Item I1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
!\1eeting Date: Sept. 20. 2006/Marathon
Division:
ROCC - DISTRICT 5
Bulk hem: Yes
No -----K-
Department:
Comm. Glenn Patton
Staff Contact Person: Donna Hanson
AGENDA ITEM \VORDING: Approval of a resolution of the Key Largo Wastewater
Treatment District. Key Largo, Florida requesting payment by Monroe County of mitigation fees
retluired by county ordinance in connection with further clearing of the District's central
wastewater treatment plant site.
ITE!\l BACKGROUND: See attached Vegetation Survey and l\'1itigation Plan.
PREVIOliS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOI\Il\'IE~DA TIONS:
TOTAL COST:
$423.796.56
RVDGETED: Yes ~ :'-]0
COST TO COUNTY: 5423.796.56
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
304 fund
REVE:"JUE PRODUCI1'IG: Yes
.0Jo
AMOUNT PER MONTH
Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB.iPurchasing _ Risk Management
DOCl~'IENT ATJO~:
Included
x
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITE:\l #
R c Ilsrd S '()fj
RES0Ll TION NO. 29-08-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE KEY LARGO \VASTE\VA TEl{
TREATI\lENT DISTIUCT, KEY LARGO, FLORIDA
REQllESTING PAYMENT BY MONROE COVNTY OF
MITIGATION FEES REQLIRED BV COliNTY
ORDINANCE I:\' CONNECTION \VITI-I FURTHER
CLEARll\G OF THE IlISTRJCrS CENTRAL
WASTEWATER TRFA TMENT PLANT SITE.
\VH F R LAS, the Key Largo \Vastev.ri1tcr Treatment I)i strict ('"Distri Cr') intends 10 clear
311 add i tiemal 1.59 acres 0 f land at the Di strict's central wastc\\-ater treatment plant si tc located at
M!'v1 100.), Key I ,argo~ and
W lIEREAS, this clearing wi lJ reml i t the eonstruction of the fi nal port ions or [he
Dis!l;ct's central \vastewatcr tr~atmellt plant with a capacity of 2.25 million gaJlonsiday, to sen'c'
the entire District;
\VHERFAS, pursuant III Monroe County ("County") Land Development Regulations, (he
additillnal clearing \.vill result in a mitigation payment requirement of $424,000, as set forth in
the- attached KL \VTD V egetati on Survey and :vt i tigation Plan:
NO\\.", TIIEREFORL BE II RfSOL VEO RY THE K[)' LARGO WASTEWA rU{
lREAT\1LNl DISTRICI BOARD OF KE't' LARGO. FLORIDA, THAT:
Section I. The COt:nty has establi,~hcd a practice of raying sllch mjtigal~()n paym.:-nts direetly to
the County Land Authority's dedicated mitigation fund.
Section 2, Therefore, the District respectfully. requests that the County mak.:- the rnitigatillll
payment to the mitigation Jtmd.
flNTE!'ITIONALLY LEFT m .ANKI
lhe t'un.'going RI-':SOLUTJO;\j NO_ 20-08 06 \\"<1S oft',:-red by Commissioner Bauman. who
mo\-ed its appnwal. lhe- motion was seconded by Commissioner Brooks. and bein!;! put lu a VOli,,'
till.' result was as Co] kl\'v'S:
Commissioner Ciary [human
COlllm issi uner Charks Brooks
Commissioner Andrew -IoDin
Commissioner \;orman II iggins
Chairman Claude Bullock
AYE
X
;..:
NA '{
Absent
_x_
_:~
C] he Chaimmn there-upon declared Resolulion No. 2q-()~-(J6 duly passed and adopted the 9th day
of August 2(J()6.
KEV LARGO 'WASTEWA TER TREA TME~T
DISTIUCT GOVERNING BOARD
By
..>1 4.~'9 -.,.) 1.4 /
L-- . - ...... .k Or "l; r .... ~J:;..l.-r....... -<<-_
Claude Bulluck. Chaimmn
Attest:
Approved as to f('flTI and content:
I3v
~ /;)lJjuc
Carol \\'alker. Board Clerk
'\:.Lw~~
District Counsel
I~)
VEGETATION SURVEY and MITIGATION PLAN
KEY LARGO \l-/ASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANl
MILE MARKER 100.5
KEY LARGO. MONROE COUNTY. Fl.ORIDA
Prepared by
(D)
Consulting Engineering and Science, Inc.
