary, and this is presented and discussed in relation to the proposed amendments and this project on pages 8-9 and 20-22 of this report. Alternatives Analysis and Project Impacts after Elimination and Reduction The ERP application currently under review by the District would accommodate very limited maintenance dredging of the existing access channel and boat basin, all on privately -owned submerged lands, reconfigure the dock somewhat to accommodate 8 slips and 1 loading and unloading area, and finger docks delineating slips. While submerged resources would be affected by this maintenance dredging, the quality of the seagrass community within the proposed maintenance -dredge area, as defined by percent coverage measured with the Braun-Blanquet submerged habitat assessment method utilized by the Sanctuary, is lower than in the surrounding, previously - undisturbed flats (see ERP Application Attachment 5C). A detailed alternatives analysis has been conducted, comparing four project alternatives with the "no action" alternative. The footprint of the proposed area for maintenance dredging was aligned in the originally -dredged area to eliminate and reduce resource impacts as much as possible. The total maintenance -dredge area of the finally -selected alternative is less than 30% of the originally -dredged access channel and basin, and the impacts to submerged resources are 23% less, with total impacts to seagrasses— following full elimination and reduction to the maximum extent practicable —of 0.43 acres. ERP Application Attachment 613-1 shows how vessels can approach the existing dock from many directions crossing shallow flats that have never been disturbed by dredging, and the preferred alternative would direct boaters to the maintenance - dredged access channel. ERP Application Attachment 613-2 shows all the proposed channel and informational signage being proposed as part of the project. 5 a Key West • Miami Houyswod • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swclnc net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 The Walker's Island project, or any other like it, also would require a federal ERP from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As part of the coordination process to prepare that application, a draft Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment was provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for preliminary review. In a January 12, 2010 email, the NMFS stated that, "the selected alternative appears to be the least damaging of all the alternatives reviewed," including the no -action alternative, and commented in a pre -application meeting prior to this email that the presence of propeller scars and blowholes on the subject property demonstrate the threat to submerged resources that exists independent of any impacts that would result from the proposed project. Compensatory Mitigation, Additional Restoration and Long -Term Resource Management Extensive compensatory mitigation as well as additional resource restoration as part of a regional restoration plan is proposed. The components of this plan include: Restoration and perpetual maintenance of a 0.50-acre dredged basin to conditions comparable to the surrounding seagrass community. This basin is located near the mangrove spit extending south from the upland parcel, and currently contains virtually no vegetation of any kind due to the topographic discontinuity (depth of 6-8 feet) created by its original dredging in the 1950s. The basin would be filled to surrounding grade, capped with sediment tubes to create surface sediment characteristics appropriate for seagrass growth, and the habitat restored through a combination of plantings and natural recruitment. Success criteria should be reached in 3-5 years, as the site is surrounded with healthy seagrass beds so conditions are appropriate. Also, the site is very similar to the Blimp Pad restoration site in the Key West Salt Ponds where restoration for seagrass impacts resulting from the Smathers Beach restoration project took place, and that project was extremely successful, greatly exceeding mitigation requirements. 2. Restoration and perpetual maintenance of 0.13 acres of existing propeller scars and blowholes on the privately -owned submerged land to the southeast of the access channel. This work will be conducted by installation of sediment tubes to restore topography and appropriate sediment characteristics, and habitat restored through a combination of plantings and natural recruitment. Again, success criteria should be reached in 3-5 years, as the areas are surrounded by healthy seagrass beds and conditions are very similar to many successful restoration projects implemented by the FKNMS in the last 10 years. 3. Implementation of an extensive management plan to protect the surrounding flats from future injury, including — a. Placement of almost the entire privately -owned submerged land parcel that contains the access channel and boat basin and the mangrove spit extending from the upland parcel (for a total area of 27.71 acres) under perpetual conservation easement accruing to the District; b. Installation and perpetual maintenance of buoys around the boundaries of the privately -owned submerged land parcel that either indicate "Danger Seagrass" or "Danger Shoal," as appropriate to the depth characteristics in the given area; 1i Key West • Miami Hoiiyuwod • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments Cwww.swchc net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 c. Installation and perpetual maintenance of "Danger Shoal" buoys at the corners of the boat basin to clearly delineate the boundaries of the basin and limit boat maneuvering to areas with appropriate depth; d. Installation and perpetual maintenance of regulatory markers (red and green US Coast Guard markers) along the access channel to the boat basin, fully gating the safe navigation channel; e. Installation and perpetual maintenance of signage at the access to the channel at both ends requiring idle speed only; f. Installation and perpetual maintenance of a sign at the dock explaining the sensitive marine habitats in the Florida Keys, and in particular seagrass; g. Commitment to operate the private docking facility consistent with Florida's Clean Marina guidelines; h. Incorporation of riprap cribs beneath the finger docks to retard propeller wash effects and to provide habitat for fish and invertebrates; i. Incorporation of language into the homeowners association documents that delineates obligations under the ERP; j. Provision of documents to all upland unit owners that are specially designed to provide clear information understandable to the general public regarding the importance of the submerged resources being protected, appropriate boat operation to avoid injuring the resources, and the permit and associated conditions that the homeowners association is committed to and why; k. Commitment by the homeowners association to restore any future seagrass damage that results from member boating activities on the submerged land parcel under conservation easement; and I. Mailing of an informational brochure to all registered boats owners in the Florida Keys regarding the value of seagrass habitats and how to avoid boating impacts. In addition to the above -described compensatory mitigation, which will result in more than 8 times the mitigation that would be required under Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM, functional loss of -0.136 and functional gain of +1.157), the applicant is proposing to restore and perpetually maintain 0.27 acres of propeller scars and blowholes on the shallow flat immediately to the west of the subject property, including installation and perpetual maintenance of "Danger Shoal" signage along the edge of the flat to inhibit future damage. Coordination with County, State and Federal Agencies in Project Development The signage components of the above -described mitigation and restoration plan were developed in coordination with Monroe County Senior Marine Resources Administrator Rich Jones. Coordination has also been conducted with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the US Coast Guard, which regulate this kind of marine signage. 7 Key West • Miami ' Hol wood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 Both the proposed onsite and offsite restoration and management activities would be implementing the regional restoration plan defined in the Sanctuary PETS, as shown by the following excerpts from that plan: In addition to grounding injuries that have identified responsible parties, there are many other grounding injuries discovered each year. Because those responsible for causing those injuries are unidentified, the locations are referred to as "orphan" sites. Each of the potential geographic areas discussed in this chapter has a large number of orphan seagrass injuries that would benefit from restoration. These are the areas that the regional restoration plan seeks to address. Preventive projects are the second component of the regional restoration plan. Preventive projects seek to reduce the frequency of vessel groundings, thereby decreasing the amount of area that requires restoration in the future. Boater education campaigns and the posting of informative signs at boat ramps, marinas, and fuel depots are examples of preventive projects that might be considered under the regional restoration plan... Water markers are aides to navigation, such as channel and shoal markers and regulatory signs, that assist boaters to navigate the treacherous shoals and difficult channels of shallow Florida Keys waterways. These devices help to prevent natural resource injury as these waterway markers direct boaters to use the deep water of navigation channels instead of the shallow seagrass flats, banks, and shoals where the potential for running aground is high. [emphasis added] The applicant has met with District staff many times in the development of this project and has implemented comments and suggestions. FKNMS staff has verbally expressed support for both the planned benthic habitat restoration and overall management plan. Current Status of Project The extensive nature of impact elimination and reduction, alternatives analysis, compensatory mitigation and additional restoration proposed in this permit application is necessary to address the requirements of State law that apply a uniquely -high level of restrictions on these activities in the Florida Keys, in addition to the standard stringent restrictions defined in the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permits within the South Florida Water Management District. District staff has confirmed this project is permittable under State law, with the exception of the existing restrictions in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan that have been brought to their attention by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA, now Department of Economic Opportunity or DOE) through their greater review authority resulting from Monroe County's designation as an area of critical state concern. Hence this application. I.9 Key West •Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments Eel www.swcine.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 6.0 PROPOSED COMP PLAN AND LDR AMENDMENTS AND RATIONALE The following provides the current Comp Plan and LDR language with the proposed revised language indicated by underline (added), immediately followed by the rationale for the specific amendment in relation to the proposed project. Several of the amendments propose adding the South Florida Water Management District (District) as an alternate State permitting entity. This is because the District is responsible for review and issuance of State environmental resource permits for most commercial projects and private projects involving four or more residential units. Therefore, these changes correct a current inaccuracy in the Comp Plan, as commercial or larger residential projects may require District rather than Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permits for these activities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Each Comprehensive Plan section being revised is provided below with deletions indicated by strikeout and additions in red and underlined. The changed sections are all indented with the rationale for each set of changes at full text width. Policy 202.8.3 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities except for maintenance in public navigation channels and as provided by Policy 202.8.4. Policy 202.8.4 In order to facilitate navigational safety and reduce continued scarring of seagrass beds, maintenance dredging shall be permitted, in limited circumstances, within access channels vegetated with seagrass communities if there is a continued threat to these communities due to existing upland development and docking facilities. Maintenance dredge shall only be permitted to preserve or restore the function of the access channel. Access channels are defined as artificially -created channels, constructed through excavation, serving as waterways for watercraft, and providing access to open water. Access channels do not include propeller -dredged channels. Maintenance dredging in access channels vegetated with seagrass beds will be permitted if the following conditions are met: 1. There is an existing access channel, evidenced by permits or historical aerial photography showing a historically -dredged channel: 2. There are existing, lawfully -established upland development and docking facilities served by the access channel; 3. The submerged land within the historically -dredged access channel is Privately owned by the owner of the immediately -adjacent upland 01 Key West • Miami Hoifyuood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.sweinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 riparian property containing the upland development and docking facilities served by the access channel; 4. Demonstrable natural shoaling has reduced the upland property owner(s) reasonable access to open water; 5. There is evidence of scarring to the adjacent (surrounding) seagrass beds; 6. Mitigation for seagrass impacts is provided consistent with the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary adopted in 2004 or its successors; 7. A performance bond for the maintenance dredging will be provided to the County prior to permit issuance; 8. A post -construction survey of the maintenance dredge footprint and depth will be conducted by a State -licensed surveyor and provided to the County for review, and if physical characteristics, including depth, exceed 15 percent from that specified in the permit application, the applicant will be required to correct the errors prior to release of the performance bond; and 9. The proposed maintenance dredging meets the criteria included in Goal 106 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed maintenance dredge activity shall be designed to protect natural resources and shall provide reasonable assurance that the activity will reduce continued scarring of surrounding seagrass beds through the provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage, channel markers or buoys. The maintenance dredge methodology shall not cause degradation of water quality or secondary and/or cumulative impacts to surrounding marine resources. Turbidity controls shall be used to prevent reduction of light availability to seagrasses and increased sedimentation of adiacent surface waters and marine resources. In addition. Issuance of a permit will include a condition that all applicable State and federal permits be obtained before commencement of work, a requirement that copies of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times, and that lack of these permits at any inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. Rationale for Amendment to Policy 202.8.3 and Addition of Policy 202.8.4 The purpose for this proposed amendment is to allow maintenance dredging where there are seagrass communities in certain, very limited instances where there are present and ongoing threats to seagrass communities due to use of existing docking facilities. In addition, this limited and mitigated impact would be further offset by protection of the surrounding seagrass communities. This provision will limit maintenance dredging to privately -owned submerged lands, preventing any potential for impacts on publicly -owned, State submerged lands. 10 Key West • Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan $ LDR Amendments F' www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 While Monroe County is currently prohibited by State Statute from requiring issuance of State and federal permits as a prerequisite for issuing a County permit, this Statute specifies that it does not prohibit a county from providing applicants with "a disclaimer to the issuance of a development permit and may include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development." The Statute also "does not prohibit a county from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits may apply." (Source of quotations: Florida HB 503, page 6 of 41). As described above, Walker's Island has an environmental resource permit (ERP) application pending with the South Florida Water Management District (District), which applies an extremely stringent review process to any such activity in the Florida Keys, to implement a number of specific provisions of State law and administrative code, including: • the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, which implements Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (FS) and chapters 4-E-4, 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), and is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), FAC, • Rule 62-312, FAC, which applies specific and even more stringent requirements on docking facilities in the Florida Keys, and Rule 62-302.700(i)(13), FAC, which defines the Florida Keys as Outstanding Florida Waters, and requires zero degradation of water quality outside the project boundaries because of that designation. This permitting process requires elimination and reduction of impacts to the greatest extent practicable and in the Florida Keys goes further to require a net gain in comparable ecological function. In addition, coordination is required with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and DEO, providing further special scrutiny. At the federal level, acquisition of a permit from the USACE requires coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding federally -designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) including seagrass communities as well as protected fish and sea turtle species; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding manatees. Finally, this activity is prohibited in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary unless a permit from the Sanctuary is acquired, which again addresses all environmental protection and enhancement issues consistent with the Sanctuary Management Plan and the PETS. Therefore, meeting these conditions and acquisition of these permits will ensure protection of benthic resources consistent with Ch. 380.0552(7)(b) FS, which states, "to protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat." Further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describe how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. 11 Key West • Miami Hoilywod • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 Policy 202.8.5 In order to facilitate establishment of bottom vegetation, maintenance dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor. Policy 202.8.5 6 All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging shall be placed on permitted upland sites where drainage can be contained on -site unless utilization of the dredoed spoil is an element of a seagrass restoration oroiect that provides reasonable assurance of no neaative impacts to water quality, species or habitats. Rationale for Amendment to Policy 202.8.5 and 202.8.6 The purpose of these amendments is to (1) renumber from the added Policy 202.8.4, above, and (2) provide an exception from only upland disposal of dredge spoil for use in a seagrass restoration project. Disposal of clean dredge spoil into submerged lands in the very limited instance where it is serving the purpose of seagrass community restoration will directly enhance the submerged marine resources of the Florida Keys. Fill is almost always required for a seagrass restoration project, as deeper areas caused by previous dredging or from propeller scars must be filled to the depths of surrounding seagrass beds to provide for successful restoration. In the case of Walker's Island, the clean maintenance dredge spoil material would be placed in an existing dredged basin that does not support marine life due to the discontinuity created by early dredging activities. The State permitting process requires testing of sediment to be dredged to assure State standards for contamination are met. In addition, it requires the use of turbidity curtains and other best management practices along with monitoring during construction to ensure zero degradation of ambient surrounding water quality, which is the standard required by the State's Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) designation applicable to the Florida Keys. Federal permitting processes administered by the USACE and FKNMS also require full water quality protection measures. By meeting the conditions implemented in the ERP and maintained through enforcement by the State and federal permitting agencies during construction activities, the intent of Objective 202.6, which requires County policies "controlling discharges into surface waters from dredge and fill activities," will clearly be met. This is also consistent with Ch. 380.0552(7)(e) FS, which states, "To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys." Further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describe how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. Policy 203.2.3 Effective upon plan adoption, Monroe County shall: 1. prohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and 12 Key West • Miami Hony%ood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments V www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 2. prohibit maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels and as provided by Policy 202.8.4. (See Objective 202.8 and related policies.) Rationale for Amendment to Policy 203.2.3 Please see the rationale for the amendment to Policy 202.8.3 and addition of Policy 202.8.4, above, which equally applies to this proposed amendment. In addition, Objective 203.2 requires Monroe County to "protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to seagrasses." The Walker's Island project is specifically designed to restore and properly mark a small part of an historic access channel serving an existing dock, as well as to manage the surrounding shallow flats that have already experienced propeller damage (which will be restored), resulting in long-term, practical reduction in direct impacts to seagrasses. The project is also designed to limit all secondary impacts of boat activity to within the dredge footprint, reducing indirect disturbances to seagrasses. Only a project so designed could meet the specific conditions outlined in the amendment and State and federal permit requirements. Objective 203 states, "The health and integrity of living marine resources and marine habitat, including mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs and fisheries, shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced." The Walker's Island project will provide extensive compensatory mitigation and additional habitat restoration that will result in significant enhancement of seagrass habitat, including long-term management to protect it from future damage necessary for acquisition of State and federal permits. Therefore, this proposed amendment will ensure meeting the Comp Plan objectives as well as the Statutory requirements in the Principles for Guiding Development. Further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describes how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. Policy 204.2.2 No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile -supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except; 1. as specifically allowed by Objective 212.6 and subsequent policies; 2. to fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, basin or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impacts on marine or wetland communities; or 3. as needed for shorelines stabilization, seagrass restoration or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as determined by the Directors of Planning and Environmental Resources. All SUGh pFejeGts 13 Key West • Miami Holiy,Nood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 C All such proiects require permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary prior to commencement of work. These permits must be kept at the proiect site for inspection at all times, and a stop work order will be issued at any inspection if not present. [9J- 5.012(3)(c)1 and 2; 9J-5.013(2)(c)6] Rationale for Amendment to Policy 204.2.2 Objective 204.2 states that, "Monroe County shall eliminate the loss of undisturbed wetlands and shall eliminate the net loss of disturbed wetlands." The purpose for the proposed amendments to this policy is to provide another opportunity to meet this objective through seagrass restoration projects such as proposed at Walker's Island. The filling of the barren, previously -dredged 0.50-acre basin, and the propeller scars and blowholes on the privately -owned submerged land, will allow restoration to seagrass habitat that existed there prior to disturbance, and these activities along with the rest of the proposed compensatory mitigation and additional restoration measures will result in a significant net gain in ecological function. This is entirely consistent with the objective, as no undisturbed wetlands are lost and there is no net loss of disturbed wetlands, but rather a net gain. Again, this is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development by providing for protection and enhancement of marine resources, and further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describes how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. Goal 109 In addition to the provisions of Policy 202.8.4, Monroe County shall regulate maintenance dredging of historically -dredged access channels serving existing legally -established upland development with existing docking facilities where the minimum maintenance dredge area has been recolonized seagrasses, by the enactment of area -specific regulations that allow maintenance dredging to occur subject to limitations and conditions designed to protect natural resources. Objective 109.1 Monroe County shall regulate use of submerged lands for maintenance dredging through Sub -Area Policies Applicable to a Specific Geographic Area. These sub -area policies identify parcels of submerged land that require narrowly -tailored regulation in order to confine the potential for impacts to a specific area. The development parameters established for each sub -area shall be based on data specific to the sub -area in relation to protection of natural resources. Policy 109.1.1 Reserved. 14 Key West • Mlami Hollywood • Fort Myers www.swcinc net Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 Policy 109.1.2 Walker's Island Privatelv-Owned Submerged Land Area 1 Only the maintenance dredging specified in the table below shall be allowed on the submerged land parcel shown as the Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area 1, subiect to conditions 1-2, below: REAL ESTATE TOTAL ACREAGE IMPACT CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACREAGE NUMBER ACRES 27.22 0.63 26.93 00099110- 000000 And over which an existing docking facility exists, which serves 8 legally - established residential units on the adiacent upland parcel. Maintenance dredging at the Walker's Island Privately Owned Submerged Land Area 1 shall be subiect to the restrictions set out below: 1. Maintenance dredging shall be limited to no more than the acreage specified in the above table to provide safe access to the existing docking facility. 2. Recordation of a conservation easement prohibiting all impacts on, and requiring perpetual maintenance of, 26.93 acres of submerged land contained in parcel 00099100-000000. The area to be conserved is delineated in the map below. 1 Legend - - [= Subject Parcel #M99110-000000 Conservation Easement rf'(. Walkers Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area 1 (Mile Marker 62.5) 0 0.1 0.2 Miles 1s Key West • Miami Hoiiya+ood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments Cwww.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 Rationale for Goal 109 The purpose of Goal 109 is to provide Monroe County the ability to review each specific project that proposes to utilize the exception provided in the amended Policy 202.8.4 on a case -by -case basis. The numbers of parcels that could theoretically apply this policy are quite limited, as described in greater detail in Section 9.0, below. However, due to the high degree of environmental sensitivity in the Florida Keys and the great focus on protection of the submerged marine resources here, providing a case -by -case mechanism for review ensures an added level of scrutiny. This process is very similar to that in Goal 107, which provides for case -by -case reviews of specific parcels that have scarified and/or filled portions that also contain environmentally sensitive areas. Goal 106 is tailored after this precedent, as there is a clear parallel between submerged land parcels that require maintenance dredging of historically dredged access channels where seagrasses have recolonized and development in upland scarified parcels that also contain environmentally sensitive areas. Policy 106.1.2 creates a Specific Geographic Area for the Walker's Island project, defines the parcel size and allowed maximum maintenance -dredge area, and the specific size and location of the conservation easement that must be recorded for perpetual preservation and maintenance. Any other property owner who wishes to utilize the amended Policy 202.8.4 must apply for a Comp Plan amendment to create another Specific Geographic Area, again providing the opportunity for Monroe County to review the specific site conditions. This additional level of scrutiny will entirely ensure that the other Goals and Policies in the Comp Plan to protect marine resources are met, as well as meeting the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sec. 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, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings 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 that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. 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 in the county except as specified for boat ramps in section 118-12(1) (shoreline setback, boat ramps). 16 Key West a Miami Hol4vood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments - ' WWW.swan c net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 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 and as provided in 3 and 4, below. 3. In order to facilitate navigational safety and reduce continued scarring of seagrass beds, maintenance dredging shall be permitted, in limited circumstances, within access channels vegetated with seagrass communities if there is a continued threat to these communities due to existing upland development and docking facilities. Maintenance dredge shall only be permitted to preserve or restore the function of the access channel. Access channels are defined as artificially created channels, constructed through excavation by mechanical means, serving as a waterway for watercraft, and providing access to open water. Access channels do not include propeller -dredged channels. Maintenance dredging in access channels vegetated with seagrass beds will be permitted if the following conditions are met: a) There s an existing access channel, evidenced by permits or historical aerial photography showing a historically -dredged channel; b) There are existing, lawfully -established upland development and docking facilities served by the access channel; c) The submerged land within the historically -dredged access channel is privately owned by the owner of the immediately -adjacent upland riparian property containing the upland development and docking facilities served by the access channel; d) Demonstrable natural shoaling has reduced the upland property owner(s) reasonable access to open water; e) There is evidence of scarring to the adjacent (surrounding) seagrass beds; f) Mitigation for seagrass impacts is provided consistent with the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Kevs National Marine Sanctuary adopted in 2004 or its successors; g) A performance bond for the maintenance dredging will be provided to the County prior to permit issuance; h) A post -construction survey of the maintenance dredge footprint and depth will be conducted by a State -licensed surveyor and provided to the County for review, and if physical characteristics, including depth, exceed 15 percent from that specified in the permit application, the applicant will be required to correct the errors prior to release of the performance bond; and i) The proposed maintenance dredge activity shall be designed to protect natural resources and shall provide reasonable assurance that the activity will reduce continued scarring of surrounding seagrass beds through the provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage, channel markers or buoys; 17 i Key West • Miami Hoi4vmd • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcincnet Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 j) The maintenance dredge methodology shall not cause degradation of water quality or secondary and/or cumulative impacts to surrounding marine resources; k) Turbidity controls shall be used to prevent reduction of light availability to seagrasses and increased sedimentation of adiacent surface waters and marine resources; and 1) The proposed maintenance dredging meets the criteria included in Goal 106 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 34. In order to facilitate establishment of bottom vegetation, maintenance dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than six feet at mean low water (MLW). This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor. 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 unless utilization of the dredged spoil is an element of a seagrass restoration project that assures no negative impacts to water quality, species or habitats. &6. All dredge activities require approvals by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District, ai4d the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer wit, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary prior to starting work. Issuance of a permit under 3, above will include a condition that all applicable State and federal permits be obtained before commencement of development, a requirement that copies of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times, and that lack of these permits at any inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. d. Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: 1. As specifically allowed by this section or by section 118-12(k) and (1) shoreline setbacks, bulkheads, seawalls, riprap and boat ramps); 2. To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, __.boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the county biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; 3. As needed for shoreline stabilization, seagrass restoration or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the county biologist; 4. For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or 18 .a Key West • Miami #— Hoiiymood • fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.sweinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 5. As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (d)(6) of this section. e. All such projects shall require permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary prior to commencement of work. Issuance of a Monroe County permit will include a condition that all applicable State and federal permits be obtained before commencement of development, a requirement that copies of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times, and that lack of these permits at any inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. Rationale for Amendments to LDR Sec. 118-10(4) Please see the rationale for the proposed Comp Plan amendments, above, as these proposed amendments to the LDRs simply implement changes consistent with those to the Comp Plan. 7.0 RELATED COMP PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The submerged habitat damage caused by boat traffic has been addressed at length by the Monroe County Growth Management Division, in conjunction with a number of State and federal agencies including the Sanctuary, FWC, and Monroe County's Sea Grant Extension Office. This work has been done to implement several objectives and policies in the Comp Plan, as follows: Policies 203.2.4 and 203.4.7 require Monroe County to work with the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Adminstration (NOAA, which administers the FKNMS), EPA and DEP to support "scientific studies of stresses to seagrass ecosystems in the Florida Keys region" [emphasis added]. This cooperation resulted in the 2004 publication by NOAA of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys (PETS), which is based on extensive scientific study. The proposed amendments to the Comp Plan and LDRs are consistent with this document, as is the Walker's Island project which is implementing restoration methodology specified in the PETS. Please see the specific discussion of the PEIS in relation to the Walker's Island project in Section 5, above. Policy 203.2.4 requires that Monroe County support the public education program for users developed by the Sanctuary. In addition, Policy 203.5.6 discusses a County boater education program that should particularly emphasize navigational safety, including channel locations, and seagrass bed preservation. The Walker's Island project has incorporated brochures from the FKNMS public education program in the informational materials to be distributed to all members of the homeowners association, including one titled "Keep your bottom off the bottom," which seems particularly apropos. In addition, brochures describing the value of 19 WKey West • Miami Houyueod • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swan c net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 seagrasses and how to avoid impacts will be mailed to all Monroe County registered boaters, and a sign to this effect will be installed at the docks. All these project elements strongly support the Sanctuary public education program. • Policy 102.5.3 and Objective 202.7 require a boating impacts management plan to be developed, and Policy 203.4.7 specifically requires this plan to address the problem of propeller damage to seagrasses. The Boating Impacts Management Plan was completed in December 1002. Relevant excerpts from this plan are listed below in Section 5. Policy 203.5.5 requires the County to develop and implement strategies for protection of submerged lands in shallow water areas from boating impacts, and specifically mentions strategies to reduce seagrass propeller scarring and to minimize vessel groundings. It also requires installation of markers following completion of the plan. The Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys was completed in January 1998. Relevant excerpts from this plan are listed below in Section 5. Policies 203.6.1, 212.5.8, 212.6.5, and 1031.7.6 discuss a coordinated agency review to "identify the environmental issues and contradictions in rules and authorities related to the permitting process for marinas, docking facilities, piers, mooring sites ... and dredging in the Florida Keys." Rich Jones informed us that this coordination has occurred over time relating to particular issues, including implementation of the County Channel Marking Master Plan, and more recently, as part of a State -sponsored study of mooring field sites. In addition, the 2004 PETS, specifically discussed in Section 2, above, has benefited from this coordination. • Policy 203.6.3 discusses the County coordinating boating impacts management activities with State and federal agencies. The proposed amendments are consistent with this policy through recognition of the degree of scrutiny and regulatory authority administered by these agencies in permitting projects in the Florida Keys that fully implement the Principles for Guiding Development [Ch. 380.0552(7)(b), (e) and (1) FS]. Policy 207.8.3 requires the boasting impacts management program to, among other things, implement the goal in Objective 207.8 of protecting the habitat of a number of protected marine species, including manatees and sea turtles, both of which utilize seagrass beds as habitat and a food source. The proposed amendments are entirely consistent with this policy, as any projects that move forward under the amendments that effect seagrass beds will result in a net gain in comparable ecological function, and federal permit review will require a full assessment of impacts on these marine species and specifically on Essential Fish Habitat, including seagrass beds. Walker's Island will also implement a long-term management plan to prevent future boating impacts on these sensitive resources, which is also necessary for acquisition of State and federal permits. Additional relevant policies include: Policy 204.2.7 states that "applicants for a dredge and fill permit shall be required to obtain all necessary permits from state and federal regulatory agencies prior to issuance of a County permit." While this policy is no longer consistent with State Key West • Miami Hoiiy ood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments r www.sweinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 law, the proposed amendments to the Comp Plan and LDRs are entirely consistent with this policy, and, in fact, further implement it through recognition of the high level of protection offered by these permitting programs, entirely consistent with and implementing the Principles for Guiding Development. • Objective 204.3 requires Monroe County to "initiate a program to restore disturbed marine and freshwater wetlands." The proposed Comp Plan and LDR amendments are fully consistent with and supportive of this objective by providing for private restoration of submerged habitat associated with maintenance dredging that is appropriately designed to eliminate and reduce impacts, and provide compensatory mitigation that will result in a net increase in comparable ecological function. For example, the Walker's Island project will result in more than 8 times more compensatory mitigation than required by the State Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method, will also provide offsite restoration implementing the Sanctuary's regional restoration plan outlined in the PETS, and will include a long-term management plan to prevent future disturbances to marine habitats. Again, all these measures are necessary for acquisition of State and federal permits. Policy 212.5.2.1 requires docking facilities to have a minimum depth at the terminal end and extending out to open water of at least minus four (-4) feet. The maintenance dredging proposed for Walker's Island is designed for minus 4.5 feet, which is the minimum practicable to meet the requirement of this policy and also provide a reasonable project life, as sediment will inevitably continue to accrete into the channel over time. 8.0 OTHER RELATED COUNTY PLANS Monroe County's Boating Impacts Management Plan The following are relevant excerpts from this plan: "Currently in the Keys there are numerous waterfront residences and public boat ramps that provide boaters with access to the water but not with clearly marked channels for egress and ingress to Florida Bay and the Atlantic Ocean." [pg 48] • "Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys Criteria [for channel marking] 1. Sites where there is a public safety hazard or where damage is occurring to the shallow water resources of the area, shall be considered for channel markers. 2. Sites where no better alternatives to channel marking exist for managing the threats established in criteria 1 and where it is believed that channel markers could relieve that stress, should be considered. 4. Sites where it is not practical ... to consolidate the use of the proposed waterway with a more suitable waterway nearby, should be considered. 5. Sites where there are not sensitive habitats accessed by the channel that are more sensitive and crucial than the habitats being protected by installation of channel markers, should be considered." [pp 48-49] 21 e ' ,+ Key West • Miami "# Hollywood • Fort "rs Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments [[''�� www.swcine.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 The proposed amendments address these issues by providing limited opportunities for private maintenance dredging and channel marking with full environmental protections and mitigation implemented by State and federal permitting agencies. In the case of Walker's Island, the criterion #1 above is met as there is damage to shallow water resources both on the subject privately -owned baybottom and on adjacent shallow flats. Regarding criteria #s 2 and 3, there is no access to open water from the existing dock except across the surrounding shallow flats and no way to consolidate use with another waterway so no better alternative exists, and the proposed channel marking and marking of the surrounding submerged lands will relieve the stress to these marine resources. Finally, in regard to criterion #5, the habitats within the previously -dredged access channel and basin are of lower quality that what is found on the surrounding, undisturbed flats. Monroe County's Channel Marking Master Plan The following are relevant excerpts from this plan: • The general introduction in the first paragraph on page 1 states that this plan has evolved "in response to growing concern over increasing impacts to the shallow - water resources. Seagrass meadows are the dominant habitat found throughout most of the coastal areas of the Keys ... and are incurring significant damage from a variety of users. ...this habitat [is] vulnerable to scarring and dredging from boat traffic." The second paragraph continues, "The nearshore meadows experience additional impacts due to the proximity to populated shoreline areas and adjacent, deeper water destinations. Extremely shallow areas containing seagrasses are often found near launching sites and marinas... This vulnerable distribution of seagrass meadows results in the beds being damaged by boaters utilizing these areas as well as boaters en route to typically safer, deeper areas." • "Resource managers working within the Sanctuary determined that much of the seagrass damage was occurring in areas lacking appropriate navigational aides. ...channel marking was included as one of the action plans for the developing Sanctuary management plan, and cooperating institutions (DEP, US Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) were enlisted to provide supporting data for the project." [pp 2, pg 2] • "Prop scars are often generated from boaters attempting to approach the numerous residences and docks adjacent to very shallow water." [pp 4, pg 8] • The biology of propeller scar and blow hole damage is described in detail on page 10. • "Although restoration efforts are important for badly damaged beds in particular habitats, they do not address the prevention or minimizing of prop scarring." [pp 1, pg 13] • "Public education is an essential part of any management effort. Without public education most management strategies would not be effective, particularly in the Keys where a large percentage of boaters are not familiar with local regulations and Sanctuary management rules." [pp 3, pg 13] 22 Key West • Miami HoIW%ood • Fort Myers www.swcinc net Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 The marking strategies are described on pages 21-23, and address marker frequency, gating of routes, and the use of Danger Shoal markers to delineate shallow water to be avoided. The proposed Comp Plan and LDR amendments are supportive of this Monroe County plan. Only limited financial resources are available for the County and other government agencies to implement appropriate marking of areas to protect marine resources. Allowing very limited and carefully designed private maintenance dredging, along with appropriate channel marking and other measures to ensure long-term protection of marine resources, as proposed for Walker's Island, can leverage the public dollar with private investment for both installation and long-term maintenance. 9.0 PROPERTIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY AMENDMENTS An analysis of existing privately -owned submerged land parcels that could potentially utilize the amended Policy 202.8.4 was conducted utilizing ArcGIS software and information from the Monroe County Property Appraiser's (MCPA) Office parcel list for December 2011, which contains 90,537 parcels. This analysis utilized the same data, programming and approach as was recently utilized for preparation of the new Technical Document for the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Submerged land parcels that could —or would have reason to —implement the policy must be privately -owned, contain seagrasses, and have existing legally -established upland development served by existing docking facilities. Therefore, the total number of parcels in Monroe County was screened through several layers of analysis to arrive at a reasonable estimate. The following table summarizes the analysis and results: GIS Data Layer Number of Parcels Source of Data Parcels in Monroe County 90,537 Monroe County Property Appraiser Submerged land 391 Monroe County Property Appraiser Contain seagrass 343 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission Unincorporated Monroe County 111 Monroe County Property Appraiser Residential, Commercial or Vacant 85 Monroe County Property Appraiser Privately Owned 83 Monroe County Property Appraiser The Property Appraiser has a complex PC Code List that defines property under 99 different specific codes, mapped as GIS shape files which can be overlain and related to one another in specific, limited configurations. The Monroe County parcel list was narrowed by selecting the code for submerged land. This reduced the number of parcels to 391. The list was further filtered by overlaying the 2010 seagrass habitat map from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The number of submerged parcels intersecting seagrass habitat is 343. 23 Key West • Miami '4 Hofiymod • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swanc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 In order to exclude those areas not in Unincorporated Monroe County, the parcel map was overlaid on the MCPA Unincorporated Monroe County Existing Land Use (ELU) map. The 111 parcels selected were only those that were submerged, intersected seagrass habitat, and were within Unincorporated Monroe County. The 111 parcels were further screened by selecting parcels on residential, commercial, or vacant land, resulting in 85 parcels. Review of the ownership of the 85 parcels found two in public ownership, reducing the total potential parcels that affected by Policy 202.8.4 to 83. An attempt was made to determine from the Property Appraiser data how many of these parcels contained existing docking facilities by selecting only those properties with the appropriate miscellaneous improvements codes. This process returned only 12 parcels from the list of 391 that are submerged land, but did not include the subject property, Walker's Island, which is known to have an existing docking facility. Therefore, it was determined that the miscellaneous improvements list in the MCPA database is not comprehensive, and therefore was not used for this evaluation. However, it is reasonable to assume that only some of the privately -owned submerged land parcels in unincorporated Monroe County have existing, legally -established upland development and existing docking facilities. Another factor that would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis is whether historic access channels provide "continuous access to open water," as required by Section 118-12(m)(5)a., Monroe County Code. Undoubtably, a good number of potential parcels included in the 83 identified in this analysis do not meet this criterion. The conclusion of this analysis based on the data available is that the number of parcels that could conceivably apply amended Policy 202.8.4 is less than 83 in the entire unincorporated Monroe County. In addition, measures to ensure that the environment of the Keys is protected include: • the proposed new Goal 106 will apply an overlay process, allowing Monroe County to assess each applicant for a maintenance -dredging permit under Policy 202.8.4 individually; and • the requirement that all State and federal permits be acquired prior to commencement of construction, which ensures that a highly -strenuous review, under laws and regulations many of which are specific to the Florida Keys, be taken by the environmental regulatory agencies and commenting resource management agencies. 10.0 FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN AMENDING COMP PLAN AND LDRs The following factors listed in the amendment application are relevant to the proposed amendments. 24 Key West • Miami Hofiynood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 2) Changed assumptions and 6) Data updates. The first full comprehensive plan for Monroe County was adopted in 1986 and the 2010 Comp Plan adopted in 1992. Much has changed since then, including: • The amount of boating activity in Monroe County has increased dramatically, as has the amount of boat -caused damage to marine resources, the vast majority of which goes unenforced and unrestored. • County Marine Resources staff has implemented Comp Plan objectives and policies by working with other agencies and developing the plans described in Section 8, above, in 1992 and 1998. The proposed amendments are consistent with these plans and support their objectives. • The Sanctuary developed its management plan in 1996, recently updated in 2007, and adopted the PEIS described in Section 4, above, in 2004. The proposed amendments are consistent with these documents and would further support implementation of the Sanctuary's regional seagrass restoration plan. • The environmental resource permitting process at the State and federal level that provides a very high degree of scrutiny and protection to Florida Keys marine resources has developed and been fine-tuned over the last 10-15 years. This includes the 2002 federal Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) rule implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). These amendments recognize this increased and rigorous regulatory environment. • The Comp Plan and LDR amendments that add the South Florida Water Management District as one of the Florida environmental resource permit regulatory agencies updates the current code, as the District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection adopted in 2008 a memorandum of understanding that divided this permitting authority between the two agencies. Adoption of the proposed Comp Plan and LDR amendments recognizes these changes and addresses them in a realistic fashion to provide effective resource protection and management, consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. 4) New issues: The prohibition of appropriately designed and permitted private maintenance dredging and access channel marking is actually contradictory to the resource management objectives and policies in the Comp Plan and to the Principles for Guiding Development, because it has and will continue to result in ongoing, unenforceable damage to marine resources that will inevitably occur from boat traffic over shallow flats to existing docking facilities. It is consistent with the Comp Plan and Principles for Guiding Development to provide a carefully regulated opportunity for responsible private parties to participate in the process of effective resource management while also protecting public health and safety though properly engineered boating facilities. 5) Recognition of a need for additional detail and comprehensiveness. The proposed changes address this consideration as follows: 25 Key West • Miami HoiWnwd • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments ' C. www.sweine.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 • The changes to Comp Plan policies 202.8.3, 203.8.4, and 204.2.3 along with new Goal 106—which would allow maintenance dredging of historic access channels serving existing upland development and docking facilities where seagrass has recolonized —provide a means, in limited circumstances, to realistically and effectively address Comp Plan Policy 203.5.5, which requires Monroe County to develop and implement "strategies for protection of submerged lands in shallow water areas from boating impacts." The changes also address new scientific research that has resulted in the Sanctuary's regional seagrass restoration plan described in the PEIS. • The changes to Comp Plan Policy 204.2.2 will serve in limited circumstances to provide a cost-effective approach for seagrass restoration, also addressing new scientific research that has resulted in the Sanctuary's regional seagrass restoration plan described in the PEIS. 11.0 CONCLUSION Driving along the Overseas Highway, many areas of boat damage to seagrass beds are clearly visible, and these are only a tiny percentage of the damage occurring. While this damage is not legal within the Sanctuary, enforcement can only occur if an officer is present and can identify the party who causes the damage. Sanctuary staff has informed us they estimate less than 2% of the boat damage to marine resources in the Sanctuary is enforced each year, and it can often take several years of litigation before restoration takes place, during which time the damaged area typically expands, sometimes hugely. Bill Precht, the director of the Sanctuary Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, has told us that boat damage is the single largest threat to seagrasses in the Florida Keys. It is incumbent on us to view these circumstances realistically, and to recognize that simple prohibition of activities does not always result in resource protection. As the Monroe County's Channel Marking Master Plan describes, boaters will navigate to and from residences and docks regardless of how shallow the water is, and damage often results. Management by restoration of adequate depth to docking facilities along with appropriate channel marking, within the limited circumstances that can address the extremely stringent permitting criteria applied by State and federal agencies for these activities in the Florida Keys, is an approach that can lead to real protection of resources, in contrast with the current circumstances where ongoing, frequent and severe damage continually occurs. It also will result in a net increase in sensitive habitat and the associated ecological functions, along with long-term protection of the resources to prevent future damage. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development and the rest of the Comp Plan, and, in fact, are more supportive of restoration policies than are the current policies. The changes recognize more recent studies, including a Sanctuary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, that support what is proposed, and also recognize a much more stringent environmental resource permitting OR Key West • Miami Hoilymood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan $ LDR Amendments www.swan cnet Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 environment than existed when the original Comp Plan was developed, through which interagency coordination can be implemented. Therefore, these proposed amendments are appropriate and should be adopted. 27 ATTACHMENT A Location and Parcel Map 0 0.1 0.2 Miles ATTACHMENT B December 1, 2008 tbl. 132 m No .>.; 0 16 pages Study:T­Rop scars damage environment 11, BY ROBERT SILK Citizen Staff There are a minimum of 11.750 propeller scars in Florida Bay, according to the findings of a peer-revievred Everglades National Park study scheduled for release next month. "You can pretty much map the banks of Florida Bay based upon the scarring." said David Hallac, chief of the park's natural resources branch, while previewing the study at a recent workshop hosted by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The study, titled "Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay." was fund. ed by the park. the National Parks Conservation Association and the South Florida National Parks Trust. Researchers also found that at least 8,000 SC�S Continued from page 1A Bay and the rest of Everglades National Park waters over the coming decades. Those proposals, which in general terms would have scaled back motorboat access in park waters, set off an avalanche of criticism from South Florida fishing and boating interests. Among other things, crit- ics questioned the scientific basis for the park proposals, especially as they related to boat use and propeller scars. Out of the carnage came plans for two studies — one measuring propeller scars, and another tracking cliang- es over the years in Florida Bav boat traffic which also is scheduled for release next month. The two studies are play- ing a role in the shaping of a new and much -deli} ed set of Florida Bay management acres of bay bottom are scarred by propellers. The actual number, though, could be tip to 10 times higher, Hallac said, because scientists did not use high -resolution cameras to record their aerial surveys. Lower resolution lenses miss many of the submerged scars. Propeller groundings wreak havoc with the Florida Bay ecosystem, especially by damaging seagrass, which serves as a nursery for species ranging from shrimp to stone crab to yellowtail snapper. Once damaged, some of Florida Bay's seven seagrass species can take several years to recover. Park officials took prop scar damage into effect in spring 2007 v,hcn they released a series of alternatite., for managing Florida RCeoY.EAt./MeQWen Propeller scars In water off of Key West. A new See SCARS. page 5A study proves environmental damage from boating. alternatives. Park Planner age increased from 59 to 155. a management strategy sup - Fred Herling now says those In the area a bit further ported by a cross section of proposals will be out by not tit around Twin Key, Kipp Florida Bay users. In an e- January, more than a year recorded 28 GPS sites with mail, Trice called Kipp's prop after originally planned. prop scars in November 2007. scar study, and Lorenz's use During his presentation last He recorded 78 such locations of it, "Totally anecdotal evi- week, Hallac showed slides of in August. Bence being supported by a three spots where researchers lerryLorenz,abiologistwho Ph.D." were able to compare recent heads Audubon of Florida's Alternative E calls for a photographs with pictures Tavernier Science Center, boater certification program of similar quality taken Five presented Kipp's findings at that Would seek to protect years ago. the Nov. 18 workshop as part the shallow and tricky -to - "Our analyses suggests of a push for bayWide caps on navigate waters of the park that from 1999 to 2004, total boat and engine size. Lorenz through mandatory edu- length of scars at all three said multi -engine boats with cation. It also calls for idle sites increased by a factor of powerful motors are causing speed zones along the shore - three," Hallac said. massive damage to the bay. lines and a noncombustible The findings of the park 'Clearly education is the motor zone on the Snake Bite service study are in rough most important thing. but flats near Flamingo. congruence with a less sci- there are some people who But Trice opposes limiting entific studv undertaken by just aren't going to bother," boat sizes. local fishing captain John he said. Park planner Herling con - Kipp over the past year. In what could be a preview firmed at the workshop that In November 2U07 and of the debate that will follow all the proposals in the next again in July, Kipp poled the park services release of round of alternatives would identical regions around the the nevv management alter- include mandatory education Buchanan treys just west of natives. Lorenz's presentation and permitting. Lignumvitae Key During that drew- a rebuke from fishing Trice urged peoplr to "think span, the number of sit -,.;I lint Trice. one of big, start small. scale up." where he counied prop dais, teas of llternath t? E. rsilk@keysnews.com ATTACHMENT C Assessing Boat Damage to Seagrass Bed Habitat in a Florida Park from a Bioeconomics Perspective Published 2008 Running title: Boat Damage to Seagrass in Florida Richard M. Engeman'*, Janice A. Duquesnel2, Ernest M. Cowan 3, Henry T. Smith3A, Stephanie A. ShwifO, Melissa Karlin3 'National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 2154, USA 2Florida Park Service, Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park, P.O. Box 1052, Islamorada, Florida 33036, USA 3Florida Park Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 13798 S.E. Federal Highway, Hobe Sound, Florida 33455, USA 4Florida Atlantic University, Wilkes Honors College, 5353 Parkside Drive, Jupiter, Florida 33458 AAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed: Richard M. Engeman, Tel. (970) 266-6091, Fax (970) 266-6089, e-mail richard.m.en eman@aohis.usda.. ocovv 2 ABSTRACT Seagrass bed habitat is an important biotic community in decline worldwide. Boat damage has been long -recognized for its negative impacts to shallow water seagrass beds, with those along the Florida coast particularly vulnerable in the face of a large human population possessing a large number of boats. Boat scars to seagrass beds recover slowly, resulting in new damage often outpacing recovery of existing damage. We examined the rate of accumulation of total area comprised by boat scars from 1994 - 2005 at Lignumvitae Key Submerged Land Managed Area, an area containing - 3400 ha of seagrass beds. We found the total area of damage increased from 1994 to 1997 by an average of 27.1 ha/yr, = 66 acres and from 1997 to 2005 the area of damage increased on average by 10.8 ha/yr. = 26 acres This most recent rate of damage increase represents an additional $1,523,819 annual loss in habitat value using cost figures based on costs from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permitted restoration attempts. Severe groundings investigated by law enforcement officers showed increasing trends over time in the average amount and severity of damage. The size of the boat inflicting the damage was more closely related to the severity of damage than the amount of damage. The most immediate and practical measures for preventing damage include increasing signage to warn boaters from seagrass beds, and increasing law enforcement staff. Signage is a relatively low-cost, long-term investment that becomes cost-effective if only 0.03 ha of seagrass bed damage = 0.07 acres is averted over the life of the signs. Each additional patrol staff added becomes cost --effective if only 0.42 ha of damage is averted annually. Holding the total area of damage constant for one year (new damage = recovery) would represent a benefit -cost ratio of 25.71 if accomplished with only one additional law enforcement officer. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Benefit -cost ratio, damage estimation, habitat valuation, habitat restoration, wetland INTRODUCTION Coastal seagrass beds have been declining throughout the world for a variety of reasons (SHORT and WYLLIE-ECHEVERRIA, 1996). For many years, propeller scars from boats have been recognized for their significant negative impacts to seagrass beds (e.g., WOODBURN et al., 1957; PHILLIPS, 1960; ZIEMAN, 1976; MATTHEWS et al., 1991). Shallow water seagrass beds at < 2 m depth, such as those commonly found around Florida's coast are especially susceptible to boat damage (CREED and AMADO FILHO, 1999). Moreover, seagrass beds in Florida are particularly likely to receive boat damage because more than 8 million people live along the Florida coast with over 750,000 registered vessels (BELL et al., 2002). Furthermore, boat damage may interact synergistically with other factors such as water clarity to produce further declines (ORTH and MOORE, 1983; PREEN et al., 1995). Groundings create one or more injury types including propeller scars, hull impressions, hull scars, blowholes (formed when the vessel uses its engines in an attempt to dislodge itself [KIRSCH et. al., 2005]), and berms (SARGENT et. al. 1995). Depending on the extent of the damage ATTACHMENT D Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 13 Figure 12. Time sequence of digital imagery (1995-2004) showing continual expansion of propeller dredged wheel ditch on Shell Key Bank. W O J — (6 L Z o W L cn _x E 4-- 7 > 4- 7 0 co Qlo o o c� o — < U �O U) U C) U U—— N O c� _ lo U U) � N —0 Q c1 O LL O O _ O N 60 U = w a- E Q> Z I r .,, . . . . . . . . . . . w 19MLU tA w zo to 0 (3) 0 CD C) ti O U U) (3) a o N 0 O U O N O O L O N L L O U c � CCS U O � C6 O � � cn W L `V L ATTACHMENT F Boot Key Harbor, Marathon Boot Key Harbor has a large seagrass flat near the entrance to the City Marina that historically received frequent groundings and prop scars. The City installed cautionary buoys around the flat, and the City Marina manager reports a dramatic reduction in groundings, which he estimates as more than 90%. NIAMf . FT. MEYM • MY WEST wNw.svtin: net Photo 1: Walker's Island Shoreline, showing homes under construction, the existing dock, and the flushing culvert to be replaced. (12/18/08) r ,•I v I, f A Photo 3: View from the existing dock, looking south, toward the dolphin basin and the spit of land south of the project area. (10/4/08) Photo 5: View from the existing dock area toward the southeast, with the flushing culvert visible in the center. (12/18/08) Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, November 25, 2009 ATTACHMENT 5F Site Photographs Photos taken by SWC staff Photo 2: View from the existing dock to the south- west, in the direction the proposed entrance chan- nel would be. (10/4/08) Photo 4: View toward the Walker's Island prop- erty, looking northeast. Seagrass injuries are vis- ible in the foreground. (10/7/09) Photo 6: View from the existing dock area toward the east with the flushing culvert visible in the cen- ter. (12/18/08) MIAMI • Fr. MEYERS • KEY WEST � � www.swdm.net Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, November 25, 2009 [r r �a k r i k } l�y r d 4. �V. Source: Aerial from Coastal & Geodetic Survey Adapted by Shelli Bra nard SWC ATTACHMENT 5G-4 1955 Aerial Photograph of Property f��iki -r*' �eN3'e<'f► + r f irk u m I F + , ar+ � n �, VP i y Y � i rytsl f,.3 1•, '�,! y 5'. f . ,f4 ,fir i f a i.d rf Ff' F' • s, fw'�° di5i'1 ��,F � a a I '�.L ` �, Y � f MAP OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A PART OF LITTLE CONCH KEY & ADJACENT BAY BOTTOM IN THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA `^� g -A- 4 ff wm SURVEYORS NOTE - ELEVATIONS SHOWN M PARENTHESIS WERE TAKEN AT THE TOP OF SET. ELEVATIONS SHOWN WITH PARM ESIS WERE TAKEN AT ABSOLUTE REFUSAL. i 'Hb SCALE 1 _ 40 BFARWG BASE DERWED FROM PUT f,t.Kwf wwN r wra ALL ANGLES DEPICTED • ARE MI DEGREESfpWTED OTHISE WDICAItD ADDRESS: AIAT 62.5 w.rp LRTUF CONCH LEY. FL ISOUI ELEVATIONS SHO"' a AS K: K.IDI REFER TO NGVD29 VORICAL DATUM a NORTHWESTERLY MEANDER GHOEIT Ci 3 m z 3 LEGAL DESORPTION . WA CERTWEO TO UTRE CONCH LEY. LLC .P,.tA..AaI _ _ �s..�s®�rorsmwnw-a era =d_ A F:.E. R2�CF-. P.A. ---pw—,, Pn RIN rWNeA mHy,pppyT — ti Possible Approaches Preferred Approach ATTACHMENT 613-1 Navigational Approach Map N 0 760 1,520 Feet 9-7-2012 updated submission Key West • Miami oiiywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 6.0 PROPOSED COMP PLAN AND LDR AMENDMENTS AND RATIONALE The following provides the current Comp Plan and LDR language with the proposed revised language indicated by underline (added), immediately followed by the rationale for the specific amendment in relation to the proposed project. Several of the amendments propose adding the South Florida Water Management District (District) as an alternate State permitting entity. This is because the District is responsible for review and issuance of State environmental resource permits for most commercial projects and private projects involving four or more residential units. Therefore, these changes correct a current inaccuracy in the Comp Plan, as commercial or larger residential projects may require District rather than Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permits for these activities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Each Comprehensive Plan section being revised is provided below with deletions indicated by strikeout and additions in red and underlined. The changed sections are all indented with the rationale for each set of changes at full text width. Policy 202.8.3 No AEI 6maintenance dredging. shall be permitted within - _ - Formatted: Highlight areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom Formatted: Highlight communities except for maintenance dredging �amnteamn—in public _ _ Formatted: Highlight navigation channels and re -dredging of historically_-dred_g_ed channels Formatted: Highlight and/or, boat basins as provided by Policy 202.8.4. -------------------------------------------------------- Formatted: Highlight Policy 202.8.4 Formatted: Highlight In order to facilitate navigational safety and reduce continued scarring of seagrass beds, a� ire -dredging of historically -dredged channels_ - _ - Formatted: Highlight _ _ _ _ _ and/or boat basins shall be permitted, in limited circumstances, within access channels vegetated with seagrass communities if there is a continued threat to these communities due to existing upland development and docking facilities. """a��Re-dredginge of historically -dredged _- Formatted: Highlight channels and/or boat basins shall only be permitted to preserve or restore the function of the access channel and/or boat basin. Access channels - Formatted: Highlight are defined as artificially -created channels, constructed throuclh excavation, serving as waterways for watercraft, and providing access to open water. Boat basins are defined as artificially -created basins, , _ - Formatted: Highlight constructed through excavation, serving as basins for mooring of watercraft. Access channels .and boat basins do not include propeller- - Formatted: Highlight dredged channelsgandbasins_ _,- Formatted: Highlight ""aiRt@R Re -dredging in historically -dredged channels and boat - Formatted: Highlight basins aegess shanRel- vegetated with seagrass beds„ attached , _ Formatted: Highlight macroalgae or other hardbottom communities -will be permitted if the following conditions are met: Key West • Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcinc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 1. There is an existing access channel ,and/or, boat basin, evidenced by_ - - - - - Formatted: Highlight permits or historical aerial photography showing a historically -dredged Formatted: Highlight channel; 2. There are existing, lawfully -established upland development and docking facilities served by the access channel; 3. The submerged land within the historically -dredged access channel and/ors boat basin is privately owned by the owner of the immediately-_ - - - - -- - - Formatted: Highlight adjacent upland riparian property containing the upland development Formatted: Highlight and docking facilities served by the access channel; 4. Demonstrable natural shoaling has reduced the upland property owner(s) reasonable access to open water; 5. There is evidence of scarring to the adjacent (surrounding) seagrass beds; 6. Mitigation for seagrass impacts is provided consistent with the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary adopted in 2004 or its successors; 7. A performance bond for tie —re -dredging of historically -dredged channels and/or boat basins dre�will be provided to the County prior to permit issuance; 8. A post -construction survey of the maintenance dredge footprint and depth will be conducted by a State -licensed surveyor and provided to the County for review, and if physical characteristics, including depth, exceed 15 percent from that specified in the permit application, the applicant will be required to correct the errors prior to release of the performance bond; al�d 9. The proposed maintenance dredging meets the criteria included in t--- Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Goal 106 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan-; 10. The applicant shall notify the Monroe County Biologist 48�hours before -- Formatted: Highlight dredging activities will commence to accommodate construction Formatted: Highlight inspections; and, Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Numbered+ 11. This policy shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Starr barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent wetlands or at: l+Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 0.25"+ Indent at: 0.5" surface waters. Formatted: Highlight The proposed n,a;^+a^^�re-dredge activity shall be designed to protect --- Formatted: Highlight natural resources and shall provide reasonable assurance that the activity will reduce continued scarring of surrounding seagrass beds through the provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage, channel markers or buoys. The .,,a; e—re-dredqe methodology shall not - Formatted: Highlight cause degradation of water quality or secondary and/or cumulative impacts to surroundinq marine resources. Turbidity controls shall be used to prevent reduction of light availability to seagrasses and increased sedimentation of adjacent surface waters and marine resources. In addition, Issuance of a permit will include a condition that all applicable State and federal permits be obtained before commencement of work. a 10 Key West • Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments - -,t www.swcirc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 requirement that copies of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times, and that lack of these permits at any inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. Rationale for Amendment to Policy 202.8.3 and Addition of Policy 202.8.4 The purpose for this proposed amendment is to allow maintenance dredging where there are seagrass communities in certain, very limited instances where there are present and ongoing threats to seagrass communities due to use of existing docking facilities. In addition, this limited and mitigated impact would be further offset by protection of the surrounding seagrass communities. This provision will limit maintenance dredging to privately -owned submerged lands, preventing any potential for impacts on publicly -owned, State submerged lands. While Monroe County is currently prohibited by State Statute from requiring issuance of State and federal permits as a prerequisite for issuing a County permit, this Statute specifies that it does not prohibit a county from providing applicants with "a disclaimer to the issuance of a development permit and may include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development." The Statute also "does not prohibit a county from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits may apply." (Source of quotations: Florida HB 503, page 6 of 41). As described above, Walker's Island has an environmental resource permit (ERP) application pending with the South Florida Water Management District (District), which applies an extremely stringent review process to any such activity in the Florida Keys, to implement a number of specific provisions of State law and administrative code, including: • the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, which implements Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (FS) and chapters 4-E-4, 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), and is adopted by reference in Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), FAC, • Rule 62-312, FAC, which applies specific and even more stringent requirements on docking facilities in the Florida Keys, and • Rule 62-302.700(i)(13), FAC, which defines the Florida Keys as Outstanding Florida Waters, and requires zero degradation of water quality outside the project boundaries because of that designation. This permitting process requires elimination and reduction of impacts to the greatest extent practicable and in the Florida Keys goes further to require a net gain in comparable ecological function. In addition, coordination is required with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and DEO, providing further special scrutiny. At the federal level, acquisition of a permit from the USACE requires coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding federally -designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) including seagrass communities as well as protected fish and sea 11 Key West • Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swurc.not Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 turtle species; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding manatees. Finally, this activity is prohibited in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary unless a permit from the Sanctuary is acquired, which again addresses all environmental protection and enhancement issues consistent with the Sanctuary Management Plan and the PEIS. Therefore, meeting these conditions and acquisition of these permits will ensure protection of benthic resources consistent with Ch. 380.0552(7)(b) FS, which states, "to protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat." Further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describe how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. Policy 202.8.5 In order to facilitate establishment of bottom vegetation, maintenance dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor. Policy 202.8.4 6 All dredged spoil resulting frommai=Rtena4Ge maintenance dredging.,or re- _ _ _ _ _ - ( Formatted: Highlight J dredging of historically -dredged channels and/or boat basins shall be Formatted. Highlight placed on permitted upland sites where drainage can be contained on -site Formatted: Highlight unless utilization of the dredged spoil is an element of a seagrass restoration proiect .approved under Pollcv 202.8.4 that provides , - Formatted: Highlight reasonable assurance of no negative impacts to water quality, species or habitats. Rationale for Amendment to Policy 202.8.5 and 202.8.6 The purpose of these amendments is to (1) renumber from the added Policy 202.8.4, above, and (2) provide an exception from only upland disposal of dredge spoil for use in a seagrass restoration project. Disposal of clean dredge spoil into submerged lands in the very limited instance where it is serving the purpose of seagrass community restoration will directly enhance the submerged marine resources of the Florida Keys. Fill is almost always required for a seagrass restoration project, as deeper areas caused by previous dredging or from propeller scars must be filled to the depths of surrounding seagrass beds to provide for successful restoration. In the case of Walker's Island, the clean maintenance dredge spoil material would be placed in an existing dredged basin that does not support marine life due to the discontinuity created by early dredging activities. The State permitting process requires testing of sediment to be dredged to assure State standards for contamination are met. In addition, it requires the use of turbidity curtains and other best management practices along with monitoring during construction to ensure zero degradation of ambient surrounding water quality, which is the standard required by the State's Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) designation applicable to the 12 Key West • Miami Hollywood •Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments r www.swcirc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 Florida Keys. Federal permitting processes administered by the USACE and FKNMS also require full water quality protection measures. By meeting the conditions implemented in the ERP and maintained through enforcement by the State and federal permitting agencies during construction activities, the intent of Objective 202.6, which requires County policies "controlling discharges into surface waters from dredge and fill activities," will clearly be met. This is also consistent with Ch. 380.0552(7)(e) FS, which states, "To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys." Further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describe how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. Policy 203.2.3 Effective upon plan adoption, Monroe County shall: 1. prohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and 2. prohibit,maintenance dredging n,a; ire -dyed in of historically- , _ - Formatted: Highlight p -------------------------------9 g - -- ----------- dredged channels and/or boat basins within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for_FPaiPAeRaRGe maintenance dredging4%dg4g - Formatted: Highlight in public navigation channels and as provided by Policy 202.8.4. (See Formatted: Highlight Objective 202.8 and related policies.) Rationale for Amendment to Policy 203.2.3 Please see the rationale for the amendment to Policy 202.8.3 and addition of Policy 202.8.4, above, which equally applies to this proposed amendment. In addition, Objective 203.2 requires Monroe County to "protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to seagrasses." The Walker's Island project is specifically designed to restore and properly mark a small part of an historic access channel serving an existing dock, as well as to manage the surrounding shallow flats that have already experienced propeller damage (which will be restored), resulting in long-term, practical reduction in direct impacts to seagrasses. The project is also designed to limit all secondary impacts of boat activity to within the dredge footprint, reducing indirect disturbances to seagrasses. Only a project so designed could meet the specific conditions outlined in the amendment and State and federal permit requirements. Objective 203 states, "The health and integrity of living marine resources and marine habitat, including mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs and fisheries, shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced." The Walker's Island project will provide extensive compensatory mitigation and additional habitat restoration that will result in significant enhancement of seagrass habitat, including long-term management to protect it from future damage necessary for acquisition of State and federal permits. Therefore, this proposed amendment will ensure meeting the Comp Plan objectives as well as the Statutory requirements in the Principles for Guiding Development. Further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describes how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. 13 5 Key West • Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swurc.not Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 Policy 204.2.2 No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile -supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except; 1. as specifically allowed by Objective 212.6 and subsequent policies; 2. to fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, gash; or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impacts on marine or wetland communities; or 3. as needed for shorelines stabilization, seagrass restoration or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as determined by the Directors of Planning and Environmental Resources. All such projects require permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary prior to commencement of work. These permits must be kept at the project site for inspection at all times, and a stop work order will be issued at any inspection if not present. [9J- 5.012(3)(c)1 and 2; 9J-5.013(2)(c)6] Rationale for Amendment to Policy 204.2.2 Objective 204.2 states that, "Monroe County shall eliminate the loss of undisturbed wetlands and shall eliminate the net loss of disturbed wetlands." The purpose for the proposed amendments to this policy is to provide another opportunity to meet this objective through seagrass restoration projects such as proposed at Walker's Island. The filling of the barren, previously -dredged 0.50-acre basin, and the propeller scars and blowholes on the privately -owned submerged land, will allow restoration to seagrass habitat that existed there prior to disturbance, and these activities along with the rest of the proposed compensatory mitigation and additional restoration measures will result in a significant net gain in ecological function. This is entirely consistent with the objective, as no undisturbed wetlands are lost and there is no net loss of disturbed wetlands, but rather a net gain. Again, this is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development by providing for protection and enhancement of marine resources, and further discussion in sections 7 and 8 below describes how this is consistent with and strongly supports several other current Comp Plan Objectives and Policies, and other related County plans. Goal 109 In addition to the provisions of Policy 202.8.4, Monroe County shall regulate ^,�n,;a„s�re-dredqinq of historically -dredged access channels _ - Formatted: Highlight and/or boat basins serving existing legally -established upland Formatted: Font: (Default) Aria] development with existing docking facilities where the minimum Formatted: Font: (Default) Aria] 14 Key West - Miami - Fort Myers k-Hollywood www.swcinc.net Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 rv,a Rt2Ra-.P. A- e re -dredge area has been recolonized SeagraSSe$, _ _ _ _ _ - Formatted: Highlight macroalgae or other hardbottom communities by the enactment of area- Formatted: Highlight specific regulations that allow maintenance dredging to occur subject to limitations and conditions designed to protect natural resources. Obiective 109.1 Monroe County shall regulate use of submerged lands forte &;ire- , - Formatted: Highlight J dredging of historically -dredged channels and boat basins through Sub- Formatted: Font. (Default) Aria] Area Policies Applicable to a Specific Geographic Area. These sub -area Policies identify parcels of submerged land that require narrowly -tailored regulation in order to confine the potential for impacts to a specific area. The development parameters established for each sub -area shall be based on data specific to the sub -area in relation to protection of natural resources in order to confine_gotential impacts to a specific area. --- Formatted: Highlight Policy 109.1.1 Reserved. Policy 109.1.2 Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area 1 Only the a� a —re -dredging Hof an .historically -dredged channel and , - Formatted: Highlight boat basin specified in the table below shall be allowed on the submerged Formatted: Font: (penult) Aria] land parcel shown as the Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged 4 Formatted: Font: (Default) Aria] Land Area 1, subject to conditions 1-2, below: REAL ESTATE TOTAL ACREAGE IMPACT CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACREAGE NUMBER ACRES 27.22 0.63 — 26.93 00099110- 000000 And over which an existing docking facility exists, which serves 8 legally - established residential units on the adjacent upland parcel. ""a'Rt8Ra—.n.A-L-Q Re -dredging of an historically -dredged channel and boat ,- Formatted: Highlight basin at the Walker's Island Privately Owned Submerged Land Area 1 shall be subject to the restrictions set out below: 1. �4--Re-dredqinq shall be limited to no more than the acreage - Formatted: Highlight specified in the above table to provide safe access to the existing dockinq facility. 2. Recordation of a conservation easement in favor of the South Florida -I Formatted: Highlight Water Management District prohibiting all impacts on, and requiring DerDetual maintenance of. 26.93 acres of submeraed land contained in 15 Key West • Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers Rationale for Comp Plan & LDR Amendments www.swcirc.net Monroe County, April 9, 2010 revised April 16, 2012 parcel 00099100-000000. The area to be conserved is delineated in the map below. [] LMyend S"Ww PO Mel YOX999713-000000 Conservation Easement Easement Rationale for Goal 109 Walker's Island Privately -(]weed Submerged Land Area 1 (Mile Marker 62-5) 0 0.1 0.2 Miles The purpose of Goal 109 is to provide Monroe County the ability to review each specific project that proposes to utilize the exception provided in the amended Policy 202.8.4 on a case -by -case basis. The numbers of parcels that could theoretically apply this policy are quite limited, as described in greater detail in Section 9.0, below. However, due to the high degree of environmental sensitivity in the Florida Keys and the great focus on protection of the submerged marine resources here, providing a case -by -case mechanism for review ensures an added level of scrutiny. This process is very similar to that in Goal 107, which provides for case -by -case reviews of specific parcels that have scarified and/or filled portions that also contain environmentally sensitive areas. Goal 106 is tailored after this precedent, as there is a clear parallel between submerged land parcels that require maintenance dredging of historically dredged access channels where seagrasses have recolonized and development in upland scarified parcels that also contain environmentally sensitive areas. Policy 106.1.2 creates a Specific Geographic Area for the Walker's Island project, defines the parcel size and allowed maximum maintenance -dredge area, and the specific size and location of the conservation easement that must be recorded for perpetual preservation and maintenance. Any other property owner who wishes to utilize the amended Policy 202.8.4 must apply for a Comp Plan amendment to create another Specific Geographic Area, again providing the opportunity for Monroe County to review the specific site conditions. This additional level of scrutiny will entirely ensure that the other Goals and Policies in the Comp Plan to protect marine resources are met, as well as meeting the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. 16 Exhibit 2 Policy 105.2.14 Monroe County shall identify and secure possible local sources to yield a steady source of funds and secure increased funding from state and federal, and/or private sources for the Land Acquisition Program and the management and restoration of acquired resource conservation lands. With the uncertainty concerning the County's ability to successfully secure sufficient funding from state and federal governments for their fair share of the financial support for the Land Acquisition Program and the demands placed on the County's limited financial resources to address wastewater and other critical issues, it is recognized that the Land Acquisition Program may extend well beyond 20 years. Policy 105.2.15 Where appropriate, as part of the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Process, Community Centers shall be designated within areas designated as Tier III (Infill Area). A Community Center is characterized as a defined geographic area with a mix of retail, personal service, office and tourist and residential uses (generally of greater than 8 units per acre). Community Centers shall be designated as receiving areas for transfer of development rights and shall receive special incentives in the non-residential permit allocation system. Obiective 105.3 Monroe County shall implement its 20-Year Land Acquisition Program and smart growth initiatives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program and shall make appropriate amendments to this Plan and the Land Development Regulations including, but not necessarily limited to the residential and non-residential permit allocation systems. GOAL 106: Reserved GOAL 107 Monroe County shall regulate land use and development activities of scarified and/or filled portions of parcels containing environmentally sensitive areas, by the enactment of area -specific regulations that allow development to occur subject to limitations and conditions designed to protect natural resources. Objective 107.1 Monroe County shall coordinate land use with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan through Future Land Use Element Sub -Area Policies Applicable to a Specific Geographic Area. These sub -area policies identify parcels of land that require narrowly -tailored regulation in order to confine development potential to an area or extent less than the maximum development potential allowed by its Future Land Use Map category. The development parameters established for each sub -area shall be based either on an inventory of uses and facilities established on the parcel or by data and analysis supporting the specific sub -area limitations. Policy 107.1.1 Reserved Policy 107.1.2 Ramrod Key Mixed Use Area 1 Only the land uses listed in paragraphs 14 below shall be allowed on the parcels shown in the table following as Ramrod Key Mixed Use Area 1: Goals, Objectives and Policies — Future Land Use 3.1-84 REAL ESTATE NUMBER TOTAL ACREAGE ACRES FLUM DESIGNATION CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACREAGE BERM TO BE LOCATED ON PARCEL 0.79 N/A N/A Ramrod Key 00114150-000000 18.12 8.46 Mixed Use Area N/A x 1 8.87 RC 8.87 Ramrod Key 00114150-000400 2.6 2.6 Mixed Use Area 0 1 And on which a concentration ofnon-residential uses exists, including approximately 15,325 square feet of commercial floor area devoted to the uses listed below. 1. Storage, warehousing, and processing of equipment and materials utilized or generated in construction, demolition and land clearing, together with ancillary activities, including, but not limited to: a. Administrative offices. b. Workshops and equipment maintenance areas, outdoors and within structures. C. Garages and outdoor parking for construction and demolition equipment and machinery. d. Outdoor and covered storage and processing of demolition debris and construction materials. e. Storage buildings. £ Above -ground fuel tanks. 2. An antenna supporting structure with accessory building. 3. Residential uses consistent with the former RL future land use map designation and with SS zoning. Single family residences shall be limited to the existing (including any replacement thereof) and no more than four (4) additional single family residences. 4. Outdoor storage, refinishing, repair and/or rebuilding of vehicles, boats and trailers that do not constitute a heavy industrial use. Development of the Ramrod Key Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to the restrictions set out below: 1. Wetlands and hammock areas adjacent to outdoor storage shall be protected by: a. Recordation of a conservation easement prohibiting all development activities on the approximately 8.87 acres of wetlands within the Easterly portion of parcel 00114150-000000. The area to be conserved is delineated on the map below. b. Construction and maintenance of a berm, no less than 3 feet in height, on scarified land along the Westerly edge of the wetlands portion of parcel 00114150-000000 as depicted on the map below, to protect the wetlands from stonmwater runoff. Prior to issuing any permit for berm construction, Monroe County shall require submission of a stonmwater management plan adequate to protect the wetlands portion of the parcel from degradation attributable to stormwater runoff from the adjacent scarified portion utilized for outdoor storage, construction, and demolition activities. Goals, Objectives and Policies — Future Land Use 3.1-85 er_ berm MC (6.79 ac) RC CONSERVATION EASEMENT (E97 a[) Ramrod Rey MU area (8.46+2.6 - 11.08 ac) parcels RAMROD KEY MIXED USE AREA 1 RAMROD KEY MIXED USE AREA 1 Berm RE 4 00114150-00000 00114150-000000 MC {0.79 ac) (a.asacI CONSERVATION EASEMENT j 00114150-000000 RE # 00114150-000400 (2.6 ac) - n!_o STATERJU-4A — - Key: Ramrod Mile Marker: 26.5 Map Amendment A: M28097 Acreage: 8.87 Acres Plemirp Hod— 2010 Date of Adoption: October 20. 2010 RC (8.87 ac) 2. Development shall be contingent on any required coordination and/or approval from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. (Ord. 028-2010). Policy 107.13 Specific Limitations on Key Largo Mixed Use Area 1 The Key Largo Mixed Use Area 1 has a concentration of non-residential uses cwrently existing, including approximately 2,968fl of commercial floor area. The current Real Estate Parcel number is 00440100.000000, contains 0.62 acres and is legally described as: Lots 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18,19 and 20, Block 2, THOMPSONS SUBDIVISION, Section "A", according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 1, at Page 147, of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida, and the East 10 feet of that portion of Fisherman's Trail, adjacent and contiguous to the West boundary line of Lots 15 and 16, Block 2, lying between the North Line of Sailfish Trail and the Southeasterly Right -of -Way line of Old State Road 4A, in Thompsons Subdivision, Section "A", according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 1, at Page 147, of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida. Development in the Key Largo Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to regulations applicable to the Mixed Use / Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as well as the additional restrictions set out below: 1. The maximum commercial floor area ratio of 0.30. 2. There shall be no residential units. (Ord. 021-2010) Goals, Objectives and Policies — Future Land Use 3.1-86 Exhibit 3 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P53-12 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE POLICIES WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ESTABLISH SUB -AREA POLICIES APPLICABLE TO A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF SUBMERGED LANDS TO ENACT SITE -SPECIFIC, TAILORED PARAMETERS FOR THE RE -DREDGING OF PRIVATELY -OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS AND TO AMEND POLICIES TO DEFINE THE SPECIFIC, LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS WHICH SHALL BE MET TO ALLOW THE RE -DREDGING OF PRIVATELY -OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 25`" day of September, 2012; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 141' day of November, 2012, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency, for review and comment, a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. Seagrass meadows are the dominant habitat found throughout most of the coastal areas of the Keys on both the bay and ocean sides, and are a highly productive area, attracting a variety of commercial and recreational user groups. 2. The nearshore seagrass meadows experience additional impacts due to the proximity to populated shoreline areas and adjacent deeper water destinations. 3. Improved channel marking is a means of minimizing shallow -water resource damage. File 2010-046 4. Channels within Monroe County have experienced sedimentation, which in certain instances has affected navigation. 5. County staff, in conjunction with State and federal agencies have evaluated the various rules and regulations used by the agencies for comprehensive planning as well as dredge and fill activities to develop strategies, site -specific evaluations and criteria for re - dredging channels. 6. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 7. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: [Amendments are presented in str-ikethfeu to indicate deletions and underline to indicate additions to text. All other words, characters, and language of this subsection remain un- amended.] Section 1. The following amendment to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is recommended for transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners as follows: Objective 202.8 , Monroe County shall adopt maintain Land Development Regulations which implement county policies controlling pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge and fill activities. Policy 202.8.1 Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the permitting of dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent regulations adopted by Monroe County shall be maintained. Policy 202.8.2 No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County. Policy 202.8.3 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities except for maintenance in public navigation channels. As used in this policy, public navigation channel means a channel that is constructed or maintained by a public entity such as a federal or state agency, local government or inland navigation district listed in Chapter 374 F S or that is part of a public navigation project, public water management project, or a degpwater port listed in Section 403.021(9)(b), F.S. File 2010-046 In limited circumstances, the re -dredging of privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins with benthic resources may be permitted pursuant to Policy 202.8.4 and through the adoption of a sub -area policy, applicable to the specific geographic area pursuant to Objective 202.9. Policy 202.8.4 In order to facilitate navigational access and reduce continued scarring of seagrass beds re- dredgina of historically -dredged privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins may be permitted, in limited circumstances. As used in this policy, re -dredging may occur within historically -dredged access channels and/or boat basins vegetated with seagrass communities attached macroalgae or other hardbottom communities, if there is a continued threat to these communities due to existing upland development and docking facilities. Re -dredging only be permitted to preserve or restore the function of the access channel and/or boat basin. Access channels are defined as artificially -created channels, constructed through excavation serving as waterways for watercraft, and providing access to open water. Access channels do not include propeller -dredged channels. Boat basins are defined as artificially -created basins constructed through excavation, serving as basins for the mooring of watercraft. Re -dredging of access channels and/or boat basins vegetated with benthic resources may be permitted if all of the following conditions are met: 1. There is an existing access channel and/or boat basin, evidenced by permits or historical aerial photography showing a historically -dredged channel. a. Re -dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water if the original construction or maintenance dredging of the channel occurred and no previous permit has been issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District or the United States Army Corps of Engineers or Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (e.g., occurred prior to permit requirements). 2._ There is an existing, lawfully -established upland development and docking facility served by the access channel and/or boat basin. 3. The submerged land within the historically -dredged access channel is rip vately owned by the owner of the contiguous upland property containing the lawfully -established upland development and docking facility served by the access channel and/or boat basin. 4. Demonstrable natural shoaling has reduced the upland property owner's reasonable access to open water. 5. There is a demonstrable threat of scarring to the surrounding seagrass beds. 6. Mitigation for seagrass impacts will be provided consistent with the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PSIS) for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary adopted in 2004. 7. Quantity of mitigation for seagrass impacts will meet or exceed the requirements specified by the State of Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). 8. A performance bond for the re -dredging of the access channel and/or boat basin will be provided to the County prior to permit issuance. 9. The applicant shall notify the County Biologist 48 hours in advance of any re -dredging activities commencing, to accommodate monitoring and inspections. File 2010-046 10. A post -construction survey of the re -dredge of the access channel and/or boat basin footprint and depth will be conducted by a State -licensed surveyor and provided to the County for review, and if physical characteristics, including depth, exceed 15 percent from that specified in the permit, the applicant will be required to correct the errors prior to release of the performance bond. 11. The re -dredging cannot be used to dredge natural or manmade barriers separating a canal or canal system from adjacent wetlands and/or other surface waters. 12. The re -dredging of an access channel shall require the adoption of a sub -area PoligL pursuant to Objective 202.9, delineating the specific geogrrahic area and the mitigation. The re -dredging of the access channel and/or boat basin shall be designed to protect natural resources and shall provide reasonable assurance that the activity will reduce continued scarring of surrounding seagrass beds through the provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage, channel markers and/or buoy the contiguous, upland property owner or owners. The re -dredging methodology shall not cause degradation of water quality or secondary and/or cumulative impacts to surrounding benthic resources. Turbidity controls shall be used to prevent reduction of light availability to seaQrasses and increased sedimentation of adjacent surface waters and benthic resources. In addition, issuance of a County permit will include conditions that all applicable State and federal permits be obtained before commencement of work, that the applicant shall receive a notice to proceed from the County before commencement of work; a requirement that copies of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times; and that lack of the State and federal permits at any inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. Applicable State and federal permits may include permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Policy 202.8.5 In order to prevent degradation f.,eilit to establishment of bottom vegetation, maintenance dredging in artificial waterways or the re -dredging of a historically -dredged privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water or to original design depths as documented in the original permit specifications of the dredged area, whichever is more restrictive. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor. Policy 202.8.5 6 All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging or the re -dredging of a historically - dredged privately -owned access channel and/or boat basin shall be placed on permitted upland sites where drainage can be contained on -site unless utilization of the dredged spoil is an element of a seagrass restoration project consistent with the PEIS and the State of Florida's UMAM process that provides reasonable assurance of no negative impacts to water quality, species or habitats. Policy 202.8.6 7 File 2010-046 No "after -the -fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill regulations. All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated. Policy 202.8.7 8 Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and equitable penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these violations shall be set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement projects. Objective 202.9 e-� efmwate e€f, (SeDrainage -Feel-z-oo1 and related —ebjeetiies--and pies.) Monroe County shall regulate the re -dredging of historically -dredged privately -owned access channel and/or boat basins with seagrass communities, attached macroalgae or other hardbottom communities through sub -area policies applicable to a specific geographic area. These sub -area policies identify parcels of submerged land and the site -specific regulations developed in order to confine potential impacts to a specific area and document the mitigation for the proposed impacts. The development parameters established for each sub- area shall be based on data and conditions specific to the site in relation to the protection of natural resources. Policy 202.9.1 In addition to the requirements of Policy 202.8.4, Monroe County shall regulate the re - dredging of historically -dredged privately -owned access channels and basins serving existing, lawfully -established upland development with docking facilities, where the area has been recolonized by seagrasses, attached macroalgae or other hardbottom communities by the enactment of site -specific regulations that allow re -dredging to occur subject to limitations and conditions designed to protect natural resources. Policy 202.9.2 Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Lands This policy shall document the specific geographic area of the re -dredging_ permitted on the Walker's Island privately -owned submerged lands and the required mitigation for the resource impacts. The re -dredging described in Table 1 and Figure 1 (below) shall be allowed on the submerged land parcel shown as the Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area, subject to conditions listed below. Conditions: The re -dredging at the Walker's Island Privately Owned Submerged Land Area shall be subject to all the restrictions set out below: File 2010-046 1. The re -dredging of the channel and basin shall be limited to no more than the acreage specified in Table 1 to facilitate navigational access to the existing lawfully -established upland development and docking facilit . 2. The re -dredging shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet below mean low water or to depths of refusal as measured by a depth survey conducted by a State -licensed surveyor, whichever is more restrictive. 3. Recordation of a conservation easement in favor of the South Florida Water Management District prohibitingall ll impacts on, and requiring_ perpetual maintenance of, 26.93 acres of submerged land contained in parcel 00099110-000000. The area to be conserved is delineated in the Fi re 2. 4. The provision and perpetual maintenance of educational signage channel markers or buoys by the property owner or owners. Table 1: General Description Real Estate Number Total Acreage of Submerged Lands Parcel Maximum impacted Acres p Minimum Mitigation: Conservation Easement Acreage 00099110-000000 27.22 0.63 26.93 Description: 15 65 34 LITTLE CONCH KEY BAY BOTTOM NE'LY SE'LY & SW'LY & ADJ TO LITTLE CONCH KEY OR371-544/50 OR804-1163D/C OR820-5750 OR1351-519/WILL CASE #95-10270-CP-10 OR2197-1977/78 OR2326-612/16 File 2010-046 Figure 1: Scope of Proposed Work File Legend F__7I Subject Parcel #00099110-000000 ® Conservation Easement Walker's Island Privately -Owned Submerged Land Area 1 (Mile Marker 62.5) 0 0.1 0.2 Miles Objective 203.2 Monroe County shall protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to seagrasses. Policy 203.2.1 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall prohibit the location of mooring sites over submerged land which is vegetated with seagrasses or characterized by a hard -bottom community, regardless of water depth, except as may be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This prohibition shall also apply to mooring fields. Policy 203.2.2 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall prohibit the termination of docking facilities and piers over submerged land which is vegetated with seagrasses or characterized by a hard -bottom community, regardless of water depth, except as may be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Design criteria to permit sunlight to reach the bottom shall be adopted. No boat shelters or gazebos shall extend over submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses or over hardbottom communities. Policy 203.2.3 Monroe County shall: 1. Pprohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and File 2010-046 2. !!prohibit maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels. (See Objective 202.8 and related policies.) 3. In limited circumstances, the re -dredging of privately -owned access channels and/or basins with benthic resources may be permitted pursuant to Policy 202.8.4 and through the adoption of a sub -area policy applicable to a specific geographic area, pursuant to Objective 202.9. Policy 203.2.4 By July/August 1993, Monroe County shall seek to enter into an agreement with NOAA, EPA and DER regarding support of scientific studies of stresses on seagrass ecosystems in the Florida Keys region. This agreement shall be developed following completion of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan. This plan shall identify the research needs to be addressed in this agreement. Policy 203.2.5 Monroe County shall support the public education program for users of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as outlined in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, in preparation). This program shall promote user education related to, among other items, seagrass bed conservation and navigational safety in nearshore waters. Policy 203.2.6 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall enter digital information describing the location of seagrass beds in the Florida Keys into the County's Geographic Information System. These data shall be made available from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Program. Objective 204.2 Monroe County shall eliminate the loss of undisturbed wetlands and shall eliminate the net loss of disturbed wetlands. Policy 204.2.1 To protect submerged lands and wetlands the open space shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: 1. submerged lands; 2. mangroves; 3. salt ponds; 4. freshwater wetlands; 5. freshwater ponds; and 6. undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. File 2010-046 9 Policy 204.2.2 No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile -supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except; 1. as specifically allowed by Objective 212.6 and subsequent policies; 2. to fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, basin or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impacts on marine or wetland communities; or 3. as needed for shorelines stabilization, seagrass restoration or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as determined by the Directors of Planning and Environmental Resources. ^'�h r- _.1 _e,.s vaauaa a,..iula t approval . ul by the 1 1V11 and the U.S. A. -my Corps of Eagi Hanee ef a GeupAy building pe Issuance of a County permit will include conditions that all applicable State and federal permits be obtained before commencement of work; and that the applicant shall receive a notice to proceed from the County before commencement of work; a requirement that copies of these permits be available for inspection at the construction site at all times; and that lack of the State and federal permits at any inspection will be immediate cause for issuance of a stop work order. Applicable state and federal permits may include permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or South Florida Water Management District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The Remainder Of Page Intentionally Left Blank File 2010-046 10 PASSED FOR ADOPTION by the Monroe County Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on the 141h day of November, 2012. Denise Werling, Chair No Randolph D. Wall, Vice Chair Yes Jeb Hale, Commissioner Yes Elizabeth Lustburg, Commissioner Yes William Wiatt, Commissioner Yes PLANNING COMMISSI OF MONRO COUNTY, FLORIDA By Denise Werling, Chair 4A Signed this �_ day of J61 n UQrU' 22C L5 FILED WITH THE Monroe County Planning Commission Attorney Approved As To Form JA N - 9 2013 Date: AGENCY CLERK File 2010-046 Exhibit 4 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SEAGRASS RESTORATION IN THE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY August 23, 2004 Prepared by: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Contact: Harriet Sopher: 301-713-3125 ext. 109) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection 216 Ann Street Key West, FL 33040 (Contact: Anne McCarthy: 305-292-0311) FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF ACRONYMS...................................................................................................vi CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION............................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................1 1.2 Need for Proposed Action.............................................................................................1 1.3 Introduction............................................................................................................. 2 CHAPTER 2. SEAGRASS RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES ............................................... 5 2.1 Seagrass Restoration Selection Criteria....................................................................... 5 2.2 Seagrass Restoration Options........................................................................................ 5 2.2.1 No-Action................................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 Seagrass Transplants..................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Bird Stakes..................................................................................................7 2.2.4 Fertilizer Spikes............................................................................................ 9 2.2.5 Sediment Fill.............................................................................................. 10 2.2.6 Sediment Tubes............................................................................................ 10 2.2.7 Berm Redistribution.......................................................................................11 2.2.8 Sod Replacement.......................................................................................... 11 2.2.9 Exclusion Cages.......................................................................................... 11 2.3 Proposed Actions....................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................14 3.1 Location and Area Uses................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Surrounding Land Use................................................................................................ 16 3.3 Climate.................................................................................................................. 17 3.4 Air Quality...............................................................................................................17 3.5 Noise......................................................................................................................18 3.6 Geology.................................................................................................................. 18 3.7 Water Quality.......................................................................................................... 18 3.8 Physical Parameters.................................................................................................... 18 3.9 Biological Resources...................................................................................................19 3.9.1 Seagrass..................................................................................................... 19 3.9.2 Benthic Organisms.............................................................................................20 3.9.3 Fish and Invertebrate Populations........................................................................ 20 3.9.4 Endangered and Threatened Species.................................................................... 21 3.10 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 22 3.10.1 Background.............................................................................................. 22 3.10.2 Potential Historic Resources in Grounding Areas Within the FKNMS......................... 22 3.11 Hazardous and Toxic Substances.................................................................................. 25 3.12 Socioeconomics........................................................................................................25 3.12.1 Region of Influence...................................................................................... 25 3.12.2 Regional Economic Activity........................................................................... 25 3.12.3 Demographics............................................................................................. 26 3.13 Quality of Life.........................................................................................................27 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES ..................... 28 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 28 4.1.1 Surrounding Land Use (All Restoration Alternatives) ............................................... 28 4.1.2 Climate (All Restoration Alternatives)................................................................. 28 4.1.3 Air Quality (All Restoration Alternatives)............................................................. 28 4.1.4 Noise (All Restoration Alternatives).................................................................... 28 4.1.5 Cultural Resources (All Restoration Alternatives)....................................................28 4.2 No Action Alternative.................................................................................................. 29 4.2.1 Location and Area Use (No Action Alternative)...................................................... 29 4.2.2 Geology (No Action Alternative)....................................................................... 29 4.2.3 Water Resources (No Action Alternative)............................................................. 29 4.2.4 Biological Resources (No Action Alternative)........................................................ 30 4.2.5 Infrastructure (No Action Alternative)................................................................. 30 4.2.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (No Action Alternative) .......................................... 30 4.2.7 Socioeconomics (No Action Alternative).............................................................. 30 4.2.8 Quality of Life (No Action Alternative)............................................................... 30 4.3 Seagrass Transplant Alternative...................................................................................... 31 4.3.1 Location and Area Use (Seagrass Transplants)........................................................ 31 4.3.2 Geology (Seagrass Transplants)......................................................................... 31 4.3.3 Water Resources (Seagrass Transplants)............................................................... 31 4.3.4 Biological Resources (Seagrass Transplants)......................................................... 32 4.3.5 Infrastructure (Seagrass Transplants)................................................................... 32 4.3.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Seagrass Transplants)............................................32 4.3.7 Socioeconomics (Seagrass Transplants)................................................................32 4.3.8 Quality of Life (Seagrass Transplants)................................................................. 32 4.4 Bird Stakes Alternative............................................................................................... 32 4.4.1 Location and Area Use (Bird Stakes).................................................................. 33 4.4.2 Geology (Bird Stakes).................................................................................... 33 4.4.3 Water Resources (Bird Stakes)......................................................................... 33 4.4.4 Biological Resources (Bird Stakes)..................................................................... 33 4.4.5 Infrastructure (Bird Stakes).............................................................................. 34 4.4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Bird Stakes) ...................................................... 34 4.4.7 Socioeconomics (Bird Stakes)........................................................................... 34 4.4.8 Quality of Life (Bird Stakes)............................................................................. 34 4.5 Fertilizer Spike Alternative.......................................................................................... 34 4.5.1 Location and Area Use (Fertilizer Spikes)............................................................. 35 4.5.2 Geology (Fertilizer Spikes)...............................................................................35 4.5.3 Water Resources (Fertilizer Spikes).................................................................... 35 4.5.4 Biological Resources (Fertilizer Spikes)............................................................... 35 4.5.5 Infrastructure (Fertilizer Spikes).........................................................................35 4.5.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Fertilizer Spikes) ................................................. 35 4.5.7 Socioeconomics (Fertilizer Spikes)..................................................................... 36 4.5.8 Quality of Life (Fertilizer Spikes)....................................................................... 36 4.6 Sediment Fill Alternative.............................................................................................. 36 4.6.1 Location and Area Use (Sediment Fill)................................................................. 36 4.6.2 Geology (Sediment Fill).................................................................................. 37 4.6.3 Water Resources (Sediment Fill)........................................................................ 37 4.6.4 Biological Resources (Sediment Fill)................................................................... 37 4.6.5 Infrastructure (Sediment Fill)............................................................................ 37 4.6.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Sediment Fill) ..................................................... 38 ii FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS 4.6.7 Socioeconomics (Sediment Fill)......................................................................... 38 4.6.8 Quality of Life (Sediment Fill).......................................................................... 38 4.7 Sediment Tubes Alternative........................................................................................... 38 4.7.1 Location and Area Use (Sediment Tubes)..............................................................38 4.7.2 Geology (Sediment Tubes)............................................................................... 39 4.7.3 Water Resources (Sediment Tubes).....................................................................39 4.7.4 Biological Resources (Sediment Tubes)................................................................39 4.7.5 Infrastructure (Sediment Tubes)......................................................................... 39 4.7.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Sediment Tubes) ................................................. 39 4.7.7 Socioeconomics (Sediment Tubes)..................................................................... 40 4.7.8 Quality of Life (Sediment Tubes)...................................................................... 40 4.8 Berm Redistribution Alternative..................................................................................... 40 4.8.1 Location and Area Use (Berm Redistribution)........................................................ 40 4.8.2 Geology (Berm Redistribution).......................................................................... 41 4.8.3 Water Resources (Berm Redistribution)................................................................41 4.8.4 Biological Resources (Berm Redistribution)...........................................................41 4.8.5 Infrastructure (Berm Redistribution).................................................................... 41 4.8.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Berm Redistribution) ............................................ 41 4.8.7 Socioeconomics (Berm Redistribution).................................................................42 4.8.8 Quality of Life (Berm Redistribution).................................................................. 42 4.9 Sod Replacement Alternative..........................................................................................42 4.9.1 Location and Area Use (Sod Replacement)............................................................42 4.9.2 Geology (Sod Replacement)............................................................................. 42 4.9.3 Water Resources (Sod Replacement).................................................................. 42 4.9.4 Biological Resources (Sod Replacement)............................................................. 43 4.9.5 Infrastructure (Sod Replacement)....................................................................... 43 4.9.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Sod Replacement) ............................................... 43 4.9.7 Socioeconomics (Sod Replacement)................................................................... 43 4.9.8 Quality of Life (Sod Replacement)..................................................................... 43 4.10 Exclusion Cage Alternative..........................................................................................44 4.10.1 Location and Area Use (Exclusion Cages)........................................................... 44 4.10.2 Geology (Exclusion Cages)............................................................................. 44 4.10.3 Water Resources (Exclusion Cages)...................................................................44 4.10.4 Biological Resources (Exclusion Cages)..............................................................44 4.10.5 Infrastructure (Exclusion Cages)...................................................................... 45 4.10.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances (Exclusion Cages) ............................................... 45 4.10.7 Socioeconomics (Exclusion Cages)....................................................................45 4.10.8 Quality of Life (Exclusion Cages)..................................................................... 45 4.11 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................45 4.11.1 No Action Alternative................................................................................... 46 4.11.2 Seagrass Transplant Alternative....................................................................... 46 4.11.3 Bird Stake Alternative................................................................................... 46 4.11.4 Fertilizer Spike Alternative............................................................................. 46 4.11.5 Sediment Fill Alternative............................................................................... 46 4.11.6 Sediment Tube Alternative............................................................................. 47 4.11.7 Berm Redistribution Alternative....................................................................... 47 4.11.8 Sod Replacement Alternative.......................................................................... 47 4.11.9 Water Marking Alternative............................................................................ 47 4.11.10 Exclusion Cage Alternative........................................................................... 47 4.12 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................. 47 4.12.1 Geology................................................................................................... 47 4.12.2 Water Resources......................................................................................... 48 iii FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS 4.12.3 Biological Resources.................................................................................... 48 4.12.4 Infrastructure..............................................................................................48 4.12.5 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................48 4.12.6 Hazardous and Toxic Substances...................................................................... 48 4.13 Selection of Preferred Alternatives................................................................................. 48 4.14 Conclusions............................................................................................................ 50 CHAPTER 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL RESTORATION PLAN.....................50 5.1 Purposes of the Regional Restoration Plan......................................................................... 50 5.2 Regional Restoration and Injury Prevention Projects.............................................................. 50 5.3 Selection of Priority Areas ............................................................................................ 51 5.3.1 Statistical Analysis of Grounding Frequency Data by Region ...................................... 