Memorandum May 3 2017

MEMORANDUM

To: Nicole Knapp, Planning Section Manager From: Bobbi Roy, Planning Coordinator Date: May 3, 2017 Subject: Agenda Update for the May 4, 2017 Board of County Commissioners Land Use Meeting

THIS MEMO AND THE CHANGES INDICATED BELOW ARE REFLECTED IN THE ELECTRONIC AGENDA (E-AGENDA)

10. PA-16-06/Ordinance 17-14 – SMR North 70, LLC/Lakewood Centre – DTS20160419 – MEPS303 – Legislative – Margaret Tusing, Principal Planner – Due to an advertising error item will be tabled and heard at the May 9, 2017 Board of County Commissioners public hearing.

11. Ordinance 17-16 – Lakewood Centre (DRI27) – 20160468 – MEPS303 – Quasi-Judicial – Margaret Tusing, Principal Planner – Item to be heard then continued to May 9, 2017.

12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303 – Quasi-Judicial – Margaret Tusing, Principal Planner – Item to be heard then continued to May 9, 2017 and additional information from staff attached.

14. LDCT-17-02/Ordinance 17-22 – Land Development Code Text Amendment/Airport Zoning – Legislative – Lisa Barrett, Planner Manager – Revised motion to continue the public hearing: I move to continue the public for LDCT-17-02/Ordinance 17-22 to June 1, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as same may be heard at the Manatee County Government Administrative Building, 1st Floor Chambers.

15. PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) – Long Bar Pointe, LLLP & Cargor Partners VIII, Long Bar Pointe, LLLP Rezone/Aqua by the Bay – 20150224 – Quasi-Judicial – Stephanie Moreland, Principal Planner – 1:30 pm Time Certain or as soon thereafter as same may be heard – Request by applicant for additional rebuttal time, additional public comments, and supplemental information provided by staff all attached.

Building and Development Services Public Hearings 1112 Manatee Avenue West Phone number: (941) 748-4501 ext. 6878

PRISCILLA TRACE * CHARLES B. SMITH * STEPHEN JONSSON * ROBIN DiSABATINO * VANESSA BAUGH * CAROL WHITMORE * BETSY BENAC District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7

Agenda Item 12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303

INFORMATION ONLY Schedule of Uses for Lakewood Centre

Land Use PDR PDO PDC PDRP PDI PDPI PDW PDMU PDRV PDMH PDGC PDA PDEZ Adult Day Care Center -- P P P X X X P P X P X AP X Agricultural Research Facilities -- X X P P X P X P X X X P P Agricultural Uses 531.1 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP X P P Agricultural Products Processing Plants 531.1 X X X X P X X P X X X P P Animal Products Processing Facility 531.1 X X X X SP X X SP X X X P P Short Term Agricultural Uses 531.1 P X P X X X X P X X X P P Stables or Equestrian Centers: Private 531.1 P X X X X X X P P P X P X Stables or Equestrian Centers: Public 531.1 X X P X X P X P X X X P X Tree Farm 531.1 X X X X X P X P X X X P X Aircraft Landing Field 531.2 X X X X X P X P X X X X X Airport, Commercial 531.3 X X X X X P X P X X X X X Airport, Private or Public 531.3 X X X X P P X P X X X X P Alcoholic Beverage Establishment 531.4 X X SP X SP X SP SP X X X X X Alcoholic Beverage Establishment- 2 COP 531.4 X X AP X X X X AP X X X X X License Animal Services (Wild and Exotic) 531.5 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP Assisted Living Facility, Large 531.44 P P P X X P X P X X X P X Assisted Living Facility, Small 531.44 AP AP AP X X AP X AP X X X AP X Auction Houses, Enclosed -- X X P X P X X P X X X X X Auction Houses, Open 531.6 X X P X P X X P X X X X X Bed and Breakfast 531.7 P X P X X X P P X X X P X Breeding Facility (Non-Wild & Exotic) 531.8 X X P P P P X P X X X P X Building Materials Sales Establishment 531.9 X X P X X X X P X X X X X Lumberyard 531.9 X X X X P X X P X X X X P Bus and Train Passenger Station -- P X P P P P X P X X X P P Business Services -- X P P P P P X P X X X X X Agenda Item 12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303

Land Use PDR PDO PDC PDRP PDI PDPI PDW PDMU PDRV PDMH PDGC PDA PDEZ Printing, Medium -- X X P X P X X P X X X X Printing, Small -- X P P X P X X P X X X X X Car Wash: Full Service 531.10 X X P X P P X P X X X X X Car Wash: Incidental 531.10 X X P X P P X P X X X X X Car Wash: Self-Service 531.10 X X P X P P X P X X X X X Cemetery: Human and Pet 531.11 X X P X X P X P X X X X X Child Care Center, Large 531.12 P P P P P P X P X X X P X Child Care Center, Medium 531.12 P P P P P P X P X X X P X Child Care Center, Small 531.12 AP AP AP X AP AP X AP AP AP X P X Child Care Center, (Accessory) 531.12 P P P P P P P P P P X P P Churches /Places of Worship 531.13 P P P X X X X P X X X P X Civic, Social, and Fraternal 531.14 P/SP P X X X X P P P P X P X Organizations/Clubs Clinics -- X P P X X P X P X X X X X Community Residential Homes 531.44 P X X X X P X P P P X P X Correctional Facilities: Community -- X X X X X P X P X X X X X Correctional Facilities: Major -- X X X X X P X P X X X X X Cultural Facilities 531.15 P P P P P P P P X X X P P Drive- Through Establishments 531.16 X X P P P X X P X X X X P Earthmoving, Major 702 X X X X X X X X X X X X P Earthmoving, Minor 702 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP X AP P Emergency Shelters 531.44 P P P X X X P P X P X AP X Emergency Shelter Home 531.44 P P P X X X P P X P X AP X Environmental Land Preserves, Public and 531.17 P P P P P P P P P X X P X Private Equipment sales, rental and leasing, heavy 531.18 X X P X P X X P X X X X P Construction equipment 531.18 X X P X P P X P X X X X X Equipment Sales, rental and leasing, light -- X X P X P X X P X X X X Environmental Education Facilities -- AP X X X X AP X AP X X X AP X Agenda Item 12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303

Land Use PDR PDO PDC PDRP PDI PDPI PDW PDMU PDRV PDMH PDGC PDA PDEZ Family Day Care Home -- P X X X X P X P P P X P X Farming Service Establishments 531.18 X X P X X X X P X X X P P Farm Worker Housing 531.19 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Flea Markets: Enclosed 531.20 X X P X X X X P X X X X X Flea Markets: Open 531.20 X X P X X X X P X X X X X Food Catering Service Establishment 531.21 X X P X P X X P X X X X X Funeral Chapel 531.22 P P P X X X X P X X X P X Funeral Home 531.22 X P P X X X X P X X X X X Game Preserve -- X X P X X P X P X X X X X Gas Pumps 531.50 X X P P P P P P P X X P Group Housing 531.23 X X X X X P X P X X X X X Hazardous Waste Transfer Facility -- X X X X P P X P X X X X X Heliport -- X X P X P P X P X X X X P Helistop 531.24 P P P P P P AP P X X X P P Hospital -- X X X X X P X P X X X X X Industrial, Heavy -- X X X X P X X P X X X X P Firework/Sparkler Manufacture 531.25 X X X X P X X X X X X X X Industrial, Light -- X X X P P P X P X X X X P Intensive Services: Intensive Services: Exterminating and Pest 531.26 X X X X X X X SP SP X AP X P Control Intensive Services: Motor Pool Facilities 531.26 X X X X P P X P X X X X P Intensive Services: Printing, Heavy -- X X X X P X X X X X X X Intensive Services: Industrial Service 531.26 X X P P P X X P X X X X P Establishment Intensive Services: Sign Painting Service 531.26 X X P X P P X P X X X X X Intensive Services: Taxi-Cab, Limousine 531.26 X X P X P X X P X X X X X Service Intensive Services: Towing Service and 531.26 X X P X P X X P X X X X P Storage Establishment Agenda Item 12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303

Land Use PDR PDO PDC PDRP PDI PDPI PDW PDMU PDRV PDMH PDGC PDA PDEZ Intermodal Terminal -- X X X X P P X P X X X X P Junkyards 531.27 X X X X X X X P X X X X X Laboratories, Medical and Dental -- X P P P P P X P X X X X X Lodging Places: Boarding House 531.28 P X X X X X X P X X X X X Lodging Places: Dormitories 531.28 P X X X X P X P X X X X X Lodging Places: Hospital Guest House 531.28 X X P X X P X P X X X X X Lodging Places: Hotel/motel 531.28 X X P P P1 P P P X X X X P Mining 531.30 X X X X X P X X X X X X X Mini Warehouses, Self-storage 531.31 X X P X P X X P X X X X X Mobile Homes, Individual 531.32 X X X X X X X X X P X X X Mobile Home Parks -- X X X X X X X P X P X X X Mobile Home Subdivisions -- X X X X X X X P X P X X X Motor Freight Terminal/Maintenance 531.34 X X X X P X X P X X X X P Bus RR/Maintenance Facility 531.34 X X X X P P X P X X X X X Nursing Homes 531.35 X P P X X P X P X X X X X Office, Medical or Professional -- X P P P P P P P P X X X X Miscellaneous Services: Office -- X P P P P P P P X X X P X Banking: Bank -- X P P P P X X P X X X X X Banking: Bank/Drive-through -- X P P P P X X P X X X X P Outdoor Advertising Signs -- X X P X P X X X P X X X P Outdoor Storage (Principal Use) 531.36 X X P X P X X X X X X X P Parking, Commercial (Principal Use) -- X P P P P P P P X X X X X Personal Service Establishment -- P P P P P P X P P P X P X Dry Cleaners: General -- X X P X P P X P X X X X X Dry Cleaners: Neighborhood -- X P P P P P X P X X X X X Dry Cleaners: Pick-up -- X P P P P P X P X X X P P Rental Service Establishment -- X X P P P X X P X X X X

1 Hotels are allowed only where the underlying Future Land Use category is Industrial-Light (IL). Agenda Item 12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303

Land Use PDR PDO PDC PDRP PDI PDPI PDW PDMU PDRV PDMH PDGC PDA PDEZ Repair Service Establishment -- X X P P X P X P X X X X X Personal Wireless Service Facilities 531.37 See Section 531.34 Pet Service (Kennel) Establishments 531.38 X X P P X X X P X X X P X Public Community Uses 531.39 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP X AP/SP P Public Use Facilities 531.40 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP X AP P Post Offices -- AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP X AP P Radio, TV, Communications, Microwave -- X X P P P P X P X X X X P Facilities Railroad Switching/Classification Yard -- X X X X P P X X X X X X P Recreation, High Intensity 531.41 X X P X X P P P X X X X X Recreation, Low Intensity 531.41 AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP X Recreation, Medium Intensity 531.41 X X P X X P P P X X X X X Recreation, Passive 531.41 P P P P P P P P P P AP P Recreation, Rural 531.41 X X X X P P X X X X X X X Recreational Vehicle Parks and subdivisions 531.42 X X P X X X X X P X X X X Recreational Vehicle/Mobile Home Sales, 531.43 X X P X X X X P X X X X Rental & Leasing Rehabilitation Center 531.44 P P P P P P P P P P X P X Research and Development Activities -- X X X P P P X P X X X X P Recovery Home, Large 531.45 X P P X X P X P X X X X X Recovery Home, Small 531.45 P P P X X P X P P P X P X Residential Treatment Facilities 531.46 P X X X X P X P X X X P X Residential Use: Duplexes 531.47 P X X X X P X P X X X X X Residential Use: Single Family Semi- 531.47 P X X X X P X P X X X X X Detached Dwellings Residential Use: Multiple Family Dwellings 531.47 P X X X X P P P X X X X X Residential Use: Triplex and Quadruplex 531.47 P X X X X X P P X X X X X Dwellings (Multifamily, four (4) units maximum) Residential Use: Waterfront Structures, 531.47 P X X X X X P P X X X P X Multi-Family Agenda Item 12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303