8925 S.,"'. 14Rth Street. Suite Ion
M iam L F lurida 3.11 76
July 2006
Key Lv/"g,o IYa,rewaler Tre<llmenl Di~.!ric/
I"r'"f!.elaliofl .','lIrl'e)" and /l,firigv/iol1 Plan
Cnn.w/ling Engineerinp' & .<;elencf'. 11/('
Jl/ly]O()t)
INTRODUCTION
The Key l.argo Wastewater Treatment District (KL WTD) operates the \....aslewater collection and
treatment facilities that serv'e the island of Key Largo. The mission of the KL WTD is to provide
for sanitary treatment and disposal of v..:astc\','ater. and is an integral component of [he larger slate
and federal initiative to restore the Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystem and reduce nutrient
loading in ncarshore waters. The island of Key Largo includes over 13,000 individual parcels of
land, and it is the goal of the KL WTD to have central ized wastev..'atcr colleetion and treatment in
place to serve <111 commercial and residential interests on Key Largo by the year 20 10. 1 n order
to accommodate the \....aslewater treatment needs of serv'ice area, an expansion of the faci lit)' IS
needed.
The Key Largo 'W'astewater Treatment District (KL WTD) is proposing an expansion of the
regional wastewater lreatment facility located at Mi Ie Marker 100.5. Key Largo, to aecommodatc
the ultimate necds of the wastewater service area which includes all of Key Largo. In order to
accomplish this expansion, an area or hardwood hammock 1.59 acres in size will need to be
cleared.
The KL \VTD eentral treatment facilit.v is located at Mile Marker 100.5, and consists ora parcel
of land approximately 21 acres in size, inc Iud ing an ex i sting cleared area 0 r approximately 2.6
acres (Figure 1). The initial clearing of this area ofhardv.-ood hammock was conducted for the
construction ofthe tirst phase of the \vastewater fae i I itl'. and \vas previously authorized by
\1onroe County. The remaining 18.4 acres of the property is vegetated with hardwood hammock
and is part of a larger forested area knm.vn as Newportllammocks. The hardwood hammock on
the KL WTD has been previously determined to be Iligh Qual ity pursuant to the Monroe County
Land Development Regulations (L DR's).
The study area includes an area totaling 1.59 acres (69,260 sq.ft.) that has been proposed to be
cleared for the expansion of the wastewater facility, and is loeated adjacent to the eastern
Key Largo WUSlc'l-afe( 7i.e11lmclIl DislriCl
Vcgel<lliot/ '<'.II(I'<'Y IIIllI ,'vlitigalion /'Iun
ConslIl/ing Engineering ~. Science, Inc
,lull' 2 (JIM
boundary of the existing cleared portion of the Kl. WTD (Figure I). The majority of this area is
hardwood hammock with the exception of an unpaved access road approximately 20' in \vidth
that runs along the southern portion of the proposed clearing (Figure 4). The vegetation on the
study area is medium-aged hardwood hammock estimated to be 40-60 year old grO\\1h. The
species composition is typical of hardwood hammocks on Key l.argo. and includes a diverse
array of plant species of West I ndian origin (F igure 3).
The LDR's specify that. to the maximum extent practicable, development shall be sited so as to
prese rve all 1 i st ed th rea te ned. endan gered. com m e rc i ally exp I 0 ited, and reg i ana II y important
native plant species and all native trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of greater than
four inches (proteeted plants). I n those instances where avoidance of such species is not possi b Ie.
then the loss of such species shall be mitigated pursuanllo Monroe County mitigation standards.
These standards require that the removal of any protected plant species shall require payment to
the Monroe County Environmental Land Management and Restoration Fund in an amoLlnt
sufficient to replace each removed plant or tree on a two to one (2: I) basis. Revenues deposited
in this fund shall he used by Monroe County for restoration and management activities of publ ic
resource protection and conservation lands. The mitigation fee shall he based on the replacement
cost of the specific plants and trees. and shall be based on a price schedule maintained by
Monroe County.
I n order to determine the n umber of protected plant species that wi lJ be potentially impacted by
the proposed development and the mitigation required to offset the unavoidable impacts
associated \-vith the proposed project a vegetation survey and mitigation plan was completed for
1.59 acre study area. The vegetation survey was completed using a vegetative sampling
methodology that is statistically sound, biologically defensible. and specifically tailored to the
KL WTD property. The objective of the vegetation survey is to document the distribution and
abundance of protected trees on the property. and express th is infomlation in a statistic that
represents the number of protected plants per un it area. Havi ng a statistic describing the density
2
KI!Y !'argo Jl'aslewuler {rea/menl Dislncl
l.t'gdmioll .SUrl't"Y om!,\-fili?,Ulioll PIon
COflsullillg Engineering & Scien,-e. !fle
.July 201/(i
or protected plants will allow a simple and straightforward estimation of the project impacts and
mitigation requ irements.