52 5.3.2 Evaluation of Priority Areas for Regional Restoration Action ...................................... 54 5.4 Assessment of Selected Areas.........................................................................................55 5.5 Monitoring of Regional Restoration Actions....................................................................... 55 5.6 Seagrass Experts Contacted.......................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS AND PROGRAMS .................................... 57 6.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190)...............................................57 6.2 NOAA Administrative Order on Environmental Review Procedures (NAO 216-6).......................... 57 6.3 National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq., as amended) .................................... 58 6.4 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (Public Law 101-605)..........................58 6.5 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)....................................................................... 58 6.6 Coastal Zone Management Consistency (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.).............................................58 6.7 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1543)................................................................ 58 6.8 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265, as amended)....... 58 6.9 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau on Invasive Plant Management..................59 6.10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources.............................................................................................59 6.11 Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources.................................................59 6.12 Monroe and Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management ...........................59 6.13 United States Coast Guard............................................................................................59 CHAPTER 7. LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................ 60 CHAPTER8. REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX A. EXAMPLE ORPHAN INJURY ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING SUMMARY FOR THE SEAGRASS REGIONAL RESTORATION PLAN..................................................66 A.1 Injury Description......................................................................................................66 A.2 Proposed Restoration Actions........................................................................................ 69 A.3 Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 70 A.3.1 Site Identification......................................................................................... 70 A.3.2 Monitoring Variables..................................................................................... 70 A.3.3 Monitoring Data Processing and Utility ............................................................... 70 A.3.4 Monitoring Schedule......................................................................................70 A.4 Estimated Cost of Orphan Site Restoration.........................................................................71 tv FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS APPENDIX B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SEAGRASS RESTORATION AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.32 B.1 Comment received from Heinz J. Mueller, EPA...................................................................72 B.2 Response to Heinz J. Mueller Comment.............................................................................79 B.3 Comment received from Pat Wells, FDEP.......................................................................... 80 B.4 Response to Pat Wells Comment.....................................................................................80 B.5 Comment received from Miles M. Croom, EPA...................................................................81 B.6 Response to Miles M. Croom Comment.............................................................................80 B.7 Comment Received from Roy R. "Robin" Lewis, III..............................................................82 B.8 Response to Roy R. "Robin" Lewis, III Comment................................................................. 90 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS LIST OF ACRONYMS ACOE Army Corps of Engineers CE Categorical Exclusion CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DPEIS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act ERP Environmental Resource Permit ESA Endangered Species Act FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary FKNMSPA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPEIS Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement HEA Habitat Equivalency Analysis MLLW Mean Lower Low Water MMS Minerals Management Service NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAO NOAA Administrative Order NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMSA National Marine Sanctuary Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement POL Petroleum, Oil, or Lubricant PU Planting Unit PVC Polyvinyl Chloride ROI Region of Influence SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan USC United States Code USDOC United States Department of Commerce USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency V1 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) systematically evaluates the short and long-term environmental and socioeconomic effects related to the implementation of seagrass restoration and seagrass injury prevention projects in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The Trustees for the FKNMS are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida ("State of Florida" or "State"). This document is intended to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, and NOAA guidelines for compliance with NEPA. As this document focuses on future regional seagrass restoration and injury prevention activities within all of the FKNMS, the discussion of potential positive and negative impacts on the biological, social, and economic environments will not be site or case specific; instead, they will be general in scope. Therefore, the goal of this PEIS is to describe a range of seagrass restoration techniques, used for both primary and compensatory restoration projects and seagrass injury prevention actions that potentially may be implemented in the FKNMS. The types of seagrass restoration and injury prevention projects proposed in this plan will be implemented with funds collected through natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) settlements for injuries to seagrasses within the FKNMS. The anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts of each restoration technique are discussed in detail. 1.2 NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The FKNMS contains some of the most extensive seagrass beds in the continental United States. Seagrass beds are an important component of the Florida coral reef tract, the third largest barrier reef system in the world. In 1990, Congress recognized the significance of this area when it designated the area as a National Marine Sanctuary, by means of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA) (see Figure 1-1). The FKNMSPA was later incorporated into subsequent reauthorizations of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Implementing seagrass restoration projects in the FKNMS will prevent the injuries from expanding in size or increasing in severity, create the site conditions necessary for the injured areas to recover to pre -incident conditions, and compensate the public and the environment for the services lost from the time of injury until full recovery. FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS Figure 1-1. Map of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Orgy 70 0 70 140 Miles Source: http.Ilwww.fknms.nos.noaa.gov 1.3 INTRODUCTION Healthy seagrass communities serve an important ecological and socioeconomic function in the Florida Keys (FKNMS 1996). The predominant species of seagrasses are Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme, and Halodule wrightii. From an ecological perspective, seagrass beds are the nurseries for numerous species of fish and invertebrates. In turn, the viability of the recreational and commercial fishing industries, and the associated service industries, are to some degree, directly or indirectly dependent on healthy seagrass communities. From a physical perspective, seagrass beds are also effective storm surge buffers for the low-lying Keys, thereby reducing property damage during extreme weather events. Seagrasses function as natural filters that reduce the level of sediment in the water (i.e. turbidity). The natural filtration of water by seagrasses is a major contributor to the clearness of the water, a characteristic appreciated by those who live on or visit the Keys. This process also protects other members of the living marine resources community, such as coral reefs, which are vulnerable to eutrophicating substances in turbid water. Seagrass beds can persist under a wide range of hydrodynamic conditions. The horizontal rhizome and root system is underground, protecting much of seagrass biomass from the elements. The root system grows laterally, sending up short shoots that penetrate the surface. S. filiforme and H. wrightii have shallow root -rhizome systems and can 2 MIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS initiate growth in oxidized, relatively unstable sediments, making them the principle seagrass colonizers in an area. Because T. testudinum (see Figure 1-2) builds a thicker root -rhizome system deeper underground, it takes this climax species longer to colonize an area, if water depth and wave energy provide the conditions necessary for its growth (Chiappone 1996). Figure 1-2. Close-up of Thalassia testudinum rhizome The cumulative impact of vessel groundings has led to a pervasive scarring of seagrass beds throughout the FKNMS (Sargent et al. 1995). In 2001, it was estimated that 677 boat groundings occurred in the FKNMS, with approximately 60-70% of these occurring on seagrass beds.1 Seagrass injuries in the FKNMS typically include a combination of propeller scars, blowholes, and sediment berms. Propeller scars are formed by the dredging effect of the turning propeller(s) as the boat travels over a shallow bank. The width of a propeller scar varies depending on many factors, including the size of the vessel and the extent to which the propeller is forced into the seagrass bed. Blowholes, another common injury feature, are formed from the concentrated force of propeller wash, either from the grounded vessel attempting to power off the bank or the propeller wash of the salvage vessel pulling the grounded vessel off the bank. The depth and area of the blowholes vary depending on many factors, including size of the vessel, extent of power used to remove the vessel, and type of substrate sediment. Berms, a third common seagrass injury feature, are produced from the sand, coral fragments, and other substrates that typically accumulate around the perimeter of blowholes, thereby burying healthy seagrass. Restoration is an important step in reducing the cumulative impact of seagrass injuries throughout the Keys. When the underground seagrass rhizome system is damaged and the surrounding sediment altered by structural injuries such as vessel groundings, the seagrass community often has a difficult time reestablishing itself without supplemental restoration efforts. Lt. Bob Currul, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Personal communication. January, 2002. 3 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS The goal of a NRDA is to assess the nature, extent and severity of the injury, implement primary and compensatory restoration to make the environment and public whole, and recover response and damage assessment costs. The Trustees' main seagrass restoration objective for groundings is to conduct feasible, cost-effective, in -kind restoration using the best available techniques to accelerate recovery to the pre -grounding baseline levels. "Primary restoration" refers to restoration activities at the actual grounding site. For seagrasses, "baseline" refers to the level of ecological services that would have been provided but for the incident. These services are directly tied to the type, quality, and density of the seagrass beds. Baseline conditions are typically measured via field assessment techniques in the undisturbed seagrass bordering the grounding site (Fonseca et al. 2000). In many circumstances, without primary restoration the injured seagrass communities are subject to re -disturbance by storms that could slow recovery and/or expand the size of the injury (Whitfield et. al 2002). "Compensatory restoration" refers to a restoration project, typically off -site, that would compensate the public for the lost interim ecological services as a result of the time it takes for the original, "primary" injury to return to baseline conditions. In some instances, compensatory restoration may take the form of preventative projects that seek to reduce the frequency and/or severity of similar grounding incidents. Typically, damages recovered for small compensatory restoration projects would be pooled together for the implementation of a larger compensatory restoration project. These restoration and injury prevention objectives are in keeping with the goals and policies of the NMSA, the FKNMSPA, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan, and the sovereign submerged land policies of the State of Florida. The NMSA, 16 U.S.C.§1443(d)(2) (A), (B), and (C), defines the appropriate uses of recovered damages in order of priority as "(A) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the sanctuary resources that were the subject of the action; B) to restore degraded sanctuary resources of the national marine sanctuary that was the subject of action, giving priority to sanctuary resources and habitats that are comparable to the sanctuary resources that were the subject of the action; and (C) to restore degraded sanctuary resources of other national marine sanctuaries." Amounts recovered for injuries to sanctuary resources lying within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida are used in accordance with the Agreement for the Coordination of Civil Claims between NOAA and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. The restoration activities discussed above will not have a disproportionate or adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income populations in the nearby vicinity or elsewhere, thereby complying with Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations." The low-income and minority populations affected by these injuries and restoration activities are primarily those that live in nearby Monroe County (Key West Chamber of Commerce 1999). The restoration activities discussed in this document serve to return the seagrass banks to their baseline conditions with the effect of providing essential habitat for fish and other marine life on which many members of surrounding minority and low-income communities depend for their livelihood. Restoration will also facilitate natural filtration of the water, which protects nearby coral reefs upon which many minority and low-income persons working in tourism depend. Additionally, restoration will help protect surrounding areas, where many minority and low-income members live, from storm damage. The identification and analysis of disproportionately high environmental and/or human health effects on minority and/or low-income populations was considered from the initial screening phase of the NEPA process through the consideration and communication of all alternatives and associated mitigation techniques. FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS CHAPTER 2. SEAGRASS RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES 2.1 SEAGRASS RESTORATION SELECTION CRITERIA Research on various aspects of seagrass ecology and restoration at NOAA's Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research has been continuous for 20 years (Whitfield et al. 2002; Fonseca 1998). Areas of investigation include development and dissemination of planting techniques, monitoring protocols, and success criteria. In addition, studies have examined light requirements of seagrasses, ecological equivalency of restored beds compared to natural beds, undisturbed systems, and studies regarding the dynamics of seagrass bed pattern and distribution. Emphasis has been placed on transfer of research information to managers, active participation in research projects, and litigation support. The research approach has been to sustain a broad -based program covering a variety of ecological processes that allows the scientists to quickly adapt and respond to changing management concerns and issues. Based on the Trustees' broad experience with seagrass ecology and restoration, general criteria will be considered for selecting the appropriate restoration alternatives for site -specific seagrass injuries. The following criteria (see Table 2-1) are used to evaluate and select the preferred restoration alternatives. These criteria satisfy the restoration objectives while taking into account technical, environmental, economic, and social factors of the FKNMS and surrounding areas. Table 2-1. Criteria for Evaluating Seagrass Restoration Options Criteria Definition Technical Feasibility Likelihood that a given restoration action will work at the site and the technology and management skills exist to implement the restoration action. Recovery Time Measures that accelerate or sustain the long-term natural processes important to recovery of the affected resources and/or services injured or lost in the incident. Additional Injury Likelihood that the requirements, materials, or implementation of a restoration action minimizes the potential for additional injury. Aesthetic Acceptability Restoration alternatives that create substrates and topography that most closely resemble the surrounding habitat and minimize visual degradation. Restoration alternatives are selected depending on the site specific context of Site Specific Context environmental conditions at the site including but not limited to location, extent and severity of the injury, hydrological characteristics of the site, seagrass species composition, and other social and resource management concerns. 2.2 SEAGRASS RESTORATION OPTIONS The following is a list of the most common alternatives for seagrass restoration that are considered prior to the selection of the preferred seagrass restoration alternatives for each site. As most seagrass injury categories are fairly uniform, the techniques listed below are expected to be applicable to virtually all seagrass injury restoration projects. Depending on the scenario, a combination of these alternatives may be most effective. Several other restoration alternatives that are not mentioned, such as mechanical plugging and planting of large sods, have not yet been demonstrated to be successful in the carbonate system of the FKNMS. 2.2.1 No -Action A no -action alternative may be selected for seagrass injuries that have a high probability of rapid natural recovery or that are logistically or technically incapable of receiving any restoration actions, such as those that occur in very high-energy environments. A no -action alternative relies on natural colonization of FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS seagrass species and natural processes to filling blowholes and propeller scars with sediment. Natural colonization and filling often occurs slowly over many years and may result in conditions that may or may not resemble pre -grounding topography, structure, and function. In contrast, restoration fills in blowholes and propeller scars quickly, and accelerates colonization of seagrass in the injured area. The no -action alternative can have two general outcomes: 1) natural recovery on a longer time scale relative to active restoration alternatives, or 2) further deterioration of the seagrass bed due to the absence of natural recovery. The no -action alternative is most often used for grounding cases in which the Trustees believe there is a low likelihood of secondary injury or injury expansion before natural recovery occurs, or where other social, environmental, or logistical considerations dictate that no -action is the best course (such as in the case of an injury to a H. wrightii bed which often recovers quickly on its own). Even if no -action is the selected alternative, compensatory restoration of another injured seagrass area may occur to compensate for the interim service losses. The amount of compensatory restoration necessary to compensate for the interim ecological services lost due to the injury will be determined through a habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) (NOAA 1995b). HEA is a well -established restoration scaling method that has been used in the past by natural resource Trustees to scale a wide range of compensatory restoration projects, including those designed to address injuries to seagrass habitats. 2.2.2 Seagrass Transplants Planting seagrass in injured areas is known to be an effective way of stabilizing the sediments and decreasing the injury recovery time (Fonseca et al. 1998). Planting faster growing opportunistic species like H. wrightii or S. filiforme serves as a temporary substitute for the climax species, T. testudinum. This temporary substitution is referred to as "modified compressed succession" (Durako and Moffler 1984; Lewis 1987). Depending on the environmental conditions at the restoration site, the selection of seagrass transplants as a preferred restoration alternative will vary. For example, transplants may be selected most frequently at low to moderate energy sites where the probability of transplant loss due to high water velocity is lowest. When best practices are used, seagrass transplants experience a survival rate of 70-80% (Fonseca et al. 1998). To date, two small vessel grounding sites have been restored with seagrass transplants in the FKNMS. Though the monitoring cycle (see below) has not been completed, initial monitoring events indicated that both sites exceeded 75% survival after one year. Due to the high risk of hurricanes between August 15 and October 15, no seagrass transplanting will be done during this period. Potential sources for seagrass transplants include selective removal from healthy seagrass beds located near the injury or from seagrass beds designated previously by the Trustees as semi -permanent donor sites. All efforts will be made to use seagrass transplant stock from areas in the vicinity of the injury to ensure minimal variation in the genetic differences between the resident seagrasses and the transplanted seagrasses. Seagrass transplants will be collected in accordance with all necessary permits and in a manner that ensures that healthy seagrass beds are not degraded. Collection methods have been developed which minimize impact to donor beds of H. wrightii and S. filiforme and assure rapid recovery after plants have been removed (Fonseca et al. 1998). Specifically, transplant harvesting will entail the collection of numerous, small planting units from within a donor site. This will avoid creating a large hole in the donor bed's standing stock, and decrease the time required for the bed to replenish itself. Sustained injury to donor sites from limited harvesting efforts has been demonstrated to occur for only one of the thirteen species of North American seagrass, T. testudinum (Fonseca et al. 1998). As the comparatively faster growing species H. wrightii and S. filiforme will be harvested for transplants, no adverse effects on donor sites are expected. No negative impacts to vessel navigation or the ecological health of neighboring seagrass communities are anticipated from seagrass transplant collection and insertion, and there is no evidence that any invasive or exotic species have occupied donor sites. See section 2.2.4 for a description of seagrass transplant spacing. Monitoring events will assess transplant and natural re -colonization via measures of planting unit (PU) survival, shoot density, aerial coverage, and documentation with video transects. The execution and 6 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS application of the monitoring effort is adapted from "Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters", available at: http://shrimp.bea.nmfs.gov/library/digital.html, under "Appendices", pages 207-220, or http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/das/dasl2.html. Briefly, the monitoring data will be used to determine if successful establishment of transplanted seagrass has occurred and if it is on an appropriate recovery trajectory. If not, these data will be used to plan and execute remedial restoration. The success criteria are: 1) whether planted material has a minimum of one rhizome apical per PU, 2) a PU survival rate of 75% at the end of Year 1. If it is determined that less than 75% survival has occurred by the end of Year 1, then remedial planting should occur during the next available planting period to bring the percentage survival rate to the minimum standard by the next monitoring survey, and 3) the measured growth rate of bottom coverage from either direct quadrat surveys or video -based assessment (p. 220 of above weblink; Braun-Blanquet assessment). The growth rate should be considered successful if, starting after Year 1, the planted pioneering species of seagrass in the restoration sites is projected with 95% statistical confidence to achieve complete bottom coverage to pre -injury levels of shoot density within the five year monitoring period for original plantings. If this criterion is not met, then remedial planting should occur during the next available planting period. Videotaping is also performed to provide an unambiguous record of the status of the restoration. This is particularly valuable to parties not familiar with seagrass systems and interpretation of statistical data. Additionally, the seagrass immediately surrounding the injury site (e.g. "reference site") will also be monitored. This action will be taken to determine if background impacts not related to the restoration (those that cannot be controlled nor affected through a mid -course correction), such as poor water quality or disease, may affect transplant and natural re -colonization of the restoration site. The purpose of monitoring the reference site is not to compare its coverage and density to that of the restoration site as recovery of the restoration site will take place over a longer time horizon than the duration of monitoring. Monitoring of reference sites will include documentation of percent cover by Braun Blanquet quadrat analysis. 2.2.3 Bird Stakes In most areas of the FKNMS, seagrasses are nutrient limited.2 As such, when vessel injuries disturb the sediment nutrient reservoir, the ability of seagrasses to re -colonize is more difficult. A method of fertilization that utilizes the nutrient composition of bird feces deposited from birds roosting on stakes (hereinafter referred to as "bird stakes" or "stakes", see Figure 2-1) has been documented to be an effective treatment to facilitate colonization of seagrasses into disturbed sediments and/or faster growth of seagrass transplants (Fourqurean et al. 1992a; Fourqurean et al. 1992b; Fourqurean et al. 1995; Kenworthy et al. 2000). Bird stakes are preferable to fertilizer spikes in water depths of up to 1.5 meters, as they do not need to be continually replaced. To be effective, bird staking requires that bird feces reach the seafloor in concentrated doses for as long as the stakes are in place. Water depths of 1.5 meters or less at mean high tide are generally considered ideal for bird staking. With water depths greater than 1.5 meters, the effect of dilution on the feces is believed to reduce the effective strength of the fertilizer. Depending on how water depth changes over the injury area, the length of each stake may vary slightly in order to maintain approximately 0.25 in elevation above the Although many areas of the Keys suffer from high levels of nitrogen loading from leaking septic tanks and other non -point sources, the relatively diffuse spread of these nutrients are not as effective in fostering seagrass recovery as a concentrated release of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer from bird stakes (Fourqueran et al. 1995). FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS high water level. Research has demonstrated that if left on site too long, bird stakes may cause a communal shift of seagrass species from T. testudinum to H. wrightii (Powell et al. 1989). Thus, bird stakes are removed after approximately 75% survival coalescence is reached, which is usually after 18 months. A detailed review of bird stake construction and placement requirements are available in published guidelines (Fonseca et al. 1998; Kenworthy et al. 2000). There is no evidence that proper use of bird stakes impairs local water quality. Deployment in areas of less than 1.5-meter water depth ensures that the majority of the feces reach the seafloor in concentrated doses, precluding the nutrients from fueling harmful algal blooms. Several species of birds have been observed using bird stakes at both research and restoration sites in the FKNMS. The most common species that have been recorded using bird stakes are double crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), least terns (Sterna antillarum), royal terns (Sterna maxima), brown pelicans (Pelicanus occidentalis), magnificent frigate birds (Fregata magnificens), and great blue herons (Ardea herodias). The cormorants are the primary target for roosting and the most frequently observed species using the bird stakes. There is no evidence that the bird stakes affect populations or distribution of bird species in the FKNMS. In most instances, bird stakes will accompany seagrass transplants. This decision is based on factors including the exposure of the site to wave action, density of fast-growing species in the undisturbed side populations, and injury substrate composition. Depending on the site -specific context of a case, portions of a scar may receive only stakes, while a different portion receives stakes and seagrass transplants. However, at injury locations with a high density of fast-growing species (e.g. H. wrightii), the insertion of bird stakes alone may be sufficient to encourage colonization. The possibility for bird stakes interfering with vessel navigation is low, as bird stakes will be positioned in shallow water areas that should be avoided by vessels. In areas of high vessel traffic, additional steps may be taken to minimize the possibility of boaters confusing stakes for public or privately placed navigational aids. This may involve the placement of additional bird stakes at either end of the prop scar to create a stake barrier. Other methods may include the use of educational signs and reflective tape on the stakes to reduce the possibility that boaters will confuse the stakes for a new channel passage. Bird stakes will be removed promptly from the site as soon as recovery is determined to be well underway or at the end of the allocated monitoring period time as detailed in the restoration plan. See section 2.2.4 for a description of bird stake spacing. Figure 2-1. Bird Stake Schematic Mean High Water 0.25 m 4W 2.2.4 Fertilizer Spikes FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS 10 cm 5 cm ALw Roosting. 10 Cm block J. ,-- � . - f —1.25 cm PVC m Bird stakes are the preferred technique for ensuring regular release of fertilizer over an area of approximately 3 square meters below the stake. However, in situations where bird stakes are inappropriate, such as in water depths over 1.5 meters, the use of chemical fertilizer spikes is another alternative to enhance seagrass colonization of the injury area. A broad review article published by Worm et al. (2000) documents that the benefits of in -situ nutrient enrichment through fertilizer spikes have been demonstrated in numerous studies to be an effective method for seagrass restoration. These in -situ nutrient enrichment studies have shown that fertilizer spikes deliver a high load of phosphorus, the main limiting nutrient for seagrasses growing on carbonate sediments in the FKNMS (Worm et al. 2000). Fertilizer spikes will naturally biodegrade in approximately three to four months, at which time, depending on the status of the restoration project, additional fertilizer spikes may be inserted. The placement of fertilizer spikes will follow guidelines for seagrass transplants as detailed below, with no more than one spike placed directly adjacent to each transplant unit. The advantages of fertilizer spikes are: 1) they deliver a concentrated dose of nutrients in a small area that directly benefits individual planting units; 2) they are easier to deploy than encapsulated fertilizers, a significant advantage in coarse, firm sediments; 3) they are suitable for water depths greater than 1.5 meters; and 4) they are a viable fertilizer enhancement alternative when bird stakes are inappropriate due to hazards to navigation or risk of vandalism. FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS The number of seagrass transplants and stakes/spikes required for propeller scars is determined according to the following general guidelines. These guidelines are subject to modification based on site -specific injury characteristics and the professional judgment of Trustee restoration experts. The longer axis of a propscar is defined as its length and the shorter axis is its width. For propscars less than 1.5 in in width, only a single row of stakes/spikes and seagrass transplants is used. The stakes/spikes and transplants are inserted in the middle of the scar and the row runs the length of the injury. The first stake is inserted at the beginning of the scar (at O.Om along its length). Additional stakes are then placed along the injury with 2.0 in between each stake. Thus, for example, a scar that is 10 in in length would have six stakes. Three seagrass transplants are inserted between the first two stakes, at distances of 0.5 in, 1.0 in, and 1.5 in along the scar. Seagrasses are not transplanted directly under the stakes. This planting pattern is repeated for the length of the injury. A 10 in scar would require 15 seagrass transplants. For scars between 1.5 and 2.0 in in width, two rows are inserted. The first, a row of stakes and planting units as described above, is inserted 0.5m into the width of the scar. The second row is composed of only seagrass planting units and is inserted I.Om into the width of the scar. Thus, the two rows divide the width of the scar into thirds. Additional seagrass transplants are placed in the second row instead of stakes (resulting in a row of 16 transplants for a 10 in scar). This general pattern is maintained for wider propscars, blowholes, and berms. Additionally, the perimeter of blowholes is staked at 2.0 in intervals. Over time, stakes/spikes may be re- positioned and additional seagrass transplants inserted as necessary during monitoring events. 2.2.5 Sediment Fill Blowholes are a common seagrass injury associated with vessel groundings. In general, the size of the grounded vessel and degree of propeller force used by the grounded vessel or the salver to remove the vessel correlates to the size of the blowhole. The filling of blowholes, or in some circumstances wide propeller scars, is a rapid way of returning the seafloor to its original grade. In general, any excavation with an escarpment (i.e. drop-off) greater than 20 cm deep at the perimeter is considered a potential candidate for filling. The focus of this alternative is to stabilize the substrate as soon as possible after an incident to prevent further deterioration from erosion and to prepare the area for colonization by neighboring or transplanted seagrasses. When this alternative is determined to be most appropriate, sediment fill, (e.g. 0.25 inch limestone pea rock) initially garnered from quarries, will be transported to the site and directly placed in the designated injury areas. It is expected that fine sediments from the local area will eventually fill the interstitial spaces of the pea gravel. No visual impairment will occur and many of the repairs will be indistinguishable from surrounding substrate within a short period of time. All operations will conform to engineering specifications and comply with federal and state permits, including an Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permit and a de minimus permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to allow seagrass restoration (stake, plant and fill) in Sanctuary waters. 2.2.6 Sediment Tubes An additional seagrass restoration technique involves the placement of biodegradable sediment -filled fabric mesh tubes (referred hereinafter as "sediment tubes") inside of the trench created by propeller scars or on top of sediment fill in blowholes. These sediment tubes are effective in reducing erosion rates in injuries and fostering conditions suitable for natural re -colonization of the injured area by neighboring seagrasses and growth of seagrass transplants. Sediment tubes as a restoration technique may be appropriate in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, propeller scar injury excavations and small blowholes or when blowhole fill requires a protective barrier to reduce erosional forces. As such, the design of tubes will be slightly tailored to the specific geometry of each injury. Most of the tube deployments will be comprised of two tubes laid atop one another, capping the sediment fill placed in the excavation. The tubes replace the 10 cm above -grade topping of sediment fill required when tubes are not used. If seagrass transplants are also required, H. wrightii transplants will be planted in the tubes. Depending on the specific context of the injury, sediment tubes may be used in combination with any other restoration technique to expedite stabilization and recovery of the injured area. A primary advantage of 10 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS using sediment tubes is their ability to mitigate erosional forces that may otherwise act to remove or displace the sediment fill. Depending on the specific site conditions of an injury site, it is forseeable that restoration actions may include a combination of fill, tubes, and berm redistribution in order to most effectively stabilize the site. 2.2.7 Berm Redistribution Blowhole and large propeller scar injuries often create berms of sediment surrounding the injury site. In some circumstances, where the displaced fill is directly adjacent to the injury site and easily accessible, restoration experts may be able to return the displaced fill back into the injury by either raking or water - dredging, or some combination of the two. However, this is only an alternative when doing so will not injure any seagrass that may still be living below the berm. Redistribution of fill is an immediate, low-cost, and low -risk restoration action that advances stabilization of the injury site and recovery of the area previously covered by sediment. In addition, redistribution of fill may minimize injury to adjacent seagrass beds covered by the berms created by the incident. 2.2.8 Sod Replacement When appropriate, large chunks of seagrasses with intact rhizomes that were dislodged as a result of an injury may be placed back into a shallow propscar injury or blowhole. This alternative is suitable for shallow blowholes or propscars where additional sediment fill is not needed for the replaced seagrass to continue to thrive once replaced. This restoration technique expedites recovery of the injured sites, resulting in direct and indirect ecological and socioeconomic benefits associated with healthy seagrass ecosystems. For groundings that produce chunks of seagrass with intact rhizomes and result in injury features that do not require sediment fill, sod replacement will be done immediately after injury assessment to maximize the chance of sod survival. 2.2.9 Exclusion Cages When injuries to seagrass beds occur near coral reefs, it is especially difficult for the seagrass to reestablish itself after restoration. A large variety of herbivores live in or frequent coral reefs and thus put abnormally high grazing pressure on nearby seagrass. Uninjured, well -established seagrass beds can sustain this pressure, but new transplants are quickly grazed to the point where they cannot sustain themselves because they are planted as smaller fragments or units, which are not integrated clonally as are plants growing in an established meadow. However, research has shown that exclusion cages placed around new transplants for three to four months allow the beds to establish themselves to the point where they are sustainable after the cages are removed (Fonseca et al. 1994). Each exclusion cage must also be securely fastened to the substrate so that it does not become detached. This is particularly important in areas where cages are exposed to storm waves, ground swells and other high-energy events. 2.3 PROPOSED ACTIONS In most seagrass restoration projects, a combination of one or more of the alternatives presented will be identified as the preferred altemative(s) in an injury -specific restoration plan. Trustees with expertise in seagrass restoration ecology and first-hand experience with the grounding site select the proposed preferred alternative. Berm redistribution and sod replacement will occur at the time of injury assessment, if warranted. Typically, seagrass transplants will be accompanied with bird stakes if the water depth is less than 1.5 meters or fertilizer spikes if water depth is greater than 1.5 meters. Exclusion cages will be placed over seagrass transplants in areas close to coral reefs. In addition, if the site -specific conditions warrant sediment fill for blowholes or sediment tubes for wide propeller scars or blowholes, seagrass transplants and bird stakes will be inserted after sediment placement activities. Finally, if it is determined that the grounding site is likely to recover rapidly or primary restoration is not appropriate due to other reasons, the no -action alternative may be assigned for part or all of the injury site. Table 2- 11 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS 2 summarizes the alternatives available, the conditions under which they may be chosen, and the ultimate results of their applications. Table 2-2. Seagrass Restoration Alternative Matrix/Cmmnarisnn ALTERNATIVE SITE CONDITION RESULT No Action: Leaving the Chosen for injuries where there is • Natural recovery occurs on a longer time scale injury untouched. a relatively small likelihood of relative to restoration activities. secondary injury before natural OR recovery occurs, or where any . Further deterioration of the seagrass bed occurs due restoration is considered too to ineffective natural recovery. difficult to undertake due to high- energy conditions. Seagrass Transplants: Often selected at low to moderate . Stabilization of sediments decreases injury recovery Planting seagrass (S energy sites, where the probability time. filfforme and H. wrightfi) of transplant loss due to high water a Planting faster growing opportunistic species like taken from donor sites in velocity is lowest. H. wrightii or S. filiforme serves as a temporary injured areas including substitute for the climax species, T. testudinum. berms, blowholes and/or propscars. Bird Stakes: Insertion of Used on seagrass beds in water . Bird feces reach the seagrass floor for as long as the stakes upon which birds depths of 1.5 meters or less (mean stakes are in place. roost, dropping their feces high water). • Colonization of seagrasses into disturbed sediments on and thus fertilizing is facilitated and/or seagrass transplants grow at a seagrass beds. Inserted faster rate than natural recovery. into berms, blowholes . Fertilizer is released regularly over an area of and/or propscars. approximately 3 square meters below the stake Fertilizer Spikes: Used on replanted seagrass beds . Colonization of seagrasses into disturbed sediments Insertion of chemical when water depths are greater than is facilitated and/or seagrass transplants grow at a fertilizer spikes that release 1.5 meters or when bird stakes are faster rate. fertilizer into the sediments inappropriate due to hazards to . A concentrated dose of nutrients is delivered in a of replanted seagrass beds navigation or risk of vandalism. small area that directly benefits individual planting over a period of 3-4 units. months. Inserted into berms, blowholes and/or propscars . Sediment Fill: Filling of Used for injuries greater than 20 . The seafloor is rapidly returned to its original blowholes or wide cm deep. grade. propeller scars with • The substrate is stabilized quickly after an incident sediment similar to that of to prevent further deterioration from erosion and to the surrounding area. prepare the area for colonization by neighboring or transplanted seagrasses. Sediment Tubes: Often used in narrow excavations . Erosion rates are reduced. Placement of (such as propscars) deeper than 20 . Conditions are made more suitable for natural re - biodegradable sediment- cm or to cap fill placed in larger colonization of the injured area by neighboring filled fabric mesh tubes blowholes in high-energy seagrasses and growth of transplants is fostered. inside the trench of a environments. ro scar or blowhole. 12 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS Table 2-2. Seagrass Restoration Alternative Matrix/Comparison (continued) ALTERNATIVE SITE CONDITION RESULT Berm Redistribution: Returning Undertaken when it is believed that • Stabilization of the injury site displaced fill back into the injury. doing so will not cause more harm and recovery of the area by damaging live seagrass below the previously covered by sediment berm. is enhanced. Sod Replacement: Used in shallow injuries where . Regrowth of dislodged sod. Replacement of large chunks of intact seagrass chunks can be found . Stabilization of the injury site seagrasses with intact rhizomes back and recovery of the area. into a shallow propscar injury or blowhole. Exclusion Cages: Used in restoration sites located near . Allows seagrass beds to Enclosing seagrass transplants with coral reefs. reestablish themselves to the a cage to prevent it from being point where they are not overgrazed. overgrazed when the cages are removed. 13 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter provides background information on the potentially affected environments associated with seagrass restoration projects in the FKNMS. As this PEIS is regional in scope, emphasis is placed on presenting a range of affected resources over the entire FKNMS region. Given the size of the FKNMS and uncertainty with regard to where exactly each restoration project will occur, by necessity, a site -specific discussion of potential restoration sites and specific environments affected is not possible. 3.1 LOCATION AND AREA USES Located almost completely within Monroe County, the FKNMS consists of approximately 9,500 kmz of coastal and oceanic waters and submerged lands. Uses of the general area include diving, fishing, snorkeling and boating. The FKNMS holds not only recreational and commercial value, but also scientific, historical, ecological and educational value (NOAA 2000; NOAA 2002). Many scientists view the area as a living laboratory in which numerous scientific studies and other research are being conducted (UNEP/IUCN 1988; NOAA 2002). Many marine species found within the FKNMS's boundaries hold commercial or recreational value, including spiny lobster, grouper, mackerel, dolphin, snapper, hogfish, tarpon, pompano, jack, and bonefish (NOAA 1995a). Although fishing for these species in portions of the FKNMS is allowed, certain restrictions apply, such as not using harmful fishing methods (e.g. wire fish traps) (UNEP/IUCN 1988; NOAA 2002). Seagrass banks are located on both the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico sides of the FKNMS, encompassing approximately 1,860 square kilometers (Figure 3-1). H. wrightii, S. filiforme and T. testudinum can be found in mixed beds or alone at depths of between I and 20 meters where suitable substrate and favorable physical conditions exist. H. wrightii tolerates surface exposure better than the other species, and usually grows in shallower water. T. testudinum forms extensive mature meadows, usually at depths of less than 10 to 12 meters, but can be found at greater depths in less density. Between 12 and 15 meters, S. filiforme replaces T. testudinum, and H. wrightii is dominant below 15 meters, but does not form dense stands (NOAA 1996b). Table 3-1 provides a description of the dominant transport processes and benthic community composition for various regions within the FKNMS. 14 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS Figure 3-1. Benthic Map of the Florida Keys South Florida & Florida Keys `y B enthic Habitat Type r _ Continuous Seagrass - Patchy Seagrass Platform Margin Reefs Patch Reefs Hardbottom Bare Substrate Unknown B ottom .S 1 1 30 .1 91 120 150 Kilorneters MMMmq Source: FMRI NOAA 1998 15 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS Table 3-1. Benthic Chart of the Florida Keys AREA DESCRIPTION AND DOMINANT BENTHIC COMMUNITIES TRANSPORT PROCESSES Florida Bay Semi -isolated, shallow basins and banks Mostly seagrass, but also bare sand patches, and dominated by discharge from Taylor Slough; occasional exposed hard -bottom substrate; benthic restricted circulation and relatively high variability habitats vary considerably across the bay. in physical -chemical parameters. Nearshore Shallow, unconfined, large tidal passes dominated Mostly seagrass, particularly in channels, but also Middle Keys by Florida Bay water with wind -driven circulation extensive areas of low -relief hard -bottom habitats and tides. within 1 km of shore. Nearshore Shallow backcountry, small tidal passes Mostly seagrass, bare sand, and algae, but also Lower Keys transporting water from the southwest Florida extensive areas of low -relief hard -bottom habitats. shelf and dominated by wind -driven circulation and tides. Offshore Area confined by reef tract and dominated by Mostly seagrass and sand, but extensive patch reef Upper Keys Florida current frontal eddies. and bank reef areas in Hawk Channel and along reef tract; most extensive reef development in the Florida Keys. Offshore Area confined by reef tract and dominated by Mostly seagrass and sand areas with very poor reef Middle Keys onshore currents and tidally driven exchange with development offshore. Florida Bay. Offshore Area confined by reef tract and dominated by Mostly seagrass and bare sand, but extensive areas Lower Keys wind -driven circulation in Hawk Channel and of hard -bottom with moderate patch reef and bank offshore gyres. development. Marquesas Unconfined area dominated by southwest Florida Mostly seagrass with very poor development of shelf water and gyre migrations from the Florida reefs and lack of extensive low -relief hard -bottom current. habitats. Dry Deeper unconfined area dominated by variability Mixture of seagrass, sand, and hard -bottom areas; Tortugas in the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current and the moderate shallow -water reef development near Tortugas Gyre. I islands. Source: Chiappone 1996 Seagrass beds are highly productive, faunally rich ecosystems that provide food, protection and nesting sites for many species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Seventy to 90 percent of the harvested species in the Gulf depend on seagrass beds during at least part of their life cycle. Dense seagrass also provide protected habitat for a wide variety of juvenile fishes and invertebrates (NOAA 1996b). Research has shown no common trends in the FKNMS in seagrass health in terms of cover or community composition. However, because the length of time seagrass beds take to eutrophicate is on the order of decades, and the interaction man has with the natural dynamics of these systems is not completely understood, it is difficult to say with certainty whether seagrass beds in the FKNMS are growing or shrinking (Fourqurean et al. 2001). 3.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE The terrestrial area surrounding potential seagrass restoration projects incorporates all of the Florida Keys (primarily Monroe County) and a variety of land -use activities. The Florida Keys has many different categories of zoning for residential and commercial development and environmental protection. The approximately 480 marinas and boat launches that provide access to the FKNMS serve as gateways for many visitors (Monroe County 1995). Table 3-2 reflects the most recent (1991) distribution of terrestrial land use activities in Monroe County. The data does not include water bodies or offshore islands. A high percentage of land (33.7%) has been set aside for conservation. 16 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS Table 3-2. Monroe County Existing Land Use (in acres) Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Total % of Total Single -Family 3,391 2,037.0 2,950.9 8,378.9 13.7% Mobile Homes 618.9 130.8 313.1 1,062.8 1.7% Multi -Family 391.6 220.9 25.2 637.7 1.0% Mixed Residential 201.5 158.3 351.1 710.9 1.2% Residential Subtotal 4,603.0 2,547 3,640.3 10,790.3 17.6% General Commercial 462.1 276.6 255.4 994.1 1.6% Commercial Fishing 10.7 84.6 151.8 247.1 0.4% Tourist Commercial 421.1 460.5 147.3 1,028.9 1.7% Commercial Subtotal 893.9 821.7 554.5 2,270.1 3.7% Industrial 81.7 55.2 377.9 514.8 0.8% Agricultural/Maricultural 0.0 41.9 0.0 41.9 0.1 % Education 65.8 31.7 8.9 106.4 0.2% Institutional 46.2 37.3 32.8 116.3 0.2% Public Buildings/Grounds 11.3 32.6 16.9 60.8 0.1% Public Facilities 36.1 446.2 56.8 539.1 0.9% Military 0.0 0.0 3,288.7 3,288.7 5.4% Historic 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0% Recreation 351.2 940.7 499.4 1,791.3 2.9% Conservation 11,542.6 623.1 8,530 20,695.7 33.7% Vacant 5,123.1 2,882.5 13,121.6 21,127.2 34.4% Total 22,754.9 8,459.9 30,128.3 61,343.1 100% Percent of Total 37.1% 13.8% 49.1% 100% Source: Monroe County Board of Commissioners 1993. 3.3 CLIMATE The Florida Keys are considered a subtropical zone characterized by warm, humid summers, with abundant rainfall and generally warm, moderately dry winters. The average annual temperature is 26 degrees Celsius (°C), with an average low of 21°C in January, and an average high of 30°C in July. The average annual rainfall is 100 centimeters. The heaviest precipitation occurs during the summer and early to mid -autumn. Winds average 19 kilometers per hour. The prevailing wind direction is from the east-southeast during the summer and from the northeast during the winter. Winds are typically strongest during the winter months and calmest in the spring and autumn. The hurricane season is from June to November, with the peak threat existing from mid -August to late October (NWS 1994). 3.4 AIR QUALITY National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set for six "criteria" pollutants (sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, lead, and particulate matter). The USEPA has recently replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour standard, and the NAAQS for particulate matter has been set for air particles less than 2.5 microns in size. The problems associated with carbon monoxide and particulate matter are usually related to localized conditions, such as congested traffic intersections or construction activities. The other criteria pollutants are associated with regional problems that result from the interactions of pollutants from a great number of widely dispersed sources (e.g., a large city containing many stationary and mobile sources). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) monitors the concentrations of the criteria pollutants and, where necessary, is responsible for developing State Implementation Plans (SIPS) to ensure that the national standards are achieved and maintained. Areas within the state that fail to meet the NAAQS are designated as "non -attainment 17 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS areas" and are potentially subject to regulatory enforcement. Potential seagrass restoration sites are located in Monroe County, which is classified as being in complete attainment of the NAAQS. 3.5 NOISE Depending on the location of the restoration sites, noise will be generated from a variety of sources. It is expected that for most restoration sites, the only primary noise sources directly attributable to the restoration will be motor vessels traveling to the project site and any other mechanical equipment that may be required (e.g. pumps, compressors, generators). 3.6 GEOLOGY The dominant geological feature in the FKNMS is the Florida Plateau, a large carbonate platform composed of carbonate marine sediments approximately 7,000 meters in thickness. The plateau includes all of Florida and the adjacent continental shelves of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The platform has been an area of shallow water carbonate deposition since at least the Jurassic period (136 to 190 million years ago). Sediments accumulating in the area for 150 million years have been structurally modified by subsidence and sea level rise (Continental Shelf Associates 1990). Sea level fluctuations attributed to glacial effects are largely responsible for the present morphology of the area. Sea level dropped by 15 to 30 meters during the Wisconsin glacial period, exposing the entire platform to marine and subareal erosion. Sea level began to rise again approximately 6,000 years ago, flooding the area and forming the current physiographic character of the region. It is expected that the substrate at most restoration sites will be a combination of dense carbonate sand and mud, with significant amounts of larger pieces of broken shells and coral skeletons. At most sites, the combination of the seagrass rhizome and root mat yields a very dense, packed substrate that is difficult to disturb (Zieman 1982). 3.7 WATER QUALITY Numerous factors exist that influence seagrass distribution and relative abundance. Some of the most identifiable include temperature, salinity, water depth, sediment depth, wave and tidal currents, water column transparency, and nutrient loading (Fonseca 1990; Kenworthy and Haunert 1991; Zieman 1982; Zieman and Zieman 1989). If seagrasses can exist within the other above specified tolerance criteria, light penetration is the most important factor affecting their growth and survival. In fact, it is possible to predict seagrass growth and survival from the known levels of certain key water -quality parameters affecting light transmission (Dennison et al. 1993; Gallegos and Kenworthy 1996). Six frequently measured water quality parameters correlated with the growth and survival of seagrass are: 1) total suspended solids, 2) chlorophyll a, 3) dissolved inorganic nitrogen, 4) dissolved inorganic phosphorus, 5) Secchi depth, and 6) light attenuation. Two of these parameters, total suspended solids and chlorophyll a, are directly responsible for water column transparency to light (i.e., turbidity), while dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus act indirectly on light attenuation by stimulating algae growth. Secchi depth and light attenuation are quantitative measures of the effect the other four parameters have on water transparency (Kenworthy and Haunert 1991; Kenworthy and Fonseca 1996). 3.8 PHYSICAL PARAMETERS FKNMS is part of an open-ended environment influenced by the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Florida Bay. A complex system of currents runs through these bodies of water. Wind -driven currents are characteristic of the Florida Keys because shallow depths prevail throughout the area (Schomer and Drew 1982). Recent studies using satellite tracked surface drifters indicate a net southerly flow from the Gulf of Mexico to the Florida reef tract through western Florida Bay that varies with season, stronger in the winter (3 to 4 cm/s) and weaker in summer (1 to 2 cm/s) (Lee et al. 1998). Tides in the Florida Keys generally exhibit two highs and two lows of uneven amplitude (height) per tidal day (Schomer and Drew 1982). The tidal range decreases from Fowey Rocks in the upper Florida Keys to Sand Key 18 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS offshore of Key West. Tides in the lower Keys area vary approximately 0.3 to 0.6 meters. The highest observed water level in the area was recorded at Coupon Bight near Big Pine Key at 0.9 meters above the mean lower low water (MLLW) level in 1974; the lowest observed tide was measured in the Big Pine Key Viaduct, Pine Channel, at -0.3 meters below MLLW in 1974 (NOAA 1998). Tidal currents reverse in direction with the ebb and flow of tides. These currents show a slight westward component, especially in the middle and lower Florida Keys (Enos 1997; Smith 1991). Tidal current velocities range from 5 to 15 centimeters per second, but velocities as high as 130 centimeters per second have been recorded. However, these tidal components are usually offset by wind. As mentioned above, recent studies indicate that there is a long-term net flow from Florida Bay/Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean (Pitts 1994; Smith 1994). 3.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.9.1 Seagrass The seagrass meadows of south Florida constitute one of the most important natural resources in the state (Iverson and Bittaker 1986; Fourqurean et al. 2000). They have high natural rates of primary productivity that is greatest during the summer (Zieman and Zieman 1989). These high rates of growth result in large leaf canopies that serve as an important food source and critical habitat for important commercial and recreational fish and shellfish species. Bank -top T. testudinum in Florida Bay has been found to support higher faunal densities than shallow seagrasses elsewhere in south Florida (Sheridan 1997). Three dominant species of seagrasses found in high salinity, open coastal waters are turtle grass (T. testudinum), manatee grass (S. filiforme) and shoal grass (H. wrightii). The first two species are usually associated with stable, near -marine salinities (20-36%), open coastal water, and subtropical to tropical temperatures. Shoal grass is found in more estuarine conditions, but also forms dense stands in open coastal, high -salinity regions and in areas of high water movement, or in tidal flats where it is subject to exposure. All three species have high heat tolerance and can survive temperatures of 36°C for 4 weeks and 39°C for up to 36 hours (Dawes 1987). As much as 90% of the biomass of T. testudinum can be in belowground tissue, making this species especially important for its sediment stabilizing abilities (Zieman 1982). H. wrightii has narrow leaves and a shallow root and rhizome system. While it is a rapid colonizer, it has less sediment stabilization ability than T. testudinum and S. filiforme. While all of these seagrasses are important, T. testudinum has the highest total habitat values and services (Zieman 1982). Seagrass beds in high current and/or wave areas typically develop along channel bands and shoals in the form of discrete, mounded patches. In quiescent areas, seagrasses form a more continuous cover, resembling what one generally conceives of as a meadow. The exception to this is when there is insufficient unconsolidated sediment on top of underlying bedrock for the plants to root. In these instances, even though the area may be a quiet backwater, seagrasses will only be able to grow in depressions in the bedrock where sufficient sediments exist (Fonseca 1990). Main factors influencing seagrass distribution in shallow coastal waters include nutrient availability, light, temperature, and salinity (Tomasko and Lapointe 1991; Fourqurean et al. 1992b). Studies have shown that T. testudinum, the dominant seagrass in the FKNMS, is limited primarily by phosphorus (Powell et al. 1989; Fourqurean et al. 1992a). The availability of phosphorus, principally in subsurface sediment waters, limits development of grass beds and controls their composition (Fourqurean et al. 1995). Fonseca (1990) gives an extensive listing of the characteristics and functions performed by seagrasses as follows: 19 FPEIS for Seagrass Restoration in the FKNMS 1) a high rate of leaf growth, 2) the support of large numbers of epiphytic organisms (which are grazed extensively by herbivores), 3) the rapid leaf production results in large quantities of organic material that decomposes in the meadow or is transported to adjacent systems. Since few organisms graze directly on the living seagrasses, the detritus formed from leaves supports a complex food web, 4) shoots retard or slow currents, thereby enhancing sediment stability and increasing the accumulation of organic and inorganic material, 5) roots bind sediments, reducing erosion and preserving sediment microflora, 6) plant and detritus production influence nutrient cycling between sediments and overlying waters, 7) decomposition of rhizomes provides a significant and long-term source of nutrients for sediment microheterotrophs (microscopic organisms unable to synthesize their own food), 8) roots and leaves provide horizontal and vertical complexity which, coupled with abundant and varied food resources, leads to densities of fauna generally exceeding those in unvegetated habitats, and 9) movement of water and fauna transports living and dead organic matter (particulate and dissolved) out of seagrass systems to adjacent habitats. 3.9.2 Benthic Organisms Seagrass habitats are extremely important for the productivity of fisheries and wildlife in south Florida. Extensive submarine seagrass meadows bridge the distances between coral reefs and mangroves, which have vastly different physical requirements. Early studies emphasized the role of mangrove habitats as a food source and nursery. The results of more recent investigations suggest that seagrass beds in open water environments and within mangrove -lined bays contain the densest populations of organisms. Studies in south Florida bays show that a large proportion of the annual landings depend on seagrass habitat, and there is a clear association between fisheries catch and seagrass cover (Zieman et al. 1989). A number of invertebrate groups depend on seagrass habitat, including arthropodans, echinoderms, mollusks (almost 200 species), annelids and porifera. The structure of the grass carpet with its calm water and shaded microhabitats provides living space for a rich epifauna of both mobile and sessile organisms. It is these organisms that are of greatest importance to higher consumers within the grass beds, especially fish (Zieman 1982). Another important feature on many shallow banks is the inconspicuous populations of Porites furcata and Porites porites. Living and dead colonies of Porites furcata provide habitat for many species of invertebrates, including brittle stars, shrimp, crabs, anemones, and young spiny lobster, Panulirus argus. Various species of juvenile tropical fish also find shelter and food in and around the intertwining branches of this diminutive but prolific coral (Hudson 1993). 3.9.3 Fish and Invertebrate Populations Many marine groups or species of fishes found within the FKNMS hold recreational and commercial value (NOAA 1995a; Acosta et al. 1998). Some of the most important recreational fishes are gray snapper, spotted sea trout, red drum and snook (Schmidt and Alvarado 1998). Four invertebrate species found in the FKNMS have important recreational and commercial value to the South Florida economy: blue crab, stone crab, spiny lobster and pink shrimp. Tropical seagrass meadows can support a high diversity of fish species. For example, in a large-scale sampling study in Florida Bay, 92 species of fish comprising 42 families were collected (Thayer et al. 1987). A listing of the families found in the survey is presented in Table 3-3. Densities of fishes are typically greater in seagrass habitat within south Florida's estuaries and coastal lagoons than in adjacent habitats. However, recent work has demonstrated that mean densities of certain macrofaunal communities (fishes and decapods) are usually significantly higher in T. testudinum beds than in H. wrightii or other surrounding habitats, although the reverse was true for species richness and diversity (Sheridan et at. 1997). 20 Exhibit 5 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options Frank J. Sargent, Timothy J. Leary, David W. Crewz Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Marine Research Institute St, Petersburg, FL and Curtis R. Kruer Consulting Biologist Summerland Key, FL Florida Department of Environmental Protection FMRI Technical Report TR-1 1995 Cover Photograph Northwest of Windley Key in the Florida Keys. Photograph by Curtis R. Kruer, 1993. Copies of this document may be obtained from Florida Marine Research Institute 100 Eighth Ave. SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095 Attn: Librarian Document Citation Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's seagrass- es: assessment and management options. FMRI Tech. Rep. TR-1. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida. 37 p. plus appendices. Document Production This document was designed in Microsoft Word (v. 5.1a) and formatted using Quark XPress® (v. 3.3) on Apple Macintosh® computers. Figures in Appendix B were created on a Sun Sparestation® 20 and exported to Adobe Illustrator® (v. 5.5). Heading fonts are Adobe® Avant Garde, and body text is Adobe® Palatino. The cover headline is Adobe® Gill Sans. The body paper is Finch Casablanca Opaque recycled, and the cover is Finch Fine. The document was designed by the authors, and McShane and Moore Communications, Inc. performed layout, graphics scans, and production for final film. Ralard Printers, Inc., printed the document. 0 The text paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1992. Table of Contents LISTOF TABLES........................................................................................................................................ ii LISTOF FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................................. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. v INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1 SeagrassRecovery...................................................................................................................... 5 StudyObjectives........................................................................................................................ 7 METHODS................................................................................................................................................. 7 ScarringRecognition................................................................................................................... 9 ScarMapping............................................................................................................................ 10 RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................. 12 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................ 24 MANAGEMENTOPTIONS........................................................................................................................ 29 Four -Point Approach............................................................................................................... 31 Education......................................................................................................................... 31 Channel Markin Aids to Navigation) ....... 31 Enforcement..................................................................................................................... 32 Limited -Motoring Zones............................................................................................... 32 CONCLUDINGREMARKS........................................................................................................................ 33 LITERATURECITED................................................................................................................................. 35 APPENDIXA........................................................................................................................................... 39 Methodology for Analyzing Scar Data.................................................................................... 41 MRGISIntegration......................................................................................................... 41 Creating a Statewide Seagrass Coverage.................................................................... 41 ErrorReduction............................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIXB........................................................................................................................................... 45 List of Tables Table 1. NOAA/USGS charts.....................................................................................................13 Table 2. Acreage of scarred seagrasses by county..................................................................14 Table 3. Relative percentage of scarred seagrasses by county..............................................15 Table 4. Within -county percentage of scarred seagrasses......................................................17 Table 5. Ranking of scarred-seagrass acreage by county.......................................................18 Table 6. Components of seagrass acreage in Monroe and Dade counties .........................19 Table 7. Scarred-seagrass acreage by region...........................................................................19 Table 8. Moderately scarred sites in lower Florida Keys.......................................................25 Table 9. Severely scarred sites in lower Florida Keys............................................................26 Table 10. Vessel registrations by county.....................................................................................27 Table 11. Vessel registrations by region......................................................................................28 APPENDIX A Appendix Table 1. Sources of seagrass data.........................................................................................42 List of Figures Figure 1. Seagrass species of Florida......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Aerial view of scarred seagrasses—Lignumvitae Key, Florida Keys ................... 4 Figure 3. Seagrass rhizome differentiation............................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Study area for assessment of seagrass scarring...................................................... 8 Figure 5. Example of polygon delineation.............................................................................. 10 Figure 6. Diagrams of scarring -intensity categories.............................................................. 11 Figure 7. Recognition of scarring intensity............................................................................. 12 Figure 8. Regions of Florida analyzed for scarred seagrasses............................................. 20 Figure 9. Detailed map of scarred seagrasses—Pine Island, Lee County .......................... 22 Figure 10. Detailed map of scarred seagrasses—Windley Key, Monroe County ............... 23 Figure 11. Example of channels ending in shallow seagrass beds ....................................... 30 APPENDIX B Figure B1. Scar -distribution map—Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa counties Figure B2. Scar -distribution map —Walton, Bay, Gulf counties Figure B3. Scar -distribution map —Franklin, Wakulla, Jefferson counties Figure B4. Scar -distribution map —Taylor, Dixie counties Figure B5. Scar -distribution map —Levy, Citrus, Hernando counties Figure B6. Scar -distribution map —Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough counties Figure B7. Scar -distribution map —Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte counties Figure B8. Scar -distribution map —Lee, Collier counties Figure B9. Scar -distribution map —Monroe County Figure B10. Scar -distribution map —Dade, Broward counties Figure B11. Scar -distribution map —Palm Beach, Martin counties Figure B12. Scar -distribution map —St. Lucie, Indian River counties Figure B13. Scar -distribution map—Brevard, Volusia counties Acknowledgments This research was partially funded under a Coastal Zone Management grant pursuant to Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA170Z0501. A number of people deserve special recognition for their contributions to this research: Chris Friel, Henry Norris, Jim Poehlman, and Bill Sargent in the Coastal and Marine Resources Assessment (CAMRA) group at the FMRI were substantially involved in the design, input and output, field -survey, and editing aspects of this project. Special thanks are also extended to Lt. Mike Wood, Florida Marine Patrol, for his patience dur- ing the aerial surveys and to Randolph L. Ferguson, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA), and Roy R. Lewis, III, Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., for manuscript review. We also thank the following people for their assistance: Everglades National Park: Skip Snow Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Law Enforcement, Florida Marine Patrol: C. B. Goldacre, Fred Klohn, Lt. Steve Stout, and Lt. Paul Whitley Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Resources, Florida Marine Research Institute: Bredin Cummings, Sandra Drumm, Mike Durako, Ken Haddad, John Hunt, Chuck Idelberger, Gail MacAulay, Tom Matthews, Bob McMichael, Mike Mitchell, Jim Quinn, and Linda Tripodo Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, Aquatic Preserves: Brian Poole, Kalani Cairns, Matthew Clemons, John Hughes, Judith Ott, Robert Repenning, Bradford Rieck, and Heather Stafford Monroe County: Virginia Barker and George Garrett South Florida Water Management District: Patti Sime and Les Vilcheck Southwest Florida Water Management District: Steve Dicks, Hugh Dinkler, Bob Evans, and Tom Lo St. Johns River Water Management District: Bob Virnstein Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council: Peter Clark University of South Florida, New College: Ruth Folit and Julie Morris U Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options Execufive Summary Seagrasses are submerged, grass -like plants that inhabit the shallow coastal waters of Florida. Seagrasses are a vital component of Florida's coastal ecology and economy; they provide nutri- tion and shelter to animals important to marine fisheries, provide critical habitat for many other animals (e.g., wading birds, manatees, and sea tur- tles), and improve water quality. Marine -habitat degradation in Florida is con- tinuing at an alarming rate as the coastal residen- tial population and the number of seasonal visitors increase. Habitat degradation has many sources (e.g., pollution, dredge and fill), but an increasing- ly common cause of habitat degradation is the scarring of Seagrasses. In this report, scarring can refer to either the activity of scarring or to a group of scars in a seagrass bed. Seagrass beds can be scarred by many activities, but scars are most com- monly made when a boat's propeller tears and cuts up roots, stems, and leaves of seagrasses, produc- ing a long, narrow furrow devoid of seagrasses. Boats operating in shallow waters are severely scarring, and sometimes completely denuding, seagrass beds throughout the state. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection recognized the need to reduce scarring of seagrasses by boats and committed resources to address this issue. As one component of this effort, the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) investigated the distribution of scarred seagrass beds in the shallow marine waters of Florida's coastal counties. Aerial photography was used to locate seagrass scarring. Aerial surveys were then conducted in 1992-1993 to confirm the location of scarred seagrasses. We did not attempt to distin- guish among the different specific causes of sea - grass scarring. During aerial surveys, observations of scarred seagrasses were recorded on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration nautical charts and U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps. Scarring intensity was categorized as light, moderate, or severe. Areas with substantial scarring recognizable on 1:24,000-scale photography were delineated on the maps with polygons, which were assigned a scarring intensity. Polygons cate- gorized as light contained less than 5 percent scar- ring, those categorized as moderate contained 5-20 percent scarring, and those categorized as severe contained more than 20 percent scarring. The information acquired in this survey was incorpo- rated into the FMRI's Marine Resources Geographic Information System (MRGIS), which produces maps and tabular products so that geo- graphically based data can be effectively dissemi- nated to resource managers, appropriate regional and county governments, and other interests (e.g., conservation groups and private citizens). Scarred seagrasses were observed in all areas of the state, mostly in shallow coastal waters less than six feet deep. More than 173,000 acres of the state's 2.7 million acres of seagrasses were scarred —most of it lightly. This is a conservative estimate of scarring because we mapped groups of scars, not isolated, individual propeller scars. The total seagrass acreage in Florida (2.7 million acres) includes areas in the Florida Keys that have sparse seagrass and hardbottom with dense-seagrass patches. Excluding these areas, seagrasses totaled approximately 1.9 million acres. Also, these totals do not include sparse, deep Halophila beds that are offshore in the Big Bend region. The greatest acreage of moderate and severe (M/S) scarring occurred in areas having denser human populations and more registered boats. The Florida Keys (Monroe and Dade counties), Tampa Bay (Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas counties), Charlotte Harbor (Lee County), and the north Indian River Lagoon (Brevard and Volusia counties) had the greatest M/S scarring. Monroe County, which includes most of the Florida Keys, had the greatest acreage of M/S scarring of all counties in the survey. The Panhandle and Big Bend regions had little M/S-scarred acreage, but in the western Panhandle embayments, M/S scarring was prevalent in the few acres of seagrasses there. If an area has little seagrass acreage, then any scar- ring may have a critical effect on habitat functions. Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 All boating user -groups are responsible for scarring seagrasses. Although we did not attempt to identify each user-group's role in scarring, we believe general statements about the situations that lead to scarring are valid. The most severe sin- gle instances of scarring are caused by large com- mercial vessels, but most seagrass disruption results from widespread scarring by smaller boats. Our discussions with boaters, as well as our own personal experiences, suggest that scarring of sea - grasses could result when one or more of the fol- lowing situations occur: • when boaters misjudge water depth and acci- dentally scar seagrass beds; • when boaters who lack navigational charts or the skill to use them stray from poorly marked channels and accidentally scar seagrass beds; • when boaters intentionally leave marked chan- nels to take shortcuts through shallow seagrass beds, knowing that seagrass beds may be scarred; • when boaters carelessly navigate in shallow seagrass beds because they believe scars heal quickly; • when inexperienced boaters engage in recre- ational and commercial fishing over shallow seagrass flats, thinking that their boat's designed draft is not deep enough to scar sea - grasses or that the design will prevent damage to their boat; • when boaters overload their vessels, causing deeper drafts than the boaters realize; • when boaters anchor over shallow seagrass beds, where their boats swing at anchor and scar seagrasses; • when boaters intentionally prop -dredge to cre- ate a channel; and • when inexperienced boaters, ignorant of what seagrasses are and the benefits they provide, accept as the behavioral norm local boating cus- toms that disregard the environment. Management programs that address scarring of seagrasses should be based on an approach that involves (1) education, (2) channel marking, (3) increased enforcement, and (4) limited -motor- ing zones. Aerial monitoring and photography of the managed area are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of a program. Management programs that use this multifaceted approach have been instituted by a few local governments and at sev- eral state parks. Initial results of the programs indicate that in some areas seagrass scarring has been reduced but that in other areas emphasis may need to be increased on one or more of the compo- nents of the four -point approach. A statewide management plan is needed to address the most egregious scarring over large areas that may be difficult to regulate at the local -government level. Executive Summary FMRI Technical Report TR-1 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses:- -- Assessment and Management Options Introduction Seagrasses are completely submerged, grass -like plants that occur mostly in shallow marine and estuarine waters. Seagrasses form small, patchy beds if their seedlings have recently colonized bare sediments or if sediment movement or other dis- turbances disrupt typical growth patterns. Where disturbances are minimal and conditions promote rapid growth, large continuous beds --known as meadows —may develop when patchy seagrass beds coalesce. Seagrass meadows may require many decades to form. In shallower waters of good quality, seagrass meadows may be lush and have a high leaf density, but in deeper waters, they may be sparse, or species composition may shift to a less robust species. The predominant seagrass species in Florida (Figure 1) are turtle -grass (Thalassia testudinum Banks ex Koenig), shoal -grass (Halodule Wrightii Aschers.), and manatee -grass (Syringodium filiforme Kutz.). Other, less common, seagrasses—star-grass (Halophila engelmannii Aschers.), paddle -grass (Halophila decipiens Ost.), Johnson's seagrass (Halophila johnsonii Eisem.), and widgeon -grass (Ruppia maritima L.)—may be locally abundant. Near river mouths subject to salinity fluctuations, other submerged aquatic plant species (e.g., Zannichellia sp. and Najas spp.) may occupy an eco- logic role similar to that of the true marine Sea - grasses. Nevertheless, these species are rarely con- sidered part of the seagrass flora of Florida. Turtle -grass is the largest of Florida's seagrass species, and Johnson's seagrass is the most diminutive. Johnson's seagrass was only recently recognized and named as a distinct species (Eiseman and McMillan 1980). Unlike the other species, which are widespread in Florida, Johnson's seagrass is limited to scattered locations in the lagoonal river systems of Florida's Atlantic coast. Because of its fragile nature, restricted distri- bution, and vulnerable status in the lagoonal sys- tems (from development), Johnson's seagrass has been nominated for federal listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The wide distribution and robust nature of turtle -grass belie its susceptibility to stress. Turtle - grass's tolerances, in respect to some environmen- tal factors, are less developed than are those of some of the other seagrass species. Shoal -grass and widgeon -grass, for instance, are much more toler- ant of periodic exposure during extremely low tides and consequently can flourish in shallower water than turtle -grass can. Manatee -grass has wiry leaves —round in cross section —that are more tolerant of strong currents. Like turtle -grass, manatee -grass is less tolerant of exposure and is often found mixed with turtle -grass at depths that are rarely exposed at extremely low tides. Species of Halophila are generally more tolerant of lower light conditions and usually form sparse beds in deeper waters, especially in the Gulf of Mexico off- shore of Florida's Big Bend region. The numerous plants and animals that live and grow among seagrasses form a complex, frag- ile community. Marine and estuarine animals — especially larval and juvenile fish —benefit from seagrasses, which provide critical shelter and sus- tenance. Seagrasses form some of the most pro- ductive communities in the world (Zieman and Zieman 1989) and are aesthetically and economi- cally valuable to humans. Seagrasses are a princi- pal contributor to the marine food web and ulti- mately provide humankind with much of its seafood (Thayer et al. 1975). In addition, seagrass- es improve water quality by stabilizing mobile sediments and by incorporating some pollutants into plant biomass and into the stabilized sedi- ments. As Florida's population increases, particularly in coastal counties, threats to seagrass communi- ties increase (Livingston 1987). Seagrass losses in Florida have been documented to range from 30 percent in the Indian River Lagoon (Haddad and Harris 1985) to 81 percent in Tampa Bay (Lewis et al. 1985). The cumulative effects of anthropogenic threats (e.g., water pollution, docks, dredging and filling) are being addressed by various federal, state, and local resource management programs. One threat that is becoming more acute —as people increasingly use boats andother watercraft for recreation and work —is scarring of seagrasses. In Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 f 1 r / Halodule zarightii Thalassia testudinum Shoal -grass Turtle -grass i i I 1 - Halophila engelmannii Halophila johnsonii Star -grass Johnson's Seagrass Halophila decipiens Paddle -grass Ruppia maritima Widgeon -grass Syringodium filiforme Manatee -grass Figure 1. Seagrass species occurring in the shallow coastal waters of Florida (based on drawings by Mark D. Moffler). FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 this report, scarring can refer to either the activity of scarring or to a group of scars in a seagrass bed. Boat propellers scar seagrasses more often than do other sources. Most scarring of seagrasses is caused by small - boat propellers; however, larger craft, which are usually confined to deeper waters, may have much larger individual effects when they run aground, especially near shipping channels and ports. Propeller scarring of seagrasses was commented on in the scientific literature as early as the late 1950s (Woodburn et al. 1957, Phillips 1960). Concern has occasionally been voiced since then (e.g., U.S. Dept. of the Interior 1973, Chmura and Ross 1978). Eleuterius (1987) noted that scarring in Louisiana seagrasses was common and in deeper water was caused by shrimp boats, which also ripped up the margins of the beds with their trawls. Shrimper -related scarring and seagrass damage were also recognized by Woodburn et al. (1957). Usually, propeller scarring of seagrasses occurs when boaters motor through water that is shallower than the drafts of their boats. The pro- pellers tear and cut up seagrass leaves, roots, stems, and sediments, creating unvegetated, light- colored, narrow furrows called prop scars. In some areas, watercraft have extensively scarred seagrass beds, which has alarmed environmentally con- cerned citizens (Wilderness Society et al. 1990). In the Florida Keys, for example, as waterfront and recreational development has increased since the 1970s, so has the number, size, and power of ves- sels in this region —resulting in widespread, and in some cases severe, scarring of shallow seagrass communities. Nearly all shallow seagrass beds in Florida show some degree of scarring. Portions of seagrass beds throughout the state have been com- pletely denuded by repeated scarring (Figure 2). The degree of scarring depends, among other things, on the interaction between water depth and the size, kind, and speed of the boat. Vessels with more than one motor can have a much greater sin- gle -event effect on seagrasses than do single - motored (and usually smaller) vessels. Several par- allel tracks through a seagrass bed are a strong indicator that a multiple -motored vessel has prob- ably passed that way. At lower tides, seagrass beds Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses are more susceptible to scarring, even from a boat that would not scar them at higher tides. At high tide, a boat may navigate safely over seagrasses without scarring them, but at medium to low tide on the return trip, the same boat may scar them. A smaller boat operating at a slow speed or power- ing up may scar seagrass beds that would not be scarred after the boat reaches a plane. A boater's attitude is another factor that may influence the degree of scarring. Sometimes boaters are aware of but unconcerned about sea - grasses and therefore do not avoid scarring them; A conscientious boater who trims his motor may only scar seagrasses slightly when he inadvertent- ly enters a bed. A more extreme form of scarring occurs when a boater intentionally uses the boat's propeller as a dredge to remove seagrasses and sediments to produce a channel so that the boater can have easier access to other areas. This is called prop -dredging, and in some areas, it has perma- nently prohibited seagrass recovery, especially if sediments were dredged to bare rock. Currently, prop -dredging is illegal (see U.S.A. and FDER v. M.C.C. of Florida and Michael's Construction Company, Case No. 81-2373-CIV EBD, Southern District of Florida) but is difficult to enforce. Although everyday boating activities —which may repeatedly scar seagrasses over extensive areas — are more difficult to control because they are less overt, they may ultimately do greater harm to overall seagrass productivity than prop -dredging alone does. Substantial scarring of shallow seagrass beds, which are critical feeding and sheltering areas for wading birds, juvenile finfish, and shellfish, results in a cumulative reduction of productive habitat. Extensive scarring may expose the beds to further disruption from storms and other natural erosional forces, thereby increasing the rate of cumulative loss. This can result in the resuspen- sion of sediments in the water column, which may further contribute to habitat loss by inhibiting the growth of seagrasses. Location and species compo- sition of seagrass beds are probably principal determinants of the kind of animal habitat lost to scarring; however, comprehensive data do not exist concerning animal distributions in most seagrass areas of Florida. FMRI Technical Report TR-1 3 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Figure 2. Aerial view of seagrass-bed scarring at Lignumvitae Key in the Florida Keys. FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Seagrass Recovery Seagrass scarring has received limited study since the 1970s (e.g., Godcharles 1971, Zieman 1976), and only recently, as scarring has increased, has research become more focused on scar recovery (e.g., Matthews et al. 1991, Durako et al. 1992). Research on many aspects of seagrass biology and ecology has contributed greatly to our ability to protect marine resources. This research has shown that each of Florida's seagrass species has structur- al and physiological differences that affect their growth characteristics, stress tolerances, and eco- logic contributions. As with other elements of sea - grass ecology, scar recovery differs for each of the seagrass species. Seagrass species differ in their growth forms, particularly in the relationship between their rhizomes (underground stems) and leaves (Duarte et al. 1994). Some seagrass species' rhi- zomes are weakly differentiated for vertical growth, and these plants may be more vulnerable to burial by mobile sediments. Other species (especially turtle -grass) have more strongly devel- oped vertical rhizomes (i.e., short -shoots) and so can withstand some sedimentation (Figure 3). Because of this differentiation, branching and lateral growth are usually slower in species with the latter morphology, and scar recovery is also likely to be slower. Zieman (1976) attributed slow recovery of scars in turtle -grass beds to unsuitable sediment quality, damaged rhizomes, and the naturally slow growth of rhizome tips. He suggested that shoal -grass recovers more quickly than turtle -grass does because shoal - grass has a shallower rhizome system and grows well from seed. Also, shoal -grass probably recov- ers faster because its rhizomes have a greater density of short -shoots and nodes —from which lateral branching occurs —than does turtle -grass (Durako et al. 1992). DIFFERENTIATION OF VERTICAL RHIZOME Zostera Posidonia Halodule Thalassia Syringodium 74rr No vertical Branches grow Short -shoots, but still Leaves only on rhizomes vertically or with horizontal leaves short -shoots horizontally Figure 3. Gradient of horizontal and vertical rhizome differentiation in different seagrass genera, from those with no differentiation to those that only have leaves on the vertical rhizomes (after Duarte et al. 1994). Species within genera may differ inform. Gradient does not imply a phylogenetic relationship. FMRI Technical Report TR-1 5 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Studies in which trenches were cut 6 to 18 inches deep into seagrass beds indicated that Sea - grasses may recover slowly from scarring (Jones 1968 cited in Zieman 1976, Godcharles 1971). The trenches readily refilled with sediment, but sea - grass regrowth was minimal even after two years. Zieman (1976) found that turtle -grass may require at least two years to begin to recolonize scars; even after five years, some scars were still visible. In a more recent study, Durako et al. (1992) used a lin- ear -regression model to predict that individual scars 0.25 m wide cut into the centers of shoal - grass beds require 0.9-1.8 years to recover to a nor- mal density (2000-4000 short-shoots/m2) but that turtle -grass takes approximately 3.6-6.4 years to achieve normal density (400-700 short- shoots/m2). At the sparser edges of shoal -grass beds, however, recovery times (2.3-4.6 years) approached those of turtle -grass, probably because of lower nodal densities at the margins of shoal - grass beds. Some researchers have indicated that complete seagrass-scar recovery may take as long as ten years, depending on the size of the denuded area (Lewis and Estevez 1988). For seagrass to recover in the shortest period, scarred areas must remain free of additional scarring, and other envi- ronmental conditions must be favorable for plant survival and growth. Even so, the recovery period for scarred seagrass beds (especially for turtle - grass) averages at least three to five years and is probably much longer in areas of poor water qual- ity and where scarring is severe and repetitive. Some scarred seagrass beds may never recover. The rate of seagrass recovery from scarring depends on many factors. Some of the variables that may affect recovery from scarring are sedi- ment composition, water quality, current velocity, wave and wind energy, drift algae, scar depth, sea - grass species, water depth, and latitude. Sediment properties and water quality are overriding deter- minants of recovery from scarring. Seagrasses absorb nutrients from the sediments in which they are rooted and also derive nutrition from the water column. Durako et al. (1992) suggested that south Florida sediments, which are usually carbona- ceous marl muds, could affect seagrass regrowth differently than do the predominantly quartz -sand sediments of Tampa Bay. Over short distances, sediment quality may vary significantly; sedi- ments in scars can differ in quality even from adja- cent, undisturbed seagrass sediments. In the FJ. Sargent et al. 1995 Florida Keys, for example, soil particle sizes were coarser in scars, and sediments had a lower pH and EH (Zieman 1976). In Tampa Bay, by contrast, particle -size distributions did not differ between scars and adjacent seagrass sediments (Dawes et al. 1994). Therefore, sediment type and other local conditions may affect whether scar sediments dif- ferentiate from adjacent unscarred seagrass sedi- ments. Water quality (e.g., salinity and clarity) affects plant physicochemical attributes such as osmotic balance and photosynthetic rates and, therefore, it can affect the amount of energy available for sea - grass growth. Some seagrass species tolerate much lower salinities than others do. Turtle -grass, for example, does not survive for long in salinities below 20-25 parts per thousand (Lewis et al. 1985, Dawes 1987). Although Eleuterius (1987) observed that widgeon -grass could withstand totally fresh water, he found that of the truly marine seagrass- es, shoal -grass was the most tolerant of low salini- ties and star -grass was the least tolerant. Turtle - grass and manatee -grass were intermediate in their responses to lower salinity. In areas where frequent and large freshwater pulses are common (e.g., near the mouths of rivers), recovery rates will be faster in seagrass species that tolerate lower salinities (i.e., shoal -grass and widgeon -grass). Shading experiments and surveys of seagrass extents in turbid waters have shown that light reduction lowers shoot density and reduces sur- vivability (Hall et al. 1991, Onuf 1991). Sediments that are composed mainly of finer particle sizes are more subject to resuspension (Gucinski 1982) and could pose a threat to photosynthetic processes in seagrasses. Sediment resuspension and water clar- ity are affected by current velocity, wave and wind energy, and nutrient fluxes, among other things. In particular, drift algae may respond vigorously to higher nutrient levels and depress scarring -recov- ery rates by physically inhibiting seagrass growth (e.g., Holmquist 1992) and photosynthesis and by accumulating in scars. Water depth influences photosynthetic rates and seagrass growth, especially in nutrient -rich waters. Seagrasses in deeper water receive lower amounts of solar radiation and a different quality of light, both of which could affect energy -alloca- tion patterns. Energy -allocation patterns of sea - grasses can also be affected by latitude. Latitude, coupled with other local environmental variables, 6 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 affects seagrass growth because of differing water - temperature, solar -incidence, and day -length regimes. The warmer water, longer day -lengths, and more intense solar radiation occurring at lower latitudes probably enhance seagrass growth rates and fruit production in deeper or more turbid water. Therefore, potential recovery and recolo- nization rates may be faster for seagrasses in the Florida Keys than in the Florida Panhandle. However, local physicochemical conditions, such as sediment characters, may override latitudinal effects. Scar depth probably affects regrowth rate as well. Deeper scars may not fill with sediment, or may become enlarged, if they occur in areas of strong currents (Zieman 1976, Eleuterius 1987). Scars in shallow -water seagrass beds that are exposed to long wind fetches may be scoured by strong winds and waves, especially during ex- tremely low tides. Boat wakes can also scour scarred areas. Kenworthy et al. (1988) concluded that boat -wake waves substantially elevate bot- tom -shear stress along shallow seagrass beds and seriously jeopardize seagrass health. Study Objecflves Slow recovery from scarring, coupled with in- creased scarring rates, elevates the rate of cumu- lative loss of seagrasses and their habitat values. Concerns about the effects of seagrass scarring and recovery on marine productivity compelled the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) to sur- vey the extent and intensity of scarring in the shal- low coastal waters of Florida. Information from this general study is intended to assist government agencies with developing specific management programs in regard to boat -generated scarring of seagrasses. A general survey of the extent and intensity of scarring is the necessary first step in developing appropriate and cost-effective management proto- cols. This report identifies and quantifies the extent of scarred seagrass beds throughout most of Florida. We collected and analyzed the data using a combination of aerial photography, aerial sur- veys, and Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. For the first time, the statewide extent of seagrasses is described, and the magnitude of scarring is estimated and documented so that Florida's seagrass resources can be more effective- ly protected. Based on the data and anecdotal Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses observations generated in this study, we identify and discuss behavioral activities and navigational circumstances that exacerbate seagrass scarring. Further investigations and surveys using develop- ing technologies will refine our knowledge of sea - grass distributions and the effects of human activ- ities on the resource's productivity. Methods The main goal of this project was to survey Florida's shallow marine and estuarine waters for scarring of seagrasses. For most of Florida, we used an approach combining analysis of high -res- olution aerial photographs with ground-truthing during aerial surveys. In the Florida Keys, the aer- ial surveys were conducted first, and aerial pho- tography was used as collateral data. The study area extended from the Alabama - Florida border at Perdido Bay (Escambia County), east and south along the Gulf coast to the Florida Keys, and then north along the lagoonal river sys- tems of the Atlantic Coast to just south of New Smyrna Beach (Volusia County) in Mosquito Lagoon. A total of 31 of the state's 35 coastal coun- ties are included in this survey (Figure 4). The four counties north of Volusia County on the Atlantic coast of Florida were not included because areas suitable for seagrass growth are not present. Only the southern part of Volusia County below U.S. Highway AlA at Port Orange was included in this survey. Even though seagrass scars can result from many sources (e.g., ship groundings, live -aboard houseboats, and even four -wheel -drive vehicles), boat propellers are the most widespread cause of scarring. In this study, we did not distinguish among the various scarring sources. Individual prop -scar widths are narrow and average approx- imately 12 inches; scar lengths vary considerably, from miles to only yards long and can be difficult to see in aerial photographs. In a previous study of scar recovery, Durako et al. (1992) suggested that the smallest -scale (least detailed) aerial photogra- phy useful for recognizing scars in seagrass beds is 1:24,000 (1 inch = 2,000 ft). A greater number of scars can be identified using larger -scale photogra- phy (e.g., 1:2,400). At a single site in Tampa Bay, Durako et al. (1992) were able to distinguish 700 individual scars in 1:2,400-scale photography, 104 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 7 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F,J. Sargent et al, 1995 labama Georgia ants Ros kalo Walton a ffe n Wakulla Atlantic Gulf F i Taylor Ocean Dixie Levy Citrus Volusia Heman Pasco illsborou rev I ndian Ri r Gulf anatee i. Luc' Of 5 Martin Chariots Mexico Lee Palm Beach, Collier Broward Dade M N 6� W E IF Figure 4. Study area for assessment of seagrass scarring. 8 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 scars at 1:12,000, and only 5 scars with 1:24,000. Nevertheless, they suggested that most of the heavily scarred areas could be identified at the 1:24,000 scale and that the trade-off in the time saved using 1:24,000 photography justified its use. Even though aerial photography can provide sufficient detail to allow recognition of prop scars, high -detail photography is often limited to certain areas. Pertinent photography not contained in the FMRI library was obtained from the appropriate water -management districts. The largest -scale aer- ial photography available was 1:13,200 color - infrared (CIR) transparencies made for the Florida Keys Land Cover Mapping Project (funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Ad- vanced Identification of Wetlands Program) in December 1991. The smallest -scale photography used to delineate scarring in our study consisted of 1:40,000 CIR transparencies provided by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). These photographs covered Hobe Sound, south- east Florida, Biscayne Bay, the upper Florida Keys and Florida Bay, and the southwest region of Florida from Florida Bay to Charlotte Harbor. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) supplied 1:24,000 CIR photographs from Yankeetown south to Charlotte Harbor. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJR- WMD) furnished 1:24,000 CIR photographs for Mosquito Lagoon and Indian River Lagoon. The only aerial photographs available for the Panhandle and Big Bend regions were approxi- mately ten years old and therefore were too dated for delineating seagrass scarring for this study. The oldest photographs used for scarring delineation were taken in November 1990. Although these photographs did not represent conditions at the time of the survey, historical scarring patterns were documented from them, and areas requiring closer examination were identified. Some problems are inherent in using photog- raphy of different scales. In particular, comparing maps of different scales should be done with cau- tion. Large-scale photography (e.g., 1:2,400) can give more accurate representations of seagrass dis- tributions and scarring than smaller -scale (e.g., 1:40,000) photography can. Just the width of a line drawn on a small-scale photograph may contain many hundreds or thousands of acres of seagrass, depending on the line's length and the scale of the photography. One problem in implementing this Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses study was that large-scale photography —or even photography of the same scale for different areas of the state —did not exist. Also, offshore county lines were based upon 1:100,000 TIGER cultural data, and subtle differences in county -line bound- aries could alter conclusions if the data are used too strictly in detailed comparisons. Therefore, we urge caution when making comparisons of the dif- ferences between regions and between counties. Scarring Recognition Scarring was recognized as distinct areas of light- colored lines and patches —visible in photographs and from the air —that contrasted with the darker colors of seagrass beds. Scarred areas in the 9 inch x 9 inch CIR aerial photographs were delineated using binocular macroscopes and stereoscopes, and the delineations were transferred to registered acetate overlays. Where scars merged, a bounding polygon was drawn around the entire scarred area (Figure 5). Polygons were only drawn around groups of scars, not around single, isolated prop scars. We did not map areas less than one acre due to the small-scale maps used. Because of the map- ping procedure and differing map scales used, we may have inadvertently included small portions of bare substrate, channels, and open water in some polygons. For example, in areas that contained intricate shorelines with numerous islands —such as the Ten Thousand Islands and the Chassa-how- itzka and Crystal rivers —delineating small poly- gons was impossible at the available map scales; as a consequence, some unscarred areas were incor- porated within the polygons. The intensity of scarring in each polygon was categorized based upon the Comparison Chart for Visual Estimation of Percentage Composition (after Terry and Chilingar 1955). Polygons desig- nated as light enclosed areas where less than 5 per- cent of the seagrasses were scarred, moderate polygons contained areas with from 5 percent to 20 percent scarring, and severe polygons delineated areas with more than 20 percent scarring. For example, a 20-acre polygon that was classified as being moderately scarred would contain between 1 and 4 acres of actual scars. Diagrammatic repre- sentations of the three categories of estimated scar- ring intensity are shown in Figure 6. In some areas, different intensities of scarring were adjacent and could not be easily differentiated. These areas were delineated as a single polygon and were assigned FMRI Technical Report TR-1 9 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J, Sargent et al. 1995 Figure 5. Example of polygon delineation. a value for the overall scarring intensity. An oblique aerial photo in Figure 7 illustrates this sit- uation. Information about seagrass scarring in Florida Bay was furnished by Skip Snow of the Everglades National Park (ENP). Within Florida Bay, scarring occurs principally on seagrass banks, which are exposed at low tide. To confirm the locations of scarred seagrasses, a brief aerial survey was con- ducted by FMRI staff over a portion of Florida Bay. Polygons drawn on the registered overlays on the aerial photographs were transferred to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA) nautical charts using a zoom transfer scope (ZTS). The ZTS superimposes an image onto a base map of a different scale, providing for accu- rate transfer of the hand -drawn polygons from the photograph overlays onto the NOAA base maps. In most cases, 1:40,000-scale NOAA charts were used as base maps. The lack of larger -scale charts for the region from Anclote Key (Pasco County) to Alligator Harbor (Franklin County) forced us to use 1:80,000-scale charts. When possible, we used inset maps of various scales (1:5,000-1:20,000) to supplement small-scale chart information. In a portion of the Florida Keys, 1:24,000-scale U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps were used as base maps because the largest -scale NOAA charts were only available at a scale of 1:80,000 (Table 1). Scar Mapping After marking the maps and charts with polygons, we conducted aerial surveys to verify scarring and refine the delineations of scarring intensity. Most aerial surveys were conducted between May 1992 and May 1993. The Florida Keys surveys were con- ducted between October 1992 and March 1993. Aerial surveys were important in assuring accu- rate representations of the extent and intensity of scarring because even in the better photographs, not all scars were visible. During the aerial sur- veys, boats were frequently observed scarring shallow seagrass beds. Some of these events were photographed, and the photographs were deposit- ed in the FMRI library. 10 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Light Scarrin Moderate Scarring Severe Scarring Figure 6. Diagrammatic representation of the three categories of estimated scarring intensity. Black space within each block represents seagrasses, and white marks repre- sent scarring. Light scarring is defined as the presence of scars in less than 5 percent of the delineated polygon, moderate scarring as the presence of scars in 5 to 20 percent of the polygon, and severe scarring as the presence of scars in more than 20 percent of the polygon. The Indian River Lagoon, the southeast Intracoastal Waterway, and the Florida Keys were surveyed from light, fixed -wing aircraft (Cessna 152 or 172) in regions where seagrasses were dis- tributed along relatively straight and continuous shorelines. Regions with convoluted shorelines and numerous islands, such as Tampa Bay, Biscayne Bay, Waccasassa Bay, and parts of Florida Bay, were surveyed from a helicopter (Hughes FMRI Technical Report TR-1 500). In the lower Florida Keys, where wide areas of seagrass extend from the Atlantic Ocean into Florida Bay, transects approximately 1000 feet apart were conducted perpendicular to the main axis of the Florida Keys. The Intracoastal Waterway formed the boundary between Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys in this assessment. Military bases prohibited aerial surveys of some seagrass areas. Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Figure 7. Recognition of scarring intensity. Contiguous small polygons of different scarring intensities were combined into one overall intensity category. This seagrass bed would be recognized as severely scarred overall, even though part of it is only moderately scarred. Altitudes between 300 and 500 feet provided the best perspective for this study. Flight speeds were between 80 and 100 knots, depending on scar complexity and water clarity. Clear skies, calm seas, a vertical sun angle, and clear water were essential for conducting accurate aerial surveys. Rain and high winds made it difficult to see scars through the surface of the water. Glare from sun- light reflecting off the water in late afternoon and early morning also hampered observations. Turbidity caused by rough water during storms usually persisted for several days. Dark -colored, organically stained water —discharged from rivers during and after rain storms —greatly impeded our ability to identify scarred seagrasses during aerial surveys. After completing the aerial surveys, we edit- ed and recompiled the scarring data onto a clean set of base maps and then transferred the data into the Marine Resources Geographic Information System (MRGIS) at the FMRI. Complete descrip- tions of the MRGIS integration process, statewide map -creation techniques, and error -correction methodology are in Appendix A. ARC/INFO® software (v 6.2.1) was used in this study to analyze scarring data and to produce output maps. Scarring information from this study is digitally stored and can easily be shared with other groups. All original base maps and photograph overlays have been archived at the FMRI. Results Moderately dense to dense seagrasses—i.e., excluding sparse and hardbottom seagrasses in the Florida Keys and sparse Halophila beds else- where —total approximately 1,901,000 acres. If hardbottom and sparse seagrasses in the Florida Keys are included in acreage estimates, seagrasses in Florida total nearly 2,660,000 acres (Table 2). The distribution of seagrasses in Florida coastal waters 12 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Table 1. NOAA nautical charts and USGS topographic maps used as base maps on which seagrass scarring in Florida was represented. Number Scale Official Name Chart 11378 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Santa Rosa Sound to Dauphin Island Chart 11393 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Lake Wimico to East Bay Chart 11402 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Apalachicola to Lake Wimico Chart 11404 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Carrabelle to Apalachicola Bay Chart 11405 1:80,000 Apalachee Bay Chart 11407 1:80,000 Horseshoe Point to Rock Islands Chart 11408 1:80,000 Crystal River to Horseshoe Point Chart 11409 1:80,000 Anclote Keys to Crystal River Chart 11412 1:80,000 Tampa Bay and St. Joseph Sound Chart 11413 1:40,000 Tampa Bay - northern part Chart 11414 1:40,000 Tampa Bay - southern part Chart 11425 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Charlotte Harbor to Tampa Bay Chart 11427 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Fort Myers to Charlotte Harbor Chart 11430 1:40,000 Everglades National Park - Lostmans River to Wiggins Pass Chart 11432 1:50,000 Everglades National Park - Shark River to Lostmans River Chart 11433 1:50,000 Everglades National Park - Whitewater Bay Chart 11441 1:30,000 Key West Harbor and approaches Chart 11442 1:80,000 Sombrero Key to Sand Key Chart 11445 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Bahia Honda to Key West Chart 11448 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Big Spanish Channel to Johnson Key Chart 11449 1:40,000 Matecumbe to Bahia Honda Key Chart 11451 1:80,000 Miami to Marathon and Florida Bay Chart 11463 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Elliott Key to Matecumbe Chart 11465 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Miami to Elliott Key Chart 11467 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - West Palm Beach to Miami Chart 11485 1:40,000 Intracoastal Waterway - Tolomato River to Palm Shores USGS map 1:24,000 Marquesas Keys West USGS map 1:24,000 Marquesas Keys East USGS map 1:24,000 Cottrell Key is uneven; some counties have very little and oth- ers have a disproportionately large amount (see figures in Appendix B). Monroe County alone con- tains 54.6 percent of all Florida seagrass-bed acreage —mostly in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys (Tables 2 and 3). Much of the remaining sea - grass acreage (26.4 percent) occurs in the shallow Gulf waters of Taylor, Citrus, Hernando, Levy, and Dixie counties in the Big Bend region of Florida. These counties have more seagrasses because they have extensive, shallow -water, low -energy areas with water quality that is generally good. These conditions promote rapid growth and coalescence of seagrasses. Other extensive seagrass compo- nents in deeper waters in this area are species of Halophila, which are usually in sparse or patchy beds. We did not include these seagrass types in this survey. The remaining seagrass acreage (19 percent) is fairly evenly distributed among the other 25 coun- FMRI Technical Report TR-1 13 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Table 2. Acreage of scarred seagrasses (to nearest ten acres) in each Florida coastal county in this study. Totals in scarring categories are based on calculated values, not on rounded values. Light scarring is defined as the presence of scars in less than 5 percent of the delineated polygon, moderate scarring as the presence of scars in 5 to 20 percent of the polygon, and severe scarring as the presence of scars in more than 20 percent of the polygon. Total Light Moderate Severe Moderate Total County Seagrass Scarring Scarring Scarring +Severe Scarring BAY 10,530 4,050 820 80 900 4,950 BREVARD 46,190 4,160 1,940 110 2,050 6,210 BROWARD 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 CHARLOTTE 14,190 1,530 5,630 290 5,910 7,440 CITRUS 147,810 25,700 1,700 180 1,880 27,580 COLLIER 5,250 1,970 1,590 90 1,680 3,650 DADE 145,650* 2,740 3,970 4,500 8,480 11,220 DIXIE 111,130 2,470 1,020 0 1,020 3,490 ESCAMBIA 2,750 510 180 10 190 700 FRANKLIN 19,840 440 370 0 370 810 GULF 8,170 4,200 530 110 640 4,840 HERNANDO 146,870 7,790 710 0 710 8,500 HILLSBOROUGH 6,320 1,680 2,230 180 2,410 4,090 INDIAN RIVER 2,940 140 10 30 40 180 JEFFERSON 10,500 420 80 0 80 510 LEE 50,510 5,930 7,100 1,290 8,390 14,310 LEVY 132,400 9,970 120 0 120 101090 MANATEE 12,160 2,480 2,200 780 2,990 5,470 MARTIN 2,310 20 10 0 10 30 MONROE 1,452,800* 14,560 10,430 5,060 15,490 30,050 OKALOOSA 3,450 310 80 0 (5) 80 390 PALM BEACH 2,510 50 20 0 20 70 PASCO 85,570 2,120 1,760 360 2,120 4,240 PINELLAS 22,920 3,800 3,870 2,010 5,880 9,680 SANTA ROSA 2,720 450 110 0 110 560 SARASOTA 4,160 720 300 30 330 1,050 ST. LUclE 6,920 40 40 0 40 80 TAYLOR 162,860 8,100 60 0 60 81160 VOLUSIA 8,490 1,430 1010 350 1,370 2,800 WAKULLA 29,630 2,060 730 0 730 21790 WALTON 710 10 0 0 0 10 TOTAL 2,658,290* 109,870 48,630 15,470 64,100 173,960 * Dade County and Monroe County totals include sparse-Seagrass areas and hardbottom areas that have dense patches of turtle - grass and shoal -grass intermixed. See Table 6 for a breakdown of seagrass acreage in these counties and the text for an explana- tion. The total area of moderately dense, dense, and contiguous seagrasses for the state is 1,900,960 acres, excluding hardbottom and sparse seagrasses in the Florida Keys and sparse Halophila in the Big Bend region. 14 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Table 3. Relative percentages of scarred seagrasses, by intensity level, in each Florida coastal county in this study. Relative percentage is calculated for each category as the scarring in the county divided by scar- ring for the state multiplied by 100. Light scarring is defined as the presence of scars in less than 5 per- cent of the delineated polygon, moderate scarring as the presence of scars in 5 to 20 percent of the poly- gon, and severe scarring as the presence of scars in more than 20 percent of the polygon. County Total Light Moderate Severe Moderate Total Seagrass Scarring Scarring Scarring +Severe Scarring BAY 0.4 3.7 1.7 0.5 1.4 2.8 BREVARD 1.7 3.8 4.0 0.7 3.2 3.6 BROWARD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CHARLOTTE 0.5 1.4 11.6 1.9 9.2 4.3 CITRus 5.6 23.4 3.5 1.1 2.9 15.8 COLLIER 0.2 1.8 3.3 0.6 2.6 2.1 DADE 5.5 2.5 8.2 29.1 13.2 6.4 DIXIE 4.2 2.2 2.1 0.0 1.6 2.0 ESCAMBIA 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 FRANKLIN 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.5 GULF 0.3 3.8 1.1 0.7 1.0 2.8 HERNANDO 5.5 7.1 1.5 0.0 1.1 4.9 HILLSBOROUGH 0.2 1.5 4.6 1.2 3.8 2.4 INDIAN RIVER 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 JEFFERSON 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 LEE 1.9 5.4 14.6 8.3 13.1 8.2 LEVY 5.0 9.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 5.8 MANATEE 0.5 2.3 4.5 5.1 4.7 3.1 MARTIN 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MONROE 54.6 13.2 21.4 32.7 24.2 17.3 OKALOOSA 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 PALM BEACH 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PASCO 3.2 1.9 3.6 2.3 3.3 2.4 PINELLAS 0.9 3.5 8.0 13.0 9.2 5.6 SANTA ROSA 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 SARASOTA 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.6 ST. LucIE 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 TAYLOR 6.1 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 4.7 VOLUSIA 0.3 1.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 1.6 WAKULLA 1.1 1.9 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.6 WALTON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 15 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 ties, mostly in embayments and lagoonal systems. Twenty-two counties have less than 50,000 acres of seagrass, and the majority of those have less than 20,000 acres. The median seagrass acreage for the 31 coastal counties in this study is approximately 10,500 acres. After Monroe County (1,452,800 acres), Taylor county has the largest seagrass acreage (162,860 acres). Of the Florida counties that contain at least some seagrass, Broward County had the smallest acreage; approximately one acre of seagrass could be recognized from sea - grass -distribution sources. The least amount of total scarring (the sum of the light, moderate, and severe categories) occurred in those counties that have little seagrass acreage (e.g., Broward, Indian River, and Walton). For scar- ring to be extensive, the first requirement is that a county must contain a substantial acreage of sea - grass. Counties with little seagrass acreage, but with all of it scarred, would rank high in statewide scarring (Table 4). Therefore, ranking counties based on the percentage of seagrass scarred within the county can be deceptive. For comparative purposes, then, counties must be ranked based on their percentages of scar- ring relative to scarring for the entire state. Relative to the whole state, the greatest amount of total scarring occurred, as would be expected from seagrass distributions, in Monroe and Citrus coun- ties (Tables 2, 3, and 5). Lee, Dade, Levy, and Pinellas counties also had substantial scarring. Of greatest immediate concern is scarring in the mod- erate and severe categories (M/S scarring). Scarring in the light category in most areas is probably not of immediate concern in protecting seagrasses, unless the area is subject to increasing boat use. The counties with the most M/S scarring were Monroe, Dade, Lee, Charlotte, and Pinellas. Most scarring in Citrus and Levy counties was in the light category, so these two counties are of lower importance when only M/S scarring is considered. Fourteen counties each had less than one percent of the state's M/S scarring. Of these, Walton, Broward, Martin, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, and Indian River counties had the lowest amounts of M/S scarring because they all have low seagrass acreage. Of the counties containing substantial acreages of seagrass (i.e., those with more than one percent of statewide coverage), Taylor, Hernando, Wakulla, Dixie, and Citrus counties had the least M/S-scarring acreage. These counties are all in the Big Bend region of Florida, which is sparsely pop- ulated and has low numbers of registered boats. These five counties account for 22.5 percent of the state's seagrass acreage. Scarring extents and intensities for all 31 coastal counties in this study are illustrated in the figures in Appendix B. Generalized seagrass distributions compiled from various sources may be misleading if data were based on different definitions for sparse sea - grass or included patchy (but dense) seagrasses within a polygon. In this study, sparse and hard - bottom seagrasses in Monroe and Dade counties were included in the overall seagrass distributions because substantial patches of dense and moder- ately dense shoal -grass and turtle -grass were inter- mixed and could not be separately delineated. In areas of the Big Bend and Indian River Lagoon, however, we deleted sparse-seagrass categories from mapping and analysis because they were mostly very sparse Halophila beds, which are usu- ally in deeper waters and which may not be perti- nent to ecological concerns addressed in this study. Nevertheless, we separated the seagrass distribu- tions for Monroe and Dade counties into sparse/hardbottom and dense/moderately dense seagrass acreages (Table 6) for those who wish to eliminate these categories from scarring -extent cal- culations. All of our calculations were based on the total seagrass acreages for Monroe and Dade coun- ties. Polygons representing scarring in areas where sparse seagrasses had been excluded from the generalized distribution were retained in the analysis because they indicated the presence of seagrasses, as confirmed in the aerial surveys. Caution must be used when assessing the meaning of the data presented in this study. Although we have attempted to reduce distribution errors, in- accuracies remain because of the broad nature of this type of study. Mapping of seagrasses and scar- ring will be in constant flux as more detailed data are generated for different areas. To more broadly identify differences in sea - grass -scarring distribution, five regions (Figure 8) 16 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Table 4. Percentages of scarred seagrasses, by intensity level, within each Florida coastal county in this study. Light scarring is defined as the presence of scars in less than 5 percent of the delineated polygon, moderate scarring as the presence of scars in 5 to 20 percent of the polygon, and severe scarring as the presence of scars in more than 20 percent of the polygon. The percentage of scarred seagrasses for the entire state in each category is light = 4.1%, moderate = 1.8%, severe = 0.6%, moderate + severe = 2.4%, and total scarring = 6.5%. County Total Seagrass Acres Percent Light Scarring Percent Moderate Scarring Percent Severe Scarring Percent Moderate +Severe Percent Total Scarring BAY 10,530 38.4 7.8 0.7 8.5 47.0 BREVARD 46,190 9.0 4.2 0.2 4.4 13.4 BROWARD 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 CHARLOTTE 14,190 10.8 39.6 2.0 41.6 52.4 CITRUS 147,810 17.4 1.2 0.1 1.3 18.7 COLLIER 5,250 37.5 30.3 1.7 32.0 69.5 DADE 145,650 1.9 2.7 3.1 5.8 7.7 DmE 111,130 2.2 0.9 0.0 0.9 3.1 ESCAMBLA 2,750 18.7 6.4 0.3 6.7 25.4 FRANKLIN 19,840 2.2 1.9 0.0 1.9 4.1 GULF 8,170 51.4 6.6 1.3 7.9 59.3 HERNANDO 146,870 5.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 5.8 HILLSBOROUGH 6,320 26.6 35.3 2.9 38.2 64.8 INDIAN RIVER 2,940 4.8 0.3 1.1 1.4 6.2 JEFFERSON 10,500 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 4.8 LEE 50,510 11.7 14.1 2.6 16.7 28.4 LEVY 132,400 7.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.6 MANATEE 12,160 20.4 18.1 6.5 24.6 45.0 MARTIN 2,310 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.4 MONROE 1,452,800 1.0 0.7 0.4 1.1 2.1 OKALOOSA 3,450 9.0 2.2 0.1 2.3 11.3 PALM BEACH 2,510 2.1 0.9 0.0 0.9 3.0 PASCO 85,570 2.5 2.1 0.4 2.5 5.0 PINELLAS 22,920 16.6 16.9 8.8 25.7 42.3 SANTA ROSA 2,720 16.4 4.1 0.0 4.1 20.5 SARASOTA 4,160 17.2 7.2 0.8 8.0 26.0 ST. LUCIE 6,920 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 TAYLOR 162,860 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 VOLUSIA 8,490 16.9 11.9 4.2 16.1 33.0 WAKULLA 29,630 6.9 2.5 0.0 2.5 9.4 WALTON 710 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 17 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F,J, Sargent et al. 1995 Table & County rankings of scarred-seagrass acreage, by scarring intensity, in each Florida coastal coun- ty in this study. Rank is in decreasing order of acreage scarred. Counties with the same acreage are ranked alphabetically. Light scarring is defined as the presence of scars in less than 5 percent of the delineated polygon, moderate scarring as the presence of scars in 5 to 20 percent of the polygon, and severe scar- ring as the presence of scars in more than 20 percent of the polygon. Total Light Moderate Severe Moderate Total Seagrass Scarring Scarring Scarring +Severe Scarring 1 MONROE CITRUS MONROE MONROE MONROE MONROE 2 TAYLOR MONROE LEE DADE DADE CITRUS 3 CITRUS LEVY CHARLOTTE PINELLAS LEE LEE 4 HERNANDO TAYLOR DADE LEE CHARLOTTE DADE 5 DADE HERNANDO PINELLAS MANATEE PINELLAS LEVY 6 LEVY LEE HILLSBOROUGH PASCO MANATEE PINELLAS % DIXIE GULF MANATEE VOLUSIA HILLSBOROUGH HERNANDO 8 PASCO BREVARD BREVARD CHARLOTTE PASCO TAYLOR 9 LEE BAY PASCO CITRUS BREVARD CHARLOTTE 10 BREVARD PINELLAS CITRUS HILLSBOROUGH CITRUS BREVARD 11 WAKULLA DADE COLLIER BREVARD* COLLIER MANATEE 12 PINELLAS* MANATEE DIXIE GULF* VOLUSIA BAY 13 FRANKLIN* DIXIE VOLUSIA COLLIER* DIXIE GULF 14 CHARLOTTE* PASCO BAY BAY* BAY PASCO 15 MANATEE* WAKULLA WAKULLA INDIAN RIVER* WAKULLA HILLSBOROUGH 16 BAY* COLLIER HERNANDO SARASOTA* HERNANDO COLLIER 17 JEFFERSON* HILLSBOROUGH GULF ESCAMBIA* GULF DIXIE 18 GULF* CHARLOTTE FRANKLIN* BROWARD* FRANKLIN* VOLUSIA 19 VOLUSIA* VOLUSIA SARASOTA* DIXIE* SARASOTA* WAKULLA 20 ST. LUCIE* SARASOTA* ESCAMBIA* FRANKLIN* ESCAMBIA* SARASOTA* 21 HILLSBOROUGH* ESCAMBIA* LEVY* HERNANDO* LEVY* FRANKLIN* 22 COLLIER* SANTA ROSA* SANTA ROSA* JEFFERSON* SANTA ROSA* ESCAMBIA* 23 SARASOTA* FRANKLIN* JEFFERSON* LEVY* JEFFERSON* SANTA ROSA* 24 OKALOOSA* JEFFERSON* OKALOOSA* MARTIN* OKALOOSA* JEFFERSON* 25 INDIAN RIVER* OKALOOSA* TAYLOR* OKALOOSA* TAYLOR* OKALOOSA* 26 ESCAMBIA* INDIAN RIVER* ST. LUCIE* PALM BEACH* INDIAN RIVER* INDIAN RIVER* 27 SANTA ROSA* PALM BEACH* PALM BEACH* SANTA ROSA* ST. LUCIE* ST. LUCIE* 28 PALM BEACH* ST. LUCIE* INDIAN RIVER* ST. LUCIE* PALM BEACH* PALM BEACH* 29 MARTIN* MARTIN* MARTIN* TAYLOR* MARTIN* MARTIN* 30 WALTON* WALTON* BROWARD* WAKULLA* BROWARD* WALTON* 31 BROWARD* BROWARD* WALTON* WALTON* WALTON* BROWARD* * Relative percentage is less than one percent. 