Land Use PDR PDO PDC PDRP PDI PDPI PDW PDMU PDRV PDMH PDGC PDA PDEZ Residential Use: Waterfront Structures 531.47 AP X X X X X AP AP AP AP X AP X (Residential) Residential Use: Single Family, Attached 531.47 P X X X X P P P X X X X X Dwellings (3 to 9 units) Residential Use: Single Family, Detached 531.47 P X X X X P P P X X X P X Dwellings Restaurant 531.48 X P P P P X P P X X X X P Retail Sales, Neighborhood Convenience 531.49 X P P P P X P P P P X P X Retail Sales, Neighborhood General 531.49 X P P P P X P P P P X P X Retail Sales, General 531.49 X X P P P X P P P P X X Sawmills 531.1 X X X X P X X P X X X X P Schools, College/Universities 531.50 X X X X X P X P X X X X X Schools, Elementary 531.50 P P X P X P X P X X X P X Schools, High and Middle 531.50 P P X P X P X P X X X P X Schools of Special Education 531.50 P P P P X P X P X X X P X Service Station 531.51 X X P X P X X P X X X P Sexually Oriented Businesses 531.52 See Section 531.49 Slaughterhouses 531.1 X X X X SP X X P X X X X X Solid Waste Management Facilities 531.53 X X P X P P X P X X X X X Landfills 531.53 X X X X X P X X X X X X X Stockyards and Feedlots 531.1 X X X X P P X P X X X X X Utility Use 531.54 SP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP AP/S AP P P Vehicle Repair: Major 531.55 X X P X P X X P X X X X P Vehicle Repair: Community Serving -- X X P X P X X P X X X X X Vehicle Repair: Neighborhood Serving -- X X P X P X X P X X X X X Vehicle Sales, Rental, Leasing 531.56 X X P X P X X P X X X X Veterinary Clinic 531.57 X P P P X X X P X X X P X Veterinary Hospitals 531.57 X X P X P P X P X X X X X Warehouses 531.58 X X X P P P X P X X X P X Agenda Item 12. PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) – SMR North 70, LLC and SMR Northwest Land, LLC/Lakewood Centre – 20160467 – MEPS303

Land Use PDR PDO PDC PDRP PDI PDPI PDW PDMU PDRV PDMH PDGC PDA PDEZ Water Dependent Uses X X X X X X P P X X X X X Wholesale Trade Establishment X X P P P X X P X X X X X

AP = Administrative Permit; SP = Special Permit, P = Permitted, X = Not Permitted AP/SP = Administrative Permit required as specified in Chapter 3 or elsewhere in this Code.

NOTES:  Uses identified as "Permitted Uses" in all Planned Development Districts may be permitted with approval of a General Development Plan. PD zoning in itself does not constitute approval to develop.  Uses may be further restricted or modified by the overlay district regulations.  Notwithstanding the development review procedures set forth in this table or any other provision of this Code, the development review procedures required pursuant to Chapter 3 shall control when the project requires Special Approval pursuant to any provision of the Comprehensive Plan.

______

ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edward Vogler II Vogler Ashton, PLLC Kimberly Ashton [email protected] [email protected] 2411 –A Manatee Avenue West Also admitted in Kansas Bradenton, Florida 34205 www.voglerashton.com Telephone: 941.388.9400 Facsimile: 941.866.7648

April 26, 2017

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners Betsy Benac, Chairman 1112 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205

In Re: PDR – PDR/PDMU 15-10 (Z)(G) Long Bar Pointe (the “Project”).

Dear Ms. Benac,

A public hearing to consider the above described Project is scheduled for May 4, 2017 before the Board. On behalf of the Applicant, we respectfully request that the Applicant be afforded a total of twenty five minutes for rebuttal. Based upon the information submitted to date, we anticipate the need to spend additional time in rebuttal to expected testimony and public comment. This request is necessary so as to have sufficient time for the full and complete presentation of evidence and testimony in support of the application. We will use only so much of the time as is required, and will be efficient in our rebuttal presentation and respectful of the Board’s time. Nevertheless, we would be grateful for this accommodation.

Sincerely, Edward Vogler II Edward Vogler II

EV/mas

Cc Client Manatee County Building and Development Services

Bobbi Roy

From: Sarah Schenk Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 5:11 PM To: Bobbi Roy Cc: Nicole Knapp; Stephanie Moreland; Joel Christian Subject: FW: impacts of mangrove fragmentation Attachments: mangrove frag in the Keys.pdf; Milbrandt et al 2006 SW FL Mangroves and Hurricanes.pdf; Bancroft et al 1995 deforestation.pdf; Krebs et al fish Tampa Bay wetlands BMS 2007.pdf; MacKenzie and Cormier 2012_stand structure mangroves.pdf; Layman et al 2004 fish assemblages.pdf; Das&Vincent Mangroves as Protection PNAS-2009-Das-7357-60.pdf; Siikamaki et al Global economic potential as related to mangroves PNAS-2012-Siikamäki-14369-74.pdf

Bobbi, Please include this e-mail and the attachments in the public hearing record.

From: Charlie Hunsicker Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 4:58 PM To: Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Vanessa Baugh; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace Cc: John Barnott; Joel Christian; Ed Hunzeker; William Clague; Sarah Schenk Subject: FW: impacts of mangrove fragmentation

As requested, this is general information that we prepared for Commissioner Trace this week regarding shoreline impacts from mangrove fragmentation. This opinion was drawn from a general review of the literature and general public knowledge of the Aqua development application and not based on a detailed investigation of the development application under review, or any environmental permit application connected to the land development application.

Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 1:46 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace < [email protected] > Subject: FW: impacts of mangrove fragmentation

As requested, forwarded for your information.

Thank you.

From: Collins,Angela [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:41 PM To: Charlie Hunsicker < [email protected] > Subject: impacts of mangrove fragmentation

Hi Charlie –

I have attached a few scientific papers for your review. I have also compiled some “cliff notes” below regarding the impacts and implications of mangrove fragmentation and removal.

The proposed lagoon has the potential to fragment the habitat and separate a large portion of existing mangroves from the mainland. Mangrove root systems intercept nutrient runoff from upland sources and they trap sediment and plant debris. This mangrove system provides an ecosystem service that allows for filtration of stormwater (e.g., removal of 1 nutrients like N and P; increased water clarity) and helps to build and stabilize the shoreline from storm surge and wave activity.

In general, fragmentation of mangrove habitat results in a high edge to area ratio. This has the following implications: 1. Decreased resistance to wind and storm surge 2. Increased susceptibility to flooding and erosion of shoreline 3. Increased susceptibility to invasion by exotic plants (the edges are less resistant than the interior to colonization by things like Brazilian Pepper, Australian Pine) 4. Decreased filtration capacity which can negatively impact water clarity and seagrass growth 5. Altered microclimate of the interior of the forest – which further reduces the ability of the habitat to function at full capacity 6. From an animal (birds and mammals) standpoint, clearing land and fragmenting habitat may isolate individuals and impact survivorship and reproductive success, as well as increase their vulnerability to future environmental disturbance.

Economic implications: • Fisheries are a 7.6 Billion dollar industry in Florida. Over 80% of recreational and commercial fishery species of value in FL are dependent upon mangrove ecosystems at some point (NOAA, 2015; Hamilton and Snedaker, 1984.) • Mangroves sequester carbon (monetary value of CO2 fixation estimated at ~$20,000/acre/year) • Mangroves stabilize the shoreline, reducing coastal erosion and decreasing threat of floods

Also – in the news: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article117015083.html https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/feb/22/the-coastal-kenyan-villages- bringing-their-mangrove-forest-back-to-life

And - informative but conservation oriented videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcUwYZ9CI0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhLlqdPB_Rs

______Angela Collins, PhD Florida Sea Grant University of Florida IFAS Extension Manatee County Government 1303 17 th Street West | Palmetto, FL 34221 Phone: (941) 722-4524 ext. 239 Fax: (941) 721-6796 Email: [email protected] Web: manatee.ifas.ufl.edu Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ABCollins.FloridaSeaGrant Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Angela_Collins4/contributions

2 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE. 54(3): 795-804. 1994

PATTERNS OF DEFORESTATION AND FRAGMENTATION OF MANGROVE AND DECIDUOUS SEASONAL FORESTS IN THE UPPER FLORIDA KEYS

Allan M. Strong and G. Thomas Bancroft

ABSTRACT The forested ecosystems of the Florida Keys contain a tropical flora with many species found nowhere else in the conterminous U.S. These forests have gone through three periods of anthropogenic perturbations resulting in forests that arc smaller, more fragmented, and have an altered species composition. We digitized 1991 aerial photographs of the remaining mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests of the Upper Keys (Ragged Keys to Long Key) to determine the changes in forest coverage from the original condition. Forty-one percent of the original 4,816 ha of deciduous seasonal forests and 15% of the original 8,306 ha of mangrove forests have been cleared for development. Losses were greatest on those keys accessible from U.S. I, intermediate on keys accessible from Rt. 905, and least on keys accessible only by boat. Mean forest size decreased from 50.7 ha to 2.6 ha and from 67.5 ha to 28.1 ha for deciduous seasonal and mangrove forests, respectively. The edge to area ratio for deciduous seasonal forests accessible by road has increased from 5.2 km·km-2 in the original condition to 269 km·km-2 currently. The loss of forested area and increase in forest fragmentation has probably affected the physical condition of the forests and plant and animal populations in the keys. A regional approach to conservation of the keys forested ecosystems is needed to preserve the biodiversity of the archipelago.