BACKGROCND
Sampl ing with quadrats (plots of a standard size) is a common techn ique used to quanti fy forest
species composition. A quadrat delimits an area in which vegetation eover can be estimated.
plants counted. or spec ies listed. Since plants often grO\v in clumps. long. narrow plOlS often
inc lude m ore species than square or round p lots of equal area. I-lov.'cver. accuracy may dec line as
the plot lengthens because. as thc perimeter increases. the surveyor must make more subjective
dee isions about the p lacemellt of plants inside or outside the plot.
An important factor in choosing the si/,e of a sampling unit (quadrat) is to have it large enough
to include a representative numher of trees but small enough so that the time required for
measurement is not excessive. A_ quadrat should he large enough to include significant numhers
of individuals. but small enough so that plants can be separated. counted and measured without
dupl ication or om ission of individuals. The appropriate size for a quadrat depend s on the items to
be measured and tht:: desired accuracy of the survey.
F or the present survey. it was detcnn i ned a priori that a III i nimum 0 f25 % of the total forest
cover in the study area would be sampled or 25% of 69.260 square feet (1.59 acres). Thus. a
quadrat size and configuration totaling 17,3 I 5 square feet within the study area was designed and
used to sample forest vegetation.
METHODOLOGY
The hardwood hammock habitat the KL WTO study area was samplcd to detennine tree species
composition and size class distribution using the 1()lIowing sampling methodology (Figure 2):
:;
Key Largo I--Va.\./t'wafer Treatment Disrricr
Vegeratioll Survey and :\-fitif!.ation Flan
Consulting Lngineering & Science, Ine
Jllly]IJOfi
. A minimum of25% orthe total area ofhardv,ood hammock was sampled (25% of 1.59
acres = 17.315 sq.fLl:
. Square quadrats 2,500 sq. ft. in area (50' x 50') were used to sample plant srecics:
. Seven (7) quadrats were established and sampled to reach the desired 25% samrling area
(7 x 2,500 sq. ft. = 17.500 sq. ft: 25.30/0 of total study area):
. Quadrats "..ere located within the forest using a stratified design with plots placed along
the approximate mid-points of a series of lrdnsecls established within the study area:
. Roads. paths and clearings '....ere purposefully avoided when locating quadrats to maintain
the vegetative samples in intact forest resu Iting in a small overest im3te of protected plant
density over the stud),' area: and
. All protected plant species 'vithin each quadrat were identitied to species and assigned a
height class that corresponds to corresponding nursery pot size to allow calculation of
replacement costs established by the Monroe County mitigation standards:
Data Collection
The sampling quadrats described above \Vere located placed in the field and the center point
established using a desktop Geographic Information System (GIS). Within these established
quadrats. all protected lree species were identified to species and marked with biodegradable tree
markers (either marking crayon or flagging tape). Data recorded for protected plants included
species and size class for mitigation replacement hascd on guidelines established by ~onroe
County Crable I). Plant sampling was conducted during May 8-13, 2006.
Table I. Tree height and corresponding nursery pot size to determine mitigation requirements for
trees impacted through construction of the proposed redevelopment project at the K L WTD.
Tree Ilcight
0-)'
! )-6~
6-10.
: 10-
Pot Size
j 3 Gallon
I 7 Gallon
10 Gallon
I 2~ Gallon
4
Kel' 1.llrr<i Wastewater Trea/men! Vis/rid
V.:gdiilioll 5;1I1l'''.l" aml Mitigation Plan
Consul/lnff. L.ngineering & Science, Ine
,/11 ~\" 20(1 (j
Data for protected plants was summarized by quadrat and pooled to estimate owrall protected
tree density on the study area. Data from the quadrats V-ias converted to an estimate of estimated
protected plants using the following formula:
TOTAL PROTECTED PLANTS SAMPLED / TOTAL AREA SAMPLED
= ESTIMATED PROTECTED PLANTS PER SQUARE FOOT
RESlJL TS
Pm[ccu!J f'/ant Density
A total of 721 protected plants of 21 species were identified on the seven quadrats sampled over
a total area of 17,500 square feet (Appendix I). Inkwood was the most abundant protected plant
with a total 01'386 individuals recorded: the vast majority ofthcse individuals (365, 95~/o) were
seedlings that oceurred in dense patches in close proximity to adult seed trees (Figure 5).