18 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al, 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Table 6. Acreages (to nearest ten acres) of seagrass-density categories in the Florida Keys. County Total Seagrass Moderate/Dense Sparse/Hardbottom Seagrass Seagrass DADE 145,650 120,680 24,320 MONROE 1,452,800 717,440 733,210 TOTAL 1,598,450 838,120 757,530 were demarcated in the analysis of scarring extents and intensities: Region 1. Panhandle (Escambia County -Franklin County), Region 2. Big Bend (Wakulla County -Pasco County), Region 3. Gulf Peninsula (Pinellas County -Lee County), Region 4. Atlantic Peninsula (Palm Beach County-Volusia County), and Region 5. South Florida (Collier County-Broward County). Acreages of scarred seagrasses occurring in these regions are in Table 7. The areas of Florida with the greatest acreages of M/S scarring were the Gulf Peninsula and South Florida regions. Based only on the severe -scarring category, however, the South Florida region had twice the scarred acreage of the Gulf Peninsula region. If the light -scarring catego- ry is included, the Big Bend region had the great- est total of scarred-seagrass acreage. However, the light -scarring category may not be of greatest con- cern in protecting seagrasses from scarring; there- fore, the Big Bend region may not be a priority for a management program, except for protecting sites where M/S scarring occurs and ensuring that scar- ring does not become worse. When M/S scarring is viewed relative to the total seagrass acreage in the region, the most threatened region is the Gulf Peninsula (23.5 per- cent of its seagrasses scarred); it has extensive scar- ring relative to the moderate acreage of seagrasses there. Because of the extensive acreages of sea - grasses in the South Florida and Big Bend regions, scarring levels (1.6 percent and 0.8 percent of their seagrasses scarred) were low relative to the area of total seagrasses present. However, most of these seagrasses occur in water depths where they are unlikely to be scarred. Region 1. Panhandle: This region has the least acreage of seagrass in the state (Table 7). Bay and Table 7. Acreages of scarred seagrasses (to nearest ten acres) in each region of Florida demarcated in this study. Light scarring is defined as the presence of scars in less than 5 percent of the delineated polygon, moderate scarring as the presence of scars in 5 to 20 percent of the polygon, and severe scarring as the presence of scars in more than 20 percent of the polygon. Region Total Light Moderate Severe Moderate Total Seagrass Scarring Scarring Scarring +Severe Scarring 1. PANHANDLE 48,170 9,970 2,090 200 2,290 12,260 2. BIG BEND 826,770 58,630 6,180 540 6,720 65,350 3. GULF PENINSULA 110,260 16,140 21,330 4,580 25,910 42,050 4. ATLANTIC PENINSULA 69,360 250 3,030 490 3,520 3,770 5. SOUTH FLORIDA 1,603,700* 19,270 15,990 9,650 25,640 44,910 South Florida total includes sparse-seagrass areas and hardbottom areas with moderately dense and dense patches of turtle - grass and shoal -grass intermixed. See Table 6 for a breakdown of seagrass acreage in these counties and the text for an expla- nation. The total area of moderately dense, dense, and contiguous seagrasses in the state is 1,900,960 acres, excluding hard - bottom and sparse seagrasses in the Florida Keys and sparse Halophila beds in the Big Bend region. FMRI Technical Report TR-1 19 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Walton Gulf Georgia �m5tAtlantic % I Levy .. ramie° Of Charlotte' lee Palm $each Mexico coiner I Bmward Monroe a' b� Region 1. Panhandle 0 Region 2. Big Bend 0 Region 3. Gulf Peninsula Region 4. Atlantic Peninsula 0 Region S. South Florida Figure 8. Regions of Florida analyzed for scarred seagrasses. Dade E 20 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Gulf counties had the greatest acreages of both total and M/S scarring in this region. Scarring in this region was principally in the light category, although some of the small amount of seagrass in the more developed embayments had severe scar- ring. St. Joseph Bay, East Bay, and St. Andrew Bay, along with The Narrows and Santa Rosa Sound, were the principal foci for scarring. Big Lagoon in Escambia County had extensive light and moderate scarring, as did areas adjacent to Perdido Bay and Perdido Island. Region 2. Big Bend: The Big Bend region con- tains extensive areas of very shallow water and intricate shorelines. Even so, not much scarring was observed (Table 7). Within this region, Citrus County had the most extensive acreage of total scarring, and Pasco County had the most M/S scarring. Levy, Taylor, and Hernando counties also had a substantial amount of total scarring, most of which was in the light category. The extent of scarring was unexpected because of these coun- ties' lower population densities. However, the large amount of light scarring may have partially been an artifact of the small-scale maps that pre- vented detailed polygon delineation in this region. Region 3. Gulf Peninsula: The total acreage of scarred seagrasses was extensive in this region (Table 7). M/S scarring totaled 25,910 acres, which was the most in the state. Lee County had the most extensive total and M/S scarring of the counties in this region. The seagrass flats of Estero Bay, Pine Island Sound, and Matlacha Pass (all in Lee County) were criss-crossed with M/S scar- ring. Figure 9 illustrates detailed scarring patterns around Pine Island in Charlotte County. Note the scarred area to the southwest of the marina (lower left). Even though a marked boat channel (narrow band of light blue) extends west from the marina to open water and the Intracoastal Waterway, boats leaving the marina often take a shortcut south and as a result scar shallow seagrass beds. From Sarasota County to Pinellas County, light and moderate scarring were common. Pinellas County had the largest acreage of total and M/S scarring in the Tampa Bay region. The Gulf Peninsula region contains two extensive bay sys- tems: Tampa Bay, which is highly developed, and Charlotte Harbor, which is much less developed. A comparison of the two bay systems shows that both total and M/S scarring were approximately Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses the same for the two embayments. Charlotte Harbor has approximately 23,000 more acres of seagrass than Tampa Bay does, so scarring may have been more critical in Tampa Bay relative to its total seagrass acreage. Region 4. Atlantic Peninsula: This region had the lowest total acreage of scarred seagrasses (Table 7). Most scarring occurred in the northern part of Brevard County and the southern part of Volusia County, so the northern part of this region had the most extensive scarring. Within this region, Brevard County had the most total and M/S scarring, although Volusia County also had substantial M/S scarring. Relative to the total acreage of seagrass in the county, the scarring in Volusia County may be more deleterious. Counties south of Brevard County did not have substantial acreages of seagrass; therefore, scar- ring there was not extensive. Region 5. South Florida: This region has the largest acreage of seagrass in the state —most of it in Monroe County (Table 7). This region also had the greatest acreage of severe scarring in the state. Monroe County had by far the most scarring in all categories in this region. Of the other counties in this region, Dade County had substantial scarring in the total and M/S categories, principally in southern Biscayne Bay. For this region, a better understanding of scarring can be obtained by viewing the Florida Keys as a single entity that crosses county bound- aries. If the extensive area of seagrasses in Florida Bay is excluded from the scarring analysis, the Florida Keys contains what are probably the most egregious examples of scarring in the state. This area, which is in Dade and Monroe counties, pro- vided a greater diversity of scarring types than any other county in the state and was surveyed in greater detail to provide an example of how to examine site -specific types of scarring (Kruer 1994). Virtually all seagrass banks and flats in the Florida Keys have some scarring, and scar density is generally greatest near developed islands and in areas of more intensive boating activity (Matthews et al. 1991). Scarred seagrasses were observed from the high intertidal zone to a depth of approximately six feet at low tide. The scars in deeper water were near ports at Key West and Stock Island; northeast of Big Pine Key, where commercial fish -trap boats take shortcuts through FMRI Technical Report TR-1 21 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F,J. Sargent et al. 1995 Figure 9. Detailed map of scarred seagrasses—Pine Island, Lee County. 22 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses SCALE 1:40,000 » a . i 0 b NLLFS i 0 U r I` rr L ^ U C. i �f 'H-oi t Windl6y Ke 5r �.. � �, � "p •off . Jr4:. Y ll,�`i ' f` ;r: aba a Georgia e � � Atlantic Ocean h - • ,•: �,�4�: Gulf Of Light Scarring Mexico l/ N Moderate Scarring � ,, Severe Scarring 3 '" ri Y k S Y Figure 10. Detailed map of scarred seagrasses—Windley Key, Monroe County. FMRI Technical Report TR-1 23 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses shallow channels; near Marathon and Islamorada, where large vessels dock; and in and along the Intracoastal Waterway on the Florida Bay side of the upper Florida Keys. Approximately 900 scarred areas were iden- tified in the Florida Keys. Light scarring totaled 14,650 acres, moderate scarring totaled 10,400 acres, and severe scarring totaled 5,020 acres. The great- est concentration of M/S scarring was observed in the upper Keys. Scarring intensity ranged from a few scars at some sites to numerous propeller and grounding scars at others. Some formerly vegetat- ed areas were covered by displaced sediment from extensively scarred and destabilized sea - grass beds nearby. Moderately and severely scarred sites in the lower Florida Keys from the Marquesas Keys to near Snipe Key, for which additional information was collected, are listed in Tables 8 and 9 (Kruer 1994). These sites were eval- uated for probable causes of scarring based on observed boating activity, environmental charac- teristics of the area, personal knowledge, and dis- cussions with many boaters. A notable example of the intensity of scarring that occurs in some parts of Florida is around Windley Key, in the upper Florida Keys. Windley Key is in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and its waters are designated as Class III Outstanding Florida Waters. It includes a vari- ety of shallow marine communities and is a tran- sitional area between high-energy oceanic waters and the more protected waters of Florida Bay and Everglades National Park. Whale Harbor and Snake Creek channels, both with relatively deep water, connect the extensive, shallow seagrass flats of Florida Bay with deeper oceanic waters. Endangered West Indian manatees, American crocodiles, and seaturtles are known to inhabit these waters. The area is also surrounded by coral reefs and hardbottom communities that attract many tourists and fishermen. As a result of intense boating activity and lack of proper protection, the Windley Key area contains some of the most heavily scarred sea - grass flats in south Florida. Figure 10 illustrates the extent of seagrass scarring around Windley Key. Kruer (1994) noted the loss of seagrasses along channel edges and that eroded sediments were being deposited on seagrasses. Unmarked channels had been cut through shallow -water sea - F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 grass flats and between mangroves. Boat wakes severely eroded seagrass beds along the offshore channel edges. Boating activity originated from facilities located at Whale Harbor Channel and at Snake Creek and from the more than 31,000 linear feet of bulkhead docks along canals in a residen- tial subdivision. Scarring of seagrasses in the Florida Keys has occurred for some time —probably since com- bustion engines (outboard and inboard) were in- stalled in boats. However, the problem of seagrass scarring has become acute because of the in- creasing residential population; the increasing popularity of boating, fishing, diving, and other water sports; and increasing tourism. New prop - dredged channels continue to appear, some thou- sands of feet long, providing access for larger and more numerous vessels into areas not previously accessible. Many shallow flats and banks are now severely eroded due to constant scarrings, ship groundings, chronic wave action, and water -cur- rent scouring (Kruer 1994). Discussion The majority of Florida's moderate/severe (M/S) seagrass scarring (68.9 percent) occurred in five counties: Monroe, Dade, Lee, Charlotte, and Pinellas. These same counties contain 63.4 percent of the state's seagrass acreage. However, if Monroe County is excluded from analysis —be- cause of its disproportionately large amount of seagrass acreage and scarring —the five counties that have the most M/S scarring contain only 9.3 percent of the state's seagrass acreage but 49.4 percent of its M/S scarring. What could be the cause of so much scarring in these counties? One important correlation exists with population den- sity, as reflected in vessel registrations for each of the counties. For example, M/S scarring of sea - grass beds is greater in the densely populated Gulf Peninsula region than it is in the sparsely populated Big Bend region. Florida's population nearly doubled between 1970 and 1990: from 6,791,000 to 12,938,000. During the same period, the number of vessel registrations (recreational and commercial) more 24 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Table 8. Moderately scarred sites —Marquesas Keys to Snipe Key (1992-93). Adapted from Kruer (1994). Site # Adjacent Key Probable Causel Suggested Management2 Comments 13 Marquesas Keys A, S ED Shallow channel between islands with popular beaches 15 Marquesas Keys A, S ED Shallow channel between two islands 32 Marquesas Keys I, S ED Entrance to natural channel 46 Boca Grande Key C, S C At entrance to main channel, existing markers (#17 and #18) on chart, marker 18 in shallow zone, vessels pass on shallow side. 50 Boca Grande Key C, S C 75 Archer Key C, S C, EN 105 Mule Key C, S C, EN 113 Mule Key C, S ED 121 Key West S ED 123 Wisteria Island C, L, S C, ED, EN 127 Fleming Key C, S C, ED 142 Fleming Key S ED, EN 145 Fleming Key S C, ED 150 Key West P, S C, ED, EN 151 Key West C, P. S C, ED 152 Key West C, P, S C, ED 155 Sigsbee Park S C, ED 156 Key West A, S C, ED 157 Key West C, P, S C, ED, EN 163 Stock Island P, S C, ED, EN 165 Stock Island L, P, S C, ED, EN 166 Stock Island L, P ED, EN 174 Boca Chica S ED, EN 181 Bay Keys I, S ED, EN 201 Lower Harbor Keys I, S ED, EN 204 Channel Key I, S ED 207 Channel Key I, S C, ED 223 Fish Hawk Key I, S C, ED 232 Geiger Key A, I, S ED, EN 236 Saddlebunch Key C,S C, ED 238 Big Coppitt Key A,C ED, EN 245 Halfmoon Key A, I, S ED, EN 251 Mud Keys S C, ED Markers # 13 and 14 not located as shown on chart 11441 Adjacent to single marker # 8 shown on chart 11441, oversized vessels, needs gated markers. Confined area between markers, used by oversized vessels Area of concentrated traffic near channel markers Isolated bank (Middle Grounds) in center of Northwest Channel Heavily traveled anchorage on west edge of Key West Channel Inadequately marked channel through large bank On inside of several markers On edge of main channel near marker Outside of markers in access to Garrison Bight Inside Garrison Bight, outside of partly marked dredged channel Inside Garrison Bight, outside of partly marked dredged channel At end of dredged area Boats accessing dredged channel Cow Key Channel, part marked, part unmarked, high-speed traffic Adjacent to Safe Harbor Channel Anchorage east of Stock Island in Boca Chica Channel Anchorage east of Stock Island in Boca Chica Channel and near ramp At entrance to dredged part of Boca Chica Channel Commercial tour boats and recreational boats accessing Bay Keys from the south Long, illegally marked channel Part of old Backcountry Waterway Cut through bank between islands Cut through long linear bank Shallow channel leaving residential canal On bank near marked channel Marked access to canal trailer park Access to shallow embayment Channel leaving Waltz Key Basin 1 Probable Cause: A = access point, C = poor channel markers, I =- illegal aids to navigation, L = live-aboards, P = proximity, S = shortcut. 2 Suggested Management: C = new or improved markers, ED = education, EN = better enforcement, R = restricted area. FMRI Technical Report TR-1 25 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Table 9. Severely scarred sites —Marquesas Keys to Snipe Key (1992-1993). Adapted from Kruer (1994). Site # Adjacent Key Probable Suggested Comments Causel Management2 7 Marquesas Keys S ED, EN From large vessel in early 1980s, now enlarged 129 Wisteria Island C, L, S C, ED, EN Heavily traveled anchorage on east side of Key West Channel 138 Fleming Key I, S C, ED At shallow end of a natural channel 168 Stock Island A ED, EN Boats accessing residential area in shallow water 160 Key West A, L ED, EN Cow Key Channel live -aboard anchorage and Cow Key Channel south of bridge 170 Stock Island S C, ED, EN Large vessels shortcutting into Boca Chica Channel 231 Geiger Key A, I, P, S C, ED, EN Access to Geiger Key Marina and area 1 Probable Cause: A = access point, C = poor channel markers, I = illegal aids to navigation, L = live-aboards, P = proximity, S = shortcut. 2 Suggested Management: C = new or improved markers, ED = education, EN = better enforcement, R = restricted area. than tripled: from 235,000 to 716,000. Clearly, not only is the population increasing, but the percent- age of the population that owns boats is also increasing. Substantial increases in both popula- tion and number of vessels suggest that our state's water resources are being used at an increasing rate, and therefore its seagrasses are in increasing danger of being damaged. By 1992-93, total power -boat registration for the 31 counties in this survey had reached 493,406 vessels (Bureau of Vessel Titles and Registrations 1994). The greatest percentage of boats in most coastal counties were registered as pleasure boats (Table 10). For the 31 counties in this study, only 6.4 percent of vessels were registered as commer- cial craft. The five counties with the greatest num- ber of vessel registrations were Dade, Pinellas, Broward, Hillsborough, and Lee. These five coun- ties contained 40.6 percent of all vessels registered in the 31 coastal counties in this study. The num- ber of registered vessels in the five counties with the greatest acreage of M/S scarring was 156,899 in 1992-93, which is 14 times greater than that of the registered vessels in the five counties that had the least M/S scarring (11,031 acres) and that also had substantial seagrass acreage. In four of the five counties with the most registered craft, M/S scarring of seagrasses was also extensive (25,160 acres or 39 percent). In Broward County, scarring levels were low because it had only slightly more than one acre of seagrasses (based on small-scale photography). The number of vessels registered in a county is not always a predictor of seagrass scarring in that county. Many counties with large numbers of registered watercraft lack substantial seagrass acreage. For example, Palm Beach County has 30,929 and Broward County has 42,612 registered vessels (Table 10), but each has less than 20 acres of M/S scarring (Table 2). In contrast, Monroe County has a moderate number of vessels regis- tered (20,163) but contains the greatest acreage of M/S scarring in the state. Whether a vessel is used for commercial or recreational purposes may influence where it is predominantly used. Commercial vessels are usu- ally larger, work farther offshore, and are limited to a few ports with deeper access; smaller vessels can be trailered to attractive inshore fishing and watersports areas such as the Florida Keys and Charlotte Harbor. Pleasure boats (excluding sail- boats) in most counties compose more than 90 percent of registered vessels (Table 10). In Monroe County, by contrast, only 80 percent (16,152) of the vessels are registered as pleasure boats; the remainder are registered as commercial vessels. Pleasure -boat registrations indicate where trailer- ing may likely originate. Therefore, seagrass scar- ring in the Florida Keys may be caused in part by smaller boats trailered in from Palm Beach, Dade, and Broward counties and elsewhere. Neverthe- less, seagrass scarring is not limited to a single group of boaters; all user -groups scar seagrasses to some degree. 26 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses Table 10. Vessel registrations in 1992-1993 in the 31 Florida coastal counties in this study. Table does not include sailboat registrations. County Pleasure Craft Percentage Pleasure Craft Commercial and Dealer Craft Total Watercraft County ty Rank BAY 13,212 89.9 1,488 14,700 15 BREVARD 25,763 93.8 1,716 27,479 7 BROWARD 39,930 93.7 2,682 42,612 3 CHARLOTTE 14,004 93.7 947 14,951 14 CITRUS 11,445 91.7 1,039 12,484 19 COLLIER 13,791 92.2 1,171 14,962 13 DADE 44,542 95.2 2,231 46,773 1 DIXIE 1,544 77.0 461 2,005 30 ESCAMBIA 15,297 96.6 537 15,834 11 FRANKLIN 1,424 57.7 1,045 2,469 27 GULF 1,866 86.8 284 2,150 29 HERNANDO 5,293 96.1 212 5,505 23 HILLSBOROUGH 35,126 97.3 973 36,099 4 INDIAN RIVER 7,796 94.1 492 8,288 21 JEFFERSON 669 96.3 26 695 31 LEE 29,409 93.6 2,007 31,416 5 LEVY 2,162 86.1 348 21510 26 MANATEE 12,865 94.5 752 13,617 17 MARTIN 12,041 94.0 767 121808 18 MONROE 16,152 80.1 4,011 20,163 8 OKALOOSA 13,059 94.3 795 13,854 16 PALM BEACH 29,862 96.6 1,067 30,929 6 PASCO 14,800 96.6 528 15,328 12 PINELLAS 41,317 94.8 2,279 43,596 2 SANTA ROSA 7,377 95.4 359 71736 22 SARASOTA 16,272 95.0 848 17,120 10 ST. LUCIE 8,839 94.2 543 91382 20 TAYLOR 2,399 91.0 237 21636 25 VOLUSIA 18,286 95.4 876 191162 9 WAKULLA 3,221 86.4 509 31730 24 WALTON 2,308 95.6 105 2,413 28 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 27 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses F,J, Sargent et al. 1995 Table 11. Vessel registrations in 1992-93 (Bureau of Vessel Titles and Registrations 1994) in the five regions of Florida demarcated in this survey (see Figure 8). Table does not include sailboat registrations. Total Pleasure % Pleasure Regional Rank Region Watercraft Craft (PC) Craft PC %PC 1. PANHANDLE 59,156 54,525 92.2 4 4 2. BIG BEND 44,893 41,533 92.5 5 3 3. GULF PENINSULA 156,799 148,993 95.0 1 1 4. ATLANTIC PENINSULA 108,048 102,587 94.9 3 2 5. SOUTH FLORIDA 124,510 114,415 91.9 2 5 TOTAL 493,406 462,053 93.6 — — On a regional basis, vessel registrations were greatest in the Gulf Peninsula region (Table 11). Vessel registrations in the Panhandle and Big Bend regions were insignificant compared to those in the other three regions. The Gulf Peninsula region not only had the greatest number of registered vessels, it also had the greatest percentage registered as pleasure craft (95 percent) and the most M/S scar- ring. The South Florida region was second in the number of registered vessels and nearly equal to the Gulf Peninsula region in M/S scarring. The Gulf Peninsula and South Florida regions con- tained 57 percent of all registered vessels in the 31 coastal counties in this study. The lowest number of registered vessels was in the Big Bend region (9.1 percent). Many authors have speculated on the sit- uations in which seagrasses are scarred (e.g., Woodburn et al. 1957, Godcharles 1971, Eleuterius 1987, Zieman and Zieman 1989, Wilderness Society et al. 1990). Our discussions with boaters, as well as our personal experiences, suggest that scarring of seagrasses could result when one or more of the following situations occur: when boaters misjudge water depth and ac- cidentally scar seagrass beds. - when boaters who lack navigational charts or the skill to use them stray from poorly marked channels and accidentally scar sea - grass beds; when boaters intentionally leave marked channels to take shortcuts through shallow seagrass beds, knowing that seagrasses may be scarred; • when boaters carelessly navigate in shallow seagrass beds because they believe scars heal quickly; • when inexperienced boaters engage in recre- ational and commercial fishing in shallow seagrass flats, thinking that their boat's de- signed draft is not deep enough to scar sea - grasses or that the design will prevent dam- age to their boat; • when boaters overload their vessels, causing deeper drafts than the boaters realize; • when boaters anchor over shallow seagrass beds, where their boats swing at anchor and scar seagrasses; • when boaters intentionally prop -dredge to create a channel; and • when inexperienced boaters, ignorant of what seagrasses are and the benefits they pro- vide, accept as the behavioral norm local boating customs that disregard the environ- ment. The situations that promote scarring can be grouped into two general categories: (1) All too often, boaters accidentally or intentionally pass through water that is too shallow for the draft of their vessels. The average size, draft, and power of vessels are increasing; therefore, bigger, more pow- erful vessels are being navigated through shallow waters and are scarring more seagrass acreage. Also, water sports often occur in shallow water, although suitable deeper water may be found nearby. Boaters use flats boats, which are designed to operate in shallow water, to gain access to more remote, shallow seagrass beds. However, inexperi- 28 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses enced users of flats boats, ignorant of the proper use of such boats and the great value of seagrass- es, may extensively scar shallow seagrass beds in areas near marinas and launching ramps. Inexperienced boaters, unfamiliar with the location of channels and often lacking navigation- al charts, travel through areas where official chan- nel markers are infrequent or poorly located. Some channel markers are not located as shown on charts, and many are immediately adjacent to shal- low -water seagrasses. Furthermore, many boaters are unfamiliar with the meanings of U.S. Coast Guard Aids to Navigation; hence, a single marker may confuse an inexperienced boater who is unable to read either the marker or water depth. Running aground is more likely if a boater passes on the wrong side of a marker located on the edge of a seagrass flat. Markers in some channels do not extend an adequate distance beyond the ends of channels to discourage boaters from crossing the edges of seagrass beds. Notably, many M/S- scarred seagrasses are in or adjacent to the ends of officially marked channels. Illegal aids to navigation (e.g., PVC, wood, or metal posts and marker buoys) are widespread, especially in the Florida Keys. Only those who place these markers know what is intended. Often these illegal markers indicate where prop -dredg- ing has deepened shallow areas so small boats can get between deeper areas. Boaters in larger vessels may attempt to use such markers and unexpected- ly pass through water too shallow for their boats. (2) Coastal property is popular because it allows direct access to the water. Extensive shore- line development in shallow bays and adjacent to shallow seagrass flats results in increased scarring. Some seagrass scarring is caused by boaters who attempt to gain access to shoreline development and by coastal landowners —and their families and friends —boating in nearby shallows. Many dredged canals leading from residential areas ter- minate in relatively shallow water (Figure 11). Current state and county rules in many areas limit new docks to waters greater than a specific depth at low tide, but many old docks are located in shal- low water and have poorly defined access chan- nels, if they have them at all. Many older access channels in open water are subject to sedimentation and are maintained by prop -dredging. Development is not just restricted to uplands. The number of live -aboard vessels has increased in some areas. Scarring of seagrasses by hulls, anchors, and chains occurs as live -aboard vessels (and other boats) swing at anchor over shallow seagrass beds (Kruer 1994). The increasing number of access points — such as boat launching ramps —has also con- tributed to seagrass scarring. Boating -access areas are usually located in sheltered areas, where sea - grasses are more likely to occur. Hundreds of com- mercial marinas, watercraft rentals, and public boat ramps are near shallow seagrass beds where few channel markers exist. Because these channels are usually subject to heavy sedimentation, regular dredging is often needed to keep access open. Some of the most severely scarred areas in Florida are near marinas catering to flats fishermen in the Florida Keys. Management Options When state funds for seagrass management are limited, the money should be invested in those counties that have the greatest acreage of M/S- scarred seagrasses (e.g., Monroe County). However, if the severity of seagrass-habitat loss in a county is related to the extent of seagrasses in that county, then counties with both moderate sea - grass acreage and more intense scarring may merit similar attention when management programs are being developed. Based on a scarring index (SI) in which the relative percentage of M/S scarring in a county is divided by the relative percentage of total seagrass acreage for that county (Table 3), the more threatened counties are Hillsborough (19.0), Charlotte (18.4), Collier (13.0), Pinellas (10.2), Manatee (9.4), Volusia (7.0), and Lee (6.9). When assigning management priorities, how- ever, other aspects of scarring extent must also be considered. Because extensive areas of seagrasses are in water depths greater than six feet, where they are unlikely to be scarred, including these acreages in SI calculations lessens the apparent extent of scarring in some counties. If deeper sea - grass beds are excluded from the SI calculations, then county rankings would be considerably dif- ferent. For example, Monroe County —which has a high degree of M/S scarring —would rank low using only an SI value because of the county's FMRI Technical Report TR-1 29 IL I m e F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses extensive seagrass acreage, much of which is not vulnerable to scarring. Therefore, common sense must be used in determining where state man- agement monies are spent. Basing decisions on both the extent of M/S scarring and on an SI value suggests that the principal foci for scarring - management programs should be Charlotte, Dade, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, and Pinellas counties. Also ranking high in concern are Brevard, Citrus, Collier, Pasco, and Volusia counties. Four -Point Approach Ample justification now exists to reduce scarring of seagrasses. A multifaceted approach is neces- sary to deal with the wide variety of user -groups, activities, and types of physical perturbations. Below is a four -point approach, used by some local governments (e.g., Barker and Garrett 1992), that can form the basis for an effective statewide man- agement program. Effective implementation of this comprehensive approach in plans designed for specific locales should initially reduce seagrass losses at moderately and severely scarred sites and slow the increase in scarring at sites having only light scarring. Modifications to management pro- grams developed for specific areas should reduce seagrass scarring, over the long term, to levels that do not significantly affect habitat quality. 1. Education Education is an essential part of any effort to make all boaters —tourists and residents alike —under- stand the sensitive nature of Florida's shallow sea - grass communities. Florida, with its millions of visitors each year, is one of the most popular boat- ing, diving, and fishing destinations in the world. These boaters can be educated through informa- tive pamphlets available at marinas and boater - registration locations; through boating classes; through boat -user's guides and maps; through public -school seminars; through signs at launch- ing ramps; and through organizations such as the Florida Conservation Association (FCA), the Organized Fisherman of Florida (OFF), and the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and Power Squadron (Kenworthy et al. 1988, Barker and Garrett 1992, Folit and Morris 1992). Shallow -water fishing guides and commercial fishermen —who have strong interests in the health of Florida's seagrass resources —should use peer pressure to reduce any scarring that is caused by their user -groups. Power Squadron and Coast Guard Auxiliary boating courses should include educational information on the importance of seagrass beds and should emphasize their protection as part of a safe -boat- ing curriculum. In areas where new visitors and seasonal res- idents are in continual flux, however, additional approaches to accomplish resource -management goals should be explored. Government agencies need to be persistent in communicating the prob- lem of seagrass scarring to the public. Single -year efforts do not have the same effect on seasonal populations —which change year to year —that long-term, regular programs do. Aerial pho- tographs that show scarred seagrass beds in graphic detail have proven useful in educating managers, decision -makers, and the public. This approach could be used to communicate seagrass- protection needs to seasonal residents and tourists at areas they are likely to visit (e.g., at boat -launch- ing ramps). Communicating the need to limit the size, draft, loads (tonnage), and power of vessels in shallow seagrass beds is an important educational goal. 2. Channel Marking (Aids to Navigation) Conventional USCG -approved markers are help- ful in deeper channels, but markers should be lo- cated away from the edges of shallow seagrass flats to provide a wider buffer against scarring. Markers should be gated (paired) in most locations and should extend well beyond the ends of chan- nels. Marking channels clearly —especially with easily visible, reflective arrows —will benefit all boaters by showing them the correct passage, which would improve boating safety and at the same time minimize incidental scarring of sea - grasses by boaters who stray out of unmarked channels. Simple, easily installed and maintained mark- ers with reflective directional arrows could be effective deterrents to seagrass scarring but may not conform to official USCG requirements. The channel -marking system used by Everglades National Park has directional arrows and is suc- cessful, but it needs some refinement (Skip Snow, personal communication). Monroe County has ad- dressed the need for additional channel marking FMRI Technical Report TR-1 31 Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses through their Department of Marine Resources, which released a draft Boating Impact Manage- ment Plan (Barker and Garrett 1992). It will even- tually be incorporated, in part, into the manage- ment plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). As channel -marking criteria are established and new markers are put in place, illegal aids to navigation should be removed. Often, channels are prop -dredged through seagrasses and between mangroves, even though an existing channel is available just a short distance away. In some cases, existing prop -dredged channels should be closed off by installing reflective pilings to block access and thus allow scarred seagrasses to recover. The benefits to the resource brought by an effective channel -marker system are negated if illegal mark- ers and prop -dredged channels are allowed to pro- liferate. 3. Enforcement Voluntary compliance has not proven effective in the past in resolving many resource -damage prob- lems. Prop -dredging and other vessel -related dam- age to seagrasses should be viewed as destruction of protected public resources and as a form of unsafe boating. Past actions by all levels of gov- ernment provide legal authority to enforce rules and regulations prohibiting prop -dredging (e.g., U.S.A. and FDER v. M.C.C. of Florida and Michael's Construction Co., Case No. 81-2373-CIV- EBD, Southern District of Florida). Citations and warnings for scarring seagrasses must be issued if an enforcement program is to be effective. Scarring of seagrasses would be substantially reduced, with- out placing undue hardship on the boating public, if existing legal authority were fully exerted. Scarring of seagrasses is often willful, par- ticularly when it is repetitive. Florida has laws that can protect natural resources from willful and reckless damage (e.g., Reckless or careless opera- tion of a vessel. F.S. 327.3; "Duty of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to pro- tect, etc., state lands...", F.S. 253.05; "State attor- neys, other prosecuting officers of the state or county... county sheriffs and their deputies..." to assist in protecting state lands F.S. 253.04; and even F.S. 380.05, "Areas of critical state concern..."). The Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 18-14 dis- cusses fines for damaging state lands. F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 4. Limited -Motoring Zones Programs initiated by the FDEP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and several counties use moder- ate restrictions, such as idle -speed or limited - motoring zones, to protect sensitive resources while allowing public access compatible with environmental protection. Shallow channels, flats, and embayments near developed areas should be protected before scarring problems become severe. Areas set aside as preserves could be incorporated into a zoning program that limits certain types of access and offers protection (Barker and Garrett 1992). Weedon Island State Preserve (Pinellas County) has experienced a 95 percent reduction in the number of scars since it was closed to combus- tion engines —electric trolling motors are still allowed —in October 1990 (Folit and Morris 1992). Limited access and closure are effective ways to reduce the scarring of seagrass beds; however, many issues must be considered when closing areas to watercraft. Work groups or task forces should be created to address issues that concern areas being considered for limited access or clo- sure. Boating -effects studies, boating -use surveys, and collaboration with affected parties must al- ways be considered. Involving all sides in plan- ning at the beginning is imperative when closing an area to powered vessels. Task forces such as the one for Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve (Cockroach Bay Seagrass Task Force 1992) and the one for Fort DeSoto Park in Pinellas County are good examples of cooperation among user -groups in formulating boat -access restrictions to protect seagrasses. The seagrass-management plan for Cock- roach Bay Aquatic Preserve, located on the eastern shore of Tampa Bay, was implemented by Hillsborough County in August 1992. In certain areas, the plan limits vessel access and prohibits the use of combustion engines in waters that are less than 18 inches deep at mean low water. Also, the public is being educated using a number of ap- proaches (e.g., through signs, posted at boat - launching ramps, that discuss seagrass protection). Channel markers will eventually have depth infor- mation posted. Law enforcement was increased in the preserve by adding a Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy and by deputizing the manager of the preserve. Seagrass recovery from scarring is being studied, and aerial photography is being 32 FMRI Technical Report TR-1 F.J. Sargent et al. 1995 used to monitor the amount of scarring in the pre- serve (Cockroach Bay Seagrass Task Force 1992). Despite these steps, however, initial reports of their effectiveness are in some respects disap- pointing. Scarring extents in Cockroach Bay have increased by about 5000 linear feet in the first year (Dawes et al. 1994). Also, around entrances to the preserve, approximately 145,000 square feet of additional scarring was discovered, despite its cryptic nature (i.e., hidden by sedimentation). Overall, an additional 3.3 acres of seagrasses were scarred in one year within the preserve. In some areas of the preserve, voluntary compliance has not worked, and total closure has been implement- ed to alleviate scarring. Managers are looking into further measures to reduce scarring losses, such as proactive restoration and more rigorous regula- tion. Pinellas County is implementing a similar program for Fort DeSoto Park, which is near the mouth of Tampa Bay. Motoring has been limited or completely restricted in some areas. Fort DeSoto Park has three types of limited -motoring zones: 1) slow/minimum-wake zones are intended to improve safety and reduce boat -wake effects, 2) seagrass caution zones inform of seagrass presence and encourage caution in boating, and 3) boat -restric- tion zones allow only poling and electric motoring. As in Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, semiannu- al aerial surveys will be conducted so that changes in seagrass densities and scarring can be moni- tored and photographed for analysis. A final report is being prepared on the effectiveness of the program. Concluding Remarks Management programs to control seagrass scar- ring have been implemented by several local governments. Additional programs are needed for counties that have severe scarring problems. Allocating monies for these programs may be a low priority in some counties, however, and a more general statewide program may be justified. Currently, the state manages scarring in only a few state parks (e.g., Lignumvitae Botanical Site and John Pennecamp Coral Reef State Park). A state- wide management program should be developed to protect seagrasses from scarring while still allowing for traditional water -related recreational Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses and commercial activities. Combined with county programs, statewide management of scarring could effectively protect seagrass habitat. Overregulating where scarring does not sub- stantially alter system productivity may strain government budgets and needlessly irritate those attempting to enjoy the resource. Therefore, focus- ing resources in areas that are extensively scarred or that are vulnerable to increased scarring is of paramount importance. Educating the public about the more severely scarred areas will also reduce the extent of light scarring in other areas as citizens are made aware of the value of seagrasses. Nevertheless, management plans should ensure that site -specific seagrass protection does not shift M/S scarring to other, less scarred areas. A single management approach, such as channel -marking alone, only partially addresses the problem of seagrass scarring. A combination of management techniques, along with long-term commitment, must be used to reduce the frequen- cy and degree of scarring in seagrass beds. Some programs being implemented and tested use multifaceted approaches such as better educating the boating public, better marking of channels, limiting powerboat access in certain sensitive areas, and more effectively enforcing existing laws. Monitoring managed areas, both from the air and on site, is critical in determining the effectiveness of a management program. Florida's waters are of special value for many reasons and are important at a national as well as state level. Florida's fishing industries depend on the health and vitality of shallow seagrass beds, as do diverse animal species —many of which are of endangered, threatened, or sensitive status. With the loss of seagrasses to scarring comes degrada- tion and loss of critical animal habitat and, in some areas, a decrease in water quality. Nevertheless, preventing all seagrass scarring is impossible. With proper management, scarring can be reduced to a level that will reverse the cumulative damage to this critical resource. This report contributes knowledge that was lacking in past regulatory and management programs mandated to protect Florida's marine resources. Although the data pre- sented in this report are of a broad nature, the report provides a basis for further and more refined management of areas subject to an increase in seagrass-resource use. FMRI Technical Report TR-1 33 Exhibit 6 Growth Management Division 2798 Overseas Highway Suite 400 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: (305) 289-2500 FAX: (305) 289-2536 January 27, 2003 Ms. Barbara Mitchell The Craig Company PO Box 372 Key West, FL 33041-0372 Board of County„Commissioners Mayor Dime Spehar, Dist. 1 Mavor Pro Tenn Murray Nelson, Dist. 5 Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3 Comm. George Neugent, Dist. 2 Comm. David P. Rice, Dist. 4 SUBJECT: PILE -APPLICATION MEETING LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING for Walker's Island Little Conch Key, Florida, heal Estate Numbers 00099090-000000; 00099090-000100; 00099100-000000; 00099110-000000. Dear Ms. Mitchell: Pursuant to Section 9.5-43 of the Monroe County Code, this document shall constitute a letter of understanding. On December 19, 2002, a pre -application conference regarding the subject was held at the Monroe County Planning Department offices in Marathon. Attendees of the meeting included Barbara Mitchell (hereafter referred to as "the Applicant"); and Fred Gross, Island Planning Director, Robert Will, Planner and Julie Cheon, Biologist (hereafter referred to as "Staff'). Materials presented for review prior to the meeting included: a) A Pre -Application Request Form b) Copies of eight (8) separate trailer tie -down permit `green sheets' c) Property Record Cards d) Post -Hurricane Georges Photographs e) Affidavit from Leslie Arkin f) Shoreline Determination Letter from Environmental Consulting Systems, Inc. dated January 30, 2002 g) Historic property record cards showing trailer units h) Survey of the Property by Robert E. Reece, undated Issues discussed at the meeting included the following: 1. The applicant is seeking confirmation that seven trailers existed on the subject property and may be replaced with single family homes. Four trailers are currently located on the property and three were destroyed by Hurricane Georges. 2. The subject parcels are located on the south-east half of Little Conch Key known as Walkers Island. The land use district is Mixed Use (MU). The future land use designation is Mixed Use/Commercial (MC). MCC Section 9.5-268 states that the owners of land upon which a dwelling unit or a mobile home used as a principle residence prior to the effective date of the plan was lawful on the effective date of this chapter shall be entitled to a density allocation of one (1) dwelling unit for each such unit in existence on the effective date of this chapter. As indicated by the permitting `green -sheets' two of the trailers received tie -down permits in 1969 (permit numbers 18524 and 18592) and six trailer tie -down permits were received on August 5, 1980 (permit numbers B6143 through B6148). Additionally, historical records from the Monroe County Property Appraiser's office indicate that eight (8) units existed on the subject property in the early 1980s. Therefore, it has been determined that the applicant has a density of eight (8) residential units on the subject property. 4. The applicant was issued a lien on the property by Monroe County Code Enforcement in 1996 for failure to repair or remove two unsafe structures from the property. No permits for new development will be issued from the planning department until all code enforcement violations have been settled. The applicant stated that the units had always been used as long term rentals and not as vacation units or transient units. A signed affidavit by a former employee attests that they were used as long term rentals and a letter from the Disney Company confirming that they leased Walkers Island for a period of five years, beginning in 1985. Proof that the units have been used as long term rentals and not vacation or transient units has been shown. 6. Access to the subject property is by a narrow fill -pad lined with rip -rap with a large culvert located about a third of the way along the drive. Because of the unique configuration of the access road, safety improvements must be made before any redevelopment of the residential units may begin. The access drive must be improved by adding side rails along the length of the culvert to prevent vehicles from going into the water. Additionally, the roadway must be graded and potholes filled to improve the safety of access to the property. The roadway may not be widened. 7. Per Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 1292H, the property is located in VE 11/13 flood zone. New construction shall have the bottom of the lowest supporting beam of the home must be at or above 13 feet. No fill may be used for structural support. In addition, nonstructural fill may not be placed without an approved hydrolic analysis. 8. Pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-262, the required open space for the Mixed Use (MU) district is 20%. Open Space is defined as "open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky." 9. The final signed and sealed site plan submitted for review shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet and shall include boundary lines of the property, all proposed 2 structures, measured setbacks, landscaping requirements, drainage patterns, and presently altered or developed area on the property. 10. The majority of the property is classified as disturbed and requires an open space ratio of twenty (20) percent. The jetty, which is classified as Red Flag Wetlands, has an open space ratio of One Hundred (100) percent and could not be used for the purpose of open space calculations. See 13 for development of the Jetty. 11. Pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-349 all development will be required to meet the appropriate shoreline setbacks. A site visit by the biologist has determined that the island consists of two shoreline classifications as shown in exhibit "A". The predominant shoreline is classified as open water, not adjacent to manmade canals, channels or basins and which have been altered by the legal placement of fill. The second shoreline is considered unaltered or unlawfully altered. This occurs in three locations on the property. Pursuant to MCC Sections 9.5- 349(b) and 9.5-349(c) the following setbacks apply. Shoreline Classification Principal Structure Setback Accessory Structure Setback Required Setback Open Space Unaltered— 50 feet or 25 feet or Tilled 30 feet w/ a 10 foot mangrove 15 feet w/ 10 foot 70 percent fringe or 10 foot planted mangrove fringe or native buffer lanced native buffer Unaltered 50 feet 25 feet 70 percent 12. Existing illegal fill at the end of the road on the northern tip of the property will need to be removed immediately. A Monroe County permit will be required. 13. The Jetty is classified as High Quality or Red Flag wetlands. Development of the Jetty may only be limited to those structures defined in Section 9.5-348(d) and must follow all guidelines defined therein (see Attachment "B"). Pursuant to MCC Section 9.5-348(7) a fifty (50) foot wetland setback would apply. This setback, however, may be reduced to twenty-five feet if a Native Class "D" bufferyard is planted, placed under conservation easement, and a site -suitable stormwater management plan is approved. 14. A survey showing the edge of wetland on the jetty as well as the Actual Mean High tide and the unaltered shoreline will be required to be submitted with the application. Upon request the Biologist will mark these areas prior to survey. 15. The site plan must indicate the distance from the above mentioned shoreline and wetland setbacks for all principal and accessory uses in their respective proximity. 16. Stormwater must be retained on site with swales or approved drainage. Drainage calculations must be included on the plans. Pursuant to Section 9.5-43 of the Monroe County Code, you are to rely upon the representations set forth in this letter of understanding as accurate under the regulations currently in effect. However, the Planning Department acknowledges that all items required as part of the application for development approval may not have been addressed at the December 19, 2002 meeting, and consequently reserves the right for additional department comment. We trust that this information is of assistance. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, or if we may be able to further assist you with your project, please feel free to contact our office at (305) 289-2500. Sincerely, K. Marlene Conaway Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Cc: Ervin Higgs, Property Appraiser Rhonda Norman, Director, Monroe County Code Enforcement Fred Gross, Island Planning Director Julie Cheon, Biologist Robert Will, Planner 4 AHa Ch me 6_1 Lj (d) 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: (1) Generally: Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, non -enclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings 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 that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements.29 (2) Protection of circulation patterns: Shoreline structures shall be designed to protect tidal flushing and circulation patterns.39 (3) Dredging: The following restrictions shall apply to dredging activities: 31 a. No new dredging shall be allowed in Monroe County except as specified for Moat ramps in section 9.6-349(l) (shoreline setback, boat ramps); b. No maintenance dredging shall be permitter) within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hard bottom communities except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels; C. 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; d. All dredged spoil materials shall be placed on permitted upland sates designed and located to prevent runoff of spoil material into wetlands or surface waters; e. 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. (4) Placement of fill: No fili shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except:32 a. As specifically allowed by this section or by section 9.6-349(k) & (1) (shorelone [shoreline] setbacks, bulkheads, seawalls, riprap and boat ramps); or b. To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the county biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or33 C. As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of'the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the county biologist; or d. For bridges extending over saltmarsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered;34 e. As approved for Disturbed Saltmarsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of section 9.5-348(d)(E); f. All such projects shall require approval by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to issuance of a county building permit. (5) After -the -fact exclusion: No "after the fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and filling regulations. All fill shall be removed and all damages mitigated.35 t� W C 7 0 U U U) J Q � IO (O I M � Cl) (O (C O 04 N M V O LO � O V I� �� aO O) (O N N N� N LI co N V N N O_ LO In O � _ � O) "T V N N V O— (O N Lo 00 aO O ID co (O LO 00 O aO lf) O — O 04 N Lr) O 0— l(') O V 00 V (O (.o (O c) M 0 (O 0 M V O (O N N V N N co (O O O I N 00 N co Cl) N I ' O N LO N V(D CD00 N M N N (O l(7 M N N 0 N 0 aO O 'ITN O V 0 O N (M V (p ' c� _ (M I 00 Cl) I- M N Cl)00 (O V O N N O LO V 00 C) 00 M V c M m 0 l(') Cl) O l(') 00 (O �_ 0__ Cl) M V l(') O N _ N O_ O l(') O 00 00 00 N V N I� � Lr) co O N 0 0 O U N I I� a0 O In In - N (O Cl) N N I� Cl) Cl) Cl) V N Cl) M 00 N 00 V V Lr) V O a0 _ 00 00 N co co 00 V a0 (O _ (O V W) M I� M co_ M 0 O O (O W a0 IO I� I� (C,4) V (O (O (O'IT Lo O 00 N I- I� In M O O M — I� O 00 N M 00 O M 00 (M N (O I: LO Lo 00 00 (M Lo l(') I� 0 00 l(') M 00 O O M (O O (M (O_ O Cl)- 00 00 O 00 O O V J d O I N I� N N C) O V - O) LO _ 7 O N V 00 LO N N N I� N— LO l(7 N N - - N - N aO aO O V N O V ' O O N V 'L2 M - - J Q W I V Lo � N (D I� r— 0 O) 0 Cl) O) Cl) M N N M LO O) M N 0 O N M co O N co co O (O N O) l(') co LO l(i Cl) N V O) aO M LO N V N V 0 I V (O N I (n E N O O O V O 0 0 Lo O N (O — O O O N O O O N O O O— N Lo O N O O O V 0 0 0 oL)l z Q U -I L,) d I- a I N N N I� N 0 N r— 0) M C) V N O) Cl) N N Cl) N Cl) N V M N co (V Cl) In Cl) V N M V M cr) O aO N (O O N CO N V _ N N N (O N N I� N 0 � 0) W) I� _ N W) 00 0 O 0 LO co 0� lf) N W EI W O O O V O O O N O O oo O co O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 acol �UI OIO J O N U 4)I0 O O O O— O O— O N O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c O I O O N CD N O CD M CD CDCDN V CDCD CD CDN CD CD CD CDN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q c U U W) d I CD CDr— r— 0 0 m M O M CDLo CDN 'ITN N O— 0 0 0 O O CDM CDO V O N N (M CD CD (D a M (M CD CDM N O- - - M O N 00 00 M M N— N CD CDO M O N O LO 00 O CD CD O I LO Q�UI J C14 00 V aI M N N M N M N °° (O V M In N M 00 O V a0 M O M O LO 00 N N 100 E I- V N V 0 0 r N lCf (M � 00 V 0 N 0 � (O 0 0 I- N m O LO— N N O) LO LO (O O 00 N LO LO N O O 00 � 00 (M O (O N � � O U N � V — U M co y I ' I N (0 0 N M (O N M I� LO O N LO I� M � CM I� LO p 0 V 00 r- (M M O M M 1- V 00 _ 00 O V 00 M M LO (O M V N O Cl) I- 0 O O N(D M N 0 M N O O 00 M LO (O O O V LO 0 � 00 0 00 0 O V N d N (O N C N E I O E N I� LO V (M Cl) 00 c) O V co O Cl) 0 W) LO Cl) V 00 Cl) O O) V N Cl) co O)N 00 CD O (O O 00 — <n Cl) N 0) O Cl) M O 00 m N N N N M l( ) 0 In (O I� V M O_ V M I� N M Co O O O) (O I- — M N (O U Q J N N I 00 N N O M O O r— 00 O 00 O O O 1- M M Cl) 00LO 0 N l(') T V 0 N 0 0 V Cl) I� 00 O V V N co 00 I� N I� N M O I� N 00 Cl) N N I� M N p l(') LO 00 U (D O V I O O) N Lr 0 0 0 0 Cl) Cl) 00 LO O 00 N p (O 00 Cl) I- LOCD V I� M M V� r—- N d - - (O 00 00 (O O N I� N 0 ' _ V I� N - - 00 r— - Cl) r— - V V N Lr) - LO V �j M N N M LO N E 100 � N N V V- 0 M Cl) LO LO N l(') 00 M N M I� Cl) O O) a0 Cl) (O N (V V 0 N 0 LO N 00 I� O V O N O 0 O 00 co 00 co N r— 00 r— Cl) O Q 0 I N N LO cn Q J N; N II-- (O _ 00 O O V I� O LO N m co m 0 00 0 m V 0 (O N O 0 LO m LO m (O m O Oo N V V (O m O 0 O r— 0 r— lf) M O N co (O N�� l(') N co V M LO r— N U O a N CO [- I� 0 0 0 - I- N m M l(i - I� 0 0 V M M— I- N— - 0 I� � - 0 l(i N M � - M V O l(') (O CO(M � CO00 coM co(M V LO M W) M N i Cl) L m L N V N N— Lo (O V N N I� N N V In In N E 1,12 0 Cl O N 00 00 N M 00 O M 0 M V 0 N CD CD O N LO 0 0� 0 0 0 0� M CD QCl Z U Q= J H N I M N I N 00 Lo 00 00 (00 000 CD M; V CD 0 O M I� N O Lo N N I N LO (M (O I- V V (O N� 0 M p O 0 00 00 N O N 0000 00 V 00 M _ U V O a N M N — M 000 I- CM — (O N N N (O N M— N N M N (M M N V I N L 00 N N M V N 04(.0- la z� W a a zz~_ z 0c OW� O���O LL Q Q O J c� �m W O H i J co m J Y LuDU) 0 w W 0Lu J W �' zz Q J W�� W 0U) p 0 I Q Y 0q W O J Q Q J J 0 fA fA w i U O J Z 0 U J Q J Z = O J J D (Yj LLJ 1Qi Y W O W m 0 Q O I J Q Q L� �' �' Q 2 J 0 0 0 W 2 0 fA Q J O Q Q W W O z���� Q W W W W U Q Co Co Co Co Co U U U Ulu U 0 0 0 0 0 W LL. LL. 0 (7 (7 (7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 J J J J� C 7 0 U T U U) J Q I O (O V M N O I� (O ( V LO O O N I- N 0 M C) (O (M C) V (O O 00 (O M 00 O 00 O I- Cl) V O I� (M 00 lf) I- Lr V O O LO N M O O O III aO Lf) O N V 0 MVNN N O V (V V I� N (M O N V V Lo M N cD I� O N LO NO V N co M V M V O V V O O I (O N L ( N V (O N N p - V N� - m (O N L N m co N m� V co V (O V CO ONO LO U I N I Lo V N co LO r— M O M O - V V l(') LO (.0 O O O O M W M I (O Cl) O I— O M 00 00 M N M M� l(') r- l(') O— O I� (; Cl) (.0 O� I� Oo lf) O M Oo O O O r— V W) O — M V 00 N 00 N O J (O a0 V co V r— N r— Cl) N N Lo 'IT r N M O N I: N V N M Oo (p N V LO N r- J Q IO co l(') N N M I� M N V N 00 l(') V l(') O co O N (.00 CD (O I00 O N V N (O M N LO N O M (.0NN 00 V M N O 00 r-- CD co � EILo O m O O O N N O O O 0 0 0— 0 0 0 0 0 m Lu oL)l Q I coo U (n LO d 0 F I N (O 00 N O O (O I� (O LO N A _ N 00 (- V E I� I- N 00 N V 00 Oo 00 I� Oo N co Lo M (; O O N O (M O N 00 Lo co M co O V M M _ V O c) (O O O W EI W DIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢DUI J O N U a I 0 CD CD N N CD CD CD CD— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 Cl) 010 I M O V V V V O N (O O— CD W) CD N CD O— 0 0 LO -- CDN Q c U U � N N I-- W) W) 0 0 co M N— N � 0�� O m O O� O N O N MO co a I - M E I S N l(i M (M V O O I- (O Cl) N V Oo l(i l(i 00 N M N O O V O Oo N O N 00 a�UI O I N J Oo U d I O � M- V I- N IN N M O M B l9 LO W) O O N 00 � a Cl) V Oo N O O — V N N E I VO I N co 0') O r-- O co O r— O l9 00 N 00 O co V I— V O CM I� co co N O (O LO O (M V W) l() O M N (h Q)TMU J M y I N cr) M V O M O� M 0 0 (O O� O M LO N I- V O oo N O Lo 0�p U co d I M N N M (O ONo �� (O � (.0 N N N V N V L � N � OO M O UI� I M (M N O M N (M a0 N V V `N O O LO L O N M O V--- M l() LO O co N� a CO M 00 N 1 O V J N 0) I- a0 00 M V� 0 N 0 N l( ) V M M� V OMo V O V I- V (O M O Oo O I� (O a0 O 0 O 0 LO � O Oo N N 00 M Co U w O I (o 0 0 oo — O M N N oo � M N (O (O (M oo O M r V O N M I� d o0 U) 00 N 00 co ' V N V (O 00 M M N N N 'IT I N= E I M CO O V O (O M N M (O V M (o N V N co M Lo M I� r— M M 00 N� N a0 00 a0 (O O M M 0 (O W) N co 0 Q U N N V cn LO U) Q J — N 0) (M y 100 I- LO r— 0 00 0 LO 0 O_ N � (M O (M I- N I- 0') I- (M (M O I- 00 'IT O (M W) 'IT N N 00 N 00 0 00 0 N� 0 OO I- (O r— r— r— O 'IT O O (M LO U O a N O L I� O— 00 ���[-� N— V 00 00 — V O- V- M 00 O N V i CO LON m- V- V V 0 I- N V m m N N- (O N- 00 E I Q' - 0 I V LO M O V O Lo co 00 LO (O 'ITO N M M (O N CD CO, N 00 CD 00 O Z U Q J = y I O M N I N I: 00 LO O O N I- 00 O O M N O V (O N O 00 (O M M O 00 �� N 00 O a0 N I- 00 � M 00 M O V m _ (O _ (O N � O U V I� a O (M I— N M (O (O 00 O O a0 N N (O M N N V N (O N 00 104 N N co co (O � I� co 00 co N CO CO N — co M LU W Q Z W 0' O JZ w Z W ZIH D Z O2 m zO� �' z�OOQOU70 � Oz �Z Z JAV O IQO AQ U U)QZO J HZ ' J OJ zO J AZ�Z U mimmzOOOOaCLCL 0 n0omU)U) WHH l :)>��� 0 H -! Q I r I N n M O O O f� . N Cl 00 O CO+ CO N CO M 0 CA V r CA CO 01 V CO �O O i n O to N N I� N, V 0 I (O f� O M O Co V O I V f� I CO N O CO Co to M N O M M 0 CO V Cl) I Cl) O CO n N CO 00 O I f� CD n O 0 N I O N O r M N M M CV h r 0 V N CO r CV r r N V V O CO M COI N to N O N N to co M C� CV r N CA CV O CO CA r N M 0 Co N r C f- 'V' co tIO O C') V w� Cv) r N N V In CO N M °0 O N O aD M r ' LO n In 00 co°D co co f� CA N Cl) M r CO N` O (O CA ~ N N 00 m co (O Ln N N P, U I N CO CO CA( LO CO N !- N tO M O M f� r r M r N.0 P� M N M W O N I N N r O N M f� M N N V (O f r O CO O CO CO N CO I` V: r CA 0 0 M I- LO N �' M O f1, CO M V M f� I O M fA (O r 0 CO N CO . N fA f� L N CD LO r 0 M to V N r l N M M (` n O M �o n M M CA r N N _M N f� O M O M fA J a I� N N N r N v l LO N v N N- to N N r N O r N CA CD N I� I v r O I N - r r r J W I M I V N M N � O N '� 0 0 f� CA: N CO r Cl) M M O N n v t O to co O _ O CO O r N f� r Q LO CO r r r, r CN EI W pIN O O O M r 0 0 0 0 v O N r �4r O Of0 r O O O r O O O r N f, O N O O ClO O 010 OU Z U N I CMO I N r (o 1 0 N r N CO N 00 M N Cl) N co r N N Co V M CA N N V N N CO M M CD N tO O N r r CO N N r r r' I co 0) N r tO N Cl) w Cn0 OD CO CO O N M r co co V CA N w to ,O N CA a w E I V LOQ O I O O r 1 O O LO: O r 0� 0 0 CO O n O O O O O O O O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 U)mu O �! —� �a olo O NCO r CEO r - coo 0 N 00 0 V N10 O O O O�.:O OI O',O OIO O O r r O O r O�O O O O E t CIO O N O A NIOrCD Cl) Cl) O M 0 N! O N MOA OrO N 0! O A O O CO O O O OO N r 00 O vipvl U dI0 O co O CO IOIO r Cl)N O S 0 0 0 N VIN Cl) O r 0 0 0100 r10 M O I O M O r N 0 �o aI- r� N E� M E I V O O N O - O Cl) O tO I CO I N N r r O O O f� f r= O f- O N O I� LO coF�- r r tn[) r 3 l! I:5 U a I M O coU)0 N C- O M C` N M C, N N to co CD N (MO N N N r V Cl) Co CO In r Cn0 In r O M a00 N O r� r CO to O'o CO CO0 I j, O N j t N r r j i N E E I N r O I to r r co M N r^ N I to M n r M w n ao M M r r N CA N N r w N 0- co M 1 LO r r NFU r V N a I N N CV M (O N N rc,�}}, tO p O M N 04 M O O r N 0 0 N. CO �' N I! O n O N CO N Cl)0 1j. N I M� r r M MV I IT co LO CD OD a- E LO a) CAD co U O 00 M co f� M O LO M O O N N N Cl) N M CD CA COIN 0 N U I r M V M M M V O r M r OD r co i V M N r CO r N mQ-. J U CO yIV O G7 � I CO• to Cp' CD Mi l0 N Co V Co f� .� n CO V CV O) M ��^'M O r COO N CO 0 Cl)M 0 CO O N CO Cl) co O M CA r 0 CA 0 0 r N O CM 0 r c CO n O O N_ CO O V 0 C` N O n M O CO N O CA O Cl) tO CD V, O O ON CA Iol n h _. M n I CD M CD CD C� E ,n r CD r CO CO V 0 Cp O N N r N r V Co N r r 0 M N r: V N tO tO. IO V CN N(o C, N LO I Q° a- E N r I Cq N 0 r N r M CO to N N LO 0 0 N 0 r CA 0,012 Co V ct) v r O M N (O M Co OD r CA V CA N co N CA P r v N N V. 1- f� CO co N r M r O r M N I r Nla-I '- Q CA J CV y I 0 co M 0 0 f� CO O O N IO Cl) M Co O CO N OD Cl) co N r^ _ CO CO CA f� N CO n M N tf f� 0) IO f� O CO CAS M 0 f� O O _ I co CO M V _O to N N- O U r N co a I cr) co r N CO tC) Co r O a0 U') r N 7 V N V N CO r Oct LO to N CO CO V r 0 f� r W (7 CV M _ CO to CO N N N CV ao Ce) r N tO N O IO O Cl) (O CO V LO N M N O f- LO I -. __.. 0 O V O N VIN N r M (VV...V�r_ CO (O r f� r N O O CO M OIN LO CO NN CO V O r r 0 0 OIk CO n`r N I O 010 �.Z O COr O M _ N N CO N 0 co N_OfI C') W n 0N A O N co O Nr _! 0 I O F A to M M O lAA � V a N r NN M.3 • N M CO Ni N OD r r r M r C�rr lLO M CO r I M � CO W m O + A m 9 WIZ W- D N 0 W }IZIZ W a''Q�g N I O)lW W�� ZQ ZIW CO �o H� Q I� I2 a' W 0: z� O� Q O LL Q Q J () W 0 I `1 o i 3 x a' } Q W O J Q } Q J J J W 0 1— J O ui Q Cq Cq — 9 J U' Y Z N V W 4 0 LLE-j O Z= CO) SIR Y tWLIQ W Z � IQ U Q g Q_ J �Ia a w W__ Oi Q W LL Q Q WIW co WQ U m m m m.m U U�U U U U c o a 0:,0 W U. U. 0 C9:7 C7 == x x= x m Z-) n _j J J J O N J I I (n0 LO O M O LO N O _O O N O N n o O^ O LO 00 (O 00 LO N n ,�, O O O n N m IOC O CC) co (C n Li 0 0 m Oo Co m N� OM O O O M M n O M n M CO N � M N N Cvj CA n d' " A N N O N O (MCA N N n N Nf O� M N v N N N m N_ n N M m o N m O O co co N o N cn O v N M (� M LO v N to O M M M O N O I° N cn cn U N w J O N O ODD (n CO co co CA L I M n CA (4 O N O N LO Co O O O M co N n Co CO N� M n m 0 CA co m -� N (O m � O Co w N N r N O n to n O m v N O LQ N N M ('7 0 N O n N n M N o N O M N n N N v N v N v LO N OOD co Q II Cn n N co O O O OD co NNNi O a n N N o M +M N � N 0- O NNOh O 0 00N CQ W I O' M O M O -' O �- O N E (O O O— —— 0 0 0 do 0— 0010 r- OU i z y I -.. 0 n V N I N O n M 0) n v (n n N CA N O co N CI) COo v n O US (p M I 01 M rn N N O (Oo M O 0 0) NC'S M M OOD a (A N W EI Q OIO O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ��O O OIO o 0 0 OO 0 0 N U) g U U mI0 �a 0 00 0 0 CO O O O O O O O N O O Oi O O O e- O M ate- E I (O LO CM c,2 O 04 LO r- O (A O CM O O O O (A N O O M U) oUI N g� U mIMLN-- co v CO O O M M N O co n O O M O O � O v O N (o a m i- E I N! C I M n CA t M N N n M N O O M n N O CA ao O (O O O v O M CA! M M , `r CO U U I C;j U y i N' a O M N o LO M n fM O 0 OOD N M O co O 0 M OD CO V O N O M CO O n n .- co aIM ao N � CA N i N C O O N MnMOn(0n col MM cn n r- (O M NCO OONNCNO Q M JU N (fl co I-M I N L O N� L E N n N co C7 ao (O (n OD I (O v .- O- N N ao N ( j a i N 7 `P O n E O'T E I M NU I M N c) O N N n °O M n M I n .- n OD O (n n N O co N to co OD e- n n LO LO r- - M 0 O n! N_ n - � CA N O N n � O ao M N Co n M N � o O O O V J N to v 1 d I 0 CO, to w' M n n M n N- O N N O O 0 OD IT 0 O T Ono o n '0 WI U.) IT C: M N O- (O O � N n C`? 0) M U W IL I Oj OODD t0 N n M t2 v °�° N COM COO v (O On0 00 (O n N ch co00 `t N- N LO n CNo f_ �- N OO O COn El N% c`MnNNIZ v o ) .) N (0 co M'co M n v U) LIP QN N d I J () CN O ([� O N Co � ' n W to � CA O, OD O r O O M n CA CA O CA CA n O m N N n M O N v n v M O O CO cM n N N O aD o O cM O to O N v O O O O O W co N M n O a I M Co N O CO N v M cM CV N N CA M OD Co O N i 0 M i a N E I OD C M O! CA M O M N CC) N nJO v o O O O O N O O M N M n O R co n, On I (Op ^ I co N M T Q SI NIaoi O CA U -aIN;CV O O' n �n n O n n N M M N O M O 0) (O V N M O co M O S cn C, CIO N Ch1M N I 1 OHWn ZZc OS�z NII -IM Uw M NI I I M N t0 - zzpO0 N Z O Z •- W LU Qm W N O �W a°6 III N JW Z qQQW OIQQQO QYY Z W U n J Q W Z J OIn 4 ZOJ I.- Z OZa ma J Y O Q Q Q QFn U 2 22 2 Z 0 O f O 0 a, Q a a a QQ W»_ a. (n N i N N N m W F- >>3: 3: 3, O F- J H 10 I O o M r a) M n 0 O O CMp N d) 000 0 co (D — M (n A !b M CO. 0 n NO o ' M (0 M (D CO (0 O V r M O 0) 00 o 00 N n N N CD O - N Co 00 N W CO lD M O Cl) V' N 'O a0 V N V� 0 O 0 (1'1 0 N N M v `- N eN- N Vr N O (D I- N. M.. Cl)(o Ld M CC) CV n r N r 0 M 0 r co r 0) N (0 co 00 r N to v a0 M O N, i M (O V7 r e- N r O M e} M Lo N coN O O N CNN N ao V I N ONO OOD N LO (OD CCOO M n0 N COD fN0 M M tto to J fo0 1 n O co (00 L O M (M r ti (D n M M N N N (0 W Lo 01 O to N (O O . N V N M v (N 1� O� 01 CO 00 � O O 0�� n 0 COO- a N O O con V M CO M M OO On N W r 0 O— n n n W_ d I N v N Cl)O V r N 0 N� COO N M> N N co to N N r N o r N W 06 CO N V r O N vi N v _N r J LO COO r CN 0 O- O N q CiOJ O 00 V CO � N co r CO N Cn O N (00 r M co O O OD N N � OD O p Fr I N O O O V N O O 00 V V N r r 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 00— r N CD o N 0 0 0 0 V n 0 0 0 W Z ul U m I aN0 a N M M OOf CO CN N fD '- N M N N r M N CN O N N 04 N r M CD O O COO a- N O r O N t A (O (D O N (0 CN r l� V N r co r 0 W EI O W E 1 0 o r 0 0 o 010 O O O O O O n O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 uU)i0ol go 0 0 0 El e O10 oNOrN0Ir O V V O LO O O ONM O C OrO 0 0 V O O N 0 0 0 O O oN 0 0 0 0 ) IM U O a I O O O W N O r r a N r CD O O O N CO r N 0 r o 0 0 0 0 N r N O O N O N N et N O O CO r El M r Ea 1 O N O M O O O ( j d. M r r r 0 0 V /n r o (o O r o v O m O r r r coN 5�U1co a a I O N r CO A fM CCl) C N CO V' CNO N V) CD M v o N (D O OO r O CM co N - r COD n N r L O L N N N r r Co E co r COO r Cl)O N r N i� (M 0- M M coO n r N N (;y r r of N r N O r COD M r 0 to H OI I g V M aI NNNN ( Cl) c p o f0 n C NrOO M V C MN O `_ co ' COco Cn LO E I coEl r m M M N r Ono w N co r i S Cl) � co O O N N O N N 0) r( j CD n r M C7 !MD r CO M D O O N N N !� N r O r c� a0 OD to M $ M a N O r (D CO r- (uDi N `r 0 r co dl U I r N (O r CN N Q JU (D ym I nO n OrN n O O nr O N ON tD o N N O ND NN N Oco O O M co O to NOo M 00 NrA O 0 0) coM (O ao OD O N N aD O C � 00 Nro n o _ M co 0 0) 00 n N r aD T DrN N- N -OD aon Nr O Ov N�NN 0) CO N OaIL OIO N N O M g O Cl)CD O r (n0 O 00 O M N M M O CO N COO M Co N N 0 n N M Cl) N LO M M r Q r r r to �I I(O '7 ao M n o n O V r O I. CO N n 0 00 N C W M n CO CO tD N N (D ao M M M n M CD rn p) o 0 v 00 r 0 cD O O aD Mco N r 00 CV) OD 0 � n (D (n (n I,- o P- co 0 O CO OV n o � n Op n O N O Ci d M C) Cn 00 00 In r N V' N CD N n r O (p n a0 O a0 CO h v r - r O N CD M N r M 0 00 O N M N n CO M r Cn N (O N � OD V' M O (Cl M r In\ O Q r 01- o Cl) O N v O- N N o CO v (D N N M O O O r (D (n o O .- O O n 00 o M 0 0 yZU N i y I o I r v N Ln o o M M n n O r M O 00 t� O O O V: M co CA CO u� N v M to 00 (0 O v r N CM M M co O m N co-- CD V o CO O_ N CD O M M n aO N M n O N O v O N O Cl) co 0 W co r O O V Cl) a0 N a0 M COO n Cl) U V 0. 1� M (n G r N r CV Cl r In N N r r ,� M CO r I Q 11p2Q p SppZH O H 0 n Q O g W ZZF- J WN Z OWZ O pp w Z W O Z O W W OSZ1}Z )W Sm LLQO O> SSp I 0W 9 � ZpG0ZU W LL JWUS m Y cl: F- S} m�mm It U 0 U t LL g g WIw U~ Q. ppppp W U U U 7S _Za = - N N z N O 0)CA 00) _N GOD M 0)V GO M O GOD C' O O I- O M N CA0 0) CD — GOD ~ O000 N V OO N 'a U-) NN N 1� I G�pO D) pp GD O O I� Lo O M M_ I� O O CD O O O M I� GD f0 O O Cn I N U C N O � eMe}} �7 co N N N M N M W M N co M N N U W co I COD_ N M m OctO IZ N w M m N- r A�' In cM co O� co cM �� co r N� O Lq N N F- co CN O co N Lo M w m in r d M O i� C O 0 M GO O v I'- M N N cM N O w `7 CCi N N CM CM N v N N— — — N J I GO III co r O M CO N N I� v GO M cM O co 0 M 0 O 0 GO M M M GO M M't N N N 0 v r M GO (nLO O O Cn CC) O C+) N N CM — Cn N— N El EIN O O C) O— O O N N In O O — O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W o UI Q V I LO A I N N GO GO O CO N CD co GO GO O O N CO CN cM 0) GO N (A W O N D) CO 0 O Ln Cn cl) O O (n CM f0 N N q r M M W EI LO Q' EIO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N U) g ti I J O y U mI0 O N O O N O r O O O O O— O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0) a OIN M O coN— O V O N 0 0 0 0 W N O O M inU U tO yI I N� O N O W O NN CDOD O N O O Cl) O r ON m IL Go E I EIMN N VM N O Cn N r- Cco ) ND) ONI :a N O OKO O M N GOD f0 N g� UI UO to I CD c N C OOD)DN O (A n ( 0 N Lo O� VO LO N � EEIo co ONN� O NN NN 0'MN C7 ZCD C)NOCD CO LO LQ N-0M U) e) UI I I v 4 U to CD N cM C) 0)Nw O AN ? G N co O M N O O O N OM CO r 0 O NMNvGO N CO M In V O NON coay p) o L LO CD N — NO �p MN ON O o Ln N O Co N OGD N0)O N OM N M U I Cl)M U N d I U.) Cl) O Lo Ch 0) N"' GOD M O v M Cl)O N LO CD CO GrD GOD O N O N aio) O O ao Cn N GO I� N M Ld v - N N O f0 — (A W CD N I- N C7 GO CDOct N N O COD N O I r v IOn N M v Cov�i M 'It COO N t� I� CO N N GOD v N co Q�UI v N Lo N Q y I CD N CD GO coO O O N O Cn 0) D O co M OCOGD O N . N CM coM CO (A N LD Cn � GO N v M M nd N N M I- O N N— M N Q N O i O� N O N (p W O W O GO Cl N O 0) CN N O O N CN N 0)0) zU QU)Q J = H y I O m N CD aD N ID CD CO O O GO CO ID f0 M (n M M GO N M � I� GO CO O N O Cn CO COD Cn U V CA d i N Cl) N O N v CM CV OD M M 'a' t` O GO r- N v N CA v O O N N Cl) M M N O — 00 Cl) O M V N O GO C„ CA N O CD N N N w Lu JV N Q l W NO W �OzQOUm �IIIW HO z yJ W 9OO Z W 2 U gJ WJ Y O 0xUW O Ja Lu Z x 00 Jm 0NY OZ z3 N ) JZ UQF- z z0000oaaaU),(iU)U)UU)))�> W U J aa H z a 2 2 —° 3o u UU2 2009 Alphabetical Vessel Statistics by County CLASS A-1 CLASS A-2 CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4 CLASS 5 COUNTY < THAN 12' 12 - 15' 11" 16 - 25' 11" 26 - 39' 11" 40 - 64' 11" 65 - 109' 11" 110' MORE CANOES DEAL PLES COMM TOTAL AL ACHUA Pies Comm 1244 17 Pies 3674 Comm 90 Pies 5712 Comm 136 Pies 264 Comm 19 Ples 29 Comm 3 Pies 1 Comm 0 Pies 0 Comm 0 Ples 289 1COMM _ 0 60 11213 265 11538 BAKER 308 0 982 3 10711 4 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 3 2398 7 2408 BAY 3173 56 6129 115 8349 281 1294 153 226 129 10 26 0 2 130 0 232 19311 762 20305 BRADFORD 304 0 852 4 1157 15 26 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 2368 20 2389 BREVARD 6192 30 9130 151 17985 509 2522 141 378 41 7 10 1 0 707 3 559 36922 8851 38366 BROWARD 9477 49 5472 121 19745 391 7198 204 1430 118 121 30 12 8 253 2 742 43708 923 45373 CALHOUN 111 0 1077 7 411 12 20 1 2 0 01 0 0 0 7 0 2 1628 20 1650 CHARLOTTE 2956 17 3053 39 12148 353 2329 77 343 15 3 2 1 0 214 0 155 21047 503 21705 CITRUS 1586 9 4993 61 9636 395 432 133 34 14 0 0 0 0 229 0 79 16910 612 17601 CLAY 2475 4 2712 256796 92 778 22 236 17 8 4 1 0 130 0 45 13136 164 13345 COLLIER 4003 25 2699 62 11588 514 3068 151 550 51 29 5 0 0 228 3 141 22165 811 23117 COLUMBIA 514 0 1776 8 2307 211 58 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 48 3 16 4706 37 4759 DADE 13186 128 6256 164 29068 888 9954 463 1575 117 154 51 17 10 295 2 833 60505 1823 63161 DESOTO 334 5 7501 11 1056 35 158 11 20 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 0 2347 63 2410 DHSMV 760 25 763 303 2518 654 585 127 152 11 131 3 1 7 36 23 19 4828 1153 6000 DIXIE 156 4 924 35 1442 164 52 31 7 12 0 0 0 0 26 0 15 2607 246 2868 DUVAL 5377 21 7327 94 16056 340 2118 81 386 34 19 30 5 0 316 0 220R2873 600 32424 ESCAMBIA 2380 13 5052 37 8412 136 1098 54 151 36 6 2 1 0 82 0 136 278 17596 FLAG LER 868 3 1210 32 2693 36 429 7 67 4 1 1 0 0 61 0 29 83 5441 FRANKLIN 211 11 904 173 1300 617 185 72 28 32 2 10 0 0 20 1 22 916 3588 GADSDEN 176 4 1316 11 1101 19 41 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 6 37 2698 GILCHRIST 164 0 664 10 915 23 26 2 4 2 1 1 0 0 33 0 0 38 1845 GLADES 72 2 339 28 745 31 28 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 10 63 1281 GULF 308 31 1318 64 1114 118 109 23 13 8 0 1 0 0 11 0 3 245 3121 HAMILTON 89 0 527 2 384 1 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 6 4 1028 HARDEE 234 3 568 6 797 8 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 1641 17 1658 HENDRY 414 7 714 27 1429 76 255 13 86 3 0 0 0 0 23 1 23 2921 127 3071 HERNANDO 1421 3 2655 46 5046 81 366 59 23 6 1 0 0 0 199 1 12 9711 196 9919 HIGHLANDS 1489 9 2594 31 4995 38 121 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 90 2 58 9300 84 9442 HILLS 8193 40 9355 105 23227 406 3229 91 502 56 34 26 1 0 665 7 216 45206 731 46153 HOLMES 186 0 1376 10 559 4 26 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 2158 15 2175 IND.RIVER 1342 16 2701 99 5751 236 713 52 164 10 11 0 0 0 183 3 58 10865 416 11339 JACKSON 435 2 2701 11 1663 10 78 2 17 0 0 0 2 0 28 0 7 4924 25 4956 JEFFERSON 99 0 645 3 527 16 44 0 13 0 2 0 0 0 16 0 11 1346 19 1376 LAFAYETTE 102 0 427 2 439 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 981 7 990 LAKE 3190 12 5046 44 13441 110 512 22 61 4 1 0 0 0 196 0 114 22447 192 22753 LEE 6943 86 6099 75 25166 672 5488 173 773 66 24 35 1 0 439 4 326 44933 1111 46370 LEON 1351 10 5341 65 6108 128 404 32 45 11 5 0 1 0 181 3 37 13436 249 13722 LEVY 330 3 1472 38 2254 217 98 62 21 10 1 0 0 0 66 0 42 4242 330 4614 LIBERTY 51 0 794 13 279 10 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1135 24 1164 MADISON 143 0 531 1 489 6 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 1183 7 1191 MANATEE 3030 47 3530 63 9558 317 1766 93 309 24 14 5 0 0 209 2 246 18416 551 19213 MARION 2514 6 6054 36 10931 138 400 32 46 4 0 1 0 0 336 0 92 20281 217 20590 MARTIN 2141 11 1993 65 8121 321 2341 115 400 31 271 1 2 0 90 0 273 15115 544 15932 MONRO E 3529 37 2657 2371 12743 1225 3908 679 739 2751 431 21 1 1 75 41 1561 23695 2479 26330 NASSAU 808 1 2004 34 2960 79 3041 37 52 11 1 4 1 0 56 0 25 6186 166 6377 OKALOOSA 3559 27 4343 36 8141 129 1674 107 240 97 10 12 0 0 67 1 210 18034 409 18653 OKEECHOBEE 401 9 1250 70 3283 981 105 9 13 1 0 0 0 0 22 1 11 5074 188 5273 ORANGE 7902 18 5491 71 16415 160 1266 26 199 6 71 10 0 318 0 305 31598 282 32185 OSCEOLA 1899 8 1898 30 4805 94 267 8 24 11 01 0 0 0 56 0 30 8949 141 9120 PALM BCH 8229 54 5229 140 20214 515 6034 2441 1008 871 991 14 7 0 282 3 358 41102 1057 42517 PASCO 4496 21 5507 52 12873 218 1260 133 97 37 31 10 0 1 440 1 132 24676 473 25281 PINELLAS 10098 72 7703 136 24653 569 5887 341 938 100 30 23 0 0 807 51 680 50116 1246 52042 POLK 4754 16 9295 178 16388 205 743 24 151 7 3 4 0 0 3051 01 111 31639 434 32184 PUTNAM 945 20 2710 991 4624 167 241 11 42 5 2 1 0 0 61 0 47 8625 303 8975 SANTA ROSA 2259 3 4688 69 6972 1361 732 22 64 7 1 0 01 0 61 0 47 14777 237 15061 SARASOTA 3729 33 3872 36 11807 167 2652 94 454 36 23 3 01 1 318 1 246 228551 371 23472 SEMINOLE 3787 21 4037 58 9441 97 954 15 160 16 8 0 1 0 253 3 159 186411 210 19016 ST. JOHNS 2428 8 29941 72 6487 165 1086 38 207 24 11 2 0 0 112 0 111 133251 309 13745 ST.LUCIE 1858 10 24641 97 7443 272 1003 70 167 15 1 2 3 0 103 2 111 130421 468 13621 SUMTER 412 3 17121 19 2195 22 68 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 20 44541 49 4523 SUWANNEE 311 1 1221 9 1412 17 51 3 11 1 3 0 0 0 32 0 11 3041 31 3083 TAYLOR UNION 259 0 1593 25 1809 88 75 18 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 21 3759 136 3916 75 0 355 1 468 1 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 916 4 920 VOLUSIA 4127 22 7868 196 15521 344 1398 66 227 42 15 5 0 0 351 2 269 295071 677 30453 WAKULLA 330 2 1962 34 2182 185 164 52 28 10 0 2 0 0 41 0 8 47071 285 5000 WALTON I 745 9 2312 28 2179 55 234 14 45 131 3 0 0 01 23 0 6 5541 119 5666 WASHINGTON 1 242 1 1398 5 728 61 25 0 1 11 0 I 0 0 01 11 0 01 24051 13 2418 TOTALS 1 157214 110512090581 4122 480232 13598 j 788231 45521130151 1667 758 '4491 59 1 30 9871 84 793319490301 25507 982470 2008 Alphabetical Vessel Statistics by County ! CLASS A-1 CLASS A-2 CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4 CLASS 5 COUNTY < THAN 12' 12 -15' 11" 16 - 25' 11" 26 - 39' 11" 40 - 64' 11" 65 -109' 11" 110' MORE CANOES DEAL PLES COMM' TOTAL ALACHUA Pies Comma_ Pies 1345 17 3965 Comm 95 Pies Comm Pies 5106 140 253 Comm Pies Comm Pies Comm Ples 15 22' 2 0: 0 0 Comm 0 Pies 297 IComm 0 42 10988 _ 269 _ 11299 BAKER 253 0 1016 3 858 3 19 Oi 1? 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 2158 6 2164 BAY 3238 32 6687 114 8095 289 1211 169 1711 _Oi 146 13{— 45 0 1 80 0 217 19494 796 20507 BRADFORD 262 0 895 9 9851 14 19 1 1 0 01 0 0 0 28 01 1 21901 241 2215 BREVARD 6271 37 9857 177 188811 524 2567 153 4031 47 8 15 0 0 650 6 631 38637 959 40227 BROWARD 1 10378 116 6371 132 991511 461 7871 223 16851 136 151 53 10 10 258 11 1050 48875 1132 51057 CALHOUN 103 0 1025 11 303 8 9 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1444 19 1465 CHARLOTTE 3114 20 3461 53 12314 378! 2441 82 3271 14 3 2' 1 0 192 0 171 21853 5491 22573 CITRUS 1579 5 5397 96 9189 422' 382 133 251 16 0 0 0 01 183 0 113 16755 6721 17540 CLAY 2168 12 2855 26 6551 92 822 23 1811 10 6' 0 1 0 100 0 84 12684 1631 12931 COLLIER 3956 17 2987 58 12334 463 3174 174 5351 62 221 5 1 0 225 4 1561 23234 7831 24173 COLUMBIA 551 1 1791 11 2205 34 59 6 31 2 01 0 0 0 40 1 91 4649 551 4713 DADE 1 11521 131 6559 175 27736 909 8433 431 16001 117 1661 44, 14 7 264 3 770 56293 1817 58880 DESOTO I 326 6 807 12 984 35' 157 11 251 2 01 0 0 0 37 1 2 2336 67 2405 DHSMV 292 29 412 301 978 708 312 102: 1211 24c 131 2' 1 7 11 4 20 2140 11771 3337 DIXIE 185 1 915 44 _ 1367 192 54 33 61 11 01 0 0 0 17 0 4 2544 281 2829 DUVAL 5530 19 8158 108 16714 318 2183 94 372 35 18 38 8 01 251 0 237 33234 612 34083 ESCAMBIA 2411 19 5871 41 8227 149 112786 1411 51 2 5 0 0 72 0 138 17851 3511 18340 FLAGLER 718 5 1194 26 2320 40 350 10 641 6 2 0 0 0 54 1 30 4702 881 4820 FRANKLIN 177 8 974 165 1279 527 182 107 20 35 1 15 0 0 10 1 27 2643 8581 3528 GADSDEN 188 2: 1417 22 955 16 33 2 2 2 0 0: 0 0 13 0 2 2608 44 2654 GILCHRIST 151 1 691 12 7961 15 17 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 26 0 0 1683 32 1715 GLADES 103 6 375 32 890 36 30 1 15{ 0 01 0 0 0 9 0 18 1422 75 1515 GULF 325 26 1422 74 1029 132 97 30 141 15 11 1 0 0 6 0 7 2894 278 3179 HAMILTON 69 0 494 0 354 0 41 0 01 0 01 0 0 01 4 0 0 925 0 925 HARDEE 257 1 610 8 714 7 13 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1611 16 1627 HENDRY 436 5 732 23 1487 71 278 20 861 4 01 0 0 0 22 0 17 3041 123 3181 HERNANDO 1462 3 2748 44 4575 791 343 48 20 5 01 0 0 0 158 2 26 9306 181 9513 HIGHLANDS 1696 11 3160 42 5314 501 104 5 111 1 01 0 0 0 80 1 64 10365 110 10539 HILLS 8568 59 10679 138 23038 457 3149 134 6011 79 331 37 5 1 615 2 254 46688 907 47849 HOLMES 166' 1 1356 10 376 4 16 1 1 0 01 0 0 0 4 0 4 1919 16 1939 IND.RIVER 1301 14 2864 95 5740 225 693 46 166 12 9 0 1 0 173 3 75 10947 395 11417 JACKSON 404 5 2733 13 1344 12 54 5 12 0 1 1 0 0 15 0 0 4563 36 -11 4599 JEFFERSON 92 1 685 2 421 14 35 3 8 1 OI 0 0 0 15 0 4 1256 211 1281 LAFAYETTE 104 0 418 1 347 9 7 1 1 0 01 0 0 0 6 0 1 883 11 895 LAKE _ 3120_1_2 5438 47 13056 106 444 _ 17 53 1 0 0 0 0 145 1 142 22256 1841 22582 LEE 7168 85 6954 95 27766 709 57521 �222 837 80 14 54 4 0 358 4 362 48853 12491 50464 LEON 1523 19 5753 59 5682 122 413� 28 54 11 4 0 0 0 133 2 34 13562 2411 13837 LEVY 290 0 1475 55 1998 241 82, 59 15 6 1 0 0 0 42 0 60 3903 3611 4324 LIBERTY 70 0 772 8 228 8 8 4 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1081 161 1101 MADISON 168 0 591 01 441 0 11 1 01 0 0 0 6 0 0 1223 51 1228 MANATEE 3241 50 4039 861 9948 321 1872 105 3371 45 71 10 0 0 199 1 413 99643 618 20674 MARION 2440 4 6514 66 10435 149 338 38 351 2 11 0 0 0 281 0 70 20044 259 20373 MARTIN 2268 11 2303 71 9187 305 2556 111 461{ 43 31 5 1 0 99 0 374 195. 16906 26897 5461 17826 MONROE 4393 60 3226 292 14452 1385 4042 817 672 316 34 25 0 0 78 ^1! 28961 29988 NASSAU 640 11 2077 33 2632 87 278 37 451 7 2 12 01 0 36 0 18 5710 187 5915 OKALOOSA 3760 16 4767 40 8896 134 1686 114 2281 116 71 11 0 0 53 1 191 19397 —4321 20020 OKEECHOBEE 429 11 1420 79 3874 93 122 7 91 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 25 5872 1901 6087 ORANGE 8193 35 6610 78 17413 132 1221 25 1771 5 2 1 5 0 348 0 405 33969 276 34650 OSCEOLA _1728 _ _7_ 2283 39 4721 80 238 6 291 1 0 0 0 0 67 0 68 9066 1331 9267 PALM BCH 8700 82 5993 167 21695 498 5960 211 11221 78 97 16 5 0 250 2 418 43822 10541 45294 PASCO 4394 15 6284 61 13073 216 11931 146 961 51 6 12 0 1 368 1 131 25414 5031 26048 PINELLAS 10955 74 8727 145 26737 610 6303 358 9821 133 29 23 3 0 730 2 780 54466 1345 56591 POLK 4898 18 10504 185 15532 183 703 29 168E 12 41 0 2 0 242 0 138 32053 427 32618 PUTNAM 867 18 2996 112 4503 169 223 10 481 6 2 3 0 0 37 0 34 8676 3181 9028 SANTA ROSA 2093 8 4809 57 6353 134 645 24_64: 11 1 0 0 0 40 0 45 14005 2341 14284 SARASOTA 3910 29 4315 41 12826 227 2617 100 430! 39 22 6 1 0 332 0 344 24453 4421 25239 SEMINOLE 4069 20 4392 70 9732 106 912 11 147i 18 8 0 1 0 181 2 211 19442 2271 19880 ST. JOHNS 1821 18 3161 77 58021 152 986 38 175 29 2 2 0 0 77 0 114 12024 316 12454 ST.LUCIE 1799 14 2877 73 7337 246 10001 000 91 169; 26 2 3 0 0 0 0 95 53 0 0 172 17 13283 3985 452 54 13907 4056 SUMTER 1 354 1 1754 26 17611 20 591 _3 7 4' 0 0 SUWANNEE 327 1 1280 7 1207 18 42 3 61 1 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 32 0 8 2894 30 2932 TAYLOR 274 1 1682 26 1761 i 94 87 29 4 5 01 0 9 0 25 3817 1551 3997 UNION 93 0 354 3 3601 1 9 1 01 0 01 0 0 0 10 0 1 826 51 832 VOLUSIA 4116 25 8314 195 154491 348 1346 69 2241 46 121 6 0 0 318 3 316 29779 692 30787 WAKULLA 304 6 1785 WALTON I 714 5— 2435 521 18941 187 161 48 281 10 0' 1 0 0 29 0 6 4201 304 4511 5360 26 1843 56 199 16 26 8 3 1 0 0 20 0 8 5240 112E WASHINGTON' 236 2 1364; 11 617 16 29 2 1! 1 01 0 0 01 121 0 6 2259 32 2291 TOTALS 159055 1268 228829 4555 4851681 13990 -780401 4929 132901 1945 742 454 67 971 8645 50 9305 9738361 27218; 1010359 2007 Alphabetical Vessel Statistics by County COUNTY 1 CLASS A-1 CLASS A-2 CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4 CLASS 5 CANOES DEAL PLES COMM TOTAL ALA ACHU17--68-40 _THAN12 1296 17 _ 12-15"11 3840 87 _ 16-25'11 5644 14_1 _26-39"11_ 266 141 _40-"'11 29 2 6_5-109"11 0 0 110MORE 0 0 288 01 57 11363 261 11681 BAKER 1 287 0 10291 4 997 5 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 01 0 2346 9 2355 BAY 3286 33 64851 122 8560 273 1243 150 205 133 11 35 0 2 100 0 216 19890 748 20854 BRADFORD 269 1 8551 6 1029 13 20 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 3 2197 21 2221 BREVARD 1 6489 35 95451 160 19157 519 2595 141 388 40 7 11 0 0 682 6 632 38863 912 40407 BROWARD 1 10266, 92 5968 125 22033 4091 8313 225 1749 126 152 38 18 11 267 2 1029 487661 1028 50823 CALHOUN 1 102 0 10401 9 3741 13 181 01 1 01 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 1542 22 1566 CHARLOTTE 3177 25 3243 45 12575 366 2403 77 333 14 3 2 2 0 182 01 166 21918 529! 22613 CITRUS 1622 7 5279 78 9913 412 463 131 32 16 0 0 01 0 211 01 92 17520 644 18256 CLAY 2451 3 2853 23 6724 101 786 16 202 10 2 0 01 0 103 01 63 13121 1531 13337 COLLIER 4322 22 2823 63 12208 471 3328 173 572 67 28 6 01 0 223 41 148 23504 806T 224458 COLUMBIA 593 0 1809 12 2351 25 70 71 5 1 0 0 01 0 49 11 12 4877 461 4935 DADE 12790 118 6289 175 28852 900 9636 444 1624 128 159 41 161 10 285 11 856 59651 1817 62324 DESOTO 348 7 793, 10 1074 31 151 101 17 1 0 0 0 0 32 1 01 2415 60 2475 DHSMV 399 28 467 310 11701 669 351 1231 134, 15 9 6 0 8 13 3 10 2543 1162 3715 DIXIE 174 4 926 40 1470 167 45 33 8 13 0 0 0 0 16 0 9 2639 257 2905 DUVAL 5715 21 7915 102 17028 331 2245 89 396 35 23 33 6 0 302 0 253 33630 611 34494 ESCAMBIA 2531 13 5527 41 8512 156 1087 68 145 41 4 4 1 0 76 0 145 17883 323 18351 FLAGLER 799 4j1403 31 2618 40 421 9 68 5 3 1 0 0 50 0 32 5158 90 5280 FRANKLIN 1 218 17 663 1335 562 185 75 22 35 1 10 0 0 11 1 22 2728 863 3613 GADSDEN 181 3 23 1019 17 41 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 2 2567 46 2615 GILCHRIST 190 0 8 872 16 25 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 30 0 0 1818 29 1847 GLADES 87 7 22 850 32 37 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 21 1348 63 1432 GULF 1 340 28 68 1124 130 115 24 16 11 1 1 2 0 9 0 2 3010 262 3274 HAMILTON 78 0 0 358 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 01 0 940 0 940 HARDEE 251 1 590 8 730 8 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 251 0 0 1611 17 1628 HENDRY 445 8 732 23 1478 60 275 181 81 6 0 0 0 0 19 01 18 3030 1151 3163 HERNANDO 1559 3 2854 45 5055 771 367 601 26 10 11 0 0 0 181 0 1 23 10043 195 10261 HIGHLANDS 1715 10 2942 33 5516 47 129 41 13 0 0 01 01 90 21 99 10405 96 10600 HILLS 8565 49 10067 120 23933 411 3366 1041 592 52 30 25 1 0 658 61 222 47212 767 48201 HOLMES 185 0 1391 12 469 4 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 2073 17 2093 IND.RIVER 1387 17 2825 93 5939 232 735 47 162 11 11 0 3 0 197 21— 79 11259 46,21 11740 JACKSON 431 2 27941 14 1565 10 68 51 11 1 0 0 3 0 23 01 2 4895 321 4929 JEFFERSON 1 118 1 6991 3 477 14 491 01 13 0 0 0 0 0 161 11 4 13721 191 1395 LAFAYETTE 1 110 0 4371 1 395 6 10 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 4 9631 7 974 LAKE 1 3427 19 ___13161 46 13941 124 535 201 64 0 2 1 0 0 173 0 139 234581 210 23807 LEE 1 7554 83 6648 83 27642 684 6000 1861 822 721 23 451 1 0 405 5 389 49095 1158 50642 LEON 1503 11 5537 68 6083 119 400 32 53 10 5 0 2 0 150 2 38 13733 242 14013 LEVY 327 2 1561 45 2293 234 100 621 14 10 2 01 0 0 59 0 62 4356 353 4771 LIBERTY 66 0 778 11 262 11 11 31 1 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 5 1119 25, 1149 MADISON 169 0 573 1 456 9 151 01 2 0 0 0 0 01 81 0 0 1223 10, 1233 MANATEE 3256 50 3767 72 100201 304 1806 1041 316 39 12 8 0 0 2111 2 370 19388 5791 20337 MARION 2579 4 6361 52 11168 152 401 34 45 6 1 0 0 0 305 0 88 20860 2481 21196 MARTIN 2174 15 2091 60 8704 298 2450 116 418 36 26 3 3 0 91 0 287 15957 528 16772 MONROE 3958 43 2880i 260 13664 12681 4090 760 677 296 29 24 0 0 72 2 212 25370 2653 28235 NASSAU 1 785 7 21081 32 2890 79 306 391 57 9 1 6 1 0 551 01 31 6203 1721 6406 OKALOOSA 3775 22 4593 37 8987 1271 1736 1031 271 104 8 12 0 0 571 11 193Wo 06 20026 OKEECHOBEE 462 8 1351 84 3598 110 129 7 13 1 1 0 0 0 29 0 1510 5808ORANGE 8649 26 6152 71 18020 1441 1366 191 205 6 4 1 6 0 3541 0 38867 35411OSCEOLA I 2058 11 2169 30 5006 85 276 6 28 1 0 0 0 0 59 0 6033 9789PALM BCH 1 8550 67 5535 154 21374 507 6054 229 1068 84 111 16 12 0 264 2 38959 44416PASCO 4812 20 6075 55 13631 221 1297 146 103 43 5 12 1 1 398 1 15599 26976PINELLAS 1106182 8370 153 26513 595 6513 34511 1080 128 39 24 3 0 796 4 74031 56386POLK 5038 17 10096 189 16746 1931 750 221 138 9 6 1 1 0 2981 0 124311 33628 PUTNAM 993 21 2899 103 4650 186 242 12 35 6 2 2 0 0 53 0 43 8874 330 9247 SANTA ROSA 2303 5 4713 53 6904 111 662 18 64 8 4 0 0 1 56 0 46 14706 1961 14948 SARASOTA 4037 29 4096 40 12624 209 2660 84 464 41 22 6 0 0 3401 01 359 24243 409 25011 SEMINOLE 4107 20 4186 62 9811 1081 956 17 160 14 8 0 1 0 228 11 152 19457 222 19831 ST. JOHNS 1 2336 16 31751 69 6336 158 1091 411 198 23 8 2 0 0 101 01 97 13245 3091 13651 ST.LUCIE 1900 12 2655 81 7664 256 994 74 157 19 2 2 5 0 94 2 136 13471 4461 14053 SUMTER 385 2 1756 17 2075 25 71 51 5 2 0 0 0 0 77756 01 26 4348 511 4425 SUWANNEE 1 316 1 12781 10 1355 181 46 31 9 1 0 0 0 01 39 OI 81 3043 331 3084 TAYLOR 1 260 1 16641 27 1767 877 83 26 2 41 0 0 0 0 7 0 22 3783 1451 3950 UNION 1 86 0 3481 3 420 01 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 01 2 881 41 887 VOLUSIA 1 4399 29 83081 213 16103 345 1453 771 255 42 13 6 2 0 3511 21 293 30884 7141 31891 WAKULLA 1 340 5 19831 49 2155 185 1631 SIF 32 12 0 1 0 0 391 01 5 4712 303 5020 WALTON 1 805 9 24581 25 2125 59 224 18 44 15 4 0 1 0 26 0 4 5687 126 5817 WASHINGTON 1 238 2 14431 121 719 11 291 21 2 11 01 0 0 0 13 01 0 2444 28T 2472 TOTALS 1 165424 12151 2213481 43461 4991101 136901 818241 47181 13669 1817 783 3-861 911 331 94311 541 91041 9916801 262591 1027043 C 7 O U a .Q Q v H U) N to to N U lB L O. Q (O O O N O III ti 00 M M O N 00 M M M co CO LO N 1- (M N f� N t17 co 00 O CO CO I� O O 00 t0 1" J �� �� I� N 00 O CO O V CO V M V CO M N �o M O to O M CO CO CO CO N O S 00 LO cM M CO V CA Q V i�NONO N00NLr)CM O 0)1,-001,- V toOCM— OLOCOi- V NOCO OCOtoOCD�CMd7(()CA00 V NwN V V ONMN V 00LnM N CM cM0000N V r- Cl) O M V O I� N V (o N NW M V N Cn s- ~ I I I-O V N1-COMONCo1,_N1,_OCoCoON LID NNNI-COOMCID co V 1-V V I-O) CD CO IN �- CO 1l- N co CA I- O N V CO m CO Co O 00 C0 N CO 00 N 00 (O M V M CO Lo OD 0) N O M N O M M V O 0p N CO 00 N 00 M N N M NCO I(O(Owmw000w1l- V �I- �s -O V V s-WMNMWmNCOMI-OONCoCOI-LO LO�M000ios-� r-000O1l-V MNInLO�ww CID mmwM0MMMI-m V C0MNwN00O W �- N 00 O N V O M f� s- M V CO Co CO CD LO I� M m CD(O O co V CDs- I- M Ms- O J I�NON000s-�� NM VOpNNNMI� V NNE-�N -MCDaIl-N�-V MCA CM V M I V N s- s- N tO cM s- s- N V v- J IOOMN �-OD1� OO�NN OO V OOtO00(OM�000MN O(OI_O Q tO s- LO s- I- CA CO CO �- O M V N N N N CID I% co N CO N CO CD�- 0p N N �- M QI N I O O O O 00 N O O O O M s- s- s- M 0 0 0 s- s- O O O O O O O N CO (D N O O O O CO N O 0 z IC) N1l- I- NCOIl- cocoIl- toaV CO VNaOam V co0I-- r-00N�MNu) V N,-MCA�I�O(� Q 0)s COIN1-1- MOON V I- M —N I-r-00 s-M �- N� ODM ON COI - CO V V IN i(O N — N N NW W N s- M s- to w O mI O N O O N O O O O O O 0) O OD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O s- O O O O O O O O O CO) 01 J CD O O 10 0 0 0 0 N O s- O O N O s- O V M O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 Nr O U r-Ir- Ila r- OOOONN ONCD r-0 V O V O1l.COCD CD 0 OOOOO(OOOCDoCD NOO M s- N 0 NCD CD CD V OCOCoaU,OCo00tOONO mMN�-000�-OOO OOs- O �-�00000 V N g�I N r V CD i O V O M e- CD LO V N I- �- OO �- V N O cM CO 0� N O s- O O CO 0 0 e- O O O O N N— W MCIN V VM �.-�CD �-�VV CID�I �w N—I1000 V.-� V NCOCe)r- -Cnr-N00000 V NcM V CD CDItM V ONIONOOU)LOCD U N O I CDO N IcM (O I- NM M a) s- I- LO 0) U) �- M 00 M I- r- s- M s- s- s- 0) N �- N CO to s- s- CO N co CO V I s- IC) V O 0, O 0) I- O 0p Co co co 0) CO I- 0) M 0 N O N V O s- s- M N N CO V M I- M s- CO V CO 00 1,- CA N LO N O M CO N e'er N N CA I � Mcn ' � I O CO CO M M OD V CO LO 00 N O V (O V O) r- CO Vto M O M CO M M O M O B CO 00 I'-M 'o s- LO V CO V �- to O (O e- M �- 1� � I� � V N V O N 00 OD M N M CD�- � 0) CO N M N 0p � V V 0p B O O CV IN N CID V I� CD s M " O CM �- MCN CO V CD M N ONO N cM IN i CM s- IV (O t0 s- O Co M V O O s- N CC) O M s- CO Cn CO V O O CO (O O CO O V aO M Co OD N co V H 00 �- N M— I- O O r- M a M w m N Cn V cM �- s- M N (O CO V M cq N O �- CO r. e- I� CN to V M V V CA CO �- cM � � �- V N � (O �- N N V IO CO N �- O O O O i V M w s V LO V CO CD N CD O) LO Lo O M M W M V� M � M V O Co M 0r- v= w N V I- LO M I- 1- 0 V M 00 m w w CD w 0) 1-- M Cn W Co CO O V O 1- N Co m W CDCn w O V�ILOOcoOm1NMNO)CONN0000�s--CD MOao000M� V LO V MCM 00 cooCVV V'LOM I- COON s-I N s- s- N s- N N N M O V N I 1-- O N I- s- 00 V coM V �- V 0) e- CO CO CD �- r- V 1- N V I V I O i CO M V N co (� co co Q' e- � I N I CO N� V Ni-- CD � 1� s- �- 00 V O M N I- C 41-1r- N �- N 1- N V i cM M �- O V 0p CO V O CO V O tO N V O N M CO M V (p M CO O O O s- CO N to f� V NMN CO V �- N M O M mV � ' V 00�NMN��N000.1 I LOCMM V OCOCOO)COOOOMwO CO0)r�0)MO VMN OOOCOODI�—OMM0000I-V m V OOwNOMwM V V COI- mO V V mI- CO V V OOCOCo N IM s- CO 0) co M Co N N �- CO 00 Co s- s- s- NM O �- N N CO CO CO �- IrO NOII-OjO V V CO V O�CONcMN V V cMOCOCOa CD V O NE I(D'V r-OMN V O N Z � M M e- N N N N N N e- CO Is- s- CO r- � Q 00 CO V � CO N 0) CO cM 0) 0) 1�- M Co CO w O w m m CO V CO N O N O O 1� f� CO N CD s- I- V N O 1l- V M w w CO N CO m I- N M O m I- 0) V 1� w cM I- 00 N� V 00 V 00 00 00 aO 1- O �I�- MNMNicM V �-�CDM NCOM M Mr -CO V I��-��- M N V CO(OCO�M V ��-MCO V N Is- M CO O M� N V N LO N I OO s- M 1� �- o i w olN � z w I� Z } 0��70 U. LLQaOJ= wm wg O mWJwN(q i-> JLJYm=W 0w>. JWmQg Nw'Qy� w>y�} Z Ixm U W }.�5W02wQ<0ZCO N�;�Y�Qw Z}> 7 W OJa�QJJmNNX>U..7�QJJ7QQ Qw—Gaz o IQY}� Jaa a mmmmmc�vc�t�t�t�00000wwwc�c�c�c�xxx�xxxxi_An waaxt oOawx_�v, W�WU_' JOlZQ W QQ JJ W JJJ W W C 7 O U T N U U) N N N f0 U N CCJ t C1 Q CD O O N CO M N M LO N m N O�1-t IT O N LO cM l 0 CD T N; V LO O M It O LO CD O LO ' r r w r O O O w 00 O CD tn CM CO O O O LO CA LO CA '-t O LO LO CD q- r[I- r N I- CA M M r CD O co CD CA 00 'qr r r LO C'M COCA c- N O O 00 Ln 1 f- CD d' co r r CDO r,_ CA CD CD CO LO O IT CD CD M CA '-t LO CA (N V ITCO I r ' LO N tp N N r N N M d' N LO m N r r r M N Ir I �gr O O CO O CD r- CD W M O r M Il- O M LO CDU.)LO LO N 00 M tO Lo O N CA CA m r CO M CO 1,- O CA I- NV) r r M N O N r r m LC') 0) r N N CA CD N 0 f� r� r N r 0 LO M� M N tf N M V r W M r LO N r r CO N II- LO It w CD O w N N CC) O O v O LO t-- CD CO ti I- co a) r CO [I- r N N O M N LO O O O tO O O O r LO O V LO N LO I- w N O N v I- It O CO LO rN co co It 19t019t DLO N M co r- N LO d' LO LO N O 0000 LO � LO Cl) co r r CA O co co co 0) LO tO O M CO 'It N CO 'It Nt M (V CM 't M CO O d' LO N 00 r N r N r M Cf' N LO CM r N r r r M 00 CA M O f� 0' N O N CO r 00 M O O M O lC) N 00 O O CO LO O LO f- O CD CDI- N CDN M r r CO Cl M W N M V LO CO CD N N O co d M N r st r r M r t N r i � O O O r O O N 0 0 0 r O N r M O 0 0 0 r 0 O O O O O N O O O r LO N O d r CO CA CO N O O tO O CO lO 00 M CO O M N N CO CDO I,-LO r CD t` tj CD O CO M d' m co O O LO M V M N r� N N m N MI,- N M r CM O CD CCD O O O O O O O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 M co OOO rr0000CD000rraCo (MOCpOOOOMOOD LO r � O O O O V M O r 0-0 CO M O CDN O O r N N 0 0 0 0 �I r r 0 r N r r r N I r O 0 CD r LO M r r r to O r to N M M M O CO I* r 0 0 0 0 CO O N O CO •' N M O M r r N r � O O LO N O � I- V r CD r CD M CD 00 f� 00 M C n r O N M O r M r r Co V M r r 00 st M ! C' N N r r to m r r co r r N d' CD It I,- M LO CC) N N N CO V mr- O O 00 CO M r M O r r CO M O NI,- LO V O M O O N q CO d LO O LO r V M co CD m It CD N N O O r r r r N LO r r M r N o r CO r N CO m w m Il_ O 10' M r 0 0 lb a0 O CD M N r-Nt LO t` M M O cM r O cM CD N N LO � N r N 00 r Cl) fl- M I- LO r O r r 00 r N r CV) 00 I CC) N O M N 00 N r- M LO 00 r- It LO N CA 00 V M CA cM r-. I- r LO N M I LO _ r- CO O r CO CO M r 00 M r N f- M r 0 M 1- N r O LO N M [t• r M r ID N D V r 0 N O r' LO r N 0 M CO r CO N r r r O 00 O LO M H O r r N CD M r s O CA 00 r M N LO CO co LO LO CD a) r co LO r I N LO r N CO N M M r- O N M 0)CO r r 0 LO LO N r M M CO CO r LO M r M M r r LO N .in r r r N r r N CO � r I Cr) r CD M� LO CO N r d CO lC) V O N d' cow r M t7 N 00 M O CO O CO d N W M O W r r r r N d O O CA r CO O M 00 LO O Nr-- M CD LO d O I- v N w LO co LO co 00 O N- N O LO CD O O co N [1- I- 00 m CO O N O I- O O CO m LO O O O V N M M CO : r M W CO CO N M coil l- r r LO N r LO r r r r N r N r r r O m l r LO M r M r N V LO LO O N W N( CD LO N N M O m O V Cl)M '-0* CD N r f� CO CO r- m d I- CO m O LO � CA 1 r LO d' CD r-I 1 r N O LO Cl) r N r r r�r I CN r C) �� CM r � LO V mt r r CD N CO CD r P- CO N I` 00 N O CA 00 CD CO r r 00 � 00 00 cM 00 N CDr NI-- CO CD r 00 CA m, M V I O CO O O CD V W CD � N O r LO CO IT N O r r- d' d' N r- N LO N 00 I` N N, N ti 00 M CD M cM 00 V V 00 CM CO N CM N o r CD N LO CO 00 O N V'V V M N r r r 00 r N— LO r I N O O LO LO N LO N O CD N O (DIV O cM N r rrrNrOO MLn N r W N CO d r� O r CD O O r M V N N CD r-CD M X I- M LO M 00 IT O w N -V r Cl w O f` d CA LO cM <A LO CO r--LO M O N I V V 0 I-- r- CC) CO 00 M v N M O 00 m O O O LO M O M 00 d M CD 'ItM N N� M I 00 r 00 O r V iN I r Cl) r [tiN r N N CO f� N M CO r z LU UM, QI aloe 0 zW A0 WO U) 0'awU) Ww W �0 zw zZOQOU000 000 NibJzz O- Z 0Z1-o Z�vv�g�il ONmgz�� Jew,oZIxoczU)Iwa0w-Z� }ZIY-j m;Q Q 440 QY 0»Q OIQ Q OM2222z0000MMEMM1n00100ln�i-»33 O r- N N— O N CO cM V- NM V M �- V .-- O O CO M V O M N O cM ( O O� O r-- N v CO cM f Q CO INS-ONE- v M am O -vOOMar- r- v N O f- f` O w r- M f` MM —MaMM O• O V st COr- • T O M O V COCO�-OOf`OCMCONCOv M V f` N O r- � r- O O N O Na �- �- N` f N d O N Cl) N '-T CO M N �- M' �- M I O O O 1� N 'T O N— �- N O M �- �- e{ �- N cocovMMLo,M, CO CO �O�CO�COMf`OOOCO V ��COOOC) O CO IN O II- NCO N r- O�- O N It OC � CO O O CO f` CO r.- CO NCOM M CO O CO v M f` f` N M I' a)�- CO CO M M N CO U 1 r-- O CO Od O O v MMO� O Cn M O O CO M - M M M d M d O N O CO O f` v CO Cn O st M y (� W IOC-O N ul m v co r*- —O�-M TN�M�-OI'-O I- M M m LO N w 0 CD LO CD OOMMstOwMOI-w w MwaMMOOOONW O J O N O N W O N M st CO N N M I- st O CO O V N d 1 M N O cn CO O O N O st r- CO O r- N O CO f` O O r-- CO V V'-T O O V N J 1 O f` O cM V Q CN I — N MO CO O r- 00O r- N cncn N �- M NCOO N r W � 1 co 1000000�aaa0M M -T OOO OOOON OM000�- 10 ZM I �- O r- M O st O �- CO O V� O d W O �- �- N CO O CO st CO COO V N O O r- CM O CO N O CO O W O N st CO cM �- O� O �- �- N O f` �- f` O U IN CO N �- N N N ��- CO .- N W a 00-000OOOCOOI-OOOOOOOOOOOOOO� � 000000 y oI g01 a a 0 0 0 M 0 O O O O N O W O O O O O O O O O O O O M O— 0 0 0 O U aaLOaco'-TON O OOMONOOOaOO Or-OOOIOOOOO OOO a vi 1 c < OOMOOCOONOCO VO�-OM O(0�---OOOlOOOOON OOOOOO J� U O •- N CO Q � I V N O f` O O O O N M O V N O N O CO V CO N N O O O O V CO O N O• O �- Cy CO N N M O M �- IM cn O co yQ 1 •— .— .- Q H� N CO d CO O a O O O O M v CO M CO CO O O CO M v N CO cM 0 CO O O'T CO N M CO M J N CD �- v CO NNOM M �- ONO COMCO� O O �- M �- �-� ��-�-0 LO COS- O W N V �1 [n L CO O O W O W O W W M r- W CO �- O� O M M O V N •- • �- O O N O O �- O O N �- O W cm CV �- e- I �- N�- CO NI- M r- O M O CO O M N O M > O y Q +�. C? 0 M O M N st V f` M �- M N CO f` O st O W M f` st v CO O CO W O O O N O O O M CO M— f` O M N O M V f` I CO v 'T O O CO M CO O O O M CO N st }� UNIN LO co NMaoM ��-N N� Mr �- NMI-ICN CO d Nf� Q ICO M N 'T M O O CO N M O O M O N M M M �- O COO O M O O N O T CO O M �- v f` O Q M CO �- v v CO �- O M �- M O O st V M �- N M cM i f-� O I d' O z N O IT M y � O �- cM O N •- LU y W) Q QNIr-IO OcMvvunvf`�OCOCOO�-COCO�f-coOMvO OCOOONN vCOstf� (� CO I M N O �- O O O � V) O O w w� O O N V)v O O M M S O O N f` M st N V� O J U IO O CO � CO 0 0 CO NM M �- O O N N f` O M M r- NM N O CO O O M I--v CO M O M I--M v- cM'O O to N N CO N N P- CO CO N V O N O C14 O 1 — Cl �- �- N �- N i N O O M O �- CO f` N M N �- M O M O r N CO M N M T O O P- O V O CO CM f` NCO V V N �- �- Na co r CO CO N M d O• 'T V— O CO O M N T O V.-I st N Cp 1 CO N N O M O V CO CO CO CO v NM O rl- V) CO N V v O —II,- N N O I cM O O O co, r- CO OOCOCOcoMOvvCOOCOOr-vO�-00�-OvCOMvvCOf`f� N CO O st f` N f` O CO r- O w O O O f` W f` CO �- W M N : f N O I,-�' CO COMcof`COvv f` CO st [I- N N M •- CO O CO cM O N N CO CO O f` O O st O O N O O O O M O O CO M r COO O CO N— i M O O— O • - •- N 1 M M �- N N c) N N N a I 70 UQ ZI ICO CO co N O N CO N ICD v O f` O O O CO f` CO f` CO O CO Nrl, O O ao CO N CO CO v N _ v OIO CO N O N O CO W IT W O CO O O N f` w v O N CO CO V V O O CO CO O O O M I M N N N N It — O— O O V Cl) N O Cl) B CO) N V V f` O— N st �- U �- v 1 M CO O �- M N M O N CO M a_ z o= o a 1 O � O LU W OWZ Un LU 0 co WLUNJ+-aOJw z xIx�ZiMwo2wa<Ozco= > go�Gflw<n_3 ; az 2>- Y�Q�.. W 0o ooWU.__===Z4)Lg 0 U. � 0000I00Uo U LotoLOONCD,rOCDI-'Vr-NOOoLOCD PI- OCnco CV) a7LoI-(O "tOI0)I-O O I- O r O co 0) I- co 0) r- 00 � It Lo U) r- 0) C) It (M cM r V 0) CD LO CD N r O It 0) II - CD 00 M r N CO M CD 0) 00 0) CD C) N CM r CD CD C) M r l- V- CD CD CD co 00 to M N M C)cn -t rOOIl-O)Lo0)CDItMLoCDCDN0)stLO0)NMIqNI ;a V U)N CDto r N N rIN r m V NU) MNT r r M r O r CO 00 r 0) LO D7 00 N r M M (D O CD d) r to CD 0) O I- It It Iq M Il- CA CD CD 00 I- M Iq Lo M CD r N V) M N 00 M 00 00 Cl) CD r V r r Cl) Cl) N r U) LO N LO Il� 0 0 m O 04 N M CO N U), 0) r v r N 0 LO Cl) m N It N ce) r C0 M r N ti N OM�f�f�v,CDLovLoMM(oO(MCDONvLor-(MLo(MCoNN�00UlNr- 0) LOM0)r-N�ItU)I-tiOCOLOvCDcMI-U)O)LoU)00rI-MNNrrLoMLn V) CD LO 00 O NCO C) I- 00 (D CM 00 N C) 00 U) U) C) CD C) M N ClM 0) 0) W 00 00 N N N 00 0) (M M r r 0 0 .CD CD LO O LO V M (M U)'It N CO V V O N Cl) CM N M CA It Ln N CM st r r�N r N r M V N U) (M r N r r r CV C14 V C) C) V Lo00rLOLo CC) O0r000-�rLov vcgr- ooLorCD(DO(D U) M C) co r�1' I- M 0) r 0) N O CD r CM 00 cM cM Vr � r I- r N r O V r r- r CM N r r C'M M 0) LO N O O O r O O r O r O r O N r N 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 O C) �Lo (M Nm NI-CONCDiNLOCMOLOI--L0000Lotor-ONI`NOLocoCD -� CO co M 00 M: r- M LO r LO O N V (M co M 00 1� d7 to co r N co) N r V M r r I N M N M I- N M r CO CD IM 0 0 010: C) C:D 0� 0 0 0 O O O _ O r 0 0 0 0 C)C)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- f I ! I N 0 0 0 0 0 0 rlr O O O (D O C)M r 0 0 N r C) M 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 00 CD O r 0 0 O LO LO O r 0 Lo N M r CM 0 O C)N r 0 0 0 0 to r Ol LO LM N LO I I I N I, r N O N Lo r CD N N N 00 M N O O O O O N O Iq- V Mir'0,0 CD;r'00 V r N M O M N r V, r r- O CO COO r 00 N M j 00 O (O N C) r- r 0) f- MO r (D O CO Lo r I M 00 "t fir r 00 U) M r r CM r N Ni r M r r CO CO U) N 00 CD CA O N M r r 00 r- O I- 0) V 00 LO M qw M V O CO co r (M LO Lo r M M L, 00 v N I- N N 0) CO I- LO (D M It I- I- N N N 00 m V co N r r 0) N CV r O I �(n M r It(DCDrOLOCOOOti r-CD V COcMI-LoOCDCDNcorrI-v co �N N N LO r NMI O 104 M r N r It LO N r N 0) r V) CO M CO LO r N r r 00 r N r cM O r qt 00 I- CD 00 O r- � Lo r O O N N C)I-- CD 00 r r CD M V 00 N 00 r LO LO 0) (M 00 CD0)r- rLo���I-W a to -QrN V,I- C)N0 VOo V LOCOCM N co M 00 M LO O N CO r N N 0) N M I- N CD U) O O O I M r r C,LO r N �t r r U r CD N r r r I co I n V N O v CD N1-- LO r coN r V 00 �� r N CD N I� I� O I- Lo N I a) M (D r- I r N N Lo 0) • 0) 00 M a) v CO r N 0 I- I- M N O� V N r 0) M ao LO r � I- r N M r N M r r r LO N CD r r r N r _ r N M r 0) M r Lo"tmLnC)v -T'DecoI-MLOCMOLOIrNOP�NIl-d)a7IT00v00)rq'T-v N LOMO)Mst00I'-NNNI-L()MMCDNW C) W OLOMO V r(DcoLoNLOr 0) 00 CO 0) N V 0) --t r V (O 00 CO LO I- W r I- Lo Lo (M I- CD I- V I,- N r- CO V G) 00 (D r I�LOr 0)Oa) V NOMrttc-MWLo-�rWN0)LOI-rrr LO rr LO N r r O (D O ^O I- V r- r r N r N r r Ir co IT M r O M I- O O Lo r- r N cM N M Il- LO LO W co (M I O M I CD r i T O r co Lo 00 CD CD 0) N M V I- I- -t W LO V O r LO Ir CD r r r r r- r- N N 0) r Lo N r .U') Ul ! I I + rN CO LO I- M M W M N r M V M OOOrOOrO er LOLO000D0)rCOr-MLOI-M O O M M V r r- M V O I`MMW M M CM M V r LOON 0) 00N CO r 0) Il- V r- LO O V N (V O I- V CD N O cM I- LO 0) 00 M M r 00 I- N (D M M 00 V C'M N I00 CD Lo r V (D N M N '7 r CD N (D (O 00 O N V V V CO N r r r 00 r N r 00 r �N 00 O O O r r st CD v Lo 00 00 00 00 M IN tt r LO r Lo 1-- r CO r r r O CO Lo U,) N I I m CO r �I Lo r CO r r r M I- r I.- r r N N N r N CO CO I co CD r co v r- M co co 00 O O r- N N co 0) W r- O v O O CD Lo Lo r N r M C)LOI C:) 00 I� co Lo r N 00 m w m N O LO N N O r- M O w N C,V N I- 0) O r r M CD r j LO N •- N V N Cl)(D Il- V M I- C V O 00 W r O O O W M M N r CM I- N O I� r MA N ";r Moo r CO -t r� N CO CM r r 0) H� LO �ZWI >- W W D yO 0 2 W OF'Wy V g Q z W� W Z I a J Z Off= Q i Zt��cAWJHZ��LO—���}O aay0=VWZozlco }}P°Qo?0ao�c�omo� WO>W�zll'Il'Zy�W JYJf� la— WWwmaaaaoa�Ya��naa?o�aaw��»a2Qaaa '-j-j-j22222zoo00aaaCLCLWWwwocnc)g:) 3> 3�3 O SIC& �fU E AR � 70 7N" m ry cn FJ %V c 70 V, co L) 0 E2 m 'Ilk J. T A m 70 0 m E M 14, 0 off-, • 0 cn co rLn E2 m 2� "'.W. Ocean Reef os, Key Largo Tavernier n Exhibit 9 Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay iii Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay: Associations with Physical and Visitor Use Factors and Implications for Natural Resource Management RESOURCE EVALUATION REPORT SFNRC Technical Series 2008:1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Everglades National Park (ENP) encompasses over 200,000 hectares of marine environments, including most of Florida Bay. The ENP portion of Florida Bay was federally designated as submerged wilderness in 1978. Much of Florida Bay sup- ports submerged aquatic vegetation comprised of Seagrass that provides vast areas of habitat for recreationally and com- mercially important fish and invertebrates. Florida Bay is a premier shallow -water recreational fishing destination and it is heavily used by recreational boaters for access to produc- tive fishing areas. While the primary stressors in Florida Bay are related to watershed management, recreational boat use has also resulted in damage to benthic resources. Identifica- tion of propeller scarred seagrass beds has been a critical data need by park managers and the public in the development of the park's General Management Plan (GMP) and for natural resource management projects. To integrate information on propeller scarred seagrass in the development of the GMP and to assist with developing a park -wide seagrass restoration strategy, we analyzed aerial imagery of Florida Bay. We used resulting data to provide information on the pattern and relative density of seagrass scarring and to determine if scarring damage is getting better or worse. We also used high resolution imagery, available for only a small portion of the bay, to estimate our level of scar de- tection. Finally, we used geospatial analyses to help determine if scarring density was related to water depth and proximity to shorelines, boat ramps, marked and unmarked navigational channels, and boating activity. Key Findings General Results ♦ We detected approximately 12,000 seagrass scars. ♦ Scar lengths ranged from approximately 2 to 1600 meters. ♦ The total length of scars was approximately 525,000 me- ters (325 miles). ♦ Scars are present throughout the shallow areas of Florida Bay. ♦ High resolution imagery suggests that our primary imag- ery may underestimate total scarring distance by a factor of approximately 10, i.e., there may be as many as 3250 miles of scars in Florida Bay. ♦ Substantially more scarring was identified in this study than in a previous study conducted in 1995. Patterns and Associations ♦ The maj ority of scarring was identified in depths below 3.0 ft and scarring density tends to increase with decreasing depth. ♦ Dense scarring is more likely in close proximity to marked and unmarked channels and shorelines. ♦ The density of scarring around marked and unmarked channels is similar. ♦ Scarring density is higher in areas that are most heavily used by recreational boats. ♦ Scarring density was not related to proximity to boat ramps in the Florida Keys or Flamingo. ♦ Scarring is increasing in specific sites in Florida Bay. ♦ A propeller dredged channel, identified in 1995, has been steadily increasing in area. Summary and Recommendations ♦ Seagrass scarring in Florida Bay is widespread with dense scarring found in shallow depths, near all navigational channels, and around areas most heavily used by boats. ♦ Although seagrass damage assessments using aerial imag- ery often underestimate scarring, they provide useful in- formation on pattern and relative density. ♦ Because scarring is not improving with time, new manage- ment strategies are warranted to protect submerged wil- derness resources and reduce stressors as part of an over- all approach to ecosystem management in Florida Bay. ♦ An adaptive approach, initially focusing on the most heav- ily scarred areas, should consider monitoring data from specific indicator sites with a variety of management op- tions including education, improved signage, new en- forcement efforts, and boating restrictions, such as pole and troll zones. South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay v TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................iii CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS.........................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................vi FOREWORD.....................................................................................vii INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1 METHODS........................................................................................5 ScarMapping....................................................................................5 Prop Scar Change Analysis..........................................................................5 Geospatial Analysis ................................................................................6 RESULTS........................................................................................11 ScarMapping...................................................................................11 ChangeAnalysis.................................................................................11 Geospatial Analysis ...............................................................................12 DISCUSSION....................................................................................20 Secondary Impacts................................................................................22 Management Implications..........................................................................23 LITERATURE CITED...............................................................................26 A South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS David E. Hallac', Jimi Sadlel, Leonard Pearlstinel, and Fred Herlingz 'South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, 950 N. Krome Avenue, Homestead, FL 33030-4443 2Planning and Compliance Division, Everglades National Park, 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, FL 33034-6733 Comments and Questions: David_Hallac@nps.gov ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Judson Kenworthy and Mark Fonseca for their review and thoughtful suggestions, as well as Carol Mitch- ell for coordinating the review. We are grateful for the editing and document production perfomed by Alice Clarke, Joy Brunk, and Caryl Alarcon. This project would not have been possible without data collected and maintained by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC-FWRI). The NPS South Florida and Caribbean Network greatly contributed to this project by supplying imagery. Discussions and resources provided by Curtis Kruer and Coastal Re- sources Group greatly enhanced this study. Our discussions with Bob Showler, Bonnie Foist, Cara Cooper, Dave Fowler, Craig Smith, Dave King, Douglas Morrison, William Perry, and Tony Terry helped in the development of this report. We would also like to thank Tad Burke, Sandy Moret, and Mike Ehlers of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association, Lain Goodwin of the Key Largo Fishing Guides Association, Bob Stearns, and Lloyd Wruble for their insights and recommendations. We thank the National Parks Conservation Association and their Coalition of Park Users group, based out of the Florida Keys, and the South Florida National Parks Trust for their recognition of these important issues and support of this project. Please reference this report as follows: SFNRC. 2008. Patterns of Propeller Scarred Seagrass in Florida Bay: Associations with Physical and Visitor Use Factors and Implications for Natural Resource Management. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL. Resource Evaluation Report. SFNRC Technical Series 2008:1.27 pp. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay vii This report, "Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay," represents our continuing advancement in Everglades National Park's ability to perform science -based assessments of the natural resources in Florida Bay. Florida Bay's submerged aquatic vegetation and bottom communities were defined as federally designated wilderness in 1978, to protect this internationally significant resource. The health of these benthic communities is directly tied to commercially and recreationally important fisheries and the health of the adjacent Florida Keys reef tract. For decades, propeller scarring has been identified as a stressor affecting the park's vast seagrass resources, but we have been unable to quantify the impacts. While the primary stressors in Florida Bay are related to the impacts of upstream water management, increasing recreational boat use in the shallow waters of the bay has resulted in damage to important seagrass communities. For the first time, this report provides an assessment of the spatial and temporal patterns of propeller scarring of the seagrass communities of Florida Bay. In addition, the report specifically incorporates geospatial statistics to augment our understanding of the factors affecting propeller scarring, ultimately providing applied results that will assist in the development and evaluation of natural resource management plans. As our efforts to update the park's General Management Plan progress, more in-depth monitoring will be required to establish a baseline for a number of indicator locations. Monitoring will be used to determine if management strategies are effective in reducing the propeller scarringproblem and to implement new strategies, if warranted. While the analytical approach reported here works well within Florida Bay, new methods need to be developed in the future for quantifying seagrass cover and damage along the park's western coastline, where turbidity often masks scarring. Everglades National Park managers and staff will use the results of this study to develop a new, bay -wide restoration strategy that identifies areas most in need of improvement, and determines optimal assessment methods and management actions, while making recreational users full partners in our protection and restoration efforts. Everglades National Park looks forward to our continuing efforts to work with our partner agencies and the public in the development of sustainable management actions to protect these important resources for future generations. RobertJohnson Director South Florida Natural Resources Center Everglades National Park November, 2008 viii South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 1 INTRODUCTION Everglades National Park (ENP) encompasses approximately 607,000 hectares (ha) at the southern tip of peninsular Flor- ida. The park comprises the largest subtropical wilderness in North America, and is the only area in the United States des- ignated as an International Biosphere Reserve, a World Heri- tage Site, and a Wetland of International Importance. Legisla- tion establishing ENP in 1934 emphasized that "...areas shall be permanently reserved as a wilderness, and no develop- ment of the project or plan for the entertainment of visitors shall be undertaken which will interfere with the preservation intact of the unique flora and fauna and the essential primi- tive natural conditions now prevailing in this area." Included within the park boundary are over 200,000 ha (500,000 acres) of marine environments, including portions of Florida Bay (ca. 162,000 ha) (Fig. 1). Florida Bay is characterized by extensive areas of shal- low water, punctuated by deeper natural basins separated by banks with natural and man-made channels connecting them. Much of the bay bottom supports submerged aquatic veg- etation made up of seagrasses (e.g., Thallasia testudinum and Halodule wrightii) and marine algae of various species. These vegetated areas serve as nursery habitat for commercially im- portant fisheries, such as spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), and a variety of reef fish species. The bay and its submerged vegetation also provide habitat and feeding grounds for state and federally listed species such as manatees (Trichechus manatus), the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pecti- nate), and sea turtles including loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). Recreationally im- portant fish species including bonefish (Albula vulpes), spot- ted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), gray snapper (Lu4anus griseus), snook (Centropomus undecimalis), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus), and tarpon (Magalops atlanticus) also utilize Florida Bay. Figure 1. The Florida Bay portion of Everglades National Park (ENP), Florida, and designated wilderness areas. South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) In addition, with the exception of an area in ENP that is 1/8th of a mile in width paralleling and immediately adjacent to the Intercoastal Waterway, the entire ENP portion of the bay bottom was designated by Congress as part of the Everglades Wilderness in 1978 (Public Law 95-625) and thus is subject to administration under the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The name of this area was later changed to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness (Public Law 105-82). Hogfish in seagrass. Photo by William Perry, ENP. Human caused seagrass damage has been identified in shal- low coastal areas throughout Florida (e.g., Kuss 1991, Kruer 1994, Sargent et al. 1995). Nutrient inputs, altered hydrol- ogy, and anthropogenically-induced algae blooms represent major stressors to seagrass meadows (Dawes et al. 2004) and are substantial stressors in Florida Bay. Vessel groundings and boating effects are also among the multiple stressors contrib- uting to seagrass decline (Orth et al. 2006). Physical damage by boats to submerged aquatic vegetation has occurred for many years and contributes significantly to the disturbance of seagrass meadows (Zieman 1976, Sargent et al. 1995). As early as 1953, substantial boat damage to seagrass beds in Garfield Bight and Snake Bight was visible in aerial photography (Fig. 2). This damage was thought to be the result of commercial fishing vessels netting mullet in Florida Bay. Damage to submerged aquatic vegetation has also long been recognized as a recreational management issue in Everglades National Park (Zieman 1976). Currently, Florida Bay represents one of the premier shallow -water boating and fishing destinations in the world. As a result, recreational angling as well as pleasure boating are becoming increasingly popular within ENP. Ault et al. (2008) estimate that boating use within the boundaries of ENP has increased from 2 to 2.5 times in the past 30 years. In addition, the number of boat registrations in the three southern Florida counties covering Everglades National Park has increased substantially since 1995 (FWC 2007). Increased boating activity, often by boaters with no pre- vious or only limited experience in navigating the numerous shallow flats and complex of narrow channels of Florida Bay, make parts of the bay very susceptible to visitor impacts re - Porpoise Point Garfield Bight Figure 2. Aerial photograph of northern Florida Bay (1953) showing extensive prop scar damage to seagrass beds, possibly caused by commercial fishing boats. A ban on commercial fishing in Everglades National Park was implemented in 1986. sulting from the operation of motorized watercraft. Damage from boats generally occurs when a boat propeller (prop) contacts either the submerged vegetation or the vegetation and the bay bottom. Prop scarring can be caused by many fac- tors including: 1. lack of understanding of the relationship of the draft of the boat to depth of the water where the boat is operating, 2. poor marking of navigational channels, 3. use of short cuts around channels and over flats where there is insufficient water depth, and 4. efforts to get a boat up on plane in shallow areas where there is insufficient water depth. When vessels run aground, prop scars are often coupled with large holes ("blow holes") in the vegetation and substrate created by the vessel operator attempting to use the motor's power to free the vessel (Whitfield et al. 2002). In addition, prop scarring occurs when boaters use the prop to dredge new channels or maintain existing, unmarked man-made channels, also referred to as "wheel ditches." Sediment exca- vated by boat props from blow holes and wheel ditches can form berms adjacent to the holes. Berms may bury seagrasses, causing mortality (Duarte et al. 1997, Whitfield et al. 2002). Regardless of the cause, the resulting prop scars lead to direct loss of wilderness resources, seagrass biomass, and in more severe incidents, long term damage to seagrass beds. Prop scars create structural changes in seagrass communities including physical destruction of the seagrasses, increased sediment resuspension, and a potential increase in the sus- ceptibility of seagrass beds to damage from hurricanes. The effects of prop scars on animals associated with seagrass beds are less clear. At a fine scale, scars have been shown to result in changes in abundance of organisms including shrimp, crab, Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 3 and molluscs (Uhrin and Holmquist 2003). However, on larg- er scales, no relationship between scarring density and abun- dance of similar organisms has been detected (e.g., Bell et al. 2002, Burfeind and Stunz 2006). Burfeind and Stunz (2007) did detect reductions in the growth rates of both pinfish and white shrimp in heavily scarred areas, indicating a potential impact on habitat quality at some scarring levels. Fonseca and Bell (1998) observed rapid loss in structural complexity of seagrass habitat when fragmentation exceeded 50% cov- erage. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between small and large scale effects of prop scarring and the overall impacts of prop scars on organisms that depend on submerged aquatic vegetation. Estimates of recovery time for prop scars vary depend- ing on the severity of the scar and the seagrass species that is damaged. Estimates range from as little as 0.9 years (Sargent et al. 1995) to 7.6 years (Andorfer and Dawes 2002). Recent model -derived estimates of scarring recovery in T. testudinum beds suggest that some areas in the Florida Keys may require 60 years for recovery (Fonseca et al. 2004). Recovery rates are much slower when scarring is deep. Excavations between 10 and 20 cm may destroy the connection of seagrass blades to belowground seagrass rhizome biomass (Hammerstrom et al. 2007). The rhizome architecture of T. testudinum, for exam- ple, is not flexible enough to grow down into the remaining sediment (Marba et al. 1994), and deep excavations are more susceptible to secondary continued erosion and expansion of scars from currents, winds, waves, and storms (Zieman 1976, Kuss 1991, Durako et al.1992, Rodriguez et al.1994, Hastings et al. 1995, Dawes et al.1997, Kenworthy et al. 2002, Whitfield et al. 2002). In addition, drift algae filling scars may also slow recruitment or recovery of seagrass species (Hammerstrom et al. 2007). Halodule wrighth and Syringodium filiforme recover 5 to 7 times faster than T. testudinum in experimental excava- tions and propeller scars observed by Kenworthy et al. (2002) in the Florida Keys. As a result, boat propeller scarring may alter the community composition and abundance of different seagrass species (Kenworthy et al. 2002). Heavily used areas that are continually scarred will probably never recover under current boating pressure. Active restoration of damaged sea - grass communities is technically possible, but expensive and time consuming. Prop scarring has been observed throughout Florida Bay in shallow flats, bights, bays, and banks and in other high use areas (Fig. 3). A large number of historical photographs show evidence of prop scarring over the years; however, to date, no detailed study has quantified the extent of seagrass damage in Florida Bay. Previous systematic efforts to map prop scars in ENP have been limited. Sargent et al. (1995) included Florida Bay in their statewide assessment of Florida's seagrass beds and identified 814 ha (2013 acres) of scarred seagrass beds within ENP. However, lack of sufficiently detailed aerial pho- tography made it unlikely that their assessment accurately reflected the state of seagrass beds in Florida Bay at the time of the study. The park's General Management Plan (GMP) process that began in 2003 identified the need to better un- derstand seagrass conditions and trends (ENP 2008). In order to implement effective marine management strat- egies that conserve and recover damaged seagrass, manag- ers must understand existing prop scarring conditions and potential associations with physical factors, such as water depth and presence/absence of aids to navigation, along with public use factors that explain how, where, and to what extent Florida Bay is visited. Little information on the locations, pat- terns, and relative density of prop scarring has been available for Florida Bay. The objectives of this study are to: 1. characterize seagrass scarring throughout Florida Bay, 2. determine if prop scarring is getting better or worse at specific locations, 3. assess potential relationships between density and location of seagrass scarring when analyzed against water depth, proximity to shorelines, proximity to marine facilities, and patterns of fishing and boat use in Florida Bay, 4. assess potential relationships between density and location of seagrass scarring and proximity to navigational channels (marked and unmarked), and 5. develop a statistical model to aid in prevention of scarring in undamaged areas. In this report, we discuss our findings, including implica- tions for management. Propeller scar from boat. Photo by Brett Seymour, NPS. 4 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) O 3 2 Yy. Figure 3. Examples of propeller scarring in Everglades National Park photographed in 2006 and 2007: 1) Upper Cross Bank adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway; 2) Channel entrance at Twin Key Bank; 3) Shallow passage at the Boggies; and 4) Mouth of Alligator Creek at Garfield Bight. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 5 METHODS Scar Mapping Georeferenced digital imagery at 0.5 m resolution of Florida Bay from April 2004 was used to digitize propeller scarring throughout the Florida Bay portion of ENP. Images were cre- ated from 1:24,000 scale true color raw scans (FWC 2004), georeferenced and reviewed for spatial accuracy according to National Map Accuracy Standards (USGS 2007). This im- agery was obtained to allow immediate and future evaluation of submerged aquatic vegetation in Florida Bay (FWC 2004). Previous assessments of propeller scarring (e.g., Sargent et al. 1995) indicate that imagery at this scale will not show all propeller damage to seagrass beds. However, review of the images indicated that enough scarring was evident to identify and map heavily scarred areas as well as some individual scars in areas with less damage. Therefore, the images were used to develop a conservative estimate of scarring, determine rela- tive scarring densities, and visualize spatial scarring patterns. While blow holes are often associated with prop scars, there was no consistent and reliable way to distinguish man-made holes from natural bottom features. As a result, this type of damage was not included in this mapping effort. Images of the ENP portion of Florida Bay were reviewed in 10 — 25 ha (ca. 25 — 62 acres) increments for visible scars in ArcMap version 9.2 (ESRI 2006). Each visible scar was digitized by tracing as an individual line (Fig. 4). Generally, images were viewed at the greatest magnification possible that allowed a clear view of the bay bottom. At magnifications greater than 1:1000-1:2000, image quality prevented discern- ing and mapping prop scars. Helicopter overflights of scarred areas were carried out to observe current scarring levels in areas identified as heavily damaged in the digital imagery. No attempt was made to ground truth individual scars that were identified in the imagery used in this study; however, observa- tions conducted during multiple helicopter flights confirmed that scarred areas, as indicated by the 2004 imagery, were indeed scarred. Scar line data were overlaid with 100 m2 grid cells to calculate scarring density (m/mz). The areas with the greatest density of scarring (top 10%) were selected and mapped to examine possible priority areas to focus on in the development of GMP management alternatives and marine management strategies. In order to determine if the analysis under- or over -estimated scarring when compared to more recent and higher resolution imagery, we utilized a partial set of high resolution imagery for north central Florida Bay to quantify scarring. The high resolution imagery was collected in 2006 at 0.30 m resolution. The imagery was only available for a small portion of Florida Bay, so it could not be used for the entire study area. Prop Scar Change Analysis In addition to the 2004 imagery, partial sets of 1:24,000 digital imagery of Florida Bay from 1995, 1999, and 2006 were used to conduct a change analysis between these time periods. We analyzed three areas of Florida Bay where scarring was visible in the same location on aerial photographs taken over multiple years and separated by some period of time. The aerial extent of these images varied greatly, limiting the amount of potential area that could be mapped for comparative purposes. Imagery from 1995 and 1999 consisted of digital orthographic quarter - quads. Images from 1995 were in .jpg format and 1999 images were in MrSID format. Imagery from 2006 was prepared for the 2006 Monroe County Florida Orthophoto Project (Wool - pert, Inc. 2007). These images were in MrSid format. All three Figure 4. Scar mapping is illustrated with this pair of images of Upper Cross Bank. The scars visible in the lefthand image are shown mapped in blue in the righthand image (2004 FWC imagery). 6 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) digital image sets were at 0.5 m pixel resolution. Three areas within Florida Bay were identified as suitable for comparative mapping: Twisty Mile, a channel located south of Madeira Point; Shell Key Bank, north of Shell Key; and Cross Bank, east of Tavernier (Fig. 5). Twisty Mile and Shell Key Bank were mapped using 1999 and 2004 imagery and the Cross Bank area was mapped using 1999, 2004, and 2006 images. In all cases, scar maps at each site were compared between years and identical scars were identified by their shape and loca- tion. The number of identical scars at each site was divided by the total number of scars mapped in the prior year's photo to determine the percent of scars remaining in the subsequent photo. The total length of scars was calculated and recorded for each mapping year at all sites. In addition to mapping individual scars, we sought to measure the change in area of a new channel (wheel ditch), established through repeated prop scarring and boat travel, on Shell Key Bank. The wheel ditch was mapped using 1995, 1999 and 2004 imagery. A polygon was drawn around the area denuded of vegetation in each of the three photos to estimate area devoid of seagrass. Once mapped, the size of the area was then compared among the three years of imagery. Geospatial Analysis We explored the relationship between scarring and water depth and proximity to several types of features (e.g., shore- lines, marinas). In addition, regression analysis was used to examine relationships between scar density and water depth, as well as between scar density and the proximity variables. Proximity was generated in 100 m increments, for all factors except water depth. The following variables and associated data layers were used in these analyses: Water Depth Bathymetry data (NAVD88) for Florida Bay were obtained from a 1990 fathometer survey (Hansen and DeWitt 1999). Transects ran mostly north -south, typically about 500 to 600 m apart with depth measurements collected in feet approxi- mately every 3 m along the transect. Ordinary kriging with anisotropy was used to create a continuous gridded surface � Twisty Mile �� � <}� 4V Q � Cross Bank r hell Key Bank and Wheel Ditch d N Change analysis site 0 3.5 7 14 M f i . i ".14- Figure 5. Site map of prop scar change analysis locations: Twisty Mile (northern site), Cross Bank (eastern boundary site), and Shell Key Bank (southern site) which includes a propeller -dredged channel (wheel ditch). Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 7 of interpolated bathymetry for the bay (RMS = 0.22 ft, average SE = 0.55 ft) at 100 m resolution. NAVD88 vertical datum is approximately 1.345 ft (0.41 m) above mean low water (MLW) in the Florida Bay area (Hansen and DeWitt 1999). Water depths were calculated as bathymetry at each grid cell converted to feet plus 1.345 and multiplied by -1 to represent depth as a positive value. Channels Centerlines of all channels in Florida Bay were traced us- ing the Florida Bay Map and Guide (NPS 2006a). Unmarked channels were identified through digital imagery acquired for previous and ongoing Seagrass restoration projects being car- ried out in ENP. The characterization of marked versus un- marked channels was obtained through close communication with ENP law enforcement rangers and resource managers. Distance of scarring to marked channels and distance of scar- ring to all channels was mapped in 100 m increments. Marine Facilities Data for marine facilities included docks, boat ramps, marinas, and other areas at which boats may congregate or launch (FWC 2006). Attributes of the point data include lo- cation and characteristics of the facility as follows: A = boat ramp, B = bank or bridge, F = fish camp, J = jetty, M = marina, O = other (e.g., hotel, resort), P = park, and S = pier. Because the marine facilities were well distributed along the Florida Keys, they generally represent the distance of scarring from the Keys and Flamingo in ENP. Flamingo marina. ENP photo. Boat Use Boat use data were collected for all marine waters in ENP between fall of 2006 and fall of 2007 using aerial methods (Ault et al. 2008). We used motorized watercraft data based on the following categories: fishing versus transit. Because ENP fish- ing reports over many years demonstrate that more than 90% of boating activity in the park is associated with recreational fishing (NPS 2006b), it is presumed that most transit activity is associated with a boat going to or from a fishing -related activ- ity, or as a recreational or commercial (guided) trip (Fig. 6). Shorelines Shoreline data were obtained from the National Park Service official map of ENP. These data include shorelines for all keys in Florida Bay and the entire northern coastline of ENP, from Cape Sable to Long, Little Blackwater, and Blackwater Sounds. Analyses Areas in which seagrasses cannot be damaged because submerged rooted vascular (SRV) cover was not present were excluded from the analysis by screening the imagery with benthic cover type data. Benthic cover type data included 47 descriptive classes for sea bottom and an upland class. These classes were aggregated into two classes relevant to this study: areas of continuous or discontinuous SRV plants and areas without SRV cover including: hard bottom, turbid plume, unconsolidated sediments, attached macroalgae, upland, and others (Fig. 7, FWC 2005). Areas with water depth greater than 6.5 ft MLW were also excluded because 99% percent of prop scarring occurs in water depths shallower than 6.5 ft MLW (Fig. 8). Nine explanatory variables were evaluated using regres- sion analysis: 1. Water depth (Depth) 2. Proximity to all channels (ChanPx) 3. Proximity to marked channels (MChanPx) 4. Proximity to marine facilities (DockPx) 5. Proximity to shorelines (ShorePx) 6. Proximity to boats engaged in fishing (FishPx) 7. Proximity to boats cruising transiting between locations (TransitPx) 8. Proximity to recreational boats (RecPx) 9. Proximity to commercial boats (ComPx). Due to the widespread nature of prop scarring in Florida Bay and the likelihood that park management strategies would focus on the most heavily scarred areas, we estimated the maximum scarring that may occur at a location. A scatter plot of scarring density versus proximity to boats engaged in fishing demonstrates that scarring tends to increase as dis- 8 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) tance to boats engaged in fishing decreases (Fig. 9). At any given distance, however, all scarring densities from zero to the maximum at that distance are also present; thus, causing poor correlation in regression models. This difficulty was resolved by refocusing the analysis on most heavily scarred areas; a rea- sonable approach given that management effort should also concentration on most intensely damaged areas. Regression models tracking maximum scarring with distance often ap- pear to have a strong trend as illustrated in the example (Fig. 9). Areas with heavy scarring may also be more likely to have a maximum density of deep scarring. Deep scarring is of particular management concern because recovery rates may be much slower at these sites. Maximum scarring data were selected as the top 10% of scar density values within each 100 m interval over the range of proximity data (see example in Fig. 9). For depth data, the top 10% of scar density values was selected within each 0.03 m (0.1 ft) interval over the range of depths. To develop a statistical model of maximum scarring, mean maximum scarring was calculated from the variables with significant regressions. Pearson's product -moment correla- tions were performed for each unique pair of the nine vari- ables to eliminate redundant variables. Where variables were highly correlated, only one of the variables was retained in the model. Multiple regression techniques were not used because data values selected as a running maximum will, in the majority of cases, be selected from different locations for one explanatory variable than they will for another variable. The difficultly cre- ated is that any attempt at multiple regression analysis will have values at a location for one variable and most likely not have values at that location for the other variables. Rather than attempt complex "missing value" data manipulations, an overall estimate of maximum likely scar densities was cre- ated by calculating the mean of the most influential mapped data layers into a composite index model. That is, we used data layers that explained the greatest amount of variability as measured by their r2 values. Linear regressions were run in the R statistical software package (R Development Core Team 2007) for maximum scarring versus each of the variables. A linear model was used as the best description of each variable. Maximum estimated scar density was mapped in ESRI ArcGIS for each spatial data layer based on the regression coefficients for that variable. a T p "--= - N7 g e Q 414°c°e O 0 CPO CP o 2F Qo 0 0 ° o o° a o 0 nI ° r a3 4 Fo 9 � fi� � � o a 0 G p 1 o co Y i3 P.a 0 m F o C ri0 �¢ P 0 q° Brat Use Activity o Fishing # Commercial o Cruising 0 Other 0 0 3-5 7 14 Figure 6. Distribution of boat use activities and boat use type in Florida Bay from 2006 and 2007 (Ault et al. 2008). Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 9 • `ram ,firr d t w 3.5 7 14 Km a . C:� Benthic Cover Type SRV No SRV Figure 7. Mapped occurrence of submerged rooted vascular (SRV) plants in Florida Bay (FWC 2005). Sediment plume emanating from a prop scar made during a 2004 redfish tournament around Murray Key. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, ENP. 10 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) 0.35 0.30 IM .E 0.25 y V N 0.20 H 4- Z 0.15 c a� V a� a 0.10 0.05 0 Mapped Scarring by Depth Lfl m l.fl Lfl Lfl Lfl l0 M M M n M Lfl Lfl W M Lfl Lfl rn M Lfl N ^ V N �V N V N V V V . Vmv ^ V N m V m V 3- O V n O �D V O r- V r- O 00 V 00 O rn V V U v U v U v U v UVO V O Lfl N m N m m N m 4 M N m lfl � N Ln �6 ^ N lfl n W N lfl W N N m m M M l6 l6 n W W M Depth (ft MLW) Figure 8. Frequency and cumulative frequency of scars by water depth (ft MLW) in Florida Bay. Propeller scars off Garfield Bight. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, ENP. 1.2 1.0 c .i i f6 V 0.8 C V a� 0.6 0.4 E v 0.2 Figure 9. Scarring density (m/mz) in relationship to distance from boats engaged in fishing. Blue circles are all observations. Red triangles represent the most densely scarred cells (top 10% of observations at each distance in 100 m increments). The rZ for all observations is 0.005 and the rZ for the top 10% of oberserva- tions is 0.82. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 11 RESULTS Scar Mapping A total of 11,751 line segments representing 527,498 m (326.2 miles) of propeller scars were mapped throughout Florida Bay (Fig. 10). This does not represent the actual number of individual scarring events. In some cases, scars cut across patchy grass flats or traversed deeper areas or were otherwise not continuous. These discontinuous areas were not mapped and the resulting "map" of an individual scarring event may be composed of one or more individual lines. Mapped scars ranged in length from 2.1 m to 1680 m with a mean length of 44.5 (S.D. ± 52.7) m. Calculated scar densities ranged from 0 to 0.025 m/mz with the majority (> 75%) of the 100X100 m grid cells mapped with scarring less than 0.0125 m/m2. Scar density mapping suggests that scars cover a large proportion of shallow water areas and patterns generally match those of the shallow flats and mud banks that separate the more than 40 basins that comprise Florida Bay. Comparison of the 2004 imagery with a partial set of 2006 higher resolution imagery resulted in detection of 340 scars totaling 23,443 m using the 2004 imagery versus 3975 scars totaling 155,550 m using the 2006 imagery (Fig.11). Change Analysis The number and total length of prop scars increased between 1999 and 2004 at all three sites (Table 1). All sites had 4 to 5 times as many scars in 2004 than in 1999. Between 9.8 and 15.6% of scars that were present in 1999 were still visible 5 years later. At Cross Bank, where imagery from 2006 was available, the number and total length of scars decreased be- tween 2004 and 2006 by 20% and 17% respectively, yet in this same time 36.7% of the scars that were visible in 2004 were still visible in 2006 (Table 1). Impacted vegetation at the wheel ditch on Shell Key Bank (Fig.12) increased in area by 3.5 times between 1995 and 2004 (Table 2). y w dP r`�o-�- � WJ y � � �..s e • A qQ . coo W ._ tNi* , n Nyy` F Mapped propeller scams 14 KM Shoreline Figure 10. Overview of propeller scarring in Florida Bay, Everglades National Park. 12 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) E-**,dM Nb1owl Fwk Area of interest d, r"\ 1, '-� ,1 �. f ; .fi F f fi , •.I . , 1 � SIP � ' � � 1°-. '•+� r fi+ � . P^'�° .'�� ksY�'*i1 •rya-��-�5.� '' �fC'j-•� � �� �'� q ..{ 1•t, N Scars mapped from 2004 imagery Scars mapped from 2006 imagery J 0 0.5 1 2 Xrn Shoreline I L L L L L L Figure 11. Comparison of propeller scars mapped using 2004 digital imagery (yellow) with 2006 higher resolution imagery (red). Table 1. Number of scars, total length of scars, and percent of scars remaining from one mapping period to the next at three locations in Florida Bay, Everglades National Park. Location Year Number Length Percent of Scars (m) of scars remaining Cross Bank 1999 83 4342 n/a Cross Bank 2004 387 14395 15.6 Cross Bank 2006 311 11959 36.7 Shell Key Bank 1999 52 3475 n/a Shell Key Bank 2004 225 9986 15.4 Twisty Mile 1999 61 2936 n/a Twisty Mile 2004 300 12360 9.8 Geospatial Analysis A wide range of scar densities occur at all distances for the proximity variables and at all depths for the water depth vari- able (Fig. 13). A larger number of cells have prop scars when they are in shallow water depths and in close proximity to: channels; shorelines; and locations where boating activities include fishing or transit for both recreational and guided trips. For all variables, regressions were significant (P:50.001) toward higher densities of scarring as distance decreased or with decreasing water depth (Table 3 and Figs.14 and 15). The exception was marine facilities (DockPx), which has a very low r2 and, although significant, the relationship with scar- Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 13 Figure 12. Time sequence of digital imagery (1995-2004) showing continual expansion of propeller dredged wheel ditch on Shell Key Bank. ring density suggests a very slight increase in scarring density as distance from marine facilities increases. Proximity to all channels (ChanPx) and marked channels (MChan Px) pro- duced similar r2 values and the regression analysis suggests that adding unmarked channels into the regression analy- sis does not result in an increase in scarring near channels. Regressions on boating use showed the highest r2 value for proximity to fishing boats (FishPx), followed by proximity to Table 2. Area of damaged submerged aquatic vegetation associated with a propeller dredged channel through Shell Key Bank. Location Year Area of wheel ditch (ha) Shell Key Wheel Ditch 1995 0.15 Shell Key Wheel Ditch 1999 0.33 Shell Key Wheel Ditch 2004 0.52 Propeller scar and associated turbidity in Florida Bay, freshly created by a fishing boat in January 2008 (left and above). Photos by William Perry, ENP. 14 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) transiting boats (TransitPx), recreational boats (RecPx), and commercial boats (ComPx). Similar trends were observed with increased presence, regardless of density, of scarring in the grid cells as the fea- ture proximity or water depth decreased (Fig. 8). The lack of observations in areas shallower than 2.0 ft in the depth variable is partly an artifact of the methods used for data col- lection. Access to shallow areas was limited because bathy- metric data were collected with a fathometer mounted to a boat. Consequently, depths of 2.0 ft represent depths <_ 2.0 ft. All Channel Proximity 0.12 0.1 c 0.08 s 0.06 3 0.04 0.02 0 500 2500 4500 6500 8500 Distance, m Shore Proximity 0.06 0.05 0.04 .3 0.03 12 0.02 0.01 0 1000 3000 5000 7000 9000 11000 13000 Distance, m Recreational Boat Proximity 0.07 0.06 a 0.05 0.04 3 0.03 v 0.02 0.01 0 200 600 1000 1400 1800 >2000 Distance, m Improved bathymetric data are required to better understand conditions in these most shallow areas of the bay. In most cases, maximum scar densities are strongly related to the explanatory variable. Most notable are the relationships between proximity to most boating activities and maximum likely scar density. Proximity to channels and water depth both display a moderate relationship, while there is weak, yet significant inverse relationship with close proximity to marine facilities. Proximity to commercial boat activity has the weak- est relationship. Marked Channel Proximity 0.12 0.1 c 0.08 Y 0.06 3 v 0.04 0.02 0 500 2500 4500 6500 8500 Distance, m Commercial Boat Proximity 0.06 0.05 0.04 s 0.03 12 0,02 0.01 0 1000 3000 5000 7000 9000 >10000 Distance, m Dock Proximity 0.7 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 as. 0.05 3 0.04 e 0.03 0 0.02 0.01 l 0 M - - , -, t 1000 7000 13000 19000 Distance, m Transit Boat Proximity 0.06 0.05 0.04 as 0.03 12 v" 0.02 0.01 0 V 1111, ull 1000 3000 5000 7000 9000 >10000 Distance, m Water Depth 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 3 0.04 v 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 <2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 Water Depth, ft Figure 13. Proportion of scar presence for all nine explanatory variables. Scar presence is the count of 100x100 m cells which overlap with mapped scars. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 15 n M Figure 14. Scar density and water depths in Florida Bay (zoom below). Proximity to boat use for recreation, fishing, and transit, along with proximity to shore, had the strongest influence on estimates of maximum likely scarring (Table 3). Most recreational boat use is related to fishing activity, so only one variable, fishing proximity (with the higher r2 of the two) was selected for the composite index model. Distance from chan- Scar Density if High Low Water Depth Ft, mare High : 9.8 Low : 1.8 nels and distance from commercial boats have less influence on the composite model. Dock proximity turns out to be an important influence on the model near shore. This variable separates out shoreline proximity so that distances from the small keys within the ENP portion of Florida Bay, where scar- ring is often present, is distinct from the distances associated Table 3. Linear regression results for the nine explanatory vari- ables versus maximum likely scar density (*** P50.001). N Estimate rz ChanPx 147 -9.702e-06 0.49*** MChanPx 147 -1.096e-05 0.49*** DockPx 3297 7.292e-07 0.09*** ShorePx 137 -1.358e-05 0.73*** FishPx 37 -5.454e-05 0.82*** TransitPx 58 -3.667e-05 0.75*** RecPx 37 -5.015e-05 0.70*** ComPx 297 -3.515e-06 0.43*** Depth 81 -0.022526 0.61*** 16 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) N E 0 E 0 E 0 ® O O E, ° Cb O 0 O O° 0 O 0 a�i 0•�p .. o a�i dp' . O 0 a db go go"°D a�' a O O O 0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000 0 5000 15000 ChanPx (m) MChanPx (m) DockPx (m) N E 9 � ° E ° o E E 0 E o :... 8 0 OIG .O '•.000� O•'• �(9 O 0 0 0 0 0 2000 4000 6000 500 1000 2000 0 1000 2000 3000 ShorePx (m) FishPx (m) TransitPx (m) N E 0 E 0 O E 0 0 +, o $ E O ® O O O 0 E O °° 0 U O O •� •. O O O C900� O O 0 O '••� O O 0 0 CO o Q. 0 0 0 500 1000 2000 0 5000 10000 2 3 4 5 6 RecPx (m) ComPx (m) Depth (m) Figure 15. Top 10% of scar densities in relationship to proximity to all channels (ChanPX), proximity to marked channels (MChanPx), proximity to marine facilities (DockPx), proximity to shorelines (ShorePx), proximity to fishing boats (FishPx), proximity to transiting boats (TransitPx), proximity to recreational boats (RecPx), proximity to commercial boats (ComPx), and water depth (Depth). Regres- sions of data points are shown as a solid line. Dashed lines indicate 95% confidence limits. with the main keys (Key Largo to Long Key) that are outside of ENP (often 1 to 3 miles from the park boundary) where most of the marine facilities are located and where scarring was limited. Pearson's product -moment correlation scores for each unique pair of variables are presented in Table 4. FishPx and RecPx are highly correlated, as are RecPx and TransitPx. FishPx and TransitPx have moderately high cor- relations. ChanPx and MChanPx are also moderately highly correlated. The variables used in spatially -explicit data layers for statistical modeling of maximum expected scarring densities were selected based on r2 values (Table 3) and correlation scores (Table 4). FishPx has the strongest linear relationship to scarring density. RecPx and TransitPx also had a significant relationship to scarring, however their high correlation with FishPx allowed these two variables to be removed from the composite index model. ShorePx and Depth also have good relationships with scar density and were included. Channel proximity was only modestly associated with scar density, but was retained because it appears to influence the final score of some shallow areas and because of the potential to explore channel management options in order to reduce prop scarring. ChanPx and MChanPx are highly correlated, so only ChanPx was selected. ComPx and DockPx were not retained because Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 17 of their low r' values (Table 3). The spatially -explicit regres- sions of the four selected variables (FishPx, ShorePx, ChanPx, and Depth) are shown in Fig.16. The composite index model suggests that large parts of Florida Bay are susceptible to scarring (Fig. 17). In addition, scarring data generally overlap areas that were predicted by the model to be scarred, with no substantial omission or commission. Assigning a threshold of 0.085 m/mz or greater to the composite index model captures most of the areas and patterns of observed prop scarring in Florida Bay (Fig. 18). Table 4. Pearson's product -moment correlations for all pairs of variables (df= 197626, P 5 0.001 for all correlations). ChanPX MChanPX DockPx ShorePx FishPx TransitPx RecPx Comex MChanPx 0.76 DockPx -0.08 0.34 ShorePx 0.52 0.59 0.34 FishPx 0.51 0.35 -0.04 0.19 TransitPx 0.47 0.35 0.05 0.14 0.76 RecPx 0.6 0.41 -0.05 0.22 0.92 0.88 Comex -0.32 -0.07 -0.44 -0.31 0.03 0.17 0.02 Depth 0.39 0.29 0.06 0.46 0.14 -0.01 0.15 -0.58 41 ,.. 1 . 111F 4 i Figure 16. Modeled maximum scar densities based on 1) proximity to channel, 2) proximity to fishing boats, 3) proximity to shoreline, and 4) water depth. 18 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) Channel between the western -most of the Bob Allen Keys and the small unnamed key to the southwest of west Bob Allen Key. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, ENP. 4 0 3 > 7 14 Km 1 i u I A i , I Expected Maximum S►ta sing DoIns +y # valrieble Me High ; 0.10 9 W'0A Figure 17. Modeled maximum -likely boat -prop scarring using shoreline proximity, fishing proximity, channel proximity, and water depth. Observed scars are overlain in orange. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 19 �t8 M r 4L r 1 �k N ' ■ modelled scarring density >_ 0.85 m/mz Vie+ scars mapped from 2004 aerial imagery A 3.5 7 14 KmI =A Figure 18. Modeled maximum boat scar densities are shown in green and observed scars are shown in orange. Panhandle Key looking south toward Gopher keys. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, ENP. 20 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) DISCUSSION Results of the prop scarring analyses document that scarred areas are extensive and ubiquitous throughout the shallow waters of Florida Bay. Scarring was limited to shallow areas (<_ 6.5 ft), but did not appear to be restricted to any particular bottom feature, e.g., only on banks, near channels, or near the Florida Keys. Scarring presence is substantially greater than that reported by Sargent et al. (1995) (Fig. 19). Our approach to the quantification of scarring density was different that employed by Sargent et al. (1995); we used a 100 m2 grid cell layer to calculate density, as opposed to using a density scale and hand -drawn polygons around scarred areas. We recom- mend the grid -based approach for future studies because it eliminates any ambiguity as to where scarred polygons begin or end. Given the limitations of the 1995 map, as expressed by Sargent et al. (1995), it is unclear what portion of the current mapping effort represents an increase in scarring and what portion reflects the availability of better mapping resources. Regardless, the current mapping effort provides an improved baseline of scarred areas inside the Florida Bay portion of t add- ' �r 4 3.5 7 14 Km 1 a L Y 1 'O'Ac ENE. Our comparison of the 2004 imagery to the 2006 higher resolution imagery in north -central Florida Bay suggests that we may have underestimated the number of scars by a fac- tor of — 6.5 and the total length of scars by a factor of — 11.5. Consequently, our results represent a conservative estimate of scarring presence, mean length, total length, and density. We emphasize that the results of this study substantially under- estimate total scarring (length of scars and quantity of scars) (Fig.11) and scarring density based on the following factors: 1. In heavily damaged areas, it was not possible to map every individual scar because scars tend to be indiscernible from each other. Polygon data would be necessary in these areas of scarring and better represent scarring impacts adjacent to heavily used areas, such as channels. 2. In addition to intrinsic photo quality issues, surface glare, wind related surface disturbance, and sun angle in some areas of the imagery prevented differentiation of the bay bottom and hampered our ability to map scars; therefore, causing us to miss scars. w 4 ii n �-Z Mapped scars - Sumed area polygm from 5arWkL at. al. 19995 Sc ax mapped Prom 2004 aerial irrkrA7 • Figure 19. Comparison of prop scarring polygons identified by Sargent et al. (1995) with individual scars identified in this study. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 21 3. Water transparency, limited by turbidity and possibly by algal blooms at the time of acquisition, also inhibited our ability to map scars in some areas. This factor made it infeasible to map prop scars in ENP's western coastal seagrass beds, i.e., from the Ten Thousand Islands to Cape Sable; hence, alternative methods are being pursued. 4. Field observations suggest that, in some cases, scars fill in with drift algae; rendering scars in these areas indiscernible in aerial photographic interpretation. Given these limiting factors, we stress the fact that our re- sults neither represent a full accounting of scarring by quan- tity or by length, nor accurate estimates of scarring density. Rather, the results are useful to describe relative scar density, patterns of scarring density as they relate to measurable visi- tor use factors, and areas where management strategies can be focused to achieve improved resource and visitor use con- ditions, including restoration of prop scarred seagrass beds. Further, these analyses do not assess the depth that individual prop scars extend into the bay bottom, which can influence the ability of seagrass beds to recover. Our scarring change analysis documents that some prop scarred areas are, at best, maintaining the same number and length of scars (i.e., there is no net recovery); while the data also suggest that in some locations the quantity of prop scars and their length are increasing over time. Many factors, including the four factors listed above, contribute to uncertainty related to interpretation of the imagery used for the change analysis. These sources of error make it difficult to develop definitive conclusions related to trends in prop scarring at specific loca- tions, but it is reasonable to conclude that scarring levels are not improving and are probably increasing. The substantial in- creases in mapped scars between 1995 and 2004 at individual sites, the persistence of scars at all change analysis sites, the increase in the south Florida population, and the increase in motor boat registrations, suggest that prop scarring is likely to remain a prominent resource concern in ENP. In addition, re- cent upward trends in gasoline prices may make operation of large powerboats, those that typically fish and recreate farther offshore, less financially practical and therefore an increase in the number of boaters using smaller flats and bay boats is likely to occur. Moreover, prop scarring represents a problem unlikely to improve without new strategies employed through natural resource management initiatives. Prop scarring is directly related to water depth. While it is not surprising that prop scarring is greatest in shallow areas, our analysis suggests that the bulk of scarring occurs at depths of 3.5 ft or less. This finding is important because management plans may consider the use of depth thresholds to manage access of motorized watercraft to areas that are most suscep- tible to prop scarring. The lack of high resolution bathymetry makes it difficult to estimate scarring density at the shallowest levels (i.e., 0.5,1.0, and 1.5 ft depths); however, the density of scarred areas in depths of 2.5 ft and < 2.0 It clearly suggests that shallower depths are likely to experience even more scar- ring. Our analysis also suggests that scarring is denser near shorelines within ENP portions of Florida Bay. The strong relationship between scarring and proxim- ity to navigational channels suggests that resource managers should, among other factors, focus on strategies that manage navigation in and around Florida Bay. The channels are a con- duit from which boaters venture out into the bay, so it is not surprising that areas near channels will suffer greater scarring. Channels may also be impacting adjacent areas. For example, shallow areas relatively near channels may be more likely to have heavier scarring than shallow areas farther away from channels. The composite index (Fig. 18) reveals this indirect effect. Interestingly, there was no clear difference in this rela- tionship when examining marked and unmarked channels although we initially hypothesized that marked channels may have a lower density of scarring around them than unmarked channels. The lack of difference when comparing scarring between marked versus unmarked channels may be a result of more intensive use of marked channels versus unmarked channels. Florida Bay is difficult to navigate; therefore, new and inexperienced users are likely to choose to use those channels that are clearly marked. In addition, inexperienced anglers may subsequently focus exploratory trips, i.e., trips away from channels to explore new areas for fishing, in and around marked channels. In contrast, unmarked channels are likely to be used less intensely and most often by boaters that have substantial experience. While it is desirable to mark more clearly navigational channels that assist with navigation throughout Florida Bay, improving these aids to navigation will probably only help reduce scarring in areas that are very close to the channel, a clear area where navigational mishaps occur. Therefore, it is not likely that these markings will result in a large scale decrease in scarring across Florida Bay. Moreover, in some areas it is possible that scarring could become more intense adjacent to newly marked channels because they may attract more users and increase the frequency of exploratory trips emanating from the channels. In other areas, such as southeastern Florida Bay, there is extensive scarring of mud banks, presumably because motorboat operators are trying to Boat driver causing benthic damages and associated turbidity at the east end of Crocodile Dragover. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, ENP. 22 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) traverse these banks. Navigational markings in these areas, if used appropriately, should reduce scarring. Scar density is also related to the presence of boats that are in the park on fishing trips. Because scarring is caused by motorboats, these results suggest that managing the intensity of motorboat activity in specific, high -impact areas should result in a decrease in scar density. We did not explore rela- tionships between scarring and scar density by boat type or by boating practices. Additional studies on the size of boats us- ing ENP may lead to more specific management recommen- dations based on a range of ideas that have been suggested by the public during public involvement phases of the GMP. Managers should also consider successful strategies that have been implemented by other federal, state, and local marine re- source management agencies, including lessons learned from the many other marine natural areas in Florida. These strate- gies have taken into consideration factors such as boat size, potential draft, hull shape, horsepower, and use of adjustable outboard motor mounts, e.g., jack plates. We are not aware of analyses that support the hypothesis that a particular horse- power rating or boat size would result in more or less prop scarring. In Lignumvitae Key Submerged Lands Management Area, boat size was not related to an increase in the area of benthic damage, but it was related to damage severity (Engeman et al. 2008). Generally, managers should consider the notion that larger horsepower motors, larger propellers, longer outboard motor shaft lengths, and deeper running draft depths could result in more scarring and greater dam- age in shallow waters. For example, managers could consider restricting access of large, twin outboard boats from the shal- lowest waters in Florida Bay. It is worth noting that the large majority of mapped scars appear to be caused by single engine boats. Twin engine prop scars in ENP were concentrated near the Intercoastal Waterway along the park boundary near the Florida Keys. More detailed analyses are necessary to under- stand further the relative contribution of boat and outboard motor type to scarring density and pattern. Secondary Impacts The literature on secondary impacts of prop scarring on higher trophic level organisms is mixed. Even pristine seagrass beds comprise heterogeneous landscapes that include areas without seagrass. These zones and edges arguably provide transitional areas where important ecological interactions occur, e.g., ambush points affecting predator -prey dynamics. However, negative impacts of prop scars have been observed. For example, Uhrin and Holmquist (2003) observed lower abundances of crabs and molluscs in and around scars, and Burfeind and Stunz (2007) observed a decrease in shrimp growth in scarred areas. In contrast, several studies indicate no impact to fish in scarred areas (Bell et al. 2002, Uhrin and Holmquist 2003, Burnfield and Stunz 2007) and no impact to overall nekton communities (Burnfield and Stunz 2006). Concern is warranted related to impacts of sediment sus- pension and wave activity that is caused by motorboats and the wakes they create. These secondary impacts could impact intact seagrass beds by reducing overall light transparency and reduce the potential for seagrass recovery in scarred areas. However, boat wakes have been found to have small impacts on sediment suspension and water quality relative to natural wave action (Koch 2002). It is not clear if the chronic effects of multiple boats traveling through concentrated transit areas, such as boat channels, may negatively impact seagrass recov- cry in adjacent areas. Prop scarring may also impact visitor use experiences in ENP. As a premier sportfishing destination, Florida Bay is ex- tremely important to the recreational fishing community, in- cluding professional fishing guides in the Miami, Homestead, and Florida Keys area. These stakeholders have a vested inter- est in providing visitors from all over the world with a quality experience in the park. Visitor use satisfaction during recre- ational fishing trips is likely to be affected by aesthetics and fishing success. Park aesthetic values are clearly affected by prop scarring. Florida Bay tends to have relatively high water transparency and flats fishermen typically employ sight -fish- ing techniques. As such, visitor experiences may be negatively influenced by the aesthetic impacts caused by prop scarring. Further study would be needed to evaluate the effect of prop scarring on visitor experience. At the same time, since ENP is also the largest desig- nated wilderness area east of the Rocky Mountains, it is a premier destination for visitors seeking backcountry experi- ences. Some of these experiences are sought in Florida Bay. Wilderness values that are provided include opportunities for solitude, wildlife viewing, paddling, fishing, interpretive and education programs, and camping. Because some of these op- portunities can be adversely impacted by prop scarring, and the activities and behaviors that cause prop scarring, the pub- lic has indicated that future management of Florida Bay and other marine areas should enhance wilderness experiences. Visitors to Everglades National Park kayaking in Florida Bay. Photo by Rodney Cammauf, ENP. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 23 Management Implications The issues and challenges presented in this report will be ad- dressed as ENP continues development of its GMP in 2008 and 2009. The GMP will identify objectives and desired con- ditions to be sought by park managers in cooperation with the public related to natural and cultural resource conditions and visitor use experiences that should be provided. The GMP will be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement, which requires public involvement at several key steps in its development. Specific to managing Florida Bay, a variety of preventative management options including mandatory edu- cation programs and boat permits for all boaters in ENP, im- proved aids to navigation, pole and troll zones, idle and speed zones, limiting motorized watercraft access by watercraft characteristics, and area -specific seasonal access limits or clo- sures, should be considered to minimize damages caused by prop scarring. Education is an important first step in the prevention of prop scar damage. Implementing a comprehensive and wide - reaching education program will be challenging considering the number of entry points to Florida Bay, the geographically diverse group of users, and the fact that education is not a substitute for on -the -water experience and local knowledge. Given that Duarte et al. (2008) report seagrass ecosystems receive the lowest level of coverage in the media when com- pared to mangroves and coral reefs, it is not surprising that public awareness is limited. They recommend improved communication of scientific information through formal and informal efforts. Regulatory requirements, paired with educa- tion, such as those that require users to have mandatory safe boating courses may be more effective. However, Florida Bay is complex; perhaps the largest and most complex shallow water body to be examined for marine management options. All potential management options will be challenging and re- quire substantial cooperation with the public. Application of our findings to the GMP process and review of management efforts in other coastal areas will help to ensure that the best approaches are being considered. Slow speed and idle zones may be used to slow motor- ized watercraft and reduce the potential for seagrass damage. These zones are widely used in Florida in an attempt to re- duce collisions between boaters and wildlife. However, boats generally draft more water when idling. Therefore, idling or slow speed transit may also result in some level of scarring and associated turbidity. Implementation of pole and troll zones appear to be on the rise in coastal areas of Florida recently. These zones greatly reduce or eliminate the possibility of prop scarring by only allowing human -powered transit via push poles and very low horsepower electric motors for boat locomotion. Impacts from poling activities and trolling motors are possible, but likely to be much less intense compared to prop scarring. Pole and troll zones are likely to present solutions that have a high probability of reducing prop scar impacts while still allowing access. However, managing motorboat access does not guar- antee that scarred areas will recover or that the area of dam- age will decline. For example, Engeman et al. (2008) report a continual increase in benthic damages despite the establish- ment of a no -motor -zone area in Lignumvitae Key, Florida. A full review of the existing pole and troll zones is warranted prior to implementation in ENP. Many challenges are associ- ated with implementing pole and troll zones. Maintaining a reasonable level of access to traditional use areas that become pole and troll zones can be difficult if the areas are very large and require miles of human or electric -motor transit to desir- able fishing grounds. In addition, marking and communicat- ing the boundaries of pole and troll zones and enforcement of such zones would require creative solutions given the size of Florida Bay and the large extent of scar cover. Limiting access to an area completely, or to all motorized watercraft, is likely to be the most effective option to reduce seagrass scarring and would be relatively easy to enforce, but these regulations would cause the most impact to exist - South end of largest Whipray key looking south toward small Whipray. Photo by Lori Oberhofer. ENP. 24 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) ing users of Florida Bay. Complete closures should only be implemented if less restrictive strategies prove unsuccessful or are limited to areas that have extremely high scar density. Closing areas to motorized watercraft may have other values, such as maintaining pristine reference sites for scientific study, improving submerged wilderness character, and allowing sea - grass restoration programs to be successful without the threat of further impacts. Signage should be used to mark closed or limited access areas, however it should be noted that large sign implementation projects have largely failed to eliminate scarring in Pinellas County (Stowers et al. 2002); while the rate of scarring increase was reduced, an increase in scarring still occurred. Management options that are preventative in nature should be coupled with options that directly mitigate boat related injuries to seagrass beds. Methods of assessment and restoration of damaged seagrass beds should be formalized in ENP. Kirsch et al. (2005) outline the Mini-312 program cur- rently being used to quantify damage efficiently in Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. This program enables managers to prepare defensible resource damage claims and provides the baseline information needed for restoration efforts. The Mini-312 program, developed by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, has three components: a rapid, standardized assessment of seagrass boat -grounding damages with GIS products, a model of damage recovery rates, and a court -accepted calculation of compensation (the party responsible for the damage is responsible for compen- sation of loss of habitat value) (Kirsch et al. 2005). Kirsch et al. (2005) report the program has proven to be cost-effective and significantly increased the number of sites that can be assessed and restored. Implementing the program's standard- ized documentation and mapping within ENP would provide a number of opportunities including a proven and cost-effec- tive method of estimating restoration needs and costs, partic- ularly at larger blowholes, wheel ditches, and berms. Sharing of information, systematic trends analyses, and other seagrass protection experiences in common formats with other man- agement agencies will be invaluable. For example, Whitfield et al. (2002) has reported that without physical regrading, deeply scarred blowholes are unstable and vulnerable to continued degradation. In addition, increased public awareness of the financial penalties associated with damaging natural resources in ENP may also serve as a deterrent to careless boating. An in- crease in law enforcement officers patrolling ENP may also be effective in curbing seagrass damage. Costs associated with augmenting protection of seagrass beds are warranted, especially when considering the annual value of ecosystem services provided by seagrass beds (Costanza et al. 1997). A recent benefit -cost analysis suggests that the overall cost of additional law enforcement is far outweighed by the benefit of protecting seagrass beds, which were valued at 5140,752/ha (Engeman et al. 2008). Appropriate management strategies depend largely on the objectives for managing benthic resources. Managers should consider how well management strategies are likely to meet the following objectives: 1. reducing the likelihood of new scars in scarred areas, 2. allowing for recovery of seagrass in scarred areas, and 3. reducing the likelihood of scarring in pristine or relatively unscarred areas. Objective 3 is desirable because the cost of restoring sea - grass is high; hence, preservation of existing seagrass bed in- tegrity is most efficient (Milano and Deis 2003) and often far more cost effective than restoring seagrass damage. Existing, heavily scarred areas should also be considered and our anal- ysis of the most impacted areas, the upper 10% of intensely scarred areas, suggests that these defined areas (-20) could be the basis for implementing on -the -water management mea- sures and monitoring (Fig. 20). Applying effective management measures to existing scarred areas is likely to result in meeting the first two ob- jectives, but consideration of relatively unscarred areas is necessary to achieve objective 3. Meeting all three of these objectives would be consistent with the Wilderness Act which states that a wilderness area should be "protected and man- aged so as to preserve its natural conditions. " It is even possible that limiting access to some currently scarred areas could displace existing visitor use and reallocate impacts to areas that are currently not scarred. Reallocation of benthic impacts during seasonal area closures has been observed in marine commercial fisheries (e.g., Dinmore et al. 2003). Many options are available to assist with meeting these objectives. To meet objective 3, consideration could be given to management measures in areas identified using a model - based approach (Fig. 19 and 20). This would allow managers to identify for protection pristine areas that have a high likeli- hood of scarring based on physical and visitor use factors. In addition, this approach may assist in protecting areas that are heavily scarred, but could not be mapped due to poor image quality. The logistical challenges, e.g., signage, education, and enforcement, associated with implementing boating restric- tions in all areas indicated in Fig.17, would require substantial park resources. In contrast, implementing restrictions in the model -identified areas indicated in Fig. 18 would provide an option to manage a subset of areas that are most likely to have high levels of scarring, though practical challenges will still exist. Managers will need to consider a suite of strategies to address these areas. Balancing seagrass conservation with recreational boating may be accomplished most effectively by combining multiple strategies (Cole 1993). We recommend that a multi -faceted and adaptive approach be considered to manage and mitigate prop scarring in Florida Bay (Table 5). Examples of experi- ment -driven management actions include tests of channel markings with different spacing and sizes, restoration trials in scars with relatively faster -growing H. wrightii supplemented with bird roosting stakes to facilitate nutrient enrichment from Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 25 +7i� ^a ?l M ID ` • qr. o a y. A t\ �a Example management done I Most densely scarred ,area (upper 1 Q96) 4 IS 7 1d Krn l Figure 20. Clusters of the most densely scarred areas, as outlined above, are possible sites for implementation of management mea- sures, such as a pole and troll zone. Areas are approximate and only drawn as examples. bird defecation (Kenworthy et al. 2000), and assessment of Restoration trials and annual monitoring of scarring dis- scar injury response to wave and storm disturbance at differ- tribution and density would allow park managers to assess ent scar depths. Future monitoring of the benefits associated the effectiveness of various management strategies and tech - with management strategies will require continued efforts to niques in order to protect park resources and visitor experi- provide aerial interpretation of seagrass scars, combined with ences and take future action as warranted by implementing more detailed, in -water analyses of prop -scar recovery at a new approaches and by increasing or relaxing restrictions as number of indicator sites. needed to mitigate seagrass scarring. Table 5. Adaptive steps for using management tools to reduce seagrass prop scar impacts. Management tools are hypothesized to have higher potential efficacy from left to right. Protective Gradient - - - - --> --> --> --> --> Tools Education Channel Marking Boat Characteristics Pole+Troll No Access Steps 1 X 2 X X 3 X X X 4 X X X 5 X X X X 6 X X X X X 26 South Florida Natural Resources Center Technical Series (2008:1) LITERATURE CITED Andorfer, J. and C.J. Dawes. 2002. Production of rhizome meristems by the tropical seagrass Thalassia testudinum: the basis for slow recovery into propeller scars. Journal of Coastal Research. 37: 130-142. Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, D. McClellan, N. Zurcher, A. McCrea, N.R. Vaughan and J.A. Bohnsack. 2008. Final Report: Aerial survey of boater use in Everglades National Park marine waters - Florida Bay and Ten Thousand Islands. University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 97 pages. Bell, S.S., M.O. Hall, S. Soffian and K. Madley. 2002. Assessing the im- pacts of boat propeller scars on fish and shrimp utilizing seagrass beds. Ecological Applications. 12(1): 206-217. Burfeind, D.D. and G.W. Stunz. 2006. The effects of boat propeller scarring intensity on nekton abundance in subtropical seagrass meadows. Marine Biology. 148: 953-962. Burfeind, D.D. and G.W. Stunz. 2007. The effects of boat propeller scarring on nekton growth in subtropical seagrass meadows. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 1546-1551. Cole, D.N. 1993. Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation. In D.S. Smith and P.C. Hellmund, eds., Ecology of Greenways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. pp. 105-122. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R.D. Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van der Belt. 1997. The value of the world's eco- system services and natural capital. Nature. 387: 253-260. Dawes, C.J., J. Andorfer, C. Rose, C. Uranowski and N. Ehringer. 1997. Regrowth of the seagrass, Thallasia testudinum, into pro- peller scars. Aquatic Botany. 59: 139-155. Dawes, C.J., R.C. Phillips and C. Morrison. 2004. Seagrass commu- nities of the Gulf Coast of Florida: Status and Ecology. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, FL. iv+ 74 pages. Dinmore, T.A., D.E. Duplisea, B.D. Rackham, D.L. Maxwell and S. Jennings. 2003. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 60: 371-380. Duarte, C.M., J. Terrados, N.S.R. Agawin, M.D. Fortes, S. Bach and W.J. Kenworthy. 1997. Response of a mixed Philippine seagrass meadow to experimental burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 147: 285-294. Duarte, C.M., W.C. Dennison, R.J.W. Orth and T.J.B. Carruthers. 2008. The charisma of coastal ecosystems: addressing the imbal- ance. Estuaries and Coasts. 31: 233-238. Durako, M.J., M.O. Hall, F. Sargent and S. Peck. 1992. Propeller scars in seagrass beds: an assessment and experimental study of recol- onization in Weedon Island State Preserve, Florida. In: Webb F.J., Jr. (ed) Proc 19th Annual Conference Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, FL, pp. 42-53. Engeman, R.M., J.A. Duquesnel, E.M. Cowan, H.T. Smith and S.A. Shwiff. 2008. Assessing boat damage to seagrass bed habitat in a Florida park from a bioeconomics perspective. Journal of Coastal Research. 24(2 ): 527-532. ESRI 2006. ESRI° ArcMAP" 9.2. Copyright 1999-2006 ESRI Inc. All Rights Reserved. URL: http://www.esri.com. Everglades National Park. 2008. General Management Plan. 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, Florida. http://parkplanning.nps. gov/documentsList.cfm?parkld=374&projectld=11170. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC-FWRI). 2004. Metadata for ISM-CSA-Florida-Bay-2004-imagery. Unpublished. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC-FWRI). 2005. Dataset for Florida Bay Benthic Communities prepared by Avineon, Inc for FWC-FWRI. Available online at http://ocean.floridamarine.org. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC-FWRI). 2006. Dataset for Florida ma- rine facilities. Available online at http://ocean.floridarnarine.org; metadata available online at http://www.fgdl.org/metadata/fgdc- html/marfac.fgdc.htm. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007. Florida boating safety education program. Available online at: http://my- fwc.com/Boating/Docs/BoatingSafetyEdExSummOct07.pdf. Fonseca, M.S. and S.S. Bell. 1998. Influence of physical setting on seagrass landscapes near Beaufort, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 171: 109-121. Fonseca, M.S., P.E. Whitfield, W.J. Kenworthy, D.R. Colby and B.E. Julius. 2004. Use of two spatially explicit models to determine the effect of injury geometry on natural resource recovery. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 14(3): 281-298. Hammerstrom, K.K., W. J. Kenworthy, P. E. Whitfield and M. F. Merello. 2007. Response and recovery dynamics of seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme and macroal- gae in experimental motor vessel disturbances. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 345: 83-92. Hansen, M. and N.T. DeWitt. 1999. 1890 and 1990 Bathymetry of Florida Bay. South Florida Place Based Studies Open - File Report 00-347. USGS Center For Coastal and Regional Marine Geology St. Petersburg Field Office, United States Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, Florida. URL http://sotia.usgs. gov/publictions/ofr/00-347/. Hastings, K., P. Hesp and G.A. Kendrick. 1995. Seagrass loss associ- ated with boat moorings at Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Ocean Coastal Management. 26: 225-246. Kenworthy, W.J., M.S. Fonseca, P.E. Whitfield, K.K. Hammerstrom and A.C. Schwartzschild. 2000. A comparison of two methods for enhancing the recovery of seagrasses into propeller scars: Mechanical injection of a nutrient and growth hormone solution vs. defecation by roosting seabird. Final report submitted to the Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust Fund, 40 pages. Kenworthy, W.J, M.S. Fonseca, P.E. Whitfield and K.K. Hammerstrom. 2002. Analysis of seagrass recovery in experimental excavations and propeller -scar disturbances in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of Coastal Research. SI 37: 75-85. Kirsch, K.D., K.A. Barry, M.S. Fonseca, P.E. Whitfield, S.R. Meehan, W.J. Kenworthy and B.E. Julius. 2005. The Mini-312 Program - An expedited damage assessment and restoration process for sea - grasses in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of Coastal Research. SI 40:109-119. Patterns of Propeller Scarring of Seagrass in Florida Bay 27 Koch, E.W. 2002. Impact of boat -generated waves on a seagrass habi- tat. Journal of Coastal Research. 37: 66-74. Kruer, C.R. 1994. Mapping assessment of vessel damage to shallow seagrasses in the Florida Keys. Report to the Florida Department of Natural Resources and the University of South Florida/Florida Institute of Oceanography, St. Petersburg, Florida. 23 pages. Kuss, K.M. 1991. Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve Survey of Boating Impacts/ Propeller Scarring in Shallow Seagrass Beds within LVKP. Report to State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Lands. 31 pages. Marba, N., M.E. Gallegos, M. Merino and C.M. Duarte.1994. Vertical growth of Thalassia testudinum: seasonal and interannual vari- ability. Aquatic Botany. 47: 1-11. Milano, G.R. and D. R. Deis. 2003. Biscayne Bay seagrasses and re- cent restoration efforts. In Seagrass restoration: success, failure, and the costs of both. Eds S. F. Treat and R.R. Lewis III. Lewis Environmental Services Inc. Valrico, FL. 115-129. National Park Service (NPS) and Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association (FKFGA). 2006a. Florida Bay Map and Guide. Published online by the National Park Service at http://www.nps. gov/ever/planyourvisit/upload/FloridaBayMap&GuideSmall. pdf. National Park Service (NPS). 2006b. Year 2005 annual marine fish- eries report Everglades National Park. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park. Homestead, FL. 56 pages. Orth, R.J, T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, Jr., A. R. Hughes, G.A. Hendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnki, F.T. Short, M. Waycott and S.L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience. 56 (12): 987-996. R Development Core Team. 2007. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-proj- ect.org. Rodriguez, R.W., R.M.T. Webb and D.M. Bush.1994. Another look at the impact of Hurricane Hugo on the shelf and coastal resources of Puerto Rico, USA. Journal of Coastal Research.10: 278-296. Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz and C.R. Cruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical ReportTR-1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. St. Petersburg, FL. 66 pages. Stowers, J. F., E. Fehrmann, A. Squires. 2002. Seagrass scarring in Tampa Bay: impact analysis and management options. Pages 47-54 in H.S. Greening, ed. Seagrass Management: It's Not Just Nutrients! 2000 Aug 22-24; St. Petersburg, FL. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 246 pages. Uhrin, A.V. and J.G. Holmquist. 2003. Effects of propeller scarring on macrofaunal use of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 250: 61-70. USGS. 2007. National Map Accuracy Standards. Published online at http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/nmpstds/nmas.html. Whitfield, PE., Kenworthy, W.J, Fonseca, M.S. and K. Hammerstrom. 2002. The role of a hurricane in expansion of disturbances initi- ated by motor vessels on subtropical seagrass banks. Journal of Coastal Research. 37: 86-99. Woolpert, Inc. 2007. Report of Topographic Survey Minimum Technical Standards. Monroe County, Florida 2006 Orthophoto Project. Report to Florida Department of Transportation, District VI.41 pages. Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds in southern Florida. Aquatic Botany. 2: 127-139. Exhibit 10 Journal of Coastal Research 24 1 2 1 527-532 1 West Palm Beach, Florida I March 2008 Assessing Boat Damage to Seagrass Bed Habitat in a Florida Park from a Bioeconomics Perspective Richard M. Engeman' , Janice A. Duquesnel' , Ernest M. Cowa&, Henry T. Smithfi , Stephanie A. Shwiff' , and Melissa Karli& tNational Wildlife Research Center 4101 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521-2154, U.S.A. richard.m.engeman@aphis. usda.gov tFlorida Park Service Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park P.O. Box 1052 Islamorada, FL 33036, U.S.A. $Florida Park Service Florida Department of Environmental Protection 13798 SE Federal Highway Hobe Sound, FL 33455, U.S.A. ttFlorida Atlantic University Wilkes Honors College 5353 Parkside Drive Jupiter, FL 33458, U.S.A. III,I,,,. ENGEMAN, R.M.; DUQUESNEL, J.A.; COWAN, E.M.; SMITH, H.T.; SHWIFF, S.A., and KARLIN, M., 2008. As- sessing boat damage to seagrass bed habitat in a Florida park from a bioeconomics perspective. Journal of Coastal • • • ' Research, 24(2), 527-532. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. .. Seagrass bed habitat is an important biotic community in decline worldwide. Boat damage has long been recognized for its negative impacts on shallow -water seagrass beds, with those along the Florida coast particularly vulnerable in the face of a large human population possessing a large number of boats. Boat scars to seagrass beds recover slowly, resulting in new damage that often outpaces recovery of existing damage. We examined the rate of accumulation of total area composed of boat scars from 1994 to 2005 at Lignumvitae Key Submerged Land Managed Area, an area containing approximately 3400 ha of seagrass beds. We found the total area of damage increased from 1994 to 1997 by an average of 27.1 ha/y and from 1997 to 2005 by an average of 10.8 ha/y. This most recent rate of damage increase represents an additional $1,523,819 annual loss in habitat value using cost figures based on costs from restoration attempts permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency. Severe groundings investigated by law enforcement officers showed increasing trends over time in the average amount and severity of damage. The size of the boat inflicting the damage was more closely related to the severity of damage than to the amount of damage. The most immediate and practical measures for preventing damage include increasing signage to warn boaters to avoid seagrass beds and increasing law enforcement staff. Signage is a relatively low-cost, long-term investment that becomes cost- effective even if only 0.03 ha of seagrass bed damage is averted over the life of the signs. Each patrol staff member added becomes cost-effective even if only 0.42 ha of damage is averted annually. Holding the total area of damage constant for 1 year (new damage = recovery) would represent a benefit -cost ratio of 25.71 if accomplished with only one additional law enforcement officer. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Benefit -cost ratio, damage estimation, habitat valuation, habitat restoration, uutland. Coastal seagrass beds have been declining throughout the world for a variety of reasons (SHORT and WYLLIE-ECHEVER- RIA, 1996). For many years, propeller scars from boats have been recognized for their significant negative impacts to sea - grass beds (e.g., MATTHEWS, LAZAR, and HUNT, 1991; PHIL- LIPS, 1960; WOODBURN et al., 1957; ZIEMAN, 1976). Shallow - water seagrass beds less than 2 m deep, such as those com- monly found around Florida's coast, are especially susceptible to boat damage (CREED and AMADo FILHO, 1999). Moreover, seagrass beds in Florida are particularly likely to receive boat damage because more than 8 million people live along the Florida coast with over 750,000 registered vessels (BELL et al., 2002). Furthermore, boat damage may interact synergis- tically with other factors, such as water clarity, to produce further declines (ORTH and MOORE, 1983; PREEN, LEE LONG, and COLES, 1995). Groundings create one or more injury DOI..10.2112 / 06-0703.1 received 17 May 2006; accepted in revision 30 January 2007. types, including propeller scars, hull impressions, hull scars, blowholes (formed when the vessel uses its engines in an at- tempt to dislodge itself; KIRSCH et al., 2005), and berms (SAR- GENT et al., 1995). Depending on the extent of the damage (including the amount of topographic alteration), an injured seagrass bed may not recover on its own. Even so, natural recovery without implementing restoration techniques is slow, potentially taking more than 10 years (SARGENT et al., 1995; ZIEMAN, 1976), and it can take up to 60 years for the seagrass bed to return to its climax Thalassia community (FONSECA et al., 2004). Seagrass bed productivity ranks among the highest of any natural biotic community (ZIEMAN and WETZEL, 1980). In addition, seagrass beds have been recognized for the ecolog- ical function they provide to coastal ecosystems, thus bearing out the importance of habitat restoration (FONSECA et al., 2002). Furthermore, seagrass blades remove suspended sed- iment from the water column (FONSECA, KENWORTHY, and THAYER, 1998), promote good water quality (FONSECA, KENWORTHY, and THAYER, 1998; KENWORTHY and 528 Engeman et al. SCHWARzscHILD, 1995), produce oxygen (FONSECA, 1990; FONSECA, KENWORTHY, and THAYER, 1998), and provide food and shelter for numerous organisms (OGDEN and ZIE- MAN, 1977). Seagrass beds release their production into es- tuarine/marine communities through both detrital food webs (FONSECA, 1990) and herbivorous food webs (OGDEN and ZIE- MAN, 1977). Seagrasses stabilize marine sands and sedi- ments, thereby allowing other floral and faunal components to colonize these areas (FONSECA, 1990; KENwORTHY and SCHWARzscHILD, 1995). Seagrass habitat also is a significant ecological component for coral reef ecosystems offshore, with negative impacts to this habitat adversely impacting the cor- al reef habitat (OGDEN and ZIEMAN, 1977). Similarly, sea - grass habitat is vital to the organisms that migrate among the marine tidal swamp, the seagrass beds, and the coral reef system on a seasonal or diurnal cycle (OGDEN and ZIEMAN, 1977). Lignumvitae Key Submerged Land Managed Area (LKSLMA) is an important conservation area for seagrass bed habitat in Florida. Here, we analyze two sources of data to examine the amount and value of boat damage to seagrass bed habitat over time. We also consider the benefits and costs of the feasible field methods for protecting this habitat most probable for implementation. METHODS Study Area and Damage Measurements LKSLMA encompasses the 4050 ha surrounding the is- lands of Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park, Shell Key Preserve State Park, and Indian Key Historic State Park (FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STAFF, 2000). This submerged land mostly comprises marine grass bed habitat (--3400 ha) but also contains marine com- posite substrate and marine consolidated substrate on the shallow flats and marine unconsolidated substrate in the channels (FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRO- TECTION STAFF, 2000; FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY STAFF, 1990). Although the seagrass beds are off-limits to boating, groundings frequently occur. Current methodology for measuring damage to seagrass beds includes aerial photographic documentation and quan- titative measurements of damage at the boat groundings in- vestigated by law enforcement officers. Photographs showing boat scars include both investigated and uninvestigated boat groundings. Aerial photography of LKSLMA was carried out in 1994, 1997, and 2005 through a grant from the Coastal Zone Management Program. The combined area of damage from all scars was measured from these aerial photographs for each year to provide status and trend data on the accu- mulation of boat scars. Because seagrass beds are off-limits to boating, groundings in seagrass beds merit a law enforcement response. When possible, park ranger responses to grounded boats on LKSLMA allowed the immediate location and measurement of damage impacts at investigated grounding sites. The re- sponding law enforcement officer recorded the global posi- tioning system locations of grounding incidents and marked sites with at least one polyvinyl chloride (PVC) stake at the end of the damage (usually the stern of the grounded vessel). The damage measured consisted of alteration to the substrate and cutting of seagrass rhizomes by the vessel or the propel- ler but not areas where only the seagrass blades were cut above the surface of the substrate. A measuring tape attached to the PVC stake was used to measure the length of the propeller scar. Underwater pho- tographs were taken of seagrass bed injuries associated with the grounding event, including blowholes, propeller scars, berms, and vessel impressions. If more than one injury type was observed for a grounding incident, then each was mea- sured separately. Width of the scar was measured at specified increments, every 3 m, 6 m, or 15 m, depending upon the total length of the scar. Scars up to 76 m had width measured every 3 m. Scars between 76 m and 152 m had width mea- sured every 6 m. Scars longer than 152 m had width mea- sured every 15 m. Length, width, and depth were measured separately for blowholes, berms, and vessel impressions and were subtracted from the total length of the propeller scar so that no duplicate measurements were recorded for the differ- ent injuries. Damage of significant depth (>12 cm) was re- corded to assess whether topographic restoration would be necessary for seagrass restoration, because seagrass rhi- zomes cannot grow vertically if the topographic difference is greater than 20 cm (KENwORTHY et al., 2002). In such cases, if topographic restoration is not implemented, the seagrass injury will not recover and erosion may increase the injury size. Floral and faunal species diversity and abundance were surveyed in the surrounding seagrass flat to provide compa- rable information on the species lost to the injury. Coral spe- cies, including ivory tube coral (Oculina spp.), golfball coral (Favia fragum), finger coral (Porites porites and P. furcata), and rose coral (Manicina areolata) were recorded, but they were not part of cost calculation guidelines, making economic estimates of damage conservative. Average width was cal- culated for the propeller scar and other injury types, if ap- plicable, and a total injury area was calculated for each injury type at each damage site. Seagrass Habitat Valuations Credible valuation of special habitats is not straightfor- ward. Special habitats such as wetlands have limited market value, and when selectively protected, the market value di- minishes further (KING, 1998). This is especially true for sea - grass beds since they cannot be developed. Nevertheless, multiple approaches can be applied for valuing seagrass hab- itat. The use of contingent valuation surveys is a common economic procedure, but for special habitats it tends to pro- vide abstract appraisals of habitat value (KING, 1998) and rarely forms the basis for environmental policy decisions (ADAMOWICZ, 2004). One defensible, logical, and applicable valuation for damaged habitat is to use expenditure data for permitted mitigation projects. Such data represent an empir- ical demonstration of willingness -to -pay value and are most generally available for wetland habitats. United States dollar amounts per unit area spent in efforts to restore the various wetland habitat types has been presented by KING (1998). The numbers represent the U.S. dollar amounts that envi- Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2008 Boat Damage to Seagrass in Florida 529 ronmental regulators, and to a degree elected governments, have allowed permit applicants to spend in attempts to re- place lost wetland services and values (KING, 1998). Using these figures, adjusted for inflation, leads to credible habitat valuations (ENGEMAN et al., 2004a), and this usage has been successfully applied to other special, protected habitats in Florida (ENGEMAN et al., 2003, 2004, 2007). In particular, the willingness -to -pay value for restoration of aquatic bed was $111,111.11/ha (KING, 1998). The 2005 value for this cost es- timate after adjusting for a 3% annual rate of inflation (KING, 1998; ZERBE and DIVELY, 1994) was $140,752.23/ha and was applied to the damage area measurements from the aerial photographs of the seagrass beds from 1994, 1997, and 2005. Empirical damage valuation data were also available for the subset of scars from investigated boat groundings. Pin- pointing fresh damage geographically and temporally is only practical when responding to a grounding incident. Most groundings are not reported and consequently are not inves- tigated because boaters are able to free themselves. Boaters also are financially motivated to free themselves to avoid costly towing expenses and fines for their damage to the sea - grass bed (described later). Thus, investigated groundings tend to be firmly lodged boats, which produce the most severe scars to the seagrass beds. Damage calculations used by LKSLMA biological staff are based on the valuations by KRUER et al. (1996), and range from $71.47/m2 to $161.46/m2 depending on the level of topographic restoration. For dam- age sites with minimal topographic alteration, the cost was $71.47/m2. For damage sites that have topographic alteration from 0.15 to 1 m, the median cost was $116.47/m2. The me- dian cost from major injuries, such as blowholes, was $161.46/m2. As with the costs derived from permitted expen- diture, damage values used in the analyses of investigated seagrass scars were adjusted into 2005 dollars using a 3% annual rate of inflation. Data on investigated groundings were tabulated temporally according to the Florida state gov- ernment fiscal year (July 1—June 30). We calculated corre- lations to examine trends over time for investigated ground- ings in mean area of damage per such grounding, mean as- sessed value of that damage, and mean boat size causing the damage. Benefit —Cost Analyses of Management Options Monroe County, where LKSLMA is located, has been iden- tified as a high -priority county for investing resources to pro- tect seagrass beds (SARGENT et al., 1995). Based on unit costs of damage, we conducted benefit —cost analyses (BCAs) for field methods associated with identified damage prevention approaches (SARGENT et al., 1995). First, the null option of avoiding further expenditures beyond the present would be to take no additional actions toward damage prevention than the measures carried out now. Second, a method that has been demonstrated to reduce damage to seagrass beds is to increase the number of marker signs informing boaters that entry to seagrass habitat is restricted (EHRINGER, 2000). New signs cost approximately $192 per sign for materials and labor to install, and 21-23 additional signs would be needed to fully delineate the perimeter of off-limits areas, making it Table 1. Amount and value in 2005 dollars of all existing scars to sea - grass beds at Lignumvitae Key Submerged Land Managed Area, Florida, in 1994, 1997, and 2005. Average Annual Rate Total Area of of Increase in Total Value of Year Damage (ha) Damaged Area (ha/y) Existing Damage 1994 36.02 NA $5,069,895 1997 117.36 27.1 $16,518,682 2005 203.97 10.8 $28,709,232 nearly impossible for boaters to not see the boundary. The additional signs represent a one-time cost of less than $4500 to purchase and install. Third, increasing law enforcement presence by adding patrol staff would help prevent boats from venturing into seagrass beds. The annual costs for a fulltime patrol position currently are $59,400 for salaries, benefits, and equipment. We applied a benefit —cost model to estimate in monetary terms the level of damage reduction at which each field meth- od becomes cost-effective. The BCAs follow the framework outlined in BOARDMAN et al. (1996), LOOMIs (1993), LOOMIs and WALsx (1997), NAs (1996), and ZERBE and DIVELY (1994). Reduction of damaged seagrass habitat is seen as a benefit. In other words, if a management action could reduce the amount of seagrass habitat lost to boat damage, then the benefit of that management effort is the monetary value of that amount of habitat versus the costs of the effort. The BCAs involved estimating the benefit —cost ratio (BCR) of the monetary value of the benefits, measured as the value of dif- ferent levels of reduction in area of seagrass beds suffering boat damage versus the cost of the field methods used to achieve the damage reduction. BCAs used the seagrass val- uation figure based on restoration attempts permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ($140,752/ha), be- cause this represents an average valuation for seagrass bed habitat. RESULTS Aerial Photography Damage Measures The rate of accumulation of damage to the LKSLMA sea - grass beds from 1994-2005 exceeded the rate of healing, pro- ducing a steady increase in the total area damaged (Table 1). The average annual rate of increase in damaged area was 27.1 additional hectares per year of damage from 1994 to 1997 and was 10.8 additional hectares per year from 1997 to 2005. The net amount of damage increased substantially dur- ing each period. The total value of damage in 1994, grown to present dollars (2005), was $5,069,895, which increased by an average of $3,816,262/y until 1997, when damage was val- ued at $16,518,682 (Table 1). The average increase in value of accumulated existing damage per year was $1,523,819/y from 1997 to 2005, when total damage was valued at $28,709,232 (Table 1). Investigated Groundings Damage Measures The total amount of damage in LKSLMA from only the investigated boat groundings for Florida state fiscal years Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2008 530 Engeman et al. Table 2. Average measures from boat groundings investigated by law enforcement officers at Lignumvitae Key Submerged Land Managed Area from 1998 to 2005. Fiscal Year Number of Groundings Total Area Damaged Mean Area Damaged Mean Size Damaging (July 1-June 30) Investigated (ha) (ha) Total Damage Value Mean Damage Value Vessel (m) 1998 4 0.0149 0.0037 $11,297 $2824 7.92 1999 14 0.1253 0.0089 $89,340 $6381 7.96 2000 13 0.0837 0.0064 $74,218 $5709 9.30 2001 12 0.1008 0.0086 $70,603 $5884 8.44 2002 21 0.2193 0.0104 $163,886 $7804 9.63 2003 19 0.2347 0.0124 $224,008 $11,790 9.33 2004 25 0.2830 0.0115 $164,881 $6595 8.47 2005 6 0.0518 0.0086 $49,818 $8303 10.79 1998 to 2005 (Table 2) was 1.05 ha, or 0.03% of the total 3400 ha of seagrass habitat within the protected submerged land. The assessment amount from this seemingly small damage area was $1,063,169.30 (adjusted to 2005 dollars). The sever- ity of damage from investigated groundings is indicated by comparison to estimates for the same area of damage using the cost per hectare derived from the EPA -permitted miti- gation data. This results in a value of $147,790, 13.9% of the preceding assessment. Over the years of this study, the mean amount of damage at investigated groundings, the value of the associated damage, and the mean sizes of the boats caus- ing the damage all showed increasing trends (r = 0.70, 0.68, and 0.72, respectively). As would be expected, the mean amount of damage was correlated with the mean value of the damage (r = 0.83). The mean amount of damage did not re- late particularly well to the mean size of boat causing damage (r = 0.27), although the mean boat size showed a stronger relation to mean value of damage (r = 0.57), indicating that boat size relates to severity of damage better than to area of damage. Benefits and Costs for Field Methods to Mitigate Damage Prior to analyzing BCRs for in -field actions to reduce dam- age, we first define damage reduction. For the last 8 years of the study, the net area of damage increased by 10.8 ha/y on average. Therefore, a rate of increase for net area of damage less than 10.8 ha/y is viewed as a damage reduction equal to Table 3. Benefit -cost ratios for the addition of law enforcement patrol staff based on reductions in accrual of boat damage to seagrass beds, with sea - grass habitat value derived from costs of EPA -permitted restoration efforts. The row with boldface numbers indicates the damage reduction level at which accumulation of damage area is zero. Damage Reduction (ha) 1 Additional Patrol Staff 2 3 1 2.38 1.19 0.79 2 4.76 2.38 1.59 3 7.14 3.57 2.38 4 9.52 4.76 3.18 5 11.91 5.95 3.97 10 23.81 11.91 7.94 10.8 25.71 12.86 8.57 15 35.72 17.86 11.91 20 47.62 23.81 15.88 its difference from 10.8 ha for a given year. Additional signs represent a long-term capital investment of less than $4500. This amount is equivalent to the value of 0.03 ha of lost hab- itat using the more conservative EPA mitigation valuation figure. Thus, the breakeven point for cost -efficacy of the ad- ditional signage requires them to produce only a cumulative reduction in damage of 0.03 ha over the life of the signs (re- duce the net increase in damage by 0.03 ha). One full-time equivalent patrol staff position is annually equal to the value of 0.42 ha of seagrass bed damage. At current damage rates, each additional patrol staff achieves cost -efficacy for every 0.42 ha less than the 10.8 ha that net damage area increases each year. If, for example, the addition of two patrol officers holds accumulated damage constant for 1 year, then they would have reduced damage accumulation by 10.8 ha, pro- ducing an impressive BCR of 12.9 (Table 3). I i]S.Y�l�l.�.�C�1�I From a broader perspective, our valuations and analyses of boat damage to LKSLMA can be considered conservative. Seagrass beds also provide an important economic function in light of their role as a source of food and shelter for many commercially and recreationally important species of fish, shrimp, and lobster (FONSECA, 1990; FONSECA, KENWOR- THY, and THAYER, 1998; NELSON, 1992; ZIEMAN, 1982). A less tangible measurement of their importance is their eco- nomic value to offshore coral reefs in regards to recreational visitation to those reefs for snorkeling, diving, and fishing. Furthermore, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission acknowledges the economic value of seagrass habitat with relation to the fishing industry by conducting surveys of fish catches and fishing activity every year. For example, in 2002, seagrass communities in Monroe County alone (where LKSLMA is located) supported an estimated harvest of approximately $32.8 million for shrimp (Penaeus spp.), stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), Florida spiny lobster (Panuhrus argus), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) (FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION STAFF, 2002). The metrics for success in protection and conservation of vulnerable habitats is measured by the improvement in eco- logical variables. To effectively evaluate the returns on con- servation efforts, the rewards from the expenditures must be in the same metric as the expenditures. The ability to mon- Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2008 Boat Damage to Seagrass in Florida 531 etarily value the habitat resource provides an effectual tool for evaluating conservation approaches. Funding is finite for recovery and conservation of habitats and must be carefully applied to maximize the positive impact on the protected re- source. Analytical examination of the economics of manage- ment actions for habitat enhancement can provide managers with a logical working basis for selecting and implementing cost-effective conservation methodologies. The best near -future estimate, if no additional manage- ment actions are taken to slow damage accumulation in LKSLMA, would be for total damage to increase by about 10.8 ha/y. The economic interpretation of this damage rep- resents a further annual loss of habitat valued at $1,523,819/ y. Given the benefit -cost performance of the damage preven- tion measures, we have to ask ourselves, How can we not afford to implement further protection measures to protect seagrass beds from boat damage? LITERATURE CITED ADAMowicz, W., 2004. What's it worth? An examination ofhistorical trends and future directions in environmental valuation. Austra- lian Journal ofAgricultural and Resource Economics, 48, 419-443. BELL, S.S.; HALL, M.O.; SOFFIAN, S., and MADLEY, R, 2002. As- sessing the impact of boat propeller scars on fish and shrimp using seagrass beds. Ecological Applications, 12, 206-217. BOARDMAN, A.E.; GREENBERG, D.H.; VINING, A.R., and WEIMER, D.L., 1996. Cost Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 493p. CREED, J.C. and AMADO FILHO, G.M., 1999. Disturbance and recov- ery of the macroflora of a [Halodule wrightii (Ascherson)] meadow in the Albrolhos Marine National Park, Brazil: an experimental evaluation of anchor damage. Journal of Experimental Marine Bi- ology and Ecology, 235, 285-306. EHRINGER, J.N., 2000. New and innovative techniques for seagrass restoration. In: CANNIZZARO, P.J. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty - Sixth Annual Conference on Ecosystem Restoration and Creation. Tampa: Hillsborough Community College, pp. 18-24. ENGEMAN, R.M.; SMITH, H.T.; SHWIFF, S.A.; CONSTANTIN, B.U.; NELSON, M.; GRIFFIN, D., and WOOLARD, J., 2003. Prevalence and economic value of feral swine damage to native habitat in three Florida state parks. Environmental Conservation, 30, 319-324. ENGEMAN, R.M.; SHWIFF, S.A.; SMITH, H.T., and CONSTANTIN, B.U., 2004a. Monetary valuation of rare species and imperiled habitats as a basis for economically evaluating conservation approaches. Endangered Species Update, 21, 66-73. ENGEMAN, R.M.; SMITH, H.T.; SEVERSON, R.; SEVERSON, M.A.; WOOLARD, J.; SHWIFF, S.A.; CONSTANTIN, B., and GRIFFIN, D., 2004b. Damage reduction estimates and benefit -cost ratios for fe- ral swine removal from the last remnant of a basin marsh system in Florida. Environmental Conservation, 31, 207-211. ENGEMAN, R.M; STEVENS, A.; ALLEN, J.; DUNLAP, J.; DANIEL, M.; TEAGUE, D., and CONSTANTIN, B., 2007. Feral swine management for conservation of an imperiled wetland habitat: Florida's vanish- ing seepage slopes. Biological Conservation, 134, 440-446. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STAFF, 2000. Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park Unit Management Plan. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protec- tion, Florida Park Service. 104p. FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION STAFF, 2002. Annual Landings Data. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY STAFF, 1990. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Tallahassee: Florida Natural Ar- eas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, 116p. FONSECA, M.S., 1990. Regional analysis of the creation and resto- ration of seagrass systems. In: KuSLER, J.A., and KENTULA, M.E. (eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 171-194. FONSECA, M.S.; KENWORTHY, W.J., and THAYER, G.W., 1998. Guide- lines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration/Coastal Oceans Program Decision Analy- sis Series No. 12. Silver Spring, Maryland: NOAA Costal Ocean Office, 222p. FONSECA, M.S.; KENWORTHY, W.J.; JULIUS, B.E.; SHUTLER, S., and FLUKE, S., 2002. Seagrasses. In: PEROW, M.R., and DAVY, A.J. (eds.), Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press, pp. 149-770. FONSECA, M.S.; WHITFILED, P.E.; KENWORTHY, W.J.; COLBY, D.R., and JULIUS, B.E., 2004. Use of two spatially explicit models to determine the effect of injury geometry on natural resource recov- ery. Aquatic Conservation: Marine Freshwater Ecosystems, 14, 281- 298. KENwORTHY, W.J. and SCHWARZSCHILD, A.C., 1995. Prop Scar Res- toration Pilot Study. Progress report to Florida Department of En- vironmental Protection/DRP. Beaufort, North Carolina: Beaufort Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 16p. KENwORTHY, W.J.; FONSECA, M.S.; WHITFIELD, P.T, and HAMMAR- STOM, KK, 2002. Analysis of seagrass recovery in experimental excavations and propeller -scar disturbances in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of Coastal Research, 37, 75- 85. KING, D., 1998. The dollar value of wetlands: trap set, bait taken, don't swallow. National Wetlands Newsletter, July -August, 7-11. KIRSCH, K.D.; BABY, K.A.; FONSECA, M.S.; WHITFILED, P.E.; MEE- HAN, S.R.; KENWORTHY, W.J., and JULIUS, B.E., 2005. The Mini- 312 Program: an expedited damage assessment and restoration process for seagrasses in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanc- tuary. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 40, 109-119. KRUER, C.; LEWIS, R.; MCNEESE, P., and KENWORTHY, J., 1996. Restoration of Prop Scarred Seagrass Flats at Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park, Florida Keys. Report to FDEP/DRP. Sum- merland Key, Florida: Keys Restoration Trust Fund, 10p. Loomis, J.B., 1993. Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, Wildlife Refuges and BLM Lands. New York: Columbia University Press, 474p. Loomis, J.B. and WALSH, R.G., 1997. Recreation Economic Deci- sions: Comparing Benefits and Costs, 2nd edition. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, 436p. MATTHEWS, T.R.; LAzAR, A.C., and HUNT, J.H., 1991. Aerial Obser- vations of Boating Impacts to Shallow Water Grass Beds in Florida Keys. Marathon, Florida: Division of Marine Resources, State of Florida, 11p. NAs, T.F., 1996. Cost Benefit Analysis: Theory and Application. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 220p. NELSON, D.M. (ed.), 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries, Volume 1, Data sum- maries. Estuarine Living Marine Resources Report No. 10. Rock- ville, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion/National Ocean Service Strategic Assessments Division, 273p. OGDEN, J.C. and ZIEMAN, J.C., 1977. Ecological aspects ofcoral reef- seagrass bed contacts in the Caribbean. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Coral Reefs. (University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida), pp. 377-382. ORTH, R.J. and MOORE, KA., 1983. Seed germination and seedling growth of Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) in the Chesapeake Bay. Aquatic Botany, 15, 117-131. PHILLIPS, R.C., 1960. Observations on the ecology and distribution of the Florida seagrasses. Florida Board of Conservation Profes- sional Paper Series, 2, 1-72. PREEN, A.; LEE LONG, W.J., and COLES, R.G., 1995. Flood and cy- clone related loss and partial recovery of more than 1000 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Aquatic Botany, 52, 3-17. SARGENT, F.J.; LEARY, T.J.; CREWZ, D.W., and KRUER, C.R., 1995. Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2008 532 Engeman et al. Options. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR- 1. St. Petersburg, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 46p. SHORT, E.T. and WYLLIE-ECHEVERRIA, S., 1996. Natural and hu- man -induced disturbances of seagrasses. Environmental Conser- vation, 23, 17-27. WOODBURN, KD.; ELDRED, B.; CLARK, E.; HUTTON, R.F., and IN- GLE, R.M., 1957. The live bait and shrimp fishery of the west coast of Florida (Cedar Key to Naples). Florida Board of Conservation Marine Laboratory Technical Series, 21, 1-33. ZERBE, R.O. and DIVELY, D.D., 1994. Benefit —Cost Analysis: InThe- ory and Practice. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 557p. ZIEMAN, J.C., 1976. The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds in southern Florida. Aquatic Bot- any, 2, 127-139. ZIEMAN, J.C., 1982. The Ecology of Seagrasses in South Florida: A Community Profile. FWS/OBS-82/25. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 158p. ZIEMAN, J.C. and WETZEL, R.G., 1980. Methods and rates of pro- ductivity in seagrasses. In: PHILLIPS, R.C., and MCROY, C.P. (eds.), Handbook of Seagrass Biology. New York: Garland STMP Press, pp. 87-116. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2008 Exhibit 11 Excerpt of permitting history for Little Conch Key for upland parcels having real estate numbers: 00099090-000000 and00099090-000100 and submerged land parcel having real estate number: 00099110-000000. Source Monroe County Alchemy Database 7 KEY: LA 4316 Sub.Gontractor: �S, R6 } 'ATTACHED: PAG.„� -5:. FOR �¢ p S q d y SUS �...: G.�k i3, $�@�`$'�. 6N8,.6 �A`,Ta Constrtictior�� � � BEE FFE.;.. FLZ , R E � ' . 5 ol 0 ol p TKIS11) Mi° TAL. OMIY?1 : !R0M. PHIRM ,Gb. - S .. ::.,.:a 3 a a�T'� a; ���.�&d9„'7 bT`` _.: 1,.2a ..(a3 da'. 6�d,+zb,WsR4Pa"M'4 yY'. ,.$.. •'4i'4da..i :'...'Y,SI,.: .1%^ 3�"":,k�n° 1�.9 O,t"� 4 � �; .." k�fN ,?,.'...& �" •'by �' �d�:y>s3 ... 3'k.$.'v°aR �gk ;'-g�n'.$�:74 M.. 1Y' ;� F. ¢4� R s a.���,S:::I� t�»$;:: 'EPA }�°n�,`a""¢�'� :'}°�.r�$$b�d�C�a) qY- °* g* Oi.�'; xY3.P41:.: 4. q 3 G 4y' SIGNATU AUTHORi PLEASE READ THE REVERSE OF -THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE.:YOU S1GN AS OWN BY - RE OF. OWNER, CO TKACTOR OP BUILDING ZED AGENT BUILDINI(I npPT TRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AC a ENCOMPASS NOTEPAD - 12/21/06 PAGE 1 NOTES FOR: 06206450 BIO 1 - PR DATE TIME NOTE TEXT OPERATOR ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2006-12-21 11:55:24 BIO APPROVED 12/21/06 BY JV FOR; DOCK- vaserisj REPAIR W/LANDWARD OF MHW EXPANSION[1001X 151] & RIPRAP REPAIR WITH BACK FILL. 1)PERMIT ALLOWS 320 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL. 2)ALL CONDITIONS OF ACOE/FDEP PERMITS APPLY. 3)TURBIDITY CONTROL FOR ALL IN -WATER WORK. 4)NATIVE VEGETATION NOT TO BE DISTURBED. 5)STORMWATER TO BE RETAINED ON SITE. 6)NO LAND CLEAr this permit. TOTAL LINES OF NOTES: 17 WITH 51TE FLAN OVERLAY i ,I4�i9 �1 ut:lo �I�R• IWIIYIR•• ■i �.• Poo PARCEL.,"'°„ FND IP i CAP'_ LS 11908 ' �aeru At 10485, --Uw n. •w. j ■,..■l Ifonn.ro oxr INSIDE Q.7, v I �iI nRl H UT S�V •� . e� Qlf ~ �� - �F• tir �� 120, 3 z U 2 P08 kcx y' PARCEL Tom•:. ,w;mr ti f IJNR#3 0. MFAlu WAMA LINE py�.n Deck D IPA CAP ATg 906.mow z � I��HUi os - - UNlTA4 n POOL DRY e f f1Y1E *f _ AKI NUT ,� 44k• ~ Atcor �. AKI HUT -1- fist 7I ,� / R#S d nr'Al DOCK SCOAL,•.tip k a•,ra AtAllmnopl= om 1.xl�Mtesk o" o,,,awm ren,m ADINIM:ffUT � um ot-6 anan fllf Nt, ,u■r■ i1i-- �wlllwlil: ,l W,N y0.,a/IM- 02 It. i16 WM � Vi1,�1 ! �.■ pl4owlMM ,n. VIIIt RWMf■lY �IMII�I Vol W10. •r rff �y rs.5 4P�1��fg1 O11■Yl � '_ N��t•,l ��Rw 5 •OM Y11,f, OYOI■lalw O/ p li V!� NV.1. idwf I0. ,.,i �„AKL W l,BG01E M wtm tIw OiHYrl,l■w0i n�,s„f,lpl,l I�IIM MTRIIIII 116Nw1 IlOffli� s1wwA�AiwOf 5 llW 913pIYN7M TCelf[010• �.sa��i .�•'�i�w-�+`wi�ww n�f■w e.w+w f$NIGYft Mull{IMV, LLC Ww-���.r�iis� ,mm �-+� � BOUNDARY& MEAN HIGH ■.„ a `" S y WATER LINE SURVEY y ARx. KEECe, Y.A. A PART OF LITTLE CONCH KEY A "" ,sr olmm ""'""1'0A1�1A1°' a ADJACENT BAY BOTTOM IH THE ,,,,wma � nnrwa STRAITS OF FLOF40A - .. _ p _N ,e....f.l Inwrr.u.fnk„ es ��, AN r y��rH ,S •n x � a m m -a = m m m m ro b S o v Co Z o � m Tr r- m m a z c rn A c> �x m ;� � A a m m m ro n i r to z CD S / to cn m "} rr" A' r+ C f i t rm p m LAS x v O a% t c. p O33- V v / a -4 cm m m =a b-- m r-- m N r �� • m >r co ;o n rQ N C C7 N W CD m a cn i m >a / C7 7C to rn X N m 03 � W T O r 4rm C7 m m 'r = a a r-- r b r VI �' ro %o O * C7 -4 b x S --4 a C7 z D m �--� -I r m n ! \ v (A ti I I � 77 C7 Z .e.. c.. -4 1� CDCa 7C -Qm 1 zm. ° mm-4r cn ,Ii + ;v p O� "lJ 1T Ln• mr Crr; 1 r -nmC7 r � csanmcn 1 a ra• S 7, r cn 1 CD o n a m Cn Cn -4 W o ws Z -4 t C7 r- o S cu m z -4 o Z m o, m N c C 0 C7 ao m A m o cn c-) ro -' r- c Nd�� m ry CD/ d4 A .-4 (n f, N N y -4 m CC) a MONROE COUNTY BUILDING DEKATMENT BUILDING PERMIT 4-/04/97 MARY 1 Permit ISIOL, ,1 „ ill eli Pate Applied. Date Issued. PerrNt a w a : iG.4 �. iE r,;y - , { .J 1 9 i i i F i 1 1 i. 1 ILk r'• .may Rx r.� 1 �.� -y'� �.�#�F■'�*t,r&�Y�M'r �� ..� s.- �-��n ] V._. ._d Lam"$_'. .i. Yam= ti;_...-,Pl J',�?�.„a. ,r l•�,. v. 16-66-34 96A��15.-04 LITTLE. {�fy 'per #m��il `.A. LeM ,�k'=tiE J� %Mx•A 'I { 76 Kailr��„�1**iti;.* as. �*'* ,P..{{}+wF��.rtr•r i'3. - •. y'*- . a _1 Ys sf+44, , f � i .. .. :• �,r#. ! / #+ !~ .. '* l.{'�'k orKwl t THOMAS THOMA.8 HAUTRON! ! MARATHON.i Ia � 7M _ * 4.11'-t piece + � * '� � s # I �' ,7 1' I'.:. Y ! 4 �.6r' � Y 6 +..s S ;'f• _ y �" r•: 1 41 1 .. _ _ , .e. .r lµ�a�.4r_ _ p• b t , x"�',a�- ivy # Ix I .. s .a�.. n_�r ,]♦,fir _.r 70 * �.; .i4 y r , � t } n = ] � s .- � � t r 9 ,^ r . A � i a � y • � i .. � �. - p ?r - LL f Y �•yF,'ait y��.Y ��,. �. �.f{xYA'+/��i t4is �'Sx 4i "xf1���#.-; i..45 {•% ' A=-' • . k � w }--r` � ���'�•• � '� � Ste'" ��` y,. fy�� r .r R,� }" 1'.k��'r' I'Fr� xj �.y: -. � - � , . ' p - * •l �;lV�i.'Q, r`449$'S!•���.0 ..}_ "���� ' #f a �. .. 1 S} h. ��Fi ,x •] ,y1 i-��i.Sxij['f ka* k� 5'�Si; 1 I o. r _ F•L Am —44 V �� � y�pp.¢p"r� 1'^iVn�r.L�+��y,t���5{f'`fy�[[[i����Y �k �` ,Y F .:��' •��; : �,S�FiM . I I ��`..$$yyyy � ���i J{ ,.• �.�S y1 icFx� ,i:1:♦� ��-.AYAWlYI~.� �'$'J L%t.�',S-"L,�' J?i _ .KEASlg F%AQ THE RME OF TH FORE YOU SM14 AS � � t I zaBy $I AL-URI= GF OWNEF'r G RAGMR Oft {14 q AIiTH Rl f3i AtaENT 114S'.PECMRB' MONROE COUNTY RUILDING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMIT 4/04/97 MARY S/OZ/97 97 Z0000399 000 000 Date Applied: PLUMBING PPff% Date Issued: Permit No.: Permit Type: Section Twnshp. Range Re Resub 1 I Resub 2 Mite Mercer Prop" Address land Use OlsbW Reviewad by IS-GS-34 KGS41S-04 LITTLE MU PB Subdivision Name Legal Address 15-65-34 K65415-04 LITTLE CONC Owner's Narne/Address/Telephone General Contimclor THOMAS MARATHON FL 330SO THOMAS MARATHON FL 330SO Sub Contractor' Construction SFE FFE FLZ Approved Water Source Flood Map Panel NO. Flood Elevation Requirement N Units Sq. FL Valuation Improvements AEIDIT NBR 3041409 Schedule of Fees RVWkADF-SCRIPTION FEE AMT AMT PAID CREDITED DATE RCPT NBR PERMIT FEE 300.00 300.00 .00 6/02/97 AFTER THE FACT INSTALL 2000 LF OF 2" PVC WATER PIPE. SFR EXISTING. BIOLOGIST RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PER MONROE COUNTY CODE 4/9/97 - HG PLANNING APPROVAL 4/9/97 - SAS DCA EXEMPT NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT REQUIRED. PLEASE READ THE REVERSE OF THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU SIGN,AS OWAR• CONTRACTOR OR THORISED AGENT Y BY SI ATURE OF OWNER, CO RACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT hjr,kmt� Oa l ao0432q 10-78-2000 3, 32PM FROM SfCINE 8724822 P. 1 �Urt + Ct 10/13100 11:S4 !FAIL 304 733 2002 BOLDING $LBCTRIC AIFPLWA�nox FM NUUJ)UgQ (WAL r a «coat crilu t oar I ..."-+AR�`c 'mot ~ •c • 1+ - �' r �� it r � L :w•� �r5.+ ; - -- -- r. 1l�tlf O�qL ���D�waO<�1��7� 5 m :3YM 1r'om MAiAo 7o TACOM A "cum OR YLV mmxv a %vwf .r,�� .....i s.. mMMf 7ag ihimi�lw +dr ��.In mew �L li � r�uu� rho 10/18/00 15:35 TX/RX NO.0645 P.001 0 11/27/00 10:02 FAX 305 743 2002 HOLDING ELECMIC 3 1 1-22-2® a_ 1 WM FRGM WYER/�I1wE 872AEM ems- •. ! ., i s ti 4� �40 iDb %tilts 1• 11 ik • W 002 P. 1 T a 'PL4894-2.0 ea C3 sw.s�a:cw. • u w* c-t' 11/22/00 16:18 TX/RX M0,0960 P.001 m m F *Oi f v E- H z I IW � I O c I 17 C] N I I Ey zu i ih a Ma i_ wl0 ,n-1 i a I a iU I In r! �• I u, a I I r4a 1 M 1 >+O oa I I 1 O ra I I cr -4 I• -I I r� a O 0 of I i zo O O N O I I 1 I m I I d 61 I p1 I N 61('7 •• •• I wI I UOO O c fLr N I rl 1 0 co 6� (� Q Q I I ra •-I 00047- I I I =0 C a O o �� I� Ip I E-� O Ia w ip iWn� awU� r !6 I o I I I I� I Iw p i s i >a+ U I I E� R� I Q I I G I I M I El�'� I I p H N ❑ O O I I U , °° I � , I ❑ 10 I {� 1 N 1 0 I La 11 w 11 0 Obi O ' 1 [+f C] y 1 z W cr. o i zo a In W a 1 Ey °D w 1 1 c u a.. EH - 269 10 .0rn V v 1 d F+ W rn Ey z r!O .se �Lsl w ao�ca , CHx rz v1 UQWHkPE� L`naap HEON I-DCZ Eo[4xLK3 a(�+1N Ix % >+ O M ►] u1 ,pl ri •V Via' w ow wwgo 4" z �+ E.aax 4'-Ol* 44 IQ n N Y1 r-I O N rl a i N A N O N a N ko N o a • u ri ca e:1 r1 Q3 r 0 A H ct U 0 O LU o0 a M a C m IL jY OH U9( O all fit•. Z _j \ W A F u W a z O 0 0 N H 0 Z O H O C} a W 0 o cn O •O O v o rl w 0 W W c o W O W F .4[na [OaM n.4 m 44 OU0 dP L) W z z 0 xwoo O Z mmoo Gw zvw,00 Q H< d• tL co r m •a a H iZ ZOW O OwW H cn F A E- W W W HG V] C] H w zxa v uaa w a, < H IL 00 Cl) H C] H�HNOCL a w roco i ftU� x �LOd'a0F xHmo�H u za z N UWC70Ux zU)ZW?�W (ay wHHL7H� rA ,rA-1 � rA.7 a 7 a 0aot-,o� m<MWQIH .3 rn rn a�rr W�4-4 w a F a a a O H x w H x W O Z O O W04 x z cn UHO x H FAQ Howe I zUU E- 0 0:4 auma Haag OHr40 m<UL) 00o0o cn a Ux y>1 a � O� a30�a wac0W0 a EnUHU P-4 KC = 44 C.) 7 f-I (n N ONO M Cl)xxxw 0<<<� n04xxxx ww44f. 4 mCVM-crx ra aaH o° ��W 44 Lo 0:4 Itcz HHw .a ocomar�rM 00 r-I WWOEH zAr-IN a'f HHQH H �HUFCHxW uw (DU4WZWx Ww w0000HaU 0>4 m4000Z>4w E-Lu0mWWt+4HHM A W a A W H a a .W b �a [14 Cu Q 44 1-4 .40 Lo W A E-E 0 Um r >1 r-I r rn >1 ri x o H AO H N W a lnrw HHcn wcno W � O 0Mo w x cl) H � 1n 0 oz W x r-1 w as N 14 UFD zz- 0 H E� a H a U U) W A F O W w z ao z co H m ..a [.1 ooL)o -I r-i-4;DMmrtocoa•MMN0a•ma•srM 0%D-1coNr--lorla•romwmNomr- )moor ar- � M �r M M 0 %D 0 qzr qzr MNr4-l0000a �rvv rY,MMMctDtD00 LnlnLo Lnln000MMMMM0 > r-1 r-1 r-1 r-I r-I r-I r-i C' C' %cr M M M cn M In e-,0000000000000000000000 w0000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 In In 0 In O In O In In In In In �.'NNNNNNNNNNNNN W w0000O00000000000000000 a a 9 A rn wmoor-+r-+r- kDmwr-kokod MMNo-waoa �rM Ok.Or-Ik.0Nrr-I Or-I d•r0Mt0mNL0mrLoMOd• .arc Mc rnM0kD Lnc•�rMN-4-4c0000d ��r rymmmrnr-+r-+�rr000000000MMMMM�,-r >NNNNM(nMqra•a•rvrcv %Tgzr MMIn F to 5 h t1r-I M M N N c M M N-10 O m r r%D%D Od' 000 OIr-4 r-4 0 0 m ON m %D Lo qT qT m N r-i -10 qT %r qzr MMr- WNNNNr-Ir-Ir-INNNNNNNNN U U) w (7rrrO�O�rM;D;D�D;D;D;Dt01DtOqzrd•qzr %T qzrM r tD t0 r r tD M r-i r-i r-1 r-i r-i r-i r-i r-1 r-i to VI In VI 0 tD .-1 In N N M rn m N r-I r-1 r-4 r-I r-1 r-I —4 r-I —4 M (n M M M N {pkD tD 1,0r-MM001.00001.01.0&0 LnNNNNNtD r-I r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 N N N N N N N N N N r-i r-I r-i r-i r-i M C)00000000000(D0000000000 Z 0 1n a U wAooaooaa000aa0000000000 m z 0 0 0 0 C) 0 w w m w w m m m m m qzr qzr qzr qzr v0 �l <OOOOOOmmwwmwmwmmNNNNN+a < ha 0 0 0 O o O N N N N N N N N N N 0 O 0 0 0 m ,7 ra ra ra ra r-1 H r-1 r-1 H r-1 H r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 N N N N N r-I w (nn H? t.4 W N n -7 al W r- co (3) 0 r-i N n qzr IntorooM0-1NM O rtmmmmmmmm0)mmmmMM0)MMC>000 wa�a�rna�rnrnrna�rnrnrnrno,o�o�aio,o,0000 }� y4 r-I r-I r-I r-1 ra r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I H N N N N O r4 ra ra ra ra ra -4 ri ri r-I r-I ri r-I r-I ri r-I H O o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 o O o o O H r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r4 r-I r-I r-I rl rl ra rl r-I r-I ra ra r-i r-I x r-1 r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r4 r-I r-I r-I ra r-1 r-1 r-1 r-I r-I r-I ri r-I r-I r-I r-I wa w fn � a a CD ao Z W 9 0 FU E-E z W 0 a E~ z H W W E�+ d] 0 LEGAL V o a � b H PPRAISED BY C_ wA 1J r Q �d= ig n[Z ZQ YI G � uOn i_- -� 1 -M 44 sIs e a 2st t: ��y n =.-versa �oaao i`7rj •_: W d y`1 iQQ{I y4 (�i W Ir A 7. N YI r � • s yjp yY B t s Fva ce8d[ OW t Q::tl '•� ..- : 'X« i rB=i» n»v• �I LEGAL A P P R A WAIKeics TS. 1,41, (`AAlel9 ICw ---^-�- - `4_ _ — •r °0 oe _ N._.. m WW -C ,� ra �► C6066 U a t . VC^ 0 N N w. QW it > a a e a 0 J Gw Y �iL g WR Y lLLSJ P� 8 R Y O iii P i 1 0 a 111 111,1 3E6 j) 1 S l3 4 ; �6vL LEGAL Y VtilAl f«KS ,Z L LEGAL PPRAIStG SY IL 08 ice• " �y1 x 0 U s w ry ar a s a s a ` U jFF W W u Itcc h 7 H h . v 8 944"1a :.ate PARCEL-'C' wa'•yr w $&,w [a! �0 00� ` ��yJ✓/�1 p \i E 13 + j \ PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'A' ea rrce 1 a a a r. ��c 5PECIFIC PURPOSE 5URVEY TOPOGRAPHIC 4 A5-BUILT OF A PART OF LT Uf CONCH KEY 4 R.E. RCECC, P.A. "� eueyunaacuew°rwre S ,mumaloonnuasnem.asm� ADJACENT BAY50iTOM IN ME 5TRAIT5 OF FLORIDA P eerexc ear. pew+m rep.. rvr Ill AWMSprlfCrm Ff190 7rwm INMP °m9mt3- 4OC.\lm W WP!] R1Y WIGY.S kGvo «rxx evoc ro 192?+%'Otl W cMr� ewe aeµem 4!f 11p.: :2GelGl I GM R]YIMMIYIQr lY1129 ft°L�02L1l+ +'e Kwrc: ox-}em fi, hr�:W rr 1`:.rn�wrrwr,,.44M ��M1/.1Nr�ls. s, rTi 1r TNry 13 Ml6,s�Ys u, }�- IY+Y� I l�l.fM �.1WriYa�161®`W P. 2+A MnMv4:. Caa, � .1.�� •;,,;� ue. rNo•y'—_ Jam« u!t GL V rr IOGTIpN AUT•ILTS. f xt yp 'r _ ea .0 +* r_S to �- 4 -•� �, �,r' rJ�}lam ( f Z q u Z L uvaoncwlax { �+ Aracrvflwra.cm Yauwol.avl"m�Nlule.r. � y �c eo.ca.+.e tlrearselo.vMun..owl.v.uN,wae ',�wwc.N.wnecpllrR..vl.1.»o.N,.l.wnoete,a.,oeee:.. u'hl.., K P A lZ C E L ' B' :nl: erxwmlvvclaave/wllerftamexromlra.e l5ra W 1wQ P RNi. N trn: M'Q ew! W n..4 ftlC�f. I! wMtl 6H1 M PUu.:LLP.N-H rCCl; Ilea ewV[f[IYRI m®®. KH/wtl Wt � raa oanticry R�.1! RI; naQ eaRriln TJ VIa1[O, fY wne [NI Int IH.N ram: n E116 TlR�lt(.• If G1G4'll. 61.E aeenalAEeTwYC nm QavV llaRlroelvRr.fnurf:fu waee t.o.tlNM Iplt4 .eYT.KCCYID.nI a./lle�yr N/a 1 v I rf"� A IdR PE.:! OfM1]MF.b VY.� 11 � fblrQamr p'I,Iq IRI roafWIT:1Fa1[L 10eR fONI.lr /lPQ1'/. 0 aW1"CpISNIEr9aM.+IvfORO11�.m/ } � m m'eRb. !! w4wftl 11lS! rpeA06pICr P RlPM1R. ro •rullra O:O. cw.n. v.wce.u:eamenma fuvwlNlmow/n"• } "' ..cvnn.-dear laecraro.:an+.�v.Nlomluv®.al wT4 a w/r"Rsv I,Rfolm Ia ne IOK avbwc, � t L wwIH nece x.e.wll .f may. !I I..nerAer 15a aosrtrlaev I sloreer 1K41GM mmv®ro 9fN6 I'. ZO !`/' � ermw eU6 S 0001'CO �.1fFf :rcrm[Rnol a lIR "RfOKTN.CIr MCMeet[ p W-...wtrl wOM `J. ALL ANGUS C04M A4 socaMmlimm [a7<./IG+enL a rotle MtY.1RYIe0lET.4 t. va/Ioe11N Ogfep,ce Wf tlpICMGM1eLtl pf:3. m IlZamu.6v OaWWWROC:1(11 .in rerroa ro�wrl �namRZLt.� moecmr.. H rueam.lva uewrevlaorzlro^e lvRlrc ![oe..lov MmcTveN mlleal ,may x.paee; rliO.I Seo IpinV sawn mnreemwC oerr.lcevfloreer. n.ra.I: n/Me m.[fMnh MpQi9.m u'�inaN t�l Iv.wil+aS .if Isrto y •1i1 N, .L wAIFGeS eCY i4 G2.3 r21t, /aze e"r folllrot eeceH• I r u..re rbt 15:aaxr.nev rm IQt waro.:I; nella yrfoml er vc�.m v.rnewex lvla TT y GLvanpp ' 11oe+.l,+�ven leervroalv.I;nvd mmwr,.l vulva fl..w5e darlale.w �v mrarroaIwloRM** I w,s rancTOro Irw� Ieza vocicx ..ule Riona.w (� ,1 ( f W1WeHJeC9W[:RL arus nc.rn..o. ::lla�[efw ilo..+.�s ec .ae NLtIG M101.RYbl9tt FiRUrrw1/[ V W, e.vtlN l0. I (� J IVIia/airw¢vlsoorm.e ct rove wrv/sH.n mnr nlfw.s K 25.tlCglIOI. �� r` 1 t Wilt].. 120E1G.IG" 125129 a>o ,l nDw11/•lm ve WeMV T x .eG. xlarrvle ,C Wr aRm w-lane •.gbPle®Ya W.0110GIr0[1fA0t'Jb10.1Ow} MCaG�NI V M Wf Ml6w"LOr I(V!•M16uR /�' N 11O1M p u3.ltOlw rI. b R Oof�nLlpppl N. Ifl1M6 IOQMOvavaS.tb Yalltl WTltO10MftlPCdTR/l Iota R4YV.LY efM9C111F KOOGIYH. It uit/Ird rpl.4 a Q'.Mlf f(Gl:RdlCL erARwum 9°OfOe[7.%weRHwert (1` (y i� wrt.I" YLrRY�r.r Mr, r•M�Y Arr..Iw xslal/1 v flonreer, Ilerx enefavllof oeaesl.lR..tne r«.w.l.I .�w...•ewwr ■. t.f W.t I/. Ille. vest Rie aClfir:IftdlH.If g:w044R+RIII It vm®,31 I.u1H TwII�"IY I���v���Y� AtaPflMKea Iler¢h+104MiI:t+P II acBaal wne dbt ZIptAOGlM2 P In IQI'na.par•w.m1}WLaL.O e[NPMI NM n9Ki It l®. H WN6 q S4Md p�ryrtlaenrta.�s.mrv.tl n .. yawl`�.l�, rd lea tl W Kad ClrltglYYaF tueRORtR ppl geaml.uanr lmlo rCCl;naeen.Rfaum.lamac.11 j W I � .eyRrlttlt�avll"GV1I+NISfI MlI¢Q/Af011M1. LI fd.W!!.H 15a awtteece v Iw.la re9, -e•.YerwlwoRm wI,I.1.wIH IHLYwen.:A]IM:' OI/e1 v� IaVlHfdtlplta /t11..[L p1R,NIBpLf 1pn(Ip11 NRiQI I°! la45111N[COwCf9ro M9W11C+u prN pGIAUiEIM fbNOR �dtTutAro � _ q rawarwieA:IM1°®e[IWLIMlu. nneuMewr n. C00f°MO"!""aO'OO'='4'0°°"'°"�`® iQhW CIXTMY w..unrawo,uc 5PECIFICPURFC5ESURVkY " Cr x6tmtO0."15'. gpltpe epprNMSIn ltl.Nlt epep wt®61a TOPOGRAPHIC ! A5-BUILT u .sae "'p'•�""' . e® OF A FART OP UTTLE CONCH KEY ♦ ..�.t.W. a.....m e A R.E. REECE. P.A. ADJACENT BAY BOTTOM IN THE_�— _•..�-- ..� eO1�"""D1A"0t STRAJTS OF FLORJDA— x---- —_ �T_ ]Oi.OKll/DllltllilKCRR J]1LL �� max. v AfIQ pplNe.l]I/ — �.�.� �.-�w �c0'—css�csr •....��-r Ii Q76/e.%1l MONROE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT i BUILDING PERMIT Date Applied: 09 / 27 / 200$repared by: W 1111GPo issued: 10 / 31 / 200ePermit No.: 06205692 > errr4 Type: RIPRAP Section Twnshp. Range Re # Resub 1 Resub 2 Mile Marker 15 65 34 000990900 0000 62.2 Property Address Land Use District Reviewed by 15 65 34 K65415-04 LITTLE CONCH KEY SE1/2 OR371MU P207 Subdivision Name Legal Address 55 L65 34 K65415-04 LITTLF CONCH Owner's Name 1 Address / Telephone General Contractor WALKER ISLAND LLC 3 SUNSET BLVD KEY LARGOFL 33037 3055225854 J A LAROCCO ENTERPRISES INC 743 LARGO ROAD KEY LARGO, FL 33037 (305) 453-0368 4316 Sub Contractor SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR SUBCONTRACTORS Construction BFE FFE FLZ Approved Water Source Flood Map Panel NO. Flood Elevation Requirement VE11 1167K # Units Sq. R. Valuation Improvements RES 0 $125000.RESIDENT IAL Schedule of Fees FEE DESCRIPTION COPY/BOOK/CTC EDUCATION FEE FWODPLAIN REVIEW INCOME FROM PERMITS LAND CLEAR/DILL APP *** FIRS' TOTALS *** FEE AMT 20.00 - 2:00 40.00 440.00 80.00 ------------- 582.00 AMT PAID 20.00 2.00 40.00 440.00 86.00 582.00 MM 62.3 OVERSEAS HWY ROAD REPAIR -RIP -RAP **NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT REQUIRED" PERMIT APPROVAL FOR REPAIR ACCESS ROAD TO WALKERS ** MORE INFORMATION TO PRINT ADDITIONAL PAGL RSQ`U SigURE OF -OWNER, CONTRACT OR _ AtITHORIZED AGENT INSPECTORS BALANCE DUN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BY L ~L--Oor BUILDING DEPARTMENT 0.00 BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA "FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MECHANICS' LIEN LAW CAN RESULT IN THE PROPERTY OWNER PAYING TWICE FOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS". 2. "WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR. -PROPERTY. IF -YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY -BEFORE. RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT'. 3. THIS PERMIT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 45 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE: UNLESS A CITIZEN OR THE DCA APPEALS THE ISSUANCE (F.S. 380.05). NO INSPECTIONS WILL BE PERFORMED DURING THE AFOREMENTIONED PERIOD: AND ANY WORK PERFORME©' DURING THAT PERIOD IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. A WAIVER OF THIS WAITING PERIOD MAY BE APPLIED FOR BY WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE DCA AT THE TIME OF PERMIT APPLICATION. 4. THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY AFTER -ALL -APPLICABLE FEES ARE PAID: AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE HAS BEEN REACHED. 5. THIS PERMIT SHALL INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR WHO SHALL PERFORM THE PERMITTED WORK. WHEN THE PERMITTED WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED BY A CONTRACTOR OTHER THAN THE CONTRACTOR ALREADY NAMED ON THE PERMIT, THE NEW -CONTRACTOR, PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, MUST BE PROPERLY LICENSED AND INSURED TO PERFORM THAT WORK, AND MUST SIGN ON TO THE PERMIT AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. 6. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID UNLESS THE WORK AUTHORIZED IS COMMENCED (AND RECEIVES AN APPROVED INSPECTION FOR EITHER TEMPORARY ELECTRIC OR ANY INSPECTION COLORED RED ON THE PERMIT "HARD" CARD) WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PERMIT. 7. ONCE COMMENCED (WITH AN APPROVED INSPECTION) THIS PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF THE WORK AUTHORIZED DOES NOT HAVE ANOTHER APPROVED INSPECTION COLORED RED ON THE PERMIT "HARD" CARD AT LEAST EVERY ONE -HUNDRED AND TWENTY (120) DAYS. & ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. THE GRANTING OF THE PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL - LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. 9. THE PERMIT "HARD" CARD MUST BE DISPLAYED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE LOT IN A PERMANENT, SUBSTANTIAL MANNER AND IN A CONSPICUOUS, SHELTERED LOCATION ACCESSIBLE TO THE INSPECTOR. THE PERMIT MUST REMAIN DISPLAYED UNTIL AFTER FINAL INSPECTIONS. ONE COPY OF APPROVED PLANS; BEARING BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAMPS, MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE, AVAILABLE. TO THE INSPECTORS AT THE TIME OF ALL INSPECTIONS. 10. ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REPORTED TO AND RECORDED BY, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ANY WORK NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PERMIT, MUST HAVE A VALID ADDITIONAL PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT, THE OWNER AND BUILDER AGREE TO ERECT THIS STRUCTURE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODES OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 11. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE ELEVEN CONDITIONS. SIGNATURE OF OWNER/CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT THIS PERMIT BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON BY BUILDING EPA THE c Permit#: 06205692 09/27/2006 Permit Type: RIPRAP Address': 15 65 34 K65415-04 LITTLE CONCH KEY SE1/2 OR371 Owner: - WALKER ISLAND LLC MM 62.3',OVERSEAS HWY ROAD REPAIR -RIP -RAP **NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT REQUIRED** PERMIT APPROVAL FOR REPAIR ACCESS ROAD TO WALKERS ISLAND W/ FILL & RIP -RAP PER APPROVED PLANS IN FILE. PERMIT ALLOWS UP TO (171) CY OF FILL. ALOE PERMIT #2006-2346 DTD: 4/21/06 DEP PERMIT #44-0263362-001 DTD: 4/10/06 NO ADDITIONAL WORK ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT. ******SEE PLANS REVIEWS FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO THIS PERMIT********+*****************+r*******+* ALL DEBRIS TO BE REMOVED TO A LEGAL DUMPING SITE. DEEMED NON -DEVELOPMENT. INSPECTION REQUIRED. DCA EXEMPT. SUBCONTRACTORS ID BUSINESS NAME STATE/COUNTY CERT # NO SUBCONTRACTORS ASSIGNED PLAN REVIEWS COMPLETED EXAM 10/06/2006 kostich P ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** BIO 10/06/2006 vaserisj A BIO APPROVED 10/06/06 BY JV FOR; REPAIR - ACCESS ROAD TO WALKERS ISLAND W/FILL & RIP RAP. "PERMIT ALLOWS UP TO 171 CUBIC YARDS OF ' FILL .......................... 11ALL CONDITIONS OF ACOE/FDEP PERMITS APPLY. 2)ALL REPAIR TO BE IN EXISTING FOOTPRINT ! NO EXPANSION OF ROADBED OR RIP RAPPED AREAS. ' 3)TURBIDITY CONTROL FOR ALL IN -WATER WORK. 4)NATIVE SHORELINE VEGETATION NOT TO BE DISTURBED. 5)NO LAND CLEAR THIS PERMIT. 4 5)STORMWATER TO BE RETAINED ON SITE. PLAN 10/13/2006 harbertb P Planning approval to repair access road and rip rap and fill as per plans in file. No other work on this permit. FIRE 10/16/2006 zavalnes P ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** FLOOD 10/17/2006 wingatem P fill authorized for roadway repair only. no alteration of existing grade authorized except in roadway per plans. MAR-BLDG 10/17/2006 benderd L ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** ASO 10/23/2006 williamc P PASSED PER WALTER 10/23/06 FINAL TO COORD COORD 10/31/2006 tuckerm P ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BL999 - REFER TO PERMIT CARD-REQ INSP LETTER,IIN FILE FROM JOHN LaROCCO AUTHORIZING JOHNT MCCARTHY TO HE AN AGENT FOR THIS PERMIT. 10/25/06 CW MONROE COUNTY ***LIVE*** Item 1 of 1 PERMIT RECEIPT OPERATOR: williamc COPY ## : 1 Sec:15 Twp:65 Rng:34 Sub: Blk: Lot: RE: 00099090000000 DATE ISSUED.......: 10/31/2006 RECEIPT #... 92273 REFERENCE ID # ...: 06205692 SITE ADDRESS 15 65 34 K65415-04 LITTLE CONC SUBDIVISION ....... CITY ............... IMPACT AREA ....... OWNER ............ WALKER ISLAND LLC ADDRESS ..........: 3 SUNSET BLVD CITY/STATE/ZIP ...: KEY LARGO, FL 33037 RECEIVED FROM ..... WALKERS ISLAND CONTRACTOR ........ LAROCCO, JOHN A LIC # 04316 COMPANY ............ J A LAROCCO ENTERPRISES INC ADDRESS ..........: 743 LARGO ROAD CITY/STATE/ZIP ...: KEY LARGO, FL 33037 TELEPHONE ........: 1'305) 453-0368 FEE ID UNIT QUANTITY ------------------------- AMOUNT PD-TO-DT THIS REC NEW BAL B- 0 EDUC ; FLAT RATE 1.00 ---------- --------- 2.00 0.00 ---------- 2.00 ---------- 0.00 S-18A SEAW LINEAL FEET 728.00 375.00 0.00 375.00 0.00 B-21A FILL CUBIC YARDS 171.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 SI-21B FIL FLAT RATE 1.00 a0.00 0.00 80.00 0.00 COPY 5.00 .COPY 4.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 LDR FEMA ,FLAT RATE 1.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 TOTAL PERMIT -------------------- 582.00 0.00 ------- 582.00 - 0.00 METHOD OF PAYMENT AMOUNT ----------------- NUMBER ------------ CHECK 1 502.00 ------------------ 1038 CHECK 80.00 2227 TOTAL RECEIPT : 582.00 9Td�, *xI rNv mpjL 2.8I. / WOOD F05T x-vC 36 1� J �i7i J-�5-C- eta — -2�_r3 - o._? ^ a- QONE 5TORY TRAILER 19 0 O 4 CONC TRAILM 105 C a o CONC DOCK RUDBLE AfTROX. 19 X 100 1--fj 00yo 'Mir TANK'-' ONE STORY TRAILER 11 . r 1 MHWL I.Oor 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5EF NAIL 3.77 O \ a J3 e � b 0 S£rytC jlAu ;iEPTIC O iANK 5Er NAIL 5.59, slur 0 FND NAIL 00 2.2,V %cr r r c o �r I o I q 5fm ° 1 TANK ' 1 ONE 5TOKY T LEK Mn-n f 1.0C, VEII / \ FND NAIL FLOG[FOL.LC ` 4.59' MhWL 1 FND NAIL f 3.5V FND NAIL b/1 240 PLASTIC 2.4`G / IE -0.63' 00 \ 24- F 240 PLP,5RC AD5 \ It -0 WOOD VOCK IE-O63' IN DiSEZEPAfiZ 0 24' PLA5TIC 05 / ' 0 iE-090 MONROE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMIT Date Applied: 02 / 20 / 200 frepored by: 8nt et oR Issued: 02 / 20 / 2007PO'm" No.: 07200813 Permit Type: DEMO Section Twnshp- Range Re # Resub 1 Resub 2 Mlle Marker 25 65 34 0@099090@ 010@ 062.5 Properly Address land Use District Reviewed by 15-65-34 R65415-04 LITTLE CONCH KEY PT 8191/2 - Subdivision Name L Address 15-65-34 K65415-04 LITTLE CONCH. Owner's Name / Address / Telephone General Contractor WALKERS ISLAND LLC MIKE HODES CONSTRUCTION INC 91760 OVERSEAS HWY. 6285 SW 70 STREET 1 TAVERNIERFL 33070 MIAMI, FL 33143 3058530378 (305) 853-5649 5541 Sub Contractor SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR SUBCONTRACTORS Construction BFE FFE FLZ Approved Water Source Flood Map Panel NO. Flood Elevation Requirement # Units Sq. Ft. Valuation Improvements RES 0 .92000.RESIDENTIAL Schedule of Fees FEE DESCRIPTION FEE AMT AMT PAID BALANCE DUE EDUCATION FEE INCOME FROM PERMITS 6.00 6.00 150.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 *** FEE TOTALS *** 156.00 156.00 0.00 62.4 OVERSEAS HWY. LITTLE CONCH KEY DEMO EXISTING M/H AND ALL STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY ***NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT NOT REQUIRED"""" PERMIT APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION OF TRAILER AND ** MORE INFORMATION TO PRINT ADDITIONAL PAGE REQ'D 1� rLcnx ncnu 1 nC nCYCnAC Vr i rua uV6.uMeN 1 oeruneAuu ai N Ab" LWNtH. WN I MAL, i UK UM AU i MUK LED AGENT. ram- � i SI,G UR OF OWNeFl, CONTRAcTOWOR#3U1L NG DEPARTMENT A HORiZED AGENT BUILDING DEPT BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 1. "FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MECHANICS' LIEN LAW CAN RESULT IN THE PROPERTY OWNER PAYING TWICE FOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS". 2. "WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT". 3. THIS PERMIT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 45 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE: UNLESS A CITIZEN OR THE DCA APPEALS THE ISSUANCE (F.S. 380.05). NO INSPECTIONS WILL BE PERFORMED DURING THE AFOREMENTIONED PERIOD: AND ANY WORK PERFORMED DURING THAT PERIOD IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. A WAIVER OF THIS WAITING PERIOD MAY BE APPLIED FOR BY WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE DCA AT THE TIME OF PERMIT APPLICATION. 4. THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY AFTER ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE PAID: AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE HAS BEEN REACHED. 5. THIS PERMIT SHALL INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR WHO SHALL PERFORM THE PERMITTED WORK. WHEN THE PERMITTED WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED BY A CONTRACTOR OTHER THAN THE CONTRACTOR ALREADY NAMED ON THE PERMIT, THE NEW CONTRACTOR, PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, MUST BE PROPERLY LICENSED AND INSURED TO PERFORM THAT WORK, AND MUST SIGN ON TO THE PERMIT AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. 6. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID UNLESS THE WORK AUTHORIZED IS COMMENCED (AND RECEIVES AN APPROVED INSPECTION FOR EITHER TEMPORARY ELECTRIC OR ANY INSPECTION COLORED RED ON THE PERMIT "HARD" CARD) WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PERMIT, 7 ONCE COMMENCED (WITH AN APPROVED INSPECTION) THIS PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF THE WORK AUTHORIZED DOES NOT HAVE ANOTHER APPROVED INSPECTION COLORED RED ON THE PERMIT "HARD" CARD AT LEAST EVERY ONE -HUNDRED AND TWENTY (120) DAYS. 8. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH. THE GRANTING OF THE PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. 9 THE PERMIT "HARD" CARD MUST BE DISPLAYED ON THE STREET SIDE OF THE LOT IN A PERMANENT; SUBSTANTIAL MANNER AND IN A CONSPICUOUS, SHELTERED LOCATION ACCESSIBLE TO THE INSPECTOR. THE PERMIT MUST REMAIN DISPLAYED UNTIL AFTER FINAL INSPECTIONS. ONE COPY OF APPROVED PLANS, BEARING BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAMPS, MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE; AVAILABLE TO THE INSPECT0NS AT THE TIME OF ALL INSPECTIONS. 10. ANY CHANGE IN BUILDING PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REPORTED TO AND RECORDED BY, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ANY WORK NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PERMIT, MUST HAVE A VALID ADDITIONAL PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING IN CONSIDERATION OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT, THE OWNER AND BUILDER AGREE TO ERECT THIS STRUCTURE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODES OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. 11. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE ELEVEN CONDITIONS. SIGNATURE OF OWNERTCONTRACTOR 5R AUTHORIZED AGENT THIS PERMIT BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT Permit #: 07200813 02/20/2007 Permit Type: DEMO Address: 15-65-34 K65415-04 LITTLE CONCH KEY PT SE1/2 Owner: WALKERS ISLAND LLC 62.4 OVERSEAS HWY. LITTLE CONCH KEY DEMO EXISTING M/H AND ALL STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY ***NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT NOT REQUIRED******** PERMIT APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION OF TRAILER AND ALL STRUCTURES. THIS PERMIT IS FOR DEMO ONLY. PERMIT REQUIRED FOR REPLACEMENT. DOH PERMIT #06-3239-A RECEIPT #0000584 NO OTHER WORK THIS PERMIT. ALL DEBRIS TO BE REMOVED TO A LEGAL DUMP SITE. DEEMED NON -DEVELOPMENT, INSEPCTION(S) REQUIRED PER PERMIT CARD. DCA EXEMPT. SUBCONTRACTORS ID BUSINESS NAME STATE/COUNTY CERT # NO SUBCONTRACTORS ASSIGNED PLAN REVIEWS COMPLETED EXAM ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** PLAN ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** S.I.-BLDG. ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** MAR-BLDG 02/20/2007 antetomj L ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** ASO 02/20/2007 ** NO NOTES FOR THIS REVIEW ** INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BL999 - REFER TO PERMIT CARD-REQ INSP Steven Whitfield from the Monroe County Health Department revised HRS Onsite Sewage Abandoment permit from 02/04/07 to 05/04/07. Verbal from Michael nodes giving John McCarthy permission to sign for and pick-up permit on his behalf. Letter will follow: 02/20/07 NL NL wAm 000990L04000OO 6225000AMPATLON COMMMCLAL U$e •HOTM MOT6Y mopv.r is FNOM1 AT Of rt ,AmwO r' MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY LOT 6 (PROPOSED) ..r PROPOSED PLAT OF LITTLE CONCH KEY MONROC COUNTY. FLOFJDA r I LOCATION MM- NID LaT a =,� ,F OCT 2 a= +rec xi rr o.re. �rq f3Y: uwrla f r �' rr r� rP r roo 9TCW B"ATM �p OVLR CONC SLAB 'r .I: • n n�,nA i \ e. me ao ew 4•�T'OD'N•—�• - ♦ 22.3T \ +43N719,w P w. Imo:, } \ NSO•M28w Si N72Y1321W r 3.3C� A T L A N T I :: D C L A N NST20Saw� . B.L9 436'21 34W ?` a.2a \ _ N k�•33� rw wae, I•- Ia ALL ANOLLD OCTCTCD AR 90 OLGIDLI UPILM OTHemmSL INOICAIM Aocwz2k AIM 62.5 •,oT:.Ima onrsmda I..rt eenr,wlrmr n esmlr aL.IerMA W/QRAiMLH1e11G eT� Iuue ,or TKLfIfiX•ILp(pr m awoekcx roanolr ne.oraw•cY a+re:Ixsurrwyq.a IwT ApaNrprq�q.3 eee. Ia[I.IOm roeLnce.t PeeWSRr.AIIG .o,e Af,Mdlbe rM111���tl1��O�4\.MM40C.OYn�Yll.1YrO mzz Curnrrcv TO - WALALRD pLAW. LL.C. LEGAL DG5CRrt*N - Lar a IrILOPOSm A PP4DFOW PAW& Or LAID ON urftr COWn W. MHO*" ON TNt PLON CA WT COOT 7WLNwY MA► *B CONCM rrr NO. 2 AND LOCNLY RIYTIL" AS IANMM5 ILLY AND ALSO WMG W 9BCTLON I $, TOM OW GS SOUTH, K01W 34 MST. M AIONKX COUNTY. rLONDA. AR-X. REECL`. P.A. PROressow L 5uRveym AND MM°PLR �-T Y1wOkMR�ON1LW. LY�i1 rvcf33043� a}L4 (!'1SF. p2 130 1'. kb w�..4FW�01.�Y1w.Ww�/n.w..�wra n! �� I�w 14.�w..ras c.ys Ve1[4l ve � .Pa.rjey. hlMlYMa Vlrr. w.ai.[•�r,y..# ..ava TpMeee rrw.�w n A-uem� Zq 0q I 3 aN a WRAMV WLAW u.a _ wAtAMts MAND 98 M10t 7M n �a lj 9I dLAEAP A% rt tans s Cil ly s� �ra.nan_�� AGE MORRM COINi W. FLOMA • M.M. 92.a OC WSM A P E & D . Inc. .r.w M rw. — W» Perex En�lae�.i� k_D�v�lopment, lnc. 00 N O N w W1 O m m =1 r+ A m r+ m go% --I CL m a) OIQ MN m MN O f+ m A O (A FNP O O (A (D CoL 3 A A v� 4/17/2013 Comprehensive Plan Changes Type of Dredgina M roe county Comprehensive Plan 1xisting Proposed NEW DREDGING _ Public channels no no Private channels no no MAINTENANCE DREDGING Public channels yes yes with seagrass yes yes with hardbottom communities yes yes Private channels yes yes with seagrass no no with hardbottom communities no no RE -DREDGING Public channels Private channels N/A N/A _ Historically -dredged, privately -owned access channels and/or boat basins serving (existing docking facilities and existing `lawfully -established upland development ;where seagrass has regrown E OA�G �Nty� nn yes only if meet stringent conditions and amend comp plan to incorporate specific subarea Seagrass Function • Primary Production — Releases high levels of oxygen into water column — Plays an important role in the food chain • Habitat — Supports diverse fish and invertebrate communities — Provides nursery area for fish and invertebrates like lobster, crab, and conch — Provides foraging area for birds • Food — Food source for manatees, sea turtles, parrotfish, and sea urchins — Provides food and shelter for prey of commercial and recreational fish and shellfish • Water Clarity — Nutrient uptake from water and sediments reduces phytoplankton blooms • Sediment Stabilization — Complex root systems provide shoreline stabilization and erosion prevention 1 4/17/2013 Where has the Seagrass Gone? Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) estimates 600 vessel groundings per year in the Keys Everglades National Park (ENP) 2008 study found average seagrass area loss due to prop scars alone = 2.1 acres/year Boat -caused Seagrass Damage in the Keys 2008 study at Lignumvitae State Aquatic Preserve found seagrass loss from prop scarring increased ® by 66 acres/year between 1994 and 1997 • by 26 acres/year from 1997 to 2005 $ FKNMS estimates that less than 2% of vessel groundings are reported and far less are actually restored 2 4/17/2013 FKNMS Report • FKNMS just conducted extensive public outreach to identify concerns and issues regarding Sanctuary resources and management ® Most -frequent single comment about seagrass protection in August 2012 report addressed need for more and better marking of flats and channels • "Sensitive areas need to be clearly marked and -posted, and continually maintained." • "Prop scarring is the most prevalent form of human interaction and destruction." • "Flats Inside FKNMS should be marked better to avoid running aground and prop scars." • "There needs to be better marking of the flats in the FKNMS." • "Encourage maintenance and proper marking/signage of safe boating channels." • "Improve shoal marking to increase avoidance by boats:' • "Improve shallow bank marking as these unique resources get hit a lot by boaters because they are not marked well." 3 4/17/2013 Comp Plan amendments lead to healthier seagrass beds through PREVENTION • Better marking of flats and channels • Signage 2008 Lignumvitae State Aquatic Preserve study "Signage is a relatively low-cost, long-term investment that becomes cost-effective if only 0.7 acres is avertec over the life of the signs." r ,A Boot Key Harbor —according to City Marina manager, marking of flat near marina reduced groundings and prop scars by more than 90% E! 4/17/2013 Seagrass Damage Prevention —Sebastian Inlet • Study found damage was reduced as much as 120 scars in two years from marking of channels with adequate depth and shallow areas to avoid 5 4/17/2013 Seagrass Restoration WORKS! • Guidelines for Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters (Published in 1998, r-onseca, et all — "Seagrass planting is no longer experimental..." • Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 2004 — Describes TESTED AND SUCCESSFUL restoration methodologies — 70-80% survival rate of transplants can be predicted in 1 year — First component of plan is restoration of injuries resulting from boat groundings — Second component of plan is preventive projects to reduce vessel groundings • Refer to Tab 1 for list of scientific papers and monitoring reports submitted to SFWMD to show proposed mitigation will work The Restoration Process Proven Restoration Methodology Sediment tubes apping limestone rock fill, Wilt Installed bird -roosting stakes. 2 4/17/2013 Example of Restoration Success In Florida Keys a � i y Holodule wrlghtil planting unit installed Into Holodule wrightil after 18 months of growth. sediment tube after tube wall deterioration. Density is greater than the surrounding seagrass bed. Water Quality Must Be Protected • Sediments must be tested and found clean • Keys are Outstanding Florida Waters • No allowed degradation ._ of background conditions • Turbidity curtains must be installed around all sediment -moving operations Aft II+�: liar • Monitoring every 4 hours • If background turbidity exceeded, T SFWMD notified and job stopped until corrected ,-A 7 4/17/2013 why Now? • County studies and Sanctuary scoping recommend more and better channel marking to reduce boat -caused seagrass damage • Seagrass restoration works! • Marking channels works! • Water quality is protected • 2004 Sanctuary plan provides scientifically -proven ways to restore seagrass and also urges prevention of impacts • NOT re -dredging private channels serving existing docks means- - Unsafe boating access — Destroyed seagrasses that are unlikely to ever be restored — No maintenance in perpetuity — No protection of surrounding seagrass flats This is better public policy than the status quo! Seagrass Restoration and Protection Cost a lot of $$ • Seagrass restoration = approx. $348,000 per acre • Required monitoring = approx. $10,000 per year • Buoys = $560 each installed • Markers = $1,000 each installed • Marker and buoy maintenance —Monroe County spent ave. $871.00 per unit in 2011-2012 H. 4/17/2013 Who Should Pay for Seagrass Restoration and Protection? YES NO • Taxpayers ❑ • Environmental groups ❑ 19 • Property owners ® ❑ General Structure of Comp Plan Amendments • Limited in scope • Sub -area policy requirement for each parcel — In depth, site -specific review — Stringent requirements to meet • Consensus of all resource management and regulatory agencies E 4/17/2013 Stringent Requirements • Evidence of legally -established, historically -dredged channel and/or boat basin • Existing, lawfully -established upland development and existing docking facility • Privately -owned submerged land only • Demonstrable natural shoaling restricting access to open water • Demonstrable threat of scarring to seagrass beds Stringent Requirements • Limit on depth of re -dredging to < 5 feet at MLW • Mitigation for unavoidable impacts • Perpetual maintenance • High bonding requirements • Lengthy and costly approval process • All State and federal permits acquired before construction starts we, 4/17/2013 Walker's Island 0 Meets each requirement and more • Now-8 single-family homes being rebuilt served by existing dock r � '■rdtr �.: 9 r: See Tab 2 for County, State and federal dock permits _ . ' ' • 11 4/17/2013 Walker's Island • Basin and channel dredged in mid-1950s - r ..y . 1 - Boat Bann y-•. Entrances !Ork Ghann41V A 1955 - 1957 Documented source of photos: U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey Walker's Island * Problem is entrance channel has filled in over time - r= 12 4/17/2013 Walker's Island — Current Damage • Almost 1/10 acre of just prop scars visible on 2012 aerials • Does not include blowholes as those can only be accurately delineated in the field, and smaller prop scars not visible on aerial photos • 1/10 acre is low number from what damage is actually out there This Is with little use of dock because upland being redeveloped Damage will certainly increase substantially without re -dredged channel when homeowners start using existing dock • Reality is little to no enforcement or restoration Propeller Scare Visible in 2012 Aerial Imagery j :ems. Walker's Island —To Reach the Basin Saurue: Monroe County. 20f A,U P ..o by Shell, e.yn d SWc 13 4/17/2013 Walker's Island —Environmental Permitting Process • Submitted application to SFWMD and USACE • Met with SFWMD, NMFS and Sanctuary staff —received input on how to shape project and develop comprehensive management plan for shallow flats • Go through many rounds of Requests for Additional Information (RAls) with SFWMD, covering, among many other things— ✓ Shallowing and narrowing of design to minimize impacts ✓ Dredging and water quality protection methods ✓ Reasonable assurance mitigation would work ✓ Impact and mitigation assessment scores ✓ Types of signage and buoys ✓ Educational and HOA document process ✓ Bonding requirements for mitigation Walker's ERP Process (cont.) • SFWMD staff ground-truthed entire site, NMFS and Sanctuary staff ground-truthed proposed entrance channel re -dredge path • Process took 5 years and many thousands of dollars to develop plan that SFWMD considered met stringent State requirements • Will go back to USACE and amend application to include all stringent requirements from SFWMD process • Sanctuary may participate through USACE permit or issue their own permit —has not made that call yet This process is not for the faint of heart —many will choose not to use these comp plan amendments! 14 4/17/2013 Walker's Island • Restore depth -4.5 feet MLW • Minimize size of entrance channel • Minimize impacts • Mitigate with extensive monitoring to ensure success • Offsite restoration as well, part of regional restoration plan • Signage • Education • Perpetual maintenance Walker's Island Elimination & reduction of impacts Impact Original Current Proposal Comparisons Dredge (acres) (4.5') (acres) Sand Impacts 0.30 0.20 Seagrass Impacts 1.86 0.43 Total 2.16 0.63 Total Avoided Impacts 0.00 1.53 Avoided Seagrasses 0.00 1.43 15 4/17/2013 Walker's Island Detailed Data Required for Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan Undredged area to north has 55-65% cover Undredged area to south has 50-70% cover Entrance channel has 40- 45% cover Mitigation compliance criteria based on undredged area cover See Tab 3 for my and Shelll Tallacksen's professional resumes, and also NAEP Code of Ethics that SWC holds to. Also, see Tabs4 and 5, that provide all final environmental data. Walker's Island — Restoration & Protection • Onsite ✓ Basin restoration ✓ Prop scar and blowhole restoration ✓ Signs and markers ✓ Conservation easement • Offsite ✓ Prop scar and blowhole restoration ✓ Markers All maintalned in perpetuity with fully enforceable permit conditions Oldrm.aa�.va-aaawea r�pawa r.N9rvr awp. -Pia w+. -�°"`M�c�a�n s.ra.•a••r.a�rr s�.wa•aau,�... newaerr. ema.-a.�.». 16 4/17/2013 Walker's Island—Signage and Markers December 2010 aerial shows scarring that would have been prevented r. r Lpmd ri• ,.:.� ow...n a..r [ •. f. ♦ m m g— ��pNw r ,... -. �.i3aee ev snen aro,•,em sva Walker's Island —Educational Component • All permit requirements included in Home Owner's Association documents • Educational letter in layman's language explaining sensitive habitats and commitments made to protect them • Informative brochures, including Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary's "Keep Your Bottom Off the Bottom" • Informational billboard installed at dock entrance • Mailing of informative brochure to all Monroe County registered boaters 17 4/17/2013 Examples of Educational Materials N(�H [ ili! 1910 KEEPING - YOUR J`jV BOTTOM OFF THE BOTTOM Fll cll l.Uf1A"Pt,n, •�•.,�: �ce,a, :-� •-•�}�5"tilt l•; µ RIS10Rf A SCAR Specific SFWMD Permit Conditions • Mitigation must be bonded ($236,594.00), and bond not be released until mitigation is successful • Boat size limited to 34 feet and 3 feet of draft = 1.5 feet of clearance from re -dredged channel bottom • Direct compensatory mitigation includes — Filling and restoration of % acre dead deep basin in privately -owned submerged land — Restoring 0.13 acres of existing propeller scars and blow holes on privately -owned submerged land — Putting more than 27 acres of privately -owned submerged land under conservation easement, requiring maintenance and restoration of any damage in perpetuity by upland property owners — Installing "shallow seagrass" and "shoal' markers around the entire 26-acre submerged land parcel to keep boaters from running aground — Doubling size of existing culvert, which will result in increasing water circulation In area by 400% — Installing rip rap cribs under docks to reduce prop wash from boats using docks 18 4/17/2013 Specific SFWMD Permit Conditions (cont.) —Total mitigation more than 8.5 times that required by State mitigation assessment method to meet "clearly in the public interest" test — Education • Installing seagrass educational sign at dock • mailing educational materials to every Monroe County registered boater • incorporating all requirements into HOA documents • layman -friendly HOA educational materials on value of seagrasses and their commitments as property owners • Buoys and markers around flats and along channel — Maintenance of everything in perpetuity • Additional extra credit includes — Restoration of 0.27 acres of prop scars and blow holes on adjacent flat which is State submerged land — Installing markers along that flat — Maintenance of restored damage and markers in perpetuity All fully enforceable because of permits and conditionsl Summary of Amendment Effects Policy issues Amendments With I Without Seagrass growth Seagrass replanting Continued boat damage Protection of shallow flats Continued loss of seagrass Maintenance in perpetuity No maintenance Based on current science Not using uo-to-date information Responsibility/ Enforcement Enforcable, stringent permit conditions Only general laws apply with very few enforcement agents Hard or impossible to identify responsible party Clearly identified responsible party Free to taxpayers Costs taxpayers Leaves to chance --seldom happens Healthier environment Proactive public -private partnership Subject to constant funding shortages Net positive environmental benefits paid for byproperty owners Costs taxpayers Safe boating access Provided and maintained Boats will run aground Impacts mitigated Continued loss of seagrass lAny future boat damage restored IDamage seldom enforced or restored This is good public policy! 19 4/17/2013 Monroe County Staff Analysis of Eligible Properties Number of Eligible Monroe County Parcels Properties Criteria Total 90,537 200 1. Existing entrance channels ■ Eligible Parcels in Monroe County ■ InellgibleParcels 20 20 Z. Privately -owned, submerged parcels 3. Seagrass habitat 4. Existing docking facility & upland units 5. Appropriate and adequate mitigation potential 98;5i7 6. Available funding � 7. Willingness to engage in lengthy and costly permit process 8. Willingness to commit to maintenance in perpetuity if 9. Willingness to implement all other ` of extensive list of conditions +j 1 10. Willingness to go through comp plan amendment process Monroe County's New Wednesday, April ln, 2013 Seagrass Restoration Proposal Florida Keys Keynoter COUNTY COMMISSION Another BP project ID' d Restoration $3 rdakm Mia wlhlan. Warred flat and idpiffy wa "Aermnl;aW Iiridng in mat im kvt areas with of Seagrass hycrglaka adr� s l �Y, ffil- . eel b- .n atmkl al n ' Fia Ilia arena —Id to is floated naorie imps for mote diaol coated. rlww 1. prerenl 11 boli n rd wppnn !tram. ra %iL then rnon- By KEVIN WADLDW na4maad viLLIyaknr of lmrcd ca gaugo ft wsacaen Seniw saMwrlter 1'd.l1w fan -taros Jab[," oyr of the oQort- kwadlovr6keynatw= ds+Ia� 1 paaPwA lrnln,d. BasaFa, of d* prugrarn Boi*fiilr rod lkpm U t,. a vkl hc'lp�leg wrier A Proposal to may ®d w-ki,% ldl C5A Dews quduy, LUTS labarex reawe Florida Keya shdlr.- gra Inc, of'ZnWL centug lob,art g wma babitale rose 1*0 by tar- Keys Ywcsuary Supra• our 'alma! moaurraf h— p.wd bw,lual, will be rub- W-dad SM, Marton Naga," a rapmr rats Weed to the Mourou Couory mde la r Opp. iFLI kd- Nwgna a a mwnhae and Cwnmwion on Apra 17. [hn "prwojed Q cowa�irlrma�r • d . Fite Counly Mayor George tribde inward d,e sac Neugonl will, ,eaa and seek the , - ary's 2 f. oww plan to Mark frraaa, aenkx ae4 mawan'a support In listing ,alrepair crStlial eatirl silh CSA, Wald U "large-asa1a nwaradon habhals by 'MMarini of d,arutel and bank babi- pa Ring-lmpar:ied ors• -'M K lea" w a kW prtrica auh- ;raft wasdnera, im mi+mog A port.* of lbw paid by added for handing c klor- rmpvrdion sad miaaladac- Deeps sax If sixm ddI Won tinder die Rem. Am. 4 Grtng eW&tti sad eat drit'WMI sxiw[c =. hart of the BP Dwpwm. grans-^ is <dpinlamr aal.F+;& Iior saide..N. Theop0h pr'! '^ld ba m Aw di mo tram dos wtid .0irsaw costa for censidarod A 'high foaay scowl spill mmi ifs dacaF the plan, Imposed by the for the aaetua_ry and die The l7aryvty [:wsmiadoe Boneruh and Tlapw 7tuat _MaWa Keys eauttnmuly.' rtwa# APIP 17 gr Oro - and abaady eadoraed by the MaRtn ssd- "y ()ov— �� Irimida Keys National Aa proposed." pmjedi in Kay WM Me = ge wary, run from woohi update IM a=. of 1. Dr. Fonseca wrote HIS that specifies mitigation methods required by amendments 2. Dr. Fonseca authored many articles provided to SFWMD to document mitigation would work 3. We are asking for opportunity to use private funds to do same thing —and protect and restore in perpetuityl 20 RESULT: Win /Win The Model for More Healthy Protected Seagrass! Key west • MIAML CWww.6,XCX% net Page * Copy of item not included Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 6K References Consulting Engineering & Science, Inc. 2009. Fifth Annual Monitoring Report/Third Annual Post -Planting Report, Horseshoe Pit Seagrass Restoration, West Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida. South Florida Water Management District Standard General Permit 44-00298-P, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit 2000-0423 LP -MD 16 Engeman, Richard M., Janice A. Duquesnel, Ernest M. Cowan, Henry T. Smith, Stephanie A. Shwiff, Melissa Karlin. 2008. Assessing Boat Damage to Seagrass Bed Habitat in a Florida Park from a Bioeconomics Perspective. Journal of Coastal Research 24:2, 527 17 Fonseca, Mark S., 1997. Report in the case of United States v. Fisher et al. Case No. 92-10027-CIVIL-DAVIS. Fonseca MS, Kenworthy WJ, Thayer GW. 1998. Guidelines for the conservation and restoration of seagrasses in the United States and adjacent waters. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No 12. 220 pp. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD 32 Hall, Margaret O., Manuel Merello, W. Judson Kenworthy, Donna Berns, Keri Ferenc, Jennifer Kunzelman, Farrah Hall, and Jitkya Hyniova. 2006. Developing Techniques to Enhance the Recovery Rates of Propeller Scars in Turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum) Meadows. Final Report to USFWS. 85 Hammerstrom, K.K., W.J. Kenworthy, P.E. Whitfield, M.F. Merello. 2007. Response and recovery dynamics of seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme and macroalgae in experimental motor vessel disturbances. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 345, pp. 83-92. September 2007. 86 Kenworthy, W. Judson and Fonseca, Mark S. and Whitfield, Paula E. and Hammerstrom, Kamille and Schwarzschild, Arthur C.. (2000) A Comparison of Two Methods for Enhancing the Recovery of Seagrasses into Propellor Scars: Mechanical Injection of a Nutrient and Growth Hormone Solution vs. Defecation by Roosting Seabirds: Final Report. Beaufort, NC. NOAA/National Ocean Service/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science/Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research 127 Kenworthy, W. Judson, Kamille Hammerstrom, Mark S. Fonseca. 2006. Scientific Evaluation of a Sediment Fill Technique for the Restoration of Motor Vessel Injuries in Seagrass Beds of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unpub. Final — 2 October 2006. 144 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. August 2004. Key M'erA • Mlamf ov�^'' kMlymad - Forl *twrs YJ.Y1V $wrd11C f181 Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 154 Penalver, M.F. Merello, W.J. Kenworthy, M.O. Hall, D. Berns, K. Ferenc. Scientific Evaluation of Methods for the Biophysical Stabilization and Restoration of Damaged Seagrass Meadows. Poster courtesy of Seagrass Recovery, Inc. M.R. Perrow, A.J. Davy (Eds.), Handbook of Ecological Restoration: Volume 1 Principles of Restoration: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 444 pp. 155 Precht, William, Lonny Anderson, William Goodwin, Shelli Braynard, Alicia Farrer, Hatsue Bailey, Jeff Anderson, and Amy Massey. 2008. Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Conference, Naples, FL. Poster. 156 Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options. Florida Marine Research Institute TR-1. 193 Seagrass Recovery, 2009. Knight's Key Restoration Project — SeaGrassGrow, Year 1 Monitoring Report. http://www.seagrassrecovery.com/article_Knights_Key_ Restoration_Project.htm 208 Uhrin, A.V., M.O. Hall, M.F. Merello, and M.S. Fonseca. Survival and Expansion of Mechanically Transplanted Seagrass Sods. Restoration Ecology [Restor. Ecol.]. Vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 359-368. May 2009. 2011 Additions to References City of Marathon, Boot Key Harbor. http://www.ci.marathon.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=26 219 Deis, Donald R, Leslie Duncan, and Amit Hazra. 2009. Sebastian Inlet Channel Completion Project — Comprehensive Seagrass Mitigation Program, 2009 Program Update. http://www.fsbpa.com/201OBeachTechPresentations/DonDeis.pdf 255 Kenworthy, W. Judson. 2002. Identification and Development of Seagrass Transplant Donor Sites in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unpub. Final —15 February 2002 for NOAA's Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, NC. 262 Lamb, Neil J. 2006. West Bay Seagrass Restoration Pilot Project. Final Report to US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Coastal Program Grant: 1448- 40181-00-G-155. The St. Andrew Bay Enviornmental Study Team, BEST Publication #0011, September 2006. 290 Stowers, J.F., E. Fehrmann, and A. Squires. 