.The forested ecosystems of south Florida are unique and diverse with a predominantly tropical flora and a relatively high proportion of endemic species (Long, 1974; Tomlinson, 1980). Despite their small land area, the keys' forests support over 120 species of woody plants, shrubs, and vines (Snyder et aI., 1990; National Audubon Society, unpubI.). The upland forests of the Florida Keys (excluding the pinelands of the Lower Keys) have been called a variety of terms, most commonly tropical hardwood hammocks. Because of the predominance of tropical trees, we hereafter use Beard's (1944) classification scheme and refer to this vegetation type as deciduous seasonalforest (see Ross et aI., 1992 for a more detailed classification of the keys' terrestrial habitats). During the past 300 years, the forests of the Florida Keys have gone through three periods of anthropogenic perturbation. In the 1700s, Bahamians visited the keys to harvest timber, and by 1769, most of the valuable lumber, primarily mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni), lignum vitae (Guaiacum sanctum), and black iron- wood (Krugiodendron ferreum) was extracted from the keys (J. Veile, pers. comm.). Although, the extent to which the forests were cleared is unknown, it was probably inconsequential when compared to later human-induced changes (W. R. Robertson, Jr., pers. comm.). The Upper Keys remained sparsely populated through the late 18th and early 19th century, and as late as 1855 there was only a single settlement located on Key Largo (Simpson, 1991). Following the Civil War, the situation quickly changed and by 1904 over 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) were in agricultural cultivation in the keys (McCoy, 1991). The primary crop, pineapple, was grown throughout the Upper Keys (Parks, 1968; Windhom and Langley, 1974). Additionally, substantial acreage was planted to key limes, tomatoes, melons, sweet potatoes, and peppers (McCoy, 1991). In 1912, the Flagler Railroad was completed, linking the mainland to Key West (Parks, 1968). Although farmers hoped that the railroad would

795 796 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE. VOL. 54. NO.3. 1994 provide new markets for their crops, it actually allowed cheaper pineapples to be shipped north from Cuba and essentially ended intensive agriculture in the keys (McCoy, 1991). The population of the keys declined following the "pineapple boom" and the keys remained relatively unpopulated until 1924 (Simpson, 1991) during which time much of the agricultural land reverted to deciduous seasonal forest. In 1924, the first subdivision was built on Key Largo and housing, urban and retail development in the Upper Keys has continued to the present time (Simpson, 1983). This latest period of deforestation has brought major changes to the keys' landscape, isolating much of the remaining forests in a matrix of human dwellings, asphalt, and concrete as well as exotic ornamental vegetation. Given the relative permanence of these changes, the effects of development will probably be longer lasting than either of the earlier periods of deforestation. In this paper, we document the current areal and spatial distribution of deciduous seasonal and mangrove forests in the Upper Keys and compare them to our estimate of the original distribution (prior to European settlement). We discuss the implications of deforestation and forest fragmentation for the keys' forests and describe a regional conservation plan for the keys' terrestrial habitats.

METHODS

We limited our analysis to the Ragged Keys south through Long Key. We assumed that, originally, each key consisted of two habitat types: deciduous seasonal forests (ecological site units 5, 8, II, 12, and 13; Ross et aI., 1992) and mangrove forests (ecological site units 1,2, and 3; Ross et aI., 1992). As the keys have been developed, both habitat types have been converted to urban or suburban habitat. Additionally, we assumed that the shoreline of the mainline keys has remained relatively constant. There have been changes associated with filling of aquatic habitats, sea level rise, and mangrove expansion. However, we have limited our analysis to direct anthropogenic effects within the exterior boundary of the keys. We used a desktop GIS package (ATLAS*GIS Strategic Mapping, Inc., Santa Clara, California) to digitize the current boundaries of the mainline keys, original extent of deciduous seasonal forests, current deciduous seasonal forest fragments, and cleared, filled or dredged mangrove forests. We digitized features that met a minimum size criteria of 24 m X 24 m (0.06 ha). We used canopy closure and potential for vegetation regeneration as criteria for separation of fragments. For example, adjacent fragments with continuous canopy coverage separated by a paved road (i.e., no immediate chance for regeneration) were considered different fragments. However, if the same fragments were separated by an abandoned unpaved road, the forests were considered one fragment. Current habitats were digitized from 1991 I: 12,000 aerial photographs. The original coverage of deciduous seasonal forests was defined from the interpretation of the 1945-1959 I: 12,000 and 1:24,000 aerial photographs and observations made while ground-truthing the map of current forest boundaries. Although portions of the Upper Keys were developed prior to 1945, the border between the mangrove and the deciduous seasonal forests could still be interpreted from the aerial photographs. Control points were taken from USGS topographic maps. All forest fragments :;outh of Angelfish Creek were ground-truthed to determine the accuracy of boundaries and habitat determinations. North of Angelfish Creek, development is minimal and the habitat delineations are only between upland and mangrove forests. For this area, verification of habitat types was conducted from a Cessna 172 aircraft. To obtain the original acreage of each key, we used information from the 1945-1959 aerial photographs to recreate the perimeter prior to canal construction. We subtracted the original acreage of deciduous seasonal forests from the acreage of each key prior to canal construction to calculate the original acreage of mangroves. We subtracted the area of cleared, filled or dredged mangroves from the original acreage of mangroves to calculate the current mangrove acreage.

RESULTS The Upper Keys originally consisted of 4,816 ha of deciduous seasonal forest (Table 1) and 8,306 ha of mangrove forest (Table 2). In 1991, 41.2% of the deciduous seasonal forests (1,985 ha) and 15.4% (1,278 ha) of the mangrove STRONG AND BANCROFf: PATTERNS OF FOREST LOSSES 797

Table 1. Original, 1991, and percent change in areal extent of deciduous seasonal forests in the upper keys (Ragged Keys through Long Key)

Original condition 199\ Condi lion

Location Number Size (ha) Number Size (ha) % Deer. Keys accessible by boat Ragged 2 1.7 2 1.7 0.0 Boca Chita I 9.5 4 2.6 72.6 Sands 4 50.5 4 50.5 0.0 Elliott 2 539.2 2 537.4 0.3 Adams I 15.7 1 15.1 3.8 Porgy 2 7.7 2 7.6 0.1 Meigs 1 2.1 1 2.1 0.0 Caesar Rock I 0.5 1 0.5 0.0 Old Rhodes 2 106.9 2 106.9 0.0 Totten 1 60.7 I 60.7 0.0 Little Totten 3 33.1 3 33.1 0.0 Swan 8 16.7 8 16.7 0.0 Palo Alto 13 38.9 13 38.9 0.0 Lindback 1 1.2 1 1.0 16.7 Broad 1 2.8 1 1.0 64.3 EI Radabob 5 79.0 5 79.0 0.0 Pumpkin 1 8.6 1 7.7 10.5 Lignumvitae 1 76.1 1 74.8 1.7 Subtotal 50 1,050.9 53 1,037.3 1.3 Keys accessible from Rt. 905 Angelfish Keys 2 27.0 15 5.8 78.5 North Key Largo 9 1,376.3 150 981.1 28.7 Subtotal 11 1,403.3 165 986.9 29.7 Keys accessible from US 1 South Key Largo 22 1,463.2 525 529.0 63.8 Plantation 4 414.5 161 126.1 69.6 Windley 2 46.2 10 19.3 58.2 Upper Matecumbe 1 252.0 105 61.4 75.6 Lower Matecumbe 2 115.3 37 36.3 68.5 Long 4 70.8 12 35.3 50.1 Subtotal 35 2,362.0 850 807.4 65.8 Total 95 4,816.2 1,068 2,831.6 41.2 forests had been cleared or filled. Because clearing of deciduous seasonal forests has outpaced mangrove loss, the ratio of area of mangrove to area of deciduous seasonal forest has increased from 1.72, originally, to 2.48 in 1991. A small portion of the deciduous seasonal forest losses were mitigated by revegetation of upland tree species on filled mangrove habitat (22 ha). However, these areas were dominated by exotic tree species. For both mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests, the loss of forest area varied according to the accessibility of the key. Keys that were not accessible by roads lost less than 2% of the acreage of mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests. The keys that were connected by U.S. 1 (central Key Largo to Long Key) showed the greatest losses of mangrove (39.2%) and deciduous seasonal (65.8%) forests. Losses for both forest types were greatest on Lower Matecumbe and Plantation keys. Losses were intermediate for those keys accessible by Rt. 905 (northern Key Largo and the Angelfish keys) where 7.8% of the mangrove and 29.7% of the deciduous seasonal forests were cleared. Originally, each key consisted of a nearly continuous stand of deciduous sea- 798 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 54, NO.3, 1994

Table 2, Original, 1991, and percent change in areal extent of mangrove forests in the upper keys (Ragged Keys through Long Key)

Original condition 1991 Condition

Location Number Size (ha) Number Size (ha) % Deer. Keys accessible by boat Ragged 6 3.9 6 3.1 20.5 Boca Chita 3 3,8 3 3.2 15.8 Sands 2 122.0 2 120.8 0.1 Elliott 14 154.6 14 154.6 0.0 Adams 2 14.8 2 14.2 4.1 Porgy 1 20.3 1 20.2 0.5 Reid I 14.6 I 14.6 0.0 Rubicons 4 40.0 4 40.0 0.0 Meigs 1 1.9 1 1.9 0.0 Caesar Rock 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.0 Old Rhodes 2 185.1 2 185.1 0.0 Totten 5 126.8 5 126.8 0.0 Little Totten 4 74.4 4 74.4 0.0 Swan 2 37.2 2 37.2 0.0 Palo Alto 8 134.9 8 134.9 0.0 Lindback 6 35.3 6 35.2 0.3 Broad 6 24.9 8 24.4 2.0 El Radabob 6 564.2 6 564.2 0.0 Rattlesnake 1 80.0 1 80.0 0.0 Pumpkin I 1.6 I 1.4 12.5 Lignumvitae 1 38.7 I 38.7 0.0 Subtotal 77 1.679.5 79 1,675.4 0.2 Keys accessible from Rt. 905 Angelfish Keys 2 1l0.4 7 97.5 11.6 North Key Largo 16 4,106.2 37 3,789.7 7.7 Subtotal 18 4,216.6 44 3,887.2 7.8 Keys accessible from US 1 South Key Largo 16 993.6 65 558.0 43.8 Plantation 1 413.2 14 207.5 49.8 Windley 1 147.3 6 129.4 12.2 Upper Matecumbe 4 139.2 11 124.7 10.4 Lower Matecumbe 2 296.9 13 103.1 65.3 Long 4 419.5 18 341.9 18.5 Subtotal 28 2,409.7 127 1,464.9 39.2 Total 123 8,305.8 250 7,027.5 15.4

sonal forest along their central spine surrounded by a fringe of mangroves. This spatial pattern has been maintained throughout most of the keys within Biscayne National Park but has been dramatically altered for keys south of Palo Alto Key. For an keys connected by Rt. 905 and U.S. 1, the central spine of the deciduous seasonal forests was bisected by a railroad (and subsequently a road) in the early twentieth century. The heaviest losses of deciduous seasonal forests have gener- any occurred adjacent to U.S. 1. On Key Largo, the spatial distribution of forests on the northern portion of the island was relatively similar to the original condition. Except for the extreme northern end of the key where a massive development existed, much of the remaining deciduous seasonal forests were stil1 extant and the mangroves were relatively intact (Fig. 1). The spatial pattern of habitat loss was different in southern Key Largo (Fig. 1). Only a few large fragments of deciduous seasonal forest STRONG AND BANCROFT: PATTERNS OF FOREST LOSSES 799

o Cleared or filled areas • • Mangroves

024

Original 1991

Figure I. Spatial changes in the areal extent of deciduous seasonal and mangrove forests on Key Largo. remained. These were interspersed with cleared areas or areas with extreme forest fragmentation. Much of southern Key Largo originally had a very narrow mangrove fringe; most of this has been cleared. Where more expansive mangrove forests existed, large portions have been cleared for housing developments. How- ever, compared to deciduous seasonal forests, the pattern of fragmentation in the mangroves has not been as severe. Plantation (Fig. 2) and Lower Matecumbe keys (Fig. 3) showed extreme deforestation and isolation of the remaining forests. On both keys, the mangrove forests were reduced to large fragments at the north and south ends of the islands. The deciduous seasonal forests were fragmented into small tracts. On Plantation Key, the acreage of deciduous. seasonal forests decreased nearly 70% and the number of forest patches has increased 40-fold. On Windley, Upper Matecumbe, and Long keys, deforestation of the deciduous seasonal forests was extreme, whereas the large mangrove forests at the ends of each island remained relatively intact. On Windley Key, most of the mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests along the Straits of Florida were cleared (Fig. 2). However, the mangrove forests along Florida Bay were intact. Upper Matecumbe had the smallest original area of mangroves of those keys connected by U.S. 1, 800 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 54, NO.3, 1994