Considering non-seedling trees, Gumbo limbo was the most common protected tree encountered
in the forest. \vith Wild Tamarind, Poisonwood, Mahogany, Pigeon Plum. and Black Ironwood,
J am a i ca dogwood. and Pal e Lid Jl o\','er (S P icewood) also we II rep re sen ted.
Protected plant density was estimated as ri)Jlows:
TOTAL PROTECTED PLANTS SAMPLED = 721
TOTAL AREA SAMPLED TRACT 4-B = 17,500 SQ. FT.
721 / 17,500 SQ. FT. = 0.0412 PROTECTED PLANTS PER SQ.FT.
0.0412 x 43,560 = 1,795 PROTECTED PLANTS PER ACRE
Bcca use on I y 25% 0 f the total stud)" a rea was sam pled, an area co n v ers i on fac to r \va s ap pi i ed to
the raw data to obtain protected plant densities over the total 1.59 acres study area. To obtain
5
KI!Y Largo Wastewater Trearmenr Dislrict
Vl'gelulion SUn'eY uml Mitigatiun Pllln
COllslIlring En[!ineerinf!, '" .\"ciellee. fne
)lIly 2006
this estimate. ra\v data from all plant sampling quadrats were summarized and total values \vere
multiplied by 4.0 to adjust for the sampling effort (Tahlc 2).
Table 2. Estimated protected tree numbers in the area proposed for expansion at the KLWTLJ
Mile Marker 100.5 facility. Because the total area sampled comprised only 25% of the total 1.59
acre study area, an area conversion factor of4X \\-'as applied to estimate plant density over the
1.59 acre study area.
Sp<:cies COlle Sifr Quadral C()unt~ TOlal .'l.rca Factor = 4X
Gl .,- 87 348
_;'1
Rl ,- .\4 116
_;'1
PW 2~ 3~ 140
\-lH 25 34 136
Tl 25 36 ]44
PI' 25 26 104
11,1,' .3 365 1460
JD 25 14 56
Pl ,- 14 56
..;.~
1:313 25 :' 20
lW 7 18 7'
Pl 7 1) 36
81 10 4 16
81 7 6 24
IT 25 2 8
V.'R 25 4
81 :.> 12 48
rw 25 ~ 12
,
PI. 10 .\ 16
Bl 25 4
Pl -' 4
TOTAL PROTECTED PLA'\TS 2.::0:::0:4
6
Key Largo J:Va.l'lel\'(lIer Treatml'fII District
l'egelalioll .\"urvey (11111 Mitigulir!ri Plan
COfl.l'lIllll1,>1, Enginee/"lll{; & Science, IlIc
July}(jfl(j
Profecred Nanl 5,'j;:(' C!ass f)islrihu( ion
Th~ size class distribution of trees on the KLWTD study area was bi-modaL large numbers of
trees were either very small or very large (Table 3). Typically, hardwood hammocks are skewed
towards large trees comprising the overstory. with the smaller trees less eommon in the open
understory typitied by many of the more mature hardwood hammocks. ^ single tree species.
lnkwood. had a significant atTect on the statistical sampling of tree sile class distribution on the
KI" WTD study area. Seedlings of this species occur in very high densities in certain areas oftbe
study area (Figure 5).
Inbvood seedlings persist in the understory of hardwood hammocks patches in association with
mature [n kwood trees \\'h ich are typically widely dispersed. I f a gap in the forest canopy opens
as a resulL of disturbanee or death of a eanopy tree. the seedlings compete for light and attempt to
colonize these light gaps. This phenomenon is well documented in tropical forests. and is
re [erred to as the light gap dynamics model of canopy tree recru itment.
The sampling data suggests Inkwood is a dominant tree specics in the hammock, eomprising a
total of 53 percellt (N = 386) of all protected trees on the study area. However. only' three adu It
trees greater than 10 feet in height were recorded on the seven quadrats sampled. suggesting
Ink\"'ood as a relatively uncommon trec in the forest. Removing Inkwood less than 10 feet in
height from the dataset. a total of 338 trees were sampled. \vith three of those being lnkwood.