2006. Seagrass Scarring in Tampa Bay: Impact Analysis and Management Options. Presented at a Mote Marine Laboratory workshop, Sarasota, FL, March 11-12, 2003. Published by Lewis Environmental Services, Inc, Valrico, FL. References have been provided electronically and in the interest of environmental conservation, have not been printed. i N �� 111i L��fr ,ya0.f ns.ac . State of Florida DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RAL RESOURCES I CES DR. ELTON T GISSENDANNER Executive Director Marjor} Stoneman Douglas Building 39GO Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32.103 November 27, 1984 Mr. Glen Boe, Vice President Design Management Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 3406 Marathon Shores, Florida 33052 Dear Mr. Boe: File No, 44-92872-5E Applicant: Mr. Jeffrey Meyer BOBGRAHAM Governor GEORGE FIRESTONE Secretary of State JIM SMITI-H Attorney General GERALD A. LEWIS Comptroller BILL GUNTER Treasurer DOYLE CONNER Commimdoner of Agriculture RALPH D. TURLINGTON Commissioner of Education This office has no objection to your project as proposed in Department of Environmental Regulation's permit application number 44-92872-5EI dated September 10, 198� showing the location in Section 15, Township 6.5 South, Range 34 East, in Monroe County. Consider this the authority sought under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, to pursue this project. This letter in no way waives the authority and/or jurisdiction of any governmental entity nor does this letter disclaim any title interest that the State may have in this project site. rely, Sincr ren, Chief ur au f State Lands Management TF/ gbe. cc: Department of Environmental Regulation DIVISIONS I ADMINISTRATION BEACHES AND SHORES LAW ENFORCEMENT MARINE RESOURCES (RECREATION AND PARKS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATE LANDS MONROE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMIT )afeApplied: I P" issued: 0 1 t L �i Z00hermit No.: 06206450 lormitTypo: DOCK /S'SAWALL P61PAIR t :Section :,;Twqshp. fie # 'Res 2 Mile Marker 65 --34 00099090000000 @62 "'es .. .. . ..... Reviewed by p'erty'Address Ind Us6.Distilct 15 65 3— 4 K6541504 LITTLE CONCH KEY S81/2 OR 371MUP 2 7 bdi vis idn:N ape V Legal Address 115 6,5 :3 11 4 X654i:5-04 LITTLE CONCH WALKER'S ISLAND LLC 91760 OVERS13AS HWY TAVERNIERF'L 33070 3055225854 FLZ • 66nw4j contractor:'". J A LAROCCO ENTERPRISES INC 7433 LARGO ROAD: KEY LARGO, FL :33037: (305 } .,-.453-0368 4316 SEM :.ATTACHED PAGE FOR SUSCOVT RACTORS 'Flood bdAt! VS11 116-7K 0- i. RES 'CIAL OdUle Of Fees Am"), AMT PAID BALANCE DUE 0oNV1R0NMF.NTAL -.00 813.00 0 t:-wOME FIRI)M' PERMITS Fri,, Fv, TOTAIX, 11 1,429.00 ------------- 1,429.00 4m. 62 3 OVE033,2A.8 AVVY, LITTL�. coNcH K f�, Y SHORTSILINS, REPAIR REQUIRE D* 'A *Ir APPROVAL POR DOCK RE'PAIR W/IjAUDWARD OF MHW TO PR.N'T ADDITIONAL PAGE PLEASE READ THE REVERS SIEKATURE OF OWNER, CDT eA-CTOR AUTHORIZED AGENT U A BY BUILDING nimr, mi=n-r ARTME AUTHORIZED Sec:15 Twp:65 Rng:34 Sub: Blk: Lot: RE: ........: 00099090000000 DATE ISSUED.......: 01/25/2007 RECEIPT #.........: 95256 REFERENCE ID # ...: 06206450 SITE ADDRESS 15 65 34 K65415-04 LITTLE CONC SUBDIVISION ....... CITY .............. IMPACT AREA ....... OWNER WALKER'S ISLAND LLC ADDRESS 91760 OVERSEAS HWY CITY/STATE/ZIP ...; TAVERNIER, FL 33070 RECEIVED FROM JOHN MCCARTHY CONTRACTOR LAROCCO, JOHN A LIC # 04316 COMPANY J A LAROCCO ENTERPRISES INC ADDRESS ..........: 743 LARGO ROAD CITY/STATE/ZIP ...: KEY LARGO, FL 33037 TELEPHONE (305) 453-0368 FEE ID UNIT QUANTITY 3- C PLAN FLAT RATE 1.00 t- 0 EDUC FLAT RATE 1.00 t- BIO EDU FLAT RATE 1.00 1-18A SEAW LINEAL FEET 720.00 1-19A DOCK SQUARE FEET 1,500.00 1-19C DOCK EACH 33.00 -' X FILL CUBIC YARDS 1.00 3I LB FIL FLAT RATE 1.00 'OTAL PERMIT : M-0011i4i 50.00 2.00 2.00 375.00 375.00 495.00 50.00 80.00 1429.00 [ETHOD OF PAYMENT AMOUNT NUMBER 'HECK 1429.00 2251 'OTAL RECEIPT 1429.00 PD-TO-DT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THIS REC 50.00 2.00 2.00 375.00 375.00 495.00 50.00 80.00 1429.00 NEW BAL 0.00 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NATIONWIDE PERMIT VERIFIC TI N Date q111JQ2 Dear Applicant: Your ap lic ion for a Department of the Army (DA) permit has been assigned number The proposed w k identified i lour.. r1c(' database as 'll i A review of the information and drawings provided shows that your project is authorized by Na aon ide Permit (NWP) number . This NWP verification is valid untilyC' or as otherwise noted at our web site. Please access http://www.saj.usa'ce. army. mil/permit/permitting/nwp.htm for additional information regarding this determination. The internet address shown is case sensitive and must be entered exactly as shown. In order to comply with the terms and conditions of the NWP authorization you are required to access the noted web page to view the conditions associated with the use of this verification. The Self -Certification process identified in the General Conditions must be accomplished to maintain compliance with the issued verification. If you are unable to ac e s the internet site provided, you must notif thg signed project manager, jWj7 by telephone at (j - 7 L T to obtain a copy of any conditions, limitations, or expiration date information for the authorization provided by this correspondence. A separate DA permit is not required providing the work is done in accordance with the drawings and informati n s provided in your request, received by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Qsys) , and the terms and conditions listed at the website address identified above. If you do not complete construction of your project within the appropriate time limit, a separate application or re - verification will be required. This verification includes an approved jurisdictional determination (JD). You may accept or appeal the approved JD, or provide new information. If you disagree +ith the approved JD, you may appeal it under the Corps' Administrative Appeal rocess by following the procedures provided at the web site noted above. Thank you for your cooperation with our permit program. The Corps Jacksonville District Regulatory Division is committed to improving service to our customers. We strive to perform our duty in a friendly and timely manner while working to preserve our environment. We invite you to take a few minutes to visit the following link and complete our automated Customer Service Survey: http://www.saj. us ace.army.mil/permit/forms/customer_service.htm. Your input is appreciated - favorable or otherwise. ncere , S 1 t M. Carpe e Colonel, U.S. y District Engineer NOTE: In Florida, projects qualifying for this GP must be authorized under Part IV of Chapter 373 by the Department of Environmental Protection, a water management district under s. 373.069, F.S., or a local government with delegated authority under s. 373.441, F.S., and receive Water Quality Certification (WOC) and Coastal Zone Consistency Concurrence (CZCC) or waiver thereto, as well as any authorizations required for the use of sovereignty submerged lands that must be obtained as part of the associated WQC or CZCC. NOTE: This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of the Corps Clean Water Act Jurisdiction for the particular site Identified In this request. This delineaflon/determinatlon may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1965, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants; or anticipate participation In USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local offios of the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to starting work. Edition Date: 19 November 2005 a US ARMY Co,RP,S OF ENGINEERS a w w bO e e o a E w l op a Q w m gi 1�1 Z as qt o U RECENED 2 JUL 19 2"��� jD.E.P. Maratha 9 �S 0 d,oP �jOc�w 0�MpW,N M cm O W CD C9v°OirF a a a ����,� FAOxELilO:Y Jeb Bush Governor Walkers Island LLC Department of Environmental Protection c/o Glen Boe and Associates, Inc. 5800 Overseas Highway, Suite 4 Marathon, FL 33050 PIM Dear Sir/Madam: September 15, 2006 Monroe County - ERP File No. 44-0263362-002 Little Conch Key Conch Key Colleen M. Castille Secretary Thank you for your application to replace a dock in footprint and to repair riprap revetment in footprint and to place riprap in a manner that does not impact shoreline vegetation on the Atlantic Ocean in Section 15, Township 65 South, Range 34 East, Monroe County. This type of activity may require authorization for construction and operation of the project (regulatory authorization), unless otherwise exempt by statute or rule, and an authorization to use state-owned submerged lands (proprietary authorization). Your request has been reviewed for both authorizations. The authorizations you have been granted are listed below. Please read each section carefully. Your project MAY NOT have qualified for both authorizations. If your project did not qualify for one or more of the authorizations, then that specific section will advise you how to obtain it. You may NOT commence your project without both authorizations. If you change the project from what you submitted, the authorization(s) granted may no longer be valid at the time of commencement of the project. Please contact us prior to beginning your project if you wish to make any changes. REGULATORY REVIEW - APPROVED Based on the information you sent to us, we have determined that your project is exempt from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). You must comply with the criteria and limiting conditions in accordance with Section 40E-4.051(3)(d) and (4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. PROPRIETARY REVIEW — NOT REQUIRED The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the location of the proposed project as described in the above referenced application and has determined that the project, as described, does not involve the use of sovereign submerged lands. Accordingly, no further authorization will be "More Protection, Less Process" Printed on recycled paper. Application No.: 44-0263362-002 Applicant: Walkers Island LLC Page 2 of 2 required from the Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources Program, designated agent to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to Chapter 253.77, F.S. A copy of your notice also has been sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) for review. The USACOE may require a separate permit. Failure to obtain this authorization prior to construction could subject you to enforcement action by that agency. For further information, you should contact the USACOE at (305) 526-7181. This notice constitutes final agency action and is subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S. If you have any questions, please contact me at the letterhead address, by telephone at (305) 289-2310, or by email at Bruce.Franck@dep.state.fl.us. When referring to this project, please reference the file number listed above. Sincerely, Bruce Franck Environmental Specialist II Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program Enclosures: Rights of Affected Parties Notice of Determination of Exemption cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Miami RIGHTS OF AFFECTED PARTIES To: Walkers Island LLC Date: September 15, 2006 File No. 44-0263362-002 This letter acknowledges that the proposed activity is exempt from ERP permitting requirements under Section 40E- 4.051(3)(d) and (4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This determination is final and effective on the date filed with the Clerk of the Department unless a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is timely filed under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes as provided below. If a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is timely filed, this determination automatically becomes only proposed agency action subject to the result of the administrative review process. Therefore, on the filing of a timely and sufficient petition, this action will not be final and effective until further order of the Department. The procedures for petitioning for a hearing are set forth in the attached notice. This determination is based on the information you provided the Department and the Statutes and Rules in effect when the application was submitted and is effective only for the specific activity proposed. This determination shall automatically expire if site conditions materially change or the governing statutes or rules are amended. In addition, any substantial modifications in your plans should be submitted to the Department for review, as changes may result in a permit being required. In any event, this determination shall expire after one year. Be advised that your neighbors and other parties who may be substantially affected by the proposed activity allowed under this determination of exemption have a right to request an administrative hearing on the Department's decision that the proposed activity qualifies for this exemption. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to redetermine final agency action on the application, the filing of a petition for an administrative hearing may result in a final determination that the proposed activity is not authorized under the exemption established under Section 40E-4.051(3)(d) and (4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Department will not publish notice of this determination. Publication of this notice by you is optional and is not required for you to proceed. However, in the event that an administrative hearing is held and the Department's determination is reversed, proceeding with the proposed activity before the time period for requesting an administrative hearing has expired would mean that the activity was conducted without the required permit. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice that the replacement of a dock in footprint and the repair of a riprap revetment in footprint on the Atlantic Ocean in Section 15, Township 65 South, Range 34 East, Monroe County has been determined to be exempt from requirements to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received by the clerk) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Mediation is not available. If a timely and sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is filed, other persons whose substantial interests will be affected by the outcome of the administrative process have the right to petition to intervene in the proceeding. Intervention will be permitted only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-106.205 of the Florida Administrative Code. In accordance with Rule 62-110.106(3), petitions for an administrative hearing must be filed within 21 days of publication of the notice or receipt of written notice, whichever occurs first. Under Rule 62-110.106(4) of the Florida Administrative Code, a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may also request an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. The Department may, for good cause shown, grant the request for an extension of time. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 prior to the applicable deadline. A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. Upon motion by the requesting party showing that the failure to file a request for an extension of time before the deadline was the result of excusable neglect, the Department may also grant the requested extension of time. The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition for an administrative hearing within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that right. A petition that disputes the material acts on which the Department's action is based must contain the following information: (a) The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; (b) The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner; the name, address and telephone number of the petitioner's representative, if any, which shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceeding; and an explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the agency determination; (c) A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (d) A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (e) A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (f) A statement of the specific Rules or Statutes that the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; and (g) A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. A petition that does not dispute the material facts on which the Department's action is based shall state that no such facts are in dispute and otherwise shall contain the same information as set forth above, as required by Rule 28-106.301. Under Sections 120.569(2)(c) and (d) of the Florida Statutes, a petition for administrative hearing shall be dismissed by the agency if the petition does not substantially comply with the above requirements or is untimely filed. Complete copies of all documents relating to this determination of exemption are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at Department of Environmental Protection, South District Branch Office, 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 221, Marathon, Florida 33050. SANDRA WALTERS President ACADEMIC BACKGROUND Masters Degree in Marine Studies, University of Miami, Florida, 1983 Bachelor of Science in Animal Behavior and Marine Biology, University of California, Davis, CA, 1974 SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE Ms. Walters has more than 25 years of professional experience in Florida. She is qualified as an Expert Witness in Florida administrative hearings and court proceedings; has conducted and supervised environmental studies, and developed avoidance and mitigation plans, in all South Florida submerged and upland habitats; has successfully permitted projects ranging from single family homes to developments of regional impact, working with all regulatory agencies; has extensive experience in design and implementation of public participation programs and review and development of comprehensive plans; and has represented clients successfully with many agencies and government boards. She is presently a member of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, appointed by governors Bush and Crist, serving as chair in 2009; serves on EPA's Water Quality Steering Committee for the Florida Keys; and served from 2000 to 2004 as a Governor's appointee on Florida's Acquisition and Restoration Council, which supervises purchase and management of State conservation lands. REPRESENTATIVE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Principal, Sandra Walters Consultants, Inc., Key West, Miami, Hollywood & Fort Myers, FL, 1996-present Provide consulting services to both public and private sector clients in areas of ecological/environmental and land use planning and permitting, including habitat evaluation, mitigation and contamination assessment and remediation; public involvement and outreach; and community and government liaison. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • PERMITTING • MITIGATION • MONITORING SERVICES ➢ Horizontal Directional Drill Permitting, Islamorada Wastewater Project Principal in charge of permitting with DEP, USACE and FKNMS for directional drills across seven channels in Upper Florida Keys to accommodate wastewater pipelines. Work involves extensive coordination with project engineers, contractors, resource management and regulatory agencies; benthic and emergent habitat assessments including detailed mapping and characterization of resources below which pipeline will run; preparation and processing of permit applications; and responses to requests for additional information. ➢ Submerged Habitat Study and Sediment Analysis, Key West Harbor and Vicinity Conduct survey of submerged habitats in and around Key West Harbor. Divers collected field data from 50, randomly selected sites. This data was then collated into maps showing general distribution of habitats in area, and underwater photographs were organized and printed. Data was compared with that collected at other sites throughout Florida Keys, to assess habitat quality in relation to shipping activities in Harbor. Supervise collection of sediment samples in and near harbor following approved DEP protocol, transmit to State certified laboratory for testing for petroleum contamination and RCRA metals, prepare report summarizing findings. ➢ Mallory Dock Maintenance Dredge, City of Key West Principal in charge for successful acquisition of all permit modifications to add Mallory Dock to scope of Navy Key West Harbor dredging project, including collection of all data on submerged habitats required by agencies, coordination with dredging company and environmental monitoring contractor, acquisition of EPA approval for use of offshore disposal site, provision of Quality Assurance services onboard the dredging vessel, and preparation of all final reports to Navy and permitting agencies including DEP and USACE. Represented City in Navy agency partnership process for harbor dredge and other environmental issues. ➢ Port Everglades Master Plan Update, Broward County Principal in charge of all natural systems data collection and analysis and permitting assessments for five- year master plan update, including incorporation of updated plan into County comprehensive plan. ➢ Environmental Impact Study & Permitting, Ft. Lauderdale Airport Runway Extension Principal in charge of fulfillment of all NEPA requirements including T&E species impact assessment and wetland delineation, coordination with environmental regulatory agencies, and preparation and processing of environmental permit applications for final, selected alternative. Acquired concurrence from all resource agencies on jurisdictional lines and UMAM scores for all wetlands affected by one or more project alternatives, prepared administrative draft and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, participated in DEIS OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES r MAIN TEL:305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET _,�! WBE - SBE • DBE • CBE • WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM VITAE PAGE 2 public hearing, prepared EFH and Biological assessments for National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, prepared responses to all ecological questions for DEIS and FEIS; assisted with preparation of Final EIS. ➢ Wetland Delineation, Essential Fish Habitat Assessment and Local Permitting Support for Utility Corridor, Okeechobee, Hillsborough and Miami -Dade counties Principal in charge of wetland data collection and jurisdictional delineation for utility corridor, utilizing both federal and State wetland delineation methodologies, including extensive habitat characterization, mapping using sub -foot -accuracy Trimble GPS equipment, and daily downloading and transmitting of data to central processing facility. Also preparing EFH Assessment meeting NMFS requirements for South Dade County segment, including cumulative and secondary impacts analyses, and providing coordination and assistance with local permitting in Martin and Miami -Dade counties. ➢ WTA Compartments B & C Environmental Impact Study (EIS), SFWMD, Palm Beach County Part of consultant team developing EIS for improvements to water treatment areas just south of Lake Okeechobee, which is an Acceler8 project associated with Everglades restoration. Work includes full assessment of existing data and sources and evaluation of sufficiency; drafting environmental consequences alternatives, wetlands and T&E species sections; and participating in public involvement activities. ➢ Stormwater Filter Marsh, City of Naples, Collier County Principal in charge of wetland jurisdictional determination, habitat evaluation, and threatened and endangered (T&E) species survey; development of impact assessment and mitigation plan, as needed; and general assistance with preparing and processing environmental resource permit (ERP) applications with DEP and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for creation of filter marsh to provide treatment to stormwater presently being pumped untreated into Naples Bay. ➢ Herbert Hoover Dike Culverts 1 and 1A Replacement Project, Glades County, FL SWC principal -in -charge for all start-up of environmental compliance scope for $47 million project to replace two 10-foot culverts through the Herbert Hoover Dike near Lake Okeechobee. Work included preparation of Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and NPDES notification; development of Environmental Protection Plan; permitting of dewatering plan; development of boating Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan; contractor training regarding environmental compliance criteria, including development and printing of waterproof field compliance handbook; turbidity monitoring and reporting, including staff training to meet State permit criteria and work supervision; monitoring of 10 listed species; and preparation and processing of required reports. All plans and reports received U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval. ➢ Residential Redevelopment Project in Marathon, Florida Keys Served as project manager for all aspects of environmental planning and ERPs for 92-unit redevelopment project in Marathon called Marlin Bay Yacht Club, including supervision of all field data collection and preparation of benthic assessments and avoidance and minimization plans, supervision of ERP application preparation and submittal and all responses to requests for additional information, work with DEP to acquire net positive public benefit exception to State submerged land lease riparian restriction, and presentations to Governor and Cabinet regarding lease rule provisions and final lease adoption. ➢ Key West Mooring Field Seagrass Monitoring Project Conducting seagrass monitoring project at Key West Mooring Field that investigates potential shading impacts from boats, including project design, photographic documentation of stations over time, collection of seagrass density and shoot count data, report preparation and report submittal and processing with DEP. ➢ S. Roosevelt Seawall Repair Seagrass Monitoring, Key West Supervised assessment and documentation of seagrasses in vicinity of seawall undergoing repairs, including field data collection and photography, update of CAD files delineating seagrass line, measurement of seagrass impacts in project area for mitigation purposes, and report preparation. ➢ Smothers Beach Seagrass Mitigation Monitoring, Key West Member of team that conducted field monitoring of seagrass mitigation project for City of Key West. Roles included field personnel establishing monitoring sites, collecting required data, supervising surveyor, assisting with preparation of monitoring reports, and providing local liaison with City and base of operation for work. ➢ Key West Mooring Field Seagrass Monitoring Project Conducting seagrass monitoring project at Key West Mooring Field that investigates potential shading impacts from boats, including project design, photographic documentation of stations over time, collection of seagrass density and shoot count data, report preparation and report submittal and processing with DEP. OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL:305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET Y- ' WBE - SBE - DBE - CBE - WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM vITAE PAGE 3 ➢ S. Roosevelt Seawall Repair Seagrass Monitoring, Key West Supervised assessment and documentation of seagrasses in vicinity of seawall undergoing repairs, including field data collection and photography, update of CAD files delineating seagrass line, measurement of seagrass impacts in project area for mitigation purposes, and report preparation. ➢ Smathers Beach Seagrass Mitigation Monitoring, Key West Member of team that conducted field monitoring of seagrass mitigation project for City of Key West. Roles included field personnel establishing monitoring sites, collecting required data, supervising surveyor, assisting with preparation of monitoring reports, and providing local liaison with City and base of operation for work. ➢ Jewfish Creek Bridge/US Highway 1 Project, Northern Florida Keys Member of design -build team in charge of environmental compliance for final design and construction of 65- foot-high bridge over Jewfish Creek and new roadway from North Key Largo to just south of Dade County line, including training of onsite personnel regarding avoidance of listed species; coordination with agencies for permit modifications; assessment of preconstruction environmental conditions; and continuous work with project engineer and contractor to assure all environmental permit conditions are met during four-year project. Work included mapping seagrasses along project corridor. ➢ City of Key West Stormwater System Consultant in charge of bringing City into compliance with ERP requirements for already -completed and future maintenance work of stormwater system, including developing impact assessment and mitigation plan that incorporates 5.6 acres of wetland restoration and enhancement at former Hawk Missile site in eastern Salt Ponds and creation of connection between Riviera Canal and western Salt Ponds to enhance 131 acres of wetlands and cause significant water -quality improvements. ➢ Permit Compliance for Large Condominium Complex (Seaside and Salt Ponds), Key West, FL Retained by property owner to assist with resolution of permit compliance issues with South Florida Water Management District; conducted extensive research of permitting and project history, held meeting with District staff and developed consensus on approach, developed consent agreement, worked with property owner to design and implement significant restoration project in Salt Ponds as well as to restructure onsite restoration projects from those specified in original permits, in progress with implementing multi -year monitoring plan; property owner received award from District for being so forthcoming with restoration efforts and award ceremony had front-page article in local newspaper. ➢ Walker's Island Maintenance Dredge Environmental Resource Permit, Monroe County Principal in charge of environmental resource permitting for maintenance dredging of entrance channel and boat basin; including GPS mapping of unavoidable benthic resource impacts; collecting and testing sediment samples; taking data for design of spoil disposal and hydrologic improvements to area; preparing mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts including seagrass restoration at spoil basin, restoration of offsite prop scars, and management of surrounding shallow flats to protect from future damage; coordinating with Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, and U.S. Coast Guard regarding signage associated with management plan; preparing all Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) scores; supervising engineer who prepared maintenance dredge and spoil disposal plan along with mooring facility redesign drawings, preparing all documents for ERP application; processing submittal with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District, including preparation of responses to requests for additional information; and coordinating application to local government to amend comprehensive plan to allow maintenance dredging of this kind when an environmental resource permit is acquired. ➢ City of Bonita Springs and City of Naples General Engineering Services, Lee and Collier Counties SWC is providing ecological/environmental services, as needed, including benthic and wetland assessments and associated environmental permitting. ➢ Canoe -Kayak Launch, City of Bonita Springs, Lee County Coordinated with South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to resolve issues, successfully acquired documentation so DEP could issue City lease, allowing City to proceed with construction of recreational public access facility. ➢ La Siesta Resort and Marina, Islamorada, FL Served as principal in charge of benthic assessment and ERP impact assessment and mitigation plan for oceanside and bayside entrance channels and marina basins, including seagrass restoration plan to restore orphan propeller scars in Lignumvitae State Aquatic Preserve. OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL:305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET ki, WBE • SBE • DBE • CBE • WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM VITAE PAGE 4 ➢ Dock Appeal Benthic Assessment and Expert Witness Testimony, Upper Florida Keys Conducted extensive benthic resource mapping of nearshore habitats in relation to location of single-family home dock that was subject of neighbor appeal of DEP permit, prepared expert witness report, participated in deposition in preparation of hearing before administrative law judge. ➢ SR-710 PDBE Study, District 4 FDOT Part of consultant team in charge of planning, design and environmental study of 27-mile corridor of B-Line Expressway through Palm Beach and Martin counties. Responsible for wetlands and threatened and endangered species field data collection, assessment of contamination potential in vicinity, and documentation of land use patterns along corridor regarding potential for secondary and cumulative impacts. ➢ General Engineering Services, City of Pompano Beach and City of Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County Part of consulting team providing engineering services to the City, with SWC scope including environmental, planning and public involvement tasks. ➢ Electric Transmission Line Environmental Compliance Monitoring, Florida Keys Conducted DEP and USACE permit conditions environmental compliance monitoring of installation of new electric tie -line poles between Big Coppitt Key and Key Haven in wetland and submerged habitats, including confirmation of pre -construction conditions, onsite inspections to assure impacts do not exceed limits established in environmental permits, and long-term monitoring to document post -construction recovery. ➢ City of Key West Navy Base Reuse Plan Member of team that evaluated Key West surplus Navy properties and developed reuse plan. Primary role — planning and environmental assessments including SCUBA examination of Truman Waterfront Mole Pier. ➢ General Environmental Consultant, City of Key West Peincipal in charge of all work orders issued by City for ecological, environmental, permitting, compliance monitoring, and other general services. ➢ General Environmental Consultant for Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail In contract with DEP, provided environmental planning services for entire 130-mile linear park throughout Florida Keys, including NEPA review and documentation for permitting of segments and bridge crossings. ➢ Former Silver Eagle Distributors property, Key West Conducted monitoring of mitigation required by environmental resource permit and closed out South Florida Water Management District permitting requirements; following issuance by District of letter of concern regarding perpetual maintenance issues, worked with local police and several non-profit organizations to assist property owner with issues regarding homeless population living within a preservation area and removal of trash and exotic vegetation from site, in order to a find win -win solution and achieve compliance with SFWMD permit. ➢ Grassy Key Beach Cleanup, Florida Keys Provided onsite ecological oversight of beach cleanup operation conducted by contractor for DEP, assuring heavy equipment did not harm biological resources and removed only storm -deposited dead seagrass and sediments as specified by DEP and USACE. ➢ Cudjoe Key Quarry, Florida Keys Planning and permitting for continuation of existing rockmining operation. Develop wetland and endangered species habitat mitigation plan which has received endorsement of USFWS and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FWC) staff; prepare and process DEP and USACE permit applications; process County vested rights application; successfully negotiate development agreement with Monroe County and Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). For new owner, prepare and successfully process permit modifications for change of land use to communications facility, successfully negotiate new development agreement with DCA, prepare and process Monroe County permit application, prepare testimony and appear as witness in local court hearing regarding County moratorium on communication facilities. LAND USE PLANNING AND PERMITTING - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SERVICES ➢ District Six FDOT Communication Services for Construction Projects, Monroe County SWC is serving as prime contractor to provide communications services for all FDOT District Six construction projects throughout Monroe County. This includes a full-time public information specialist for the 2.1-mile North Roosevelt Boulevard project in Key West. OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL: 305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET WBE - SBE - DBE - CBE - WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM VITAE PAGES ➢ State Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Responsible for principal drafting of Statewide management plan for 41 State aquatic preserves. ➢ Expert Witness Testimony for Monroe County Conducted thorough review of land use, environmental and permitting issues for property in North Key Largo which was subject of suit against Monroe County, prepare expert witness report, provide deposition in circuit court proceeding. Work included extensive review of several USFWS HCPs in Key Largo for effects on reasonable development expectations in area. ➢ Expert Planning Services for Town of Medley, Dade County Served as town planning staff, providing review and support for public hearings for adoption of City ordinance. ➢ District Six FDOT General Public Information Contract for Design Services, Monroe County SWC was a member of the consulting team which presently holds the general design services public information contract, providing services for the Florida Keys. Projects worked on to date include US Highway 1 corridors on Big Coppitt Key, from Key West to Stock Island, Big Pine Key, Cudjoe Key and Grassy Key ➢ City of Key West Bahama Village Redevelopment Plan Update Member of team that updated community redevelopment plan. Primary roles —environmental and public facilities planning; and public involvement, including preparation and distribution of project newsletters and news releases; and development and implementation of proactive community involvement process. ➢ City of Key West Economic Development Conveyance Application Member of team that developed EDC application for surplus Navy properties. Primary roles —planning and implementing meetings with local officials and interest groups, coordination of public workshops and presentations, and public facilities and environmental data collection and analysis. ➢ Stock Island -Key Haven US 7 Corridor Study, Florida Keys Provided public involvement outreach and meeting coordination services for study to identify improvements to US 1 corridor segment; resulted in significant participation by user groups and relevant and effective planning charrette. ➢ Rezoning and Development Agreement for 92-unit Project, City of Marathon, Florida Keys Presently serving as principal planning consultant and agent for 92-unit redevelopment project, including recent acquisition of property rezoning and executed development agreement from Marathon City Council. Work involves representation with planning staff, Council members and Florida Department of Community Affairs representatives; and work with Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Governor and Cabinet regarding submerged land lease for 115-slip private marina. ➢ FDOT Planning, Design & Environmental (PD&E) Studies in Islamorada, Marathon and Big Coppitt Key, Florida Keys Member of team that conducted FDOT studies of roadway improvements, including turn lanes, in five -mile corridor in Islamorada, five -mile corridor in Big Coppitt Key, and Sombrero Beach Road in Marathon. Services included public involvement, land use planning, and landscape architecture elements of study, including coordination with local staff and elected officials. ➢ Hawk's Cay Expansion Development of Regional Impact, Florida Keys Prepared and successfully processed Application for Development Approval for Hawk's Cay Expansion Development of Regional Impact to South Florida Regional Planning Council. Evaluation included environmental, public facilities, socio-economic, and traffic impacts. Provided continued planning consultation, including 1996 approval of major site plan revision and 7 year extension, approvals of three DRI revisions, and annual reports. ➢ Monroe County Planning Services for Expansion, Parrotdise Restaurant, Little Torch Key Prepared and successfully processed application for conditional use to expand restaurant, including detailed site planning and conceptual stormwater management system; prepared and successfully processed alcoholic beverage permit to provide for outdoor food and beverage service, including thorough review of sound ordinance issues and presentation of findings to Planning Commission. ➢ Lower Sugarloaf Key Mixed Use Development, Lower Florida Keys Served as planning consultant and agent, developed and processed major conditional use application for mixed use office, workforce housing and market -rate housing project; received 8/0 positive vote from Monroe County Development Review Committee and 5/0 positive vote from Monroe County Planning Commission. OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL: 305-294-1238, FAX: 305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NEL WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET k--' WBE - SBE - DBE - CBE - WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM VITAE PAGE 6 ➢ Key West Transfer Station & Hauling Services, Inc. Prepared and successfully processed application to DEP for renewal of solid waste transfer station permit that provides for substantial expansion and updating of facility, including supervising CADD drawings, engineering of site and preparation of environmental resource permit application for stormwater system, coordination with agency staff to assure application meets standards, and responses to information sufficiency reviews. Participate as expert for client by deposition in lawsuit by competing business. ➢ Discount Dumpsters & Demolition, Inc., Marathon, FL Conducted assessment of property and analyzed its redevelopment potential under the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, including State regulation for construction and demolition debris disposal facilities; documented and analyzed historic and existing site conditions. ➢ Marx Investments, LLC Development Feasibility Study, Big Coppitt Key, FL Document and analysis historic and existing site conditions; prepare feasibility study to determine the development potential for the property under the regulations of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. ➢ Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Community Plan for Big Pine Key, Monroe County, FL Represented affected property owners to develop HCP following US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines for federally -endangered Key Deer on Big Pine and No Name keys in Florida Keys. The County implemented parallel process to develop community plan that incorporates HCP into County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. System developed involves complex point system for incidental takings associated with any new structure, and requires mitigation to compensate for impacts associated with issuance of building permits. CONTAMINATION SERVICES ➢ Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc., Florida Keys Develop agreements with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for solid waste cleanup and above- ground fuel storage tank removal, including field testing, preparation and submittal of tank closure assessment report (TCAR). Prepare and process solid waste transfer station general permit, including representation as expert witness at State administrative hearing decided in client's favor. ➢ Monroe County Airport Department Retained to advise director regarding contamination issues involving spill at Key West Airport fuel farm. ➢ City of Key West Engineering Services Provide ongoing groundwater testing, analysis and reporting services for former underground fuel storage tank site at Key West City Hall; prepare and process application for No Further Action with conditions. ➢ Phase I and II Environmental Audits, Florida Keys Conduct environmental audits for commercial real estate transactions. Recent audits include: Oceanside Marina, Stock Island, FL, client: Oceanside Marina; Vacant parcel on US Highway 1, Marathon, FL, client McFadden family; Dog Track property, Stock Island, FL, client: Historic Tours of America; U.S Postal Service property, corner of Eaton and Whitehead streets, Key West, FL, client: U.S. Postal Service; Flight Department/Jet Center property (private aviation facility at Marathon Airport), Marathon, FL, client: Monroe County Attorney's Office; A&B Lobsterhouse property (restaurant, commercial marina, fueling facility, parking lot), Key West, FL, client: David Paul Horan, Attorney at Law, lender: TIB Bank of the Keys, Inc.; Authors of Key West, Alexander Palms Court, and Curry House properties (guesthouse/commercial), Key West, FL, lender: Emergent Business Capital, Inc. for SBA loans. Vice President & Manager of Environmental and Permitting Division, 1994-1996 H.J. Ross Associates, Inc., Coral Gables, FL Create new division of company, manage personnel and project budgets, develop project proposals. ➢ US Highway 1 South Project, from Key Largo to Florida City Consultant Project Manager —assist Florida Department of Transportation, District 6, in permitting for expansion of 20-miles stretch of US Highway 1, including construction of new bridge with 65 foot water clearance at Jewfish Creek. Permits were required from U.S. Coast Guard, South Florida Water Management District, and ACOE, and coordination with Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management. Work included preparation of permit applications; creating CADD generated permit sketches; responding to information sufficiency reviews (including extensive evaluation of potential secondary impacts of project on community and environment); supervising field investigations for construction projects OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL: 305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWCQSWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET ' WBE - SBE - DBE - CBE - WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM VITAE PAGE 7 and associated mitigation (including mangrove, seagrass, and freshwater emergent habitats); public information; and coordinating with many commenting agencies. ➢ Development of Regional Impact Application and Environmental Impact Statement for New Runway at Miami International Airport HJR project manager for preparation of sections of documents, and overall quality control and editing. Publisher and Media Consultant, Little Torch Key, FL, 1986-1994 Co-found, and serve as co -publisher and managing editor for seven years of Island Navigator newspaper, a feature monthly publication distributed throughout the Florida Keys. Also manage media division working with all kinds of print and broadcast media in production and scheduling of public information and advertising campaigns. Environmental Planning Consultant, Little Torch Key, FL, 1984-1996 Site evaluation and project design for many commercial and residential parcels of property in the Florida Keys, including acquisition of permits from local, state, and federal agencies; policy analysis and legislative support; expert testimony at Florida administrative hearings; and public information programs. ➢ Prepare and successfully submit Application for Development Approval for Hawk's Cay Expansion Development of Regional Impact (at Mile Marker 61 in Florida Keys) to the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Evaluation included environmental, public facilities, socio-economic, and traffic impacts. Also annual reports and continuing planning work. ➢ Provide expert witness testimony in administrative hearing regarding appeal by FL Dept. of Community Affairs of Monroe County development order for beachfront property on Lower Sugarloaf Key. ➢ Provide expert witness testimony in administrative hearing regarding environmental permitting for marina project on Little Torch Key. ➢ Successful application to State Conservation and Recreation Lands program for purchase of Big Pine Key property. ➢ Appointment by Monroe County Mayor to Blue -Ribbon Committee to review land use plan; served as advisor to Monroe County Commission; and conducted South Florida Regional Planning Council review of draft plan. ➢ Extensive research and detailed report regarding impacts of inclusion of Florida Keys in federal Undeveloped Coastal Barrier Program. Environmental Programs Manager, 1980-1984 South Florida Regional Planning Council, Hollywood, FL Review comprehensive plans of counties and municipalities in South Florida, evaluate in relation to State and regional policy guidelines, and write evaluations including recommendations for improvements. Participate in and manage reviews of Developments of Regional Impact, with emphasis in areas of environmental and public facilities impacts. Environmental programs manager responsible for analyzing and critiquing environmental aspects of development in region, including U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation dredge and fill permit applications; prepare and present reports to Council concerning development warranting regional attention. ➢ Development of Regional Impact Review Broward County —Ball Point, Design Center of the Americas, FEC Industrial Park, Harrison Park, Houston Park Marina, Pompano Industrial Park, Weston Phase II; Dade County —Airport Corporate Center, American Bankers Industrial Group, Homestead Bayfront Park & Marina, Chapman Field Park & Marina, Brickell Bay Office Tower, Terremark Centre, 1111 Brickell, SE 8th Street & Brickell Avenue, Watson Island; Monroe County —Port Bougainville/Garden Cove. ➢ Court Testimony Gave deposition as witness for Dade County, FL in District court case involving beach restoration project on Key Biscayne. ➢ Project Manager: South Florida Oil Spill Priority Protection Response Strategy Prepare detailed work program and budget. Supervise consultant in conducting extensive detailed study and mapping of South Florida coastal marine resources in relation to sensitivity to spilled oil. Supervise consultant in writing, editing, graphics, and printing of Environmental Sensitivity Index maps and report titled The Sensitivity of Coastal Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil in South Florida. Atlas and report won first prize from Florida branch of American Planning Association, 1981. Coordinate interest groups and agencies for implementation of strategy, including: OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL:305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET WBE • SBE • DBE • CBE • WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM VITAE PAGES • inventory of cleanup equipment and contact personnel in region • determination of appropriate spill responses and communication channels • preparation of regional oil spill response handbook • distribution of all project products and provision of public information concerning project, including presentations at local, state, and national meetings ➢ Project Manager: Regional Hazardous Waste Program required by State of Florida Water Quality Assurance Act Coordinate Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in South Florida program implementation. Develop and distribute consultant request for proposals. Write and execute contracts between Council and State, counties, and consultant for administration of $490,000 in State funds for program tasks. Coordinate public information. Review progress reports, assure contract compliance, authorize funds disbursement. ➢ South Florida Hurricane Evacuation Program (Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties) Project Manager: Coordinated U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, technical consultant and local agency task force in plan preparation; developed and implemented public information program. Sea Awareness Environmental Education Programs, Miami and Little Torch Key, FL, 1976-1981 Develop, market, and run natural history tours for general public to variety of destinations in South Florida and Caribbean. Adult Education Instructor, 1977-1980 Coral Gables High School & Key Biscayne Community School, Miami, FL Design, promote, and teach full -semester courses in coastal natural systems of South Florida to adults of all ages and backgrounds. Research Assistant, 1976-1980 Rosenstiel School of Marine $ Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, FL ➢ South Florida marine mammal salvage program, conduct study of West Indian manatee to stop deaths in flood control structures, take field data and conduct necropsies, analyze data for comparative studies. ➢ Analysis of infauna at potential sewage outfall site in South Florida. ➢ Analysis of sediment plume duration and path during dredging in Biscayne Bay. ➢ Analysis of fish populations on South Atlantic continental shelf for OCS oil and gas lease EIS. Marine Biologist, Oceanic Society Charters, Belize, Central America, 1975-1976 Provide educational and research programs in tropical marine ecosystems for sailing/diving charter groups. Research Assistant, University of California at Davis and Santa Cruz, 1974 ➢ Conduct field study of sea lion behavior, population dynamics, general ecology. ➢ Study detailed taxonomy of aphids in relation to agricultural research. PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/AFFILIATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS ➢ Appointed by Governor Bush in January 2005, reappointed for four-year term in November 2006, and reappointed in June 1007 by Governor Crist to South Florida Regional Planning Council, a board that oversees planning and regional issues for Broward, Dade and Monroe counties. Served as chair in 2009. ➢ Member, EPA Water Quality Steering Committee for Florida Keys ➢ Appointed in May 2000 by Governor Bush to four-year term on Florida's Acquisition and Restoration Council, which oversees purchase and management of State conservation lands ➢ Former chairperson (2002-2007), Key West Utility Board Advisory Committee ➢ Certified Woman -owned Business Enterprise (WBE) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) with Florida Department of Transportation; State of Florida; South Florida Water Management District; Dade, Broward and Lee counties; certified Woman -Owned Small Business (WOSB) with federal government OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES ' MAIN TEL:305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NET. WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET �. WBE • SBE • DBE • CBE • WOSB Sandra Walters CURRICULUM VITAE PAGE 9 ➢ Former president, Monroe County Federation of Chambers of Commerce; former president, Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce; current member, Lower Keys and Key West chambers ➢ Associate member, Marathon and Lower Keys Association of Realtors ➢ Member, Florida Keys Contractors Association ➢ Member, Florida Association of Environmental Professionals and South Florida chapter ➢ Member, National Water Resources Association and Florida chapter ➢ Certified diver, PADI #9501031862, advanced research certification from University of California at Davis and Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami q OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL: 305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, EMAIL: SWC@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET L' WBE • SBE • DBE • CBE • WOSB MICHELLE (SHELLI) TALLACKSEN Senior Project Manager Academic Background Master of Science, Biology (Marine Ecology), Old Dominion University, Norfolk Virginia, 2003 Associate of Applied Science (Medical Technology), Thomas Nelson Community College, Hampton, Virginia, 1997 Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology), University of Illinois, Champaign -Urbana, Illinois, 1992 Specialized Professional Competence Ms. Tallacksen is an accomplished and knowledgeable researcher and project manager with extensive experience in Florida coastal habitats. She is particularly skilled in designing and implementing ecological data collection programs, including mapping and analysis of resources using state-of-the-art GPS technology and GIS software, and communicating results effectively to agencies and the public. Her extensive field and laboratory experience with water quality monitoring and habitat assessment prepare her for both supervising and participating in all aspects of coastal environmental data collection. Ms. Tallacksen previously served as Lower Keys manager of the FKNMS Damage Assessment, Restoration, and Resource Protection Program (DARRP) team, during which time she both conducted and supervised numerous seagrass and coral resource assessment, monitoring, and restoration projects. Previously, she participated in marine research projects throughout south Florida and the Caribbean with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Ms. Tallacksen is currently serving as adjunct faculty at Florida Keys Community College, teaching a course in marine data collection. Representative Professional Experience Senior Project Manager, SWC, August 2009-present, Monroe, Dade, Broward and Lee County offices, FL Serve as manager of various ecological, land use and public involvement services for public- and private -sector clients, with responsibilities including data collection and analysis, report writing, and oversight of compliance timetables and budgets. ➢ Tarpon Pier Replacement Project, City of Key West In charge of environmental data collection, and development and implementation of impact assessment and mitigation plan, for replacement of existing City pier in Garrison Bight. ➢ Key West Mooring Field Pilot Project, Monroe County Conducted data collection, analysis and report preparation for moored vessels around Key West Mooring Field as part of County and State mooring field pilot project. ➢ FKAA, Wetland Mapping for Central Wastewater Project, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Florida Keys Data collection to assist design engineer in wetland avoidance and minimization for new central wastewater system in Lower Florida Keys. ➢ Walker's Island Maintenance Dredge Environmental Resource Permit, Monroe County Project manager for acquisition of environmental resource permits for maintenance dredging of entrance channel and boat basin, including design of comprehensive mitigation plan resulting in regional environmental enhancement, coordination with Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and U.S. Coast Guard, and processing of application with permitting agencies. Prepared extensive graphics to illustrate project boundaries and other details, designed public information program regarding seagrass restoration that is part of proposed mitigation. ➢ SR 710/Beeline Expressway PDBE Study, FDOT District Four, 2011-present Conducted GIS analysis of future existing land use categories in five governmental jurisdictions through which project runs, developed common future and existing land use categories for entire project corridor, prepared corridor maps for planning and secondary impacts reports. ➢ FDOT District 6 Public Information Contracts for Projects in Construction and Design Phases, Monroe County Provided graphics services for preparing newsletters for public information mailers including figures that show specific locations of projects, participate in meetings and prepare meeting summaries. OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES C. MAIN TEL: 305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, DIRECT EMAIL: SHELLI@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW.SWCINC.NET Michelle Tallacksen RESUME PAGE 2 ➢ Improvements to Atlantic Boulevard and Access to Glynn Archer and Gerald Adams Schools, City of Key West Provided graphics services to prepare newsletters including figures that show specific locations of projects, assisted with field verification of wetland species being affected by one corridor. ➢ Environmental Site Assessments, Monroe County Conducted site visits, interviews, and historic research for Phase I ESAs to identify potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities per US EPA standards. Site surveys include definition of chemical residues within structures; identification of possible asbestos containing building materials; inventory of hazardous substances stored or used on site; and assessment of mold and mildew or other indoor air quality parameters. Preparation of complete reports, utilizing Oculus for online research of Florida Storage Tank and Petroleum Contamination Monitoring databases. Production of site maps, contamination and storage tank maps, and historic aerial graphics for ESA reports. ➢ Fort Lauderdale International Airport Runway Expansion, Broward County Conducted site visit, data collection, preparation and submittal of US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) forms to acquire federal jurisdictional determinations for wetlands affected by south runway expansion in relation to Rapanos guidelines. ➢ Port Everglades Master Plan Update Part of consultant team responsible for all environmental aspects of master plan update, including research regarding any existing contamination issues and whether they would affect projected land uses at Port, along with all wetland, submerged land and listed species issues. Assist in implementing the plan into the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. Adjunct Instructor, Florida Keys Community College, 2009-present Teaching course in marine data collection. Manager of Lower Keys Damage Assessment, Restoration and Resource Protection (DARRP) Team, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) through Florida Department of Environmental Protection, August 2006-September 2009, Key West, FL Supervised and managed four employees to respond to vessel groundings and natural resource damage events, conducted biological assessments and prepared restoration plans and DARRP case management documents. Reviewed planning documents and permit applications and prepared recommendations on consistency of activities conducted within FKNMS Lower Region with FKNMS Management Plan and State environmental protection policies. Insured that damage assessment, restoration and monitoring plans were coordinated and consistent with federal, state and local regulations and management plans. Coordinated and provided technical and logistical field support for research, monitoring, and restoration projects within FKNMS. Assisted Sanctuary management with evaluating and resolving Sanctuary resource management issues and provided reports of monitoring findings to management and scientific community. Served as liaison with other State, local, and federal agencies regarding development and implementation of interagency agreements, response protocols, and civil penalty schedules for vessel groundings and oil spills within FKNMS. Prepared and administered State of FL portion of DARRP budget in accordance with FKNMS Annual Operating Plan. Marine Research Associate & Florida Keys Tidal Restoration Project Manager, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish & Wildlife Research Institute, January 2005-July 2006, Marathon, FL Coordinated and managed all recreational mail surveys and monitoring, wrote public summary statements, and developed harvest estimates for recreational sector. Participated in team -based fishery and ecosystem research focusing on spiny lobster within and adjacent to the FKNMS, as well as Biscayne National Park and Buck Island Reef National Monument in St. Croix, USVI. Assisted in design and implementation of projects to study distribution, abundance, size structure, growth, fecundity, and other life history attributes of spiny lobsters using both above- and under -water scientific sampling methods. Analyzed data using advanced statistical techniques to determine trends and statistical significance and maintained archival databases using QA/QC methods. Prepared presentations, reports, and peer -reviewed manuscripts of study results for journals, FWC and other management commissions, and scientific meetings. Led and participated as member of research teams in field sampling, and prepared and helped coordinate logistics of field sampling activities. Participated in maintenance and operation of field equipment and v- essels. Managed FTE and OPS employees and coordinated with inter- �1 J OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES i + MAIN TEL: 305-294-1238, FAX:305-294-2164, DIRECT EMAIL: SHELLI@SWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: WWW,SWCINC.NET Michelle Tallacksen RESUME PAGE 3 agency scientists to complete water quality monitoring, hardbottom habitat assessment, seagrass assessment, benthic sediment and invertebrate sampling for FKTR project. Conducted field instrument calibration, operation and maintenance for FKTR. Designed and maintained relational data entry databases using Microsoft Access and performed data analyses using statistical methods. Organized and maintained project records including QA/QC, instrument maintenance, data, and reports. Generated monthly data submissions, semiannual baseline data reports, and final data reports using Microsoft products, ArcView, and EcoWatch. Marine Research Assistant, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish & Wildlife Research Institute, January 2003-December 2004, Marathon, FL Assisted original project primary investigator (PI) in designing and implementing a multifaceted monitoring project (FKTR), including creation of a monitoring plan and quality manual in accordance with EPA standards. Performed data entry for various field projects and recreational lobster fisher mail survey returns. Participated in database maintenance, field research and sampling, laboratory sample analysis, and maintenance, operation, and trailering of FWRI vessels. Certifications, Training and Memberships ➢ HAZWOPER 8-hour Emergency Response training, 2012 ➢ Qualified FDEP Stormwater Management Inspector since 2012 ➢ CPR/AED/First Aid, Emergency First Response, 2012 ➢ Certified SSI Open Water SCUBA diver (@600 total dives, 500 total scientific dives) since 2000 ➢ Certified NAUI Divemaster since 2010 ➢ Certified SSI Nitrox diver since 2004 ➢ FDEP Scientific Diver 2008-2009 ➢ NOAA Scientific Diver 2006-2008 ➢ Certified AAUS Diver 2003-2006 ➢ Certified YMCA SCUBA Lifesaving and Accident Management (SLAM) ➢ Certified Motorboat Operator (MOCC), US Dept. of Interior OFFICES IN MONROE, DADE, BROWARD AND LEE COUNTIES MAIN TEL: 305-294-1238, FAX: 305-294-2164, DIRECT EMAIL: SHELLIQSWCINC.NET, WEBSITE: W WW.SWCINC.NET Ac�_' Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice for Environmental Professionals The objectives of Environmental Professionals are to conduct their personal and professional lives and activities in an ethical manner. Honesty, justice and courtesy form moral philosophy which, associated with a mutual interest among people, constitute the foundation of ethics. Environmental Professionals should recognize such a standard, not in passive observance, but as a set of dynamic principles guiding their conduct and way of life. It is their duty to practice their profession according to this Code of Ethics. As the keystone of professional conduct is integrity, Environmental Professionals will discharge their duties with fidelity to the public, their employers, clients, with fairness and impartiality to all. It is their duty to interest themselves in public welfare, and to be ready to apply their special knowledge for the benefit of mankind and their environment. Creed The objectives of an Environmental Professional are: 1. To recognize and attempt to reconcile societal and individual human needs with responsibility for physical, natural, and cultural systems. 2. To promote and develop policies, plans, activities and projects that achieve complementary and mutual support between natural and man-made, and present and future components of the physical, natural and cultural environment. As an Environmental Professional I will: 1. Be personally responsible for the validity of all data collected, analyses performed, or plans developed by me or under my direction. I will be responsible and ethical in my professional activities. 2. Encourage research, planning, design, management and review of activities in a scientifically and technically objective manner. I will incorporate the best principles of the environmental sciences for the mitigation of environmental harm and enhancement of environmental quality. 3. Not condone misrepresentation of work I have performed or that was performed under my direction. 4. Examine all of my relationships or actions, which could be legitimately interpreted as a conflict of interest by clients, officials, the public or peers. In any instance where I have financial or personal interest in the activities with which they are directly or indirectly involved, I will make a full disclosure of that interest to my employer, client, or other affected parties. 5. Not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or discrimination. 6. Not accept fees wholly or partially contingent on the client's desired result where that desired result conflicts with my professional judgment. Guidance for Practice as an Environmental Professional As an Environmental Professional I will: 1. Encourage environmental planning to begin in the earliest stages of project conceptualization. 2. Recognize that total environmental management involves the consideration of all environmental factors including: technical, economical, ecological, and sociopolitical and their relationships. 3. Incorporate the best principle of design and environmental planning when recommending measures to reduce environmental harm and enhance environmental quality. 4. Conduct my analysis, planning, design and review my activities primarily in subject areas for which I am qualified, and shall encourage and recognize that participation of other professionals in subject areas where I am less experienced. I shall utilize and participate in interdisciplinary teams wherever practical to determine impacts, define and evaluate all reasonable alternatives to proposed actions, and assess short-term versus long-term productivity with and without the project or action. 5. Seek common, adequate, and sound technical grounds for communication with and respect for the contributions of other professionals in developing and reviewing policies, plans, activities and projects. 6. Determine that the policies, plans, activities or projects in which I am involved are consistent with all governing laws, ordinances, guidelines, plans and policies to the best of my knowledge and ability. 7. Encourage public participation at the earliest feasible time in an open and productive atmosphere. 8. Conduct my professional activities in a manner that ensures consideration of technically and economically feasible alternatives. Encourage Development of the Profession As an Environmental Professional I will: 1. Assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of my profession. 2. Encourage education and research and the development of useful technical information relating to the environmental field. 3. Be prohibited from lobbying in the name of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 4. Advertise and present my services in a manner that avoids the use of material and methods that may bring discredit to the profession. National Association of Environmental Professionals, E: nae bowermana ementservrces.com NAEP Headquarters PO Box 460 Collingswood, NJ 08108 P:856-283-7816 F: 856-210-1619 ATTACHMENT 5 UPDATED BENTHIC ASSESSMENT (REVISED) Walker's Island Historic Entrance Channel Restoration and Minor Changes to Existing Dock Little Conch Key, Monroe County, FL PmWmd i-lannin� Eco1oq:.al nvironment;)] Communication6 CONSULTING,SIRVICI S 6410 FM Street, Suite 3 Key West. FL 33040 June 14, 2011 t Ke} Hc.3E • N4.;n.Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application II,A6 • Fl %4-- Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 5.1 Purpose............................................................................... 1 5.2 General Site Description...................................................... 1 5.3 Methodology....................................................................... 1 5.4 Results............................................................................... 3 5.4.1 Benthic Habitat.................................................................... 3 5.4.2 Sediment Analysis............................................................... 5 5.5 References.......................................................................... 6 List of Tables No. Description Page 5.4.1 Results of 2009 Braun-Blanquet Seagrass Analysis ........... 4 5.4.2 Results of Sediment Testing and Analysis .......................... 5 5.4.3 2011 Sediment Core Analysis Summary ............................. 6 List of Attachments No. Description No. of Pages 5ALocation Map....................................................................... 1 513 Previous Benthic Resources Maps (2006, 2008) ................ 2 5C 2009 Benthic Resources Map ............................................. 1 5D Braun-Blanquet Raw Scores ............................................... 2 5E 2007 and 2008 Sediment Analyses ..................................... 17 5F Site Photographs................................................................ 4 5G Historic Aerial Imagery .................................................... 4 5H 2O11 Sediment Core Analysis ............................................ 6 i key WeA - %Mng Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application rImh*wd•Fp„ "Fs Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 *c�_ qwcnc I'M 5.1 PURPOSE The intent of this report is to present the results of a benthic habitat assessment conducted on the subject property at Walker's Island, Mile Marker 63, Monroe County, FL (see Location Map, Attachment 5A). The assessment was commissioned by Little Conch Key Development Corp, in association with an evaluation of the reconfiguration of an existing docking facility and maintenance dredging of a boat basin and entrance channel. 5.2 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of RE numbers upland parcels 00099090-000000 and 00099090-000100, and submerged parcels 00099110-000000 and 00099100-000000 (see Monroe County Property Record Cards in Attachment 11). It is located between mile markers 62 and 63 of US Highway 1, on the ocean side. The submerged lands that are part of the property extend south from the uplands about'/ mile (see Location Map and Benthic Resources Maps, Attachments 5A-C). The assessment area includes a previously- dredged, 1.82-acre entrance channel, a 0.33-acre boat basin, and nearby reference flats on privately -owned submerged lands adjacent to Walker's Island. The area is generally very shallow and supports both seagrass meadows and hardbottom habitat. There is a deepwater channel that runs directly adjacent to the western boundary of the subject property. The bottom of the existing boat basin and northern portion of the historic entrance channel is generally characterized by flocculent, silty sediment, which has been only minimally recolonized by seagrasses. In contrast, the sediments in the southern portion of the historic entrance channel are somewhat larger. This transition to sandier, more granular sediment correlates with the transition from barren bottom and sparse, early successional seagrasses to more dense beds dominated by climax species. Very few sponges, and no hard corals, were observed in the previously -dredged assessment area. Additionally, there is a deep, manmade basin on the southeast portion of the submerged parcel that was historically used as a dolphin holding pen. Legal Description: 15 65 34 LITTLE CONCH KEY SE1/2 OR371-544/50 OR812-1303/1304 OR812-131 1 (CAUSEWAY) OR1351-519/WILL(CW) CASE #95- 10270-CP-10(CW) 5.3 METHODOLOGY For initial benthic assessment of the project, aerial photographs from 2004 (Attachment 5G-1), and 1964 (Attachment 5G-2) were used to determine the extent of the historically -dredged boat basin. The first site visit to the property was conducted by SWC staff on October 26, 2006, at which time the boat basin was surveyed for sediment depth, habitat characterization, and seagrass mapping; sediment samples 1 Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 were collected from two locations within the proposed maintenance -dredged basin for analysis; and visual assessment of the surrounding submerged lands on the property was conducted in order to assess possible mitigation areas. Methods and results are detailed in the Benthic Assessment dated June 2, 2008. Results of the sediment analysis are included in Attachment 5E of this document. Following the addition of the entrance channel to the proposed project area, a second site visit was conducted by SWC staff on February 1, 2008. Aerial photographs from 1957 (Attachment 5G-3), and 1955 (Attachment 5G-4) were used to determine the extent of the historically -dredged entrance channel. Using ArcGIS 9.2 software, a survey area was identified based on the edges of the historically -dredged entrance channel, and a Magellan MobileMapper CE GPS, capable of sub -meter accuracy, was used to map the resources within it. The historically -dredged boat basin was included in the survey area and reassessed for changes in seagrass distribution that occurred since the previous site visit. The proposed entrance channel and boat basin were surveyed for habitat characterization and three additional sediment samples were collected from locations within the previously -dredged entrance channel. Methods and results are detailed in the June 2, 2008 Benthic Assessment Report. Results of the sediment analysis are included in Attachment 5E of this document. Updated Data Collection and Analysis Additional site visits were made by SWC staff during September and October of 2009 to survey and document the habitat surrounding Walker's Island and assess the current resources both within the footprint of the proposed dredge area and in the surrounding reference areas. During a site visit by SWC staff on October 21, 2009, for the purpose of ground-truthing both seagrass characterization and GPS mapping data from 2006 and 2008, it was determined that additional, updated seagrass mapping information was warranted. For those areas of the basin and entrance channel where significant changes in seagrass distribution had occurred, seagrasses were remapped using a Magellan MobileMapper CE GPS with sub -meter accuracy. The methodology utilized follows standard Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary benthic habitat assessment protocol. In addition, 100-foot transect tapes were stretched end to end along the bottom to mark the center line of the proposed entrance channel. Percent cover and species composition of the benthic community were determined using a modified Braun- Blanquet cover abundance assessment technique (Braun-Blanquet, 1932; Fourqurean et al., 2001; Kirsch et al., 2005). A PVC quadrat, 0.25 m2 in area, was placed along the transect at no less than 10 foot intervals for a total of 20 replicates. Additional samples were collected from the reference areas by throwing the quadrat in a non -overlapping, haphazard manner at least 1 to 3 meters from the previously -dredged area. The contents of each quadrat placement were visually inspected. Seagrass species were identified and assigned a cover -abundance scale value (or BB score) based on broad cover estimations describing the total quadrat area obscured when viewed from directly above. In addition, functional groups of total seagrass, macroalgae, and coral Key Weal • Nlaml lYMhroad+Furl Mwerx -6WN m+ nc not Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 were observed and scored separately in the same manner. Braun-Blanquet cover - abundance scores ranged from zero to five: 0 = not present, 0.1 = solitary specimen, 0.5 = few with small cover, 1 = numerous but less than 5% cover, 2 = 5 to 25% cover, 3 = 25 to 50% cover, 4 = 50 to 75% cover, and 5 = 75 to100% cover. Braun-Blanquet raw scores (Attachment 5D) for each quadrat were converted to range midpoint values and then averaged over the total number of quadrats assessed within each feature (entrance channel n=20; boat basin n=3; NE reference area n=10; SW reference area n=14). Seagrass species coverage scores are presented in Table 5.4.1 a and functional group scores in Table 5.4.1 b. Representative quadrats were photographed using an Olympus Stylus 300 digital camera and underwater housing. Benthic substrate was characterized through visual and tactile inspection of the sediments contained within each quadrat. Sediment samples were classified under one or more of the following categories: Sand, Muddy Sand, Sandy Mud, Mud, Coarse Shell, Live Coral, Coral Rubble, Rock or Halimeda Hash. Photographs were taken during the 2006, 2008, and 2009 site visits and are included as Attachment 5F. Additional photographs were taken on May 10, 2010, during a site visit specifically for that purpose, and are included in Attachment 5F. 5.4 RESULTS 5.4.1 Benthic Habitat The area surrounding Walker's Island is generally very shallow (<2' depth) and characterized by seagrass meadows and hardbottom habitat. The seagrass banks adjacent to the historic dredge area are characterized as a Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass) -dominated community to the northwest (NW reference) and a Halodule wrightii (shoal grass) -dominated community to the southeast (SE reference). Although the banks differ in their dominant species, neither is completely monospecific, with patchy distribution of both turtle grass and shoal grass within each. Other living components of the banks include Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass), Porites divaricata (thin finger coral), abundant upside-down mangrove jellyfish (Cassiopea xamachana), and various species of fish, macroalgae, sponges and other invertebrates typical of seagrass meadows in this area. Sediment samples consisted of muddy sand, sand, sandy mud, and coarse shell fragments. The boat basin is characterized by very deep (20-40 inch) flocculent sediment (see Figure 5.4.2 sediment depth results) almost completely devoid of seagrasses. At the margins of the historically -dredged basin, small patches of very low density (<2% cover for each species) turtle grass and shoal grass were observed. Transitional distribution of turtle grass and shoal grass was observed in the proposed entrance channel dredge area. Within 150 feet of the boat basin, the area is either devoid of seagrass or is dominated by shoal grass. One small patch of moderately- 3 Key w" • ?Alarm 4eu iouyy od - foil Mvws; rww nvcnc not Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 dense manatee grass was also observed at approximately 120 feet from the boat basin. Between 150 and 300 feet from the boat basin there is a patchy mix transitioning from shoal grass as the dominant species to turtle grass. Beyond 300 feet from the boat basin, turtle grass becomes the dominant species. A graphical illustration of this transition is shown in attachment 5C. The lighter -green color represents shoal grass - dominated distribution, while the darker -green color represents turtle grass -dominated distribution. Throughout the historic entrance channel, there are areas devoid of seagrasses and macroalgae. These areas were mapped in 2008, and remained consistent during subsequent observations in 2009 and 2010. These bare patches exhibit little or no benthic occupation by vegetation or infauna. The persistent bare areas within the historic entrance channel are visible in Attachment 5C and representative photographs have been included in Attachment 5F (photos 19 and 20). All of the seagrasses in the boat basin and proposed entrance channel were mapped in detail in 2008 and updated in 2009 (Attachments 56-C). Table 5.4.1a Braun-Blanquet Analysis -Species Percent Cover Suecies* Cover in Ent Channel Percent of Total Seagrass Cover Ent Channel Cover Bbasin Percent of Total Seagrass Cover Boat basin Cover NW Ref Percent of Total Seagrass Cover NW Ref Cover SE Ref Percent of Total Seagrass Cover SE Ref Tt 23.50% 52.37% 0.67% 30.77% 55.00% 93.86% 24.14% 34.58% Sf 2.13% 4.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.17% 2.68% 3.84% Hw 19.25% 42.90% 1.50% 69.23% 3.50% 5.97% 43.00% 61.59% TOTAL 44.88% 100.00% 2.17% 100.00% 58,60% 100.00% 69.82% 100.00% Species Tt Thalassia testudinum Sf Syringodium filiforme Hw Halodule wrightii Table 5.4.1 b Braun-Blanquet Analysis -Functional Group Percent Cover Functional Group Cover Entrance Channel Cover Boat basin Cover NW Reference Cover SE Reference Total Seagrass 41.13% 1.50% 62.50% 52.50% Macroalqae 6.70% 0.67% 0.20% 0.20% Coral 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% 4 ' KeVWeg-AMml Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application ,_z rrdywarl •ran iryars wvrwswasenal Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 f� 5.4.2 Sediment Analysis Sediment testing and analysis found no signs of metals toxicity. Table 5.4.2 below provides the data in relation to relevant State standards. The size of the sediment indicates a majority of biological fine particles. The previously - dredged entrance channel sediments transition from very small, silty particles near the shoreline and boat basin, to somewhat larger, more granular, sandy sediments toward the southern area of the channel. Results of the 2007 and 2008 sediment analysis are included in Attachment 5E. Table 5.4.2 Sediment Sample Data in Relation to State Cleanup Target Levels Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Sample No. ma/ka ma/ka mo/ka ma/ka mg/kg mac Ik ma/ka ma/ka Samples from Basin S1 U 7.53 U 2.35 3.66 U U U S2 U 6.95 U 2.24 3.05 U U U S3 U 6.88 U 2.00 2.52 U U U Samples from Historic Entrance Channel 1 U 7.53 U 2.4 3.66 U U U 2 U 6.95 U 2.2 3.05 U U U 3 U 6.88 U 2.0 2.52 U U U SCTL* Residential 2.1 120 82 210 400 3 440 410 SCTL* Industrial 12.0 130,000 1,700 470 1,400 17 11,000 8,200 * SCTL = State Cleanup Target Level, source Chapter 62-777 FAC, Table II U = undetectable Hans Wilson & Associates (HWA) conducted additional sediment sampling from within the proposed alignment of the Walker's Island restoration dredge during the last week in April 2011. SWC staff selected sampling locations within the dredge alignment and collected subsequent GPS data of the samples as they were collected. Direct push technology was employed to drive 1-1/4" diameter PVC tubes into the substrate at the locations shown on Attachment 5C. At all locations the sediment sample tubes were driven to refusal, which was abrupt and solid contact with consolidated material. Four samples were taken from within the dredge alignment and one taken outside of the historical channel footprint. Once collected, the samples were transported to the HWA office, split, and delivered to Universal Engineering Sciences for testing. 61 Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 The samples are identified by numerals 1-5, with 1-4 located in the channel alignment and number 5 located outside of the channel's historical footprint. The numbering system used by Universal Engineering Sciences is T1-T5 with the numbers corresponding to those used by HWA and as shown on Attachment 5C. All samples were homogenous from top to bottom, no visible soil horizons were present, and this resulted in only one graduation curve data sheet per sample. The table below summarizes the findings of the sediment analysis. See Attachment 5H for complete 2011 sediment core data and analysis. Table 5.4.3 2011 Sediment Core Analysis Summary Sample No. % Silt & Clay % Sand % Gravel % Organic Content Channel 1 36.2 63.4 0.4 2.41 2 30.0 58.2 11.8 2.48 3 31.2 67.4 1.4 5.80 4 29.4 70.5 0.1 2.85 Averages 31.7 64.9 1 3.4 3.39 Adjacent seagrass flat 5 20.8 73.6 5.6 2.52 Difference (*) 10.9 (8.7) (2.2) 0.87 * Difference = channel average minus adjacent seagrass flat 5.5 REFERENCES Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant Sociology. The Study of Plant Communities. Translated by G.D. Fuller and H.S. Conard. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, NY. Fourqurean J.W., A. Willsie, C.D. Rose and L.M. Rutten. 2001. Spatial and temporal pattern in seagrass community composition and productivity in south Florida. Marine Biology. Vol 138. pp 341-354. Kirsch K.D., K.A. Barry, M.S. Fonseca, P.E. Whitfield, S.R. Meehan, W.J. Kenworthy and B.E. Julius. 2005. The Mini-312 Program - An Expedited Damage Assessment and Restoration Process for Seagrasses in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of Coastal Research. SI 40. pp 109-119 G Key West • MIARW O91081x404 • Fart vym *G r,wr, :wc n : r r. ail.,_... 60: i Duck Key 0 1 2 Miles V5 1 Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Directions: Heading south on US 1, pass mile marker 63. Take a right at the mailbox onto Walker's Island and proceed to the end of the road. Section, Township, Range: 15-65-34 RE Number: 00099090-000000 Surrounding Properties Land 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Sources: 2007 Monroe County Property Appraiser Shelli Braynard ATTACHMENT 5B-1 2006 Benthic Resources Map of Boat Basin y . . ♦aa'r i♦s is ♦'ia♦aaa♦ai'!a♦a ♦aaia..a♦• #•aa.+aaa• i♦a.s.aa.la\ i♦♦ara♦.♦.s♦ .'♦'aa. * �ai'e'♦'*'a'.a�♦.+*'ra ' i.+a♦i.a♦a♦a♦♦♦a i Nm i'aaail.'R'i �aa i'♦aa'a'+'a•.a♦f '\;•"aia♦'+ a♦aa"�a'i'aaa �i '.+i a a♦alai ►�•..ala�� a♦ r i.♦\ a♦ i r a♦. .+...aaia.♦♦. • ay'i i!� � ii!'4 +.+♦a •♦aila • f a"aat . ! �� #'i'aai♦! .♦iai/ii �r + a'a"� �♦ii's'a�a�.♦i pia♦aM� �aai"!alas"♦'+"♦'♦'a'f +'+ 41 a i#i ias'♦�a IFa. laia� .ssia+ i s's#aas++ a i ► i�! a♦* ia� aii '.';a♦;a~a"♦a.�+"♦*afaiaa♦iai i i rra♦.\aalaa♦.♦+aa Y aia♦aa*a'."♦a♦a."aa.i'i +ataa� Key ►Yesi • Wiaml 0 *(;� t*vmd • rort Vkmm n+m•[- rn:ru: Legend • soil samples Photo Points Historic Channel & Basin Limits of Proposed Channel & Basin Seagrasses Source: Monroe Countv. 2006 Aerial Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Ad SWC Key WPA - Miami Hoffvwoil • Forl Mwrm �*c www "'al.; r nt N Benthic Resources Assessment ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Culvert Tt Thalassia testudinum Sf Syringodium filiforme Hw Halodule wrightii HB Hardbottom ----- Braun-Blanquet Transect Historic Channel & Basin } 2011 Sediment Cores Private Property Limits Limits of Proposed Channel & Basin © Impacted Seagrass - 0.43 acres Impacted Mud/Sandy Bottom - 0.20 acres Dolphin Seagrass Impacts (Temporary) - 0.018 acres Dolphin Barren Bottom - 0.48 acres Source: Monroe County. 2006 Aerial Adapted by Shelli Braynard, SWC 0*Her we$4 • Miami W1)wood • Fo rl Vvers c" W.9w Swanc il-A Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 5D Braun-Blanquet Scores Collected by SWC staff October 7 and 21, 2009. Quad# Area Tt Sf Hw Total Grass TMA Coral Sediment Type 1 Ent Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 2 Ent Channel 0 0 2 2 0 0 M 3 Ent Channel 0 0.5 4 4 0 0 M 4 Ent Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 5 Ent Channel 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 M/sM 6 Ent Channel 0 0 4 4 0.5 0 M/SM 7 Ent Channel 0 0 2 2 0 0 M 8 Ent Channel 0 3 0 3 0 0 MS 9 Ent Channel 0 0.1 4 4 0 0 MS 10 Ent Channel 2 0.5 3 4 2 0 MS 11 Ent Channel 3 0.5 3 4 2 0 MS/CS 12 Ent Channel 4 0.5 0 4 0.1 0 MS 13 Ent Channel 3 0 0 3 1 0 MS 14 Ent Channel 4 0 0 4 2 0 MS/CS 15 Ent Channel 2 0 4 4 0.5 0 MS 16 Ent Channel 4 0 0 0 0 0 MS 17 Ent Channel 4 0 0 4 0.5 0 MS 18 Ent Channel 4 0 0 4 1 0 MS/CS 19 Ent Channel 2 1 0 0 2 4 0 MS 20 Ent Channel 3 1 0 2 4 1 0 MS 1 Boat Basin 0.1 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 M 2 Boat Basin 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 M 3 Boat Basin 0.5 1 0 1 1.0 0.1 0 M 1 NW Ref 4 0.1 0 4 0.1 0 MS/CS 2 NW Ref 4 0 0 4 0 0 MS/CS 3 NW Ref 4 0 0 4 0 0 MS/CS 4 NW Ref 3 0 2 4 0 0 MS 5 NW Ref 4 0 1 4 0 0 MS/CS 6 NW Ref 3 1 0 1 3 0.1 0 MS/CS 7 NW Ref 3 0 2 3 1 0 MS/CS 8 NW Ref 4 0 0 4 0 0 MS/CS 9 NW Ref 4 0 0 4 0.5 0 MS/CS 10 NW Ref 4 0 0 4 0 0 MS/CS 1 SE Ref 0 0 4 4 0 0 Ms/CS 2 SE Ref 0.1 1 0 4 4 0 0 Ms 3 SE Ref 0.5 0 3 3 0 0 MS/CS 4 SE Ref 1 0 3 3 0.5 0 MS/CS 5 SE Ref 4 0 2 4 0 0 MS/CS 6 SE Ref 1 0 3 3 0 0 MS/CS 7 SE Ref 3 0 2 3 0.1 0 MS/CS 8 SE Ref 2 0 3 4 0.1 0 MS/CS 9 SE Ref 4 0 0 0 0 0 MS/CS 10 SE Ref 4 0 0.5 4 1 0 MS/CS 11 SE Ref 0.5 3 0 1 3 A 3 0 S/CS 12 SE Ref 2 0 2 3 2 0 SM/CS 13 SE Ref 3 0 2 4 2 0 SM/CS 14 SE Ref 3 0 2 4 2 0 SM/CS Key ltest-Muni Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application �flaUawvod • Fowl "rs Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 , wrn+r �vrn,C nel Key to Abbreviations: Species Tt Thalassia testudinum Sf Syringodium filiforme Hw Halodule wrightii Sediment Types S Sand M Mud SM Sandy Mud MS Muddy Sand CR Coral Rubble CS I Coarse Shell HH Halimeda Hash RB Rubble LC Live Coral R Rock PR Pea Rock Key West • murnt Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application 016 ,e-�uw�y, 4-corn Myen Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 '[ w&w sworn, riot ATTACHMENT 5E 2007 and 2008 Sediment Analyses i rin+ veering Testing & Ittrpectirsn $er'vietss i820 N.E,144th Street, North vllsrti. FL 33181 phpnc {305) 944-3401 Fax (305) 94"698 REPORT OF: WAMD GRADATION & SOIL CLASSMCA`I'IO'. Cltent: sonata Waiters c6a iltents, Inc - Project.: WallCerbland - locatlon : 600 Ova=" l lighwW Description : I(,ey West, Florida BTONMLime Silty Sand & Stells Eecetved Date: 215)2007 Sample Miss. fe): 99.6 Washed Gradation Sample NO: 1 Lab Nos 1256 Report Not 1 OrdorNo: 07-1081 Oate'I OW11: 2M212007 Tested My: P. Mend= ORGANIC CODUMINPBYLOSSIG IT701I Lab No.: 1257 Sieve No- 3I8" Diamater (mm) 9.500 Mass Ret. 0.0 % Retained OAD °k Passing 100.00 04 4.750 1.9 2.91 98.20 # 10 2 000 6_6 6.63 93.40 #20 0.850 1Cx9 16. 77 53.00 040 0.425 —T4—.91 35.04 65M # 60• 0,250 51.0 51.20 48.80 # 80 0.190 41A 61.61 38A0 # •144 0.106 76.7 777.01 23.00 #240 6.075 80.3 81.12 1&.90 Paa• 0.000 99.6 100.00 0.00 100 so 80 70 c 60 i_ 50 0 o� 40 30 20 10 0 100 ]Ptacent Gravel = 6,61 Percent Sand= 74-5 1' erecat Flucs - 19.49 &OIL C:LASMCA7`1dly: • A-1 A-1 -b ORGANIC CONTENT By LOST IGNITION: 6. Ma Particle Dlarneter (erne) RsspaGthsi[y Subrnivcd,� _ E A33piiA ' MS ltegistmiionm. 34715 71te odVhal or this report was signed and Sealed by tha PMeO4 onai.Enbinear to accordance with RUFe 61016 -18.Oi i or F7oelda Adminli a. aitva A, a mutual pmiucrton to alkvft the pubAaond ourselves, all roparts aresubmitted es the;onlldeM(at property of C1Wu and au010fhM ion for pub!'rw&xn c9 stnfwwnts. c walusions or extract$ ft6 rt•ar•regardlnli nur reports is reserved pending ourvailten appmaL- 10 -- ---I ..-- , ---- •------- , - - WINGE1.R'TER LABORATORIES, INC Epgineering Testing & IWPCWOn Se rylcea 10120 N E.144th Stret4 North Miami, IL 33181 phone (3*944=3401 Fax(305) 949•fM698 MOAT. QM WASHMD GRADATION & SOIL CLASSIFICATION Client: sarsdra walta: s Consulmm, The. RtporY Nos 2 Prejeet: Walkerlsland Orde:rNo: 0711081 Locatfou : 60D (7verscasM9hV%Y Keywest noddy DmTtatcd: 2112=07 Description : Bwwn Lime Silty sand & Shells 12eeolwed Date: 2/5/2007 Tasted By: P. Mendez Samplamass (& 99.01) Washed Qradatton Organic Content Sample No: 2 Lob No.: 1258 Lab No.: 1259 Sloye NG. Vlamclar(OWY Mass Ret % R94hied % Passing 1/2" 12.700 0.0 0.00 100.OD 318" 9.500 I23' 13.03 87:00' # 4 4.750 15.6 15.76 K20. 4 10 2:000 19.0 19.19 80:80- 4 20 0-950 21.9 22.12 7790 940 0.425 2$.6 25 36 74.10 ill60 0.250 _ _ 29.7 30.00 70.00 # 80 0.180 34.5 34.85 6520 # 140 0.106 47.5 47.98 52.0D #200 0.075 52.8 53.31 46.90 Pas! O.00D 9VO 100.00 O.DO 100 90 so 70 L Q _G so G 50 40' 0. 30 20 10 0 Pm. eat Gravel- 15.76 ParcentSand - 37,47 )hbrccntFinet- 36.77 SOIL, CLASIMCATION; ' A•5 0RGIi.NIC CONTENT BY BY LOSS TGNI'1 ONi 15.731)f 100 10 1 _ 0.1 O,Ot . • J PeirdCle D1alneler (mrrl) ~ Ro4p6eUY hlsxCm. L12egistrdton3 n. MIS A odghral.etlhls roped + slaned and eaaledby the abolro Aaglalered Profeaeional*EWnaer In accordancrWth Rini► 0'I G15 - I O.011 Of MrWa Adininl6uatvl As a miguAl protecdon 10 clfenjIL am pubic and auu9*nm, all reportd are subm110 os the cDMdwgMI properly oldlants and aulhorgnuon for publleafloriaf."ame,ls, carickslordorw4rafttromorreQoWng,Wrreporlelsreoerved poodingourwrillenapproval. Report To: Sandra Walters Sandra Walters Consultants Inc 6410 5th Street Suite ##3 Key West, FL 33040 Project: Walker's Island 035-0806 Site Location: Walker's Island Matrix: Sails/Sediments PARANI =I R Percent Solids 6010.B RCi2A 7 Metals In 801L/W Arsenic, Total Barium, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Total Lead, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Mercury (Cold Vapor AA) Page 1 of 3 Report Printed: 02/12/07 Submission # 702000070 Order # 4874 Satnple Y.D.: Sl Collected: 02/02/07 03:45 Received: 02/05/07 11: 55 Collected by: Client LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT RRSULT QC UNYTs M )L PQL METHOD DATE DATE AMALYSP 45.4 'US -ICI' (No Hg U U % mg/Kg 0.1 Dilution 0.60 0.3 Factor =1 1.80 7E7PA160.3 305016010B MT. 02/05 16:00 A1+iAL�. 02/06 10.09 EN 02/05 14:00 02/05 20:30 RAN 7.53 mp)Kg 0.30 0.90 3050/6010B 02/05 14;00 02/05 20:30 IMN U U mg/Kg 0.50 1.50 305016010B 02105 14:00 02105 20:30 IMN 2.35 mg/Kg 0.50 1.50 3050/6010B 02105 14:00 02105 20:30 IMN 3.66 mg/Kg 0.80 2.40 305016010E 02105 14:00 02/05 20:30 UAN U U mg/K8 0.16 0.48 3050/6010D 02/05 14:00 02105 20:30 IMN U U mg/Xg 0.50 1.50 3050/601013 _ 02/05 14:00 02/05 20:30 IMN U lu mg1Kg 0.04 0.12 7471A 02105 16:00 F02106 16.25 EN QC —Qualifier Codes as defined by DEP 62-160 Unless indicated, snit results are reported basal on actual (wet) weight basis. Analyms not currently NPLAC certified de xAW by - Work performed by outside (subcontract) labs denoted by Cert.lD in Analyst Field. Results relate only in the sample. tl tl U e Ignatut!e Florida vlrou=ntal;Cerlrficatiou# B86006 Florida — Spectrum Environmental Services, Inc. - 1460 W. McNab Road - Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 Phone: 964.978.6400 -Fax: 954.978.2233 www.fienviro.com AN NELAP eertlaed arts" are pertarreed In accordance wllh Chapler 64E-1 Florida AdmlNauadve Code, wHrh has been delemdned lobe equivalent to NELAC standards. Analyses cergged by programs other than NELAP are designated with a "-" Report To: Sandra Walters Sandra Walters Consultants Inc 6410 5th Street Suite #3 Key West, FL 33040 Page 2 of 3 Report Printed: 02/12107 Submission # 702000070 Order # 4875 Sample I.D.: 32 Project: Walker's Island 035-0806 Collected: 02/02/07 03:45 Site Location: Walker's Island Received: 02/05/07 11:55 Matrix: Soils/Sediments Collected by: Client LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT PARAi1�rER RESULT QC UMTB MDL PQL iVIETIiOU DATE EXT. DATE ANAL Y. ANALYST Percent Solids 41.9 % 0.1 0.3 EPA 160.3 02/05 16.00 02J06 10:10 EN 6010.13 'RCRA 7 Metals in 801L1WASTES-ICP (No H Dilution Factor =1 Arsenic, Total U U mg/Kg 0.60 1.80 305016010E 02/05 14:00 02105 20:36 Rd N Barium, Total 6.95 mg/Kg 0.30 0.90 305016010B 02/05 14:00 02105 20:36 IMN 'mium, Total U U ing/Kg 0.50 1.50 305016010E 02/05 14:00 02/05 20.36 IMN Chromium. Total 2.24 tng/Kg 0.50 1.50 305016010E 02/05 14:00 02/05 20:36 RUIN Lead, Total 3.05 mg)Kg 0.80 2.40 3050/6010B 02/05 14:00 02/05 20:36 IMN Selenium, Total U U mg/K8 0.16 0.48 3050/6010B 02105 14:00 02105 20:36 IMN Silver, Total U U mg/lcg 0.50 1.50 3050/601013 02105 14:00 02105 20:36 IMN Mercury (Cold Vapor AA) U U mg/Kg 0.04 0.12 7471A 02/05 16:00 02/06 16:28 EN QC -Qualifier Codes as definetl by DHP 62-160 Unless indicated, soil results are reported based on actual (wet) weight basis. Analytea not currently NM AC eerlil'tcti denoted by ", Work perlbrmcd by outside (subcontiva) labs denoted by Cert.lb In Analyst Field, liesulIs relate only to 010 sample. ut 10 a SId Si�gnature Florida vironmentai;C"ertification N WON Report To: Sandra Walters Sandra Walters Consultants Inc 6410 5it1 Street Suite #3 Key West, FL 33040 Project: Walker's Island 035-0806 Site Location: Walker's Island Matrix: Soils/Sediments Page-3 of 3 Report Printed: 02/12/07 Subn-ission # 702000070 Order # 4876 Sample I.D.: S3 Collected: 02/02/07 03:45 Received: 02/05/07 11:55 Collected Icy: Client LABORATORYANALYSIS REPORT RESULT QC UNITS MDL PQI, METHOD DATE #NAL�Y. ALYSTLr7LT. PARANATLR Percent Solids 32.7 % 0.1 0.3 EPA 160.3 02105 16:00 02106 10:10 BN 6010.E RCRA 7 Metals In SOILIWASTES-ICP Arsenic, Total Barium Total (No Hg U 6.88 U mg/Kg mg/Kg Dilution 0.60 0.30 Factor =1 1.80 0.90 3050/6010B 305016010B 02/05 14:00 02/05 14:00 02105 20:42 02/05 2DA2 IMN IMN Cadmium, Total U U mg/Kg 0.50 1.50 305016010B 02105 14:DO 02J05 2D:42 IMN Chromium, Total Lead, Total 2.00 2.52 mg(Kg mg/Kg 0.50 0.80 1.50 2.40 3050/601013 3050/6010B 305016010B 02/OS 14:00 02/05 14:00 02105 20:42 02105 20;42 IMN IMN Selenhnn Total U U 1ng/Kg 0.16 0.48 02/05 14:OD 02105 20:42 IMN Silver, Total U U mg/Kg 0.50 1.50 305016010E 02105 14:00 02/05 20:42 IMN Mercury (Cold Vapor AA) U U mg/Kg 0.04 0.12 7471A 02105 16:00 02106 16:30 EN QC�Qualifler Codes as defined by DBP 62-160 Unless indicated, soil results are reported based on actual (wet) weight basis. kantyws out cm-mitly NELAC certified denoled by -. Work performed by owside (xubcontract) labs denoted by Ceit.M in Analyst Field. Results relatc only to the sainple. u o ze 1�1 attire Florida viroutnental.Cottifiation # B86006 wl O N fi3 a li 0 w CX 0 0- M V U. 0 Z Q 2 y ov r� h ch N V2 6 PG J 0 ! >1 . Q N � ct Ln (A Project: Proctor No.: 4rMACTEC 5845 NW 158th Street Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Phone (305) 826-5588 Fax (305) 826-1799 Walker's Island Project No.: Sample 1 Date: 2/19/2008 Report of Organic Content by Loss on Ignition Technician: Crubicle Number: Time In / Time Out of Furnace: A) Weight of Crucible & Oven -Dried Sample: B) Weight of Crucible & Sample After Ignition: C) Weight of Crubicle: D) Weight of Oven -Dried Soil = (A-C): E) Weight loss due to Ignition (A-B): F) Percent Organics (E/D x 100%): WO SC-9 8:00 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M. 18.7 18.15 9.99 8.71 0.55 6.3% Test was performed in general accordance with the following Test Method: (AASHTO T-267-86) Respectfully Submitted, MACT4 Eo�neering and Consulting, Inc. Kevin Le ng, P.E. Florida R gistration #63036 4WA MACTEC, Inc Particles Size Analysis Project Name Walker's Island Sample No. 1 Prolect No. Sample Description Grav Sand Tested by: W.O. Sample Location Seagrass patch Sample Date: 2/19/2008 Moisture Content AASHTO T-1 i Pan No Pan No A-5 Wet Soil+Can - _ � -- ' -, , .i ., Dry Soil+Can before washina 107.8 Dry Soil +Can _ _.., Dry Soil+Can after washina_0 Weight of Water 143.06 Tare weiaht can 7.2 Tare weiaht can =r == -109.35 Dry soil b/ washina 100.6 Dry Soil Dry soil a/ washing 46.95 M.C.(%) 130.83 % Passing #200 53.3 Dry Soil bi washing 100.6 AASHTO T-27 Sieve No Weiaht ret e/ sieve Weight ret accumulative % Retained % Passing 5. Ms 2" 0TOWNE'; 0 100 1.5" 0= 0 100 3/4" 0 =-=a _= 0.00 100.00 1/2" 0 =`=_ -- -= 0.00 100.00 3/8" 0.00 .Y 0.00 100.00 #4 0.15- = _ _:�Y: �-�-� :�� 0.15 99.85 #10 2.53 2.37 97.63 #40 11.02 = _; Y& 8.59 91.41 #60 20.72'`�:= 12.01 87.99 #100 31.84 Rj _s6 19.64 80.36 #200 61.93 '� -��r°�� ;.'�;f7 41.921 58.08 USCS Soil Classification: ML AASHTO Soil Classification: A-4 Project: MACTEC 5845 NW 158th Street Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Phone (305) 826-5588 Fax (305) 826-1799 Walker's Island Project No.: Proctor No.: Sample 2 Date: Technician: 2/19/2008 Report of Organic Content by Loss on Ignition Crubicle Number: Time In / Time Out of Furnace: A) Weight of Crucible & Oven -Dried Sample: B) Weight of Crucible & Sample After Ignition: C) Weight of Crubicle: D) Weight of Oven -Dried Soil = (A-C): E) Weight loss due to Ignition (A-B): F) Percent Organics (E/D x 100%): WO LC-7 8:00 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M. 21.23 20.75 11.65 9.58 0.48 5.0% Test was performed in general accordance with the following Test Method: (AASHTO T-267-86) Respectfully Submitted, MACTEr, Engineering and Consulting, Inc. f Kevi Bung, P.E. Florio! Registration #63036 MACTEC, Inc Particles Size Analysis Project Name Walker's Island Sample No. 2 Project No. Sample Description Grav Sand Tested bv: W.O. Sample Location Seagrass patch Sample Date: 2/19/2008 Moisture Content AASHTO T-11 Pan No b, Pan No T-3 Wet Soil+Can A aU, Dry Soil+Can before washing 100.9 D Soll +Can Dry Soil+Can after washing _r. Weight of Water 128.09 Tare weiaht can 7.96 Tare weigh_ t can _ Dry soil b/ washing 92.94 Dry Soil 102.51 Dry soil a/ washina 66.05 M.C.(%) 124.95 % Passing #200 28.9 Dry Soil b/ washinq 92.94 AASHTO T-27 Sieve No Weight ret e/ sieve Weight rat accumulative % Retained % Passing w 3" 0 100 0 100 1.5" 0n�� _E-� =�__ 0 100 11 0�L LL =�-a.0 ;, 0 100 3/4" 0= i x _�. �� _ 0.00 100.00 1 /2" 0 `- - -- 0.00 100.00 3/8" 0.00 =:a=_=- = === 0.00 100.00' #4 1.20 1.29 98.71 #10 10.75 p�.. ,. = 10.28 89.72 #40 38.48 -T_ Wiz, -„ .._;r��2i 31.13 68.87 #60 62.64._..:Y-=-:.,: 36.27 63.73 #100 77.07 _-.._.-.::: .'r�::,.__-:.._3a 46.65 53.35 #200 105.83i..._- 67.22 32.78 USCS Soil Classification: SM AASHTO Soil Classification: A-2-4 AMACTEC 5845 NW 158th Street Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Phone (305) 826-5588 Fax: (305) 826-1799 Project: Walker's Island Project No.: Proctor No.: Sample 3 Date: 2/19/2008 Report of Organic Content by Loss on Ignition Technician: Crubicle Number: Time In / Time Out of Furnace: A) Weight of Crucible & Oven -Dried Sample: B) Weight of Crucible & Sample After Ignition: C) Weight of Crubicle: D) Weight of Oven -Dried Soil = (A-C): E) Weight loss due to Ignition (A-B): F) Percent Organics (FJD x 100%): SO 8:00 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M* 19.26 18.84 10.61 8.65 0.42 4.9% Test was performed in general accordance with the following Test Method: (AASHTO T-267-86) Respectfully Submitted, MACTI t Ensneering and Consulting, Inc. Kevin eung, P.E. Florldo Registration #63036 MACTEC, Inc Particles Size Analysis Proiect Name Walker's Island Sample No. 3 Proiect No. Sample Description Gray Sand Tested bv: W.O. Sample Location Seagrass patch Sample Date: 2/19/2008 Moisture Content AASHTO T-11 Pan No - - Pan No T-5 Wet Soil+CanM. Dry Soll+Can before washing 107.18 Dry Soil +Can e - _ Dry Soil+Can after washing__, Weight of Water 143.77 Tare weight can 7.65 Tare weight can - Dry soil b/ washing 99.53 Dry Soil 108.14 Dry soil a/ washing 77.3 M.C.(%) 132.95 1 % Passinq #200 22.3 Dry Soil b/ washina 99.53 AASHTO T-27 Sieve No Weight ret e/ sieve Welght ret accumulative % Retained % Passing 3.5"_ 3" 0:--- tea -;an rk 0 100 0 100 0 100 V 0- 0 100 314" 0 I W .. 4 ._-0-10 0.00 100.00 1 /2" 0 M ?I � M - -- 0.00 100.00 3/8.1 0.00 _a _ _ 0.00 100.00 #4 1.33 J- 1.34 98.66 410 12.21- �_- �' 10.93 89.07 #40 41.51 "`� `` .. 30.77 37.84 69.23 62.16 #60 68.29 #100 88.81 ` ;y:: .- �. 51.39 48.61 #200 123.31 _' 72.50 27.50 USCS Soil Classification: Ism, AASHTO Soil Classification: A-2-4 o� �I I CM ' N Cl) m i c6 a C pp I q� N � j N m o c CO LLL O_ d' 3 t0 0 t0 V i ! LU z °C f �QS LL.L Q 5 0 a z dju Y Vt I . A orida kental Report To: Sandra Walters Sandra Walters Consultants Inc 6410 Fifth Street Suite 3 Key West, FL 33040 Page 1 of 3 Report Printed: 02/08/08 Submission # 802000051 order # 51965 Project: Walker's Island Site Location: Walker's Island, FL Matrix: Soils/Sediments SamFle I.D.: I/Seagrass Patch Collected:(12/t}1108 16:00 Received: 02/04/08 12:35 Collected by: Michael J. TuSt LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT PARAMETER RESULT QC UNITS MDL PQL METHOD EAT ATE Y. ANALYST percent Solids 34.5 % 0.1 0.3 EPA 160.3 02/05 08:57 02/05 08:57 JRP 6010.B RCRA 7 Metals in SOIL/WAS'h"ES-ICP (No Hg Arsenic, Total 1.11 mg/Kg Dilution Factor =I 0.001 0.003 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02104 16:13 IMN ?ium, Total Cadmium, Total 2.20 U U mg/Kg mg/Kg 0.003 0.00028 0.009 0.00084 3050/6010B 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02104 13:00 02l04 16:13 02104 16,13 IMN IMN Chromium, Total 2.04 mg /Kg 0.001 0.003 305016010B 02/04 13:00 02104 16:13 IMN Lead, Total U U mg/Kg 0.002 0.006 3050/6010B 02I04 13:00 02/04 16:13 IMN Selenium, Total U U mg/Kg 0.003 0.009 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:13 IMN Silver, Total U U mg/Kg 0.001 0.003 3050/6010B 02/04 13.00 02104 16:13 IMN Mercury (Cold Vapor AA) U U mg/Kg 0.02 0.06 7471A 02/05 12:30 02/05 17:17 EN QC=Qualitler Codes as defined by DEP 62,160 [unless tadicated, soil results are reported based on actual (wet) weight basis. Analytes not currently NELAC certified denoted by -. Work performed by outside (subcontract) labs denoted by Cert.ID in Analyst Field. Results relate only to this sample. u orl zgnature (954) 978 640D Florida-S tsum Eavirotuneatal Services.Inc. ertification 0 E86006 Florida -Spectrum Environmental Services, Inc. 1460 W. McNab Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Pembroke Laboratory Big Lake Laboratory Spectrum Laboratories 528 Gooch Rd. 415 8 SW Park St. 630 Indian St. Fort Mead, FL SM41 Okeechobee, FL 34972 Savannah, GA 31401 www.ftenvirOaCOM Report To: Sandra Walters Sandra Walters Consultants Inc 6410 Fifth Street Suite 3 Key West, FL 33040 Project: Walker's Island Site Location: Walker's Island, FL Matrix: Soils/Sediments Page 2 of 3 Report Printed: 02/08/08 Submission # 802000051 Order # 51966 Sample I.D.: 2/Sand Patch Collected: 02/01 /08 16:00 Received: 02/04/08 12:35 Collected by: Michael J. Tust LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT PARAMETER RESULT QC UNITS MDL PQL METHOD DATE EXT. DATE ANALY. ANALYST Percent Solids 53.3 % 0.1 0.3 EPA 160.3 02/05 08:58 02/05 08:58 JRP 6010.B RCRA 7 Metals in SOIL/WASTES-ICP (No Hg Dilution Factor = I Arsenic, Total 1.24 mg/Kg 0.001 0.003 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:17 IMN Barium, Total 2.99 mg/Kg 0.003 0.009 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:17 IMN Cadmium, Total U U mg/Kg 0.0003 0.0009 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16.17 IMN i Chromium, Total 2.44 mg/Kg 0.001 0.003 305016010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:17 IMN Lead, Total U U mg/Kg 0.002 0.006 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:17 IMN Selenium, Total U U mg/Kg 0.003 0.009 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:17 IMN Silver, Total U U mg/Kg 0.001 0.003 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:17 IMN Mercury (Cold Vapor AA) U U mg/Kg 0.02 0.06 7471A 02/05 12.30 02/05 17:19 EN QC=Qualifier Codes as defined by DEP 62-160 Unless indicated, soil results are reported based on actual (wet) weight basis. Anaiytes not currently NELAC certified denoted by ', Work performed by outside (subcontract) labs denoted by Cert.ID in Analyst Field. Results relate only to this sample. u ar lgnature (954) 978-640o Florlda-S arum Environmental Services,lnc. Mertificadon # E86006 Report To: Sandra Walters Sandra Walters Consultants Inc 6410 Fifth Street Suite 3 Key West, FL 33040 Project: Walker's Island Site Location: Walker's Island, FL Matrix: Soils/Sediments Page 3 of 3 Report Printed: 02/08/08 Submission # 802000051 Order # 51967 Sample T.D.: 3/Sand Patch Collected: 02/01/08 16:00 Received: 02/04/08 12:35 Collected by: Michael J. Tust LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT PARAMETER RESULT QC UNITS MDL PQL METHOD DATE EXT. DATE ANALY. ANALYST Percent SoIids 47.7 % 0.1 0.3 EPA 160.3 02/05 08:58 02/05 08:58 JRP 6010.B RCRA 7 Metals In SDILIWASTES-ICP (No Hg Dilution Factor =1 Arsenic, Total 1.17 mg/Kg 0.001 0.003 3050/6010B 02104 13:00 02/04 16:34 IMN Barium, Total 3.03 mg/Kg 0.003 0.009 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02104 16:34 IMN rnium, Total U U mg/Kg 0.0003 0.0009 305016DIOB 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:34 IMN Chromium, Total 2.24 mg/Kg 0.001 0.003 305016DIOB 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:34 IMN Lead, Total U U mg/Kg 0.002 0.006 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:34 IMN Selenium, Total U I U mg/Kg 0.003 0.009 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:34 IMN Silver, Total U U mg/Kg 0.001 0.003 3050/6010B 02/04 13:00 02/04 16:34 IMN Mercury (Cold Vapor AA) U U mg/Kg 0.02 0.06 7471A 02/05 12:30 02/05 17:22 EN 2C=Qualifier Codes as defined by DEP 62-160 Jrdm indicated, soil results are reported based on actual (wet) weight basis. %nalytes not currently NELAC cerdited denoted by '. ]Work performed by outside (subcontract) labs denoted by Cert.ID in Analyst Field. lesults relate only to this sample. Authori d CSM Signature (954) 978.6400 Floridan trum Environmental Services.Inc, Certification I' E86006 M N O J N U. r � M N CO U. a C 04 vJ a: 415 U_ O_ It co u A ;VS, . �� A tt • I 3 —tt w y 1 Kit 9� . .A an aG �i K Ic S � b v x L � 4 V) Uj a I v oo El X Lh Key WW - Miami kwn,wad • FortM)*ROct wv+w swcinr. nql Photo 1: Walker's Island Shoreline, showing homes under construction, the existing dock, and the flushing culvert to be replaced. (12/18/08) Photo 3: View from the existing dock, looking south, toward the dolphin basin and the spit of land south of the project area. (10/04/08) is Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, Revised June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 5F Site Photographs Photos taken by SWC staff Photo 2: View from the existing dock to the south- west, in the direction the proposed entrance channel would be. (10/04/08) ,. , Photo 4: View toward the Walker's Island property, looking northeast. Seagrass injuries are visible in the foreground. (10/07/08) Photo 5: View from the existing dock area toward the southeast, with the flushing culvert visible in the center. (12/18/08) Photo 6: View from the existing dock area toward the east, with the flushing culvert visible in the center. (12/18/08) KO wea • mwr,3 FkAhl od • Furl 11 m Ovec WMY SWon,. nnl Photo 7: Braun-Blanquet quadrat from the boat basin, showing sparse Thalassia testudinum. (10/25/06) Photo 9: Quadrat placed along the transect tape in the boat basin with sediment depth reading. (10/25/06) Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, Revised June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 5F Site Photographs Photos taken by SWC staff Photo 8: Braun-Blanquet quadrat from the boat basin, showing mixed detritus on essentially barren bottom. (10/25/06) Photo 10: Quadrat placed along the transect tape in the entrance channel, showing sparse Halodule wrightii in unconsolidated sediment. (10/21/09) Photo 11: Quadrat along transect tape in the entrance channel, showing Halodule wrightii runners and sparse macroalgae. (10/21/09) Photo 12: Quadrat along transect tape in the entrance channel, in a small patch of fairly monospecific Syringodium filiforme. (10/21/09) 0* xey we,� • Mlaml � WMY SYiiIYtC i1B[ Photo 13: Quadrat placement in Thalassia testudinum. Representative of the area outside of the previously -dredged entrance channel. (2/1/08) Photo 15: Juvenile Spiny Lobster under a sponge in hardbottom habitat near the subject property. (10/7/09) r Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, Revised June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 5F Site Photographs Photos taken by SWC staff Photo 14: Quadrat in less than 1 ft of water near the edge of the dolphin basin, showing Ha/odule wrightii in muddy sediment. (9/30/09) Photo 16: SWC staff collecting Braun-Blanquet reference data during mapping of orphan seagrass injuries. (10/6/09) Photo 17: Propeller scar visible on the flat west of Walker's Island. Two completed homes at Walker's Island are visible in the center. 0 0/6/09) Photo 18: Drift algae collects in a blowhole in a Thalassia testudinum bed. (10/6/09) � wear • �� Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, Revised June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 5F Site Photographs Photos taken by SWC staff Photos 19 and 20: Representative photos of bare patches in the historic entrance channel. Bottom contouring from wave action, not benthic infauna. (5/10/10) Photo 21: Dolphin basin with seagrass visibly growing to the edge. (5/10/10) V W, Photo 22: Dolphin basin with seagrass visibly growing to the edge. (5/10/10) Photo 23: View of the current construction status at Walker's Island. (4/27/11) ATTACHMENT 5G -I 2004 Aerial Photograph of Property l7 n14 ,rw ATTACHMENT 5G-2 1964 Aerial Photograph of Property to t N ' F- A 0 500 1 "000 Key N'csl • Itliami IMlYmood • fart Nyors 010C, nwr; �wr n: n:: Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Source: Adapted by Shelli kcil.� n � F u Source: Aerial from Coastal & Geodetic Su Updated BenthicAssessment, ERPApplication Walker's Island, June 14. 2011 � Key We,*.Mimi Updated Benthic Assessment, ERP Application il f� Holty, d • I -on %fyrn Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 �. wyw rnmutt net ATTACHMENT 5H Sediment Core Analysis UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering - Environmental Sciences ,: � • Construction Materials Testing • PrNate Provider b Threshold Inspections LU Project No. Date 0510,1100383 May 24, 2011 5971 Country Lakes Drive • Fort Myers, FL 33905 • (239) 996-1997 • Fax (239) 313-2347 REPORT OF ORGANIC CONTENT CLIENT: Hans Wilson and Associates. Inc. 1938 Hill Avenue Fort Mvers. Florida 33901 PROJECT: Walkers Island, Florida Keys SAMPLED LOCATION: Sediment Tube Samples (delivered to laboratory) SAMPLE NO. ORGANIC CONTENT T-1 241 T-2 2AS % T-3 5.80 % T-4 2.85 % T-5 2.52 % x.- '{ N. ti�S ��.• �IC.FIi$�-���Jrr� Universal Engineering Sciences, li C) 41790 Lindsey N. Weaver', P.E. Florida Registration Number? 41796' U S SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES US SIEVE NUMBERS A 4 -, 2 , A '- -41,, 1 '2 11A 3 A 6 A 10 1 d16 'sn 30 sr, 50 r,100, Qn 200 100 90 P R 70 C E N T 60 F N E 50 R B Y 40 V1r E G 30 H T 20 0 V N M11 qlpill 111111IM11111 ON A I� 10c 1 0.1 0 v 10 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND � SILT OR CLAY , coarse I fine coarse, medium fine V Boring No Depth Description MC% LL PL PI Cc CU 0, T-2 0.0 Gray, silty, fine SAND wl shell 45 _ _ _ fragments ( Homogenous j [ TOP ] Boring No. Depth_ D100 ` D60 i D50 D10 %Gravel %Sand j %Silt %Clay _ 0 T-2 0.0 25.00 0.30 ! 0.125 11.8 58.2 30.0 PROJECT WALTERS PROJECT - SEDIMENT CORE JOB NC - SAMPLES GRADATION CURVE Universal Engineering U,S SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESi U.S SIEVE NUMBERS 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 1/2 , 6 3 , 6 810 141620 30 40 50 70100140200 100 80 P R 70 C E N T 60 F N E 50 R B Y 40 VV E G 30 H T 20 10 C l k " iw 100 10 1 0.1 001 0 00 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL --- SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Boring No. Depth Description MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu T-4 0.0 Light gray, silty, fine SAND w! shell 60 --- - — -- - - fragments( Homogenous) [TOP j Boring No Depth D1 QO D60 D50 D10 %Gravel , %Sand %Silt %Clay 9 T-4 0.0 9.50 0.13 0.107 0.1 70.5 29.4 ' � I PROJECT WALTERS PROJECT - SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLES GRADATION CURVE Universal Engineering JOB NO ATTACHMENT 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION PLAN (REVISED) Walkers Island Historic Entrance Channel Restoration and Minor Changes to Existing Dock Little Conch Key, Monroe County, FL Prepared br- f lanninv; ��.c)tvs�jcFr3 nVircVn6ille:nf <a Communications CONSULTING SERVICES Key West • Miami Hollywood • Fort Myers www.swcinc.net June 14, 2011 keywe1A Mlarul Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) I h*wd•furl ` r% ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 0*c I WA,. iwwkP net TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................... 1 2.0 Elimination and Reduction Analysis .................................... 2 2.1 No Action............................................................................. 3 2.2 Re -Dredge of Historic Channel and Basin (Alternative 1).... 4 2.3 June, 2, 2008 Dredge Proposal (Alternative 2).................... 4 2.4 November 25, 2009 Dredge Proposal (Alternative 3) ......... 5 2.5 The Proposed Project Design (Alternative 4) ..................... 5 2.6 Elimination and Reduction Assessment (Sect. 4.2.1 of BOR) 5 3.0 Impact Area......................................................................... 7 3.1 Impact Assessment............................................................. 7 3.2 Secondary Impacts.............................................................. 10 4.0 Mitigation............................................................................. 11 4.1 Biological Resources........................................................... 11 4.2 Seagrass Restoration.......................................................... 13 4.3 Relict Dolphin Basin Conversion and Restoration ............... 21 4.4 Onsite Orphan Seagrass Restoration ................................. 22 4.5 Seagrass and Hardbottom Protection ................................. 23 4.6 Monitoring and Long Term Maintenance ............................. 23 4.7 Cumulative Impacts............................................................. 26 5.0 Water Quality....................................................................... 27 5.1 Short Term Water Quality Considerations .......................... 27 5.2 Long Term Water Quality Considerations ........................... 28 5.3 Additional Water Quality Enhancements ............................. 28 6.0 Regionally Significant Additional Restoration ...................... 28 6.1 Offsite Orphan Seagrass Restoration .................................. 28 6.2 Monitoring and Long Term Maintenance ............................ 30 6.3 Regional Significance and Long Term Ecological Value ..... 30 7.0 Public Interest Test............................................................. 31 8.0 Conclusions......................................................................... 32 i �,��;vz�, •.,°,� ' aw Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) wswmcn�4'""S I ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS No. Description # of Pages 6ALocation Map....................................................................... 1 6B Submerged Lands & Marine Resources Management Plan 8 613-1 Navigational Approach Map ................................................ 1 613-2 Markers and Signage Map .................................................. 1 613-3 Homeowner's Association Documentation .......................... 52 613-4 Seagrass Grow Brochure .................................................... 2 613-5 Property Owner Information Packet .................................... 9 6C Elimination and Reduction Map ........................................... 1 6D-1 Impact and Mitigation Map .................................................. 1 6D-2 Impact and Mitigation Map — Dolphin Basin ........................ 1 6D-3 Sample Restoration Site Map .............................................. 1 6E HWA Secondary Impacts Letter .......................................... 2 6F UMAM Map and Evaluation Forms ...................................... 20 6G SRI Seagrass Restoration Plan ........................................... 14 61-1-1 Seagrass Restoration Overview Map.. ................................ 1 61-1-2 Offsite Seagrass Restoration Map ....................................... 1 61 SFWMD/SWC 8-29-08 Meeting Summary .......................... 4 6J Reece Bathymetric Survey ................................................. 1 6K Seagrass Impact and Restoration References .................... 302 6L Mitigation Cost Estimate...................................................... 6 ii Key Weal -UL"I Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ?VCHolh wwif-Forl INyers ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 , 'NmV SM1VP,YIliAl 1.0 INTRODUCTION Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The project is located within several acres of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, the island, also known as Walker's Island. Currently, the upland portion of the property at Walker's Island is undergoing redevelopment. Eight multi -million dollar, single-family homes are under construction. The repair of the road onto the island, and the associated rip -rap, as well as repair of the marginal dock in the project area, are complete. Please see Attachment 11 for Monroe County property record cards documenting ownership of both upland parcels currently under redevelopment, and two parcels of submerged land adjacent to the upland. The proposed project involves re -dredging of a small area of the 1950s boat basin and entrance channel to allow ingress and egress of recreational watercraft to the property in a fashion that will minimize inadvertent impacts to shallow seagrass flats surrounding the basin. The site has an existing boat basin and dock which provides eight slips for the single-family homes currently under construction. The applicant proposes to re - dredge the boat basin and entrance channel, construct a 650-square-foot dock extension to accommodate one additional boat slip, construct five access docks, and restore an existing, historically -dredged basin (used as a captive dolphin facility in the 1960s) to ambient grade to support seagrass restoration efforts. On August 29, 2008, SWC staff and John McCarthy (representing the applicant, Little Conch Key Development Corp.) conducted a meeting with South Florida Water Management District (District or SFWMD) staff, with regard to a Request for Additional Information (RAI) issued on July 10, 2008. A summary of the discussion at this meeting, which was submitted to District staff and received no comments, is enclosed as Attachment 61. As a result of that meeting, the applicant revised the proposed dredge footprint to further avoid and minimize impacts to submerged natural resources. In addition, the applicant developed a detailed, regionally -significant mitigation plan, as well as an overall management plan, which together provided greater long-term ecological value than the minimized area of submerged resources to be adversely affected by dredging. On December 22, 2009, SWC staff, Luna Phillips (attorney for the applicant) and John McCarthy conducted a meeting with South Florida Water Management District (District or SFWMD) staff, with regard to the RAI Response submitted by SWC staff on November 25, 2009. As a result of that meeting, the applicant has again revised the proposed dredge depth and footprint to further eliminate and reduce impacts to submerged natural resources. This impact assessment and mitigation plan provides an alternatives analysis demonstrating the greater long-term benefit of the proposed dredging, mitigation, and management plans when compared with other alternatives, including "no action." Following the alternatives analysis, the plan provides an evaluation of the preferred alternative, which will result in unavoidable impacts to 0.43 acres of re -colonized Key West - hll7ml NIL I Ivl4uoctt - Fori. Wien nww.sw inc not Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 seagrasses and 0.20 acres of mud/sandy bottom —for a total impact area of 0.63 acres. In addition, the plan provides an evaluation and detailed description of the mitigation plan, which includes several projects, located both on the privately -owned submerged land at Walker's Island, Mile Marker 63, Monroe County, FL (Attachment 6A) and on nearby State submerged lands. Taken in total, the entire proposal will provide net positive environmental benefits and is implementing a regionally -significant restoration and management plan within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). An essential component of assuring the success and long-term survivability of a mitigation project is the development and implementation of an overall management plan. Included as Attachment 613, the Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan details the overall resource protection offered by the applicant, including: • Preserving and protecting the surrounding shallow, privately -owned submerged flats through installation and maintenance of channel, shoal and seagrass area markers, and informational signage; • Meeting Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clean Marina objectives even though the subject property is a multi -family facility and not a public marina, and; • Undertaking public outreach and education by distributing brochures for the Ocean Foundation's Seagrass Grow Program to registered boaters in Monroe County, FL and by providing Walker's Island property/vessel owners with seagrass and local navigation information packets. 2.0 ELIMINATION AND REDUCTION ANALYSIS Rule 40E-4.301(3), Florida Administrative Code (FAC) requires an applicant to explore and implement practicable design modifications to eliminate and reduce wetland and surface water impacts. The District Basis of Review (BOR) Section 4.2.1 provides that: Design modifications to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts must be explored, as described in subsection 4.2.1.1., which states that except as provided in subsection 4.2.1.2., if the proposed system will result in adverse impacts to wetland functions and other surface water functions such that it does not meet the requirements of sections 4.2.2 through 4.2.3.7, then the District in determining whether to grant or deny a permit, shall consider whether the applicant has implemented practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate such adverse impacts. The term modification shall not be construed as including the alternative of not implementing the system in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function. A proposed modification which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable or which adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." 2 KC wcu - FAwn,t *-C, F1pFhwVpd + Fort MYOM rnrr srrcm c n N Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 To comply with this requirement, practicable design modifications were analyzed. In assessing the various modifications, the applicant considered the level to which a particular design would improve safety at the docking facility, the degree of environmental impacts, the technological feasibility of a design, and how a design may impact public health, safety and welfare. 2.1 "No Action" There currently exists a large dock within the existing boat basin that can accommodate as many as seven vessels. The dock was built in 2007 under replacement permits issued by FDEP (44-0263362-001 and -002) and the USACE (2006-2346 Nationwide3) after Hurricane Wilma destroyed the original structure, so the current structure is almost new, quite substantial, and very usable by vessels in its current state (Attachment 5F, photos 1-3). The only reason it is not presently being used is because permitted redevelopment of upland units is well underway, but incomplete, so there are no current residents. On completion of the upland redevelopment, the property will contain eight very upscale single-family homes, at which time vessels associated with these homes will legally utilize this existing docking facility with no constraints on vessel size or operation. The area around the existing docking facility consists of a basin and entrance channel previously dredged through shallow seagrass flats in the mid-1950s around the time that Duck Key immediately to the south was created through dredging. At that time, no permits were required to conduct dredging of this nature, so the entrance channel and boat basin were legally established, as were many other similar facilities and upland land uses during these early years that are now considered vested. Attachments 5G-1 through 5G-4 of the Updated Benthic Assessment Report show the property prior to and following this alteration. All of the other attachments included with this document were created with the most current, high -resolution, aerial color imagery available (2006). The sequence of aerial photographs shows the changes to the entrance channel and basin over the years, as fine materials collected in the depressions created by the dredging and seagrasses and other marine life colonized the area. The bathymetric survey conducted by R.E. Reece, P.A. dated 10/01/07 (copy attached to this plan as Attachment 6J) shows current depth conditions in the area of the previously -dredged entrance channel. Depths to the east and west of the entrance channel are similarly quite shallow, except for the dolphin basin located to the southeast, visible on Attachments 613-1 and 6C to this plan. The entrance channel, basin and surrounding flats contain seagrasses and other marine life, described in greater detail in Section 3, below. A "No Action" alternative will involve boats navigating to and from the existing dock in an unrestricted fashion, putting the surrounding flats and marine resources at risk for vessel groundings, propeller scarring, and habitat degradation. Examples of this are visible in existing propeller scars and blow holes (created when vessels attempt to back off under power following grounding) within the privately -owned bay bottom just south of the historic entrance channel (Attachment 6D-1). While propeller scarring and creation of blow holes is not legal within the FKNMS, many such violations occur on a regular 3 5 . ' Key WulA • MLimi ' ifufiruood -fort %)vrs �^ mwe Swcinc nil Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 basis and the responsible party is not identified at the time, becoming "orphan" damage for which enforcement activities cannot occur. Attachment 6G shows damage in the vicinity of the subject property, documented as orphan and therefore unenforceable by the FKNMS. The "No Action" alternative would also result in no further permitting activity at the subject property, and the benefits that would result from resource management and regional restoration activities would not occur, nor could it be required through any legal vehicle other than through expensive and lengthy enforcement procedures when responsible parties for grounding and damage are identified. It is SWC's professional assessment that if no dredging occurred, boating activities at Walker's Island would result in inevitable propeller scarring and/or vessel groundings that would adversely impact the natural resources as well as adversely affecting the public safety. Lastly, as stated in the BOR, practicable design modifications cannot be construed as the alternative of not implementing the project, or in this case, the "No Action" alternative, described previously. For all of the above reasons, the applicant did not proceed under the "No Action" alternative, and instead assessed the design modifications discussed below. 2.2 Re -Dredge of Historic Channel and Basin (Alternative 1) The first design proposal assessed by the applicant involved a complete restoration of the entire previously -dredged area shown on attachments 8A-D and 6C. This proposal is referred to as Alternative 1. The total size of this area is 2.16 acres, approximately 0.30 acres of which is bare sand/mud, resulting in 1.86 acres of seagrass impacts. This alternative has not been selected because it is exceeds what is required to provide safe vessel ingress and egress from the existing docking facility or the slightly revised docking facility being proposed. 2.3 June 2, 2008 Dredge Proposal (Alternative 2) The applicant also assessed a revised dredging footprint in the June 2, 2008 proposal. This modification is referred to as Alternative 2. Impacts to the highest quality wetlands (areas of highest density of climax seagrass species) and surface waters were reduced by placing a more narrow entrance channel footprint over the largest areas of sand/mud and within the margins of the previously -dredged channel where seagrass community composition is of a relatively lower quality. Both Braun-Blanquet cover -abundance analysis and direct observation by SWC biologists indicate that the previously -dredged area, though silted in and recolonized to some extent, exhibits patchier distribution and lower overall density of Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass) than the surrounding seagrass flats. Alternative 2 is also illustrated on Attachment 6C. Alternative 2 presented a dredge plan to 6 feet in depth, as the design engineer (Hans Wilson and Associates, Inc.) recommended that depth to safely address expected vessel size proposed by the applicant at that time. Seagrass impacts for this alternative are 0.84 acres and impacts to mud and sand bottom are 0.25 acres, for total impacts of 1.09 acres. This modification was not chosen by the applicant, in an effort to further eliminate and reduce impacts. 4 .�.1, Key Wes[ • Miami 11oi1}xOod • Fort T )vm j� mrw.swaine��el Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 2.4 November 25, 2009 Dredge Proposal (Alternative 3) At the August 29, 2008 meeting between SWC and SFWMD, in addition to recommending limiting the size of vessels using the facility, District staff recommended that the dredge depth be limited to five feet, consistent with provisions of applicable Florida Administrative Code (FAC), and to further reduce impacts. The applicant stated that vessel length would be limited to 34 feet, which can be accommodated safely with a 5-foot depth. These and other changes as recommended in the August 29, 2008 meeting resulted in Alternative 3. Alternative 3 presented significantly lower impacts to resources than Alternative 2 and 1, resulting from a narrower cross-section and a large area of the existing basin not requiring dredging because it was already 5 feet in depth. Total seagrass impacts were 0.49 acres and impacts to mud and sand bottom were 0.21 acres, for total impacts of 0.70 acres. This comprised a 36% reduction in impacts from those in Alternative 2 and a 68% reduction from those in Alternative 1. 2.5 The Proposed Project Design (Alternative 4) At the December 22, 2009 meeting between SWC and SFWMD, District staff recommended that the dredge depth be limited to 4.5 feet to further reduce impacts. The applicant stated that vessel length would continue to be limited to 34 feet, which can be accommodated safely with a 4.5-foot depth. These and other changes as recommended in the December 22, 2009 meeting resulted in Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is shown on Attachment 6C to this plan. It involves a dredge depth of 4.5 feet, which is the minimum practicable, as both Sec. 62-312.420(2)(a) FAC and Sec. 212.5.2 Monroe County Code require a minimum of 4 feet at MLW as a standard for issuance of permits (other than replacement in existing footprint) for docking facilities, and this provides only six inches more than that, assuring a reasonable life of the project. An engineering report documenting slope stability and describing the long-term life of the project and projected maintenance schedule is included under separate cover along with the engineering drawings, as Attachment 4 to the permit application. Alternative 4 has significantly lower impacts to resources than Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, resulting from a narrower cross-section and a large area of the existing basin not requiring dredging because it already equals or exceeds 4.5 feet in depth. Total seagrass impacts are 0.43 acres and impacts to mud and sand bottom are 0.20 acres, for total impacts of 0.63 acres. This comprises a 10% reduction in impacts from those in Alternative 3, a 42% reduction in impacts from those in Alternative 2, and a 71 % reduction from those in Alternative 1. 