D Cleared or filled areas

• Deciduous seasonal forests

• Mangroves

o 2 4

Figure 2. Spatial changes in the areal extent of deciduous seasonal and mangrove forests on Plan- tation, Windley, and Upper Matecumbe keys. and the two largest blocks at the northeastern and southwestern part of the island were still nearly intact (Fig. 2). Deciduous seasonal forest losses were most severe in the central and northern portion of the key. Long Key lost much of the mangrove habitat at its western end, but much of the remaining mangroves were relatively intact (Fig, 3). Losses of deciduous seasonal forests were generally adjacent to U.S. 1. The mean size of the deciduous seasonal forests decreased from 50.7 ha originally to 2.6 ha cUlTently.The average mangrove forest decreased from 67.5 ha to 28.1 ha during the same period. As the remaining forests have become increas- ingly fragmented, the edge to area ratio increased. Originally, for keys accessible only by boat, deciduous seasonal forests had an edge/area of 9.1 km·km-2 and for those keys now accessible by road, the value was 5.2 km·km-2• This ratio stayed nearly constant for roadless keys (9.3 km·km-2), but increased to 269 km·km-2 for those keys now connected by U.S. 1 or Rt. 905. Thus, with the fragmentation of the remaining forest, there has been greater than a 50-fold increase in the ratio of edge to area.

DISCUSSION The forest ecosystems of the Upper Florida Keys have been altered by several processes. We documented the effects of deforestation and fragmentation. Defor- estation has caused a 41% decrease in the area of deciduous seasonal forest and a 15% decrease in the area of mangrove forest. Fragmentation has resulted in much of the current: forest remaining in small parcels with a high edge to area ratio, Although the total loss of forested habitat may be the most significant STRONG AND BANCROFT: PATTERNS OF FOREST LOSSES 801

D Cleared or filled areas

II Deciduous seasonal forests

II. Mangroves

Km Lignumvitae

o 2

Lower Matecumbe

Long

Original 1991

Figure 3. Spatial changes in the areal extent of deciduous seasonal and mangrove forests on Lig- numvitae, Lower Matecumbe, and Long keys. Lignumvitae Key is only accessible by boat. proximate cause for changes in plant and animal populations, the effects of fragmentation may be more chronic (Janzen, 1986). Fragmentation and the resulting isolation of a forest can have a variety of physical impacts on the forests. The process of fragmentation has been documented as affecting temperature, light, wind, and water conditions (Saunders et aI., 1991). Several of these impacts may be especially important in the keys' forests. Impacts of hurricanes on forested habitat may be more severe in fragmented landscapes because forest edges become essentially random and edge trees are not necessarily adapted to windier sites (Foster, 1988). Isolated forests also may be more susceptible to invasion by exotic plants, especially along edges (Brothers and Spingam, ]992). In the keys, exotic vegetation seems to be especially prevalent in areas with disturbed substrates and those adjacent to urban or suburban areas. While ground-truthing, we documented exotic plant species invading the forest interior in over 50% of the deciduous seasonal forest fragments (Strong, unpubl. data). The microclimate of the interior of smaller fragments may be different from those of larger parcels. Edge effects have been documented from 40 802 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 54, NO.3, 1994 m (Brothers and Spingarn, 1992) to 137 m (Chen et aI., 1992) into the interior of forests. Thus, a forest may need to be substantially greater than 0.5 to 5.9 ha to have a functional interior. Similar results are not available for the keys, however, if the above values are applicable, 142-719 ha (5-25%) of the remaining deciduous seasonal forests may be composed entirely of edge. Even these values may be underestimates. Janzen (1986) felt that in tropical habitats, park managers should expect to see edge effects 5 km into the interior of a preserve. Both the decrease in total forest area and the increase in forest isolation and forest edge may have affected plant and animal populations in the Upper Keys. Mahogany mistletoe (Phoradendron rubrum), clamshell orchid (Encyclia coch- leata), Florida three-awned grass (Aristidajioridana), (J. J. O'Brien, pers. comm.) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) (Lazell, 1989) are either extremely rare, extirpated, or extinct. However" we have little or no quantitative information on the original frequencies of occurrence of most plant and animal species of the keys forests. The current phase of deforestation for urban and suburban habitats is relatively recent and there may still be additional relaxation in species diversity in some of the forest fragments (Lovejoy et aI., 1986). The effects of the loss of forested ecosystems on the overall biodiversity of the Florida Keys is difficult to assess quantitatively. Post-Civil War deforestation in the Upper Keys may have eliminated some rare species and decreased the abundance of others. Current development may be adding additional stresses to populations that have not fully recovered from previous bottlenecks. Some forests currently in existence in the keys may be the product of two periods of reforestation (sensu Zipperer et aI., 1990) actually having been cleared twice. Cleared first for agriculture and again for a subdivision, these forests have finally grown back where lots were not developed. To preserve the remaining biodiversity of the keys, a regional approach needs to be taken (Scott et al., 1993). The keys' ecosystems are a series of integrated communities. Loss of forested habitat in the Middle Keys may have effects in the Upper and Lower Keys, and perturbation of the terrestrial ecosystem may have effects on the marine system. The difficulty of preserving populations of plants and animals may be exacerbated because small populations in isolated fragments will experience decreased dispersal and gene flow and increased chances of random local extirpatilon. Preservation of the full suite of habitat types on the keys can only be accomplished by protection of habitats throughout the island chain (sensu Heatwole and Levins, 1973; Hubbell and Foster, 1986; Wilcove et aI., 1986). A more complete analysis of the distribution of plants and animals in the keys and their dispersal mechanisms are information types that once filled, will allow fine-tuning of a regional conservation plan for the keys. This would be especially valuable for rare, threatened, and endangered species. However, sufficient information is currently available to make some recommendations. Inholdings in the National Wildlife Refuges, State Parks, and State Botanical Sites and ecologically sensitive land adjacent to these sites should be purchased. Additionally, the Con- servation and Recreation Lands (CARL) projects in the keys need to be completed. Completion of the Tropical Flyways CARL project in the Middle and Upper Keys is especially critical because this portion of the keys is highly fragmented. Protection of the large forest fragments in this area would provide a series of "stepping stones" that would allow dispersal of plants and animals between larger protected areas at the extremities of the island chain (Strong and Bancroft, in press). The keys are an ecologically diverse area that support varied communities throughout the archipelago (Ross et aI., 1992). Preservation of a functional STRONG AND BANCROFf: PATTERNS OF FOREST LOSSES 803 ecosystem in the keys cannot be accomplished simply by preserving species-rich areas (e.g., north Key Largo or Big Pine Key) but by taking a regional approach that protects habitat throughout the Florida Keys.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foun- dation. We thank L. Flynn, W. Hoffman, J. O'Brien, M. Ross, and R. Sawicki for helpful discussions and advice on data collection. R. Sawicki assisted with the ground-truthing. R. Bjork, J. Lorenz, W. Robertson, M. Ross, R. Sawicki, and two anonymous referees provided insightful and constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Beard, J. S. 1944. Climax vegetation in tropical America. Ecology 25: 127-185. Brothers, T. S. and A. Spingarn. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien plant invasion of central Indiana old-growth forests. Cons. BioI. 6: 91-100. Chen, J., J. F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation responses to edge environments in old- growth douglas-fir forests. Ecol. App!. 2: 387-396. Foster, D. R. 1988. Species and stand response to catastrophic wind in central New England, USA. J. Ecol. 76: 135-151. Heatwole, H. and R. Levins. 1973. Biogeography of the Puerto Rican bank: species-turnover on a small cay, Cayo Ahogado. Ecology 54: 1043-1055. Hubbell, S. P. and R. B. Foster. 1986. Commonness and rarity in a neotropical forest: implications for tropical tree conservation. Pages 205-231 in M. E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Janzen, D. H. 1986. The eternal external threat. Pages 286-303 in M. E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Lazell, J. D., Jr. 1989. Wildlife of the Florida Keys: a natural history. Island Press, Washington, DC, Covelo, California. 253 pp. Long, R. W. 1974. Origin of the vascular flora of southern Florida. Pages 28-36 in P. J. Gleason, ed. Environments of south Florida: past and present. Miami Geological Society, Miami, Florida. Lovejoy, T. E., R. O. Bierregaard, Jr., A. B. Rylands, J. R. Malcolm, C. E. Quintela, L. H. Harper, K. S. Brown, Jr., A. H. Powell, G. V. N. Powell, H. O. R. Shubart and M. B. Mays. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments. Pages 257-285 in M. E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mas- sachusetts. McCoy, M. H. 1991. Agriculture in the Florida Keys. Pages 109-110 in J. Gato, ed. The Monroe County environmental story. The Monroe County environmental task force, Big Pine Key, Florida. Parks, P. 1968. The railroad that died at sea. Langley Press Inc., Key West, Florida. 44 pp. Ross, M. S., J. J. O'Brien and L. J. Flynn. 1992. Ecological site classification of Florida Keys terrestrial habitats. Biotropica 24: 488-502. Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs and C. R. Margules. 1991. Bio]ogical consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Cons. BioI. 5: 18-32. Scott, J. M., F.Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D'Erchia, T. C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman and R. G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr. 123. 41 pp. Simpson, L. 1983. The island of Key Largo, Florida ]872-1983. Mayfield Printing Co., Mayfield, Kentucky. 214 pp. ---. 1991. The island of Key Largo, Florida. Pages 61--62 in J. Gato, ed. The Monroe County environmental story. The Monroe County environmental task force, Big Pine Key, Florida. Snyder, J. R., A. Herndon and W. B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida rockland. Pages 230-277 in R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Centra] Florida Press, Orlando, Florida. Strong, A. M. and G. T. Bancroft. In Press. Postfledging dispersal of white-crowned pigeons: implications for conservation of deciduous seasonal forests in the Florida Keys. Cons. BioI. Tomlinson, P. B. 1980. The biology of trees native to tropical Florida. Harvard University Printing Office, Harvard, Massachusetts. 480 pp. Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pgaes 237-256 in M. E. Soule, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 804 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 54, NO.3, 1994

Windhom, S. and W. Langley. 1974. Yesterday's Florida Keys. Langley Press, Inc., Key West, Florida. 128 pp. Zipperer, W. C., R. L. Burgess and R. D. Nyland. 1990. Patterns of deforestation and reforestation in different landscape types in central New York. Forest Ecol. and Manage. 36: 103-117.