Th LIS. excl ud i ng i m mat me Ink wood from the anal y s is. Ink wood com pri sed (). 90 perce n t of th e
trees sampled. ThllS, the presenee of large numbers of Inkwood seedlings had a strong statistical
effect on the data analysis, and tended to overestimate the abundance of this tree relative to it's
represen tal i on in th e 0 verst ory .
7
!\cy L(/ISo Waslcwuler TrealmclI/ Dis/ricl
/'1:"I!t'lilliOf/ .')'lIlTt'Y olld :Hiligmiorl P{arl
Consulting Engine.:rinK (\:. Science. f/le
JI/(\. ]006
Table 3. Size class distri bution of protected pltints on the K L WTD study area. The num bel' of
plants in each size category regardless of species is shov./n along \vith the proportion (%) of total
plants counted.
Size Class COu11l
.' ~n
7 33
10 8
25 .~O1
TOT,""] . 721
Per..:cnlofTotal
:;~
5
42
IOU
MITIGA nON PLAN
The Monroe County I. DR's requi re that mitigation fees for the loss 0 f protected vcg.etation are
calculated" in an amount sl~tllcien{ 10 replace each removed plmlf or ,ree on a two (0 one (]: 1)
basis ", It is generally accepted that tree cost is not simply the cost of the tree, but also the coslS
assoc i ated wi t h the pure h ase, trans porL p I ant i n g. and m a i n tenanc e 0 I' tb at tree s u fli c i ent to en sure
survival. Plant replacement costs fix the KL \A."TD project were taken from the most recent list
compiled by Monroe County dated August. 2005.
Using the field data collected on the 1.59 acre KLWTD site and the tree costs from Monroe
County_ the mitigation requirement for the 1.59 acres of hardwood hammock proposed for
deve lopment \Vas esti mated based on the total number 0 f protected lrees proposed tor removal.
the- estimatcd distribution of tree size classes on the study area. and thc estimate tree replaccment
cost by si ze class (Table 4). A pprox imately 25% of the total 1.59 acre area \vas sampled usi ng
quadrats_ so all protected plant densities were multiplied by,' four (4X) to compensate ror thc
actual area proposed lor development. In addition. mitigation is required on a two to one (2: I)
basis. so tbe field data for plant density \vas doubled (2X) to achieve th is mullip I ier Crable 4).
8
K"v Largo W(L\/rli.aler Tro!<1tment District
Vegetal ion S.lIn.,')' und MifigiJlion Plan
Consulting Engineering ,~ Science. file
.1111... lOOo
Table 4. Estimated mitigation costs for the proposed expansion of the KL WTO regional
waste\\' ater trea till ent fac i lit Y . Because the total area samp led comprised only 2)1% 0 r the tota I
1.59 acre study' area, an area conversion factor of 4X was applied. In addition. the Monroe
County land development regulations require mitigation at a rate of2: I, so all plant abundanee
data were doubled. Plant replacement cost was taken from the most recent list compiled by
Monroe County Jated August. 2005.
Spc<.:ies Size Counl Area Factor = 4X Mil. FaclOr - 2\: Cost i Tree Cusl
(iL 2.5 87 348 696 $136.::'..5 $94,830_00
HI ::'.5 44 176 :1)2 $200,00 $70,400,00
PW 25 :15 140 280 $175_00 $49.000.00
\1H ::'.5 34 136 ?T2 $149.7.5 $40.7.'\2_0U
TI 25 .16 144 288 $128.75 $37.080_00
PP 25 26 104 208 $166.50 $34,632.00
lW ., 365 1.460 2,920 $10_00 $29.200.00
-'
Jl) ~5 14 56 11::'. $167.74 S 1 S, 786.88
PL 25 14 56 112 $150.00 $16.S00_00
BR 25 5 20 40 $250.00 S 10,000.00
Iv.." ..., 18 72 144 $33..-1 I $4.811.04
I
PI. 7 9 36 T2 S50.00 $3,600.00
RI 10 4 \6 J2 $82.50 $2,640.00
81 7 6 24 48 $50.00 $2,400.00
FC 25 2 8 16 $150.00 52,400.00
wn 25 4 S $183_87 $L470.96
BI J 12 48 96 $15_00 $ \ .440.00
lV.' 25 J I:::! 24 555,00 S 1.320.00
PL 10 -4 16 32 $37.26 S 1.192,32
BL 25 -4 S S 120,00 $960.00
PI. 3 -4 8 $12.67 $101.-'6
TOTALS S423,796.56
9
~e...' LilI;r!,o Wll.l'lewater Trealment LJislrier
VegdiJlitl/! ,"'.urn')' and Miligation Plan
('onsulting Engineering & Science, llle
.IIdy 2()1I6
Based on the above analysis. a total mitigation payment ofS 423.796.56 will be required to
offset unavoidable impacts to protected vegetation resulting from the proposed expansion of the
KL\VTD facility.