2.6 Elimination and Reduction Assessment under Section 4.2.1 of the BOR The following table provides a comparison of the impacts from the four alternatives and demonstrates the practicable design modifications that were made to the project in order to comply with the District's Elimination and Reduction criteria in section 4.2.1 of the BOR. 5 0 1101)w Qd • fa"t Mien Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Impact Comparisons Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Original Dredge (acres) 2008 Proposal (6) (acres) 2009 Proposal (6) (acres) Current Proposal (4.5') (acres) Sand Impacts 0.30 1 0.25 0.21 0.20 Seagrass Impacts 1.86 0.84 0.49 0.43 Total 2.16 1.09 0.70 0.63 Total Avoided Impacts (acres)_ 0.00 1.07 1.46 1.53 Avoided Seagrasses (acres) 0.00 1.02 1.37 1.43 The District's elimination and reduction criteria indicate that a modification which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property, is not considered "practicable." As applied to this project, Alternative 4 proposes a dredge depth of 4.5 feet, which is the minimum depth required to address FAC and County Code requirements (4-foot minimum draft) and allow a reasonable project life. Furthermore, the proposal of limiting boat usage at the property to small flats boats is not technologically feasible because there would be no mechanism for enforcement if no permit is issued which implements constraints on use. As stated in section 2.1 above, restricting use to small flats boats requires no dredging, and amounts to the option of not implementing the project, contrary to the BOR. In assessing the impacts to the natural resources, Alternative 4 results in the least amount of impacts to seagrasses and other resources when compared to the other two alternatives. Additionally, Alternative 4 results in the largest amount of proposed impacts that were eliminated. Alternative 1 was rejected at the outset as causing more impacts than necessary to serve the needs of the project. Alternative 4 has substantially lower impacts than alternatives 2 and 3, is the minimum necessary to provide for the long-term life of the dredging project, and is the smallest project that remains practicable. Therefore, the applicant has chosen Alternative 4 as a practicable design modification that complies with the elimination and reduction criteria. The rest of this impact assessment and mitigation plan addresses only Alternative 4. The Regionally Significant Plan under Section 4.2.1.2(b) of the BOR Although the applicant has complied with the elimination and reduction criteria in 4.2.1 of the BOR, the applicant is also proposing a mitigation plan which implements part of a regionally -significant seagrass restoration plan. The overall mitigation plan meets the criteria of one of the "out provisions" in the elimination and reduction criteria. That provision is found in Section 4.2.1.2(b) of the BOR and states: The District will not require the applicant to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts when: (b) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long-term Key WeM-MIdmi Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) "°'"'"°°d"`°"`"'°°M ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 � www.5wpns ny! ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. [emphasis added] This provision states that if an applicant proposes mitigation that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long term value than the areas impacted, the applicant will not have to comply with the elimination and reduction analysis. In this proposal, the applicant proposes the following overall mitigation and restoration plan: 1) restoration to the dolphin basin; 2) restoration of onsite orphan damage; 3) restoration of offsite orphan damage; 4) preservation, through a conservation easement and active management, of an additional 26.93 acres of habitat within the privately - owned bay bottom; and 5) monitoring and long term management of both the offsite and onsite restoration areas. These restoration items, when taken as a whole, provide regional ecological value by implementing the seagrass restoration plans for the Florida Keys as further described in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary's PEIS (included in Attachment 6K). In addition, because the total area and habitat quality of the proposed restoration and preservation areas exceeds that of the proposed impact total area, the mitigation and restoration as a whole provides greater long term ecological value than does the area to be impacted. The regional significance of this mitigation plan and the documentation in support, are discussed in further detail in Section 6.0 of this document and Seagrass Recovery's seagrass restoration plan, Attachment 6G. 3.0 IMPACT AREA (ALTERNATIVE 4 ONLY) The impact area is within a large acreage of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, Little Conch Key. The site was used historically in the filming of the 1960s television program, Flipper, and was altered substantially in order to support vessel navigation and docking, as well as dolphin containment at the site. The entrance channel and boat basin were previously dredged but have since silted in to such degree that navigation is difficult or impossible. Although seagrasses have recolonized the basin and entrance channel to some extent, large areas remain devoid of seagrass and contain primarily unconsolidated, fine sand/mud sediments, sparse macroalgae, and little to no macroinfauna. Following the extension to the existing dock, which was repaired after Hurricane Wilma in 2006, it will provide dockage for 9 vessels associated with the condo redevelopment already well underway on the adjacent upland. 3.1 Impact Assessment ArcGIS 9.2 software and Coastal & Geodetic Survey aerial photographs dating 1955 and 1957 were used to establish the limits of the original 2.16 acre dredged area (see Attachments 5G-3 and 5G-4 of the Updated Benthic Assessment). SWC staff used the limits of the originally dredged area to identify a benthic survey area. Using ArcGIS 9.2 software, a survey area was identified based on the edges of the historically - dredged entrance channel, and a Magellan MobileMapper CE GPS, capable of sub - meter accuracy, was used to map the resources within it. The historically -dredged boat 7 7 Key WvA-MOM II f 1103.wod • Fort M)ers 1 f w+vw sncnc nai Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 basin was included in the survey area and reassessed for changes in seagrass distribution that occurred since the previous site visit in 2006. Using ArcGIS 9.2 software, this data was overlain onto Monroe County 2006 color aerial photographs and examined by SWC staff to provide a dredge footprint which would avoid and minimize resource impacts (Attachment 6C). Additional site visits were made by SWC staff during September and October of 2009 to survey and document the habitat surrounding Walker's Island and assess the current resources within the footprint of the proposed dredge area. During a site visit by SWC staff on October 21, 2009, for the purpose of ground-truthing both seagrass characterization and GPS mapping data from 2006 and 2008, it was determined that additional, updated seagrass mapping information was warranted. For those areas of the basin and entrance channel where significant changes in seagrass distribution had occurred, seagrasses were remapped using a Magellan MobileMapper CE GPS with sub -meter accuracy. Acreages of unavoidable impacts were then calculated from the most current data and are shown in Attachment D1. Using Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM), evaluations were conducted for impacts resulting from the proposed dredging of the boat basin and entrance channel. These UMAM scores, as well as a map illustrating the different areas, and a detailed analysis of the Walker's Island UMAM scores are included as Attachment 6F. An important component of eliminating and reducing resource impacts is implementation of dredging techniques that reduce the potential of secondary impacts. The applicant will employ a competent contractor with experience working in environmentally sensitive areas to mechanically dredge the entrance channel and boat basin. The contractor will use a self propelled aluminum barge (12' wide by 60' x 18" draft) with a 1/4 cubic yard enclosed dredge bucket on an articulated knuckle boom (Rotobec) excavator to dig the entrance channel. The material would be placed into a custom designed fiberglass hulled cargo barge (24'w X 34'1 x 4" draft empty, loaded to controlling depth) with containment sides to hold all dredged material and associated water. The cargo barge would be transported through the connecting channel to the dolphin basin. Another excavator would be placed on a 12'w x 45'1 x 6" draft (to 18" draft by load) barge that would be stationed in the dolphin basin during a higher high tide. The cargo barge would be moved between the entrance channel and the dolphin basin using a floating fiberglass cable so there would be no impact on the submerged seagrasses. All work conducted from the water would take place during tide events that assure a minimum of 12" clearance between the draft of the barge and submerged resources. A tide staff would be installed to monitor depths and the barge loaded in accordance with the tide and available depth. The higher the tide, the more material can be transported because of the allowable deeper draft. As the material to be dredged from the boat basin is very fine and flocculent, it will be disposed of in an upland location, and will not be used as fill for the dolphin basin. This material will be removed by hydraulic dredge from the upland, and either placed in a key West . M01111 �tRAIYWOO 11 • f on 1150161i1"ti J m 5wvflcln" Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 confined onsite drying area or in a vehicle, wherein it will be removed from the property, and dried and disposed of at another location. Additionally, the applicant proposes to restrict maintenance dredging of the boat basin and entrance channel to no less than 8 years between events. Detailed discussion and diagrams of the dredging plans are provided in the revised Engineering Report and Drawings, attachments 4A and B. Rule 40E-4.301(1) (d) FAC requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, or abandonment of a system will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR adds that an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not impact the values of wetland or other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to: (a) the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, and listed species; and (b) the habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species. The manner in which an assessment of impacts on the value of functions is made is further described in BOR Section 4.4.4.3 as follows: The assessment of impacts expected as a result of proposed activities on the value of functions that any wetland or other surface water provides to fish, wildlife, and listed species will be based on a review of pertinent scientific literature, hydrologic information, and field inspection... When assessing the value of such functions, the factors which the District will consider are: condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and fish and wildlife utilization. Uniqueness is defined in Sec. 4.2.2.3(c) of the BOR as "the relative rarity of the wetland or other surface water and its floral and faunal components in relation to the surrounding regional landscape." Regulatory control of development and dredging in the Florida Keys is a relatively recent practice in Florida's history. In the 1950s, throughout the Keys, large amounts of canal and channel dredging occurred, some of which has not been maintained, and has undergone some degree of siltation, sediment collection, and/or natural recovery. Re - colonization of seagrasses into these historically -dredged areas over time is not an uncommon phenomenon. Following dredging of the proposed entrance channel and boat basin, maintenance -dredging shall occur no more frequently than 8 year intervals, which will allow some degree of natural recolonization of submerged aquatic vegetation and continuing value of the benthic habitat. Additionally, vast areas of the coastal Florida Keys are made up of seagrass beds with similar substrate, seagrass distribution and density, and resident populations of fishes and invertebrates. Braun-Blanquet analyses in various locations —both on the seagrass flat to the west of Walker's Island and on the flats adjacent to and on the subject property —illustrate their similarities (see the Updated Benthic Assessment included as Attachment 5 to this submittal). E Rey we$l • Kvn1 Y ■ wvN+.SweeSc naS Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 The following table summarizes the unavoidable impacts to benthic resources and provides the Functional Loss/Gain of those impacts, as determined by UMAM. Detailed descriptions of the impact areas are included in the UMAM evaluations. These, as well as a figure illustrating the different UMAM impact areas, are included as Attachment 6F. Assessment Area Name Acreage UMAM Functional Loss/Gain Boat Basin Sand/Silt 0.09 (0.012) Boat Basin Seaqrass 0.04 (0.009) Entrance Channel Sand/Silt 0.11 (0.011) Entrance Channel Seaqrass 0.39 (0.104) Total 0.63 (0.136) Note: numbers in parentheses are negative. 3.2 Secondary Impacts Section 4.2.7 of the BOR addresses the need to consider any secondary impacts to the water resources. In order to limit or eliminate the potential for secondary impacts to the flats adjacent to the proposed entrance channel, several elements have been incorporated into the engineering design and mitigation plan. The proposed working channel width has been reduced to no more than 33 feet when measured from the top of the edge slope. It is the opinion of the design engineer that "this is the minimum width adequate to support the size and quantity of vessels likely to transit the channel, while limiting impact to adjacent resources" (see Attachment 6E for Hans Wilson & Associates, Inc. (HWA) statement). In addition to the reduction in proposed channel width as compared with earlier, alternative plans, the proposed channel depth and edge slope was designed for stability as well as minimization of impact to adjacent flats should a vessel operator begin to navigate toward the margins of the marked channel. Inadvertent propeller dredging would occur on the side slope within the confines of the proposed dredge area as opposed to the flats outside of the marked channel (see Attachment 6E, and under separate cover, Attachment 4, which contains the engineering drawings and report). Signage at the channel entrance and boat basin will control speeds to no wake, providing additional protection from propeller wash associated with vessel traffic and further reducing the likelihood of secondary impacts. The applicant proposes to install rip -rap cribs at the base of the pilings and beneath the finger docks to further dampen propeller wash in the area of the boat basin. The rip - rap, which consists of large boulders and rocks, provides a means of absorption of water motion created by the propeller wash of vessels operating in the area. The boulders also provide crevices, three-dimensional complexity, and suitable substrate, which all serve as habitat for small fish and invertebrates. 10 Rey weal • Mlanil IOo4vood • Forl M)o i C Cs wm "Qflenot Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 4.0 MITIGATION (ALTERNATIVE 4 ONLY) The following table summarizes the proposed mitigation which is regionally significant and provides greater long-term ecological value than the 0.63 acres of submerged resources to be adversely affected by proposed dredging activities to restore the historic channel and boat basin. Detailed descriptions of the impact areas are included in the attached UMAM evaluations (Attachment 6F). Figures illustrating the dolphin basin mitigation area and the surrounding flats active management area are included as attachments 6D-1 and 6D-2. Attachment 6H-1 depicts an overview of the proposed propeller scar and orphan seagrass injury restoration areas, as well as the extent of the proposed surrounding flats protection area. A mitigation cost estimate is provided as Attachment 6L. Assessment Area Name Acreage UMAM Functional Loss/Gain Dolphin Basin Barren Bottom 0.48 0.064 Dolphin Basin Seaqrass 0.02 0.001 Dolphin Basin Subtotal 0.50 0.065 On -site Orphan Restoration 0.13 0.015 Surrounding Flats Active Mqmt 26.93 1.077 Onsite Mitigation Subtotal 27.06 1.092 Total 27.56 1.157 4.1 Biological Resources 4.1.1 Seagrass Beds Seagrass meadows are the most abundant habitat within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The seagrass bed that covers approximately 80% of the FKNMS is part of the largest documented contiguous seagrass bed on earth. These extensive meadows are vital for the ecological health of the FKNMS and the marine ecosystems of south Florida. Seagrasses dominate the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) found in the coastal waters of the Florida Keys and the FKNMS. Where physical conditions are favorable and there is adequate sediment for root systems to develop, seagrasses can grow in dense, very lush beds. Seagrasses are unique marine flowering plants that occur in shallow, subtidal, or intertidal unconsolidated sediments, and are typically found at the boundary between freshwater habitats and the ocean. Seagrass beds are extremely productive habitats, and one of the major components in the ecology of the nearshore marine environments of the Florida Keys. These beds provide a variety of benefits to the marine environment; they enhance sediment stability, decrease wave energy, improve water clarity, and create habitat and substrate diversity. They also provide feeding grounds for many commercially and economically important fish and invertebrates, numerous species of wading and diving birds, and for endangered species such as the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). 11 k Key 1Yes1 • Miami IIaHiwww Wnad • furl t7nrs swanc not Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 The three dominant seagrasses found in nearshore waters of the Florida Keys and at the Walker's Island site are shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), turtle grass (Thalassic testudinum), and manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme). Shoal grass is a pioneer species that rapidly colonizes disturbed areas. It can form relatively large beds with diameters of up to approximately 30 m (98 ft) in water too shallow for other species, and is relatively tolerant of desiccation. Shoal grass has characteristic narrow flat blades, which are variable in length. Roots may extend downward to a depth of 25 cm (9.8 in), while laterally oriented rhizomes are fairly shallow, rarely deeper than 5 cm (2 in) (Fonseca, 2000). As described in the Updated Benthic Assessment (Attachment 5), H. wrightii was observed in the entrance channel, boat basin, and adjacent flats at Walker's Island. Though shoal grass constitutes nearly half of the total seagrass cover in the entrance channel, the actual percent coverage for the species is much lower at just under 20%. Similarly, though shoal grass represents more than half of the total seagrass cover on the reference bank adjacent to the dolphin basin, the observed percent coverage in that area is still just 43%. Though the majority of seagrass observed in the boat basin is shoal grass, the total seagrass cover for the basin is just 2%. Turtle grass is the most widespread of the seagrasses, and forms many of the large, lush seagrass beds found throughout the FKNMS. Turtle grass typically has three broad, flat leaves with rounded tips. The leaves emerge from the sediment at the top of a stem that rarely'protrudes above the sediment surface. Individual shoots originate from thick, fibrous rhizomes that may extend 20 cm (7.9 in) or more into the sediment. T, testudinumi was also observed in the entrance channel, boat basin, and adjacent flats at Walker's Island. Though turtle grass constitutes just over half of the total seagrass cover in the entrance channel, the actual percent coverage for the species is much lower at just under 24%. Similarly, though turtle grass represents about 35% of the total seagrass cover on the reference bank adjacent to the dolphin basin, the observed percent coverage in that area is somewhat lower at 24%. Conversely, the other reference bank to the northwest of the entrance channel was dominated by turtle grass, yet coverage of this species was still just 55%. Percent cover of turtle grass observed in the boat basin was negligible, at less than 1 %. Manatee grass is characterized by leaves that are cylindrical in cross section. The leaves arise from short shoots in groups of two, and have rounded tips. The rhizome system varies in depth between 1 and 10 cm (0.4 and 4.0 in) and may extend into the water column with attached shoots (Fonseca, 2000). Though S. filiforme was observed in the entrance channel and reference banks, it represented less than 5% of the total seagrass cover at most. While manatee grass has proved to be a viable alternative in seagrass transplantation, its scarce presence in the surrounding habitats at Walker's Island makes it unsuitable for use in restoration for this project. 4.1.2 Other Biological Resources A number of species of macroalgae are often found in association with seagrass beds, and have been observed at Walker's Island, though average density of total macroalgal cover was less than 10% in the entrance channel and less than 1 % in the boat basin 12 Key west • mlaml ON liw4w*d • Fan Myers WNW swcmcoal Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 and reference areas. Commonly seen in association with Thalassia beds, the calcareous green algae Halimeda spp. typically grows in loosely interlocking series of connected plates that coalesce to form compact clumps and large cushion -like mats. A variety of types of other benthic macroalgae and drift algae are also found within these habitats, where they enhance primary productivity and provide an additional source of nutrient input and early sediment stabilization following disturbance. Among the many crustaceans found within seagrass beds, the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) is perhaps the best known. In addition to its value as a commercial and recreational resource, this species is an important ecosystem component, and occurs throughout the FKNMS. Seagrass beds and hard bottom habitats of the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys are vital nursery areas for juvenile Caribbean spiny lobster. Juvenile spiny lobsters were observed in the reference areas associated with Walker's Island, primarily to the southeast where the seagrass bed transitions to hard bottom habitat. Hard bottom habitat is a ubiquitous feature of the Florida Keys, covering between 30 and 40% of the region's shallow coastal seafloor (Bertelsen et al. 2009). Hard bottom occurs in shallow (<5 m) coastal waters and is characterized by low relief (<0.5 m), limestone bedrock overlain by a thin veneer of sediment. This three dimensional matrix provides highly variable micro -habitats which support a complex assemblage of sponges, octocorals, corals, and macroalgae, as well as numerous motile invertebrates including the Caribbean spiny lobster, various species of crabs, octopus, and anemones. There is hard bottom habitat associated with the Walker's Island property, but not part of the proposed impact area. 4.2 Seagrass Restoration 4.2.1 Seagrass Damage in the Florida Keys The decline of seagrass habitat is an important issue not only in the Florida Keys, but worldwide. The sources of deterioration vary, and include both natural and human - induced disturbance, but it has long been recognized that one of the most serious contributors is physical damage by motor vessels (Sargent et al. 1995, Engeman et al. 2008). Though resource managers work hard to reduce this type of habitat loss through preventative measures such as education and outreach, the problem inevitably continues in an area with such vast coastal resources and high concentrations of active boaters as the Florida Keys. Seagrass flats are highly -productive habitats which support organisms from the microscopic level to apex predator species. All too often these shallow -water communities are damaged by boaters navigating through water that is shallower than the drafts of their boats or the depth of their propellers, causing trenches to be cut through the seagrass and sediment or injuries to seagrass as a result of vessel groundings. Specific damage types and characteristics common in the Florida Keys include the following: 13 KLy wear -Mk" ., 1 lo4wou • fort Mynrx C-VA WffWsWWCn4 Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Grounding Holes These consist of an impression formed by the hull of a grounded boat. The characteristics of the resulting damaged area may include removal of seagrasses from the footprint, lowered topography, and mounded berms pushed out around the edge of the site often covering intact seagrasses. Recovery of these areas is often deterred by shifting sediments, accumulation of wrack or drift algae in the scar, continued erosion of unconsolidated sediments, depth and lack of light penetration, rhizomal growth patterns of seagrasses, and other factors. Blowholes Blowholes usually form a more severe "gouge" type feature that often can be three to five feet deep in the substrate. Blowholes are caused by attempts of grounded vessels to power off the flats, causing excavation of deep holes by the propeller. The characteristics of the resulting damaged area often include removal of seagrasses from the footprint, lowered topography often with sharp "edges", and extensive berms from sediment excavated out to the surrounding area by the action of the propeller wash. Recovery of these areas can be slow to nonexistent for the same reasons as for grounding holes. Propeller Scars Scarring of seagrass flats by boat propellers occurs when a boat travels over a flat whose depth is shallower than that of the propellers. If the propeller is close enough to the sediments or is spinning in the sediment layer, a propeller scar results. The characteristics of the resulting damaged area may include removal of seagrasses and lowered topography. Scars are generally linear damage features less than two feet wide with varying degrees of depth and sediment removal. Multiple engines can generate parallel scars which can eventually erode into one large depression. Recovery of these areas is variable, and is affected by scar depth, remaining substrate characteristics, erosion of sediments, adjacent vegetation, coverage of the scar by drift algae, location of the scar with respect to repetitive damage and other factors. Erosion Erosion is a secondary impact of any type of seagrass injury which may result in the expansion (horizontal and vertical) of the damage area and the continued deterioration or loss of adjacent resources. A major factor affecting scar and grounding site recovery in the Keys is the proximity of the injury to high energy environments such as channel edges or areas of high current velocity which increase the potential for heavy erosion. Major storm events such as hurricanes or tropical storms can also cause additional scouring to unstable sediments. When the underground seagrass rhizome system is damaged and the sediment stability altered by structural injuries such as vessel groundings, the seagrass community often has a difficult time reestablishing itself without supplemental restoration efforts. Seagrass restoration, therefore, is a critical step in helping reduce the cumulative impact of seagrass injuries throughout the Keys. With the designation of 2,900 square nautical miles of Keys' coastal waters as a national marine sanctuary through the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the National 14 Kcy Weal - Mldml I lol4wma - Fort Mors *T_ www.swsmcnaE Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) is permitted to recover the cost of restoring resources damaged by human activities, and FKNMS programs actively participate in successful seagrass restoration. Many of the long-term monitoring schedules of early FKNMS seagrass restoration projects are only recently reaching completion, so published material documenting the success of restoration methodology in the Florida Keys is somewhat limited. Three years of experience by Shelli Braynard, currently an SWC staff member, but previously employed at the FKNMS in a supervisory position with the Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) team, provides ample anecdotal evidence as to the success of seagrass restoration efforts. Through direct observation of various levels of successful recovery during participation in more than 30 different seagrass restoration and monitoring events, it is Ms. Braynard's professional opinion that seagrass restoration, when conducted in accordance with best available techniques, is a viable, low -risk measure that is effective in helping reduce the cumulative effects of damage to Keys seagrass beds. References specifically cited, as well as additional, supporting publications, are listed and included in Attachment 6K. 4.2.2 Seagrass Restoration Methodology The methodology outlined in the FKNMS Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FPEIS) (included in Attachment 6K) supports the program's main seagrass restoration objective, which is "...to conduct feasible, cost-effective, in -kind restoration using the best available techniques to accelerate recovery to the pre -grounding baseline levels." The FKNMS continually evaluates recent scientific studies, improvements in technology, and success of its own DARP program restorations, and adapts its restoration protocols to reflect the best available techniques for highest expectations of success. Restoration construction for the Walker's Island project will be contracted to Seagrass Recovery, and the detailed methodology employed will strictly adhere to the FKNMS FPEIS. These techniques, which are described in detail in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, and in Attachment 6G, have been scientifically validated by NOAA, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in addition to publications by seagrass experts in the scientific community (see supporting material in Attachment 6K). This validation from both the scientific community and government agencies supports the reduced risk factor scores associated with the UMAM scores for the Walker's Island mitigation. Though the time frame associated with restoration success varies widely due to a myriad of factors affecting seagrass growth, it is generally accepted and documented in the literature that 5 years, and in some cases even as little as 2 to 3 years, is a reasonable expectation for at least 80% recovery. This, then, is the time period assigned to monitoring schedules as outlined in the FKNMS FPEIS, which supports the time lag scores associated with the majority of the Walker's Island mitigation UMAM scores (1.14, which is equal to 5 years). 15 /p""`,r►/. , l:n El�n.,�od.,, ias�i N7s•4� Sediment Placement and Stabilization Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Seagrass Recovery has created and patented a biodegradable cotton tube filled with crushed calcium carbonate screening sand of a grain size (0.5-2.0 mm) that is similar to that found in the surrounding seagrass flats. Each tube is approximately 1.5 m long and 15-20 cm in diameter. Because finer sediments are contained within the fabric tubes which have been prefilled, increased turbidity is not an issue during sediment tube deployment. Seagrass Recovery uses a shallow draft vessel to navigate to the immediate area of the restoration, where sediment tubes are individually placed and adjusted for maximum stability and coverage. Two layers of sediment tubes will be placed on top of the dredge material, allowing ample depth of appropriate substrate for both seagrass transplant growth and natural recolonization. Following topographical restoration, tubes are allowed to settle and "cure" for 4-6 months before seagrass transplantation. nEt Seagrass Transplantation Sediment stabilization following an injury to a seagrass bed can be facilitated by planting seagrass within the damaged area (Fonseca et ai. 1998). A seagrass transplant, referred to as planting unit (PU), may be obtained by selective removal of healthy plants from designated "donor" sites. PUs will be collected in a manner that does not adversely impact and degrade the donor sites. Donor sites for PUs will include the impact area prior to dredging in the case of the restoration of the orphan injuries. If the proposed impact area provides insufficient material, additional PUs will be harvested from acceptable donor sites in the vicinity of the restoration sites in accordance with the protocols set forth in the FKNMS PEIS. Acceptable donor sites are located on the flat immediately to the west and southwest of the dolphin basin. This area is referred to as the SE Reference area in Attachment 5C of the Benthic Resource Assessment. The area consists of Halodule wrightii and Thalassia testudinum in total coverages of 50 to 70%. In the established donor bed, PUs will be harvested from impact areas by divers using a standard 8-in x 11-in flat shovel, 6 inch pvc plug corer, or individually by hand, depending upon conditions at the time of harvest. Seagrass plugs collected by the shovel or core methods will include stems, sediment and root system. Individual PUs harvested by hand include stems, root systems, and lateral rhizomes with at least one 16 Key west • 311suM *I 1 R94 VA3od • Fart Ab V M 1 lriwl SHCUC nit Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 intact apical meristem or growth tip. Spatial distribution of PUs harvested will be no more than one shovel -plug per m2 (11 ft2) within the donor site. Smaller PUs, such as plugs < 15 cm diameter collected via the pvc corer or by hand, will be spaced > 20 cm apart and are expected to fully re -grow within 6-12 months of harvesting (Kenworthy 2002). Sediment divots created at the donor site during collection of seagrass plugs will be filled with any sediment disturbed during the harvesting process. Individual PUs harvested by hand will be distributed across the donor bed so as to avoid any discernable change in overall species density or distribution immediately following harvest. Shovel or core -harvested PUs will be placed upright into trays and transported to the transplant (i.e. restoration) site as quickly as possible. Seawater will be added and cycled as necessary, to prevent drying and overheating of the PUs. Hand - harvested PUs will be grouped (3 or more shoots), and secured using a low -gauge wire formed to resemble a large staple and transported to the transplantation site in seawater containers kept shaded from direct sunlight. Water in the containers will be cycled so as to prevent overheating. At the transplant site, divers will cut holes into the fabric of the sediment tube to accommodate the PUs. The diver will create a divot large enough to accommodate a PU, which will be placed into the divot and secured with sod staples. The clumped shoots collected by hand will be placed into the divot with the two stems of the staple pressed firmly into the sediment. The sediment from the divot will be placed around the PU to help secure it. For injuries greater than 1.0 m (3.3 ft) wide, PUs will be planted in a 1.0 m grid pattern. For narrow injuries between 0.5 and 1.0 m wide, PUs will be planted in a single row every 1.0 m down the longitudinal axis of the injury. Seagrass transplanting will not be conducted for injuries less than 0.5 m wide. The proposed PU dimensions should provide relatively stable transplants. However, site -specific conditions may warrant additional effort to secure PUs, in the form of additional sod staples. Harvest methodologies will be dependent upon the site conditions of the donor bed at the time of harvest and will be chosen to provide the most efficient means while enhancing the likelihood of survivability and complete recovery of the donor bed. This may result in the ultimate use of a combination of harvest methods, including shovel or pvc core -harvest and/or individual shoot collection at any or all of the donor sites. The adjacent donor bed covers an area approximately 10,500 square meters, which is more than enough area to provide the necessary number of planting units for the dolphin basin restoration. The size of the donor bed allows for harvest of PUs at intervals which will not cause adverse impacts or degradation, and which are above and beyond that suggested in the literature. Bird Stake Installment Studies have shown that the installment of bird stakes has been successful in accelerating re -growth of seagrasses within injury areas (Fourqurean et al. 1995, Hall et al. 2006, Kenworthy et al. 2006, Kenworthy et al. 2000, FKNMS PEIS, 2004, Uhrin et al. 2009). Feces from roosting seabirds serves to enhance the nutrient reservoir within seagrass beds and acts as a natural fertilizer (Kenworthy et al. 2000). Stakes should be 17 y54 Kirs{i C' -t4t.-mt lin+15��Pr�f`. 4nn 4S?ers Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 placed in water depths less than 1.5 m (5 ft) to prevent dilution of the feces. In addition, bird stakes should provide a clearance of approximately 25 cm (10 in) between the roosting position and MHW. Details of installation requirements and stake construction are described in published guidelines (Kenworthy et al. 2000, Fonseca et al. 1998, FKNMS PEIS 2004). Typically, bird stakes will be used in conjunction with transplants to accelerate seagrass recolonization of injury areas. Where dense populations of fast-growing species (e.g. H. wrightii) occur in close proximity to the transplant site, bird stakes alone may be sufficient to promote recolonization. Other factors (e.g., size of the injury area, sediment composition, and wave action) will determine whether seagrass transplants are used in addition to bird stakes. Bird stakes will be constructed of 3/-inch PVC poles and 4-inch x 4-inch x 2-inch treated wood blocks attached to the poles. For injuries wider than 1.0 m, stakes will be placed 0.5 m from the edge of the injury and placed at 3.0 m intervals. For injuries less than 1.0 m wide, stakes will be placed 0.5 m from the ends of the injury and placed every 3.0 m along the longitudinal axis of the injury. For larger restoration areas, such as the 0.5-acre dolphin basin, stakes may be placed at further intervals to avoid over -fertilization. The stakes will be removed after approximately 18-24 months, based upon evaluation of recovery status. Bird stakes will be clearly marked as a navigational hazard. Shoal marker and seagrass area signs will be posted where appropriate near the restored area and notification of bird stake installment will be provided to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for issuance to local mariners. For areas where water depth exceeds the recommended depth for bird stake installation, fertilizer pellets may be substituted. r Btacl� J► n Images and illustration from poster prepared by Lonny Anderson for the 2008 Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Conference, Naples, FL (Precht et al. 2008). Illustration created by Shelli Braynard. 4.2.3 Restoration Alternatives These alternatives represent combinations of the restoration activities described in Section 4.2.2. 18 A Ifnu}WOOYJ • I Ul'i ��Ikk i•s G. WWVV swanc nel s Alternative 1: Sediment Tube Placement Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 This alternative includes topographical restoration with sediment tubes to minimize erosion and sediment scouring by (see Section 3.1) filling below -grade depressions within an injury area. This alternative will not require seagrass transplants or placement of bird stakes. Seagrass recovery would depend on natural recruitment. This alternative is recommended when seagrass scars are relatively narrow in width, as with some propeller scarring. Topographical restoration with sediment tubes is enough to encourage natural recolonization from the surrounding seagrass bed. The following photos illustrate the seagrass restoration techniques described herein, as employed by Seagrass Recovery during a 2003 study at Lignumvitae Key State Aquatic Preserve (photos courtesy of Seagrass Recovery archives.) Sediment tubes capping limestone rock fill, with installed bird -roosting stakes. Halodule wrightii planting unit installed into sediment tube after tube wall deterioration. 19 Kcy WOO • Mtan, I k l)w Il • Earl M)OM Ok L iW."W.%WC:1J C Ykiil Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Halodule wrightii after 18 months of growth. Density is greater than the surrounding seagrass bed. Alternative 2: Sediment Tube Placement and Bird Stake Installation This alternative includes topographical restoration with sediment tubes to minimize erosion and sediment scouring. Bird stakes would be temporarily installed to encourage roosting by waterfowl to provide a localized source of natural fertilizer. After sediments are stabilized and natural recruitment of seagrass has occurred, birdstakes will be removed from the injury area. This alternative is recommended when seagrass scars are wide enough so as to support placement of enough bird stakes that they will not be a hazard to navigation. The placement of a minimum of 10 birdstakes is recommended. Topographical restoration and placement of bird stakes is enough to encourage natural recolonization from the surrounding seagrass bed. Alternative 3: Sediment Tube Placement with Seagrass Transplantation This alternative includes topographical restoration with sediment tubes and transplantation of PUs within an injury area. This alternative is recommended when seagrass scars are wide enough so as to benefit from planting unit installation in the center of the injury as additional support for natural recolonization on the injury periphery. Generally, if bird stakes are not recommended, it is due to the water depth exceeding that suitable for fertilization from roosting birds. Fertilizer spikes or pellets can be substituted for bird stakes. Alternative 4: Sediment Tube Placement, Seagrass Transplantation, and Bird Stake Installation This alternative includes topographical restoration with sediment tubes to minimize erosion and sediment transport. Holes will be cut into the fabric to accommodate the placement of PUs and bird stakes. After sediments are stabilized and natural recruitment of seagrass has occurred bird stakes will be removed from the injury area. This alternative is recommended when seagrass scars are wide enough so as to benefit Off Ker West • NI,4m1 �# ��11^wood * f orl M)t m wnr�i p3. ra7r, [[y1 Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 from planting unit installation in the center of the injury as additional support for natural recolonization on the injury periphery and average water depth is less than 5 feet. Alternative 5: Bird Stake Installment This alternative will include bird stake installment to encourage roosting by waterfowl and provide a localized source of natural fertilizer within the injury area. This alternative is recommended when seagrass scars are not wide enough to benefit from planting unit installation in the center of the injury, topographical restoration is not necessary, and average water depth is less than 5 feet. Alternative 6: Seagrass Transplantation and Bird Stake Installation This alternative will include seagrass transplantation and bird stake installation within the injury area. Natural fertilizer provided by roosting waterfowl will promote both the establishment of PUs and natural recruitment of seagrass. This alternative is recommended when topographical restoration is not necessary, when seagrass scars are wide enough so as to benefit from planting unit installation in the center of the injury as additional support for natural recolonization on the injury periphery, and average water depth is less than 5 feet. 4.3 Relict Dolphin Basin Conversion and Restoration The relict dolphin basin located to the south of the proposed dredged footprint receives limited hydrologic exchange with the surrounding waters of the Atlantic Ocean. As a result, the dolphin basin has poor water quality, and supports little to no submerged aquatic resources. The applicant proposes to restore the 0.50 acre dolphin basin back to ambient grade in order to improve hydrologic exchange and promote seagrass re - colonization. Using the sub -meter -accuracy GPS and GIS software identified in section 3.1, SWC staff conducted a benthic survey of the dolphin basin located to the south of the proposed dredge footprint. UMAM scores were prepared for the minor unavoidable collateral -impacts to resources incurred during the proposed restoration of the dolphin basin. Additional UMAM scores were prepared demonstrating the net -positive benefit of restoring the dolphin basin back to ambient grade (see Attachment 6F for detailed UMAM evaluation). Restoration will begin by using the spoil material generated by the proposed entrance channel dredging to fill the dolphin basin to within 12 to 16 inches of the ambient grade. Detailed dredge methodology is described in section 3.1 and in the Engineering Report, Attachment 413, which further describes the upland disposal of fine sediments from the boat basin and the use of spoil only from the entrance channel as fill for the dolphin basin. Further discussion of dredge spoil sediment sizes is provided in Attachment 4C of the ERP Application, the 2011 Sediment Core Analysis. If spoil material from dredging is insufficient, clean fill will be used to supplement to within 12 to 16 inches of ambient grade. 21 Kew Wnt - Mltmi f Wbvood - Fort Wvra mvw."cji c n �A Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Seagrass Recovery will then place two layers of their proprietary sediment tubes to raise the elevation to ambient grade, providing stabilization of the substrate surface as well as appropriate substrate to eventually support successful seagrass transplant growth and natural recolonization. After a settling period of no more than 4 to 6 months, approximately 500 planting units will be harvested from the adjacent seagrass bed, and transported to the dolphin basin for transplant. Donor seagrass beds with sufficient density of Halodule wrightii, the preferred donor species, are located on site immediately adjacent to the dolphin basin. Attachment 5C of the Benthic Resources Assessment illustrates the location of the subject donor bed. It is denoted as the SE Reference Area and has a total seagrass percent cover of 50- 70%. Following installation of the planting units, a baseline monitoring event will be completed at both the donor site and the restoration site. Subsequent monitoring at the donor site will be on the same schedule as that of the dolphin basin restoration. See section 4.6 for further discussion of the long-term monitoring plan. The planting units will be placed on 1.0 m centers, beginning in the center of the restoration area and moving outward. Approximately 225 bird stakes will be placed in the restored area on 3.0 m centers, which will aid in the reintroduction of nutrients and speed the recovery process. See section 4.2.2 for a detailed discussion of seagrass restoration methodology. Once the sediment tubes are in place and have stabilized the dolphin basin restoration area, improvements to the existing culvert, located at the southeast corner of the boat basin, and as described in Section 4.0, will commence. See Engineering Drawings, included as Attachment 4A to the permit application, for details. 4.4 Onsite Orphan Seagrass Restoration Section 4.2.2 details restoration methodologies and 4.2.3 covers restoration alternatives that will be evaluated for the onsite orphan injuries. In order to fully investigate the seagrass injury restoration potential, Seagrass Recovery and SWC staff performed preliminary site visits in the areas surrounding Walker's Island in October 2009. During the two-day mapping trip, more than 28,800 square feet of propeller scars and vessel grounding injuries were mapped and surveyed for potential restoration. Of these, 5,467 square feet were located on the applicant's privately -owned submerged property and will be restored as part of the proposed compensatory mitigation. The results of the preliminary site visits indicate that the seagrass flats surrounding Walker's Island would significantly benefit from seagrass restoration efforts. Section 5 details the additional seagrass restoration proposed for the remainder of the mapped, offsite, orphan injuries. During mapping, each individual onsite orphan injury was evaluated to determine which of the restoration alternatives outlined in section 4.2.3 would provide the best likelihood of success. Evaluation was based upon sediment composition, water depth, currents, and injury size, depth, and shape. 22 KOY 1Ye61 - Marl I" wod,-rare 6gsm .swc,c nal Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 According to each specific site plan, fill and sediment tubes, or sediment tubes alone will be placed directly into the orphan propeller scars and blowholes approximately 4-6 months prior to onsite dredging. This timing will maximize the potential use of the seagrasses within the proposed impact area as donor material for transplantation. The sediment tubes are effective in reducing erosion and further expansion of the injury area, and providing conditions suitable for both seagrass transplant growth and natural re -colonization of the injury by neighboring seagrasses. A 4-6 month time lag before planting will allow the sediment tubes to settle and degrade to some extent prior to placement of the transplants. Following the time lag, as much as possible of the viable seagrasses within the impact area will be removed and transplanted in the onsite orphan restoration sites prior to dredge activities. Impact and Mitigation Timeline Harvest seagrass - Harvest seagrass Topographical Dredge entrance from surrounding restoration of from impact area channel and fill area and 4-6 months and transplant to 4-6 months transplant to orphan injury sites orphan injuries dolphin basin p dolphin basin At the time of restoration, a GPS coordinate will be recorded for each individual restoration site to enable location of the site during future monitoring events and site visits. The approximate center of each blowhole and an endpoint coordinate and bearing will be recorded for each propeller scar. These coordinates will be provided to the SFWMD along with all pertinent GIS shapefiles and area and length measurements of each site as part of the baseline monitoring report. A sample map of restoration sites has been provided as Attachment 6D-3. 4.5 Seagrass and Hard Bottom Protection See Attachment 613 for the overall Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan, which details long-term plans for management of the flats surrounding Walker's Island through informational and regulated signage and marking, facility operation guidelines, designation of a conservation easement, and public outreach and education. 4.6 Monitoring and Long Term Maintenance To establish success criteria for the recovery of habitat within the restoration areas, the surrounding seagrass was photographed, and density and species composition characterized, using the Braun-Blanquet cover -abundance methodology. See the Updated Benthic Assessment report (Attachment 5 under separate cover) for a detailed description of methodology and results. SWC biologists will conduct scheduled monitoring activities at each restoration site to ensure that restoration goals are being met, and to determine if it is necessary to make adjustments to the restoration effort (e.g. replanting of seagrass, addition or maintenance of bird stakes). Monitoring will include evaluation of shoot density and 23 Key We 1 • VIJMI I jai)mood • IOrl Myers cwww.swcmcnut Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 aerial coverage, using Braun-Blanquet and including photo and/or video transect documentation. 4.6.1 Monitoring Methodology Proposed monitoring methodologies are described by Fonseca et al. 1998. Seagrasses will be characterized and quantified (i.e.; species composition and aerial coverage) using 0.25 m2 (0.5 m x 0.5 m) quadrats in a modified Braun-Blanquet scale visual assessment. The Braun-Blanquet scale visual assessment is quick, robust, highly repeatable, and has been widely used to monitor seagrasses in south Florida (Durako et al. 2002; Fourqurean et al. 2002). Aerial coverage sampling will be conducted within the restored site and at a selected adjacent reference site, as well as the dolphin basin transplant donor site. Changes in aerial coverage of the restored site relative to changes at the reference site will be analyzed to assess relative success of restoration. Density estimates are based on the fraction of the quadrat obscured by a particular species when viewed from directly above and are used as an indicator of seagrass health and growth. All seagrass species located within a 0.25 m2 quadrat are listed and scored according to abundance. Quadrat size may require modification if the width of the monitored site will not accommodate the use of a 0.25 m2 square quadrat. Braun-Blanquet analysis will be conducted at 3 or more randomly chosen locations within each restoration site, depending upon its relative size. Due to the large area of the dolphin basin, 20 random sites within the margins of the dolphin basin restoration will be assessed during each monitoring event in order to ensure a more accurate representation of the entire basin. Different random sites will be assessed at each monitoring event to avoid inherent bias in recovery data collected. Depending upon the final area of the donor bed utilized for planting unit harvest, at least 20 random sites will be assessed immediately before and after harvest, and in conjunction with each scheduled dolphin basin restoration monitoring event. Seagrass health will be assessed utilizing qualitative photographic and/or video data. The substrate and associated biota within and adjacent to the restored site will be documented using a digital video camera in an underwater housing. Video still images will used during document preparation. 4.6.2 Monitoring Schedule and Success Criteria Monitoring Schedule Monitoring will be conducted during a five-year period, with the first monitoring event scheduled immediately following restoration at each of the restoration sites associated with Walker's Island and the donor bed used for transplant harvest. Eight monitoring events will be completed during the five-year period, at months 0, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60. Three events will be conducted during year 1 and will include the baseline event scheduled immediately following restoration and events scheduled at 6 and 12 months (+/- 30 days). Two events will be conducted in year 2, and single monitoring events will be scheduled for years 3 through 5. Additional monitoring will be conducted if success criteria have not been met after 5 years. The scope and frequency of additional monitoring will depend on what, if any, midcourse corrections have been implemented. 24 L Ken, K,,E • §Ilda+rl //���•-- IIn Ii�xlxsA � fort SSims Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Following each monitoring event, field observations and measurements will be entered into a database, the digital video developed, the data analyzed, and a brief report prepared and submitted to the SFWMD. The report will detail the current results and will include a comparison to previous reports. Reports will be submitted for a period of five (5) years or until the site is determined to be successfully restored and shall include the following: a) Permit Number b) Date of monitoring c) Species list and estimate of survivorship d) Percent cover by seagrass e) Observations of water depth and tidal flow f) Antecedent weather conditions g) Tidal stage h) Photo/video documentation Success Criteria Though the vast majority (92%) of impacted seagrasses for the project is located in the proposed entrance channel where total seagrass coverage is lower (41 %), success criteria will be based on the pre -dredge conditions in the reference areas, as described in the Updated Benthic Assessment Report (Attachment 5). These existing seagrass communities adjacent to the restoration site(s), which will serve as a recruitment base, consist of turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass. Success criteria will be based upon the average total seagrass cover in these reference areas, which is approximately 58%. Total seagrass percent cover will be obtained for each quadrat and the average for all quadrats will be calculated in order to determine total seagrass cover for each monitoring event. Restoration will be considered successful if, starting two years following completion of restoration activities, the measured growth rate of overall bottom coverage from direct quadrat surveys of any or all of the species of seagrass present in the restoration sites is projected with 95% statistical confidence to achieve at least an 80% recovery in reference to pre -dredge conditions in the reference areas by year 5. Target goals for successful restoration should therefore be approximately 46% percent total coverage within the five year monitoring period. The following time -specific, mid -course success criteria are established: • Year 1—Seagrass cover is beginning to occur with 1-10% cover observed. • Year 3—Seagrass cover between 11-25%. • Year 5—Seagrass cover greater than or equal to 46%. High levels of recovery by natural recolonization are expected at all of the restoration sites associated with Walker's Island. Seagrass transplantation is proposed as a supplemental activity to enhance and expedite colonization and expansion of seagrasses into the restoration area and as such, shoot density or survival is not a quantifiable component of the mitigation plan and will not be considered as a compliance criterion. 25 hr}- }. ►o. 1i"^4ldnnil L•A!' dSut h„fu Uil.iY1l afrf 4t�f.i7 Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 If after three years, the success criteria have not been achieved, an interagency site inspection will be scheduled with SFWMD, USACE, and NOAA Fisheries to re-evaluate site conditions. Any necessary corrective actions that are identified during the site visit will be incorporated into an addendum to the existing mitigation plan. Restoration will be considered successful when, after the five-year monitoring period, the restoration site has attained the above -stated criteria. If the success criteria are not met within the five-year monitoring period, an additional interagency site inspection will be scheduled to: a) identify additional corrective measures that may be needed in order to achieve the stated success criteria, b) agree upon an addendum to the mitigation plan to include the additional corrective measures, and c) extend the monitoring period to allow the corrective measures to be implemented and ensure that the success criteria has been achieved. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring the success criteria of the seagrass restoration area and for the perpetual management of the area. The tables on the following page illustrate the monitoring schedule timeframes and success criteria associated with the Walker's Island seagrass restoration plan. 4.7 Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurances that a project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in BOR Sections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2. Section 4.2.8 requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters "within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which a permit is sought." If an applicant mitigates wetland impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and the mitigation fully offsets these impacts, the project will be considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts. See, e.g., Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002); 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 297 (SFWMD Nov. 14, 2002). The proposed project, the dolphin basin, and the orphan seagrass restoration sites are all within the Atlantic Ocean Drainage Basin. Since the impacts are being offset within the same drainage basin, and the mitigation offsets the impacts, the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not result in any unacceptable cumulative impacts, in accordance with BOR Section 4.2.8. 26 'Y Ki.V W.!4J • i?.I.11i1! - 'C Iin14V1oo-nrl • Inrl %Isfm 1 W Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Monitoring schedule for Dolphin Basin Seagrass Restoration site and Donor Beds Estimated Date Event Months following restoration Success Criteria *Total Seagrass Cover tbd Baseline 0 -within 60 days na tbd 6 Months 6 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 1 12 (+/- 30 days) 1-10% tbd 18 Months 18 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 2 24 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 3 36 (+/- 30 days) 11-25% tbd Year 4 48 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 5 60 (+/- 30 days) z46% * Total Seagrass Cover represents restored habitat function. Success criteria are based upon 80% restoration of reference area coverage which equals 46% total cover at 5 years. Monitoring schedule for onsite Orphan Seagrass Restorations 5.0 5.1 Estimated Date Event Months following restoration Success Criteria *Total Seagrass Cover tbd Baseline 0 -within 60 days na tbd 6 Months 6 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 1 12 (+/- 30 days) 1-10% tbd 18 Months 18 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 2 24 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 3 36 (+/- 30 days) 11-25% tbd Year 4 48 (+/- 30 days) na tbd Year 5 60 (+/- 30 days) >_46% * Total Seagrass Cover represents restored habitat function. Success criteria are based upon 80% restoration of reference area coverage which equals 46% total cover at 5 years. Water Quality Short Term Water Quality Considerations Section 4.2.4.1 of the BOR discusses short-term water quality considerations as they apply to practices undertaken during the construction (dredging) phase of the project. The applicant proposes to comply with these requirements by: 1. providing for at least a double row of floating turbidity barriers adjacent to the wetlands and surface waters to be in place prior to commencement of work (see Attachment 4A for locations), 27 `YA`, HoRywod • Fort Mf t m mvw s+vcnC �i �I. Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 2. providing turbidity monitoring in accordance with the requirements of all permits, and 3. limiting operations within the project site to vessels no larger than 34 feet. 5.2 Long Term Water Quality Considerations Section 4.2.4.3 of the BOR addresses the long-term water quality considerations an applicant should consider. The applicant proposes to comply with this provision by: 1. dredging and removal of the unconsolidated, flocculent sediment in the entrance channel and boat basin, which, during boat activity, is easily suspended in the water column, contributing to increased turbidity, 2. establishing a 3:1 slope design for the proposed entrance channel to allow for additional stability which exceeds that required for the soil classification at this location (see engineering report in Attachment 413), and 3. installing signage at the channel entrance and boat basin which will control speeds to no wake, providing an additional measure to prevent increased turbidity as a result of propeller wash and vessel wake. 5.3 Additional Water Quality Enhancement from Culvert Expansion Though not included with UMAM calculations, the planned expansion of a nearby flushing culvert following topographical restoration and seagrass transplant stabilization at the dolphin basin, will serve to provide ancillary water quality benefits by increasing water exchange in the immediate area (See Attachment 4A for engineering drawings of the proposed culvert). Based on field measurements provided by SWC staff to HWA and using average projected tides, volume exchange between the existing and proposed culvert will increase by approximately 4 times. Flow rate through the existing, 2-foot-diameter corrugated pipe was 2.5 fps, and with the proposed 3-foot-diameter concrete culvert, the flow is projected to be 10.2 fps. The existing pipe exchanges 214,272 cubic feet per tide cycle and the proposed pipe will exchange 910,656 cubic feet per tide cycle. Therefore the volume exchange between both sides of the island would increase by 695,784 cubic feet per tide cycle assuming diurnal tides. Specific calculations are provided in the revised Engineering Report from HWA, Attachment 4B. 6.0 Regionally Significant Additional Restoration The following section describes how the restoration being undertaken by the applicant complies with section 4.2.1.2 (b) because it implements part of a regionally significant plan and provides greater long term ecological value. 6.1 Offsite Orphan Seagrass Restoration Section 4.2 details the importance of seagrass habitat and the problems associated with injuries as a result of vessel groundings and propeller scarring. The applicant proposes to provide a significant public benefit by restoring additional orphan propeller scars and blowholes located on publicly -owned submerged lands near the project site and in the surrounding area. This is clearly meets the intent of Section 4.2.1.2(b) of the BOR since 28 he, lNes1 • 111 iml I A;�(C Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 "the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected," and the proposed restoration is specifically provided for in the FKNMS PETS. As described, more than 28,800 square feet of propeller scars and vessel grounding injuries were mapped and surveyed in October of 2009, for potential restoration. Of these, 5,467 square feet were located on the applicant's privately -owned submerged property and will be restored as part of the proposed compensatory mitigation. A large portion of the remaining mapped injuries, located on the flat near the subject property (approximately 0.27 acres) are proposed for restoration above and beyond that necessary for compensatory mitigation. The methodology and timing for these offsite orphan restorations, as well as monitoring and success criteria, will be identical to that outlined for the onsite orphan restorations in Section 4.2. In addition, in order to provide long-term protection to the restoration sites and to prevent additional damage to the area, shoal markers will be placed along the eastern margin of the flat, marking the edge of navigable water. See Attachments 6H-1 and 6H- 2 for locations of the offsite restoration sites and proposed placement of the shoal markers. In addition, the following tables illustrate the total area to be restored in each of the mapped orphan scars at the offsite location. Offsite Orphan Restoration ID Length (ft) Area (sq ft) Propscars PSI 16 10.12 PS2 19 46.91 PS3 21 51.51 PS4 45 41.39 PS5 50 183.05 PS6 55 34.03 PS7 59 144.42 PS8 60 36.79 PS9 63 38.17 PS10 69 41.85 PS11 69 42.31 PS12 83 51.05 PS13 256 156.38 Total 865 878 (0.02 acres) Overall Offsite Restoration Area = 0.27 acres ID Acres Area (sq ft) Blowholes B01 0.005 203 B02 0.070 3061 B03 0.072 3148 B04 0.031 1339 B05 0.022 971 B06 0.019 810 B07 0.006 259 B08 0.003 133 B09 0.005 216 B10 0.018 777 Total 0.251 10917 WC Kay Weal - Miami 1 rWlywod - fort Myers c, www.swtnGnsd Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 6.2 Monitoring and Long Term Maintenance Though the offsite restoration sites are beyond the requirements for compensatory mitigation, they will be held to the same monitoring and long-term maintenance standards as the onsite orphan and dolphin basin restorations as detailed in Section 4.4. The client has agreed to the commitment to restore any new propeller scars or blowholes on the preserved submerged lands associated with this project and has proposed additional language to be included in the HOA documents to ensure the HOA fully understands its future obligations, as well as setting aside funds in the HOA budget that will be dedicated to the restoration needs of the offsite area. This provides assurances that: 1) the HOA must maintain the onsite and offsite areas in perpetuity, and 2) that there will be funds available for the continued restoration of that area. The Applicant agrees to restore new injuries within 90 to 120 days of the event causing the damage or the first observation of the injury. Please see page 3 of Attachment 14, Legal Memorandum, for a detailed response regarding revised Homeowners Association document language. The applicant will also be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the shoal markers installed on the bank near the offsite restoration sites. Should any of the shoal markers be damaged or destroyed, the applicant is responsible for replacement or repair within 90 days. 6.3 Regional Significance and Greater Long Term Ecological Value Section 4.2 highlights the importance of seagrass habitat in the Florida Keys and the critical role that restoration plays in reducing cumulative impacts of vessel groundings and propeller scarring. The FKNMS' PEIS outlines the protocols which support the program's main seagrass restoration objective, which is "...to conduct feasible, cost- effective, in -kind restoration using the best available techniques to accelerate recovery to the pre -grounding baseline levels." Section 6.0 details how the applicant's proposal to restore orphan seagrass injuries located on publicly -owned submerged lands near Walker's Island implements the protocols stated in the FKNMS PEIS and greatly exceeds the needed compensatory mitigation. As illustrated in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, impacts to resources result in a UMAM score of (0.136) while mitigation components result in a UMAM score of 1.157. When the UMAM calculations for the offsite orphan restoration, 0.028, are added (Attachment 6F), the overall result is a net positive gain of 1.049. In addition to direct seagrass restoration, the project will improve safety and navigation in the channel, will prevent environmental impacts to the natural areas through increased signage and active management, and will offer water quality improvements through culvert replacement. Taken as a whole, the applicant's proposal clearly meets the intent of Section 4.2.1.2(b) of the BOR since "the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides 30 key M'csk Fort M) �Fldi,t�[ + !AVM wn x swan n, r, nyl Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected". 7.0 Public Interest Test The proposed project is within Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). In addressing the public interest test, the following discussion demonstrates that the project is clearly in the public interest and complies with the 7 major components of this test. 1. Public Health and Safety or Welfare Per section 4.2.3.1 of the BOR, the project must be evaluated for impacts and/or benefits to the public health, safety and welfare. Here, the active management, in conjunction with properly marked channels and signage, will result in increased navigation safety. Additional discussion is provided in the Engineering Report, under separate cover in Attachment 4B. The proposed channel depth and edge slope was designed for stability as well as minimization of impact to adjacent flats should a vessel operator begin to navigate toward the margins of the marked channel. As discussed in Section 3.2, inadvertent propeller dredging would likely occur on the side slope within the confines of the proposed dredge area as opposed to the flats outside of the marked channel (see Attachment 6E, and Attachment 4, which contains the revised engineering drawings and report). This, in turn, will result in less environmental damage to the surrounding seagrasses by minimizing the potential for boat groundings. 2. Fish and Wildlife and their Habitats This portion of the Public Interest Test is addressed in the impact and the mitigation sections of this Plan. 3. Navigation, Water Flow, Erosion and Shoaling The proposed project enhances navigability by properly marking channels and adding signage to aid navigation. To address prevention of erosion, engineers established a 3:1 slope design for the proposed entrance channel to allow for additional stability, which exceeds that required for the soil classification at this location (see engineering report in Attachment 4B). Additionally, signage at the channel entrance and boat basin will control speeds to no wake, providing additional protection from erosion as a result of propeller wash and vessel wake. The project beneficially increases water flow through the enlargement of a flushing culvert as discussed in Section 5.3. As detailed in Section 4.2, erosion is a secondary impact of any type of seagrass injury, which, when left unrepaired, can lead to expansion of the damaged area as a result of flow patterns and wave action in the unnatural gaps in benthic topography. The proposed restoration of propeller scars and blowholes serves to actively restore the topography of the injuries and prevent further erosion. 4. Fisheries, Recreation, Marine Productivity The proposed project will not impact sport or commercial fisheries and will benefit marine productivity. The restoration of seagrasses both onsite and offsite will result in increased marine productivity. In addition, the project will not impact any recreational 31 K" wcsi • VOW * � - 1 k4frywood • Fan .► )vm ' Ww .sv+cmcnvt Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 uses of the surrounding water resources but will ensure that these uses are undertaken without impacts to the protected areas. 5. Permanent Nature The project is permanent in nature. 6. Historical and Archaeological Resources The project does not impact any cultural or historical resources. 7. Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions This prong of the public interest test is covered by the impacts and mitigation sections of this plan. Taken as a whole, the project positively addresses the seven prongs of the public interest test. Because the project will improve safety and navigation in the channel, and will prevent environmental impacts to the natural areas by increased signage and active management, the project positively addresses the public health, safety and welfare prong. Moreover, the restoration of seagrasses and active management of additional habitat, as proposed by the applicant, greatly exceeds the needed compensatory mitigation. The project implements a restoration plan that is of regional significance and supported by the FKNMS' PEIS, and as such, the project is clearly in the public's interest, providing restoration and protection of seagrasses and other benthic communities in the Florida Keys. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS The following summarizes the proposed minimized impacts, mitigation, and additional restoration and enhancement measures: Description Impacts Mitigation Additional Benefits Entrance channel & boat basin Sand/Mud 0.20 ac. Seagrass 0.43 ac. Total 0.63 ac. Total UMAM score (0.136) Onsite restoration & management Dolphin basin Onsite orphan restoration Active managed area Total Total UMAM score Culvert enlargement Offsite restoration UMAM score 0.50 ac. 0.13 ac. 26.93 ac. 27.56 ac. 1.157 400% increase in circulation 0.27 ac. 0.028 32 Key WCq-.01aml * Ilol4two 3 - For hlyars HYA'1 sWCJt� I1,i Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 The above table demonstrates a very significant regional environmental benefit resulting from the minimized impacts proposed, including a large net increase in the type of habitat being affected by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project will prevent inadvertent propeller scarring, at the property itself and on the adjacent seagrass flat, through appropriate access, signage and management. 33 Key W031 • hllami FFidi)xood • fart Mpm -61; 61r ;. 59.. Duck Key 0 1 2 mmm= Miles Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 e._ Directions: Heading south on US 1, pass mile marker 63. Take a right at the mailbox onto Walker's Island and proceed to the end of the road. Section, Township, Range: 15-65-34 RE Number: 00099090-000000 N r Surrounding Properties 0 0.25 0.5 ,r Land 777= Miles Sources: 2007 Monroe County Property Appraiser Florida i Data i r r Adapted by Shelli Bra nard• SWC 0*Flay Wag • M Wml Wyaood • Fort Wors -G,l YNYW %4 M C Ra Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 6B` Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan Kin WCA-UUM Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) O-C"1o1''WNWWW,cne"rs tt ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................... 1 2.0 Seagrass and Hardbottom Preservation .............................. 1 2.1 Channel Marking ..................................... ............ 2 2.2 Shoal Marking and Signage................................................ 3 3.0 Facility Management........................................................... 4 3.1 FDEP Clean Marina............................................................. 4 3.2 Docking Facility Operation & Management Plan ................. 4 4.0 Management Responsibility................................................ 8 5.0 Public Education and Outreach................................1.......... 8 5.1 Restore-A-Scar/Seagrass Grow Brochure Distribution........ 8 5.2 Property Owner Information Packet .................................... 9 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS No. Description # of Pages 613-1 Navigational Approach Map ................................................ 1 613-2 Markers and Signage Map .................................................. 1 613-3 Homeowner's Association Documentation .......................... 52 613-4 Restore-A-Scar/Seagrass Grow Brochure ........................... 2 613-5 Property Owner Information Packet .................................... 9 Ke.W"A.V,;,,,,, Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) Fmrywadd•Fort " rs ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 �. wuw.swcucnet 1.0 INTRODUCTION An essential component of assuring the success and long-term effectiveness of a mitigation project is the development and implementation of an overall management plan. In addition to the seagrass restoration and mitigation outlined in the Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan, the applicant proposes to implement the following methods of resource protection as part of the overall Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan: • Preservation of the natural resources of the immediate area with the installation and regular maintenance of regulated channel markers, shoal markers, and informational signage. • Commitment to restore any new seagrass injuries within the Preservation Area, if they are the responsibility of a Walker's Island property owner. • Docking facility management to meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clean Marina objectives. • Public education and outreach through distribution of seagrass information to Monroe County boaters and Walker's Island property/vessel owners. • Provision of a summary of the commitments associated with the Walkers Island Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to each new property owner as language incorporated into the Homeowners' Association (HOA) by-laws (draft included as Attachment 613-3). • Provision of a separate, more educational document to all new owners and guests (draft property owner information packet is included as Attachment 613-5). • Requirement that the HOA have a contracted Owner's representative responsible for implementing the docking facility permit and operational requirements. 2.0 SEAGRASS AND HARDBOTTOM ACTIVE MANAGEMENT Propeller scarring and vessel groundings have long been recognized as major contributors to seagrass damage and loss. Coastal areas of Florida are particularly hard hit due to high population density and large numbers of boaters. A decade -long study of boat damage to seagrasses in Lignumvitae Key Submerged Land Managed Area demonstrated that one of the two most immediate and practical measures for preventing damage included increasing signage to warn boaters to avoid seagrass beds (Engeman et al., 2008). Though it is difficult to quantify the success of increased signage in relation to seagrass scar prevention, it is a recognized tool for resource management. Efforts in the Tampa Bay area to protect seagrasses by creating and clearly marking vessel exclusion and caution zones contributed to an immediate decrease in the rate of propeller scarring (Stowers et al., 2006). Results of this project also highlighted the importance of sign maintenance, a proactive public information campaign, and the need for support of seagrass restoration efforts. Key W W •Miami Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) '� I(011)wmd•Fort "rs ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 �. VMW swanc not During a November 2010 personal communication with Richard Tanner, the harbormaster at the Marathon City Marina (Boot Key Harbor Mooring Field), Mr. Tanner indicated that the 2003 installation of navigational aids in Boot Key Harbor helped "tremendously" to decrease the number of vessel groundings in the area. He estimates the signage has had an 80-90% success rate in the reduction of resource damages in the immediate area. In the spring and summer of 2007, the Sebastian Inlet District completed the construction of a new navigation channel connecting Sebastian Inlet to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The purpose of this 3,120-foot-long, 10.7-acre channel extension near Melbourne FL was to provide the growing maritime community with a clearly -designated passage to and from the Atlantic Ocean as a matter of public safety and for the future protection of associated aquatic resources (PBS&J 2009). During two years of monitoring, numbers of confirmed seagrass scars in the area of the channel went from 506 in 2007, to 431 in 2008, to 188 in 2009. This illustrates a dramatic reduction in the overall numbers of scars with the creation of the well -marked channel. The adjacent seagrass flats and nearby hard bottom areas of Walker's Island, located within the boundaries of the subject property, are of high quality and are subject to propeller -scarring from boats approaching the existing boat basin at too broad of a tack, or poorly navigating once within the historic entrance channel. SWC staff has observed some scarring and damage areas on the subject property, which have been included in the on -site orphan seagrass restoration portion of the mitigation plan. See Attachment 613-1 for a graphic representation of the approach angles that put the area of seagrass flats at risk for damage and degradation. 2.1 Channel Marking and Navigational Aid Installation The applicant proposes to preserve the natural resources of the immediate area with installation of regulated channel markers along the margins of the proposed channel to the boat basin entry. Additionally, the channel will be marked with "no wake" signage to further protect resources directly adjacent to the entrance channel. Within 60 days of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval of the environmental resource permit applications, the applicant will submit the appropriate applications through Monroe County and the U.S. Coast Guard for the placement of the aids to navigation. The U.S. Coast Guard approves the design of Private Aids to Navigation (PATON), and the applicant will be responsible for long term maintenance of these markers. Coffin Marine Services Inc., an experienced marine contractor specializing in marine salvage, navigational aid installation, fuel spill emergency response, and environmental remediation, has been contracted to install the navigational aids associated with the proposed Walker's Island Project. Best Management Practices (BMP) will be employed within the footprint of the larger work site, resulting in tight turbidity control. During the installation of navigational aids outside of the boomed area, a minor deviation in terms of turbidity control will be employed per protocol established for the 2 KEY WE49-Mfum, Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) �+ HwbWad• Fort wars, ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 mvw.Sw;Ne net installation of navigational aids, which typically only affect 1 square foot of bottom. In most cases, the deployment and recovery of turbidity booms typically affects more sea bottom and produces more turbidity than the work being performed. The methodology employed by Coffin Marine is to drill into the substrate with a very slow turning 12-inch auger drill, which is backed out of the hole producing very little turbidity. The new piling is placed into the soft material, a 1-inch PVC pipe wand is then inserted into the hole, slid to the bottom and pressurized with a water pump until the drill mud is liquefied and the piling drops. When properly performed this operation produces very little turbidity and lasts only a few seconds. Marine contractors who install pilings and produce turbidity plumes are responsible for their actions and face severe fines when confronted with the evidence of their abuse. Coffin Marine maintains and uses a state of the art LaMotte turbidity meter and will create a log of upstream and downstream turbidity measured it NTU units when involved in repetitive work operations, salvage, or dredging. 2.2 Shoal Marking, Informational Signage, and Cautionary Buoys At the recommendation of Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and Monroe County Marine Resources staff, shoal markers will be installed along the eastern edge of the main approach channel and the margin of the boat basin. Shoal markers are only appropriate where an abrupt depth change occurs. The following depicts the standard type of shoal buoy accepted by FWC that the applicant proposes to install. A EA A seagrass information sign will be posted on the shoreline near the dock area. In addition, cautionary buoys will be installed at intervals around the shallow seagrass flats marking the boundaries of the applicant's privately -owned submerged property. These buoys will be marked with "Caution Shallow Seagrass Bed," serving to warn boaters of shallow resources and help protect 26.93 acres of seagrass and hardbottom habitat from inadvertent propeller scarring, vessel grounding and degradation from use. See Attachment 613-2 for the proposed locations of markers and signage. The following depicts the type of cautionary buoy used successfully by Monroe County Marine Resources and accepted by FWC that the applicant proposes to install. 3 Ko t%,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) ��W�, ,,y°a w f.�, ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 1*1 Both of these types of buoys are approved by the US Coast Guard. The applicant will be responsible for long-term maintenance of both the shoal and cautionary buoys, channel markers, and the land -based seagrass information sign. Should any of the buoys, markers, or signage be damaged or destroyed, the applicant is responsible for replacement or repair within 90 days. 3.0 FACILITY MANAGEMENT 3.1 FDEP Clean Marina Though the subject property is a multi -family facility and not a marina, the applicant proposes to meet the FDEP Clean Marina objectives. FDEP's Clean Marina website states: The Florida Clean Marina Program is a voluntary designation program with a proactive approach to environmental stewardship. Participants receive assistance in implementing Best Management Practices through on -site and distance technical assistance, mentoring by other Clean Marinas and continuing education. To become designated as a Clean Marina, facilities must implement a set of environmental measures designed to protect Florida's waterways. These measures address critical environmental issues such as sensitive habitat, waste management, stormwater control, spill prevention and emergency preparedness. Designated facilities and those facilities seeking designation receive ongoing technical support from the Florida Clean Marina Program and the Clean Boating Partnership. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/about.htm Additional information regarding Clean Marina guidelines can be found online at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/resources.htm. These guidelines, to the extent they are applicable on the subject property, have been incorporated into the draft Docking Facility Operation and Management Plan presented in Sect. 3.2, below. 3.2 Docking Facility Operation and Management Plan In addition to implementing Best Management Practices pursuant to the Clean Marina program, the applicant will adhere to the rules and guidelines set forth in the Docking Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan outlined below. Cl Key we-st•Hi.i l Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) tloHy�d-lori ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 WALKER'S ISLAND Little Conch Key, Monroe County, FL Docking Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan (DRAFT) Employee Education Plan A. Upon hire, orientation and instruction session, each employee having responsibility for the docking facility will be given onsite orientation instruction regarding emergencies, spill response, boat cleaning, fish waste, environmental policies, Clean Marina best management practices, and a copy of the Docking Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan. B. This docking facility is for private use. There are no liveaboards and boats may not be stored overnight if the owner is not an owner or guest of a unit at Walker's Island. II. Spill Response Plan A. If a spill occurs, immediately 1. Block spill of diesel and oil access to the water with buckets, absorbent pads, dirt dams and rings. 2. If gasoline, allow it to gently and rapidly disperse. B. Notification: Upon the occurrence of a spill, notify all of the following governmental agencies: 1. Local Fire, Police, Ambulance 911 2. USCG National Response Center 800-424-8802 3. State Warning Point 800-320-0519 4. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 800-342-537 a. on your cell: *367 b. on VHF Channel 16 C. Notification: Property Owner 1. Owner's representative 2. Must call Cliff Berry clean up organization 800-899-7745 D. Describe Docking Facility: 1. Name — Walker's Island 2. Location — Little Conch Key, Monroe County Oceanside @ MM 63 3. Telephone Number 4. Radio Frequency 5. Facility Characteristics a. docking facility b. off Tom's Harbor Cut c. vessels — range up to 34 feet E. Type and Amount of Petroleum Stored, None F. Spill Equipment and Capabilities on Site 1. Spill Response Cart containing absorbent material for use on water and land located immediately adjacent to docks 2. Buckets located in storage area of docking facility 3. Rings located in storage area of docking facility 5 Key WVA-TAUBW Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) 0 tlWollaa-"*on ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 *_C_ 1tlYYN 5WCS19: 3. Call Owners representative, if unable to locate spill equipment G. Remember: 1. Call USCG any time there is a noticeable sheen on the water 2. Properly dispose of petroleum spill response products in properly labeled containers. 3. Maintain records of petroleum waste disposal. IV. Hurricane Preparedness A. Written Plan 1. Upon issuance of hurricane advisory, begin site preparation. a. Remove all loose items, portable containers and cans, and place into storage. b. Call Owner's representative, for assistance in placing hurricane protection. c. Contact all boat owners whose vessels are in wet slips. d. Secure removal of vessels in wet slips to open water, protected area, or out of Monroe County. d. Remove portable containers and cans of paint, cleaner(s), petrochemicals, etc., from vessels. e. Remove all furniture and loose items and place inside designated storage areas. 2. Upon issuance of hurricane warning, make sure all preparations have been completed and boat basin is emptied of boats, fishing boxes and other loose items. B. Do Not Return to Property until authorized by Monroe County Emergency Management. V. Fire Safety A. Fire extinguishers are clearly marked and readily available in the docking facility. B. All ingress and egress must be clear of obstacles, with parking only in designated spaces. C. Clean up all spills of combustible liquid to avoid a fire. D. Smoking is prohibited in all areas where fuel, paint, resins and all flammables are stored, dispensed and consumed. E. In case of fire, immediately call Marathon Fire Department: 911 1. Use fire extinguishers as long as you are not in any physical danger. 2. Clear area of boaters, personnel and other people who may be on site. VI. Fueling No fueling facility is located on site. VII. Boat Cleaning A. No in -water boat cleaning without prior written consent of the Owner's representative for exceptional circumstance. If in -water boat cleaning is rel R(!V weal • mlaM3 Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) Ifuti)UG01t•Fort M"CS ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 A C www"r :incnat authorized by the Owner's representative, only biodegradable spray -type cleaners that do not require rinsing may be utilized. B. No pressure washing for boat cleaning in or over the water is permitted. C. No hull scraping is permitted anywhere within the basin/docking facility. D. No boat cleaning is permitted, except a rinse down after daily use. E. Detergents and cleaning compounds used for washing boats should be phosphate -free and biodegradable. Traditional sudsing cleaners requiring rinsing are absolutely prohibited. F. Non -toxic products only. G. Drain plugs may not be removed at any time. VIII. Solid Waste Management A. All trash and sweepings shall be placed into trash cans and dumpsters, all receptacles contain "wind/wildlife-proof' covers. B. All trash and dumpster receptacles shall be clearly marked and placed at convenient locations. IX. Liquid Waste Storage Management A. Spill control materials and empty containers for emergency cleanup are on site as set forth above. B. Snap top funnels are provided. C. Records of disposal of liquid wastes must be maintained. D. Hazardous waste consisting of paint and solvent waste may not be stored or disposed of at docking facility. X. Hazardous Waste Management A. Waste Distress Signal Flares, Used Batteries, Mercury Containing Bilge Pump Float Switches, Waste Anti -Freeze and Toxic Paint Chips require special handling and may not be disposed of onsite. B. No boat painting is permitted on or over the water or anywhere within the docking facility, including upland. C. No hull maintenance, sandblasting or paint removal is permitted anywhere in the docking facility. D. No engine repair is permitted on site anywhere in the docking facility. The docking facility is not a maintenance facility. E. Soiled ignitable rags shall be not stored anywhere in the docking facility. F. Damaged, water logged or beyond useful life distress signal flares should not be placed in any dumpster or trash receptacle on site. They should be disposed of properly and may be placed in self-contained labeled flare container and will be thermally treated by the fire department on an as needed basis. G. Lead acid and marine gel batteries may not be disposed of at the site. All contractors or persons replacing the same on site shall remove them from the premises. H. Bilge pump float switches, air conditioning switches, fluorescent and high intensity discharge lamps may not be placed in the regular trash or overboard as they contain large amounts of mercury. They may not be disposed of on 7 KcVWeA- Vilaml Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) r IWtw�wwd•Fnrt Hams ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 i r 5wri" rtal site. Advise the boat owner to call DEP 1-800-741-4DEP for further information and assistance in recycling mercury bilge pump float switches, AC thermostats and other materials. XI. Fish Waste Management A. Fish cleaning is permitted. B. No fish waste shall be released at the docking facility. C. No bait or cleaned fish shall be thrown overboard. D. Boaters are encouraged to dispose of unwanted bait and eviscerated fish at sea. E. If they fail to do so, all fish waste shall be placed in receptacles marked fish waste and disposed of daily. XII. Pumpout Facilities Mobile sewage pumpout services will NOT be provided. Sewage waste shall be disposed of via the onsite wastewater collection system within the owner's property unit. 4.0 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY The ultimate management responsibility for the commitments made in this application, once upland units are sold, will be the HOA. The applicant will include a requirement in the HOA by-laws and the property owners information packet that the HOA must have under contract at all times an Owner's representative, available all daylight hours, who will be responsible for implementing all docking facility permit and facility management requirements. Please see the draft HOA by-laws included as Attachment 613-3. In addition, the applicant will commit to restore any onsite resource injuries that occur within the actively managed area following installation of the docking facility and all associated signage and buoys. Propeller scars that are part of FKNMS enforcement activities are not included in this commitment. 5.0 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Public outreach and education is an essential part of protecting benthic resources and insuring the survival of restored seagrasses. 5.1 Restore-A-Scar/Seagrass Grow Brochure Distribution As referenced in section 2.0, the applicant proposes to install regulated channel markers, shoal and cautionary buoys, and informational signage to help protect the surrounding seagrass and hard bottom flats. To further inform the public about the importance of seagrass and what they can do to help save it, the applicant proposes to mail the Ocean Foundation's "Seagrass Grow" (formerly "Restore A Scar") Program brochure to all registered boaters in Monroe County. As of the date of this report, the revised brochure for "Seagrass Grove' is not yet available. A copy of the "Restore A Scar' brochure is provided for reference in the November 25, 2009 Attachment 613-4. K"WeQ.B"Mi Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan (Revised) `_ I'Wf�r°°d- 011 "l Vm ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Cv �w swan net Upon approval of the permit, the applicant plans to mail the most current program brochure to registered boaters. The applicant also proposes to place an informational sign about seagrasses and other important natural resources of the Florida Keys on the shoreline near the dock area. Signage will be purchased from the FKNMS and installation arranged with FKNMS staff, or through a contractor, upon approval of the mitigation plan. 5.2 Property Owner Information Packet Additionally, the applicant proposes to compile an information packet to be distributed to all Walkers Island property owners and guests which will contain but not be limited to the following: • Introduction and statement of purpose letter • Facility/local navigational chart with signage and PATON reference information • Docking Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan (Section 3.2) • The Ocean Foundation's Seagrass Grow Program brochure (Attachment 613-4) • An FKNMS brochure that explains how to avoid propeller scarring Some items in Attachment 613-5 have been revised since the November 25, 2010 submittal. 9 KCY NEsi • Nieaa el 11 _k 1 o Legend Proposed Entrance Channel & Basin Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Source: Monroe County. 2006 Aerial Adapted by Shelli Bra hard, SWC OVVKey Weal-MUMI Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan (Revised) Hollywood • Forl Mydn U Vw" "Vale 1' ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 1r. ,i Legend Cautionary Buoy H Shoal Marker iA Starboard Aid to Navigation AREA i Port Aid to Navigation 0 Educational Signage Private Property Limits 1 Limits of Proposed Channel & Basin Preservation Area Source: Monroe County, 2006 Aerial Adapted by Shelli Braynard, S Key Weal • Hwml Olir^ H gbwood • Far! Ahern cf WAwswancool Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 6B-3 Homeowners' Association Documentation (Revised) CHECKLIST FOR HOMEOWNER/PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS Application No, 080610-13 Project Name This checklist is to be used in the review of Homeowner/Property Owner Association (Associa- tion) Article of Incorporation, Declaration of Protective Covenants, Deed Restrictions, Declaration of Condominium or other recorded documents (Documents) for compliance with Section 9.2 of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource or Surface Water Management Permits within the South Florida Water Management District (BOR). I. POWERS AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE ASSOCIATION Pursuant to Section 9.2.3, BOR, the Articles of Incorporation or other documents of record shall set forth -general powers and attributes of the association. A. Do the documents state that the Association shall have all the powers set forth in Section 617.0303, F.S.? Yes; page number Page 8. B. If not, do the documents give the Association the following powers? 1. to own and convey property; eyes; page number 8 2. to operate and maintain common property, including the surface water management system (SWM) permitted in the SFWMD Permit ; page number 3. the power to establish rules and regulation ; page number 4. to assess members and enforce assessments ; page number 5. to sue and be sued ; page number and 6. to contract for services ; page number C. Pursuant to Section 9.2.3(g) and 9.2.6(d), BOR, are all homeowners; lot, property and unit owners; and the golf course (if any) members of the association? Yes; page number LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENTS 0 Do the documents cover the entire project according to the legal description? Yes If not, which phase(s) does it cover? B. Is the legal description included as an exhibit? Yes; Exhibit number 1 May 2001 T5-13 C. Is the legal description by plat? No Are golf courses, if any, platted? N/A D. Where or how will conservation, drainage, access and maintenance easements dedicated? 4.1.5 by Developer and then Association E. 1. Are drainage, access and maintenance easements defined and reserved/ dedicated to the operating entity?' Yes; page number 8 2. Does the dedication/reservation state that the easement may not be removed from its intended use by subsequent owners or others? NIA; page number 3 If a reservation or dedication to the operating entity is not included in the documents, please identity the document(s) where such a reservation or dedication is made. NIA F. Are conservation easement use restrictions defined and included in the docu- ments?2 No; page number III. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE A. Pursuant to Section 9.2.4(a), BOR, the documents should state that "It is the responsibility of the Association to operate and maintain the SWM system." Do the documents provide that the association shall operate and maintain the SWM system? Yes; page number 10 B. Pursuant to Section 9.2.4(b), BOR, do the documents state that the Association owns the common areas and SWM system? Yes; page number 10 C, Pursuant to Section 9.2.4(c), BOR, there must "be a method of assessing and col- lecting the assessment for operation and maintenance of the SWM system." Do the documents provide that the association can assess and collect for the opera- tion, maintenance and replacement of the SWM system through regular and spe- cial assessments? Yes; page number 10 IV. AMENDMENTS, DURATION AND DISSOLUTION A. Section 9.2.4(d), BOR, states: "That any proposed amendment to the Associa- tion's documents, that would affect the SWM system (including environmental conservation areas and the water management portions of the common areas) must be ' See Section 7.5, BOR. 2 Although not specifically required by Section 9.2, BOR, the inclusion of conservation easement use restrictions in the documents is considered informative. May 2001 2 T5.14 submitted to the District for a determination of whether the amendment necessi- tates a modification of the SWM permit. If a modification is necessary, the District will so advise the permittee." Is an amendment section included, which requires SFWMD approval if the SWM system, environmental conservation areas, and/or water management portions of common areas requested by the permit would be affected? Yes; page number 10 B. Pursuant to Section 9.2.4(e), BOR, "The rules and regulations must be in effect for at least 25 years with automatic renewal periods thereafter." Do the documents have a minimum 25-year duration with automatic renewal periods thereafter? Yes; page number 10 C. Section 9.2.3(h), BOR states: "The Association shall exist in perpetuity; however, if the Association is dissolved, the Articles of Incorporation must provide that the property consisting of the surface water management system shall be conveyed to an appropriate agency of local government. If it is not accepted, then the sur- face water management system must be dedicated to a similar non-profit corpora- tion. 1. Do the documents provide that the Association shall exist in perpetuity? page number 2. If the Association is dissolved, are there provisions requiring the SWM sys- tem, property containing the SWM system and water management por- tions of common areas required to be conveyed to local government determined to be acceptable by the SFWMD? N/A; page number 3. If the local government declines to accept the conveyance, do the docu- ments require the SWM system, property containing the SWM system and water management portions of common areas be dedicated to a similar non-profit corporation? NIA; page number V. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE If monitoring and/or maintenance of mitigation areas are required by the permit, please answer the following questions. Section 9.2.4(f), BOR, states: "If wetland mitigation monitoring will be required and the operational entity will be responsible to carry out this obligation, the rules and regulations shall state that it will be the association's responsibility, to complete the task successfully, including meeting all conditions associated with mitigation maintenance and monitoring," May 2001 T5-15 A. If mitigation monitoring will be the responsibility of the Association, do the Associ- ation documents indicate that the Association shall be responsible for mitigation monitoring? Yes; page number 10 B. Are any requirements pertaining to perpetual mitigation maintenance included in the documents? Yes; page number 10 VI. ATTACHMENT OF PERMIT(S) AND CONDITIONS A. Section 9.2.4(g), BOR states that ERP or SWM permits and conditions shall be attached to the rules and regulations as an exhibit. Is the permit(s) referenced as an exhibit to the Association documents? Yes; Exhibit number 2 B. Pursuant to Section 9.2.4(g) BOR, is the Association Registered Agent required to maintain copies of all further permitting actions for the benefit of the association? Yes; page number 10 VII. PHASED PROJECTS OR INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATIONS May 2001 A. Pursuant to Section 9.2.4(h), BOR, do the documents provide that the District has the right to take enforcement action, including a civil action for an injunction and penalties, against the association to compel it to correct any outstanding problems with the surface water management system facilities or in mitigation or conserva- tion areas under the responsibility or control of the association? Yes; page number 10 B. Pursuant to Section 9.2.6, BOR, if a master association is proposed for a project which will be constructed in phases and subsequent phases will use the same SWM system, does this Association have the ability to accept future phases into the Association? NIA; page number C. Pursuant to Section 9.2.6, BOR, if the development contemplated independent associations for difference phases, but proposes an interdependent water management system for the different phases, one of the following alternatives should be chosen by the applicant for setting up the operating entities. A master association may be formed which includes all of the various associations within the project, with the master association having the responsibility and legal ability to operate and maintain the SWM system for the entire project. or If no master association is proposed, each entity which will operate and maintain a portion of an integrated SWM system must have cross easements for drainage, ingress and egress capabilities and the ability to enter and maintain the various T5-16 May 2001 portions, should any sub association fail to operate and maintain the portion of the SWM system within their boundaries. A definition of operation and maintenance responsibilities between the entities shall be included in any such document. 1. Do the documents provide that the independent associations, if any, have the right to utilize the permitted SWM system? NIA; page number 2. Do the documents delineate maintenance responsibilities between the parties and grant ingress and egress easements for maintenance? NIA; page number NIA TS-17 AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA M. SILVER STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF MONROE ) BEFORE ME the undersigned authority personally appeared Patricia M. Silver, who under oath deposes and says: I, Patricia M. Silver, Esq., on behalf of Little Conch Key Development, as the attorney -in -fact hereby attests to the following pertaining to the above described project. I attest that the Homeowners Association has the following general powers and attributes set forth in the Articles of Incorporation or other documents on the page numbers indicated: 1. All the powers set forth in §617 Fla. Stat, Page No. 8; 2. All homeowners and property owners are members of the Association. Page 3; 3. The Association is responsible for assessing and collecting fees for the operation, maintenance, and if necessary, replacement of the SWM System, Page 10; 4. Any amendment proposed to these documents which would affect the SWM System, conservation areas or water management portion of the common areas will be submitted to the District for determination of whether the amendment necessitates a modification of the SFWMD Permit. If a modification is necessary, the District will advise the permitee. Page 10; 5. The Rules and Regulations shall remain in effect for a minimum of twenty- five (25) years and shall be automatically renewed thereafter. Page 10; 6. If wetland mitigation or monitoring is required, the Association shall be responsible to carry out this obligation. The Rules and Regulations state that it shall be the Association's responsibility to complete the task successfully, including meeting all permit conditions associated with wetland mitigation maintenance and monitoring. Page 10; 10; 7. The SFWMD Permit will be attached to the documents as Exhibit 2. Page 8. Copies of the permits and any future SFWMD permit action shall be maintained by the Association's Registered Agent for the Association's benefit. Page 10; 9. The District has the right to take enforcement action, including a civil action for an injunction and penalties against the Association to compel it to correct any outstanding problems with the surface water management system facilities or in mitigation or conservation areas under the responsibility or control of the Association. Page 10. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT 51 - L2 Pa rtca M. Silver The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisp?y day of November, 2009, by Patricia M. Silver, who is personally known to me. ............................................. /NoIic CHERYL A RHC3DES e Commit DD0775241 x E10-41312012 3' x NOWY"9'de-49 2 Printed Notary Name ,��J''`` • yillrtitA, ...........................: , � 1� V J a r............... My Commission Expires: % PYki K The Silver Law Group,, P.A. Patricia M. Silver, Esq. June 16, 2011 VIA E-MAIL ONLY Luna E. Phillips, Esq. GUNSTER 450 East Las Olas Blvd, Ste 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-4206 Iphillips(c)-gunster.com Re: Little Conch Key Development Corp. and Walker's Island Dear Luna: Attached please find the revised Homeowner's documents. I have revised the following sections: 6.2.19, 6.7.1, 6.13.2 and 16.1.2. This should meet SFWMD's concerns. Please note that with regard to the length and draft of the boat, section 16.2.5 provides that the maximum draft is 3 feet and the maximum length of the boat is 34 feet. Therefore, no revisions were made. Very truly yours, C ' Patricia�M. Silver, Esq. PMS/lec Attachment cc: Tom Cirrito (via e-mail) Sandy Walters (via e-mail) 87889 Overseas Hwy. • Islamorada, Florida 33036 • Tel: 305.664.3363 • Fax: 305.664.3365 P.O. Box 710 • Islamorada, Florida 33036 e-mail:psilver@silverlawgroup.com This instrument was prepared by, or under the supervision of (and after recording, return to): The Silver Law Group, P.A. Post Office Box 710 81001 Overseas Highway, Suite 101 Islamorada. Florida 33036 Dec/aratlon of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements of Walker's Island Little Conch Key Development Corp., a Florida corporation ("Developer") hereby declares: 1. ARTICLE 1 : INTRODUCTION. 1.1. The Land. The Developer (as hereinafter defined) owns the fee title to certain land located in Monroe County, Florida, as more particularly described in Exhibit "1" attached hereto (the "Land"). 1.2. Establishment of Walker's Island a Residential Community. Except as set forth in this Subsection 1.2, in order to develop the Land into a residential community and preserve and enhance the values and amenities of this residential community, its architectural integrity and character, the Developer hereby subjects the land and all improvements erected or to be erected thereon, and all other property, real, personal or missed, now or hereafter situated on or within the Land - but excluding all public or private (e.g. cable television and/or other receiving or transmitting lines, fiber, antennae or equipment) utility installations, technology wires, cable or other equipment reserved by the company installing same (to the extent the ownership of same is reserved to the company in the agreement allowing the installation of the same), and all leased property therein and thereon to these covenants, easements, restrictions, reservations, regulations, burdens and liens and to delegate certain powers, controls, easements and other rights to the property owners' association to be formed for such purposes. The Land is hereby governed, restricted and in all respects encumbered by this Declaration and all amendments hereafter made in accordance with the provisions hereof. 1.3. Name. The name by which this residential community is to be identified is WALKER'S ISLAND (hereinafter called "Walker's Island"). 1.4. Development Plan, The Land is being developed as a residential community consisting of eight (8) single family lots (each a "Lot") and nine (9) Boat Slips (each a "Boat Slip"). Each Lot will be improved with a residence (each a "Residence"). Each Lot will be owned by an Owner in fee simple. Each Boat Slip will be owned by an owner in fee simple. 1 2. ARTICLE 2: DEFINITIONS. The following terms when used in this Declaration and in its exhibits, and as it and they may hereafter be amended, shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 2.1. "Articles" or "Articles of Incorporation" mean the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, as amended from time to time. 2.2. "Assessment" means a share of the funds required for the payment of Common Expenses which from time to time is assessed against an Owner. 2.3. "Association" or "Homeowner's Association" means WALKER'S ISLAND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not -for --profit corporation. 2.4. "Association Property" or "Association Properties" means that property, real and personal, which is owned or leased by, the Association for the use and benefit of its members. 2.5. "Board" or "Board of Directors" means the board of directors, from time to time, of the Association. 2.6. "Boat Slip" shall mean any slip located within the Marina and identified on Exhibit "2" attached hereto. 2.7. "Building(s)" means the structure(s) in which the Residences and the Common Elements are located, regardless of the number of such structures, which are located on the Walker's Island property. 2.8. "By -Laws" mean the By -Laws of the Association, as amended from time to time. 2.9. "Committee" means an Owner or a group of Owners appointed by the Board or a member of the Board to make recommendations to the Board regarding the proposed annual budget, to take action on behalf of the Board, or the Architectural Control Committee. 2.10. "Common Elements" mean and include: 2.10.T.The portions of the Walker's Island property which are not included within the Lots or Boat Slips, including but not limited to roadways, walkways, paths, parking areas, easements, sidewalks, seawalls, bulkheads, and submerged land; 2.10.2.The property and installations required for the furnishing of utilities and other services to more than one Structure or to the Common Elements and/or to the Association Property; 2.10.3.Any and all portions of the Life Safety Systems (as hereinafter defined), as are in the Association Property; and/or 2.10.4.Any other parts of the Walker's Island Property designated as Common Elements in this Declaration, which shall specifically include the roads and the surface water management system, if any. 2.11 "Common Expenses" means all expenses incurred by the Association for the operation, management, maintenance, repair, replacement or protection of the Common Elements and Association Property, the costs of carrying out the powers and duties of the Association, and any other expense, whether or not 2 included in the foregoing, designated as a "Common Expense" by this Declaration, the Articles or the By -Laws. For all purposes of this Declaration, "Common Expenses" shall also include, without limitation, the following: (a) the costs relating to the operation, repair and maintenance of all Common Elements and Association Property; (b) all reserves required by the Act or otherwise established by the Association, regardless of when reserve funds are expended; (c) the cost of any bulk contract for cable television, broadband, telecommunications, satellite and/or internet services, if any, serving all Residences and/or Boat Slips; (d) road maintenance and operation expenses; (e) management, administrative, professional and consulting fees and expenses; (f) in-house and/or interactive communications, surveillance systems, gate systems and alarm service (if any); (g) the real property taxes, Assessments and other maintenance expenses attributable to any of the Residences or Boat Slips acquired by the Association or any Association Property; (h) the costs and expenses of maintaining, repairing and/or replacing as necessary the seawall, bulkheads and dock(s) located upon or adjacent to (even if beyond the legal boundaries of) the Association Property; (i) the costs and expenses of installing, maintaining, repairing, restoring, renourishing and/or replacing of the beach/dune system; 0) any and all costs, expenses, obligations (financial or otherwise) and/or liabilities of the Association and/or running with the Land pursuant to any restriction, covenant, condition, limitation, agreement, reservation and easement now or hereafter recorded in the public records; (k) any lease or maintenance agreement payments required under leases or maintenance agreements for mechanical or other equipment, supplies, etc.; (1) all expenses related to the installation, repair, maintenance, operation, alteration and/or replacement of Life Safety Systems; (m) any unpaid share of Common Expenses or Assessments extinguished by foreclosure of a superior lien or by deed in lieu of foreclosure; (n) costs of fire, windstorm, flood, liability and all other types of insurance, including without limitation and specifically, insurance for officers and directors of the Association; (o) costs of water and sewer, electricity, and other utilities which are not consumed by and metered to individual Residences or Boat Slips; and (p) any and all costs resulting from damage to the Association Property which are necessary to satisfy any deductible and/or to effect necessary repairs which are in excess of insurance proceeds received as a result of such damage. Common Expenses shall not include any separate obligations of individual Owners. 2.12 "Common Surplus" means the amount of all receipts or revenues, including Assessments, rents or profits collected by the Association which exceeds Common Expenses. 2.13 "County" means the County of Monroe, State of Florida. 2.14 "Declaration" means this instrument and all exhibits attached hereto, as same may be amended from time to time. 3 2.15 "Developer" means Little Conch Key Development Corp. a Florida corporation, its successors, nominees, affiliates and such of its assigns as to which or all of its rights as Developer hereunder has passed. In the event of any partial assignment, the assignee shall not be deemed the Developer, but may exercise such rights of Developer as are specifically assigned to it. Any such assignment may be made on a nonexclusive basis. Notwithstanding any assignment of the Developer's rights hereunder (whether partial or in full), the assigned shall not be deemed to have assumed any of the obligations of the Developer unless, and only to the extent that, it expressly agrees to do so in writing. The rights of Developer under this Declaration are independent of the Developer's rights to control the Board of Directors of the Association, and accordingly, shall not be deemed waived, transferred or assigned to the Owners, the Board or the Association upon the transfer of control of the Association. 2.16 "Improvements" mean all structures and artificial changes to the natural environment (exclusive of landscaping) and all appurtenances thereto located or to be located within Walker's Island, including, but not limited to, buildings, walkways, roads, walkways, pipes, alleys, lights, boat lifts, boat elevators, walls, windbreaks, conduits, poles, signs. 2.17 "Land" shall have the meaning given to it in Subsection 1.1 . above. 2.18 "Marina" means any parcel of submerged land located adjacent to the Boat Slips. 2.19 "Owner" means a record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of legal title to a Lot, Boat Slip or Parcel. 2.20 "Parcel" means a Lot or Boat Slip. 2.21 "Private Pool/Spa" shall mean a private swimming pool and/or spa installed or located, fully or partially within the deck appurtenant to any of the Residences, together with the pool deck appurtenant thereto. 2.22 "Property" means the land as defined in sub -section 11 as the same may be amended from time to time by Developer by adding or deleting portions of real property from the property encumbered by this Declaration. 2.23 "Tiki Hut" means an open structure with a thatched roof not suitable for habitation. 2.24 "Residence" means a part of a Lot which is subject to exclusive ownership. References herein to "Parcel(s) shall include Residence(s), unless the context prohibits or it is otherwise expressly provided. 2.25 "Vessel" means any leisure or recreational motorboat, sailboat or watercraft which is self --propelled and in a sea -worthy condition, together with any dinghy or other boat kept on or attached thereto; provided, however, that such terms shalt exclude any houseboats, floating home, house -like barge, seaplane or commercial vessel. 3. ARTICLE 3; DESCRIPTION OF WALKER'S ISLAND. 4 3.1. Identification of Residence(s) and Boat Slig(s). The Land has and/or will have constructed hereon eight (8) Residences and nine (9) Boat Slips. Each such Residence and Boat Slip is identified by a separate numerical and/or alpha- numerical designation. The designation of each such Residences and Boat Slip is set forth on Exhibit "2" attached hereto. Exhibit "2" consists of a survey of the Land, a graphic description of the intended improvements located thereon, and a plat plan thereof. Said Exhibit "2", together with this Declaration, is sufficient in detail to identify the Common Elements of each Residence and Boat Slip, and their relative locations and dimensions. There shall pass with a Parcel as appurtenances thereto: (a) an undivided share in the Common Elements and Common Surplus; (b) the exclusive right to use such portion of the Common Elements as may be provided in this Declaration, including, without limitation, the right to transfer such right to other Parcels or Owners; (c) an exclusive easement for the use of the airspace occupied by the Residence and Boat Slip as it exists at any particular time, and as the Residence may lawfully be altered or reconstructed from time to time, provided that an easement in airspace which is vacated shall be terminated automatically; (d) membership in the Association with the full voting rights appurtenant thereto; and (e) other appurtenances as may be provided by this Declaration. 4. ARTICLE 4: PROPERTY RIGHTS. 4.1.Owners' Easement of Enjoyment. Every Owner shall have a non-exclusive, common right and easement of ingress and egress and of enjoyment in, to and over, and use of the Association Properties, which easement right shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with but shall be separated from, title to every Parcel within Walker's Island, subject to the following conditions: 4.1.1. The right of the Association to reasonably limit the number of guests, invitees or licensees using the Association Properties, except as provided by law or herein to the contrary. 4.1.2. Uniform rules and regulations established by the Association from time to time pertaining to the use of the Association Properties and the Parcels, including, but not limited to, all parking and/or noise restrictions established by the Association from time to time. 4.1.3. The right of the Association, in accordance with its Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and this Declaration, with the vote or written assent of two-thirds (2/3rds) of the votes of Members in the Association, to borrow money for the purpose of improving the Association Properties and facilities and in connection therewith, to mortgage, pledge or hypothecate any or all of its real or personal property as security for money borrowed or debts incurred, provided that the rights of such mortgagee shall be subordinate to the use rights of the Owners hereunder. 5 4.1.4. The right of the Association to suspend the right to use the Association Properties (except means of ingress and egress) of an Owner for any period during which any Assessment against such Owner's Parcel remains unpaid and delinquent and for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days for any single infraction of this Declaration or the rules and regulations of the Association, provided that any suspension of such right to use the Association Properties shall be made only by the Board as provided in the By -Laws of the Association. 4.1.5. The right of the Association to dedicate, release, alienate, transfer or encumber all or any part of the Association Properties to or in favor of any public agency, authority or utility at any time and from time to time for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the Members. So long as Developer owns any portion of the Property, such dedication, release, alienation or transfer shall be effective without the approval, vote or written assent of the members in the Association. At such time as Developer owns no portion of the Property, no such dedication, release, alienation or transfer shall be effective unless approved by the vote or written assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of Members in the Association. 4.1.6. The right of the Developer (and its agents, customers, representatives, servants, employees, licensees and invitees) to the non-exclusive use of the Association Properties, the facilities thereof, and an easement on, over, under and through the Common Property or any portion thereof without charge, for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of the improvements including, but not limited to, utility lines and for sales, display, access, ingress, egress, exhibit and other purposes. 4.1.7. The right of the Association (by action of the Board) to reconstruct, replace or refinish any improvement or portion thereof upon the Association Properties, in accordance with the original design, finish or standard or construction of such improvement, or of the general improvement within the Association Properties, as the case may be. 4.1.8. The right of the Association to replace destroyed trees or other vegetation and plant trees, shrubs and ground cover upon any portion of the Association Properties or Parcels and to maintain same and any systems serving same including, but not limited to, irrigation and sprinkler systems, if any. 4.1.9. The right of the Developer to grant such other easements and rights over and upon the Association Properties as Developer, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate, including, without, limitations, rights of the public to access by, through, across and upon the Association Properties (which easements and rights shall be similarly granted by the Association). C 4.1.10.The right of Developer and Association, subject to the provisions of applicable law, to restrict access, ingress and egress to and from Walker's Island by maintaining a controlled entry system at locations designated by Developer or the Association from time to time and such other restrictions as the Developer or the Association shall impose from time to time. 4.T.T 1.An irrevocable power of attorney, coupled with an interest, of all Owners in favor of Developer, for as long as Developer owns any Parcel with Walker's Island, to exercise any of the foregoing or other rights or discharge any of the foregoing or other obligations which may be set forth herein for the benefit of Developer or as an obligation of any Owner. The power of attorney shall be self -operative and shall not require any additional instrument to affect same. An Owner, by acceptance of a deed, thereby acknowledges and confirms (and, to the extent required, grants) the power of attorney set forth herein. 4.1.12.Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, no action authorized in this Section 4.1 shall be taken without prior written consent of the Developer, as long as the Developer owns any Parcel within Walker's Island. 4.2 Delegation of Use; Use by Others. Any Owner may delegate by lease, in accordance herewith and with the By -Laws, such Owner's right of enjoyment of the Association Properties to such Owner's permitted renters (but once so delegated, any such Owner shall not have such rights until applicable lease expires, unless such Owner owns other Parcels where such rights were not so delegated). All guests, invitees and licensees of Owners shall also be entitled to use of the Association Properties, subject to applicable rules, regulations and limitations on such rights. 4.3 Parking Restrictions. Parking shall be regulated pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the Association from time to time. 4.4 Walkways. Developer, and after conveyance of the Association Properties to the Association, the Association, shall have the right to designate and construct walkways over the Association Properties. 4.4.1 All walkways located on the Associates Properties shall be restricted to pedestrian use as a walking path for the limited purpose of light exercising, recreational strolling, and viewing of the ecological surroundings. 4.4.2 The following restrictions shall apply to the walkways: 4.4.2.1 No vehicles of any kind shall be permitted on walkways except for strollers for small children, wheel chairs and other manual or electrically powered apparatuses for persons disabled by physical handicaps or suffering from other disabling infirmities and electrically powered carts. 7 4.4.2.2 No person shall loiter or otherwise use any portion of the walkways for any extended period of time, it being the intent of these restrictions to limit gatherings in one location and to promote the use of walkways as a peaceful way to enjoy the scenery and in particular, sunrises and sunsets; 4.4.2.3 No commercial activities of any kind shall be permitted on the walkways, and; 4.4.2.4 No entertainment of any kind shall be permitted on the walkways. 4.4.3 The Association shall adopt such additional restrictions on the use of walkways as the Board shall deem in the best interest of the Owners in order to balance the protection of Owners, their guests and renters, from unnecessary noise or view obstructions while occupying their Parcels with the opportunity of all Owners, their guests and invitees, to enjoy the Association Properties. 4.5 No Waiver of Use. No Owner may release his Parcel from Assessment and liens provided herein by a waiver of the use and enjoyment of this Association Properties. 4.6 Conveyance of the Association Properties. After all Parcels have been conveyed to purchasers other than a Developer Affiliate, or sooner at the option of the Developer or as required by law, the Developer shall convey all of the Association Properties to the Association, and the Association shall accept said conveyance. The Association Properties shall be conveyed by Special Warranty Deed by Developer. Such conveyance shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, and subject only to: 4.6.1 All taxes and Assessments for the year of conveyance and subsequent years; 4.6.2 Restrictions, conditions, easements, agreements limitations and reservations of record; 4.6.3 Perpetual non exclusive easements from and to any portion of the Property within Walker's Island owned by the Developer or its assignees at the time of the conveyance, which easements shall be for the use, benefit and enjoyment of Developer, the Owners, its or their guests, invitees, licensees, successors and assigns; and 4.6.4 This Declaration, as the same may be amended from time to time. 4.7 Developer's Right to Encumber. Until the Developer conveys the Association Properties to the Association, Developer shall have the right to mortgage the Association Properties for the purpose of financing the development and construction thereof, or for any other purpose, provided that (a) the lender recognizes the right of the Owners hereunder; (b) the Association Properties shall be free of mortgages at the time of conveyance to the Association, and (c) the Association or any of the Members (other than Developer, if it so chooses) shall not be personally liable for payment of the debt secured by such mortgage(s). p 4.8 Association Properties for Benefit of Owners. The Developer, and after conveyance to it, the Association, shall hold title to (and such rights in) the Association Properties for the benefit of those persons entitled to use same under the provisions of this Declaration (which shall be applicable from and after the date of this Declaration is recorded whether or not the Association Properties are then owned by the Association). 4.9 Taxation of Association Properties. It is the intent of this Declaration that the Tax Assessor of the County shall include all ad valorem taxes for the Association Properties within the tax bill for the individual Parcels. In the event the Association is taxed for the Association Properties, the Association shall pay such taxes and assess the Parcels on a prorate basis based upon the current ad valorem tax Assessments as determined by the County Tax Assessor as part of the Association Expenses. 4.10 Construction Activities. Developer, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees and/or other designees may, from time to time, be engaged in construction, excavation, and other activities within or in proximity to Walker's Island. By acceptance of a deed or other conveyance or mortgage, leasehold, license or other interest, each such Owner, lender and user and their respective successors and assigns automatically acknowledged, stipulate and agree: 4.10.1 None of the aforesaid activities shall be deemed a nuisance or offensive activity; 4.10.2 Not to enter upon or allow other person(s) under their direction or control to enter upon any portion of Walker's Island where such activity is being conducted (even if not being conducted actively at the time of entry, such as at night or otherwise during non -working hours); and 4.10.3 Developer, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees and designees, shall not be liable for any direct or consequential losses, damages, injuries or deaths arising from or relating to the aforesaid activities. 4.11 Developer's Reserved Rights. All of the foregoing rights are subject to the rights reserved by and the exemption of the Developer as set forth in this Declaration. 4.12 Prohibition of Subdivision of Parcels. Unless pre -approved in recordable form by Developer, no Parcel shall be subdivided or broken into smaller parts than as conveyed or constructed by Developer and reflected in the deed of conveyance from the Developer to the transferee -Owner of such Parcel, nor shall any Parcel or portion thereof be added to or incorporated into any other Parcel. 4.13 Conveyance of Parcels. Each Parcel shall be legally described and conveyed with the form of reference as follows; E Lot __ Blk ..__ of Walker's Island Subdivision according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book ...,,_, Page --- of the public records of Monroe County, Florida. 5. ARTICLE 5; ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS. 5.1 Automatic Membership. Every Owner automatically shall be a Member of the Association upon becoming the Owner of a Parcel and shall remain a member until his ownership ceases, for any reason, at which time his membership shall cease automatically. Other than as an incident to a transfer of title to a Parcel, membership in the Association shall not be transferable and any attempted transfer shall be null and void. No person, firm or corporation holding any lien, mortgage or other encumbrance upon any Parcel shall be entitled, by virtue of such lien, mortgage or other encumbrance to membership in the Association, or to any of the rights or privileges of such membership. 