DATE ACCEPTED: October 5, 1993,

ADDRESS: National Audubon Society, Tavernier Science Center, 115 1ndian Mound Trail, Tavernier, Florida 33070, CURRENT ADDRESS: (A.M.S.) Dept, EEO Biology, Tulane University, 310 Dinwiddie Hall, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation

Impact and Response of Southwest Florida Mangroves to the 2004 Hurricane Season Author(s): E. C. Milbrandt, J. M. Greenawalt-Boswell, P. D. Sokoloff and S. A. Bortone Source: Estuaries and Coasts, Vol. 29, No. 6, Part A: Hurricane Impacts on Coastal Ecosystems (Dec., 2006), pp. 979-984 Published by: Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4124829 Accessed: 25-04-2017 15:35 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4124829?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Estuaries and Coasts

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Estuaries and Coasts Vol. 29, No. 6A, p. 979-984 December 2006

Impact and Response of Southwest Florida Mangroves to the 2004 Hurricane Season

E. C. MILBRANDT*, J. M. GREENAWALT-BOSWELL, P. D. SOKOLOFFt, and S. A. BORTONE

Marine Laboratory, Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation, 900A Tarpon Bay Road, Sanibel, Florida 33957

ABSTRACT: Although hurricane disturbance is a natural occurrence in mangrove forests, the effect of widespread human alterations on the resiliency of estuarine habitats is unknown. The resiliency of mangrove forests in southwest Florida to the 2004 hurricane season was evaluated by determining the immediate response of mangroves to a catastrophic hurricane in areas with restricted and unrestricted tidal connections. The landfall of Hurricane Charley, a category 4 storm, left pronounced disturbances to mangrove forests on southwest Florida barrier islands. A significant and negative relationship between canopy loss and distance from the eyewall was observed. While a species-specific response to the hurricane was expected, no significant differences were found among species in the size of severely impacted trees. In the region farthest from the eyewall, increases in canopy density indicated that refoliation and recovery occurred relatively quickly. There were no increases or decreases in canopy density in regions closer to the eyewall where there were complete losses of crown structures. In pre-hurricane surveys, plots located in areas of management concern (i.e., restricted connection) had significantly lower stem diameter at breast height and higher stem densities than plots with unrestricted connection. These differences partially dictated the severity of effect from the hurricane. There were also significantly lower red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) seedling densities in plots with restricted connections. These observations suggest that delays in forest recovery are possible in severely impacted areas if either the delivery of propagules or the production of seedlings is reduced by habitat fragmentation.

Introduction strophic disturbance. Canopy losses, as the result of The response of a community to disturbance lightning strikes, are presumed to be temporary (Smith et al. 1994; Imbert et al. 2000; Sherman et al. depends on several factors: the severity of the 2000) and do not result in significant shifts in disturbance, the species composition, and the size mangrove forest community composition. The small structure of the community. Empirical and theoret- size of the canopy gap allows for recolonization ical data support the view that more complex from propagules produced in the nearby, intact communities are more stable (Connell and Slatyer canopy. Moderate and severe disturbances, such as 1977). In diverse, tropical upland forests, a moderate hurricanes, can result in significant shifts in disturbance is predicted to have little effect on community composition (Baldwin et al. 2001), if community structure because of the diverse un- canopy reproduction is reduced (Proffitt unpub- derstory (Everham and Brokaw 1996). The com- lished data; Milbrandt unpublished data) or if the plexity of the understory largely reflects the delivery of propagules is inhibited by habitat complexity of the canopy. Seedlings and saplings fragmentation (Lewis 2005). When canopy losses in canopy gaps will grow to reestablish the canopy. are widespread, mangroves partly depend on Given the species-poor nature of southwest Florida recolonization from intact, reproducing forests, mangrove forests (i.e., generally only 3 species) whichand may not be geographically close. It is the lack of a seedbank, these forests are thought unknown to whether anthropogenic fragmentation be less stable (Baldwin et al. 2001). It is important (e.g., to roads, ditches, diversion) will impair the follow the immediate and long-term response immediate of response or the resiliency of mangroves mangroves to hurricanes in order to detect whether to a catastrophic hurricane. recovery will be affected by human activities, such Minimumas pressure associated with the category 4 forest fragmentation. Hurricane Charley was recorded on 13 August 2004, The degree of disturbance is thought to de- at approximately 1545 EDT at a central location on termine the pathway for regeneration after a cata-Sanibel Island approximately 18 to 20 km from the hurricane eyewall. A sharp gradient in barometric * Corresponding author; tele: 239/395-4617; fax: 239/395- pressure across the storm resulted in hurricane- 4616; e-mail:[email protected] t Current address: Jackson Estuarine Laboratory University of force winds and subsequent losses of mangrove New Hampshire, 85 Adams Point Rd., Durham, New Hampshire canopy. The availability of data on forest structure 03824. collected 4 mo preceding the storm provided

? 2006 Estuarine Research Federation 979

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 980 E. C. Milbrandt et al.

82*20V"W 82*0"W sroN ' ' I was marked with flagging tape and spray paint (Smith 2000; Worley 2005). Pine ;" : " ,, . PRE-HURRICANE METHODS Isand SSound .~tttttttttttttttttt Data on the following three species were collected: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans; Craighead 1971). The diameter at breast height (DBH) of tree stems (? 1 cm DBH) was measured. The total number of stems NS PP`L '' measured in each plot varied, depending on the CS i ESI, location and age of the forest stand; the average GadfGulf of Maicoof Mexico J&IeLf;`~_,B C number of stems plotr was 49. Seedling height (DBH < 1 cm, but height > 30 cm), was measured 0 3 6 12 Km vertically from the base of the mangrove to the , , bottom of the terminal bud. The terminal bud was not included in the seedling height because of Fig. 1. Map of the variation study in the bud size sites, owing to differences including in mangrove study sites and the approximate track of Hurricane Charley. Dots indicate the center positions development. of Seedlings the less storm,than 30 cm in height surrounded by circles that are the approximate circumference were not recorded because it was not clear whetherof the eyewall. these seedlings had established. Canopy density (% cover) was measured in the center of each plot a unique opportunity using a spherical densiometer to (Stricklerexamine 1959) by whether the plots chosen for a managementfacing the four directions of the compass concern and (e.g., impoundment) responded averaging the differentlyfour cover measurements. than plots with an unrestricted connection to open water. The study locations were located on a north-south orientation POST-HURRICANE METHODS on two barrier islands; the closest site to the eyewall was less than 4 km distant, while the farthest was Following landfall of Hurricane Charley, forest 19 km distant. Canopy loss, mangrove forest struc- data were collected using the same methods prior to the hurricane. A classification scheme also was ture, mangrove species composition, and seedling densities were compared along the gradient of devised to categorize each stem based on its damage disturbance created by the track and catastrophic (Roth 1992; Smith et al. 1994). Each stem was winds associated with Hurricane Charley. assigned to one of three damage classes; severely impacted, impacted, or non-impacted. Uprooted Materials and Methods stems and stems snapped below the crown were considered severely impacted; stems with noticeable STUDY SITES branch loss were categorized as impacted. Non- Permanent plots (24) were established on two impacted trees were those stems that appeared to be barrier islands, Sanibel and Captiva, in the Char- structurally sound, that is, without damage to the lotte Harbor region of southwest Florida. Plots were branch structure. Canopy density was measured established in April 2004 in 8 locations. The post-hurricane in October 2004, November 2004, locations were situated in 4 regions of the Sanibel January 2005, and April 2005. and Captiva barrier islands; East Sanibel (ES), The distance from the four regions to the Central Sanibel (CS), Northwest Sanibel (NS), and hurricane eyewall was estimated using ArcGIS based Captiva (CT; Fig. 1). In each of the 4 regions, 3 on data derived from satellite imagery. The storm plots were established in an area because of track and eyewall location were calculated by the a management concern (e.g., impoundment), while Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's GIS. 3 plots were established in an adjacent area with an STATISTICAL ANALYSIS open connection to the estuary. In each plot, the location of the center point of each plot was All data were tested for normality using a one-way, determined by pacing out a random distance along Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. Data were also tested for a random bearing from an initial location. Random homogeneity of variance with a Levene test. In cases numbers were generated within a spreadsheet using where data were not normal or heteroscadastic, the a random number function. The center of each data were transformed logarithmically (loglo). In circular plot (113 m2) was marked with casesa 3-cm where data were not normalized by trans- diameter PVC stake and the perimeter of formation,the plot nonparametric statistics were used.

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Impact and Response of Florida Mangroves 981

100 r2=0.83 CT 100 90 NS 80 -

80 - S70 1 - CS o 60- a 60 O 50 0 ES W 40 -

S30 -

20 - 2040

CT NS CS ES 0 4 8 12 16 20

Distance to Eyewall (km) Fig. 2. Canopy density (%) on southwest Florida barrier islands before and after Hurricane Charley. Fig. 3. Relationship between the change in canopy density and the distance to the hurricane eyewall.

Statistical tests were Results performed with SAS 9.0; the significance level for all statistical tests was set at p < 0.05. Canopy density was significantly lower at all four Six plots in each region were grouped after no regions following the hurricane (Fig. 2). The de- significant differences were found in canopy density crease in canopy density was greatest at the CT between areas with an open connection and areas region, closest to the estimated storm track (Fig. 1). with a restricted connection (Kruskal-Wallis test, p The least change in canopy density was recorded at the ES site, farthest from the storm track. There was = 0.10). A Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to test the differences in canopy density before April a significant and negative correlation between the 2004 and after the landfall of Hurricane Charley change in pre-canopy and post-canopy cover and (September 2004). Multiple Mann-Whitney U-tests distance from the eye wall (Fig. 3). were used to determine if the 4 regions had Species-specific differences were not observed in significantly different canopy densities after the response to hurricane disturbance. There were no disturbance (Scheiner and Gurevitch 2001). A significant differences among mangrove species in Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was the degree of effect they experienced from the used to determine the relationship between change storm. The size of severely impacted trees and in canopy density and distance to the hurricane impacted trees was significantly greater than non- eyewall. impacted trees of all species (Fig. 4). Trees > 5 cm DBH data were logarithm transformed (loglo). A DBH had a 47% initial mortality, while trees < 5 cm Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine significant DBH had a 20% initial mortality. differences in log DBH among damage classes (i.e., 25 severely impacted, impacted, and non-impacted). Non-impacted Each of the three mangrove species was tested Impacted independently. Mortality of trees < 5 cm in di- 20 L--- Severely Impacted ameter was compared to mortality of trees > 5 cm to compare the effects of Hurricane Charley to other reports of hurricane disturbance (Smith et al. E 15

1994). The percentage of severely damaged stems in a restricted plots was compared to unrestricted plots E by calculating the proportion of severely damaged stems to the total number of classified stems. Data from the NS region were not included because the 5 - plots in the areas of management concern experienced a significant mangrove die-off in 2001. R. mangle L. racemoa Age nans Descriptive statistics and a Wilcoxon rank-sum, R. mangle L. racemosa A. germinans nonparametric test were applied to determine the differences in stem density, seedling densities, and Fig. 4. Tree size (diameter at breast height) relative to damage stem size between restricted and unrestricted plots. category experienced by mangrove species.

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 982 E. C. Milbrandt et al.