CONCLUSIONS
Using the sampling methodology detailed in the methods section of this report. a protected tree
species density \\as estimated that is statistically repres.entative of the distribution of the
vegetat ion th rOll gho LIt the property. ^ stat i st i c a I sa Tn p I in g tee h n i q ue is pre fera b I e to ex hau s t i vc
sampling over the entire area due to the increased accuracy of sampling data over discrete
quadrats and also obvious benefits in total sampling effort. Statistical sampl ing of vegetation is a
standard practice in fores.try where quantities of valuable forest products must be accurately and
efficient ly measured.
Protected plants are defined as plants that are listed as threatened. endangered, commercially
exploited. and regionally important native plant species and all native trees with a DBI-! of
greater than fOLlr inches. For the hardwood hammock habitat on the Kl.\\;'TO. a density of
approximately 1.795 protected plants per acre. was estimated. Adj usti ng for the sampl i ng area.
it is est i mated that a tota I 0 f 2.884 protecled tree s will be i m pac ted by t he proposed ex pan s ion 0 f
the KL\~iTD facility.
The mitigation plan for the proposed project was based on the plant sampling techniques
described above. Using the lield data and an estimate of plant replacement costs obtained from
1'...1onroe County, a total mitigation payment of $ 423,796.56 \\!ill be required to offset
unavoidable impacts to protected vegetation resulting from the proposed expansion of the
KLWTO facility'.
\0
Key I. argo Wasf('H'uler 7 i"('(/IIIII;' 11 1 Disl,-)C!
Vegetation Survey rllld Aliti}!,<llion Plan
CO/lSllflill}!, EIlf!,ineerinf!, & Science, file
.111/.1' ']')()I)
Pr(".1~ c: LiJ Ca~Il.?(.
_~c
ff ..
:, ~ b'Slmg Faclhl,'
4~ . -' .~~~.,l ~,
I --,,-- -
.~ ..- .." :: , "-
Parcel Boundary
c!
;85
170
'40 F~'I
I
[~
Proposed Expansion
01
1:.":41~~\Clg I::;.rtt;llfll!~!~i~ ~ sn'!l!1""t::~.lnc I
00:"5::: .\~,; 1431h Slreel, 'S1J1l'" 11);
Mll)rTil.nOIlU-=. 3:311'&
Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
Mle Marker 100.5. Key Largo. Monroe County
Figure I. Location of the proposed expansinn of the KI.\VTD Viastewater trealrncnt
facility at Mile Marker 100.5, Key Largo.
] I
Key LJrgo lYaslel1.'aler Trealrm:fII D,:,lricl
I.cge/(llion S/lrl'e,. und Alil/galiulI PI,m
("on.lulring Lngillrer/Il)! L\: Science. lnc
.lull' :lOOo
Parcel Boundary
C:=J Proposed Expansion
c=J Vegetation PI at
~~.;::;
r--------- ----r-
no
I
cHI Feel
---j
~
-. -
,
(DJ
Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
.~~..:.ultlrnJ t r~~.leer"j -:.nd s.u~-e, In..
00'2"5.:; w 1~h ~.lre-el, -:"'UI~€- , IT!
Ml.";IrTll, rlonClI;I 3:1 (~
Vegetation Sampling Plots
Figure 2. Location of the seven 2.500 square foot vegetation sampling plots all Ihe
KLWTIJ study area.
12
Key Lwj!.o ~f(Jslf\l'<lkr Treul!/lcfJ/ District
Ve,'.!.etalil!l1 Surrey und .Hilij![j{iol1 1'1l//1
Consulling F.ngim.!erinf!, & _,>eiellC<', III(.
Juty :!OfJ6
figure 3. Typical hardv.mod hammock habitat on the KL\VTD study area. This hard\....ood
hammoek has been rated as a high quality hammock using the Habitat Evaluation Index
procedures in the Monroe County Land Development Regulations.