5.2 Limitation Upon Liability of the Association. Notwithstanding its duty to maintain and repair the Association Properties, the Association shall not be liable to Owners for injury or damage other than the cost of maintenance and repair caused by latent conditions of the Association Properties. Further, the Association shall not be liable for any such injury or damage caused by defects in design or workmanship or any other reason connected with any additions, alterations or improvements made by or on behalf of any Owner(s). 5.3 Developer's Representation on the Board and Voting Rights. Developer reserves unto itself the following rights, notwithstanding any other provision in this Declaration, Articles or By -Laws. 5.3.1 Members other than the Developer are entitled to elect at least a majority of the members of the Board when the earlier of the following events occurs; 5.3.1 .1 Three months after ninety percent (90%) of the Parcels that will ultimately be operated by the Association have been conveyed to Owners; or 5.3.1.2A date selected by the Developer. 5.3.2 The Developer is entitled to elect at least one (1) member of the Board of the Association as long as Developer holds at least one (1) Parcel for sale in the ordinary course of business. After the Developer relinquishes control of the Association, the Developer may exercise the right to vote any Developer -Owner voting interest in the same manner as any other Owner, except for purposes of reacquiring control of the Association or selecting the majority of the members of the Board. 5.4 Developer's Right to Transfer Voting Rights. Developer shall have the right to transfer all or any portion of its voting rights and/or any or all of its rights to appoint members of the Board and hereby reserves the right to transfer any or all of its voting rights and any or all of its rights to appoint members of the Board to a Developer affiliate or any Owner. 10 5.5 Voting Rights. Subject to the Developer's voting rights in Section 5.3 hereof, each Parcel shall be entitled to one (1) vote to be cast by its Owner. When more than one person holds an interest in a Parcel, the vote for such Parcel shall be cast by the Owner designated in a certificate filed with the Association and signed by all persons owning an interest. The vote for each Parcel is indivisible. Membership in the Association shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of a Parcel. Transfer of ownership, either voluntarily or by operation of law, shall terminate membership in the Association, and said membership shall thereupon be vested in the transferee 5.6 Developer Control Prior to Turnover. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Declaration to the contrary, until such time as Developer shall transfer control of the Association, Developer shall have the sole and exclusive right to elect all officers and directors of the Association. During the period of Developer's control, all Owners, other than Developer, shall have a non -voting membership in the Association, unless this provision is waived in writing by Developer. In the event Developer, in its absolute discretion, elects to turn over control of the Association to the Owners prior to Developer's required turn over, Developer shall retain the right to appoint one (1) Director to the Board for so long as Developer or any entity related to Developer owns a Parcel within Walker's Island, including any reacquired Parcel. 6. ARTICLE 6: DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE ASSOCIATION 6.1 In General. The Association shall govern, operate, control, manage and maintain the Association Properties, pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation and the By -Laws. The Association shall pay all real property ad valorem taxes and all governmental liens assessed against the Association Properties at the expense of the Association. 6.2 Additional Powers of Association. The Association, acting through the Board, shall also have, subject to any priority rights of Developer, the power and duty to: 6.2.1 Maintain, protect, repair and replace the Association Properties; 6.2.2 Preserve and enhance the natural beauty of Walker's Island and the portions of the Parcels that are contiguous to the landscaped areas of the Association Properties, exclusive of the Residence. 6.2.3 Promote the health, safety and social welfare of the Owners, their guests and invitees; 6.2.4 Own, operate, govern, administer and manage the Association Properties; 6.2.5 Control the specification, architecture and design appearance of Walker's Island, including but not limited to, elevation and location of, and landscaping around, all improvements of any type, including: walls, fences, swimming pools, docks, piers, dune crossing, antennae, sewers, drains, disposal systems, or other structures constructed, placed or permitted to 11 remain in Walker's Island, as well as the alteration, improvement, addition or change thereto in order to preserve and maintain an integrated architectural design within Walker's Island; 6.2.61nsure compliance with and to maintain all permits for the operation of Walker's island, of whatever nature, as required by governmental entitles having jurisdiction over Walker's Island; 6.2.7 Make and collect Assessments, of any type, in accordance with the terms hereof, including maintenance Assessments, and special Assessments; 6.2.8 Provide for such services the responsibility for which has been delegated to this Association by the Terms hereof, and to provide capital improvement and equipment related thereto on the Association Properties; 6.2.9 Provide, purchase, acquire, replace, improve, maintain and/or repair such buildings, structures, landscaping, paving and equipment, both real and personal, related to the health safety, and social welfare of the Owner as the Board, in its discretion, determines to be necessary, appropriate, and/or convenience; 6.2.1 Q Preserve scenic assets, natural features and natural and man-made recreational areas, if any, in Walker's Island, to the maximum extent feasible; 6.2.11 Oversee the general operation and maintenance of Walker's Island in such a manner as to prevent substantial injury to the use and value of all of any part of Walker's Island, including, without limitation, all swales and storm water drainage systems; 6.2.12 Enforce the provisions of this Declaration; 6.2.13 Maintain the private street within the Association Properties, including cleaning and periodic resurfacing, and to maintain, operate and replace any street lights now located or to be installed on the Association Properties; 6.2.14 For the benefit of the Association Properties and the entire Project, (i) obtain all commonly metered water, sanitary sewage, gas, and electric services and other such utilities or services, and (ii) provide for all refuse collection and cable, satellite or master television service (if any), as necessary. Nothing herein shall create any liability on the part of the Developer or the Association for consequential or other damages resulting from the inability of the Association to so obtain, produce, circulate and provide any of the foregoing services for reasons beyond the Association's reasonable control, nor prohibit the Association from temporarily interrupting the foregoing services in order to effect necessary repairs, maintenance and replacements. 6.2.1 5 Grant easements, rights of way or strips of land, where necessary, for utilities and sewer facilities and other services over the Association Properties to serve the Association Properties and other portions of Walker's Island; 6.2.16 Maintain such policy or policies of liability, fire, flood, windstorm, officers and directors, and other insurance with respect to the Association Properties and personal property located thereon or used in connection therewith, if 12 any, owned by the Association or the Developer as provided herein the furthering the purpose and protecting the interests of the Association and Members and as directed by this Declaration and the By -Laws of the Association; 6.2.17 Take such other action which the Board shall deem advisable with respect to Walker's Island as may be permitted hereunder or under law; 6.2.18 To do and perform all such other acts and things permitted and to exercise all powers granted to a not -for -profit corporation under the laws of the State of Florida as those laws now exist or as they may hereafter provide; and 6.2.19 To comply with all federal, state and local requirements concerning environmental protection including, but not limited to: (a) the compliance with all water quality monitoring requirements; (b) the maintenance of the storm water management system; (c) the perpetual maintenance of the three foot (3') diameter culvert conveyance capacity; and (d) the perpetual repair of propeller scars and blow holes, regardless of cause, on any onsite mitigation area and offsite mitigation areas required by the South Florida Water Management District in connection with Permit No. _--------. 6.3 Association Expenses. The Association shall, through the Board, fix and determine from time to time the sum(s) necessary and adequate to provide for the expenses of the Association. The expenses of the Association shall be assessed against the Owners. 6.4 Title to Association Properties. The Association shall be obligated to accept any and all deeds of conveyance delivered to it by Developer, which deed(s) conveys title to all or any portion of the Association Properties. 6.5 Rules and Regulations. The Board may from time to time adopt or amend Rules and Regulations governing the details of the operation, use, maintenance, management and control of Parcels and the Association Properties. 6.6 Budget and Accounting. The Board shall adopt a budget for each fiscal year. Such budget shall contain estimates of all costs and expenses for the proper operation, management and maintenance of the Association Properties, including a reasonable allowance for contingencies and reserves, and shall take into account the project income which is to be applied in reduction of the amounts required to be collected as an Assessment each year. Assessments shall be established based upon such budget. The Association shall comply with Chapter 617 concerning the adoption, notice and other requirements for homeowners associations. 6.7 Reserves. 6.7.1 Reserves For Capital Expenditures and Deferred Maintenance. Each annual budget shall include sums to be collected and maintained as reserves to be used for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. These accounts shall include, but not be limited to pavement resurfacing and restoration of areas damaged by future seagrass scars and blow holes on areas required to be perpetually maintained pursuant to South Florida Water Management 13 District Permit No. ------------- The amount to be reserved shall be computed by the Board by means of a formula based upon completed Residences and Boat Slips, transferred to non -affiliates of Developer, and the estimated life and estimated replacement cost of each reserve item for such completed Residences and Boat Slips. Such reserve may be waived or reduced for a fiscal year by the affirmative vote of at lease one-half (1 /2) of the Voting Interests of the Association at a duly called meeting of the Association. If such a meeting shall have been called and the necessary vote for waiver or reduction shall not have been attained or a quorum shall not have been obtained, the reserves as set forth in the budget shall go into effect. 6.7.2 General Operating Reserve. Each annual budget may include a sum to be collected and maintained as a general operating reserve, which sum may be used to meet deficiencies from time to time existing as a result of delinquent payment of Assessments by Owner or as a result of emergencies or to pay other costs and expenses placing financial stress upon the Association. The amount to be allocated to such operating reserve and collected therefore shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the current annual Assessment levied against all of the Owners. Upon accrual in the operating reserve of a sum equal to thirty percent (30%) of the current annual Assessment, no further payments shall be collected unless such operating reserve shall be returned below the thirty percent (30%) level, in which event, contributions to such operating reserve shall be included in the annual Assessment, so as to restore the operating reserve to thirty percent (30%) of the current annual Assessment. 6.8 Collections. All monies collected by the Association shall be treated as the separate property of the Association. Such monies may be applied by the Association to the payment of any expense of operating the Association as set forth in this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation and/or By -Laws. Monies for any Assessment paid to the Association by any Owner may be commingled with monies paid to the Association by the other Owners. When an Owner shall cease to be a member of the Association, the Association shall not be required to account to him/her for any share of the funds or assets of the Association, or for any sums which he may have paid to the Association. 6.9 Members' Rights. The Association shall be run by the Board and the Members shall only have such power as is specified herein or in the Articles or By -Laws. In the absence of a specific requirement of approval by members, the Board may act on its own, through its proper officers with or without a specific authorizing resolution. 6.10 Easement for Maintenance. The Association is hereby granted a non-exclusive easement to enter upon any Parcel or the exterior of any Residence or Vessel in order to provide exterior maintenance service to and upon any structure located 14 on or upon any of such enumerated properties in accordance with the terms of this Article, including, without limitations, the right to erect and maintain thereon scaffolding or other equipment required for such maintenance services. 6.11 Fines. Notwithstanding the availability of other remedies set forth elsewhere in this Declaration, the Association shall also have the power to assess reasonable fines to enforce any of the provisions of this Declaration, the By -Laws, or rules and regulations promulgated in connection therewith, provided only that appropriate notice and right to appear be granted to any Owner subject to such fines as provided herein. 6.1 1.1 The amount of any fine shall be initially set by the Board of the Association, but in any event shall not exceed any maximum amount permitted by law. Any fine shall be imposed after giving written notice to the party against whom the fine is sought to be levied, an opportunity for hearing, of not less than fourteen (14) days. said notice shall specifically state the amount of the fine, the date, time and place of the hearing; the provisions of the Declaration, By -Laws, or rules which have allegedly been violated; and a short and plain statement of the matter asserted by the Association. 6.1 1.2 The party against whom the fine may be levied shall have an opportunity to respond, to present evidence, and to provide written and oral argument on all issues involved and shall have an opportunity at the hearing to review, challenge and respond to any material considered by the Association. 6.11.3 Hearing shall be held before the Board. At the hearing, the Board shall conduct a reasonable inquiry to determine whether the alleged violation in fact occurred, and that the fine imposed is appropriate. The Parcel Owner, tenant or other party against whom the fine is sought to be levied shall have the right to attend the hearing and to produce evidence on his behalf, and if the Parcel Owner or tenant fails to attend, then the hearing will be deemed waived and the Board may ratify the fine without further proceedings. At the hearing the Board shall ratify, or disagree with, the fine. If the Board does not agree with the fine, the fine may not be levied. If a majority of the Board members agree with the fine, the Association shall give the Parcel Owner, tenant or other party against whom the fine is sought, written notice of the Board's decision. Any fine shall be due and payable within ten (10) days after written notice of the Board's imposition of the fine. If any fine is levied against a tenant and is not paid within ten (10) days after the same is due, the Association shall have the right to evict the tenant. Each Parcel Owner is jointly and severally liable for any fine imposed upon his tenant. Any Parcel leased by the Owner shall be leased pursuant to a written document that shall contain the foregoing provisions, and any Parcel that is not leased by a written document or any Parcel leased pursuant to a written agreement that fails to include the foregoing provisions shall be deemed to be leased subject to the provisions hereof. 15 6.1 1.4 In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the requirement of this Declaration, the exhibits annexed hereto, or the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to said documents, as the same may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding and reasonable attorneys' fees (including appellate attorneys' fees). 6.1 1.5 All rights, remedies and privileges granted to the Association or the Parcel Owner pursuant to any terms, provisions, covenants or conditions of this Declaration or other Association documents shall be deemed to be cumulative, and the exercise of any one or more shall not be deemed to constitute an election of remedies, nor shall it preclude the party this exercising the same from exercising such other and additional rights, remedies or privileges as may be available at law or in equity. 6.12 Floor Area Surface Water Management Systems. The ground level of Walker's Island is within a flood zone as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In case of flooding, all such areas are subject to possible flooding. All improvements and other property located within the Parcels are subject to possible damage in the event of flooding, the total liability for which is assumed by the Owner, his guests, invitees, licensees and other users. The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance, operation and repair of the Surface Water Management System. Maintenance of the Surface Water Management System shall mean the exercise of practices which allow the system to provide drainage, water storage, conveyance or other surface water or storm water management capabilities as determined by the Board. Developer has constructed drainage swales within the Association Properties for the purpose of managing and containing the flow of excess surface water. The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance, operation and repair of the swales within Walker's Island. 6.13 The South Florida_W er Mana ement District Enviro ent 1 Resource Permit No. Application No 080610-13 Exhibit 2 6.13.1 The Association is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the permitted facilities, the mitigation areas, and the conservation easement areas as described and conditioned in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) environmental resource permit no. __-------- (the ERP permit). 6.1 3.2 The Association is responsible for assessing and collecting fees for the operation, maintenance and, if needed, the replacement or repair of the permitted facilities, mitigation areas, and the conservation easement areas, as described and conditioned in the ERP permit. A reserve account shall be established for the replacement or repair of the permitted facilities, mitigation areas and the conservation easement areas. 6.13.3 The permitted facilities, the mitigation areas, and the conservation easement areas as described in the ERP permit are owned by the Association and are common property as defined in the Association documents. 6.13.4 If any amendment is proposed to the Association documents which would affect the operation and maintenance of the permitted facilities, the mitigation areas, and the conservation easement areas as described in the ERP permit, any such amendment will be submitted to the SFWMD for a determination of whether the amendment necessitates a modification of the ERP permit. If a modification is necessary, the SFWMD will advise the permittee. 6.13.5 The rules and regulations governing the Association will be in effect for at least 25 years with automatic renewals periods thereafter. The Association shall be responsible for ensuring that all maintenance and monitoring conditions in the ERP permit are implemented and carried out successfully, including all conditions related to the mitigation maintenance and monitoring. 6.13.6 The Association's registered Agent is required to maintain copies of all further permitting actions for the benefit of the Association. 6.13.7 The SFWMD has the right to take enforcement action, including a civil action for injunction and penalties against the Association to compel it to correct any outstanding problems with the conservation or mitigation areas under the responsibility or control of the Association. 7. ARTICLE 7: ASSESSMENTS. 7.1 Purpose. Assessments levied by the Association shall be used to promote the common health, safety, benefit, recreation, welfare and aesthetics of the Owners and to maintain repair and replace the Association Properties and such portion of Parcels as delegated to the Assessment in this Declaration. 7.2 Assessments. The Board shall have the power to fix, determine and collect from all Owners, as provided in this Declaration and the By -Laws, the sums necessary and adequate to provide for the Association Expenses and such other expenses as are specifically provided for in this Declaration and the By -Laws. The Board shall furnish prompt notice to Owners of all Assessments payable. 7.2.1 Allocation. Unless otherwise stipulated, all Assessments for Lots shall be levied on an equal, prorata basis with all other Lots. All Assessments for the Boat Slips shall be levied on an equal, prorata basis with all other Boat Slips. The Boat Slip Assessment shall be one half (1 /2) the Lot Assessment so that one third (1 /3) of the total Assessment shall be assessed against the Boat Slip Owners and two-thirds (2/3) shall be assessed against the Lot Owners. Should the Association be the owner of a Parcel(s), the Assessment which otherwise would be due and payable to the Association on such Parcel(s) shall be levied ratably among all of the Owners, excluding the Association. 17 7.2.2 Special Assessments. Should the Assessments prove to be insufficient to pay the costs of operation of the Association, or should any emergency arise, including, without limitation, the following: (a) reconstruction of portions of the Association Properties and (b) unexpected repairs or replacements, the Board shall have the authority to levy such additional Assessment(s) as it may deem necessary, subject to obtaining the Association Membership's approval of such Special Assessment by a majority of those Members voting at a duly called meeting of the Association at which a quorum is present. The specific purpose(s) of any Special Assessment shall be set forth in a written notice of such Assessment sent or delivered to each Owner. The funds collected pursuant to a Special Assessment shall be used only for the specific purpose(s) set forth in such notice or returned to the Owners; provided, however, that upon completion of such specific purpose(s), any excess funds shall be considered Association Surplus. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, as long as Developer owns at lease two (2) Parcels in Walker's Island, no Individual Special Assessment shall be authorized without Developer's prior written approval. Individual Special Assessments deemed to be for costs of operation primarily for the benefit of specific Parcels shall be assessed only against such Parcels. 7.2.3 Payment; Default. The Assessments levied against each Owner shall be payable at the place designated by the Association in such installments and at such time as may be determined by the Board as provided in the By -Laws. The payment of any such Assessment shall be in default if it is not paid to the Association on or before its due date. 7.3 Annual Assessments: Budget. The Board shall fix, determine and collect the sums necessary and adequate to pay for the general expenses of the Association. The Annual Assessment shall be determined by the Board based upon an estimated annual budget, which shall be prepared at least forty five (45) days prior to the commencement of the fiscal year. The Association's fiscal year shall be the calendar year beginning with the calendar year in which this Declaration is recorded in the Public Records of Monroe County. Assessments shall be payable quarterly in advance or at such other time as determined by the Board at the address designated by the Association. The payment of any Assessments shall be in default if it is not paid to the Association on or before its due date. 7.4 Special Individual Assessment. In addition to the Annual Assessment and Special Assessments, the Association may levy Special Individual Assessments to pay the costs of such items as are determined necessary or appropriate by the Board. Special Individual Assessments may be against certain Owners and in differing amounts, as necessary or appropriate. 7.5 Subordination of Liens to Mortgages. Assessment liens shall be superior to all other liens or as otherwise provided by law. 18 7.6 Certificates. The Association shall upon demand furnish to any Owner liable for said Assessments a certificate in writing by an officer of the Association, setting forth whether any or all Assessments have been paid. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence as to any Assessment therein stated to have been paid. 7.7 Liability of Developer. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, Developer shall not be liable for any Assessment imposed upon Parcels for which it is the Owner, as long as the Developer pays all deficits in operation of the Association above the Assessments and capital contributions and other sums collectible from other Owners or otherwise. Developer may, at any time and from time to time, be relieved of all obligations to fund deficits by electing, for any Assessment period or period, to pay Assessments imposed on Parcels for which it is the Owner. 7.8 Initial Assessments for New Members. Developer shall collect from every Owner at the time of closing and every such Owner, other than Developer, its successors or assigns, shall pay to the Association an amount equal to two (2) months of monthly Assessment charges to be used as working capital for the Association. The obligation to pay an initial capital Assessment shall apply to transferees from the Developer and all subsequent transferees from time to time. 8. ARTICLE 8: EFFECT OF NON-PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT REMEDIES OF ASSOCIATIM 8.1 A_aalication of Proceeds in Event of Default. In the event that a Parcel is to be sold, leased or mortgaged at a time when payment of any Assessment by the Owner shall be in default, payments shall be made by the purchaser, tenant or mortgagee, first to payments of any then delinquent Assessment or installments thereof due to the Association, before the payment of any sums to the Owner in default. 8.2 Liens• Personal Obligations. Each Owner hereby gives and grants unto the Association a lien against such Owner's Parcel for the Owner's respective share of all Assessments due the Association. The lien herein granted shall commence upon the recording of this Declaration in the Public Records of the County. Owner, for each Parcel owned by it and each other Owner, by acceptance of a deed thereto, shall be deemed to covenant and agree to pay the Association: (a) Annual Assessments; (b) Special Assessments; and (c) Special Individual Assessments. Each such Assessment, together with interest, late charges, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees, shall be a charge on the applicable Parcel and shall be a continuing lien thereon against which each such attorney's fee shall also be the personal obligation of the person(s) owning such Parcel at the time when the Assessment came due. 8.3 Liens; Enforcement. 8.3.1 Assessments which are unpaid after the due date shall bear interest at the maximum rate of interest chargeable to an individual as permitted by the law of the State of Florida. Once interest has accrued, any subsequent payment shall be applied first to payment of interest and collection costs and then to the payment of the Assessment first due. In addition, a late charge shall be due in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per month per Assessment. 19 8.3.2 Each such lien shall also secure: (i) all advances for taxes, payments on account or superior mortgages, liens or encumbrances and any other payment which the Association may pay in order to preserve and protect its lien; and (ii) all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which may be incurred by the Association in enforcing the lien upon the Parcel. 8.3.3 Institution of a suit at law to collect payment of any delinquent Assessment shall not prevent the Association from thereafter seeking enforcement of the collection by foreclosure of any sums then owing to it. 9. ARTICLE 9• ARCHITECTURAL/ LANDSCAPE CONTROL, 9.1 Members of Committee. The Architectural Control Committee, sometimes referred to in this Declaration as the "Committee", shall consist of three (3) members. The initial members of the Committee shall consist of persons designated by Developer. Each of said persons shall hold office until all Parcels planned for Walker's Island have been constructed, created and conveyed, or sooner at the option of Developer. Thereafter, each member of the Committee shall be appointed from time to time by the Directors. 9.2 Review of Proposed Construction. 9.2.1 Subject to the exemptions granted to Developer pursuant to the terms of this Declaration, no building, fence, wall or other structure or Improvement (including landscaping, trees, shrubs, vegetation and ground cover) shall be commenced, removed, altered, painted, erected or maintained in Walker's Island, nor shall any addition, change or alteration visible from the exterior of Residences be made, nor shall any awning, canopy or shutter be attached to or placed upon outside walls or roofs of buildings or other improvements, until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Committee. The Committee shall approve proposals or plans and specifications submitted for its approval only if it deems that the construction, alterations, additions or use contemplated thereby in the locations indicated will not be detrimental to the appearance of the surrounding areas of Walker's Island as a whole, and that the appearance of any structure affected thereby will be in harmony with the surrounding structures and is otherwise desirable. The "Balinese" style shall be preserved. 9.2.2 The Committee may condition its approval of proposals, plans and specifications as it deems appropriate, and may require submission of additional plans and specifications or other information prior to approving or disapproving materials submitted. The Committee may also issue rules or guidelines setting forth procedures for the submission of plans for approval. The Committee may require such detail in plans and specifications submitted for its review as it deems proper, including, without limitation, floor plans, site plans, drainage plans, elevation drawings and descriptions or samples of exterior materials and colors. Until receipt by the Committee of any required 20 plans and specifications, the Committee may postpone review of any plans submitted for approval. The Committee shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of all required materials to approve or reject any such plans, and if not approved within such 30-day period, said plans shall be deemed approved. The Committee herein shall be the ultimate deciding body and its decisions shall take precedence over all others. 9.2.3 The Committee shall have the right to promulgate such further rules and regulations as it deems necessary in order to preserve the value and appearance of Walker's Island and hereafter, to modify, alter, amend, rescind and augment any of same (collectively "Design Rules") provide that the Design Rules so promulgated shall not be in conflict with the provisions of the Declaration. Such Design Rules shall not become effective until approved by the Developer in writing so long as the Developer owns any portion of Walker's Island and thereafter the Board. 9.2.4 The Committee may adopt a schedule of reasonable fees for the processing of applications which fees shall be subject to the approval of the Board. 9.2.5 All changes and alterations shall be subject independently to all applicable governmental laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and decrees. 9.3 Meeting of the Committee. The Committee shall meet from time to time as necessary to perform its duties hereunder. The Committee may from time to time, by resolution unanimously adopted in writing, designate a Committee representative (who may, but need not, be one of its members) to take any action on or perform any duties for and on behalf of the Committee, except the granting of variances pursuant to Section 8 hereof. In the absence of such designation, the vote of any two (2) members of the Committee shall constitute an action of the Committee. 9.4 No Waiver of Future Approvals. The approval of the Committee of any proposal or plans and specifications or drawings for any work done or proposed, or in connection with any other matter requiring the approval and consent of the Committee, shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right to withhold approval or consent as to any similar proposals, plans and specifications, drawings or matters whatever subsequently or additionally submitted for approval or consent. 9.5 Variance. The Committee may authorize variances from compliance with any of the architectural provisions of this Declaration or any supplemental declaration, when circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic or environmental considerations require. Such variance must be evidenced in writing which must be signed by at least two (2) members of the Committee. If such variances are granted, no violation of the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Declaration or any supplemental declaration shall be deemed to 21 have occurred with respect to the matter for which the variance was granted. The granting of such a variance shall not, however, operate to waive any of the terms and provisions of this Declaration or of any supplemental declaration for any purpose except as to the particular Parcel and particular improvement for which the variance was granted. No Owner other than the recipient of a variance may rely on the same and if the Committee gives a variance to one (1) Owner, no other Owner is entitled to rely thereon or is entitled to secure the same or a similar variance. 9.6 Exterior Appearance and Design. The Owners of any Improvement which has suffered damage must apply for approval of the Architectural Committee for reconstruction, rebuilding, or repair of the Improvement therein. Application for such approval shall be made promptly after such damage and shall be in writing, together with full and complete plans and specification, working drawings and elevations showing the proposed reconstruction and the end result thereof. The Architectural Committee shall grant such approval only if upon completion of the work the exterior appearance and design will be substantially like that which existed prior to the date of the casualty. Failure of the Architectural Committee to act within thirty (30) days after receipt of such a request in writing together with the drawings and plot plans showing the full and complete nature of the proposed changes shall constitute approval thereof. If the obligation for repair falls upon the Association, Architectural Committee approval will not be required prior to the commencement of such work. 9.71mprovements. All improvements shall comply with all applicable minimum standards established by the Committee, building codes and zoning laws. No Improvement shall be constructed, removed, changed or installed without the Committee's prior written approval (except as hereinafter provided as to Developer). The Committee shall control not only the initial structure and improvements, landscaping, walls and fences to be constructed, but also any additions, changes or modifications thereof on any Parcel, except that all structures constructed by Developer as well as landscaping, walls and fences installed or constructed by Developer shall be deemed approved by the Committee. 9.8 Interior Modifications. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, any Owner may make alterations, changes and modification within the interior of his Parcel without obtaining the Committee's consent. 9.9 Maintenance of improvements. All Improvements shall be kept in a clean, neat and attractive condition consistent with the general appearance of Walker's Island and in conformity with the terms and conditions of this Declaration and all rules and regulations hereinafter adopted by the Association. 9.10 Maintenance and Repair. 9.10.1 By Owners. Each Owner agrees to: (a) maintain in good condition and repair (1) all landscaping within the requirements of the Design Guidelines to the extent not maintained by the Association, (2) individual pools and spas and (3) structural components of the Owner's Improvements and exterior 22 surfaces such as walls, floors, screens, windows, doors, gutters, downspouts and roofs and to replace such items, when necessary. The Association shall have the right, at its discretion, to make such maintenance or repair, if the Owner fails to do so following thirty (30) days written notice, or written notice of a shorter duration in the event of an emergency situation, and to charge the Owner for the costs of the same. If the Association charges an Owner for such repairs or maintenance by way of Special Individual Assessment or otherwise, and the Owner fails to make prompt payment, the Association shall be entitled to place a lien against that Owner's Parcel and proceed as provided in Article 8 hereof. An Owner shall also be liable for the expense of any maintenance, repair or replacement made necessary by his act or negligence or by that of any member of his family or his or their guests, invitees, employees, agents or lessees, but only to the extent that expense is not met by the proceeds of insurance carried by the Association and then conditioned on the extent of the right of subrogation of the Association's insurer. 9.10.2 By the Association. The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all of the Association Property, all conduits, ducts, plumbing, wiring and other facilities for the furnishing of utility and other services to more than one Parcel, including, without limitation, the operation and maintenance of the Surface Water Management System (including all swales) as shown in Exhibit 3, and the internal roadway sewer infrastructure and common areas as depicted in Exhibit 2, the cost and expense thereof shall be charged to all Parcel Owners as an Association Expense. Should any incidental damage be caused to any Parcel by virtue of any work which may be done or caused to be done by the Association in the maintenance, repair, or replacement of Association Property, the Association, shall, at its expense, repair such incidental damage. The costs of such maintenance of the Association Property shall be apportioned and allocated on the same basis as the Assessments as set forth in Section 7.2.1. However, to the extent such maintenance, repairs or replacements are necessitated by the negligence, misuse or neglect of an Owner, his family, guests, or invitees, such costs shall be assessed against his Parcel as a Special Individual Assessment and paid by the Owner. In the event of any dispute among the Owners regarding the costs of repair, maintenance or restoration of the Association Property the Owner hereby designates the Board of Directors as arbiters of such dispute, whose decision shall be binding and conclusive upon them. In the event that one of such Owners is a Director, he shall stand down from such office during the hearing on a decision in the dispute. Whenever it is necessary to enter any Parcel for maintenance, alteration or repair to any portion of the Association Properties, each Owner shall permit other Owners or their representatives, or the Association's fully constituted and authorized 23 agent, to enter such Parcel for such purpose, provided that such entry shall be made only at reasonable times and with reasonable notice. 10. ARTICLE 10: PARTICULAR USE RESTRICTIONS RULES AND REGULATIONS 10.1 Aonlicability_ The provisions of this Article shall apply to Walker's Island, but shall not apply to Developer, any of its affiliates, contractors or subcontractors. If requested by any interested party, Developer shall give a written statement as to whether any particular person or entity shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article and to which Parcels and for what period of time such exemption shall exist. 10.2 Nuisances. No noxious, offensive or unlawful activity shall be carried on within Walker's Island nor shall anything be done in Walker's Island which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to other Owners. 10.3 Signs. No sign of any kind shall be permitted on the Association Property or any Parcel; nor shall any sign be permitted that is visible from the outside of a dwelling; provided, however, one "for -sale" sign or one "owner's name" sign, shall be permitted but such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Developer shall be entitled to place signs of such size and design as Developer shall determine upon any Parcel to advertise for sale or other purposes. 10.4 Parking and Vehicular Restrictions. Parking in Walker's Island shall be restricted to the Lots and specifically designated parking spaces within the Association Property. Except for temporary purposes in order to service Parcels or the Association Property, no person shall park, store or keep on any portion of Walker's Island any recreational vehicles, large commercial -type vehicle (for example, dump truck, cement mixer truck, oil or gas truck, delivery truck), nor may any person keep any other vehicle, including boat trailers on the Association Property which is deemed to be a nuisance by the Board. No person shall conduct repairs (except in an emergency) or restorations of any motor vehicle within Walker's Island. All vehicles shall be subject to other rules and regulations now or hereafter adopted by the Association. Boat trailers may only be stored underneath a Residence and shall not be visible from the Association Property. Only one (1) golf cart is permitted, per Residence and must be parked within the Residence. All boat trailers must be parked within a Residence so as not to be visible from the Common Elements. 10.5 Animal Restriction. No livestock, reptiles or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on Walker's Island. Pets shall be prohibited from all portions of the Association Properties except where designated by the Association. All pets must be controlled by Owners in strict accordance with rules and regulations to be enacted from time to time, by the Board. 10.6 Garbage Refuse and Sewage Disposal. No portion of Walker's Island shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash and garbage shall not be kept except in sanitary containers or as required by the Association or the applicable County ordinances. All equipment for the storage or disposal of such 24 material shall be kept in clean and sanitary condition. No individual sewage disposal system shall be permitted in Walker's Island. 10.7 Temporary, Play and Auxiliary Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, shack, shed, barn or other outbuilding shall be built, installed or used in Walker's Island at any time. No platform, tent, doghouse, playhouse or similar structure shall be constructed in any part of Walker's Island without the Committee's prior written approval. No outdoor clotheslines shall be permitted. No building, fence, screen enclosure, wall or other structure shall be erected or maintained, nor shall any exterior addition, change or alteration thereof be made, unless consistent with the general aesthetics of Walker's Island and unless and until plans and specifications show the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, color and location of the same shall have been submitted and approved in writing by the Committee. 10.8 Alterations. No Improvement shall be altered or constructed in or removed from Walker's Island except upon the written consent of the Committee. Interior alterations, modifications and improvements may be made without approval or input of the Committee. 10.9 Exterior Antennas. To the extent permitted by law and as otherwise approved by the Board, no exterior radio antenna, television antenna or other antenna of any type shall be erected or maintained. 10.10 Insurance Rates. Nothing shall be done or kept within any Parcel or Association Properties which will increase the rate of insurance on any properties insured by the Association without the approval of the Board, nor shall anything be done or kept within Parcels, or on the Association Properties which would result in the cancellation of insurance on any property insured by the Association or which would be in violation of any law. in the event that an Owner does anything to increase the rate of insurance, said Owner shall be responsible for payment of the increased amount as a Special Individual Assessment in accordance with the terms hereof. 10.11 Drillin . No oil drilling, oil development operations, oil refining, quarrying or mining operations of any kind shall be permitted in or on Walker's Island, nor shall oil wells, tanks, tunnels or mineral excavations or shafts be permitted. No derrick or other structure designed for the use in boring for water, oil, natural gas or minerals shall be erected, maintained or permitted on or around Walker's Island. 10.12 Maintenance of Walker's Island. No weeds, underbrush, or other unsightly growth shall be permitted to grow or remain upon the property within Walker's Island and no refuse or unsightly objects shall be allowed to be placed or suffered to remain upon the property within Walker's Island. All lawns, landscaping and sprinkler systems and any property, structure, improvement and appurtenance shall be kept in good, safe, clean, neat and attractive condition. During the course of construction of any kind within Walker's Island, the owner of the property upon which such construction work is being done shall store all construction materials, 25 including equipment and vehicles, supervise all construction personnel and manage all phases of the construction in a manner reasonably designed to minimize traffic congestion, dust, noise, and other similar distractions, disturbances and inconveniences. Excepted from the foregoing shall be any portion of the property within Walker's Island owned by Developer or its nominee through the period of construction of Residences or other buildings or structures thereon. Upon the failure to maintain the premises as aforesaid to the satisfaction of Developer or the Association, and upon the Association's, or an Owner's failure to make such correction within thirty (30) days of being given written notice by Developer or the Association (which written notice does not have to be given by Developer or Association in the case of emergency, in which event, Developer or Association may without any prior notice directly remedy the problem), Developer or the Association may, in furtherance of Developer's overall plan for the development and uniform appearance of Walker's Island, enter upon such premises and make such improvements or correction as may be necessary, the costs of which shall be paid by the Association or Owner having responsibility for such condition, as the case may be, or Developer or the Association may being an action at law or in equity. Such entry by Developer or the Association or their agents shall not be a trespass and, by acceptance of a deed for a Parcel, such party has expressly given Developer and the Association the continuing permission to do so, which permission may not be revoked. If any Owner or the Association fails to make payment within fifteen (15) days after request to do so by Developer or Association, as appropriate, the payment requested shall be a lien in accordance with the Special Assessment provisions hereof. 10.13 Maintenance by the Owner. The responsibility of each Owner to keep his Parcel in compliance with standards promulgated by the Architectural Control Committee of the Board shall be as follows: 10.13.1 To maintain, protect, repair and replace, at his own cost and expense, all portions of the Owner's Parcel (including the area lying directly beneath the Residence) together with all improvements including pool, spas, landscaping, and equipment located thereon, except any portions to be maintained, repaired and replaced by the Association. Such maintenance, protection, repair and replacement shall be done without disturbing the rights of the other Owners; 10.13.2 Not to modify or change the appearance or design of any portion of the exterior of any Parcel without the prior written approval of the Association; and 10.13.3 To report promptly to the Association any defect or need for repairs, maintenance or replacements for which the Association or other association is responsible. 10.14 Use of Land. No improvement or any portion of Walker's Island shall be used for any purpose other than residential; provided, however that temporary uses 26 by Developer, its affiliates and designees for model homes, sales displays, parking lots, sales offices and other offices, or any combination of such uses shall be permitted until Developer shall determine that such use is no longer needed. No more than one dwelling structure may be constructed on a Parcel. 10.15 Exterior Colors. The exterior colors of all Improvements shall remain the colors initially established by Developer, unless approved by the Committee. 10.16 Recreational Vehicles. No recreational vehicles shall be parked within Walker's Island or within any Parcel. 10.17 Laundry. No balcony, porch or other exterior portions of a Parcel or Lot shall be used for the purpose of drying of laundry or other items. 10.18 Fences. No fencing of any kind, either permanent or temporary, shall be constructed without the prior written approval of the Committee (such approval being based upon rules and regulations as it may adopt from time to time). 11. ARTICLE 1 1 - CABLE AND TELEVISION SYSTEM 11.1 Installation. The Developer and thereafter the Association may, but is not obligated to, construct or install over, under, across and upon any portion of Walker's Island for the use of the Owners, a cable television, satellite and/or internet access system (the "System"), the scope, extent, size and the location shall be determined solely by the Developer (and thereafter Association) together have a perpetual and exclusive right and privilege of ingress and egress thereto for installing, construction, inspecting, maintaining, altering, moving, improving and replacing the facilities and equipment constituting the System, including, without limitation, any dishes, conduits, wires, cables, lines, panels, boxes, housings, connections, insulators and amplifiers necessary or desirable to receive and distribute services of the System. 11.2 System Services. The Association shall have the right to enter contracts for the exclusive provision of the System as the Board shall deem, in its sole discretion, to be in the best interests of the Owners. The contract may provide that the basic System shall be mandatory for all Owners. The Association shall impose, along with Common Expense Assessments and its regular maintenance Assessments, against each Parcel, the amount of the basic fees due and payable for the System. 12. ARTICLE 12 - DEVELOPER RIGHTS RESERVATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS 12.1 Developer's Rights. Developer hereby reserves to itself, and the grantee of any Parcel or other property within Walker's Island hereby agrees, by acceptance of a deed of conveyance thereto, that Developer shall have the following rights, without notice or approval, so long as Developer owns any Lot or Boat Slip: 12.1.1 The right to vacate or withdraw any area of any portion of the Association Properties subject to this Declaration, provided that Developer owns all property which is to be vacated or withdrawn from this Declaration. The invalidization or unenforceability of this right shall in no way affect the enforceability of the other covenants and restrictions contained in this Article, 27 this Declaration or any supplemental declaration. Any such invalidation and unenforceability shall cause this reservation of right to be void; 12.1.2 The right to establish easements for itself and others over any portion of the Association which is owned by Developer, including, that portion of the property decided as Association Properties; 12.1.3 The right to convey, in whole or in part, any easements granted in favor of Developer, as created in this Declaration or as recorded in the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida, which pertain to Walker's Island; 12.1.4 The right, for any reason, to make changes, amendments, supplements or modifications to any or all of the covenants, restrictions, easements, reservations, agreements, documents or instruments affecting the Association Property, Walker's Island, or any portion thereof, whether recorded, or unrecorded, as Developer, its successors and assigns, may deem reasonable, necessary appropriate or convenient, provided that any one of the foregoing single or taken collectively will not materially adversely affect the Parcel of any Owner. The foregoing shall not restrict or limit Developer or its successors' and assigns' ability to amend, modify or supplement this Declaration as herein otherwise provided; 12.1.5 The right to maintain a sales office in Walker's Island, including without limitation, a sales office on a portion of the Association Properties, and to erect signs and to conduct sales throughout Walker's Island; 12.1.6 The right to appoint the members of the Architectural Control Committee for such time as Developer owns any property in Walker's Island; 12.1.7 The right to conduct the development, marketing and sale of property in Walker's Island owned by Developer or any third party whom Developer may so contract to provide such services; 12.1.8 An irrevocable power of attorney, coupled with an interest, of all Owners in favor of Developer, for as long as Developer owns any portion of the Association Property or an Parcel within Walker's Island, to exercise any of the foregoing or other rights or discharge any of the foregoing or other obligations which may be set forth therein for the benefit of Developer or as an obligation of any Owner. This owner of attorney shall be self -operative and shall not require any additional instruments to effectuate same. An Owner, by acceptance of a deed, thereby acknowledges and confirms (and, to the extent required, grants) the power of attorney set forth herein; and 12.1.9 An irrevocable designation and appointment of Developer, its successors and assigns, by each Owner, as such Owner's attorney -in -fact, to execute and deliver any application for approval, platting, consents, amendments, variances or other documents or instructions as Developer, its successors and assigns, may from time to time request. The foregoing power -of -attorney, designation and appointment shall be coupled with an interest, shall be self -operative and shall not request any additional 28 instrument to effect same; provided, however, that same shall be limited in time and duration to a period of ten (10) years from and after the date that the initial Owner, other than Developer or an affiliate of Developer, takes title to a Parcel from Developer. 12.2 Veto Power. Developer hereby expressly reserves to itself, and each grantee of any Parcel hereby agrees, by acceptance of a deed of conveyance thereto, that Developer shall have the right to veto any or all of the following events so long as Developer owns any Parcel: 12.2.1 Any matter adversely affecting Developer or its interests; 12.2.2 Construction of improvements approved by the Association; T 2.2.3 Construction of any dune or access way approved by the Association; 12.2.4 Association approval which permits the conduct of any commercial enterprise within Walker's Island; T 2.2.5 Any or all Association budgets, annual or otherwise which constitute an increase or reduction of fifteen percent (15%) over the prior year's (or other applicable interval) budget; 12.2.6 Approval of any plans or specifications for any structure made by the Architectural Control Committee; 12.2.7 Attempted resubdivision of the Association Property or any party thereof; 12.2.8 Any attempted dissolution or termination of the Association; 7 2.2.9 Attempted amendment of this Declaration, Articles, and By -Laws, or any supplementary declaration of protective covenants and restrictions; 12.2.10 Any management contract entered into by the Association or Board; 12.2.1 1 The creation of any Special Assessments by the Association; 12.2.12 Any capital improvement Assessments by the Association; 12.2.13 Any settlement of any claim made by Association to collect upon any policy of casualty insurance which insures the Association Properties; and 12.2.14 Any attempted cancellation or reduction of insurance coverage insuring all or any part of Walker's Island. 12.3 Right to Alter Association Properties. Developer hereby reserves the right, in its sole discretion, as follows: 12.3.1 To alter all or any portion of the Association Properties to which Developer holds title; and 12.3.2 To mortgage all or any portion of the Association Properties to which Developer holds title; provided that the Association Properties shall be free of mortgages at time of conveyance to the Association. 13. ARTICLE 13 - DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION TO ASSOCIATION PROPERTIES 13.1 Damage to or destruction of all or any portion of the Association Properties shall be handled in the following manner, notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary. 29 13.1.1 In the event of damage to or destruction of the Association Properties, if the insurance proceeds are sufficient to effect total restoration, then the Association shall cause such Association Properties to be repaired and reconstructed substantially as it previously existed; and 13.1.2 If the insurance proceeds are not sufficient to effect total restoration to the Association Properties, then the Association shall cause such Association Properties to be repaired and reconstructed substantially as it previously existed and the difference between the insurance proceeds and the actual cost shall be levied as a Reconstruction Assessment against each of the Owners. 14, ARTICLE 14 - INSURANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION 14.1 Responsibility to Insure Improvements. Each Owner shall insure the Improvements owned by such Owner. Insurance coverage for the Parcels shall include all -perils, including, without limitation, hazard, fire windstorm and flood. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the Owner. Insurance for each Parcel shall be in an amount equal to the full "replacement" value thereof. The term "replacement value" means one hundred (100%) percent of the then current replacement costs, exclusive of land, items of personal property and other items normally excluded from such coverage. The Association shall be named as an additional named insured on each Owner's policy covering the Boat Slip(s). 14.2 Owner's Liability Insurance. Each Owner shall be liable for injuries or damages resulting from an accident in his own Parcel, to the same extent that a homeowner would be liable for an accident occurring within his house. Each Owner may, at his own expense, obtain insurance coverage against personal liability for injury to the personal property of another while within such Owner's Parcel. No Owner shall be liable personally for any damages caused by the Association in connection with the use of the Association Properties. 14.3 Requirements Concerning Owner's Insurance. All such insurance obtained by an Owner shall, wherever available, state that the insurer waives its right of subrogation as to any claims against: (a) other Owners; (b) the Association; and (c) the respective servants, agents and guests of other Owners. 14.4 Reconstruction of Residences. in the event of loss or damage to a Residence, the Owner, with all due diligence, shall repair, replace and restore such damaged or destroyed portions of the Residence to a condition as good as that before such loss or damage; (a) in accordance with the original plans and specifications for the Residence; or (b) as the Residence was last constructed; or (c) in accordance with the plans approved by the Committee. If the Owner shall refuse or fail to commence repair, replace or restore his Residence within one hundred eighty (180) days, or the Association may repair, replace or restore the Residence and charge the Owner for the cost of such work. The Association shall have a lien on the Lot to secure reimbursement of such cost. 14.5 Association's Casualty Insurance. The Association shall maintain casualty insurance covering all insurable improvements within the Association Properties, in 30 accordance with the original plans and specifications, in an amount not less than 100% of the replacement value thereof (subject to reasonable deductible clauses), excluding foundation and excavation costs, all as determined annually by the Board. Such coverage shall afford protection against: (a) loss or damage by fire and other hazards covered by a standard extended coverage endorsement; and (b) such other risks as from time to time shall be customarily covered with respect to buildings similar in construction, location and use, including, but not limited to, vandalism and malicious mischief. 14.6 Association's Liability Insurance. The Association shall maintain comprehensive general public liability and automobile liability insurance covering loss or damage resulting from accidents or occurrences on or about or in connection with Walker's Island or adjoining driveways and walkways, or any work, matters or things related to Walker's Island or to this Declaration and its exhibits, with such coverage as shall be required by the Board, but with combined single limit liability of not les that $1,000,000.00 for each accident or occurrence, $300,00.00 per person and $50,000.00 property damage, and with cross liability endorsement to cover liabilities of the Owners as a group to a Owner and vice versa. 14.7 Association' Workers' Compensation Insurance. The Association shall maintain workers' compensation insurance to meet the requirements of law. 14.8 Other Types of Insurance. The Association also shall maintain: 14.8.1 Fidelity insurance covering all officers and employees of the Association; 14.8.2 Directors' liability insurance, if obtainable, with limits of $300,000.00; and 14.8.3 Such other insurance as the Board shall determine from time to time to be necessary and proper. 14.9 Insurer's Waives. When appropriate and obtainable each of the foregoing policies shall waive the insurer's right to: (a) subrogation against the Association and against the Owners individually and as a group; (b) pay only a fraction of any loss if other insurance carriers have issued coverage upon the same risk; and (c) avoid liability for a loss that is caused by an act of the Board or by one or more Owners. 14.10 Purchase of Association's Insurance. All authorized insurance for the Association Properties shall be purchased by the Association. The cost of the insurance shall be a Common Expense, as shall be any other fees and expenses incurred which may be necessary or incidental to carrying out the provisions hereof, except that the amount of increase in any premium occasioned by misuse, occupancy or abandonment of a Parcel or its appurtenances by a Owner shall be assessed against such Owner. Each policy shall be issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in Florida and with an office or agent located in the County. 31 14.1 1 Named insured. The named insured shall be the Association individually and as agent for Owners and their mortgagees covered by the policy, without naming them. 14.12 Damage to Association Properties.. All proceeds from insurance policies insuring Association Properties shall be paid to the Association. 14.13 Association as Agent. The Association is hereby irrevocably appointed agent for each Owner and mortgagee to adjust all claims arising under insurance policies purchased by the Association to insure the Association Properties and to execute and deliver releases upon the payment of claims. 14.14 Determination to Reconstruct or Repair. The Association shall be responsible for reconstruction and repair after casualty loss or damage to the Association Properties and the Boat Slips. 14.15 Plans and Specifications. Any reconstruction or repair of any of the Association Properties must either be: (a) substantially in accordance with the original plans and specifications for the original improvements; or (b) according to plans and specifications approved by the Committee. 15. ARTICLE 15 - ENCROACHMENTS AND EASEMENTS 15.1 Easements in General. If any grant of any easement in this Declaration would otherwise fail by virtue of the nonexistence of the grantee thereof as of the date of this Declaration, then the Association automatically shall be deemed to be the attorney -in -fact for such grantee to hold the interest created by such grant of easement until such grantee shall come into existence, at which time the interest created by such grant of easement automatically shall become vested in such grantee. The Association Properties shall be subject to a perpetual non-exclusive easement in favor of each Parcel, which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with title for all purpose including ingress and egress. 15.2 Easements for Public and Private Utility Facilities Drainage and Access. Developer hereby reserves for itself, its successors and assigns, such perpetual easements as are necessary and required over, under, upon and/or through the Property for ingress, egress and access to and the installation construction, operation, alterations, expansion, repair, replacement and maintenance of utilities, cable television, drainage facilities and roadways for ingress and egress. This reservation hereby grants to the utility entities and the Developer (so long as Developer is constructing, repairing or relocating utilities and facilities appurtenant thereto in aid of construction of the property) the right of ingress, egress and access to and the right to construct, install, operate, alter, expand, replace and maintain such utilities, cable television, drainage facilities and roadways for ingress and egress within any part of the Property, provided, however, use of such easements and improvements shall not unreasonably interfere with the use of the Property for the purposes intended for the Parcels. In order to accomplish the foregoing, each portion of the Property shall have an easement in common with all other portions thereof to use, maintain, repair, alter or replace all pipes, wires, 32 ducts, vents, cables, conduits utility lines, sanitary sewers, storm drains, water lines, manholes, lift stations, pumping stations and similar or related facilities located within the Property and serving such portion or portions. Each portion of the property shall be subject to an easement in favor of all other portions thereof to use, maintain repair, alter and replace the pipes, wires, ducts, vents, cables, conduits, utility lines sanitary sewers, storm drains, water lines, manholes, lift stations, pumping stations and other similar or related facilities located in such portion of the Property and serving other portions thereof. Independent of the foregoing rights, Developer, its successors or assigns, and Association are hereby granted the additional right to grant such additional easements or relate existing easements throughout the Property as Developer or Association may deem necessary and desirable provided that such additional easements or relation of easements do not unreasonably interfere in the use of the Property for the purposes so intended, and further provided that in the event of a conflict in decisions between Developer and Association the Developer's decision shall control until such time as all Parcels have been constructed and transferred by Developer to third -party Owners. Easements are reserved under, through and over the Association Properties as may be required from time to time for sewer, utility and drainage in order to serve the Condominium or Association. A Parcel Owner shall do nothing within or outside its Parcel that interferes with or impairs, or may interfere with or impair, the provision of such sewer utility or drainage facilities or the use of these easements. The Association shall have a right of access to each Parcel to maintain, repair or replace any Association Properties, including, without limitation pipes, sewer lines, drainage lines and other components of the Association Properties, if any, with the requirement of giving of notice to Parcel Owners. 15.3 Easements for Maintenance. Easements are hereby reserved in favor of the Association under, upon, across, through and over all portions of Walker's Island for the purpose, as deemed necessary by the Association for preserving and maintaining the land, Parcels and carrying out its responsibilities under this Declaration; provided, however that all such activity shall be undertaken in a manner so as to minimize interference with any Owner's use of his property. Where any land, including any Improvement thereon, ("the Servient Estate") shall abut an adjacent lot line ("the Dominant Estate"), then the Owner of the Dominant Estate shall have an easement over the Servient Estate, which easement shall only be to the extent necessary and in any event not to exceed four (4) feet wide contiguous to the interior property line running from the front to the rear property line of the Servient Estate for the purpose of entry upon ad ingress and egress through the Servient Estate with persons, materials and equipment to the extent reasonably necessary in the performance of maintenance, repair, replacement of any of the Improvements or permitted by the Association. 33 15.4 Easement for Pedestrians and Vehicles: In addition to the general easements for use of the Association Properties reserved herein, there shall be, and the Developer hereby reserves and covenants for itself and all Owners with Walker's Island that each and every Owner, and Developer and their respective licenses, invitees, grantees, successors and assigns as permitted by Association, shall have, a non-exclusive easement appurtenant for pedestrian and vehicular traffic over, through and across all pedestrian and vehicular access ways with the Association Properties, subject to the parking provisions of this Developer. The Association and any Member which is requested to join in the grant of any such easement shall be obligated to execute any such instrument as may be requested of it from time to time to affect such grant of easement. 15.5 Easements for Public and Private Utility Uses. In addition to the foregoing easements affecting the Association Properties, there shall be, and Developer hereby grants perpetual easements for public, Federal State, County, City and private utility and other services, including, but not limited to, the right of the police to enter upon, pass over and across any part of the Association Properties for the purpose of enforcing the law or maintaining security, and the right of all lawful emergency vehicles, equipment and persons in connection therewith to enter upon, pass over and across all portions of the property to service the Developer, Owners, residents and all Improvements and the right of all public and private utility companies to install, construct, operate, alter, expand, repair, replace and maintain their equipment and facilities in areas designated for such purposes. Independent of the foregoing rights, Developer, its successors or assigns, and Association are hereby granted the additional right to grant such additional easements or relocate existing easements throughout the Property as Developer or Association may deem necessary and desirable provided that such additional easements or relocation of easements do not unreasonably interfere in these of the Property for the purpose so intended, and further provided that in the event of a conflict in decisions between Developer and Association, the Developer's decision shall control until such time as all Parcels have been constructed and transferred by Developer to third party Owners. The Association has the irrevocable right of access to each Parcel during reasonable hours, when necessary for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of any Association Properties or of any portion of a Parcel to be maintained by the Association pursuant to this Declaration or as necessary to prevent damage to the Association Properties, including, without limitation, the Surface Water Management System and the Main Sewer Line. When required for such maintenance, repair or replacement, the Association shall have the irrevocable right to remove any property within a Parcel for the purpose of gaining accessibility to the Main Sewer Line to be maintained, repaired or replaced. No Parcel Owner shall commit or allow to be committed any act within or without its parcel which would interfere with or impair any right of the utility provider, using the easements granted herein. 34 15.6 Easements for Access. Repair and Maintenance. Developer reserves unto itself, and its successors and assigns, perpetual non-exclusive easements of ingress and egress over and across the access ways existing from time to time in Walker's Island, and perpetual non-exclusive easement to enter upon, over, under or through all portions of the Property for the purpose of maintaining, repairing and replacing the Residences and the Association Properties which easements shall be for the use of Developer, Association (and its and their respective successors and assigns), Owners, and their respective lessees, employees, agents, invitees, and licensees. Developer hereby expressly retains the right to grant easements and rights to the public through, over, under and upon the Association Properties and other property with Walker's Island and to grant easements and rights to such municipal and governmental authorities as required from time to time, including without limitation water management agencies. 15.7 Emergency Access, The Association shall have the right, privilege and license to enter upon any Parcel and upon and across the Association Properties for the purpose of effecting any emergency repairs to that same Parcel or to any other Parcel and/or exterior portion of any improvement thereon and/or to any Association Properties and to do such other maintenance and repairs as shall be reasonably necessary for the proper maintenance of the same Parcel or of any other Parcel or of the Association Properties abutting such Parcel, to the extent permitted under this Declaration. 15.8 Easement for Construction and Sales. Developer (and its agents, realtors, salespersons, employees, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers) shall have an easement of ingress and egress over, under and across the Association Properties for construction purposes and to erect, maintain, repair and replace, from time to time, signs on the Association Properties for the purposes of advertising and sale and/or lease of Parcels or Lots and for the operation of any permitted enterprise with Walker's Island. In the event of such construction, portions of the Association Properties may be shut off from general access and use, and noise, dust and other disturbances will be likely. All Owners hereby agree that such disturbances have been accepted by them and they waive any and all claims or objections as a result of or in relation to such disturbances. No liability shall be assumed by Developer by reason of the foregoing. 16. ARTICLE 16 - MARINA 16.1 Operation of Marina. The use, operation, maintenance and upkeep of the Marina and Boat Slips shall be governed by the following provisions, as well as the terms of Section 18.2 below and such other requirements as may be promulgated, amended or modified from time to time by the Association. 16.1.1 The Association shall have the right to establish from time to time such rules and regulations, including, without reservation procedures, for use of the Marina and the Boat Slips therein. 35 16.1 .2 Developer, for so long as it controls the Board, shall have the right to change or alter the design, layout, construction and appurtenances of the Marina and Boat Slips and/or the right to expand and/or eliminate the Marina (or portions thereof), including the addition and/or elimination of Boat Slips; provided that Developer secures the prior approval from the SFWMD and/or the ERP permit no. ______ is modified 16.1.3 Each Boat Slip user agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Developer, the Association and their respective agents, representatives and employees, from and against any claims, causes of action, litigation expenses, damage or loss that may be claimed by any person due to damage, loss, theft, vandalism or destruction of a boat or its contents which was berthed in a Boat Slip, except for the gross negligence or malicious wanton act of the Association or its agents, representatives and/or employees. Such indemnification shall include without limitation attorneys' fees incurred at or before trial and appellate levels, litigation and court costs and expenses and investigation expenses of Developer, the Association and their respective agents, representatives and employees; and 16.1.4 Each Boat Slip owner shall obtain, maintain and pay for a liability insurance policy approved by the Association naming Developer (so long as the Developer owns any Unit) and the Association as additional insured, whereby the insurance company agrees to pay for any and all damage or destruction or loss to persons and property in or about the Marina caused by the upkeep, maintenance, use or operation of such user's Vessel or Boat Slip. The minimum required insurance coverage shall be established by the Association, and the amount of such minimum required coverage shall at all times be commercially reasonable. Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, neither the Association, the Board, nor the Developer shall have the obligation to assure that each Boat Slip user maintains the required insurance. 16.2 Use of the Marina. 16.2.1 Only pleasure and leisure Vessels in seaworthy condition and under their own power may be moored in the Marina. Further, no more than one (1) Vessel may be moored in a Boat Slip; provided, however, that dinghy or other small craft may be stored with the Vessel. All operators of the Vessels shall observe all posted speed limits and other rules when in the waters abutting the Condominium Property. Vessels shall at all times comply, and be operated in compliance, with all applicable Association, County, State and Federal laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the operation of watercraft. 16.2.2 No vessel may be used as a residence (whether temporarily or permanently) and as such no persons shall be permitted to live aboard, or stay overnight on, a Vessel. 36 16.2.3 Owners are solely responsible for the proper mooring of their Vessels and are required to maintain mooring lines in good condition and sufficiently strong to secure their Vessels at all times. Any special mooring rules or procedures issued by the Association shall be complied with at all times. No one may install a boat lift for the dry storage of Vessels, nor shall dry storage of Vessels be permitted by any other means whatsoever. 16.2.4 During hurricanes and other high velocity wind threats, each owner of a Vessel in the Marina shall be responsible for following all safety precautions that may be issued or recommended by the National Hurricane Center, National Weather Service, U.S. Coast Guard, the Association or any other applicable agency, which may include, without limitation, removal of Vessels from the Marina. If a Vessel sinks as a result of a storm or for any other reason, the Vessel must be removed from the Marina immediately after the occurrence of such event and, if not so removed within three (3) hours after the sinking, the Association may (but shall not be obligated to) remove the same and charge the Vessel owner for the cost of said removal. Each Vessel owner shall be deemed to automatically agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Association, its agents, employees and designees for and from any and all loss or damages incurred in connection with the exercise or non -exercise of the Association's rights hereunder, unless such loss or damage is proximately caused by any of the aforesaid parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. If a Vessel owner plans to be absent during the hurricane season, such Vessel owner must prepare his or her Boat Slip and secure or remove, as appropriate, his or her Vessel prior to departure in accordance with the standard established by the Board of Directors of the Association (or in the absence thereof, with all due care), designate a responsible firm or individual to care for his or her Boat Slip and Vessel should there be a hurricane or other storm, and furnish the Association with the name(s), address and telephone number of such firm or individual. The Vessel owner shall be liable for any and all damages caused to the Association Properties or to the Boat Slips, Vessels, the Marina or other property of other Owners for such Owner's improper preparation or failure of removal, as the case may be, of his or her Boat Slip and Vessel for hurricanes and other storms. Notwithstanding the right of the Association to enforce the foregoing requirements, the Association shall not be liable to any Vessel owner or other person or entity for any damage to persons or property caused by a Vessel owner's failure to comply with such requirements. 16.2.5 Due to the depth of the water leading into the Marina, no Vessel having a draft greater than 3.0' may enter into the Marina and the maximum size of a Vessel permitted to enter into the Marina is 34' in length. 16.2.6 Each Vessel, including any extensions or overhangs from the Vessel, must be fully contained within the assigned Boat Slips. 37 16.2.7 The Association shall have the right (but not the obligation) to inspect any Vessel in the Marina to determine its seaworthiness, cleanliness and compliance with all applicable County, State and Federal fires, safety and other regulations, as well as to determine whether the Vessel fits within the applicable Boat Slip. The Association shall have the right (but shall not be required) to remove any Vessel from the Marina which fails to comply with said regulations or fails to fit within the applicable Boat Slip. Each Vessel owner shall be deemed to automatically agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Association, its agents, employees and designees for and from any and all loss or damage incurred in connection with the exercise or non -exercise of the Association's rights hereunder, unless such loss or damage is proximately caused by any of the aforesaid parties' gross negligence or willful misconduct. 16.2.7 Notwithstanding anything in this Declaration to the contrary, Developer and/or the Association may permit police, U.S. Coast Guard and similar watercraft to tie-up to and be kept on any portion(s) of the Marina. 16.3 SFWMD Permits and Easement Right of Enforcement. The SFWMD has the right to take enforcement action, including civil action for an injunction and penalties, against the Association to compel it to correct any outstanding problems with the permitted facilities, mitigation or conservation easement areas under the responsibility or control of the Association. 17. ARTICLE 17 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 17.1 Negligence and Compliance. An Owner and/or tenant of a parcel shall be liable for the expense of any maintenance, repair or replacement made necessary by the Owner's negligence or by that of any member of the Owner's family or the Owner's guests, employees, agents, invitees or lessees, but only to the extent such expense in not met by the proceeds of insurance actually collected in respect of such negligence by the Association. In the event a Owner, tenant or occupant fails to maintain a Residence, or Boat Slip, fails to observe and perform all of the provisions of the Declaration, the By-laws, the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, applicable rules and regulations, or any other agreement, document or instrument affecting the Association Property or administered by the Association, in the manner required, the Association shall have the right to proceed in equity to require performance and/or compliance, to impose any applicable fines in accordance with, and sue at law for damages, and to charge the Owner for the sums necessary to do whatever work is required to put the Owner or Residence in compliance provided, however, that nothing contained in this Subsection 17.1 shall authorize the Association to enter a Unit to enforce compliance. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner, a tenant or the Association to comply with this Declaration, the exhibits annexed hereto, or the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to said documents, as the same may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the 38 proceeding and such reasonable attorneys' fees (include appellate attorneys' fees). An Owner prevailing in an action with the Association, in addition to recovering his or her reasonable attorneys' fees, may recover additional amounts as determined by the court to be necessary to reimburse the Owner for his or her share of Assessments levied by the Association to fund its expenses of the litigation. 17.2 Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who owns, occupies or acquires any right, title, estate or interest in or to any Parcel, or other portion of Walker's Island shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every limitation, restriction, easements, reservations, condition an covenant contained herein, whether or not any reference hereto is contained herein, whether or not any referenced hereto is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in such Parcel or other property within Walker's Island. 17.3 Duration. The covenant, conditions and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the Land and Parcels in Walker's Island and shall be enforceable by the Association or any Owner, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, for the term of thirty (30) years from the date this Declaration shall be recorded ("the Initial Term"), after which time said covenants shall be extended automatically for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless this Declaration shall be terminated at the end of the initial Term or prior to a successive ten 0 0) year period with the consent of not less than seventy-five (75%) percent of the Owners, in which event an instrument to this effect shall be recorded in the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida, subject, however, to Developer's rights as set forth in this Declaration. 17.4 Amendments. This Declaration may be amended by Developer unilaterally from time to time and at any time and without the joinder of any Owner: (a) to accomplish any of the purpose or objectives set forth in this Declaration; and/or (b) to correct any scrivener's errors. This Declaration also may be amended with the written consent not less than sixty-seven (67%) percent of the Owners of Parcels in Walker's Island; provided, however, that no amendment shall be enforceable against Developer so long as Developer owns any Lot or Boat Slip within Walker's Island, unless Developer has consented in writing to such an amendment, and (c) no amendment shall materially and adversely affect any provisions granting easements or permitting encroachments. 17.5 Covenant Running with the Land. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of this Declaration shall be covenants running with the land. If any provision or application of this Declaration would prevent this Declaration from running with the land as aforesaid, such provision and/or application shall be judicially modified, if possible, to reflect the intent of such provision or application and then shall be enforced in a manner allowing the covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements to so run with the land. In the event that any such provision and/or application cannot be so modified, such provision and/or application shall be 0 unenforceable and considered null and void in order that the paramount goal of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements hereof running with the land shall be achieved. 17.6 Enforcement;` No Waiver. Any Owner, including the Developer, and the Association shall have the right to enforce the provisions of this Declaration by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person(s) or entity(ies) as follows: 17.6.1 For violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain such violation, to recover damages or to enforce performance and against the applicable Parcel to enforce any lien created herein; 17.6.2 The results of every act or omission whereby any of the covenants contained in this Declaration or the By -Laws are violated in while or in part is hereby declared to be and does constitute a nuisance, and every remedy allowed by law or equity with respect to nuisances, either public or private, shall be applicable and may be exercised by Developer, Association and Owners; 17.6.3 Remedies herein provided for breach of the covenants contained in this Declaration or the By --Laws shall be deemed cumulative, and none of such remedies shall be deemed exclusive; 17.6.4 The failure by Developer, Association or any Owner to enforce the provisions of this Declaration shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter; and 17.6.5 Where litigation shall occur to enforce said provisions or to recover damages or to enforce any lien created herein, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in any appellate proceeding. 17.7 Severability. Invalidation of any portion of this Declaration by judgment, court order or statute shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 17.8 Gender and Plurals. The use in this Declaration of the male gender shall include the female and neuter, and the use of the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, as the context requires. 17.9 Notices. Any notice required to be sent hereunder shall be deemed to have been properly sent when delivered or mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the Owner or other addressee on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing. All notices to the Association required hereunder or under the By -Laws of the Association shall be either by hand delivery, recognized overnight courier service or sent by certified mail (return receipt requested) to the Association in care of its office at the Condominium, or to such other address as the Association may hereafter designate from time to time by notice in writing to all Owners. Except as provided specifically in the Act, all notices to any Owner shall be either by hand delivery, recognized overnight courier service or sent by first 40 class mail to the Condominium address of such Owner, or such other address as may have been designated by him or her from time to time, in writing, to the Association. All notices shall be deemed to have been given when delivered (if by hand delivery or overnight courier) or mailed in a postage prepaid sealed wrapper, except notices of a change of address, which shall be deemed to have been given when received, or five (S) business days after proper mailing, whichever shall first occur. 17.10Interpretation, Except where otherwise provided herein, the Board of Directors of the Association shall be responsible for interpreting the provisions hereof and of any of the Exhibits attached hereto. Such interpretation shall be binding upon all parties unless wholly unreasonable. An opinion of legal counsel that any interpretation adopted by the Association is not unreasonable shall conclusively establish the validity of such interpretation. 17.11 Exhibits. There is hereby incorporated in this Declaration all materials contained in the Exhibits annexed hereto, except that as to such Exhibits, any conflicting provisions set forth therein as to their amendment, modification, enforcement and other matters shall control over those hereof. 17.12 Governing Law. Should any dispute or litigation arise between any of the parties whose rights or duties are affected or determined by this Declaration, the Exhibits annexed hereto or applicable rules and regulations adopted pursuant to such documents, as the same may be amended from time to time, said dispute or litigation shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer has caused this Declaration to be duly executed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed as of the ------ day of __________.._----__- 2009. Witnessed by: LITTLE CONCH KEY DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Florida corporation ------- By: ---- Name: Name: Title: ------------------------------- Name ------------------------- [CORPORATE SEAL] Address: 41 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE The foregoing Declaration was acknowledged before me, this ------- day of --------------- 2009, by ------------------------- as of LITTLE CONCH KEY DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Florida corporation on behalf of said entity. He/she is personally known to me or has produced as identification. My Commission Expires: Name: Notary Public, State of Commission No.: _ (Notarial Seal) 42 JOINDER WALKER'S ISLAND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, hereby agrees to accept all the benefits and all of the duties, responsibilities, obligations and burdens imposed upon it by the provisions of this Declaration and Exhibits attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WALKER'S ISLAND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., has caused these presents to be signed in its name by its proper officer and its corporate seal to be affixed this -------- day of ---------------, 2008. Witnessed by. ------------------------------- Name:------------------------ Name: -- WALKER'S ISLAND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation By: _..- Name: Title: [CORPORATE SEAL] Address: 43 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE The foregoing Declaration was acknowledged before me, this day of ------------------ 2008, by --------------------------, as President of WALKER'S ISLAND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, a Florida corporation not -for -profit, on behalf of said corporation. He/she is personally known to me or has produced as identification. My Commission Expires: Name: Notary Public, State of Commission No.: (Notarial Seal) 44 Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) "�r°d-�"�►« ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 613-4 Restore -A -Scar Informational Brochure "Restore -A -Scar" is now known as "Seagrass Grow," but informational brochure updates are incomplete as of the date of this submittal. L V) N m qA m N 4— O w u c m ^O^ CL E �r Y m �i ^c MW W z v E Y o v E w u ti c m O G 2' C Q c 2 � 0 h 2 E w 0 m m E N u Y i0 i w a L° �oo E c 3 o t w E L O 0 H d G LL a +� Z o o >, M .� > z d tLO .4� 4- 3 L Q (� �/� L0-4 42 s Y N o p ++ v Q Cd N Lp Q 7 Q LL a L Q O 0 `7 f° 3 O a>�ct O m Q 7 L o`n — � v L �+ �, �+ 3 4a V z (A o c O O m 0o°M v ° o ' ' M E-hezo g o4 So L a `- > O `•t c W •a° o -- N w BMW O M W m W r 2 0 C/7 E 3 v p� c c L w f0 L O O 3 W u f0 H rF-4 O f0 OD i OJ N O N p U O O C tio Q N Q Q M O p Q- O Q co U cYj O a c 'O U w - .. _ h N C M 4A (A 7 Q M 4+ N ; � v) (Lj 00 +, Ln M c +� aj 0 } u o v +� 4— L M L ai O 4O � N c �O E m O H `^ Gl C O GOJ • � +' '� N H H OO o OO WAc 4" c o � L O �c O aO o o u s u 01 o o o w � m a— a °' 0 v L M L O N 4! a M �. C c0 v G_>1 � a- •O L o °' 3 E L s N u 'o Y ; V s +� Occ m O Q� o t �, `� a� a, C ro 3 s a M f0 v m M E 3 m ao w N � m 0 a m y 4- E ` Wu �e vwi a 3 c ? 7 w w bo o 0 w L Y w t a c ` O v m m 4- w C m 4- 7 Y N M tA a N 7 E m E w ` bD w a w m m m c w w V, V, O bwA v v w f6 m ao ao by in in Y , C U w T C C Er- O_ L U ut N Y w +�+ to w '^ u Ul w 3 s > mtA _p m ,. Y O l.L ,n O CU L VI O ao w v T w `` a L > p > L Y a N +"/ Ln _ O 0 c N c n v G a N> 'EE O LA mN a) O C C O iG4' ww NL w a 7 m w a O ai -0 w 'n p m v c a> v O w En m L C C m `O vpi N '� — {A r`a >O C m > v a 0-0 y 'i >, E U w ra L N H w 'm `1 O O ut 6. IA m L O T L �' Y " a M t () u V In 3. m m E w c L Y M p �n a �, w e> 3 w m u m 4- Y m m c `a s_ u O u, ut t'i ai u ut Oa E 41 Y ° O C m O t j, m vi 0 N Vi N m u, w, _ w o r awi 'A o Y�� ° m o C o 0 a a� o� c aj u o`o c 0 U M M m w '� awi 'v m o 0 u M v L m m a c E o 1A v 4' m X m V) .c w 7 c 0 CLm N w .2 m L 40 E w E w E p c c In v a ,, c m m m m '^ m m w (Umi U { r`a ` m m m m c L m O m i O" Ln v N U 'A a a`+ `O OD ` c rya +' L C w v�i w w T O i w m w O p ` w p Y = w w L ° V1 L w w v1 Z o 4_ Y r Vi Vr O U a Y a c ° u O w 4 bA N O c w 0 m w p ,� 3 m c - ` w mCL 7 Y > 3 ~ E c •o° wt w Y O O N f+ v a a E C w cm n m ` 0 E m c }+ vF'i m bo L owm�E cac � w u 3 p O '� G w a m ° w Y VI U V- w m 'a w E ° m 0 ,n O- C IAh m Q p Vf 4- v w � vl 2 L m p N m' w w L m L 4- � m w b umo E � Vi v, " m u L to ro •• • ro '� tA E v a {A Lv, ` G m 3 0L += o IA m 0 "M u a a LN Y O w m w C C m of w �^ YM m Vr E L mw ` of > cu m !' C +w+ w Ni rn ' a aY' a`o s tn ' p rLa c aci m w y >O a4-1' N m L4 O. E a m u u w w c E m E 0 w 3 E `p on > j Lao t y 4L o a a m c w 0~ E b o p O a w L ` ra _a. w u m 7 yw., a -0 w Ln .0 w C a C m a C y L w V) O OwA 3 C m w C a w to :� > w fO u 0 'v w U L p C ` t`b v, w a a 0 .E w c$ N tA 4- m a c N � 'A Y dD > ^ N aD G O V ` v O m E c w 0 b4 rn m rca 3 u c "' u a F; .tip +. 3 to 3 O a m v tA N m 4a m v w H a E E T w L r w L O a C m c O E m v 'c w a O w a c m V1 m m u u V w Ln m 0 14 O Y O r-I w m m a) w L E E T m m Y c w w C N m % > m 0 w a Y hL r >,tA w u N J 7 C w w O ut ° mw m o L Y ` w v�o c '� o m m a L bo as 4- +; Z3 ba w w 3 Y bD c Ln C E p a Lvf U N u t aN.1 m O w C m Y 4L L L ba w IA m N 'n > C H 0 Gl E o y a V' w U m C +' N N rCa w to N E fa ° L O C H — C w vv)i L L O m E w Y w N `� v N Y p _ m p ,C 'A m L O E Y a m u c U a In m c O 2 1 c u a +' m m N W r >> a o� rcb w a o u m E N m w w bo ba E„ �: u v a E a •E m '° C m o w Y +' c o c w o m `1 L v v a Y tA v m a o a' E r o r m ° m d4 ° w C = O f`a U O of O m Y Y a Y Yn C m m E L b m u _ m C 4- O m a 4- w w a L N M N m 'aU C Q a 7 0 O. rCa aj > E u, c L v O `° v u a w E a 7 w a w Lv, N c v a' a m 3 m `w m t> L f0 °o a tA ° 3 aXi y O' F' m N tF O Y c w m O u v �, m a v `m E O v, E G w vi Ul bo m E m c " w r>b o `w a m N N M 'E `�° 'M o 3 v T L W '^ ,c +L o E L ` >, y vi O a C > w 7 to aU+ ru O cm O m m o 3 w0mo c Y a' E° o Z w E 1 N amo a E a '^ w v; w tw m ' v, C w O _w L L O O w C C 4- 0 VI VI 7Q. w L C .r` m `) m C U O N b`o 3 ++ O. o`o � T N Q +' L E L O r > u w r O O m w Y ut +' ut 3 a H bo bo Y m 0 of Y —— to T 4- f s�! Ih Key eA — 1lamgin Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) r"Doll -C flA ERP Application, Walkers Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 613-5 Property Owners' Information Packet Ilkhey W;C61•Alwml Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan a tally Monia+I-VO Myra ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Crrvw 5tremr, na1 Dear Property Owner, Walker's Island is situated in an area of immense natural beauty, with access to vast natural resources and the activities they support. It is located within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and is surrounded by Outstanding Florida Waters. The protection of these natural resources is of utmost importance in order to protect their decline as a result of pollution, overfishing, physical impacts, overuse, and user conflicts. With the designation of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in 1990, several protective measures were put in place, which prohibit certain activities within the more than 2,900 square nautical miles extending from Biscayne National Park to the Dry Tortugas. Additional, and often complex, protections are in place today at local, County, State, and federal levels. Walker's Island is surrounded by seagrass beds, which are of enormous importance in the Florida Keys. They are a food source for a wide variety of species, including manatees and sea turtles. Seagrass beds help maintain water clarity, help stabilize the sediment, and dampen wave and current energy. It is even possible that seagrasses will aid in buffering the impacts of climate change acidification on coral reefs where they co -exist. Seagrass meadows also support the commercial seafood industry, which is vital in the Florida Keys, by providing habitat for lobsters, crabs, and other invertebrates. However, seagrass beds are disappearing at an alarming rate due to many complex factors. As a result, regulations are in place to protect them from human -generated, destructive activities, including new dredging, vessel groundings, and propeller scarring. In order to obtain the proper permits to re -dredge the entrance channel and boat basin at Walker's Island, strict permit conditions were put in place to mitigate for the natural resources that were impacted during construction. Property owners are bound bylaw to adhere to these permit conditions. The purpose of this information packet is to educate you, the property owner, about the importance of the local natural resources and the permit conditions which must be upheld as part of their protection. Local navigational information is provided to familiarize you with the markers and signage on and near the property, which was installed as part of the environmental resource permit package. Additional components of the permit included nearly an acre of seagrass restoration on site at Walker's Island and on the seagrass flat to the west of the island, long-term maintenance and monitoring of the on -site restorations, and installation of shoal -marker buoys on the flat west of Walker's Island where restoration was completed. Permit requirements include: • five-year monitoring of onsite and offsite restoration areas, • maintenance of all markers, signage, and restoration areas in perpetuity, • restoration of any resource injury within the managed area if a property owner is responsible, and • docking facility management to meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clean Marina objectives. Key wem • mlaml �13 w000u • Fart 6lyors www swans net Submerged Lands and Marine Resources Management Plan ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Items Included in Property Owner's Information Packet • Walker's Island Information Map • Walker's Island Docking Facility Operations and Maintenance Plan • Keep Your Bottom Off the Bottom brochure • Restore -A -Scar brochure • Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary brochure - F eat 0 0 Cr � ® ® •dam :� O_ C a°iE3 a �`°�p Z°E� �o�o aM moo° ao� ,a?°�a��UQ o0 O C O RS i uj RS . cu° -� O N rn Y cV Ll� �j Qco ) L� � O� 'C 4 0, E � a Q N N ny N ns N O W C N O C G1 w *� \ N O Q � M 3°y rn "ivy` .. 8ctsOa)°c°i >.� 'a ° 4 U N N w O RS Z s: y i ct1 V O y O. O R! Q> a 0 CO Y Ch,c U ((AtO N .� O W U .� O p E� U w O a) nY y= v) C O O O R C cC -0 In o'c`a�o� ° o M i oscV oV c c O ns c Rf O 0c O a i E ° O P �� , co>f� F►y WLu ��� may_ �_a,� W=�oOro �� Q)� Cl- 0) '= (D � o o Y c� (0 4 0-Q? E Q ao cx a � �c`vo ast° �c°� O V- °-o riZa R�s cam �f vQ R c Z a m s �cY, C L O O t y O 0 IT cts ° M E c ca ( � �1 vi — 3 o m E m >> 3 ro a U Ul rn3 :�oo� `ern w22 3.a O w O t cn co L 7 t Otz E N E m k ,co N N m L n � 3Cwi - c� m o N o Q)zCis z c°ia- usHo ns� �� o asp a�iQ ono} y oro�= 1P-, °vi �c V' �E 2 co po E O a°ios°3 �+ ° c� c co :3 m (n o a�i o Q? jO O L 2� O Q C Q c C N C O "O _ O ` a) ' Rf O O co Ql rnoca ���E U) c`tsccoo n�Iaa)io^ as .. J r�r1 E t E 3 ° vscEaCD a a' 3� E N V CO Cb O 3 .CO. .00. ,� O� � o ! aio�w ����cacc ° ccyc t2 a-cn CL a� a) 0 �U ctzToa ° O w o v � r� ro .pp Z cz c c� :� I— • • • 94 H aa� CQ)�cQ°).c 0i� In Ctj CTS ,� �'• ;; � ,..•cro°moo p 3 3 'Jy QCU cu ) Rf °�tu c Ma W ��'� cu cu oc°v;ccu .rn Q) Z Sc co `4— cli oolE Co CTJ p) [ . .fl ° a V ca O O ay .o 0 m Q)O .;S U Q) a U O Qi CO) cu Q) O i c Q) Z ctj N O O U cn Q) s 3 .N = ctj o Co c a) t c ts C .3 co ca = .� O p co � Q) Q) cTf G cu � ro Q. R .�? W �Q � �z= ce �; S co —Cu 73 cis — -� O i C.)Cl) p) O U — Q) RS O Q) a O a Q) cts n ~ cQ i �.' 4-4 cts Q) O L Q) CU y O RS cz in —:z can U u . g cli � O �• � Q7 N � � Ri Q can ai o) o can Z cts Q) 0).Q i y O O V) E� �tr 3 0 » . LZ cu a cts O LL O Qa j C •C O Q. C Q) C N C O O �l, Q) O — s; cts zz cu ° 4z CU cn tj r•J O Q) cn V U U — *„ �a�o cu Ocu,�.:cn�ro�U- 1— ".. Rt ° Z 3 u zQ)cQQ))�c`°n°o�, O CL y�� N O V O C 0 0 O cn ° cu E � c ' .a? a cu cu ccts cu 4 cts C Q) C Q) M O Cts 3 Z3 O p U U cu o .a cu cts cu n .c jt3cts :3�t� U3Q)cu o Q) O coC +r U 0 0 U C Q) I—CUQi Rs cn cn Z ( U O N y a) r3 Q) •- Q, (1) cL i O � O Q) O Q) •� -Q � � C RS Q) � °) � a cu r- co S ,� 0) CU�, i ccii O N O Q) cti I C O U O 6) C i _ � � N c—°n � a cts E O U a ,c. E O°Ei i ca aoiZ�CC cac�Q,o. p cn cu Q) a co Qn � tz W Ca O CO Q s Rf C N co m c O t tb Q) cu U ci Nco CU E Q) U Q) ,r M0— RS a- cu � N N � O 4? C -Q) �Cr- cri ro C ro°o)ro Rs 00 o)cii cts a) c'ts _ a`sEQ)oo�c: 'O O m N >, cti Q) S. � >i — U Q)O i co co O O cc QQ)) ,N Q) �tcz N O >.,N•� U � U S C Q 4 O� n J2 a w c� N CD a CD 0) a a �, �• N. o CO CD N O N O O n O nn O. d CD v 0 faN y fD Z E' r. C Ca CD d d O �. O O O C d Cf CD n ) N N C1 d C1 d � O' C 0 � CD a d S. K c) (U 7 o cn cn °7, y °» U) n, O C1 . R C ;�L O CD c011 O 0 CCD N CD N C. 7 �. co =. cn cm CD 4_ :yl z=MMo CO J O O �3� CU '��•�••"W O. 3s� d W Ch Y = .1 L Vf c9 O L m N O A d .y C/ —6 o c E c �, L 'E E C y0 E Ca O O EO c E C) � �' a c' E c CL y O T m O O N N i� V C �+ ,� Y O �., C L m arAAS E L 'M y tM c c � C CD Cy .0 O U >' O 8 O cm .m m 'O '� m C 't+ m 2 rw O 0 `E C_� M C=G y VJ �•? � C O O C O O �j C O Cj � .� w•1 y T � a� O L � Cp M- y 7 •!•!•yl a) `Ca O y O � V E H• c c C jy O �p � C E m M O 0-0 p E CD N 4 c a a) c` G N �M •_ G •y C V y E •rA ca Ca CO 'C E = m m .2 C .0 C L 'a I O • v y Vi N m O cm CvCD _ '� Y C Q C V 'C Cps 0 G. jr�••I C O .+ a C C E a) O O `O V1 CSC CD 9 T Q t~ a (3)I- N4 u•� — a.+ Y m C1 Ca .0 .O N O C •0.� •�hd E m ._ a) a) CL..r C O. ca O O E m 0 m 0 "O y a O 0- m y L O U LA m pan 10 0 49 NtR �.n a) n e� Q =� V) O O .� cca 0 d Q O _ N C9 -o C 'O C J C m._ 5 C T 0) — c caa CY) C E Qcu 3 (D a7di S _ cC5 N ` c5 C c E CD .o c us o Lz ,� m r�• y E y cn 2 "G N CLf C C .O O m E C O N D -� T O C O iiiTTT UO O CU ca ca � .�CA y u C CW 3 - O aci m aci is s CDL_ a�i aci o C.N y x y m•-N V V d �M O Ch OCO O c) Cp (D a CO L a) m c �a a) aE m,y c� �g rn c.. i C a+ — EC Ca �M ono �t°�° _ cE i �tcca rn� Y� c � pii cmm V) A s 3 'x c 0M ayi m C gym.• � O] m �_'+ m m vyi O 'X Cli .� a m Cn 0 m 0 a) c m v) m as °� L c L a� cv CL 0-�, E o E `�� s 0 � O s T�� d y C tL 0 O `y cm) m r'- V' 'C (D Ln N•n r C C'y a)r Cv Q) a) O r� rn� w c E avi .°z3 rr g Z, _ a a �yy Q O N H a) y 0 FfQ a-+' a) fC o -p C p c+v O C L C T C N N d C V co c E ) 0 p C o c p c c .5 a� �_ aN Z yy iv ca n _ a� L d C cO W a) > 'C � Q V H .0 .t3. �i 10,05 f/! g y ca O m.0 -0 2 Ep O C1 s a-+ C L Vf Vf C .� � � O VI O a) n�i cfl O co •fir..... IrA WALKER'S ISLAND Little Conch Key, Monroe County, FL Docking Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan (DRAFT) I. Employee Education Plan A. Upon hire, orientation and instruction session, each employee having responsibility for the docking facility will be given onsite orientation instruction regarding emergencies, spill response, boat cleaning, fish waste, environmental policies, Clean Marina best management practices, and a copy of the Docking Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan. B. This docking facility is for private use. There are no liveaboards and boats may not be stored overnight if the owner is not an owner or guest of a unit at Walker's Island. II. Spill Response Plan A. If a spill occurs, immediately 1. Block spill of diesel and oil access to the water with buckets, absorbent pads, dirt dams and rings. 2. If gasoline, allow it to gently and rapidly disperse. B. Notification: Upon the occurrence of a spill, notify all of the following governmental agencies: 1. Local Fire, Police, Ambulance 911 2. USCG National Response Center 800-424-8802 3. State Warning Point 800-320-0519 4. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 800-342-537 a. on your cell: *367 b. on VHF Channel 16 C. Notification: Property Owner 1. Owner's representative 2. Must call Cliff Berry clean up organization 800-899-7745 D. Describe Docking Facility: 1. Name — Walker's Island 2. Location — Little Conch Key, Monroe County Oceanside @ MM 63 E. F. 3. Telephone Number 4. Radio Frequency 5. Facility Characteristics a. docking facility b. off Tom's Harbor Cut c. vessels — range up to 34 feet Type and Amount of Petroleum Stored, None Spill Equipment and Capabilities on Site 1. Spill Response Cart containing absorbent material for use on water and land located immediately adjacent to docks 2. Buckets located in storage area of docking facility 3. Rings located in storage area of docking facility 3. Call Owners representative, if unable to locate spill equipment G. Remember: 1. Call USCG any time there is a noticeable sheen on the water 2. Properly dispose of petroleum spill response products in properly labeled containers. 3. Maintain records of petroleum waste disposal. IV. Hurricane Preparedness A. Written Plan 1. Upon issuance of hurricane advisory, begin site preparation. a. Remove all loose items, portable containers and cans, and place into storage. b. Call , Owner's representative, for assistance in placing hurricane protection. c. Contact all boat owners whose vessels are in wet slips. d. Secure removal of vessels in wet slips to open water, protected area, or out of Monroe County. d. Remove portable containers and cans of paint, cleaner(s), petrochemicals, etc., from vessels. e. Remove all furniture and loose items and place inside designated storage areas. 2. Upon issuance of hurricane warning, make sure all preparations have been completed and boat basin is emptied of boats, fishing boxes and other loose items. B. Do Not Return to Property until authorized by Monroe County Emergency Management. V. Fire Safety A. Fire extinguishers are clearly marked and readily available in the docking facility. B. All ingress and egress must be clear of obstacles, with parking only in designated spaces. C. Clean up all spills of combustible liquid to avoid a fire. D. Smoking is prohibited in all areas where fuel, paint, resins and all flammables are stored, dispensed and consumed. E. In case of fire, immediately call Marathon Fire Department: 911 1. Use fire extinguishers as long as you are not in any physical danger. 2. Clear area of boaters, personnel and other people who may be on site. VI. Fueling No fueling facility is located on site. VII. Boat Cleaning A. No in -water boat cleaning without prior written consent of the Owner's representative for exceptional circumstance. If in -water boat cleaning is authorized by the Owner's representative, only biodegradable spray -type cleaners that do not require rinsing may be utilized. B. No pressure washing for boat cleaning in or over the water is permitted. C. No hull scraping is permitted anywhere within the basin/docking facility. 2 D. No boat cleaning is permitted, except a rinse down after daily use. E. Detergents and cleaning compounds used for washing boats should be phosphate -free and biodegradable. Traditional sudsing cleaners requiring rinsing are absolutely prohibited. F. Non -toxic products only. G. Drain plugs may not be removed at any time. Vill. Solid Waste Management A. All trash and sweepings shall be placed into trash cans and dumpsters, all receptacles contain "wind/wildlife-proof' covers. B. All trash and dumpster receptacles shall be clearly marked and placed at convenient locations. IX. Liquid Waste Storage Management A. Spill control materials and empty containers for emergency cleanup are on site as set forth above. B. Snap top funnels are provided. C. Records of disposal of liquid wastes must be maintained. D. Hazardous waste consisting of paint and solvent waste may not be stored or disposed of at docking facility. X. Hazardous Waste Management A. Waste Distress Signal Flares, Used Batteries, Mercury Containing Bilge Pump Float Switches, Waste Anti -Freeze and Toxic Paint Chips require special handling and may not be disposed of onsite. B. No boat painting is permitted on or over the water or anywhere within the docking facility, including upland. C. No hull maintenance, sandblasting or paint removal is permitted anywhere in the docking facility. D. No engine repair is permitted on site anywhere in the docking facility. The docking facility is not a maintenance facility. E. Soiled ignitable rags shall be not stored anywhere in the docking facility. F. Damaged, water logged or beyond useful life distress signal flares should not be placed in any dumpster or trash receptacle on site. They should be disposed of properly and may be placed in self-contained labeled flare container and will be thermally treated by the fire department on an as needed basis. G. Lead acid and marine gel batteries may not be disposed of at the site. All contractors or persons replacing the same on site shall remove them from the premises. H. Bilge pump float switches, air conditioning switches, fluorescent and high intensity discharge lamps may not be placed in the regular trash or overboard as they contain large amounts of mercury. They may not be disposed of on site. Advise the boat owner to call DEP 1-800-741-4DEP for further information and assistance in recycling mercury bilge pump float switches, AC thermostats and other materials. 3 XI. Fish Waste Management A. Fish cleaning is permitted. B. No fish waste shall be released at the docking facility. C. No bait or cleaned fish shall be thrown overboard. D. Boaters are encouraged to dispose of unwanted bait and eviscerated fish at sea. E. If they fail to do so, all fish waste shall be placed in receptacles marked fish waste and disposed of daily. XII. Pumpout Facilities Mobile sewage pumpout services will NOT be provided. Sewage waste shall be disposed of via the onsite wastewater collection system within the owner's property unit. E 0 175 ATTACHMENT 6C 5eagrass Elimination and Reduction ;•• j Tri. i oil 350 Feet AOOI Kcy wC51 •Miami Ilolly%ood • rort Hyns kc nwn -:w, I : fir. Culvert Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Legend Historic Channel & Basin t Limits of Proposed Channel & Basin Impacted Seagrass - 0.43 acres Impacted Mud/Sandy Bottom - 0.20 acres Onsite Orphan Restoration - 0.13 acres Dolphin Seagrass Impacts (Temporary) - 0.018 acres Dolphin Barren Bottom - 0.48 acres Private Property Limits F Preserved Habitat - 26.93 acres Source: Monroe County, 2006 Aerial Adapted by Shelli Braynard, SWC KCc Was[ • mhiaw e[uttymod - fort %vra Legend - Dolphin seagrass Impacts (Temporary) - 0.018 acres j Dolphin Barren Bottom - 0.48 acres Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 nroe Countv. 2006 Aerial Adapted by 5helli Braynard, SWC ALIKey Wt, 11 - nt. J " I i 1c*i od • Iorl Nisor nrrG: n: r._. W-I Legend i Blowhole Propeller Scar CIE Site GPS Locator Site GPS Location 1 240 46.884' -800 53.811' 2 240 46.871' -800 53.815' 3 240 46.890' -800 53.823' 4 240 46.891' -800 53.815' 5 240 46.861' -800 53.808' 6 240 46.889' -800 53.812' 7 240 46.874' -800 53.813' 8 240 46.886' -800 53.814' Revised Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan, ERP Application Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 Area/Length 2481.18 sq ft 1975.31 sq ft 339.57 sq ft 313.86 sq ft 96 sq ft/38.75 ft 357.26 sq ft 49 sq ft/36.95 ft 32 sq ft/23.46 ft 0 30 60 Feet Sources: 2007 Monroe County Property Appraiser y, 6 by Shelli Bravnard. SWC Kiss ,,,,,,,,,,,,nki Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 6E Hans Wilson & Associates Secondary Impacts Letter 11-4-09 Hans Wilson & Associates, Inc. Marine & Environmental Consultants 1938 Hill Avenue • Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 334-6870 9 FAX (239) 334-7810 November 4, 2009 Sandra Walters SWC 6410 Fifth St, Suite 3 Key West, FL 33040 Subject: Secondary Impacts — Proposed Channel Dear Sandy, This is a follow up to our discussion regarding the proposed restoration dredging of the entrance channel to Little Conch Key. The question has to do with secondary impacts to areas adjacent to the channel. The channel is proposed for a working width of not less than 36' at the top of the slope. In our opinion, this is the minimum width adequate to support the size and quantity of vessels likely to transit the channel, while limiting impact to adjacent resources. This channel is also a fraction of the width of the original channel documented for permitting purposes. It is the inherent nature of boaters to not run aground. It delays their trips, can result in expensive repairs to engines, and can be bruising to the boater ego. As a result I am comfortable in stating that all the boaters using the channel under normal conditions are going to stay in the channel. Only in circumstances when there is heavy wind/wave conditions or inattentiveness of the operator will there be a potential grounding. Please note that this would occur within the confines of the marked channel, not outside the channel limits, since the 36' dimension is the measure across the top of the channel slope. Any vessel beginning to prop dredge will do so on the side slope within the channel, and, therefore, within the restoration -dredge area. There was also discussion regarding potential impacts on adjacent seagrasses from boats passing along the channel alignment on a regular basis, potential propeller scour, and chemicals associated with boats (e.g. copper based bottom paints, oil and grease from motor operation). Propeller scouring outside the channel is prevented by the channel width that includes both the dredge depth of 5' for actual vessel transit and the side slopes. The 36' width will dampen any propeller impact to the substrate under normal use circumstances. The signage at the channel entrance and the boat basin will control speeds to no wake, providing additional protection. Regarding heavy metals associated with boats (typically copper, chromium, zinc), testing of sediments within the existing boat basin and entrance channel, which has been used since the mid-1950's, found very low levels of heavy metals or petroleum contaminants. We have found that these heavy metals only begin to exceed state standards in marina's with a large number of vessels and poor flushing or circulation. They would not typically be found in any significant concentration in a basin such as this, which will contain a maximum of eight vessels. In addition, we have never found these contaminants in sediments outside of the marina basins. The same would apply to surface pollutants like oils and greases, where open water basins like this one consistently meet state water quality standards for OFW's. To summarize, in our extensive experience working with many docking facilities and entrance channels, we have seen no sign of secondary impacts outside of entrance channels and boat basins when the facilities are designed and marked properly, as those at Walkers Island will be. I hope you find this information useful. If you need any additional input from me on this, give me a call. Regard , Hans Wilson, P.E. Copy: John McCarthy Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) PE3—w Dolr%%Ao E { ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 6F UMAM Score Sheets and Map UMAM Summary Table Area (acres) UMAM Functional Loss/Gain (neg numbers Impacts Boat Basin Sand/Mud 0.09 (0.012 Boat Basin Seagrass 0.04 , 0.009 Entrance Channel Sand/Mud 0.12 (0.011 Entrance Channel Seagrass 0.45 0.104 Total 0.70 0.136 Mitigation Dolphin Basin Barren Bottom 0.48 0.064 Dolphin Basin Seagrass 0.02 0.001 Onsite Orphan Restoration 0.13 0.015 Actively Manaaed Area 26.97 1.077 Total 27.60 1.157 Resaionaliv Sl anificant Restoration Offsite Orphan Restoration 0.27 0.028 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Historically -dredged Boat Basin - Sand/Mud FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean Sparse macroalgae, unconsolidated sediment Impact 1 0.09 acres Little Conch Key Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Class 111 Sanctuary (FKNMS) This proposed historically -dredged basin borders the southwest edge of Little Conch Key, and is located completely within waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Less than one acre of uplands contributes to surface water runoff into the basin. Tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange in the basin to some extent. Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The assessment area (AA) consists of 0.09 acres of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, the island. The AA is a previously dredged basin that has silted in. Although seagrasses have recolonized the basin to some extent, the AA consists of areas within the basin which are devoid of seagrass and contain primarily unconsolidated, silty/mud sediments and sparse macroalgae. Evidence of infaunal use was not observed. The basin is immediately adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. Within and adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland redevelopment accomodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is within a previously -dredged area which was historically a contiguous seagrass flat. Seagrass systems provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serve to stabilize benthic sediments; and provide a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Juvenile fish including barracuda, snook, tarpon, grunts, jacks, parrotfish, snapper, drums, gobies; Limited use by invertebrates including spiny lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, sponges, sea urchins and conch as a result of unconsolidated, silty sediment. Sharks and rays may use area on route between Florida Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. AA has been previously dredged and has undergone some degree of re -colonization. This is not unique in the Florida Keys. None Florida manatee (E)-moderate utilization for foraging in adjacent seagrass beds; osprey (SSC)-occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove rivulus (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to AA, but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)- may occasionally perch over AA. Juvenile mullet and barracuda; Casseiopeia , batfish, silversides, nurse shark, and various snappers. This basin and associated dredged areas were reportedly used by the Walt Disney Co. for the holding and training of dolphins during filming of the Flipper television show. Some underwater mesh/caging remains in a nearby dredged dolphin basin. ment conducted by: Shell! Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] 30-Sep-09 date(s): PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Historically -dredged Boat Basin - Sand/Mud Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 0.09 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact Shell! Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 9/30/2009 Scorin Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal 601 Moderate(71 Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is optimal and Condition is less than optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions .500(6)(a) Location and Prior to dredging, the AA was historically part of the surrounding, contiguous seagrass community and although Landscape Support seagrasses have recolonized the basin to some extent, the AA consists of areas within the basin which are devoid of seagrass and contain primarily unconsolidated, silty/sand sediments and sparse macroalgae which provide minimal overall Landscape Support. Surrounding tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange in the basin to some extent; however, since the AA is deeper than the surrounding tidal flat areas, the AA provides a pres or deeper, sheltered basin for juvenile fishes. Maintenance dredging the AA will not alter the AA's Location and/or Landscape Support. rrent _with .500(6)(b)Water Environment Unconsolidated, silty sediment has accumulated as a result of limited tidal flushing, and becomes easily suspended (n/a for uplands) when watercraft enter and exit the docking facility, increasing the turbidity in the immediate area. Removal of this sediment by the proposed maintenance dredging, along with improvement of the nearby flushing culvert, should increase water exchange resulting in improved water quality and clarity within the AA. The addition of rip -rap cages beneath the finger docks will dampen the effects of propeller wash and provide habitat for small fish and invertebrates. 'o pres or current with .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community fo pres or current with Though some recolonization of the previously -dredged entrance channel has occurred, the AA consists of areas within the basin which are devoid of seagrass and contain primarily unconsolidated, silty/sand sediments and sparse macroalgae which provide very little support to the community structure. Maintenance dredging the AA would completely remove flocculent substrate and macroalgae, but in its place create a sandy bottom better suited for natural recolonization of seagrass from the adjacent areas. Removal of the flocculent sediment would enable the AA to support higher quality seagrass composition and more uniform distribution. The applicant proposes to restrict maintenance dredging to no less than eight years between events. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, uplands, divide by 20) current r w/0 ores with djusted mitigation delta - 0.433 0.300 IT mitigation Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t `aGWF) - (0.133) Risk faeteF= Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] For impact assessment areas FL = delta x acres = (0.012) For mitigation assessment areas PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Historically -dredged Boat Basin - Seagrass FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean 9112 - dense and 9113 - patchy seagrass Impact 0.04 acres 911 - Seagrass Macroalgae, silt, and mud Little Conch Key Class III Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Sanctum FKNMS This proposed historically -dredged basin borders the southwest edge of Little Conch Key, and is located completely within waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Less than one acre of uplands contributes to surface water runoff into the basin. Tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange in the basin to some extent. Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The assessment area (AA) consists of 0.04 acres of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, the island. The AA is a previously dredged basin that has silted in and recolonized to some extent by seagrass and sparse macroalgae. A majority of the seagrass colonization has occurred since a previous UMAM evaluation conducted in January 2007, likely related to three consecutive years of decreased hurricane activity in the region. The basin is immediately adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. AA has been previously dredged and has undergone some degree of Within and adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the re -colonization. This is not unique in the Florida Keys. upland redevelopment accommodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is within a previously -dredged area which was historically a contiguous seagrass flat. Seagrass systems provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, None crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serve to stabilize benthic sediments; and provide a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Various juvenile fish including, but not limited to, barracuda, snook, tarpon, Florida manatee (E)-moderate utilization for foraging; osprey (SSC)- grunts, jacks, parrotfish, snapper, drums, gobies. Invertebrates including occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove rivulus spiny lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, sponges, sea urchins, (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to conch; and some hard and soft corals. Various species of sharks and rays AA but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little may utilize the area while travelling between Florida Bay and the Atlantic Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Ocean. Juvenile mullet and barracuda; Casseiopeia , batfish, silversides, nurse shark, and various snappers. This basin and associated dredged areas were reportedly used by the Walt Disney Co. for the holding and training of dolphins during filming of the Flipper television show. Some underwater mesh/caging remains in a nearby dredged dolphin basin. Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Shell! Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC 30-Sep-09 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Historically -dredged Boat Basin - Seagrass 0.04 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact Shelli Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 9/30/2009 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal (10) Moderate(71 Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is less than Condition is optimal and optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions The AA is a previously dredged boat basin that historically was a part of the surrounding, contiguous seagrass .500(6)(a) Location and community providing nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat, serving to stabilize benthic sediments, and playing a Landscape Support critical role in nutrient cycling. Though some recolonization of the boat basin has occurred, the patchy, lower quality composition and density of the AA when compared with the adjacent, undredged area provides a reduced level of overall Landscape Support (see results of the Braun-Blanquet cover abundance analysis in the Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan). The surrounding tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange ii the basin to some extent, however, since the AA is deeper than the surrounding tidal flat areas, it provides a pres or deeper, sheltered basin for juvenile fishes. Maintenance dredging the AA will not cause long-term impacts to the M" with AA's Location and/or Landscape Support. 500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands) unconsolidated, silty sediment has accumulated on the previously -dredged boat basin floor as a result of limited tidal flushing, and becomes easily suspended when watercraft enter and exit the docking facility, increasing the turbidity in the immediate area. Removal of this sediment by the proposed maintenance dredging, along with improvement of the nearby flushing culvert, should increase water exchange resulting in improved water quality 'o pres or current with .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community o pres or current with and clarity within the AA. Though some recolonization of the previously -dredged boat basin has occurred, the patchy, lower quality composition and density of the seagrasses in the AA when compared with the adjacent, undredged area is indicative of a reduced level of support to the community structure. Maintenance dredging the AA would completely remove the current vegetation and flocculent substrate, but in its place create a sandy bottom better suited for natural recolonization of seagrass from the adjacent areas. Removal of the flocculent sediment would enable the AA to support higher quality seagrass composition and more uniform distribution. The applicant proposes to restrict maintenance dredging to no less than eight years between events. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, uplands, divide by 20) current r',V10 rOS with Adjusted FnitigatieR delta — 0.567 0.333 If mitigation Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t faGt F) - (0.233) Risk faeteF= Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] For impact assessment areas FL = delta x acres = (0.009) For mitigation assessment areas PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Historically -dredged Entrance Channel - Sand/Mud FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean Sparse macroalgae, unconsolidated sediment Impact 0.11 acres Little Conch Key Class III Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Sanctus FKNMS This proposed historically -dredged entrance channel enters into a historically -dredged boat basin adjacent to the southwest edge of Little Conch Key, and is located completely within waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the FKNMS. Less than one acre of uplands contributes to surface water runoff into the basin. Tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange in the basin to some extent. dj ,. Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The assessment area (AA) consists of 0.12 acres of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, the island. The AA is a previously -dredged entrance channel that has silted in and become colonized by seagrass and macroalgae. Although seagrasses have recolonized the entrance channel to some extent, the AA consists of areas within the channel which are devoid of seagrass and contain primarily unconsolidated, silty/sand sediments and sparse macroalgae. Infaunal use was not observed. The channel is adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. Within and AA has been previously dredged and has undergone some degree of adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland i re -colonization. This is not unique in the Florida Keys. redevelopment accommodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is within a previously -dredged area which was historically a contiguous seagrass flat. Seagrass systems provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, None crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serve to stabilize benthic sediments; and provide a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Various juvenile fish including, but not limited to, barracuda, snook, tarpon, Florida manatee in E -moderate utilization for fora ospreySSC - () foraging; ( ) grunts, jacks, parrotfish, snapper, drums, gobies; Invertebrates including occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove rivulus spiny lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, sponges, sea urchins, (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to conch, and some hard and soft corals. Various species of sharks and rays AA, but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little may utilize the area while travelling between Florida Bay and the Atlantic Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Ocean. Juvenile mullet and barracuda, Casseiopeia , batfish, silversides, nurse shark, and various snappers. This basin and associated dredged areas were reportedly used by the Walt Disney Co. for the holding and training of dolphins during filming of the Flipper television show. Some underwater mesh/caging remains in a nearby dredged dolphin basin. Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Shelli Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC 30-Sep-09 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) ISitelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Historically -dredged Entrance Channel - i I I Sand/Mud 0.11 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact I Shelli Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 1 9/30/2009 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Ontimal (101 Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is optimal and Condition is less than optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions .500(6)(a) Location and The AA is within a previously -dredged entrance channel that provided access to a dredged boat basin. Fish and Landscape Support wildlife have excellent access to the AA from the adjacent deep -water channel and surrounding seagrass flat. The AA was historically part of the surrounding, contiguous seagrass community and although seagrasses have recolonized the entrance channel to some extent, the AA consists of areas within the channel which are devoid of seagrass and contain primarily unconsolidated, silty/sand sediments and sparse macroalgae which provide very pres or little overall Landscape Support. Proposed dredging would increase water exchange with the adjacent basin. .500(6)(b)Water Environment Unconsolidated, silty sediment has accumulated in the depression created by the previous dredging, and becomes (n/a for uplands) easily suspended when watercraft enter and exit the channel, increasing the turbidity in the immediate area. Removal of this sediment by the proposed dredging, along with improvement of the nearby flushing culvert, should increase water exchange resulting in improved quality and clarity within the entrance channel. The addition of rip - rap cages beneath the finger docks will dampen the effects of propeller wash and provide habitat for small fish and invertebrates. eo pres or current with .