5 TABLE 1. Percentage of severely damaged stems in East Sanibel and Central Sanibel. Avicennia germinans J Laguncularia racemosa Connectivity Avicennia germinans Laguncularia racemosa Rhizophora mangle 4 - Rhizophora mangle Restricted 7 27 3 Open 55 50 37 E 3 o) Prior to the landfall of Hurricane Charley, stem density and stem size for each species were compared in plots with restricted connections versus open connections. In the ES region there were significantly smaller DBH and greater stem densities of R. mangle and L. racemosa in restricted plots. There were significantly smaller DBH and greater stem densities of R. mangle in restricted plots CT NS CS ES of the CS region, but DBH for L. racemosa was Fig. 5. Mangrove seedling densities recorded at the four study significantly larger and stem densities were greater sites. Abbreviations are as follows: CT = Captiva, NS = Northwest in the CS region. In the CT region, plots with Sanibel, CS = Central Sanibel, and ES = East Sanibel. restricted connections had significantly greater A. germinans stem diameters. In a post-hurricane et al. 1995; McCoy et al. 1996; Imbert et al. 2000). analysis, the percentages of severely damaged trees We report the first evaluation of immediate effects were lower in areas with restricted connections to from a hurricane using mangrove structure data open water in CS and ES (Table 1). While in the collected CT before the hurricane made landfall. While region, the percentage of severely impacted it isA. tempting to study only the most severely germinans stems was higher in the restricted affected plots sites when a hurricane occurs, the estab- (88%) versus open plots (63%). lishment of field plots prior to the hurricane Post-hurricane densities of R. mangle seedlings eliminated a preference for severely disturbed sites. were observed to be significantly lower in plots A gradientwith of hurricane disturbance, as evidenced restricted connections (Table 2). Densities of A. from pre-disturbance and post-disturbance surveys germinans and L. racemosa seedlings were not of canopy density, provided the framework examin- different between restricted and unrestricted plots. ing the relationship between the hurricane distur- The mean density of R. mangle seedlings in CS was bance and resulting effect to pristine and human- 4.3 seedlings m-2, while in ES the mean R. mangle altered mangrove forests. seedling density was 4.0 seedlings m-2 (Fig. 5). Doyle et al. (1995) concluded that defoliation Mean density of R. mangle seedlings in CT and NS and branch losses (expressed as canopy density) was < 1 m-2. decreased exponentially with increasing distance Recovery of the canopy revealed slow, if any, from the storm track. A closer inspection of the data recovery toward pre-disturbance levels, as evidenced offered by (Doyle et al. 1995) indicated that this by measures of canopy density in the months after relationship was linear within close proximity (0- the storm. The only area with a positive trend 40 km) of the eyewall. Our data revealed a signifi- toward recovery within the study area was ES, the cant and negative relationship between changes in most distant from the eyewall. The trend, however, canopy density and distance to the eyewall. The was not statistically different from zero (r2 = 0.01). most severe damage was limited to those areas

Discussion within 4-12 km of the storm's eyewall. Severe damage was confined to a generally small region Hurricane effects have often been evaluated because of the relatively small diameter of Hurri- through post-disturbance reconstruction, cane where Charley's it eyewall (16-24 km diameter, Nation- was possible to determine the timing of the al Oceanicdeath ofAtmospheric Administration). In com- downed trees (Roth 1992; Smith et al. 1994; parison, Doyle Hurricane Katrina, also a category 4 storm, had an eyewall diameter of 48 km. TABLE 2. Post-hurricane Rhizophora mangle seedling densityThe severity in of the damage was a function of areas with restricted versus open tidal connections. forest-size structure. Tree size was the primary factor

Region distinguishing the severely impacted from the non- Connectivity East Sanibel Central Sanibel North Sanibel Captiva impacted groups. Smith et al. (1994) concluded that trees < 5 cm in diameter had less than 10% Restricted 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.1 initial mortality after Hurricane Andrew; while Open 4.0 4.3 0.3 0.6 a 20% initial mortality of trees < 5 cm in diameter

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Impact and Response of Florida Mangroves 983 is reported here. Several other studies have demon- understory growth associated with changes in geo- strated that larger trees are more likely to suffer morphology (Cahoon et al. 2004), inhibition of stem breakage or toppling in the path of a hurricane propagule movement and seedling production as (Roth 1992; Smith et al. 1994; McCoy et al. 1996; a result of habitat fragmentation are not well Baldwin et al. 2001). While others have suggested understood. that L. racemosa is more sensitive to disturbance Although hurricane disturbance is a natural (e.g., Doyle et al. 1995; McCoy et al. 1996), occurrence there to mangrove forests, the effect of was no evidence for greater susceptibility of humanmortal- alterations on the resiliency of the estuary ity in our observations. is unknown. Modifications to hydrology (e.g., road There were lower percentages of severely construction) dam- and connectivity have contributed to aged stems in plots with restricted tidal connections. changes in the size structure and composition of In areas closer to the eyewall, a majority of the mangrove stems forests. While it appears that the imme- were severely impacted regardless of the connectiv- diate response to hurricane disturbance in areas ity. It would appear that the effect is primarily affected by human activities was minimal, there is attributable to the distance to the eyewall the and possibility that mangroves will experience secondarily related forest size structure. Changes a delayed in recovery. The delivery of propagules and forest-size structure due to human activities the productivitymay of seedlings may be limited where have indirectly contributed to the severity of mangrove effect habitats are fragmented. Should low from hurricane disturbance, but it was not seedlingpossible densities persist in fragmented areas for to determine whether the changes were caused subsequent by years, restoration of tidally restricted human activities. areas may be necessary. Recovery of the canopy depended partly on the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS severity of disturbance, where mangroves close to the eyewall lost most, if not all, of their canopy Tim Walker Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council structure. Complete crown loss was not compensat- (SWFRPC) provided the track of Hurricane Charley, which was ed for in CT during the 8 mo after the hurricane used as to calculate distances from the eyewall to the study sites. The evidenced by a negative relationship in canopy following research assistants helped to collect, enter, and check data: Megan Tinsley, Justin Spinelli, Brad Klement, A. J. density in the time after the hurricane made Martignette, and Maggie May. Mike Hannan reviewed and landfall. In lightly disturbed areas (i.e., ES), there improved earlier versions of the manuscript. Funding was were slight increases in canopy density over time. provided by Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Core Research Fund These observations indicated that recovery in ES andwas the City of Sanibel. Access to study sites was provided by theJ. N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge. likely the result of refoliation of the intact branch structure. In mangrove forests, there is a species- LITERATURE CITED specific ability to regrow a new canopy from epicormic sprouts (Tomlinson 1986). A. germinans BALDWIN, A., M. EGNOTOVICH, M. FORD, AND W. PLATT. 2001. and L. racemosa have the ability to regrow, while R. Regeneration in fringe mangrove forests damaged by Hurri- cane Andrew. Plant Ecology 157:149-162. mangle lose this ability as they grow larger. CAHOON, D. R., P. HENSEL,J. RYBCZYK, K. L. MCKEE, C. E. PROFFITT, In post-hurricane surveys, there were lower AND B. C. PEREZ. 2004. Mass tree mortality leads to mangrove densities of R. mangle seedlings observed in regions peat collapse at Bay Islands, Honduras after Hurricane Mitch. closer to the eyewall. We also observed lower Journal of Ecology 91:1093-1105. CONNELL, J. H. AND R. O. SLATYER. 1977. Mechanisms of succession densities of R. mangle seedlings in areas with in natural communities and their role in community stability restricted connections. These observations were and organization. The American Naturalist 111:1119-1140. made after the hurricane; a similar trend was CRAIGHEAD, F. C. 1971. The Trees of South Florida, Volume 1. evident in pre-hurricane surveys (Milbrandt un-University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. published data). Consistently lower densities of DOYLE, R. T. W., T.J. SMITH, AND M. B. ROBBLEE. 1995. Wind damage effects of Hurricane Andrew on mangrove communities along mangle seedlings in impounded areas suggest that the southwest coast of Florida, USA. Journal of Coastal Research human activities are either decreasing seedling 21:159-168. production or affecting propagule movement. PlotsEVERHAM, E. M. AND N. V. L. BROKAW. 1996. Forest damage and with restricted connections to open water may recovery from catastrophic wind. Botanical Review 62:113-185. IMBERT, D. F., A. ROUSTEAU, AND P. SHERRER. 2000. Ecology of experience delays in recolonization if the delivery mangrove growth and recovery in the Lesser Antilles: State of of propagules is reduced because of increased knowledge and basis for restoration projects. Restoration Ecology habitat fragmentation. Species composition and 8:230-236. the rate of colonization partially depend on KRAUSS,the K. W., T. W. DOYLE, R. R. TWILLEY, T. J. SMITH, K R. delivery of propagules from adjacent forests and theWHELAN, AND J. K SULLIVAN. 2005. Woody debris in the mangrove forests of south Florida. Biotropica 37:9-15. capture of those propagules by woody debris LEWIS, III, R. R. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful (Krauss et al. 2005). While there are reports of management and restoration of mangrove forests. Ecological complete inhibition of seedling recruitment andEngineering 24:403-418.

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 984 E. C. Milbrandt et al.

McCoY, E. D., H. R. MUSHINSKY, D. JOHNSHON, AND W. E. MESHAKA, STRICKLER, G. S. 1959. Use of the densitometer to estimate density JR. 1996. Mangrove damage caused by Hurricane Andrew of on the the forest canopy on permanent sample plots. U.S. De- southwestern coast of Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science partment59:1-8. of Agriculture Forest Services, Pacific North West ROTH, L. C. 1992. Hurricanes and mangrove regeneration: Forest Effects and Range Research Note 180, Portland, Oregon. of Hurricane Joan, October 1988, on the vegetation ofTOMLINSON, Isla del P. B. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge Venado, Bluefields, Nicaragua. Biotropica 24:375-384. University Press, Cambridge, U.K SCHEINER, S. M. AND J. GUREVITCH. 2001. Design and AnalysisWORLEY, ofK. 2005. Mangroves as an indicator of estuarine conditions in restoration areas, p. 247-260. In S. A. Bortone SHERMAN, Ecological R. Experiments. E., T. J. FAHEY, Oxford AND University J. J. BATTLES. Press, 2000. Oxford, Small-scale (ed.), U.K. Estuarine Indicators. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. disturbance and regeneration dynamics in a neotropical mangrove forest. Journal of Ecology 88:165-178. SOURCE OF UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS SMITH, III, T. J. 2000. It's been five years since Hurricane Andrew: Long-term growth and recovery in mangrove forests following PROFFITT, C. E. unpublished data. Florida Atlantic University, 777 catastrophic disturbance. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Glades Road, P. O. Box 3091, Boca Raton, Florida 33431-0991 Research Division, Florida International University, Compre- hensive Everglades Restoration Plan, OE-148, Miami, Florida. SMITH, III, T. J., M. B. ROBBLEE, H. R. WANLESS, AND T. W. DOYLE. Received, December 14, 2005 1994. Mangroves, hurricanes, and lightning strikes. BioScience Revised, April 19, 2006 44:256-262. Accepted, June 4, 2006

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:35:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Society for Conservation Biology

Deforestation and Its Effects on Forest-Nesting Birds in the Florida Keys Author(s): G. Thomas Bancroft, Allan M. Strong and Mary Carrington Source: Conservation Biology, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Aug., 1995), pp. 835-844 Published by: Wiley for Society for Conservation Biology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386993 Accessed: 25-04-2017 15:39 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for Conservation Biology, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Conservation Biology

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Deforestation and Its Effects on Forest-Nesting Birds in the Florida Keys

G. THOMAS BANCROFT,*t ALLAN M. STRONG,*t AND MARY CARRINGTON*? *National Audubon Society, 115 Indian Mound Trail, Tavernier, FL 33070, U.S.A.