13
Kel' LUl"go Was/ell'ulel" Tremmenl Uisrl"icl
Ve~eluli(JII.\'III"\"el' and ,I"Jitigalivn Plan
Consulting ElIgineeri/1~ & Science, JilL'
July ;1)()6
~,..~~-
;"'~_.~;~.'.~ .~~
.--'" _ ~,~. ~ ~ -;" '~.'. ~..';. - ~.:i~ .....:.: ~....- -
.. "1;~r'~ . . .,. ......,~. . .,. ,
. _ ~~*'-. ." ....'.;k_~ ~"'...~ ~
~.~~ . '-'t........~ ~'t..~~"":'- L _ L;
-.:<"-'':C'.... J...._: ."~:~;.I: ~ -;'
~ ~'_. ~ . ~ ... ... ~. _.:... "1"= ~~.) "L5:::-; . ~.~ \ - J'~
.~~~_. . ~... ~~..~'-- ~ ....._~.......,~...... ,..:~t.... . I __ ~r
.,~... . r,."." _ ~ ~....., ....,. ~- "
. ":.,, .' -.' ~ ~.S"r~:.~.....;;:-.:,.":~., .-. :.:.....>
-....~', .' .~, .. . . I ,:. . < :~'.-:~,.._~~~j..:;.~~:::~:-~< .:.:
-.~. , ..~.Y''''- J~ .;' . ' ,..""'.,.... ~'" · . '.'L_. . JS.-
._ . . -a,..~ .~l'.. ... .- ~ -.
Figure 4. Photograph showing the un-paved access road that runs along the southern boundary of
the KLWTD study area. The slUdy area is located to the right side of the road in this photograph.
The existing cleared area can be seen in tile distance.
14
Key (.argo W,Islcwutt'l" Trcf.ilmefll Vislrid
J'egt'lUllof1 .';!lr!'e)' i.md Alilig,(/liofl Plun
('onsulting t:1l~im:erillg &- S'clenct'. fne
.111/.1' 21106
Figure 5. Photograph of lnkwood (bolhea panicu/ala) seedlings in the understory of the
hardwood hammock on the KL WTD property'. High-density inkwood seedling patches occur in
association with mature Inkwood trees which are widely dispersed throughout the study area.
lhe presence of these high-density Inkwood seedling patches had a strong statistical effect on the
data analysis. and tended to overestimate the ahundance of this tree relative to it's presence in the
overstor\ .
15
gel' Largo Was{cwaJ<.'r Treo/men/ Dislriel
1't'Re/orion .)"1II1'"T on,} Aliligar;oll Plan
("onsullin)!. Lng;nolering,{ Scieneol. Ine
.fill)' :;006
Appendix]. Protected plant data from the Key Large ,^,'astewatcr Treatment Distril.:t property.
Mile Marker lOO.S. Key Largo.
Plant species encountered on thc KL WTD study area and their listed status. Listed status refcrs
to a plants status as Endangered (E). Threatcned (T). Commercially Exploited (eE). or
Regionally Important (RI) as established hy the florida Department of Agriculture.
I Commo' ~"'" ~i""ifi' ",,'" _- j Fie'd Cod, T St",", ~j
I 8,,,k lcoco,ood I ,,,,-,,,,d,nd"'nJa""m ,----"'- I -----"'_
Bloll~ ~lUplm'-hscul/Jl- --t BL--r
. ("mco" b,," -+~"m,"a ",immma . - CB ~- ~ .j
Gumbo Limbo Bur.l'i'ru simUrllDII I Gl I
I ',kwood =txm/",,, pani,"",,"-----=r. IW ~I "'~
I Jamaica Carer Cappuris cynophaflophoru __ _ JC t--- J
~m'aica f)ogw~ _~ia p;s6pll!a JO
~mb" ( '1'''_ Cappam /"',,"''"=- L I.C + _ =J
' "';>0"'" ' S",,,,,nio mahogani -J Mil ~ (' - ...j
I Marl~e~ -_'I A,'<ii,ia,,,al/on",id,,, :_~ M"I J
I \10use.s'rinearrle I AJorimlu roy~ =t - \ptLP r "~ _,
Pale L idilowa CufJptmnlhes parlen.\" "
--
Pigeon Plum Cocco!oba dll.t!/".I"{/(lfl<l -+ I P I
p"i "," "ood ,11",,1''''''' ",x,,,,,,m . ~ -.-
!~dh,,'db"k Pmmiooo'/<>o>o - ~-;;;;-I - -.J
l~sRaar"::~", RanJ~'a;;:- + RO _j~=-I
il,-Jani/k(lnl :apo/(l SD Lxotic
Sallron Plum Bumdiu n:!al/rinu - . ------.:<';1' I ~ I
16
Key Largo Waslewater Trelltment Distn'.1
Vege/utio/l .Survey und Mi/iglltion Plan
Consul/in:.; tn:.;inecring & S'cience. Inc
.llI/r lOOn
Cummon ]\;ame ! S<.:ientifi<.: '\Jamc L_ Field Code Status
-- -- ----
Shonleaf Fig FicIIs cifri(olia I Fe I
I
I
I Snowberr) ('hiococca alha SB
Spanish Stopper ["",,,jafi,etida _ _ __" +
Slronghark
BUllrrel'/u uvula SB
, -
.rorchwood Amyris elelllifilm TW
I
\\ihite Stopper Ellgenia uxif/aris \\is
,
Willow 13ustic Dipholis sa/ielfolia I \....[3
-
Wild Lime
LamhoXl 'Iwu Jagara
\~'L
Wild Colli:e
I'.\yclwtria nen'osu
\Ii c:
Wild Tamarind
lysi/Of1l(l/(uisi/il.{lIl1/!/
\\T
Protected plant oceurrence by individual vegetation sampling quadrats on the KLWTD study
area, Plant data was collected on seven quadrats 2,500 sq. ft. in size, and data was collected
from May 8-1:1. 2006.