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community ,o pres or current with Though some recolonization of the previously -dredged entrance channel has occurred, the AA consists of areas within the channel which are devoid of seagrass and contain primarily unconsolidated, silty/sand sediments and sparse macroalgae which provide very little support to the community structure. Dredging the AA would complete remove flocculent substrate and macroalgae, but in its place create a sandy bottom better suited for natural recolonization of seagrass from the adjacent areas. Removal of the flocculent sediment would enable the AA to support higher quality seagrass composition and more uniform distribution. The slope design of the proposed channel would not inhibit natural recolonization. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, uplands, divide by 20) current r wAdjl:16ted mitigation delta la res ith 0.400 0.300 It mitigation Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t fa GtGIr\ - (0.100) RislF fasteF= Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] For impact assessment areas FL = delta x acres = (0.011) For mitigation assessment areas PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Historically -dredged Entrance Channel - Seagrass FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? nssessnlcn[ Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean 9112 - dense and 9113 - patchy seagrass Impact 0.39 911 - Seagrass Macroalgae, silt, and mud Little Conch Key Class III Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atiantic Ocean Sanctus FKNMS This proposed historically -dredged entrance channel enters into a historically -dredged boat basin adjacent to the southwest edge of Little Conch Key, and is located completely within waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the FKNMS. Less than one acre of uplands contributes to surface water runoff into the basin. Tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange in the basin to some extent. Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The assessment area (AA) consists of 0.45 acres of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, the island. The AA is a previously -dredged entrance channel that has silted in and become colonized by seagrass and macroalgae. The channel is adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. Within and AA has been previously dredged and has undergone some degree of adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland re -colonization. This is not unique in the Florida Keys. redevelopment accommodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is within a previously -dredged area which was historically a contiguous seagrass flat. Seagrass systems provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, None crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serve to stabilize benthic sediments; and provide a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Various juvenile fish including, but not limited to, barracuda, snook, tarpon, Florida manatee in E -moderate utilization for fora ospreySSC - () foraging; ( ) grunts, jacks, parrotfish, snapper, drums, gobies; Invertebrates including occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove spiny lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, sponges, sea urchins, ces (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to conch, and some hard and soft corals. Various species of sharks and rays AA but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little may utilize the area while travelling between Florida Bay and the Atlantic Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Ocean. Juvenile mullet and barracuda, Casseiopeia , batfish, silversides, nurse shark, and various snappers. This basin and associated dredged areas were reportedly used by the Walt Disney Co. for the holding and training of dolphins during filming of the Flipper television show. Some underwater mesh/caging remains in a nearby dredged dolphin basin. Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Shelli Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC 30-Sep-09 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SitefProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Historically -dredged Entrance Channel - Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Sea rass 0.39 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact Shelli Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 9/30/2009 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each Indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal (10) Moderate17l Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is less than Condition is optimal and optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface water functions water functions functions functions The AA is within a previously -dredged entrance channel that provided access to a dredged boat basin. Fish and wildlife have excellent access to the AA from the adjacent deep -water channel and surrounding seagrass flat. The .500(6)(a) Location and AA was historically part of the surrounding, contiguous seagrass community, providing nursery, foraging, and Landscape Support refuge habitat; serving to stabilize benthic sediments; and playing a critical role in nutrient cycling. Though some recolonization of the dredged channel has occurred, the patchy, lower quality composition and density of the AA when compared with the adjacent, undredged area provides a reduced level of overall Landscape Support (see Braun-Blanquet cover abundance analysis results in the Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan). Nlo pres or Dredging the AA will not cause long-term impacts to the AA's Location and/or Landscape Support. Increasing the water depth by dredging would provide an ingress/egress route for vessels utilizing the dock, reducing the current with likelihood of future propeller scarring in the surrounding habitat. Some scarring has been observed in the _ I immediate area. Dredging would also increase water exchange with the adjacent basin. .500(6)(b)Water Environment Unconsolidated, silty sediment has accumulated in the depression created by previous dredging, and becomes (n/a for uplands) easily suspended when watercraft enter and exit the channel, increasing the turbidity in the immediate area. Removal of this sediment by the proposed maintenance dredging, along with improvement of the nearby flushing culvert, should increase water exchange resulting in improved quality and clarity within the entrance channel. The addition of rip -rap cages beneath the finger docks will dampen the effects of propeller wash and provide habitat for small fish and invertebrates. The applicant proposes to restrict maintenance dredging to no less than eight years between events. fo pres or current with .500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community fo pres or current with Though some recolonization of the previously -dredged entrance channel has occurred, the patchy, lower quality composition and density of the seagrasses in the AA when compared with the adjacent, undredged area is indicative of a reduced level of support to the community structure. Maintenance dredging the AA would completely remove the current vegetation and flocculent substrate, but in its place create a sandy bottom better suited for natural recolonization of seagrass from the adjacent areas. Removal of the flocculent sediment would enable the AA to support higher quality seagrass composition and more uniform distribution. The slope design of the proposed channel would not inhibit natural recolonization. The applicant proposes to restrict maintenance dredging to no less than eight years between events. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, uplands, divide by 20) current r w/o reS Aojusted mitigation delta - 0.700 0.433 If mitigation Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t `aGteF) - (0.267) Risk fasteF= For impact assessment areas FL = delta x acres = (0.104) For mitigation assessment areas Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name Appl =ton Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Filling - Dolphin Basin Barren Bottom FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean Unconsolidated sediment, silt and mud Mitigation 0.48 acres Little Conch Key Class III Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Sanctus FKNMS This basin borders the southwest edge of Little Conch Key, southeast of the proposed dredge area, and is located completely within waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the FKNMS. Less than one acre of uplands contributes to surface water runoff into the area. Tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange in the basin to some extent. Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The dolphin basin consists of 0.5 acres of privately - owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, the island. Following dredging in the 1950s, the basin functioned as a dolphin holding pen. The basin contains primarily unconsolidated, silty/mud sediments, exhibits low water quality, and remains essentially devoid of seagrass or other SAV, with the exception of an area of slight recolonization near the seaward edge, equal to 0.02 acres. Infaunal use was not observed. The basin is immediately adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. AA has been previously dredged and has undergone minimal re - Adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland colonization. This is not unique in the Florida Keys. redevelopment accomodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is a previously -dredged basin which was historically part of a contiguous seagrass flat. Seagrass systems provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, None crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serve to stabilize benthic sediments; and provide a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Juvenile fish including barracuda, snook, tarpon, grunts, jacks, parrotfish, Florida manatee (E)-minimal utilization for foraging; osprey (SSC)- occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove rivulus snapper, drums, gobies; Limited use by invertebrates including spiny (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, sponges, sea urchins and AA, . but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little as a result of unconsolidated, silty sediment. Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Silversides, Casseiopeia , and various juvenile fishes. This basin and associated dredged areas were reportedly used by the Walt Disney Co. for the holding and training of dolphins during filming of the Flipper television show. Some underwater mesh/caging remains in the dredged dolphin basin. Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Shelli Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC 30-Sep-09 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Filling - Dolphin Basin Barren Bottom 0.48 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Shell( Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 9/30/2009 Scorinq Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Ootimal (101 Moderate(71 Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is optimal and Condition is less than optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions .500(6)(a) Location and The surrounding tidal flats and a spit of land that borders the basin on the northeast and south sides limits Landscape Support water exchange in the basin, resulting in the accumulation of unconsolitated, silty sediments which support very little SAV growth within the AA. Because the AA is deeper than the surrounding tidal flats, it provides a sheltered basin for juvenile fishes. However, the dredged basin was historically a part of the surrounding seagrass community. Filling the basin to ambient depths and restoring the seagrass will provide a better connection to the adjacent flats while restoring the functional support that seagrass communities provide to the pres or marine fish and wildlife. .500(6)(b)Water Environment The surrounding tidal flats and a spit of land that borders the basin on the northeast and south sides severely (n/a for uplands) limits water exchange in the basin, resulting in the accumulation of unconsolitated, silty sediments which support very little SAV growth within the AA. The reduced quantity and quality of water in the AA currently have a minimal level of support to the water environment. Filling the AA to ambient grade and restoring the seagrass bed will decrease the volume of water that would receive limited exchange while providing substrate supportive to seagrass colonization, thereby increasing the level of support to the water environment and water 'o pres or quality within the AA. current with .500(6)(c)Community structure The deep, turbid basin is essentially devoid of seagrass. The sharp depth contour combined with silty, unconsolidated sediments on the bottom, currently provide a poor level of support to the community structure. The dredged basin was historically part of the contiguous seagrass bed surrounding the area. Filling the AA to 1. Vegetation and/or ambient grade, capping it with sediment tubes for enhanced stability, and providing seagrass plantings within 2. Benthic Community the AA enables both natural recolonization of seagrass from the surrounding area and faster recovery of the seagrass bed to the surrounding community structure via compressed succession. The overall community +o pres or structure would be enhanced to a level of support comparable to the surrounding area, dramatically increasing current with its level of support to the community structure. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) current delta x Iw!O reS with Adjusted mitigation delta 0.400 0.733 If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.25 0.333 Risk factor = 2.00 RFG = [delta/(t-factor x risk)] x acres = 0.064 Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Filling - Dolphin Basin Seagrass FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean 911 - Seagrass 9113 -patchy seagrass, macroalgae, silt and mud Mitigation/Impact 0.02 acres Little Conch Key Class III Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Sanctuary FKNMS This basin borders the southwest edge of Little Conch Key, southeast of the proposed dredge area, and is located completely within waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the FKNMS. Less than one acre of uplands contributes to surface water runoff into the area. Tidal flats and a spit of land to the south limit water exchange in the basin to some extent. � :j -, 4.W ,4 Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The dolphin basin consists of 0.5 acres of privately - owned submerged land adjacent to, and southwest of, the island. Following dredging in the 1950s, the basin functioned as a dolphin holding pen. The basin contains primarily unconsolidated, silty/mud sediments, exhibits low water quality, and remains essentially devoid of seagrass or other SAV, with the exception of an area of slight recolonization near the seaward edge, equal to 0.02 acres. Infaunal use was not observed. The basin is immediately adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. AA has been previously dredged and has undergone minimal re - Adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland colonization. This is not unique in the Florida Keys. redevelopment accomodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is a previously -dredged basin which was historically part of a contiguous seagrass flat. Seagrass systems provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, None crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serve to stabilize benthic sediments; and provide a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Juvenile fish including barracuda, snook, tarpon, grunts, jacks, parrotfish, Florida manatee (E)-minimal utilization for foraging; osprey (SSC)- occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove rivulus snapper, drums, gobies. Limited use by invertebrates including spiny (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, sponges, sea urchins and AA, � but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little as a result of unconsolidated, silty sediment. Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Silversides, Casseiopeia , and various juvenile fishes. This basin and associated dredged areas were reportedly used by the Walt Disney Co. for the holding and training of dolphins during filming of the Flipper television show. Some underwater mesh/caging remains in the dredged dolphin basin. Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Shelli Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC 30-Sep-09 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Filling - Dolphin Basin Seagrass 0.02 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation/Impact Shelli Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 9/30/2009 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal 001 Moderate(71 Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is optimal and Condition is less than optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions .500(6)(a) Location and The surrounding tidal flats and a spit of land that borders the basin on the northeast and south sides limits Landscape Support water exchange in the basin, resulting in the accumulation of unconsolitated, silty sediments which support very little SAV growth within the AA. Because the AA is deeper than the surrounding tidal flats, it provides a sheltered basin for juvenile fishes. However, the dredged basin was historically a part of the surrounding seagrass community. Filling the basin to ambient depths and restoring the seagrass will provide a better connection to the adjacent flats while restoring the functional support that seagrass communities provide to the pres or marine fish and wildlife. .500(6)(b)Water Environment The surrounding tidal flats and a spit of land that borders the basin on the northeast and south sides limits (n/a for uplands) water exchange in the basin, resulting in the accumulation of unconsolitated, silty sediments which support very little SAV growth within the AA. The reduced quantity and quality of water in the AA currently have a minimal level of support to the water environment. Filling the AA to ambient grade and restoring the seagrass bed will decrease the volume of water that would receive limited exchange while providing substrate supportive to seagrass colonization, thereby increasing the level of support to the water environment and water quality within "o pres or the AA. current with 500(6)(c)Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community -c pres or current with The deep, turbid basin is essentially devoid of seagrass with the exception of very limited growth along the seaward edge. The sharp depth contour combined with silty, unconsolidated sediments on the bottom, currently provide a poor level of support to the community structure. The dredged basin was historically part of the contiguous seagrass bed surrounding the area. Filling the AA to ambient grade, capping it with sediment tubes for enhanced stability, and providing seagrass plantings within the AA enables both natural recolonization of seagrass from the surrounding area and faster recovery of the seagrass bed to the surrounding community structure via compressed succession (see documentation for this methodology in the Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan). The overall community structure would be enhanced to a level of support comparable to the surrounding area, dramatically increasing its level of support to the community structure. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, uplands, divide by 20) current r wfo res wi h 0.567 0.733 it Mitigation Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.25 r- 0.167 Risk factor = 2.00 Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] For impact assessment areas FL — delta x a For mitigation assessment areas RFG = [delta/(t-factor x risk)] x acres = 0.001 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Site±Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Orphan Seagrass Restoration - On site FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean 911 9112 - dense and 9113 - patchy seagrass Mitigation 0.13 acres - Seagrass Macroalgae, silt, and mud Little Conch Key Class III Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Sanctus FKNMS The AA consists of propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries outside of the main navigational channel(s) oceanside of US 1 near mile marker 63. The area is southwest of Little Conch Key and Walker's Island, and is completely within the Atlantic Ocean. The AA consists of propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries outside of the main navigational channel(s) on privately -owned submerged land southwest of Walker's Island. The propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries are within an area of seagrass flat comprised primarily of dense Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) with patchy areas of moderately dense Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii ). The surrounding flats are adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment AA is within a seagrass flat with areas of dense coverage. Pristine already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. seagrass flats are becoming increasingly unique in the Florida Keys Adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland as vessel numbers and groundings, and resource impacts increase. redevelopment accomodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is within a seagrass system which provides nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, None crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serves to stabilize benthic sediments; and provides a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Various juvenile marine and reef fish including, but not limited to; Florida manatee (E)-moderate utilization for foraging; osprey (SSC)- barracuda, snook, tarpon, grunts, jacks, parrotfish, snapper, drums, gobies. occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove rivulus Invertebrates including spiny lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to sponges, sea urchins, conch; and some hard and soft corals. Various AA but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little species of sharks and rays may utilize the area while travelling between Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Florida Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Various snappers, sharks, rays, and tropical fishes. Barracuda, silversides, Casseiopeia, various sponges, small hard corals, soft corals, juvenile spiny lobster, and sea turtles. The area is used extensively for both commercial and recreational purposes by local residents and visitors to nearby developed areas which include marinas and dive operations. Recreational uses include boating, fishing, kayaking, jet skiiing, swimming, and snorkeling. Commercial uses include lobster and crab fishing. Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Shell! Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC 30-Sep-09 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Orphan Injuries/Client submerged lands 0.13 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Shelli Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 10/6/09, 10/7/09 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed ontimal (101 Moderate(71 Minimal (4) Not Present (0) _ Condition is optimal and Condition is less than optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions The AA consists of propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries outside of the main navigational channel(s) on .500(6)(a) Location and privately -owned submerged land southwest of Walker's Island. The propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries Landscape Support are within an area of seagrass flat comprised primarily of dense Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) with patchy areas of moderately dense Shoal grass (Halodule wrighti/). The area is heavily utilized for both recreational and commercial purposes, resulting in fairly extensive propeller scarring and other larger scour injuries. Following restoration, greater areas of the seagrass flat will be part of the contiguous seagrass community, which serves to pres or stabilize the bottom sediments and prevent further erosion and expansion of the injuries. Fish and wildlife have ,ent with excellent access to the AA from the adjacent deep -water channels. SWC staff has determined that the quantity and quality of water in the surrounding flats where the AA is located .500(6)(b)Water Environment provides a high level of support to the water environment, but the microenvironments within the propeller scars and (n/a for uplands) scour injuries exhibit lower water quality as a result of higher biological oxygen demand for decomposition of accumulated organic material. The absence of seagrasses in the injuries also eliminates nutrient assimilation and destabilizes the bottom sediments, increasing the risk of erosion and injury expansion. Restoration of the propeller scars and injuries by will improve water quality by: 1) eliminating the topographical features which promote detrital accumulation and erosion, 2) increasing nutrient assimilation, and 3) improving flow continuity over the contiguous 'o pres or flat. current with .500(6)(c)Community structure The existing seagrass community in the area where the AA is located consists primarily of fairly dense Thalassia with patchy areas of Halodule . Based on Braun-Blanquet analysis and direct observation, overall coverage is approximately 75%. Within the propeller scars and deeper scour injuries included in the AA, there is little or no 1. Vegetation and/or seagrass and sparse macroalgae at most. The placement of sediment tubes or a combination of fill and sediment 2. Benthic Community tubes in the deeper injuries will restore the topography equivalent to that of the adjacent seagrass bed, thus allowing natural recolonization by seagrasses from the surrounding, undisturbed area. For larger injuries and propeller scars, a combination of bird roosting stakes and/or planting units may be added following topographical 'o pres or restoration in order to speed seagrass colonization via compressed succession. Eventually, restored areas will current with exhibit a species composition identical to that of the surrounding seagrass community. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current r wlo res wi h Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.533 0.800 it mitigation Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.14 0.267 Risk factor = 2 Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] For impact assessment areas F6 - delta)(aeF86= For mitigation assessment areas RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = 0.117 FG = RFG x acres = 0.015 Name PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Surrounding Flats Active Management FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean 911 9112 - dense and 9113 - patchy seagrass Mitigation 26.97 acres - Seagrass Macroalgae, silt, and mud Little Conch Key Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Glass Ill Sanctuary (FKNMS) The seagrass flats surrounding the historically -dredged entrance channel and boat basin are adjacent to Little Conch Key, and are completely within the Atlantic Ocean. Less than one acre of uplands contribute to surface water runoff into the assessment area (AA). Little Conch Key is a small island south of US 1 at mile marker 63 in the Middle Florida Keys. The AA consists of 25.08 acres of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to, and surrounding the southern portion of, the island. The AA is colonized by patchy to dense seagrass, areas of hardbottom, and macroalgae. A large main channel provides an extensive approach to the AA. Propeller scarring and other seagrass injuries were observed in the AA. The surrounding flats are adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. Adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland redevelopment accommodating up to 7 vessels. The AA comprises an area of contiguous seagrass flat and adjacent hardbottom habitat. Seagrass systems provide nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serve to stabilize benthic sediments; and provide a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Various juvenile marine and reef fish including, but not limited to; barracuda, snook, tarpon, grunts, jacks, parrotfish, snapper, drums, gobies. Invertebrates including spiny lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, sponges, sea urchins, conch; and some hard and soft corals. Various species of sharks and rays may utilize the area while travelling between Florida Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. AA comprises a contiguous seagrass flat with patchy areas of dense coverage. Contiguous seagrass flats are becoming increasingly unique in the Florida Keys as vessel numbers and groundings, and resource impacts increase. None Florida manatee (E)-moderate utilization for foraging; osprey (SSC)- occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove rivulus (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to AA, but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Various snappers, sharks, and tropical fishes. Barracuda, silversides, Casseiopeia , various sponges, small hard corals, soft corals, juvenile spiny lobster, and sea turtles. The adjacent basin and associated dredged areas were reportedly used by the Walt Disney Co. for the holding and training of dolphins during filming of the Flipper television show. Some underwater mesh/caging remains in a nearby dredged dolphin basin. f Assessment conducted by: 130-Sep-09 Assessment date(s): I Shelli Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Surrounding Flats Active Management 26.93 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Shelli Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 9/30/2009 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Ooti_mal (101 Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is less than Condition is optimal and optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions The AA consists of 25.08 acres of privately -owned submerged land adjacent to and surrounding the southern .500(6)(a) Location and portion of the island. The AA is colonized by patchy to dense seagrass, areas of hardbottom, and macroalgae. Landscape Support Less than one acre of uplands contribute to surface water runoff into the surrounding waters of Little Conch Key. Fish and wildlife have excellent access to the AA from the adjacent deep -water channels. Some propeller scarring and larger vessel grounding injuries are present in the AA. With the addition of a marked channel, shoal markers in the areas of higher expected vessel traffic, and non -regulatory buoys marking the conservation area, the pres or surrounding 25.08 acres of seagrass flats will be better protected against future propeller scarring, thereby resultinE rant with in a slight increase in value for location and landscape support. .500(6)(b)Water Environment The quantity and quality of water in the AA currently has a moderate to high level of support to the water (n/a for uplands) environment despite the seagrass injuries present. However the microenvironments within the propeller scars and scour injuries exhibit lower water quality as a result of higher biological oxygen demand for decomposition of accumulated organic material. The absence of seagrasses in the injuries also eliminates nutrient assimilation and destabilizes the bottom sediments, increasing the risk of erosion and injury expansion. Following maintenance dredging and marking of the entrance channel and conservation areas, the prevention of future inadvertent 'a pres or propeller scarring will eliminate these microenvironments of reduced water quality. current with .500(6)(c)Community structure The existing seagrass community in the area where the AA is located consists primarily of fairly dense Thalassia with patchy areas of Halodule. Based on Braun-Blanquet analysis and direct observation, overall coverage is approximately 75%. As a result of boaters missing the entrance channel to the existing boat basin and dock, there 1. Vegetation and/or are propeller scars and deeper scour injuries within the AA which support little or no seagrass and sparse 2. Benthic Community macroalgae at most. Maintenance dredging and marking of the entrance channel and conservation areas will aid in the prevention of future inadvertent propeller scarring and seagrass damage. Following proposed dredging, the ±o pres or applicant will add navigational aids and educational signage in addition to taking additional actions to manage the privately owned submerged land and protect it in the future. current with Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current 0,600 FL - delta x aafee - r wIv Dres with Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.800 oss7 4 ff mi i4a ion - For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = 0.040 0.067 Risk factor = 1 FG = RFG x acres = 1.077 Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-20041 PART I — Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.) Sitelnrcrec: Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 Orphan Seagrass Restoration - Off site FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 571 - Atlantic Ocean 911 9112 - dense and 9113 - patchy seagrass Mitigation 0.27 acres - Seagrass Macroalgae, silt, and mud Little Conch Key Class Ill Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Florida Keys National Marine Atlantic Ocean Sanctus FKNMS The AA consists of propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries outside of the main navigational channel(s) oceanside of US 1 near mile marker 63. The area is between Little Conch Keyto the east and Duck Key to the west, and is completely within the Atlantic Ocean. Y The AA consists of propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries outside of the main navigational channel(s) near Tom's Harbor Cut. The propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries are within an area of seagrass flat comprised primarily of dense Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) with patchy areas of moderately dense Shoal grass (Ha/odule wrightii ). The surrounding flats are adjacent to uplands permitted for redevelopment AA is within a seagrass flat with areas of dense coverage. Pristine already well underway. This upland area is directly connected to US 1. seagrass flats are becoming increasingly unique in the Florida Keys Adjacent to the AA, there is an existing dock associated with the upland as vessel numbers and groundings, and resource impacts increase. redevelopment accommodating up to 7 vessels. The AA is within a seagrass system which provides nursery, foraging, and refuge habitat for a variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, None crustaceans, invertebrates, and infauna; serves to stabilize benthic sediments; and provides a platform for epiphytic algae and small fauna. Various juvenile marine and reef fish including, but not limited to; Florida manatee E -moderate utilization for foraospreySSC - ( ) foraging; ( ) barracuda, snook, tarpon, grunts, jacks, parrotfish, snapper, drums, gobies. occasionally observed fishing in general area; mangrove Invertebrates including spiny lobster and various species of shrimp, crabs, ces (SSC)-moderate, found in mangrove habitat which lies adjacent to sponges, sea urchins, conch; and some hard and soft corals. Various AA, but not typical in actual basin. White ibis, Tricolor heron, Little species of sharks and rays may utilize the area while travelling between s Blue heron and Snowy Egret (SSC)-may occasionally perch over AA. Florida Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Various snappers, sharks, rays, and tropical fishes. Barracuda, silversides, Casseiopeia , various sponges, small hard corals, soft corals, juvenile spiny lobster, and sea turtles. The area is used extensively for both commercial and recreational purposes by local residents and visitors to nearby developed areas which include marinas and dive operations. Recreational uses include boating, fishing, kayaking, jet skiiing, swimming, and snorkeling. Commercial uses include lobster and crab fishing. Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Shelli Braynard and Sandy Walters, SWC 30-Sep-09 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ] PART II — Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.) SitelProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Orphan Seagrass Restoration - Off site Walker's Island 44-0207416-004 0.27 acres Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Shelli Braynard & Sandy Walters, SWC 10/6/09, 10/7/09 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each indicator is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed Optimal (101 Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0) Condition is less than Condition is optimal and optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water wetland/surface functions water functions functions waterfunctions The AA consists of propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries outside of the main navigational channel(s) near .500(6)(a) Location and Tom's Harbor Cut. The propeller scars and blowhole/trench injuries are within an area of seagrass flat comprised Landscape Support primarily of dense Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) with patchy areas of moderately dense Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii). The area is heavily utilized for both recreational and commercial purposes, resulting in fairly extensive propeller scarring and other larger scour injuries. Following restoration, greater areas of the seagrass flat will be part of the contiguous seagrass community, which serves to stabilize the bottom sediments and prevent pres or further erosion and expansion of the injuries. Fish and wildlife have excellent access to the AA from the adjacent .0„r with deep -water channels. SWC staff has determined that the quantity and quality of water in the surrounding flats where the AA is located .500(6)(b)Water Environment provides a high level of support to the water environment, but the microenvironments within the propeller scars and (n/a for uplands) scour injuries exhibit lower water quality as a result of higher biological oxygen demand for decomposition of accumulated organic material. The absence of seagrasses in the injuries also eliminates nutrient assimilation and destabilizes the bottom sediments, increasing the risk of erosion and injury expansion. Restoration of the propeller scars and injuries by will improve water quality by: 1) eliminating the topographical features which promote detrital accumulation and erosion, 2) increasing nutrient assimilation, and 3) improving flow continuity over the contiguous to pres or flat. current with .500(6)(c)Community structure The existing seagrass community in the area where the AA is located consists primarily of fairly dense Thalassia with patchy areas of Halodule . Based on Braun-Blanquet analysis and direct observation, overall coverage is approximately 75%. Within the propeller scars and deeper scour injuries included in the AA, there is little or no 1. Vegetation and/or seagrass and sparse macroalgae at most. The placement of sediment tubes or a combination of fill and sediment 2. Benthic Community tubes in the deeper injuries will restore the topography equivalent to that of the adjacent seagrass bed, thus allowing natural recolonization by seagrasses from the surrounding, undisturbed area. For larger injuries and propeller scars, a combination of bird roosting stakes and/or planting units may be added following topographical `o pres or restoration in order to speed seagrass colonization via compressed succession. Eventually, restored areas will current with exhibit a species composition identical to that of the surrounding seagrass community. Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FI - delta - r w/o ores with Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.533 0.800 It mi iga ion For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with -current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.14 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = 6.104 0.267 Risk factor = 2.25 FG = RFG x acres = 0.028 Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004] 3 � 0 .�' Cz 0 C4 O CL) V) Awl-% 0 V Qj OC aA M W V) Seagrass Recovery 1511 Gulf Blvd — Suite A Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 727.596.8020 l� SEAGP,,..-ASS Recovery ATTACHMENT 6G The following document serves as a formal response and request for information regarding the seagrass mitigation plan for the maintenance dredging activities near Walker's Island in the Florida Keys. 11Page . G R SJ Kc'ccweI-y ntroduction Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview Seagrass Recovery was contacted by Sandra Walters Consulting, Inc. (SWC) to develop preliminary mitigation options for the seagrass habitat impacts associated with the Walker's Island Maintenance Dredging activities that are currently under development. During preliminary conversations with Joshua Peele (SWC), the following ideas were discussed as potential mitigation options near the project site: • Topographic restoration of propeller scars and vessel groundings on nearby banks • Utilize the dredge material for the filling of a nearby dolphin basin and subsequently plant seagrass to restore this area to previous conditions using donor material from the area or potentially the impacted Seagrass from within the project footprint Total Seagrass Habitat Impacts at Walker's Island According to the surveys completed by SWC, the total seagrass impacts associated with the maintenance dredging activities are anticipated to be approximately 0.49 acres in size (21,344 ft'). In order to satisfy the UMAM requirements, the Dolphin Basin near the project site will be restored to its pre -dredge levels and capped with sediment tubes according to the FKNMS PEIS. Once the sediment tubes cure for a minimum of 90 days, subsequent plantings will take place to encourage the recovery of this habitat. In order to fulfill the remaining UMAM requirements, orphan propeller scars and blowhole injuries were located and mapped on privately -owned submerged property at the project site, and 0.13 acres (5,644 ft2) will be restored. In addition to the orphan injuries mapped onsite, 0.27 acres (11,795 ftZ) of injuries were mapped offsite, on the seagrass flat to the west of Walker's Island. These too, will be restored as part of a regionally significant seagrass restoration plan, accomplishing restoration above and beyond that required for compensatory mitigation according to UMAM calculations. Attachment 6H illustrates the areas to be restored as part of the overall seagrass restoration plan. The recommended approach to each of these project components is based upon the knowledge that Topographic Restoration is , equired in order to rehabilitate seagrass meadows post -injury or can be used as a technique to return an area to depths that will support seagrass life. "Topographic restoration of severely injured seagrass beds is essential to prevent further degradation and promote restoration of seagrasses and ecological functions. Techniques for re -grading injuries with sediments which support seagrass growth and prevent further expansion are needed. Our experimental results indicate that fine grained sediments can be reintroduced into excavations using biodegradable sediment tubes in combination with seagrass transplants and bird roosting stakes to fertilize the plantings. For large and deep excavations, injuries can be partially filled with coarse rock to occupy volume followed by capping with either one or two layers of sediment tubes. The sediment depth with two layers of tubes is sufficient to support growth of the climax species, T. testudinum. Transplanting and fertilization is optional, depending on species, energy regime and water depth." (Kenworthy, et al) From the FKNMS PEIS for Seagrass Restoration: 2.2.2 Seagrass Transplants Planting seagrass in injured areas is known to be an effective way of stabilizing the sediments and decreasing the injury recovery time (Fonseca et al. 1998). Planting faster growing opportunistic species like H. wrightii or S. filiforme serves as a temporary substitute for the climax species, T. testudinum. This temporary substitution is referred to as "modified compressed succession" (Durako and Moffler 1984; Lewis 1987). Depending on the environmental conditions at the restoration site, the selection of Seagrass transplants as a preferred restoration alternative will vary. For example, transplants may be selected most frequently at low to moderate energy sites where the probability of transplant loss due to high water velocity is lowest. When best practices are used, seagrass transplants experience a survival rate of 70-80% (Fonseca et al. 1998). To date, two small vessel grounding sites have been restored with seagrass transplants in the FKNMS. Though the monitoring cycle (see below) has not been completed, initial monitoring events indicated that both sites exceeded 75% survival after one year. Due to the high risk of hurricanes between August 15 and October 15, no seagrass transplanting will be done during this period. Potential sources for Seagrass transplants include selective removal from healthy seagrass beds located near the injury or from seagrass beds designated previously by the Trustees as semi -permanent donor sites. All efforts will be made to use 21P� c r' 5 _E_A'G R A S S - hc•� cn�rf'� Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview seagrass transplant stock from areas in the vicinity of the injury to ensure minimal variation in the genetic difference_ between the resident seagrasses and the transplanted seagrasses. Seagrass transplants will be collected in accordance with all necessary permits and in a manner that ensures that healthy seagrass beds are not degraded. Collection methods have been developed which minimize impact to donor beds of H. wrightii and S. filiforme and assure rapid recovery after plants have been removed (Fonseca et al. 1998). Specifically, transplant harvesting will entail the collection of numerous, small planting units from within a donor site. This will avoid creating a large hole in the donor bed's standing stock, and decrease the time required for the bed to replenish itself. Sustained injury to donor sites from limited harvesting efforts has been demonstrated to occur for only one of the thirteen species of North American seagrass, T. testudinum (Fonseca et al. 1998). As the comparatively faster growing species H. wrightii and S. filiforme will be harvested for transplants, no adverse effects on donor sites are expected. No negative impacts to vessel navigation or the ecological health of neighboring seagrass communities are anticipated from seagrass transplant collection and insertion, and there is no evidence that any invasive or exotic species have occupied donor sites. See section 2.2.4 for a description of seagrass transplant spacing. Monitoring events will assess transplant and natural re -colonization via measures of planting unit (PU) survival, shoot density, aerial coverage, and documentation with video transects. The execution and application of the monitoring effort is adapted from "Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters", available at: http://shrimp.bea.nmfs.gov/library/digital.html, under "Appendices", pages 207-220, or http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/das/das12.htm1. Briefly, the monitoring data will be used to determine if successful establishment of transplanted seagrass has occurred and if it is on an appropriate recovery trajectory. If not, these data will be used to plan and execute remedial restoration. The success criteria are: 1) whether planted material has a minimum of one rhizome apical per PU, 2) a PU survival rate of 75% at the end of Year 1. If it is determined that less than 75% survival has occurred by the end of Year 1, then remedial planting should occur during the next available planting period to bring the percentage survival rate to the minimum standard by the next monitoring survey, and 3) the measured growth rate of bottom coverage from either direct quadrat surveys or video -based assessment (p. 220 of above weblink; Braun-Blanquet assessment). The growth rate should be considered successful if, starting after Year 1, the planted pioneering species of seagrass in the restoration sites is projected with 95% statistical confidence to achieve complete bottom coverage to pre -injury levels of shoot density within the five year monitoring period for original plantings. If this criterion is not met, then remedial planting should occur during the next available planting period. Videotaping is also performed to provide an unambiguous record of the status of the restoration. This is particularly valuable to parties not familiar with seagrass systems and interpretation of statistical data. Additionally, the seagrass immediately surrounding the injury site (e.g. "reference site") will also be monitored. This action will be taken to determine if background impacts not related to the restoration (those that cannot be controlled nor affected through a mid -course correction), such as poor water quality or disease, may affect transplant and natural re - colonization of the restoration site. The purpose of monitoring the reference site is not to compare its coverage and density to that of the restoration site as recovery of the restoration site will take place over a longer time horizon than the duration of monitoring. Monitoring of reference sites will include documentation of percent cover by Braun Blanquet quadrat analysis. 2.2.5 Sediment Fill Blowholes are a common seagrass injury associated with vessel groundings. In general, the size of the grounded vessel and degree of propeller force used by the grounded vessel or the salver to remove the vessel correlates to the size of the blowhole. The filling of blowholes, or in some circumstances wide propeller scars, is a rapid way of returning the seafloor to its original grade. In general, any excavation with an escarpment (i.e. drop-off) greater than 20 cm deep at the perimeter is considered a potential candidate for filling. The focus of this alternative is to stabilize the substrate as soon as possible after an incident to prevent further deterioration from erosion and to prepare the area for colonization by neighboring or transplanted seagrasses. When this alternative is determined to be most appropriate, sediment fill, (e.g. 0.25 inch limestone pea rock) initially garnered from quarries, will be transported to the site and directly placed in the designated 31PagIe SLA BRASS ht•c. t.�r°t•i-r Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview injury areas. It is expected that fine sediments from the local area will eventually fill the interstitial spaces of the pea gravel. No visual impairment will occur and many of the repairs will be indistinguishable from surrounding substrate within a short period of time. All operations will conform to engineering specifications and comply with federal and state permits, including an Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permit and a de minimus permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to allow seagrass restoration (stake, plant and fill) in Sanctuary waters. 2.2.6 Sediment Tubes An additional seagrass restoration technique involves the placement of biodegradable sediment -filled fabric mesh tubes (referred hereinafter as "sediment tubes") inside of the trench created by propeller scars or on top of sediment fill in blowholes. These sediment tubes are effective in reducing erosion rates in injuries and fostering conditions suitable for natural re -colonization of the injured area by neighboring seagrasses and growth of seagrass transplants. Sediment tubes as a restoration technique may be appropriate in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, propeller scar injury excavations and small blowholes or when blowhole fill requires a protective barrier to reduce erosional forces. As such, the design of tubes will be slightly tailored to the specific geometry of each injury. Most of the tube deployments will be comprised of two tubes laid atop one another, capping the sediment fill placed in the excavation. The tubes replace the 10 cm above -grade topping of sediment fill required when tubes are not used. If seagrass transplants are also required, H. wrightii transplants will be planted in the tubes. Depending on the specific context of the injury, sediment tubes may be used in combination with any other restoration technique to expedite stabilization and recovery of the injured area. A primary advantage of using sediment tubes is their ability to mitigate erosional forces that may otherwise act to remove or displace the sediment fill. Depending on the specific site conditions of an injury site, it is forseeable that restoration actions may include a combination of fill, tubes, and berm redistribution in order to most effectively stabilize the site. Proposed Project Components The following section outlines each of the project components intended to meet or exceed the requirements of the habitat loss compensation requirements utilizing Topographic Restoration Techniques following the FKNMS PEIS for Seagrass Restoration. The main project components are: 1. Restore the Dolphin Basin a. Beneficial use of the dredging material b. Restoration of the area to its natural and previous condition (pre -disturbance) c. Essential Fish and Marine Habitat Creation d. Lowered Time Lag and Risk, this restoration technique is scientifically validated through the research and verification of multiple successful projects demonstrating successful restoration within 18-24 months. 2. Topographic Restoration of Propeller Scars and Vessel Groundings a. Beneficial / Salvage use of the existing seagrass (donor material) within the project footprint b. Restoration of the area to its natural and previous condition (pre -disturbance) c. Essential Fish and Marine Habitat Restoration d. Halts the expansion and degradation of the healthy surrounding seagrass meadows that face destruction if the injured areas are not stabilized. Lowered Time Lag and Risk, this restoration technique is scientifically validated to restore the areas within 18-24 months. 41 Pag e. Re cc�\v r- Project Components - Details Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview 1. Restoration of the Dolphin Basin The main component of this habitat compensation plan will be the restoration of the Dolphin Basin located near the project site. In order to accomplish this, the following process will be implemented: • A qualified dredging contractor will perform the maintenance dredge as part of the project design (not listed in this document) and will pump the dredge material into the Dolphin Basin. • The Dolphin Basin will be returned nearly to grade, leaving a 4"-5" lip at the top of the basin. If dredge spoil quantity is insufficient, pea rock fill will be added as necessary to reach the 4"-5" lip. • Turbidity curtains will be placed around the perimeter of the Dolphin Basin to reduce sediment plumes. • The basin will be capped entirely with a double layer of Sediment Tubes. SR recommends this for the following reasons: o Ensures that the growing medium and nutrients will be present when the seagrass planting units are inserted o Ensures that the material placed into the basin will not be washed by the currents and wave energies in the area o Follows the FKNMS PEIS for similar requirements such as vessel groundings (FKNMS PEIS 2.2.5 and 2.2.6) o Past projects in the FKNMS have shown great success where entire areas barren of seagrass were re- grown through the use of capping areas with sediment tubes and planting with H. wrightii. (see attached NOAA poster regarding the project in Lignumvitae State Park) Planting Units will be collected from a nearby seagrass meadow following the NOAA PEIS (FKNMS PEIS 2.2.2) protocols for collecting and installation These Planting Units will be installed at 1m' spacing and marked with GIS Trimble devices to demonstrate the survivability and expansion during subsequent monitoring visits and reporting. Bird Stakes will be placed in the restored Dolphin Basin to re introduce nutrients to speed the recovery process. Potential Timing for this portion of the project This portion of the project will take place concurrently with the dredge and fill operations. Once the basin is returned to grade (except for the 4"-5" lip), the sediment tubes will immediately be installed. This will stabilize the area and begin the restoration process. Within 4 — 5 months from this date, Seagrass Recovery will return to the site and collect planting material (FKNMS PEIS 2.2.2). 2. Topographic Restoration of Propeller Scars and Restoration Sites In order to fully investigate the presented options, Seagrass Recovery performed preliminary site visits in the areas surrounding Duck Key in October 2009. During this two day mapping trip, over 28,823 of propeller scars and restoration sites, both on and off the Walker's Island site property, were mapped and surveyed for restoration options an inclusion in this preliminary compensation plan. The intent for this was to demonstrate the ability to locate and map propeller scarring and seagrass injuries, suitable for restoration, in the immediate area. See attachment 6H for a graphic illustrating the restoration areas mapped. 51 P a g c . \G RASS Process Depiction and Overview Sediment Tubes �'�. 70�'-.'� Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview Seagrass Recovery (SR) will utilize their proprietary sediment tube technology which has been scientifically validated by NOAA, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) in addition to scientific publications by multiple seagrass scientific experts. These injuries will be restored by the deployment of sediment tubes and bird stakes into the scarred areas and will restore the injured areas to its pre injury condition. Propeller scars are areas that have been stripped of aquatic plant life as a result of the propeller of a moving boat inadvertently being allowed to come into contact with the estuary bottom, thereby cutting not only the blades, but more catastrophically, slashing underground rhizomes and roots as well. A blowout typically results when the hydraulic action of a propeller wash forms a hole in the estuary bottom. To restore areas of seagrass that have been damaged by propeller scars and blowouts, SR will employ its patented Sediment Tube technology to replace sediment into damaged areas while minimizing the turbidity of the water. The Sediment Tube is made of specialized cotton that biodegrades fully over a period of one year and is filled with native sediment to provide a viable growing medium. After approximately three months, seagrass planting units will be inserted into the partially degraded Sediment Tubes. Based upon our experience, complete seagrass restoration is achieved 18 to 24 months after the Sediment Tubes are initially placed into the propeller scar or blowout area. For the purpose of this project, SR will perform the following: • Locate and Survey the required square footage of propeller scarring and vessel groundings • Return the injury sites to grade through the installation of Sediment Tubes (FKNMS PEIS 2.2.6) • Install Bird Stakes at 2 meter intervals along the length of the scarring (Propeller Scarring) and at 1 meter square at vessel grounding sites (FKNMS PEIS 2.2.3) • Collect and Install Planting Units according to the NOAA protocols detailed in the FKNMS PEIS at both the propeller scarring and the vessel grounding sites. Timing of this portion of the project: A possible approach to this project will be to locate / survey and install sediment tubes 4-5 months prior to the commencement of the maintenance dredging at the project site. This will allow for the ability to cure the sediment tubes for 120-150 days and utilize as much of the seagrass within project footprint as possible as donor material to be planted within the cured sediment tubes. Literature Cited • (Kenworthy, et al) - Scientific Evaluation of Methods for the Biophysical Stabilization and Restoration of Damaged Seagrass Meadows - M.F. Merello Penalver, W.J. Kenworthy, M.O. Hall, D. Berns, K. Ferenc : 1FWC, Florida Wildlife Research Institute and 2CCFHR , NCCOS, NOAA. • (FKNMS PEIS) - FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SEAGRASS RESTORATION IN THE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY — NOAA August 23, 2004 61 aFr; : [{ i r� �+� LS _ _ hc•c c �ti'c•r }• About Seagrass Recovery Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview Our mission is to develop and implement successful products, strategies, and lines of service that provide solutions for the restoration and preservation of the world's seagrasses, oceans, shorelines, and estuaries. We have already completed successful restoration and preservation projects throughout Florida, and our technology has been used successfully in Chesapeake Bay and Galveston Bay. Using our patented technologies and other proprietary trade secrets, we provide a scientifically vetted means for restoring and protecting damaged natural habitats and resources. The success of our innovative technologies have been scientifically evaluated and documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, or FFWCC, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Because many of our solutions incorporate patented technologies with peer -reviewed success, we are positioned as a leading provider of coastal habitat loss compensation solutions. Our Solutions As a leader in the Seagrass Habitat loss compensation and Restoration Industry, we leverage our proprietary technology and experience to provide our clients with a variety of products and services that preserve, restore, and stabilize seagrass areas. According to scientifically supported and peer reviewed literature, our transplantation and restoration technologies have demonstrated, depending upon species, success rates as high as 85%- 95% range — which is far superior to the 0%- 20% rates found using other methods. Our products and services include: • seagrass restoration services • large-scale seagrass transplantation and meadow creation • seagrass mapping and survey of restoration areas • coral reef mapping and species delineation cataloging • coral relocation services SEAGRASS Recovery 7 1 P a g e R(•(()v,(`ry Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview Jf} o f ^-. tl W rag; L m P3 9 Vi i -, 2 n� ti] S 3 m= - ea m niF � it �• M n LL.� � 3 >(+ W W U W m '' 3 2N.i` ono 1�°:a2Qwv a �p-o��'QFa�dam Y A o T o $ 1�G7 Q q A a 3 A Y • W� m y M s ?-� M g g �� N g p w a 0J0 n rawer, 3 A A a A A O 61 aaZ5 g. Or W C vmid i4Z m aY0 A � 9 Trt1 ¢� A A u A:. � .fir t a 3 e� � n• - Jim— p i p �r� Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview EXCERPT FROM: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SEAGRASS RESTORATION IN THE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 2.2 SEAGRASS RESTORATION OPTIONS The following is a list of the most common alternatives for seagrass restoration that are considered prior to the selection of the preferred seagrass restoration alternatives for each site. As most seagrass injury categories are fairly uniform, the techniques listed below are expected to be applicable to virtually all seagrass injury restoration projects. Depending on the scenario, a combination of these alternatives may be most effective. Several other restoration alternatives that are not mentioned, such as mechanical plugging and planting of large sods, have not yet been demonstrated to be successful in the carbonate system of the FKNMS. 2.2.1 No -Action A no -action alternative may be selected for seagrass injuries that have a high probability of rapid natural recovery or that are logistically or technically incapable of receiving any restoration actions, such as those that occur in very high-energy environments. A no -action alternative relies on natural colonization of seagrass species and natural processes to filling blowholes and propeller scars with sediment. Natural colonization and filling often occurs slowly over many years and may result in conditions that may or may not resemble pre -grounding topography, structure, and function. In contrast, restoration fills in blowholes and propeller scars quickly, and accelerates colonization of seagrass in the injured area. The no -action alternative can have two general outcomes: 1) natural recovery on a longer time scale relative to active restoration alternatives, or 2) further deterioration of the seagrass bed due to the absence of natural recovery. The no -action alternative is most often used for grounding cases in which the Trustees believe there is a low likelihood of secondary injury or injury expansion before natural recovery occurs, or where other social, environmental, or logistical considerations dictate that no -action is the best course (such as in the case of an injury to a H. wrightii bed which often recovers quickly on its own). Even if no -action is the selected alternative, compensatory restoration of another injured seagrass area may occur to compensate for the interim service losses. The amount of compensatory restoration necessary to compensate for the interim ecological services lost due to the injury will be determined through a habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) (NOAA 1995b). HEP is a well -established restoration scaling method that has been used in the past by natural resource Trustees to scale a wide range of compensatory restoration projects, including those designed to address injuries to seagrass habitats. 2.2.2 seagrass Transplants Planting seagrass in injured areas is known to be an effective way of stabilizing the sediments and decreasing the injury recovery time (Fonseca et al. 1998). Planting faster growing opportunistic species like H. wrightii or S. filiforme serves as a temporary substitute for the climax species, T. testudinum. This temporary substitution is referred to as "modified compressed succession" (Durako and Moffler 1984; Lewis 1987). Depending on the environmental conditions at the restoration site, the selection of seagrass transplants as a preferred restoration alternative will vary. For example, transplants may be selected most frequently at low to moderate energy sites where the probability of transplant loss due to high water velocity is lowest. When best practices are used, seagrass transplants experience a survival rate of 70-80% (Fonseca et al. 1998). To date, two small vessel grounding sites have been restored with seagrass transplants in the FKNMS. Though the monitoring cycle (see below) has not been completed, initial monitoring events indicated that both sites exceeded 75% survival after one year. Due to the high risk of hurricanes between August 15 and October 15, no seagrass transplanting will be done during this period. Potential sources for seagrass transplants include selective removal from healthy seagrass beds located near the injury or from seagrass beds designated previously by the Trustees as semi -permanent donor sites. All efforts will be made to use seagrass transplant stock from areas in the vicinity of the injury to ensure minimal variation in the genetic differences between the resident seagrasses and the transplanted seagrasses. Seagrass transplants will be collected in accordance with all necessary permits and in a manner that ensures that healthy seagrass beds are not degraded. Collection methods have been developed which minimize impact to donor beds of H. wrightii and S. filiforme and assure rapid recovery after plants have been removed (Fonseca et al. 1998). Specifically, transplant harvesting will entail the collection of numerous, small planting units from within a donor site. This will avoid creating a large hole in the donor bed's standing stock, and decrease the time required for the bed to replenish itself. Sustained injury to donor sites from limited harvesting efforts has been demonstrated to occur for only one of the thirteen species of North American seagrass, T. testudinum (Fonseca et al. 1998). As the comparatively faster growing species H. wrightii and S. filiforme will be harvested for transplants, no adverse effects on donor sites are expected. No negative impacts to vessel navigation or the ecological health of neighboring seagrass communities are anticipated from seagrass transplant collection and insertion, and there is no evidence that any invasive or exotic species have occupied donor sites. See section 2.2.4 for a description of seagrass transplant spacing. 91 fI a9,,r SEA'GRASS Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview Monitoring events will assess transplant and natural re -colonization via measures of planting unit (PU) survival, shoot density, aerial coverage, and documentation with video transects. The execution and application of the monitoring effort is adapted from "Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters", available at: http://shrimp.bea.nmfs.gov/library/digita1.htm1, under "Appendices", pages 207-220, or http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/das/das12.htm1. Briefly, the monitoring data will be used to determine if successful establishment of transplanted seagrass has occurred and if it is on an appropriate recovery trajectory. If not, these data will be used to plan and execute remedial restoration. The success criteria are: 1) whether planted material has a minimum of one rhizome apical per PU, 2) a PU survival rate of 75% at the end of Year 1. If it is determined that less than 75% survival has occurred by the end of Year 1, then remedial planting should occur during the next available planting period to bring the percentage survival rate to the minimum standard by the next monitoring survey, and 3) the measured growth rate of bottom coverage from either direct quadrat surveys or video -based assessment (p. 220 of above weblink; Braun-Blanquet assessment). The growth rate should be considered successful if, starting after Year 1, the planted pioneering species of seagrass in the restoration sites is projected with 95% statistical confidence to achieve complete bottom coverage to pre -injury levels of shoot density within the five year monitoring period for original plantings. If this criterion is not met, then remedial planting should occur during the next available planting period. Videotaping is also performed to provide an unambiguous record of the status of the restoration. This is particularly valuable to parties not familiar with seagrass systems and interpretation of statistical data. Additionally, the seagrass immediately surrounding the injury site (e.g. "reference site") will also be monitored. This action will be `aken to determine if background impacts not related to the restoration (those that cannot be controlled nor affected through a mid -course correction), such as poor water quality or disease, may affect transplant and natural re -colonization of the restoration site. The purpose of monitoring the reference site is not to compare its coverage and density to that of the restoration site as recovery of the restoration site will take place over a longer time horizon than the duration of monitoring. Monitoring of reference sites will include documentation of percent cover by Braun Blanquet quadrat analysis. 2.2.3 Bird Stakes In most areas of the FKNMS, seagrasses are nutrient limited.2 As such, when vessel injuries disturb the sediment nutrient reservoir, the ability of seagrasses to re -colonize is more difficult. A method of fertilization that utilizes the nutrient composition of bird feces deposited from birds roosting on stakes (hereinafter referred to as "bird stakes" or "stakes", see Figure 2-1) has been documented to be an effective treatment to facilitate colonization of seagrasses into disturbed sediments and/or faster growth of seagrass transplants (Fourqurean et al. 1992a; Fourqurean et al. 1992b; Fourqurean et al. 1995; Kenworthy et al. 2000). Bird stakes are preferable to fertilizer spikes in water depths of up to 1.5 meters, as they do not need to be continually replaced. To be effective, bird staking requires that bird feces reach the seafloor in concentrated doses for as long as the stakes are in place. Water depths of 1.5 meters or less at mean high tide are generally considered ideal for bird staking. With water depths greater than 1.5 meters, the effect of dilution on the feces is believed to reduce the effective strength of the fertilizer. Depending on how water depth changes over the injury area, the length of each stake may vary slightly in order to maintain approximately 0.25 m elevation above the 2 Although many areas of the Keys suffer from high levels of nitrogen loading from leaking septic tanks and other non -point sources, the relatively diffuse spread of these nutrients are not as effective in fostering seagrass recovery as a concentrated release of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer from bird stakes (Fourqueran et al. 1995). high water level. Research has demonstrated that if left on site too long, bird stakes may cause a communal shift of seagrass species from T. testudinum to H. wrightii (Powell et al. 1989). Thus, bird stakes are removed after approximately 75% survival coalescence is reached, which is usually after 18 months. A detailed review of bird stake construction and placement requirements are available in published guidelines (Fonseca et al. 1998; Kenworthy et al. 2000). There is no evidence that proper use of bird stakes impairs local water quality. Deployment in areas of less than 1.5-meter water depth ensures that the majority of the feces reach the seafloor in concentrated doses, precluding the iutrients from fueling harmful algal blooms. Several species of birds have been observed using bird stakes at both research and restoration sites in the FKNMS. The most common species that have been recorded using bird stakes are double crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax ouritus), least terns 101 Pag; , SEAGRASS Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview (Sterna antillarum), royal terns (Sterna maxima), brown pelicans (Pelicanus occidentalis), magnificent frigate birds (Fregat(, magnificens), and great blue herons (Ardea herodias). The cormorants are the primary target for roosting and the most frequently observed species using the bird stakes. There is no evidence that the bird stakes affect populations or distribution of bird species in the FKNMS. In most instances, bird stakes will accompany seagrass transplants. This decision is based on factors including the exposure of the site to wave action, density of fast-growing species in the undisturbed side populations, and injury substrate composition. Depending on the site -specific context of a case, portions of a scar may receive only stakes, while a different portion receives stakes and seagrass transplants. However, at injury locations with a high density of fast-growing species (e.g. H. wrightii), the insertion of bird stakes alone may be sufficient to encourage colonization. The possibility for bird stakes interfering with vessel navigation is low, as bird stakes will be positioned in shallow water areas that should be avoided by vessels. In areas of high vessel traffic, additional steps may be taken to minimize the possibility of boaters confusing stakes for public or privately placed navigational aids. This may involve the placement of additional bird stakes at either end of the prop scar to create a stake barrier. Other methods may include the use of educational signs and reflective tape on the stakes to reduce the possibility that boaters will confuse the stakes for a new channel passage. Bird stakes will be removed promptly from the site as soon as recovery is determined to be well underway or at the end of the allocated monitoring period time as detailed in the restoration plan. See section 2.2.4 for a description of bird stake spacing. Figure 2-1. Bird Stake Schematic 2.2.4 Fertilizer Spikes Bird stakes are the preferred technique for ensuring regular release of fertilizer over an area of approximately 3 square meters below the stake. However, in situations where bird stakes are inappropriate, such as in water depths over 1.5 meters, the use of chemical fertilizer spikes is another alternative to enhance seagrass colonization of the injury area. A broad review article published by Worm et al. (2000) documents that the benefits of in -situ nutrient enrichment through fertilizer spikes have been demonstrated in numerous studies to be an effective method for seagrass restoration. These in -situ nutrient enrichment studies have shown that fertilizer spikes deliver a high load of phosphorus, the main limiting nutrient for seagrasses growing on carbonate sediments in the FKNMS (Worm et al. 2000). Fertilizer spikes will naturally biodegrade in approximately three to four months, at which time, depending on the status of the restoration project, additional fertilizer spikes may be inserted. The placement of fertilizer spikes will follow guidelines for seagrass transplants as detailed below, with no more than one spike placed directly adjacent to each transplant unit. The advantages of fertilizer spikes are: 1) they deliver a concentrated dose of nutrients in a small area that directly benefits individual planting units; 2) they are easier to deploy than encapsulated fertilizers, a significant advantage in coarse, firm sediments; 3) they are suitable for water depths greater than 1.5 meters; and 4) they are a viable fertilizer enhancement alternative when bird stakes are inappropriate due to hazards to navigation or risk of vandalism. The number of seagrass transplants and stakes/spikes required for propeller scars is determined according to the following general guidelines. These guidelines are subject to modification based on site -specific injury characteristics and the professional judgment of Trustee restoration experts. The longer axis of a propscar is defined as its length and the shorter axis is its width. For propscars less than 1.5 m in width, only a single row of stakes/spikes and seagrass transplants is used. The stakes/spikes and transplants are inserted in the middle of the scar and the row runs the length of the injury. The first stake is inserted at the beginning of the scar (at O.Om along its length). Additional stakes are then placed along the injury with 2.0 m between each stake. Thus, for example, a scar that is 10 m in length would have six stakes. Three seagrass transplants are inserted between the first two stakes, at distances of 0.5 m, 1.0 m, and 1.5 m along the scar. Seagrasses are not transplanted directly under the stakes. This planting pattern is repeated for the length of the injury. A 10 m scar would require 15 seagrass transplants. For scars between 1.5 and 2.0 m in width, two rows are inserted. The first, a row of stakes and planting units as described above, is inserted 0.5m into the width of the scar. The second row is composed of only seagrass planting units and is inserted 1.0m into the width of the scar. Thus, the two rows divide the width of the scar into thirds. Additional seagrass transplants are placed in the second row instead of stakes (resulting in a row of 16 transplants for a 10 m scar). This general pattern is maintained for wider propscars, blowholes, and berms. Additionally, the perimeter of blowholes is staked at 2.0 m intervals. Over time, stakes/spikes may be re -positioned and additional seagrass transplants inserted as necessary during monitoring events. 2.2.5 Sediment Fill Blowholes are a common seagrass injury associated with vessel groundings. In general, the size of the grounded vessel and degree of propeller force used by the grounded vessel or the salver to remove the vessel correlates to the size of the blowhole. The filling of blowholes, or in some circumstances wide propeller scars, is a rapid way of returning the seafloor to its original grade. In general, 111 P a err.° Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview any excavation with an escarpment (i.e. drop-off) greater than 20 cm deep at the perimeter is considered a potential candidate for filling. The focus of this alternative is to stabilize the substrate as soon as possible after an incident to prevent further deterioration from erosion and to prepare the area for colonization by neighboring or transplanted seagrasses. When this alternative is determined to be most appropriate, sediment fill, (e.g. 0.25 inch limestone pea rock) initially garnered from quarries, will be transported to the site and directly placed in the designated injury areas. It is expected that fine sediments from the local area will eventually fill the interstitial spaces of the pea gravel. No visual impairment will occur and many of the repairs will be indistinguishable from surrounding substrate within a short period of time. All operations will conform to engineering specifications and comply with federal and state permits, including an Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permit and a de minimus permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to allow seagrass restoration (stake, plant and fill) in Sanctuary waters. 2.2.6 Sediment Tubes An additional seagrass restoration technique involves the placement of biodegradable sediment -filled fabric mesh tubes (referred hereinafter as "sediment tubes") inside of the trench created by propeller scars or on top of sediment fill in blowholes. These sediment tubes are effective in reducing erosion rates in injuries and fostering conditions suitable for natural re -colonization of the injured area by neighboring seagrasses and growth of seagrass transplants. Sediment tubes as a restoration technique may be appropriate in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to, propeller scar injury excavations and small blowholes or when blowhole fill requires a protective barrier to reduce erosional forces. As such, the design of tubes will be slightly tailored to the specific geometry of each injury. Most of the tube deployments will be comprised of two tubes laid atop one another, capping the sediment fill placed in the excavation. The tubes replace the 10 cm above -grade topping of sediment fill required when tubes are not used. If seagrass transplants are also required, H. wrightii transplants will be planted in the tubes. Depending on the specific context of the injury, sediment tubes may be used in combination with any other restoration technique to expedite stabilization and recovery of the injured area. A primary advantage of using sediment tubes is their ability to mitigate erosional forces that may otherwise act to remove or displace the sediment fill. Depending on the specific site conditions of an injury site, it is forseeable that restoration actions may include a combination of fill, tubes, and berm redistribution in order to most effectively stabilize the site. 2.2.7 Berm Redistribution 9lowhole and large propeller scar injuries often create berms of sediment surrounding the injury site. In some circumstances, where she displaced fill is directly adjacent to the injury site and easily accessible, restoration experts may be able to return the displaced fill back into the injury by either raking or water -dredging, or some combination of the two. However, this is only an alternative when doing so will not injure any seagrass that may still be living below the berm. Redistribution of fill is an immediate, low-cost, and low -risk restoration action that advances stabilization of the injury site and recovery of the area previously covered by sediment. In addition, redistribution of fill may minimize injury to adjacent seagrass beds covered by the berms created by the incident. 2.2.8 Sod Replacement When appropriate, large chunks of seagrasses with intact rhizomes that were dislodged as a result of an injury may be placed back into a shallow propscar injury or blowhole. This alternative is suitable for shallow blowholes or propscars where additional sediment fill is not needed for the replaced seagrass to continue to thrive once replaced. This restoration technique expedites recovery of the injured sites, resulting in direct and indirect ecological and socioeconomic benefits associated with healthy seagrass ecosystems. For groundings that produce chunks of seagrass with intact rhizomes and result in injury features that do not require sediment fill, sod replacement will be done immediately after injury assessment to maximize the chance of sod survival. 2.2.9 Exclusion Cages When injuries to seagrass beds occur near coral reefs, it is especially difficult for the seagrass to reestablish itself after restoration. A large variety of herbivores live in or frequent coral reefs and thus put abnormally high grazing pressure on nearby seagrass. Uninjured, well -established seagrass beds can sustain this pressure, but new transplants are quickly grazed to the point where they cannot sustain themselves because they are planted as smaller fragments or units, which are not integrated clonally as are plants growing in an established meadow. However, research has shown that exclusion cages placed around new transplants for three to four months allow the beds to establish themselves to the point where they are sustainable after the cages are removed (Fonseca et al. 1994). Each exclusion cage must also be securely fastened to the substrate so that it does not become detached. This is particularly important in areas where cages are exposed to storm waves, ground swells and other high-energy events. 2.3 PROPOSED ACTIONS In most seagrass restoration projects, a combination of one or more of the alternatives presented will be identified as the preferred alternative(s) in an injury -specific restoration plan. Trustees with expertise in seagrass restoration ecology and first-hand experience with the grounding site select the proposed preferred alternative. Berm redistribution and sod replacement will occur at the time of injury assessment, if warranted. Typically, seagrass transplants will be accompanied with bird stakes if the water depth is less than 1.5 meters or fertilizer spikes if water depth is greater than 1.5 meters. Exclusion cages will be placed over seagrass transplants in 121 Pig, fe I. -AG [tA5,(-) Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview areas close to coral reefs. In addition, if the site -specific conditions warrant sediment fill for blowholes or sediment tubes for wide propeller scars or blowholes, seagrass transplants and bird stakes will be inserted after sediment placement activities. Finally, if it is determined that the grounding site is likely to recover rapidly or primary restoration is not appropriate due to other reasons, the no - action alternative may be assigned for part or all of the injury site. Table 2-2 summarizes the alternatives available, the conditions under which they may be chosen, and the ultimate results of their applications. Table 2-2. Seagrass Restoration Alternative Matrix/Comparison ALTERNATIVE SITE CONDITION RESULT No Action: Leaving the injury Chosen for injuries where there is a untouched. relatively small likelihood of secondary injury before natural . Natural recovery occurs on a longer recovery occurs, or where any time scale relative to restoration restoration is considered too difficult activities. to undertake due to high-energy conditions. OR • Further deterioration of the seagrass bed occurs due to ineffective natural recovery. Seagrass Transplants: Planting Often selected at low to moderate seagrass (S. filiforme and H. wrightii) energy sites, where the probability of taken from donor sites in injured transplant loss due to high water . Stabilization of sediments decreases areas including berms, blowholes velocity is lowest. injury recovery time. and/or propscars. • Planting faster growing opportunistic species like H. wrightii or S. filiforme serves as a temporary substitute for the climax species, T. testudinum. Bird Stakes: Insertion of stakes upon Used on seagrass beds in water which birds roost, dropping their feces depths of 1.5 meters or less (mean on and thus fertilizing seagrass beds. high water). • Bird feces reach the seagrass floor Inserted into berms, blowholes and/or for as long as the stakes are in place. propscars. • Colonization of seagrasses into disturbed sediments is facilitated and/or seagrass transplants grow at a faster rate than natural recovery. • Fertilizer is released regularly over an area of approximately 3 square meters below the stake 131 i,t1g i4 Walker's Island —The Florida Keys Seagrass Habitat Mitigation Plan Overview Fertilizer Spikes: Insertion of chemical Used on replanted seagrass beds fertilizer spikes that release fertilizer when water depths are greater than into the sediments of replanted 1.5 meters or when bird stakes are . Colonization of seagrasses into seagrass beds over a period of 3-4 inappropriate due to hazards to disturbed sediments is facilitated months. Inserted into berms, navigation or risk of vandalism. and/or seagrass transplants grow at a blowholes and/or propscars. faster rate. • A concentrated dose of nutrients is delivered in a small area that directly benefits individual planting units. Sediment Fill: Filling of blowholes or Used for injuries greater than 20 cm wide propeller scars with sediment deep. similar to that of the surrounding • The seafloor is rapidly returned to area. its original grade. • The substrate is stabilized quickly after an incident to prevent further deterioration from erosion and to prepare the area for colonization by neighboring or transplanted seagrasses. �ediment Tubes: Placement of Often used in narrow excavations biodegradable sediment -filled fabric (such as propscars) deeper than 20 cm mesh tubes inside the trench of a or to cap fill placed in larger blowholes . Erosion rates are reduced. propscar or blowhole. in high-energy environments. • Conditions are made more suitable for natural re -colonization of the injured area by neighboring seagrasses and growth of transplants is fostered. 141 Page 1 1 •.� �•� 5 1 • 11 rp r - r, f� �q r i - • Av L= C) m AIL I Im IKIIIWt. •HrllamE Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) FldlywamE•aneFatl.liyera ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 vnvw seE ATTACHMENT 61 Summary of 8-29-08 SFWMD/SWC Meeting September 11, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Anita Bain and Ron Peekstok South Florida Water Management District FROM: Joshua Peele Project Manager, SWC THROUGH: Sandra Walters President, SWC SUBJECT: SFWMD Application No. 080610-13 August 29, 2008 meeting regarding issues presented in July 10, 2008 RAI MEETING ATTENDEES: SFWMD—Anita Bain, Ron Peekstok and Susan Martin Walker's Island, LLC—John McCarthy SWC—Joshua Peele and Sandy Walters T i; snnitwg L(A1c?►;�� r1I n1111"V11nrntoi Coimnunicuhons co?, �C'i� 1I4i:a The District issued a request for additional information (RAI) on July 10, 2008 in relation to the above -referenced application for an environmental resource permit (ERP) to modify an existing dock and maintenance dredge an existing basin and entrance channel located at Walker's Island in Monroe County, FL. On August 12, 2008, SWC staff conducted a teleconference with District biologist Ron Peekstok to discuss several issues identified in the RAI. As a result, SWC staff prepared and submitted a draft memorandum to the District describing each of the RAI issues and how SWC plans to address them. SWC staff and John McCarthy (representing the applicant, Walker's Island, LLC) then participated in a meeting with District staff on August 29, 2008. The intent of this memorandum is to summarize the results of this meeting. We request that you review this memo and notify us of any comments, corrections or clarifications. Otherwise, if we do not hear from you within 10 days of the date of this memo, we will assume our understanding is correct and proceed accordingly. (Referencing RAI questions 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16) Several RAI responses were confirmed with District staff and require no further discussion with the agency, as follows: ➢ The District has confirmed that an Individual ERP is required for projects involving 1.0 acres or more of activities in, on or over wetlands and other surface waters. SWC confirmed that a payment for $3,000.00 will be submitted to the SFWMD to supplement the $2,000.00 payment already submitted, for the full application fee of $5,000.00.. EMAIL SWC@SWCINC.NET • WEBSITE WWW.SWCINC.NET MAIN OFFICE: 6410 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3, KEY WEST, FL 33040 • PH 305-294-1238 • FAx 305-294-2164 1031 IVES DAIRY ROAD, SUITE 228, MIAMI, FL 33179 • PH 305-651-7061 • FAx 305-651-5732 4790 CLEVELAND AVENUE, SUITE 2102, FT. MYERS, FL 33907 • PH 239-985-9762 • FAx 239-985-9763 WALKER'S ISLAND, LLC, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008, PAGE 2 ➢ A signed and approved drainage plan has been obtained from the Monroe County Building Department and is already under construction. SWC will submit copies to the District of the County -approved drainage plan and associated building permits for review, as documentation that the upland component of the project is already permitted and not subject to SFWMD review. ➢ District staff will attempt to locate the signed and sealed topographic survey that was provided with the submitted ERP Application. SWC will provide additional signed and sealed copies to the District, if needed. ➢ SWC clarified that cross-section A -A of the submitted ERP Application contains an incorrect reference to maintenance dredging to (-)6 feet NGVD. The maintenance dredge design will be revised to illustrate (-)5 feet NGVD. The change will allow additional reduction of the already -reduced entrance channel width and will result in further minimization of impacts. ➢ SWC confirmed that both parcels indicated on Attachment 3 of the submitted ERP Application are owned by the applicant. ➢ SWC confirmed that current tidal information will be provided to the District in an official RAI response. ➢ Ron Peekstok confirmed that sufficient observation was performed during his site visit to the property on August 26, 2008 and no further wetland delineation is required for the shoreline area. SWC will perform a benthic survey for the historic dolphin basin area to document marine resources within the sloped edges of the basin that would be affected in utilization of the basin for mitigation associated with maintenance -dredge activities elsewhere onsite. ➢ SWC exhibited documented aerial photographs taken by the Coast and Geodetic Survey demonstrating that Hawk's Cay was originally dredged at the same time as Walker's Island (between 1955 and 1957). SWC also presented the staff report associated with a 2002 SFWMD permit for maintenance dredging activities at Hawk's Cay. The applicant proposes to meet all ERP permitting requirements, including avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts to submerged marine resources located at Walker's Island, which is consistent with the agency action taken in regard to Hawk's Cay. ➢ SWC explained that we wish to work out permitting issues that specifically fall within the jurisdiction of the SFWMD before discussing the project further with the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The applicant understands that an amendment to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to resolve DCA concerns may be required before the District can issue the ERP, and the basis for that amendment will arise from the benefits that can be provided from maintenance dredging an existing basin and entrance channel, along with appropriate mitigation of unavoidable impacts. (Referencing RAI question 9) The District requires further details regarding construction methodology. The applicant and SWC will acquire the following: ➢ An engineering report is needed that describes the data and analysis used to design the entrance channel with a 3:1 slope to ensure stability. This report should also describe how water currents are likely to affect the sloped edges of proposed maintenance dredged areas and will provide an engineering estimate of the frequency of future maintenance dredging to the proposed (-5) foot NGVD depth. WALKER'S ISLAND, LLC, SEPTEMBER 11, ZOOS, PAGE 3 ➢ A report is needed that provides details regarding how the maintenance dredging will occur and how the spoil material will be transported to the disposal sites, including the dolphin basin where seagrass restoration is proposed. (Referencing RAI questions 3, 4 and 11) The most significant aspect of the proposed project is avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts to resources within the maintenance dredge areas. The following conclusions were established: ➢ The District proposed ways to avoid and minimize impacts —in addition to what was presented in Attachment 6C (Avoidance and Minimization Map) of the submitted ERP Application —that will be examined and documented in the RAI response, including— ■ The maintenance dredge depth will be reduced to (-)5 feet NGVD, which will result in further reduction of the required entrance channel width. ■ The applicant clarified that the docking facility will be utilized by shallower -draft boats in the 32-foot to 34-foot range and will not be utilized by larger, 40-foot vessels, as previously proposed in the application. This could result in design changes that could further decrease resource impacts. ➢ SWC provided District staff with several research references that establish lag times for seagrass colonization within the Florida Keys. These references provide a range for seagrass colonization from 3.5 to 9.6 years, depending on methodology. However, the District still has concerns with the lag time and risk factor for re -colonization of seagrasses within the proposed mitigation area. ➢ The District agrees that, in concept, proper mitigation which is regionally significant and provides greater long-term ecological value than the minimized area of seagrass to be adversely affected by maintenance dredging could ensure that the proposed activities are not likely to damage the viability of the entire seagrass community, and, therefore, the project would be compliant with Rule 62-312.410(a), Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Several options for additional mitigation were discussed with the District, including— ■ Protect the surrounding flats by establishing a conservation easement and a management plan implementing signage restricting access. District staff suggested that the submerged lands remain in private ownership, to avoid State lands regulations that would require public access. ■ Develop a plan for restoration of the historic dolphin basin that provides detailed methodologies for construction and reduction of secondary impacts and addresses establishment of a functionally identical habitat with that within the maintenance -dredge footprint. Mr. Peekstok commented that filling the dolphin basin to the depth of the surrounding flats and redesigning the existing culvert to increase flushing should significantly improve water quality in the area. ■ Explore possible locations near the subject property to perform restoration of orphan prop scars, with associated signage to prevent future damage. In summary, SWC has identified and outlined several tasks that will allow the applicant to address the issues above and proceed accordingly. WALKER'S ISLAND, LLC, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008, PAGE 4 ➢ SWC will contact Ron Peekstok to schedule a meeting to specifically discuss and establish UMAM scores for the project. ➢ Hans Wilson & Associates, Inc. (HWA) will prepare an engineering report regarding slope stabilization and future maintenance dredging. ➢ SWC will explore detailed methodologies for maintenance dredging the entrance channel that will be most environmentally favorable for the subject location. ➢ SWC will work with Seagrass Recovery, Inc., to develop detailed methodologies for implementing seagrass restoration at the subject property and any other sites. ➢ SWC will contact the FKNMS to establish possible locations to perform orphan prop scar restoration and to explore management options for the shallow flats. ➢ SWC shall perform a detailed benthic assessment of the historic dolphin basin and incorporate the results in the revised impact assessment and mitigation plan, along with the other information listed above. SWC and the applicant appreciate the District's time and energy with regard to this project and look forward to future coordination with District staff. Please do not hesitate to contact Sandy or me at (305) 294-1238, or electronically at Joshuaa,swcinc.net or sandy(-,swcinc.net, if you have any questions or concerns. Cc: John McCarthy, Walkers Island, LLC / iCe7• Wcs4 • Mlami / Flatl}woad • FurE hhera www 6wnne rtal Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 R.E. Reece, P.A. Bathymetric Survey 10-1-07 ATTACHMENT 6J p� -U.96 (-4.61) x -2.45 (-4,82) x -1.72 x -1.14 (-5.21) (-4.57) x -0.47 (-4.96) x -1.51 (-4,93) limit -1.21 -5.04 x -0.94 (-4.37) -0.85 (-4.17) '-0.87 (-4 , 56) LIMITS OF TOPO AREA SUPPLIED BY SWC, INC. -1.30 (-3.61) SURVEYOR'S NOTE: x ELEVATIONS SHOWN W/O PARENTHESIS 2.86 (-3.62) WERE TAKEN AT THE TOP OF SILT. ELEVATIONS SHOWN WITH PARENTHESIS WERE TAKEN AT ABSOLUTE REFUSAL. 3 2) :CeY H'C51 • %ILiml 0FIoEI}wood • forl !Myers w swcnc n-9 Page * Copy of item not included Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 ATTACHMENT 6K References Consulting Engineering & Science, Inc. 2009. Fifth Annual Monitoring Report/Third Annual Post -Planting Report, Horseshoe Pit Seagrass Restoration, West Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida. South Florida Water Management District Standard General Permit 44-00298-P, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit 2000-0423 LP -MD 16 Engeman, Richard M., Janice A. Duquesnel, Ernest M. Cowan, Henry T. Smith, Stephanie A. Shwiff, Melissa Karlin. 2008. Assessing Boat Damage to Seagrass Bed Habitat in a Florida Park from a Bioeconomics Perspective. Journal of Coastal Research 24:2, 527 17 Fonseca, Mark S., 1997. Report in the case of United States v. Fisher et al. Case No. 92-10027-CIVIL-DAVIS. Fonseca MS, Kenworthy WJ, Thayer GW. 1998. Guidelines for the conservation and restoration of seagrasses in the United States and adjacent waters. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No 12. 220 pp. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD 32 Hall, Margaret O., Manuel Merello, W. Judson Kenworthy, Donna Berns, Keri Ferenc, Jennifer Kunzelman, Farrah Hall, and Jitkya Hyniova. 2006. Developing Techniques to Enhance the Recovery Rates of Propeller Scars in Turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum) Meadows. Final Report to USFWS. 85 Hammerstrom, K.K., W.J. Kenworthy, P.E. Whitfield, M.F. Merello. 2007. Response and recovery dynamics of seagrasses Tha/assia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme and macroalgae in experimental motor vessel disturbances. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 345, pp. 83-92. September 2007. 86 Kenworthy, W. Judson and Fonseca, Mark S. and Whitfield, Paula E. and Hammerstrom, Kamille and Schwarzschild, Arthur C.. (2000) A Comparison of Two Methods for Enhancing the Recovery of Seagrasses into Propellor Scars: Mechanical Injection of a Nutrient and Growth Hormone Solution vs. Defecation by Roosting Seabirds: Final Report. Beaufort, NC. NOAA/National Ocean Service/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science/Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research 127 Kenworthy, W. Judson, Kamille Hammerstrom, Mark S. Fonseca. 2006. Scientific Evaluation of a Sediment Fill Technique for the Restoration of Motor Vessel Injuries in Seagrass Beds of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unpub. Final — 2 October 2006. 144 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Seagrass Restoration in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. August 2004. Nc} Wen! • Hl;jml Fiat EWI • Farl ,Myers wrrvr. awcM a net Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 154 Penalver, M.F. Merello, W.J. Kenworthy, M.O. Hall, D. Berns, K. Ferenc. Scientific Evaluation of Methods for the Biophysical Stabilization and Restoration of Damaged Seagrass Meadows. Poster courtesy of Seagrass Recovery, Inc. M.R. Perrow, A.J. Davy (Eds.), Handbook of Ecological Restoration: Volume 1 Principles of Restoration: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 444 pp. 155 Precht, William, Lonny Anderson, William Goodwin, Shelli Braynard, Alicia Farrer, Hatsue Bailey, Jeff Anderson, and Amy Massey. 2008. Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Conference, Naples, FL. Poster. 156 Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options. Florida Marine Research Institute TR-1. 193 Seagrass Recovery, 2009. Knight's Key Restoration Project — SeaGrassGrow, Year 1 Monitoring Report. http://www.seagrassrecovery.com/article_Knights_Kely_ Restoration_Project.htm 208 Uhrin, A.V., M.O. Hall, M.F. Merello, and M.S. Fonseca. Survival and Expansion of Mechanically Transplanted Seagrass Sods. Restoration Ecology [Restor. Ecol.]. Vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 359-368. May 2009. 2011 Additions to References City of Marathon, Boot Key Harbor. http://www.ci.marathon.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=26 219 Deis, Donald R, Leslie Duncan, and Amit Hazra. 2009. Sebastian Inlet Channel Completion Project — Comprehensive Seagrass Mitigation Program, 2009 Program Update. http://www.fsbpa.com/2010BeachTechPresentations/DonDeis.pdf 255 Kenworthy, W. Judson. 2002. Identification and Development of Seagrass Transplant Donor Sites in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unpub. Final —15 February 2002 for NOAA's Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, NC. 262 Lamb, Neil J. 2006. West Bay Seagrass Restoration Pilot Project. Final Report to US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Coastal Program Grant: 1448- 40181-00-G-155. The St. Andrew Bay Enviornmental Study Team, BEST Publication #0011, September 2006. 290 Stowers, J.F., E. Fehrmann, and A. Squires. 2006. Seagrass Scarring in Tampa Bay: Impact Analysis and Management Options. Presented at a Mote Marine Laboratory workshop, Sarasota, FL, March 11-12, 2003. Published by Lewis Environmental Services, Inc, Valrico, FL. References have been provided electronically and in the interest of environmental conservation, have not been printed. Keywesl•Mlami Impact Assessment & Mitigation Plan (Revised) [� Hnn�ud•rvn� ERP Application, Walker's Island, June 14, 2011 _ ,tr� mvw5wcncna ATTACHMENT 6L Mitigation Cost Estimate (Revised) June 14, 2011 ITEM CONTRACTOR NUMBER UNIT COST AMOUNT SUBTOTAL Requested Pricing Channel Marker/Buoy Installation Coffin Marine 12" wood marker pilings 7.00 $750.00 $5,250.00 Da boards for each marker $400 per pair installed 7.00 $200.00 $1,400.00 Channel Marker Installation Subtotal $6,650.00 Rol an buoys w/ s'r na a and anchors $56.0 each installed Coffin Marine 3 shoal marker buoys along channel on site 3.00 $560.00 $1,680.00 2 shoal marker buo at corners of boat basin 2.00 $560.00 $1,120.00 7 "Seagrass Area" buoysalong propertyboundaries 7.00 $560.00 $3,920.00 3 shoal marker buoys on eastern edge of flat off site 3.00 $560.00 $1,680.00 Buoy Installation Subtotal $8,400.00 Seagrass Restoration Seagrass Recovery Dolphin Basin $174,240.00 On site prop scar restoration $45,304.00 Seagrass Restoration Subtotal $219,544.00 Mail Restore -A -Scar brochure toregistered boaters SWC Est. $1,000.00 Installation of Informational Si na a at Dock TBD Est. $1,000.00 TOTAL PRICING $236,594.00 M 1[ SPwia�- is Maw Savage S E R. V I C PO. Box 430538 BIG PINE KEY, FL, 33043 (305) 872-8863 FAX (305) 872-5613 January 2, 2010 SWC Inc 6410 Fifth Street, Suite 3 Key West, F133040 PROPOSAL: Little Conch Key Development Coffm Marine proposes to do the following: Harbor redevelopment at Walker's Island, all or any part of proposed historic entrance channel restoration, drainage reconfiguration or minor changes to existing dock. Coffin Marine has been requested to provide a realistic estimate of time frame, cost and applied methodology for the described work. Entrance channel restoration: An estimated volume of 3,620 cubic yards of sediment will be removed from the historic entrance channel for an approximate length of 700 yards and transported approximately 1,000 yards to a disposal area. Turbidity control and the associated environmental liabilities are the limiting factors in determination of methodology. Dredge spoils are typically deposited on an upland site where they are either dried out and transported away or used on site. In the proposed scope of work dredge spoils will be deposited back into the marine environment in an accurate and tightly controlled manner. Coffin Marine has previously performed a similar project in both scope and size, relocating 3,000 cubic yards of sandy material into a man made hole, surrounded by shallow water sea grass flats. Of vital concern to the integrity of the project is the volume and rate of flow of water into the disposal area. As the distance from dredge site to deposit area is increased, so must the volume of water. At the maximum 1,000 yard travel distance, at least one barge mounted booster pump will be added in order to maintain flow. At the receiving end, turbidity control will be challenged by the massive influx of water. Multiple rows of turbidity curtains will be deployed. The water being added to a set of closed booms must be allowed to vent without lifting the boom skirts from the sea bottom and creating a mud plume. Excess water will be vented through the adjacent island, where tree roots will act to disperse and diffuse the energy created by the pumping equipment. Turbidity control and the associated oversight as well as environmental liability are important factors in determining price. Coffin Marine proposes to use a 10-inch "Toyo" hydraulic dredge pump. This design is generally accepted to be the most environmentally effective unit. A conservative estimate of 40- cubic yards of material transported per day allows for adjustment of turbidity booms, oversight and relocation of equipment, based upon previous experience. Project duration, based upon this projection would be 90-days. For the purposes of this estimate, a time frame of 120-days has been used, allowing for weather and mechanical delays. Estimated costs for the channel restoration are as follows: Fixed price calculation: Labor cost, $96,000, equipment rental, $110,000, turbidity control, $45,000, contractor fixed overhead and profit $100,000. Total estimate of cost using "cost plus" calculation is $351,000. This is a fixed price cost for the completed dredge project. Time and materials calculation: Coffin Marine offers its services at a per day rate of $2,500, which includes in house equipment and labor. As part of a time and materials contract, Coffin Marine would pursue aggressive discount on equipment rental and client would provide turbidity booms. Our prior contract to relocate 3,000 cubic yards of material in similar circumstances was performed at time and materials rate for $162,500 over a paid period of 65 working days. Total estimate of cost using time and materials calculation for a reasonable amount of time is $265,000 which includes labor, equipment and rental cost. An estimated 3,000 feet of turbidity boom for this project would cost approximately $20,000. Per cubic ,yard calculation: Marine dredging is generally estimated at near $100 per cubic yard with allowances either subtracted or added for disposal. Total cost using per cubic yard calculation is $362,000. ' Based upon experience and understanding of the scope of work, Coffin Marine would have no problem entering into contract to do the proposed work within the specified ranges outlined above. A note about turbidity booms: To be completely effective they should be soft and pliable without damage to either skirt or float and preferably new. Coffin Marine has a large inventory of used booms which are effective for small marine construction projects but would not be prudently used in this application. Minor changes to existing dock: Although final engineering drawings, approved by US Army Corps have not been examined, it appears that 125-feet of finger docks and 50-feet of walkway extensions are proposed to be added to the existing dock. Approximately 45 10-inch wood piles, including dock support and mooring piles can be placed at a cost of $750 per piling ($33,750). 175-feet of walkway with heavy framing, as specified, including plastic composite decking could be reasonably installed for approximately $120 per foot ($21,000). It is not unrealistic to assume that the dock renovation could be performed for less than $55,000 as part of the channel restoration project. Extra cost for stainless steel bolts and clips, site built composite fish cleaning stations for each finger pier, stainless steel cleats etc may add significantly to this estimate but offer more than significant value to the aesthetics and structural integrity of the new docks. A complete estimate of cost can be provided upon review of finished drawings. Channel markers and buoys: 12-inch wooden marker pilings can be installed for $750 per piling as part of the dock construction projector $1,000 per piling as a stand alone project. Professionally manufactured day boards cost $400 per pair, installed. "Rolyan" brand buoys with suitable signage and galvanized helical embedment anchors cost $560 each, installed. Coffin Marine Services is a licensed and insured Marine Engineering Contractor in Monroe County. References are available upon request. Basic equipment available as part of our "per day" price schedule include 60-foot, 900 hp, self propelled aluminum hulled construction barge with Rotobeck knuckle boom, 45-foot aluminum hulled cargo barge, 40-foot steel hulled drill rig barge with Texoma drill rig, 4 tow boats ranging in size from 16-foot to 34-foot, 18-ton hydraulic crane, wheeled excavator, 35-cubic yard knuckle boom dump truck, 2 crew transport vehicles, numerous trailers and all small mechanical equipment necessary to run a self sufficient marine contracting entity. Details used in producing this proposal are based on information taken from revised engineering plans, Attachment 4, dated November 25, 2009. Estimated costs are based on information available to me on or about January 1, 2010 and should not be construed as a contractual obligation until deemed so. Sincerely, John Coffin 1 ' } �, !} e a .' t , y .•} 'yu }N , , Seagrass Recovery An overview of Seagrass Recovery's proposal for the seagrass mitigation 1511 Gulf Blvd. — Suite A for Walker's Island Channel Dredge project. Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 727.596.8020 www.seagrassrecovery.com SEAGRASS Recovery Walker's Island, LLC. - Seagrass Mitigation Proposal Kt <cwz ry 'anuary 11, 2010 Walker's Island, LLC. 91760 Overseas Hwy Tavernier, FL 33070 Attn: John McCarthy Mr. McCarthy, Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with a proposal to install 21,780 square feet of Sediment Tubes onto the dredge material being deposited into the previous Dolphin Basin (.50 acres). The proposal also includes restoration cost for the 5,663 square feet of prop scars located onsite (.13 acres), and the 11,762 square feet of prop scars and restoration areas on the adjacent seagrass bank. As outlined in the permit Sediment Tubes have been tested and scientifically proven successful by both NOAA and FWC. During the installation we will also prepare and submit a GIS map of exact placement of the sediment tubes and photo documentation for the initial monitoring event. Methodology: Seagrass Recovery will deploy a biology crew to survey the existing conditions of the prop scars to be restored. After documentation the installation process will begin. This process will include using Trimble handheld equipment and mapping all sediment tubes installed. This information will be documented and placed on an aerial image for future interpretation of recovery. Various technologies will be used to satisfy permit requirements and all techniques will Iollow guidelines required in the Florida Keys Programatic Environmental Impact Statement (FKPEIS). Seagrass Recovery (SR) was founded to restore seagrasses that are needed to provide a nursery for the juvenile fish and all aquatic life. SR prides itself in being innovative and the most environmental seagrass restoration company in the world. We currently hold over 11 patents on restoration, salvage, and stabilization technologies. We have been sole sourced by government, and private individuals alike. We have worked together with Dr. Margaret Hall, Manuel Merello, Dr. Judson Kenworthy, and NOAA on perfecting our restoration techniques. Dr. Kenworthy has stated that the Sediment Tubes are the best way to introduce fine grained sediments into blowouts and prop scars. Penny Hall at FWRI will acknowledge any questions about the performance of Seagrass Recovery and along with her personal recommendation of the use of the technologies listed above. Project Cost: Task 1- Task 2- Task 3- Sediment tube installation .50 acre Dolphin Basin Prop Scar Onsite Restoration .13 acre Prop Scar Offsite Restoration .27 acre *Estimated total Sincerely, Beau Williams Director of Project Affairs. Seagrass Recovery 'Estimate is valid for 60 Days to begin construction $ 174,240.00 $ 45,304.00 $ 94,096.00 $ 313,640.00 Page 12 Sandy Walters Subject: Walker's Island Dear Mayor Neugent, My name is Captain Jim Sharpe. ). I first began fishing in the Florida Keys in 1950 as a boy with my father and since then have been a local flats guide, offshore charter captain and previous owner and operator of Sea Boots Outfitters (a pro fly shop on Big Pine Key). During all this time I have witnessed many changes. Boating by people inexperienced with local waters has increased tremendously, and prop scars around unmarked and unmaintained access channels to existing docks and homes has also increased, causing serious long-term damage to our critical marine resources. I would like to comment on the proposed channel maintenance (limited re -dredging) and sea grass protection comp plan amendments proposed which would include a special subarea for Walker's Island. I feel the developer has acted in a very responsible way to mitigate for sea grass impacts and to limit t#e future impacts from vessels using the existing dock by minimally re -dredging and marking the access channel. They are also providing a commitment to maintain 26 acres of seagrass flats in perpetuity and must restore any boat -caused seagrass damage in the future. This plan in my opinion demonstrates that this is a responsible developer that wants to preserve the beauty of theFlodda Keys and limit the impact of boats by marking and maintaining a channel to reach deep water. I will not go into all the details of the plan as you have the facts before you. This is a sound plan to protect the environment and restore the sea grass flats at the property owners cost and not the tax payers. As a Keys on -the -water professional who makes my living from our valuable marine resources I urge you to vote yes on these comp plan amendments this coming Thursday at your public hearing. Captain Jim Sharpe Sea Boots Charters seaboots5(cDaol.com Sandy Walters From: Lee Lucas [CAPTLUCAS@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:54 AM To: sandy@swcinc.net Subject: Re -Dredging - Helps us, keep boating a safe sport. Flag Status: Flagged April, 16, 2013 Re: Proposed Channel Maintenance (Limited Re -Dredging) and Seagrass Protection Comprehensive Plan Amendments Dear Mayor Neugent, Mayor Pro Tem Carruthers, Comm. David Rice, Comm. Danny Kohlage, and Comm. Sylvia Murphy: As a long time resident of the Florida Keys, I believe it is imperative to preserve our natural resources while allowing home owners the right to improve and maintain their investment. The proposed Monroe County Comprehensive Plan amendments, including the subarea policy for Walker's Island, will meet both objectives of improving the property while preserving the sea grass habitat. Allowing a narrow re -dredge of the Walker's Island privately -owned access channel, with full mitigation for seagrass impacts, and properly placing channel markers along with additional protective buoys around the shallow flats, will ensure that future scarring would not occur at this location when boaters use the existing boat dock. As part of the mitigation, the upland property owners will be legally and financially responsible to replant the sea grass and maintain and restore the surrounding 26 acres against any future boat -caused damage. Let's put the expense back on the property owner, not on the community. I ask that you stand behind these proposed amendments, thereby moving forward in the preservation of our natural environment, rather than the status quo which allows continued, unrestored damage to seagrasses. Please vote for the re -dredging comp plan amendments April 18! This is a chance to do something positive to provide safe boating access while also protecting seagrass, and at the expense of the property owners rather than the general, taxpaying public. Opponents are making this out as though it is a big change, and in reality it just extends —under very stringent conditions and limited circumstances —something that our comp plan already allows for public channels. Providing properly marked and maintained channels is the best way to protect our seagrass flats. Your staff supports this, the Planning Commission supported this, and you should too! County staff has worked with all the agencies to develop something that can be a really good thing, so please ignore the nay -sayers and adopt these amendments on April 18. Sincerely, Capt. Lee Lucas 136 North Indies Dr. Duck Key, Fl. 33050 Capt. Lee Lucas L&L First Love P.O. Box 1709, Marathon FL 33050 305-289-0039 Cell: 305-393-0558 h tt,o.11w ww. m ara thon S PO R TSfi sh itzq. eo m http://www.facebook.com/pages/Duck-Key- FL/First-Love-Charters-Duck-Key-Fl-F ish i n4-i n-the-Keysl l 102 72888999399 ht!g:/Jwww.vrbo.com/85683 Sandy Walters From: Keys Girl [keysfishinggirl@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:57 AM To: sandy@swcinc.net Subject: Fwd: Proposed Channel Maintenance and Seagrass Protection Comprehensive Plan Amendments ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Keys Girl <keysfishin girl(i-ogmai1.com> Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:14 AM Subject: Proposed Channel Maintenance and Seagrass Protection Comprehensive Plan Amendments To: "Danny Kolhage\" <bocedisl Cc monroecounty-fl.gov>, l"David Rice\" <boccdis4 mo monroecounty-fl.gau>, \"'Heather Carruthers\" <boccdis3Ccr monroecounty-fl.gov>, V'Sylvia Murphy\"" <boccdis5 rr,monroecounty- fl ov>, boccdis2 a monroecounty-fl.go'r, gastesi-romanci7monroecounty-fl.gov, santamaria- ma a monroccoun -fl. ov Dear Commissioners, I have never written a support letter before, but I feel this is too important not to address. I have enjoyed the fishing and boating in our beautiful Keys for many years. During that time, I have been saddened by the thousands of prop scars I have seen due to our shallow waters and sometimes careless boaters. I have studied the proposed comp plan amendments regarding channel maintenance and seagrass protection. If I were in the position you are to vote for it I would because it is a win -win situation. As someone who always tries to see both sides of an issue I have been trying to find a downside to this proposal and I have been unable to do so. I think the following are positive things that will occur if it is passed: • It will allow safe boating access to an area that will be used regardless of your decision • It will help avoid continued prop scarring and seagrass damage since the channel will be marked It will restore already damaged seagrass areas • It will make property owners in the affected area responsible for future damages I am requesting that you please support these comp plan amendments as it would be positive steps for our environment. Sincerely, Whitney Meehan REYNOLDS ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. JIM REYNOLDS, PE 000* Reynolds Engineering Services, Inc. April 16, 2013 22330 Lafitte Rd Cudjoe Key, FI. 33042 Phone: (305) 394-5987 Jim@Reynoldsengineeringservices.com Re: Proposed Channel Maintenance and Seagrass Protection Comp Plan Amendments Dear Commissioner Kohlage: We urge your support of the comp plan amendments that will allow limited re -dredging of entrance channels and boat basins on privately -owned baybottom that serve existing docks and upland development where seagrasshas recolonized. Any depression in the baybottom will, over time, tend to fill up with sediment and seagrasswill regrow there. This is not a good reason to allow boating accessto become unsafe. The environmental permitting process requires that any impacts to marine resources be kept to the absolute minimum and that proven mitigation be provided for any remaining impacts. These amendments recognize and codify that, and ensure that anyone applying to use these policies must get their permits and provide regular progress reports. On top of that, they will have to provide a bond to the County to ensure that the re -dredging is done correctly. It is not as though re -dredging is not currently allowed by the Comp Plan where seagrasses have come back in public channels. Why should protecting the surrounding flats by providing properly maintained and marked channels be okay for a public channel but not for a private one? This makes no sense and seems like the County is facilitating boat damage on privately - owned baybottom. These amendments extend the same reasonable and effective protection of safe boating and resource protection to the people who pay the taxes. Additionally, the proposed amendments make the upland property owners responsible for protecting and maintaining the surrounding seagrass flats at a time when government budgets are cut and little public money is available to restore the damage that boats do to the bottom. The proposed amendments are a win -win, practical and reasonable solution to a problem. Please vote for in favor of these amendments on April 18. sincere , ji Reynolds` Sandv Walters From: Cloud21 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 11:33 PM To: boccdis4@MonroeCounty-FL.gov Cc: sandy@swcinc.net Subject: Proposed channel maintenance amendments Dear Commissioner David Rice My name is Captain Gary Teske and I am a resident of Monroe County. I own a home on Big Coppitt Key. I am a professional Mariner who has been working in the Marine Industry since 1970. 1 hold a Master of Steam or Motor 1600 Tons (Domestic Tonnage), 3000 Tons (ITC Tonnage) upon Oceans. I am serving as Master on board the LSV Berto L Miller now working in the Pacific. will be unable to attend the Commission Meeting to voice my support for the proposed channel maintenance limited re-dred rn and sea grass protection comp plan amendments. I am writing to you asking for your support of it. I have spent most of my life at sea and when I am on shore leave I spend as much time as I can on or under these beautiful waters of the Florida Keys. I have seen the effects that prop scaring damage does to the sea grasses around channels and entrances to boat basins that are not properly marked and maintained. These amendments will fix that problem. firmly believe that these Comp Plan Amendments will benefit all with a Win/Win for the Citizens of the Florida Keys. I believe that this will help the environment This will provide minimized but safe boating access without running aground and causing damage to marine resources under very limited conditions that ensure net positive environmental benefits and long-term protective management of shallow sea grass flats. ✓ .It avoids continuing sea grass damage by vessel groundings ✓ .It restores damaged sea grass enabling healthy benthic community • Residents will benefit ✓ increased spending in the local economy, ✓ taxes and tourism dollars • It is comparable to U.S Fish and Wildlife Service nationwide policy to develop public - partnerships with property owners to protect listed species. Best Regards Captain Gary Teske 29 Flipper Rd Big Coppitt Key,Fl 33040 Sandy Walters -- On Mon, 4/15/13, eweinhofer( s► hfla.corn <cfteiiiho arfa:v)vlr cr.corir> wrote: From: cweinhofer(@swhfla.com <cweinhofer rr.swhfla.com> Subject: Proposed Channel Maintenance {Limited Re -Dredging} and Seagrass Protection Comprehensive Plan Amendments To: boccdis2Qmonroecounty-fl.,aov Date: Monday, April 15, 2013, 12:19 PM Dear Mayor Neugent, Good afternoon, I'm writing in support of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amendments to allow re -dredging of entrance channels and boat basins in certain situations. This change in policy would be a benefit to the residents of Monroe County because: 1) Re -dredging and properly marking an entrance channel to service an area that is already or will be used by boaters will allow safe navigation that will serve to protect the surrounding seagrass flats. Without a proper entrance channel, boats trying to get to a dock often run aground and create prop scars and/or blowholes and damage the seagrass on the surrounding seagrass flats. If a channel were provided, damage to these lats could be minimized or eliminated. 2) There are very few properties that would be eligible for re -dredging under this amendment, but setting aside protective measures for a few is still better than doing nothing and allowing continued damage to the seagrass by boaters trying to get to their docks. 3) Currently the FKNMS is unable to properly enforce seagrass damage and pay for restoration due to constricted budgets and few law enforcement personnel. There is no restoration fund. Restorations are conducted only if costs are recouped from the responsible party and only if they are caught. Currently, only a fraction of the damage done to seagrass in the FKNMS is ever restored. This amendment would take the problem of inadequate enforcement out of the equation and put the responsibility of all future seagrass restoration needs and cost on the property owners and not the taxpayer or the government. 4) Implementing better -marked channels is the bset and proven way to protect sensitive areas and should be a priority Keys -wide. Thank you for your support and your leadership in moving away from acres of seagrass being destroyed in the Keys every year to a practical approach that balances safe 'coating access with environmental protection. 1 Thank you, Christina Sharpe-Weinhofer Sweetwater Homes, Inc. 30051 Pond Lane Big Pine Key, A. 33043 (305) 872-9520 ext. 16 Fax (305) 872-4791 cweinhofer@)swhfla.com www.SweetwaterHomes-FloridaKeys.com Office hours 7:30 to 3:30 M-F Sandy Walters From: John Cottis Ocottis@keywestengine.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:24 AM To: boccdis5@monroecounty-fl.gov Subject: Amendments Dear Commissioner Murphy, Please support the Proposed Channel Maintenance and Seagrass Protection Comp Plan Amendments. These amendments are important to insure that our existing channels and boat basins can be maintained for safe boating access. Since the amendments also provide for long term seagrass protection management, I see no downside to the amendments. Sincerely, John Cottis Key West Engine Service, Inc. 6991 Shrimp Rd. Key West, FL 33040 305-296-9919 305-851-0055 Fax 0cottis@keywestengine.com Sandy Walters Subject: Please support Channel Maintenance Comp Plan From: Robert Maguire <roberet@bellsouth.net> To: D. Rice <boccdis40monroecounty-fl.aov> Sent: Thu, March 28, 2013 5:55:00 PM Subject: Please support Channel Maintenance Comp Plan Dear Commissioner Rice, I write to you to ask your support for the Proposed Channel Maintenance and Seagrass Protection Comp Plan Amendments. These amendments are a win win for the environment by helping to reduce vessel groundings in shallow grass flats, and to encourage long term protective management of seagrass flats. And the fact that this serves only existing, legally established docking facilities and upland developments, it is a win for the citizens of Monroe County who desire no more than to be able to continue to access the waters of the Florida Keys in a safe and environmentally sound fashion. Best Regards, Robert and Teresa Maguire 28 Aster Terrace Key Haven F133040 305-294-3819 Sandy Walters Subject: Proposed Channel Maintenance From: rcf1711 <rd1711(-abellsouth.net> To: boccdis4@)monroecounty-fl.gov Sent: Sun, March 31, 2013 4:27:45 PM Subject: Proposed Channel Maintenance Dear Commissioner Rice, My family and I are asking you to support the Proposed Channel Maintenance and Seagrass Protection Comp Plan Amendments. We have lived in the Keys for 18 years and have always enjoyed spending time on the water. Please allow us continued safe access through existing, legally designated channels and basins by voting for these amendments. We support the Marine Sanctuary and the rules they have implemented but feel that as property owners we also deserve the right to safe access to the waters that brought us here to begin with. Please help to protect our rights to enjoy these waters. Respectfully, Robert and Deborah Fitzsimmons 205 S. Point Dr. Sugarloaf Key, FL 33042 FLORIDA KEYS CONTRACTORS �►{� "�> ���-:... wvwvv.flor-idcikeyscor-itractorsassoc c m 2 C:� . 1 APREL, 15. 2013 Re: Proposed Channel Maintenance (Limited Re -Dredging) and Seagrass Protection Comprehensive Plan Amendments Dear Mayor Neugent, Mayor Pro Tern Carruthers, Comm. David Rice, Comm. Danny Kohlage, and Comm. Sylvia Murphy: We strongly urge you to vote for the amendments on your agenda April 18 that will allow limited re - dredging of privately -owned entrance channels and boat basins. This will lead to more and better protected seagrass, by doing something proactive to prevent and fix the problem of boat -caused damage to our sea grasses rather that just ignoring it! The following are some reasons we think this is the way to go and why we should do it now: There are several County studies that recommend more and better marking of channels to reduce boat -caused seagrass damage o Channel markers are very successful in protecting seagrass flats —we have seen how well it worked at Boot Key Harbor and other places where people are getting to and from existing docks, and we have seen what devastating damage occurs when markers are not there o The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary adopted a plan in 2004 that specifies how seagrass restoration should be done, and this plan also focuses on prevention of damage —mitigation for the limited seagrass impacts caused by the re -dredging will follow this plan and will work, along with markers and future protection, fully implementing this plan n Recent public input for updating the Sanctuary management plan prioritized marking of flats and channels for protecting seagrasses—lots of people pointed this out, • Water quality will be completely protected during dredging activities as required by the Outstanding Florida Waters designation of the Keys —curtains must be placed around the dredging area and continuous monitoring conducted, and turbidity must not exceed background conditions or the job is stopped These amendments are very conservatively written, and will only affect a few properties to start with — and those will have to amend the comp plan so be individually scrutinized. This is a baby step to try out a solution, rather than letting the existing condition continue where people will use existing docks and just run aground, with almost no enforcement or restoration. And on top of that, the upland property owners would become responsible for protecting and restoring the surrounding seagrass fiats in the future! Please vote for these amendments! Sincerely, o i OJL,4 *00�' President Representing over 130 Construction industry professionals. POD Sox 522797, Marathon Shores, FL 33050 305-743-9409 Construction 26351 Old State Road 4A Ramrod Key, FL 33042-5337 Phone (305) 872-2100 FAX (305) 872-1286 CGC #1520363 April 121201 Re: Proposed Channel Maintenance (Limited Re -Dredging) and SeGgrass Protection Comprehensive Plan Amendments Dear Mayor Neugent, Mayor Pro Tern Carruthers, Comm. David Rice, Comm. Danny Kohlage, and Comm. Sylvia Murphy; As a long time resident of the Florida Keys, I believe it is imperative to preserve our natural resources while allowing home owners the right to improve and maintain their investment. The proposed Monroe County Comprehensive Plan amendments, including the subarea policy for Walker's Island, will meet both objectives of improving the property while preserving the sea grass habitat. Allowing a narrow re -dredge of the Walker's Island privately -owned access channel, with full mitigation for seagrass impacts, and properly placing channel markers along ;th additional ,protective buoys around the shallow flats, will ensure that future scarring would not occur at this location when boaters use the existing boat dock. As part of the mitigation, the upland property owners will be legally and financially responsible to replant the sea grass and maintain and restore the surrounding 26 acres against any future boat -caused damage. Let's put the expense back on the property owner, not on the community. I ask that you stand behind these proposed amendments, thereby moving forward in the preservation of our natural environment, rather than the status quo which allows continued, unrestored damage to seagrasses. Sincerely,