Abstract: Uplands in the upper Florida Keys are covered by a tropical, seasonal deciduous forest containing many plant species found nowhere else in the continental United States. Before European settlement there were 4816 ha of seasonal deciduous forest in the keys. By 1991 the extent of this seasonal deciduous forest had decreased by 41%, the number of fragments increased by an order of magnitude, and the acreage in large fragments decreased by 84%. To examine the effects offragment size on the presence of breeding birds, we censused bird populations of singing males that occurred in 27 forests that ranged in size from 0.2 ha to more than 100 ha. We also examined the occurrence offorest-breeding species at road-stop census points relative to nine measures of habitat around these points. Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) and Black- whiskered Vireos (Vireo altiloquus) were found singing in virtually allfragments. The distribution of Red-bellied Woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) occurred independently of the size offorestfragments but was positively correlated with other measures offorest area. Great Crested Flycatchers (Myiarchus crinitus) occurred independently offragment size and showed no correlations with other measures of habitat. White-eyed Vireos (V. griseus) were not present in fragments smaller than 2.3 ha. Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus) were not present in fragments smaller than 3.5 ha, but their numbers showed the highest positive correlations with the percentage of area in lawns and were negatively correlated with measures of totalforest area. Yellow-billed (Coccyzus americanus) and Mangrove (C. minor) Cuckoos were absent from fragments smaller than 7.5 ha and 12.8 ha, respectively. The effective habitat loss for the four "area-sensitive" species exceeds the actual loss of deciduous forest. To maintain viable populations of species native to the seasonal deciduous forests of the Florida Keys will require protection of additional acreage of upland habitatfrom deforestation. A network of reserves that maintains dispersalpossibilities among the remaining largerforestfragments is crucial.

Deforestacion y sus efectos sobre las aves nidificadoras en bosques de los Cayos de la Florida

Resumen: Las tierras altas de los Cayos de la Florida estdn cubiertas por bosques deciduos estacionales tro- picales, con numerosas especies de plantas que no se encuentran en nigun otro sitio de la parte continental de los Estados Unidos. Con anterioridad al asentamiento Europeo, existian 4816 ha de bosques deciduos estacionales en los Cayos. Hacia 1991 la extension de este bosque deciduo estacional habia decrecido en un 41%, el numero defragmentos aumento en un orden de magnitudy la superficie de losfragmentos mayores decrecio en un 84%. Para examinar los efectos del tamano de losfragmentos sobre lapresencia de las aves re- productoras, censamos poblaciones de machos cantores que se encontraban en 27 bosques que variaron en tamanfo entre 0.2 ha y mds de 100 ha. Tambien examinamos la ocurrencia de especies que se reproducen en los bosques en sitios de censos a lo largo del camino en relacion a nueve medidas de habitat alrededor de es- tos puntos. Cardinalis cardinalis y Vireo altiloquus fueron encontrados cantando en prdcticamente todos los fragmentos. La distribucion de Melanerpes carolinus ocurrio en forma independiente del tamanfo del frag- mento de bosque, pero estuvo positivamante correlacionada con otras medidas del area de bosque. Myiarchus crinitus se presento independientemente del tamanfo delfragmento y no mostro correlaciones con otras medidas del habitat. V. griseus no se encontro presente en losfragmentos menores de 2.3 ha. Colaptes auratus no se

f Current address: Archbold Biological Station, P.O. Box 2057, Lake Placid, FL 33852, US.A. f Current address: Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, 310 Dinwiddie Hall, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, US.A. f Current address: Department of Botany, Bartram Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 32611, US.A. Paper submitted March 25, 1994; revised manuscript accepted October 4, 1994.

835

Conservation Biology, Pages 835-844 Volume 9, No. 4, Augustl995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 836 Deforestation and Forest-Nesting Birds Bancroft et al. encontr6 presente en fragmentos menores de 3.5 ha, pero presento las correlaciones positivas mds altas con respecto alporcentaje de areas abiertasy estuvo negativamante correlacionado con las medidas del area total de bosque. Coccyzus americanus y C. minor estuvieron ausentes en los fragmentos menores de 7.5 y 12.8 ha, respectivamente. Laperdida efectiva del habitatpara las cuatro especies "sensibles al area" excedio laperdida actual del bosque deciduo. El mantenimiento de poblaciones viables de las especies nativas de los bosques deciduos estacionales de los Cayos de la Florida va a requerir la proteccion de areas adicionales de habitat de las tierras altas para evitar su deforestacion. Resulta crucial una red de reservas para mantener las posibilidades de dispersion entre los fragmentos de bosque mds grandes que aun persisten.

Introduction ous forests, while the lower elevations along their bor- ders support mangrove forests (Ross et al. 1992). Most Habitat loss and fragmentation are serious threats to the plant species colonized from the West Indies of Central protection of ecosystems and their biota (Temple & Wil- America; few are from temperate North America (Tom- cox 1986; Wilcove et al. 1986; Brussard et al. 1992; Brus- linson 1980; Snyder et al. 1990; Ross et al. 1992). Much sard & Ehrlich 1992). Deforestation eliminates substan- of the fauna, however, has its origin in the temperate re- tial areas of suitable habitat and reduces available habitat gion, although a few bird species have invaded from the for many plants and animals (Saunders et al. 1991). West Indies (Robertson & Kushlan 1974; Lazell 1989; Clearing land creates a fragmented landscape that results Robertson & Wolfenden 1992). in small, isolated subpopulations, increased effects of The keys have gone through three periods of defores- edge on survivorship and reproductive success, and in- tation (reviewed in Strong & Bancroft 1994a). In the creased vulnerability of remaining individuals to extrin- eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Bahamians sic environmental disturbance (Wilcove et al. 1986; Lord selectively removed many trees for timber. During the & Norton 1990). Isolation may make subpopulations late nineteenth century, agriculture dominated much of more vulnerable to extinction through stochastic demo- the upland area of the keys, but this industry became un- graphic fluctuations, loss of genetic diversity, or de- profitable in the early 1900s. The abandoned farms grad- creased immigration (Brown & Kodric-Brown 1977; ually reverted to forests. With the construction of a Lord & Norton 1990; Stacey & Tapor 1992; Groom & freshwater pipeline in the 1940s, freshwater no longer Schumaker 1993). To maintain the biodiversity of frag- limited development in the keys, and the area became mented systems, processes such as dispersal, gene flow, popular for living and vacationing. Because of the rapid and successful reproduction must be maintained (Levins loss of its unique forest habitat and the threats to the 1970; Lande 1987; Doak 1989; Hanski 1991; Groom & surrounding marine community, the Florida Keys have Schumaker 1993). been designated as an area of "state critical concern." Some animal and plant species disappear from habitat Protecting and managing what remains of this unique fragments because the area is too small or because the ecosystem is of major importance. fragment lacks essential microhabitats (Lovejoy et al. To assure adequate protection for the biodiversity of 1986; Wilcove et al. 1986; Saunders et al. 1991). Other the Florida Keys, we must quantify the spatial patterns species disappear because the increased edge-to-area ra- and areal extent of deforestation and the resultant pat- tio changes the microclimate of the interior and thus terns of species distributions. This information will al- eliminates conditions suitable for survival (Shafer 1990; low the identification of important ecological processes Saunders et al. 1991) Such species are often categorized within the community and of areas that must be pro- as area-sensitive. Developing effective conservation plans tected. Development of a "habitat protection plan" for ecosystems requires an understanding of the pat- (Murphy & Noon 1992) that will help maintain the spe- terns of habitat loss and their effects on component species of this community through the next century will be cies (Temple & Wilcox 1986; Brussard & Ehrlich 1992; critical to protecting the remaining forests in the keys. Quinn & Karr 1993). This information is essential to the We undertook this study to determine the quantity and formulation of land acquisition and management plans distribution of seasonal deciduous forest remaining on that will help prevent the loss of species from isolated the upper Keys, the extent and pattern of its deforesta- habitats (Shafer 1990). tion, and the relative effects of forest fragmentation on The Florida Keys are unique within the continental forest-dependent birds (Strong et al. 1979; Grant & Ab- United States because the climate has allowed a tropical bot 1980). We used the presence or absence of singing seasonal deciduous forest (after Beard 1944) to develop. male birds as an indicator of the effects of fragmentation The bedrock of the upper keys is composed of lime- on species requiring forest interior. Based on our data, stone formed from Pleistocene coral reefs. The higher we develop recommendations for protecting the re- central portions of most keys support seasonal decidu- maining forest community.

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Bancroft et al. Deforestation and Forest-Nesting Birds 837

Methods Table 1. Distribution and size of seasonal deciduous forest fragments censused for singing male birds in the upper Florida Keys. We examined loss and fragmentation of upland forests in the upper Florida Keys from Long Key northeast to Fragment Size (ha)

the Ragged Keys (Fig. 1). To determine the distribution Island 0-1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 >20 of seasonal deciduous forests, we used 18-by-18-inch (46 North Key Largo 1 1 by 46 cm) enlargements (1:12,000) of aerial photographs South Key Largo 4 4 3 3 1 taken in February, March, and November 1991 by the Plantation Key 1 2 1 Florida Department of Transportation. We digitized all Upper Matecumbe Key 2 1 1 remaining forest fragments greater than 24 by 24 meters Lower Matecumbe Key 1 (2 by 2 mm map size) from Long Key through the Long Key 1 Ragged Keys. After digitizing these forests, we checked Total 4 7 8 4 2 2 each fragment to verify the boundaries and habitat type. The distribution of deciduous seasonal forests prior to anthropogenic clearing (original distribution) was estimated from the interpretation of 1:12,000 and 1:24,000 fragments ranging in size from 0.2 ha to more than 100 aerial photographs from 1945-1959 and observations ha. Study fragments were distributed from Long Key made while visiting the current forest boundaries to through Key Largo (Table 1). We used the point-count check the map. The boundaries of the original seasonal technique to census singing male birds (Blake & Karr deciduous forests were overlaid on those of the 1991 1987; Robbins et al. 1989). Each fragment was censused forest to determine the spatial distribution and areal ex- three times, each time by a different observer (once tent of clearing. Although portions of the upper keys each in early May, early June, and early July). An ob- were developed prior to 1945, the border between the server censused a maximum of three fragments during mangrove and the deciduous seasonal forests could still a morning. The first census was started 15 minutes be interpreted from the aerial photographs. We assumed before sunrise, the second no later than 25 minutes after that the current transitional zone between mangroves sunrise, and the third no later than one hour after and seasonal deciduous forests has remained at a con- sunrise. stant elevation, possibly resulting in a slight overesti- An observer walked into the center of the fragment or mate of the forested area lost to anthropogenic clearing at least 50 meters into larger fragments and waited for a (Ross et al. 1992). We used Atlas-GIS (Strategic Mapping, few minutes for bird activity to return to normal. Fifteen- Inc., Santa Clara, California) to create maps and analyze minute census blocks were conducted on each day. All habitat parameters. birds heard or seen within the fragment were recorded. To determine the relationship between fragment size If possible, the sex, age, and activity of each individual and the presence of nesting birds, we selected 27 forest was noted. Notes on activities of birds during the walk

Florida Mainland :LRagged Keys -

Homestead :

+ i:: !:i!':!!:!! 905 :

North .... It Key Largo

Km ' * . X

0 10 20 - ? o a ,. ?e ? Florida Bay . / , o r y Figure 1. Map of the upper Flor- ^^^ -. -..t /' . PlantationV Plantation Key Key ida Keys, Florida Bay, and | Upper Matecumbe Key mainland Florida showing the location of specific Keys and \ - _ < ^ L.ong Key main roads.