PLOT SprClES nELD COD[ Size Class
A III ,
A 111 2.'i
.\ n. 2~
A CiL 25
.-\ 1\\ -'
..\ Jl) 25
..\ \11-1 25
i\ I'L 2~
-'\ PP 1~
.'\ II 25
('OUIll
"
11
II
5
J
2
5
R
8
17
K(T I.argo if/ash'water Trea/melJtlJislricr
i'egt'/arion .\'urvey ami ,l"fifigmion Plan
Consulting Engineering ,{ Science, Ine
./I/Iy 2()1)6
1'1.01 SI'l-Flj-.S 1'11-1.1) C()Ul Si/.c ( 'I d_" l.uurll
A WL ~:i
I'U.I [
Il III ""1 --l
B BI 10 ~
Il III ~5 :2
13 (iL 25 7
B 1\\ 3 :2
Il ]I) ~5
B 1\111 25 ,I
lJ 1'1. 3
B PL 7 <)
B PI 10 .1
B PI. 25 9
B 1'1' 15 h
1\ PW 2~ 5
B II 15 ~
PIOI
e- BB ~5 --l
C FlI 3 :2
C m 25 7
e- (jL ~5 ')
C IW 3 R
C IW 2~
C II) 25 3
Mil ~5 j()
C PI' 15 3
18
":e.' Largo Wilslewaler Trealmrm Dislric{
Vegelalio/l Survey and Milip,ution Plun
COf/sultin/? Enf!,ineerinp, & Science. Ine
Jllly 2()fl6
PUll SPECILS Flt-.LD ('nI))- Sin.' l.l:l'iS ( .mlnt
(' p\l,' 25 ()
C II 25 .,
I
I'Lnl
D llB 25
]) HI J t
[) m 15 6
D (jl 15 16
D 1\\ -' 53
Il JI) ~~
[) r-,'111 25 -'
D 1'1' 2~ (,
D I'W 15 (,
IJ II 25 5
!'LOl
j. m 25 ..\
J. n. 25
F GL 25 17
I: IW .! 126
1- IW 9
[ I'll. 1~
I, \11-1 l'i 1
L I'\\' 15 II
I' II 25 ,
PUll
I, BI -'
r III .,
19
Key Largo ~f/(jslt'\t'arer Trealmenr DISlrlCI
,"<,gel III Ion SlII"I'ey und Mil/gullon P/'m
('onsufliny. Enf!)neerlng & Science, {ne
JII~j: ]!lOri
PLOI SN_CWS nrLD CODE Size' Cbss ('ount
F I'll 10 ~
r III 2:5 "
I. liL ~5 J5
l- I\\' J J
1- IW 7
[ JD 25 ..J-
r MH 25 5
I: PI' 2.5 ~
I, P\\' 25 4
TI 25 g
j- WB 15
PLOI
G B! -' 1
(; III 7
G III 15 :I
(i HI- lS
(i (j[ - 15 12
(j J\\ J 16X
G J\\' i R
(j IW ,~
(j JD 15 1
( i\-II-J 15 X
_J
(j 1'1' 15
(j pv,' 2=, -,
C 11 15 .1
.r
10