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 838 Deforestation and Forest-NestingBirds Bancroft et al. into and out of the fragment were recorded, as were any 80 100 -x- Number of Forests DI Forest Area nests or other nesting activity detected. For larger fragments we pooled the results of counts made at two -80 points spaced more than 100 meters apart. Results of 60 the three censuses were pooled to determine which cl ) 0 species probably bred within each fragment. o 60 We compared roadside counts of birds with measures of habitat to determine which habitat factors may influ- o 40 a) ence the distributions of various forest-nesting species. At each stop, all birds seen or heard within a three- minute period were recorded (Robbins & Van Velzen 20-20 4 - Total area = 4816 ha 1967). Counts were conducted twice each month from 20 early April through late July during 1987-1991. Thirty- two roadside censuses were made at each of 19 points along a nine-mile segment of Old U.S. 1 from Plantation 0-5 20-25 45-50 70-75 > 100 Key through Upper Matecumbe Key, and 28 censuses were made at each of 28 points along a 14-mile segment Fragment size (ha) of State Route 905 through north Key Largo. For species Figure 2. The estimated number and cumulative per- identified in the previous analysis as forest breeding cent area of seasonal deciduous forests in the upper birds, we calculated the total number of individuals Florida Keys before European colonization. counted throughout the study for each stop and the proportion of counts in which a species was detected at that stop. Eight parcels (8%) were larger than 100 ha, totalling Habitat variables for each census point were calcu- 3935 ha or 82% of the total forested area (Fig. 2). One lated by determining (1) the maximum forest-fragment forest was larger than 2275 ha. size within or touching the circumference of a circle By 1991, the Upper Keys had lost 1984 ha or 41.2% of with a 100-meter radius centered at the census point, (2) the original seasonal deciduous forest. The remaining the percentage of the area within 100 meters of the cen- 2832 ha of forest was divided into 1068 fragments. Of sus point that consisted of forest fragments more than these fragments, 987 were smaller than 5 ha and ac- 24 by 24 meters, (3) isolated trees not digitized, (4) man- counted for more than 22% of the remaining forest (Fig. groves, (5) lawns, or (6) roads and buildings. Three addi- 3). Only three fragments larger than 100 ha remained, tional variables were calculated from these: (7) upland and these totaled only 637 ha or 22% of the remaining forested (digitized fragments & shade trees), (8) total forest (Fig. 3). Acreage in these large fragments deforested habitat (digitized fragments and isolated trees creased by 84%. In summary, the total acreage of sea- and mangroves), and (9) developed habitat (lawns, roads, buildings). For each stop we laid a dot-grid circle (equiv- 1,200 -100 alent to 100-meter radius) on the aerial photograph at 2-- Number of Forests LI Forest Area l the stop and counted the number of dots falling in each of the above vegetation categories. The grid was re- 1,000 - 80 moved and the procedure repeated twice more. The av- 0 o erage of the three grid counts was used to estimate the ', 800 . - | proportion of the area in each of the habitat categories. For each bird species, the total counts and proportion of times recorded at a stop were correlated against these nine variables. ES00 EI//' |Total Area:4, = 2832 ha L 40 s | 400 / D /

Results 200 - 20 200

Forest Fragments 0, --.. ? , ? : . ) .'/ ;,< ::'. ;,.( ',. ( ,' ' ".' 0 0-5 20-25 45-50 70-75 > 100 Before European colonization (hereafter referred to as Fragment size (ha) "originally"), we estimated that the Upper keys contained 95 seasonal deciduous forests comprising 4816 Figure 3. The number and cumulative percent area of ha. Of the 95 forests, 57 (59%) were less than 5 ha, but seasonal deciduous forests in the upper Florida Keys these accounted for only 1% of the total area (Fig. 2). in 1991.

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Bancroft et al Deforestation and Forest-estingBirds 839

Table 2. Area of seasonal deciduous forest in the upper Florida Keys before anthropogenic clearing (original) and in 1991 relative to accessibility by roads (Strong & Bancroft 1994a).

Original 1991 Number Number Change of Area of Area in Location Fragments (ha) Fragments (ha) Area (O%) Roadless Keys 50 1051 53 1037 -1.3 State Road 905 11 1403 165 987 -29.7 U. S. Route 1 35 2362 850 807 -65.8 Total 95 4816 1068 2832 -41.2 sonal deciduous ed Flycatchersforest (Myiarchus crinitus) decreased occurred indepen- by 41%, the number of fragments increased by an order of magnitude, and the dently of the size of fragments. Four species appeared to acreage in large fragments decreased by 84%. be sensitive to the size of the remaining fragments (Fig. Based on the pattern of deforestation, Strong and Ban- 5). No White-eyed Vireos (V. griseus) were recorded in croft (1994a) divided the study area into three regions fragments smaller than 2.3 ha. Northern Flickers (Co- (Table 2). Keys that were not accessible by roads (here- laptes auratus) were not recorded in fragments smaller after called roadless keys) lost 1% of their forests. The than 3.5 ha. Yellow-billed Cuckoos (Coccyzus america- number of forest parcels on roadless keys increased nus) and Mangrove Cuckoos (C. minor) were present from 50 to 53. The northern half of Key Largo (north only in fragments larger than 7.5 ha and 12.8 ha, respec- Key Largo) has extensive areas protected from clearing tively. The proportion of fragments occupied by these within state or federal preserves. A country road bisects area-sensitive species increased with the size of the frag- the key, and several residential areas exist. North Key ments (Fig. 5). Largo lost almost 30% of its forest, and the number of We examined the consequences of habitat loss and parcels increased from 11 originally to 165 in 1991 (Ta- fragmentation on the available habitat for Black-whis- ble 2). The final area extends from central Key Largo kered Vireos and the four area-sensitive forest-bird spe- through Long Key and is bisected by a major highway cies. For each species we summed the total area of ori- (U.S. 1). This area has been extensively cleared for resi- ginal and current forests in parcels larger than the dential and commercial facilities. Over 65% of the sea- minimum size in which we detected the species (Table sonal deciduous forest in this area was cleared, with the 3). Black-whiskered Vireos provided the base compari- number of fragments increasing from 35 originally to son because they occurred in virtually all fragments. 850 in 1991 (Table 2). Originally, 4809 ha of seasonal deciduous forest were Forest fragmentation in area of central Key Largo present for this species. By 1991, only 58% of the origi- through Long Key is illustrated by comparing the original area remained available for Black-whiskered Vireos. nal distribution with the 1991 distribution of forests on The proportional loss of habitat was larger for all the Upper Matecumbe Key (Fig. 4). Originally, this key con- area-sensitive species. Only 51% of the original breeding tained one 252-ha forest. By 1991, forest acreage decreased to 61 ha with 105 separate fragments. Average fragment size was less than 1 ha in 1991.

Fragmentation and Nesting Birds Original 991 We recorded eight bird species as singing regularly within our 27 census fragments. Two additional species ^^P1 Forest <105 Forests were not considered, Carolina Wren (Thryothorus lu- 252.2 ha 61.4 ha dovicianus) and Chuck-will's-widow (Caprimulgus car- olinensis), because their breeding ranges in the keys are restricted to northern Key Largo and northward. We also did not consider Eastern Screech Owls (Otus asio) Km because we did not spend enough time in the plots at night to census this species effectively. 0 1 2 Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) occurred in all fragments, and Black-whiskered Vireos (Vireo altil- Figure 4. Aerial extent of seasonal deciduous forests oquus) occurred in all but four fragments. Red-bellied on Upper Matecumbe Key prior to anthropogenic Woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) and Great Crest- clearing (original) and in 1991.

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 840 Deforestation andForest-NestingBirds Bancroft et al.

100 kered Vireos showed the strongest negative correlation *- WE Vireo with percentage of area in isolated trees and with per- A N Flicker centage of area in human-made habitat. Northern Cardi- 80 -YB Cuckoo nals showed the strongest negative correlation with the - M Cuckoo percentage of the area in mangroves and with the per- 60- centage of developed habitats. Northern Flickers showed significant negative correlations with measures of total forested area. Red-bellied Woodpeckers and Great 40- 0 Crested Flycatchers showed no significant negative correlations.

20-

0 Discussion

0-1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 >20 Forty-one percent of the original seasonal deciduous for- Forest size (ha) est in the upper Florida Keys has been lost to deforesta- Figure 5. The percentage occurrence relative to forest tion. Forest-dependent birds showed a mixed response size for four forest-breeding bird species: White-eyed to the fragmentation of the remaining forest. Northern Vireo, Northern Flicker, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and Cardinals and Black-whiskered Vireos were found in vir- Mangrove Cuckoo. tually all fragments. Their occurrence was positively related to the amount of forest and negatively related to the amount of developed area. The distributions of habitat remained for White-eyed Vireos, 49% for North- Great Crested Flycatchers and Red-bellied Woodpeckers ern Flickers, 44% for Yellow-billed Cuckoos, and 40% for did not appear to be related to the size of forest frag- Mangrove Cuckoos (Table 3). ments. Great Crested Flycatchers showed no significant positive or negative correlations with the habitat variables we examined. We suspect that cavities are a lim- Habitat Associations ited resource in the keys and may restrict the distribu- For each species we compared the total number of indi- tion of Great Crested Flycatchers. The distributions of viduals recorded at each point and the percentage of Red-bellied Woodpeckers and Northern Flickers support censuses in which each was recorded with the nine this contention, as each were associated with different measures of habitat at each point (Table 4). Six spe- measures of forested area. We found four bird species- cies-Black-whiskered Vireo, White-eyed Vireo, North- White-eyed Vireo, Northern Flicker, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, ern Cardinal, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Yellow-billed and Mangrove Cuckoo-to be sensitive to the size of re- Cuckoo, and Mangrove Cuckoo-showed significant maining parcels. We did not record these species until a positive correlations with the various measures of re- threshold forest size was reached. Deforestation in the maining forest habitat. Northern Flickers had the highest Florida Keys has reduced the amount of forest available positive correlation with the percentage of area in lawns. to all species by 41% and for the area-sensitive species Great Crested Flycatchers showed no significant posi- by an even greater percent. For the Mangrove Cuckoos, tive correlations with the variables measured. the most area-sensitive species, one-third of the remain- White-eyed Vireos, Yellow-billed Cuckoos, and Man- ing forests occurred in fragments smaller than any in grove Cuckoos showed the highest significant negative which we found this species, and as a result 60% of the correlations with variables measuring the percentage of original upland habitat was no longer available. the area in developed habitats (Table 4). Black-whis- Our findings varied from other published accounts of

Table 3. Area of seasonal deciduous forest available to forest-dependent bird species in the upper Florida Keys before anthropogeni clearing (original) and in 1991.

Habitat Availability (ha) Species Minimum* Area (ha) Original 1991 Area Remaining (%) Black-whiskered Vireo 0.2 4809 2786 57.9 White-eyed Vireo 2.3 4781 2431 50.8 Northern Flicker 3.5 4765 2335 49.0 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 7.5 4720 2082 44.1 Mangrove Cuckoo 12.8 4656 1869 40.1

*Minimum size forest in which the species was found.

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Bancroft et al. Deforestation and Forest-Nesting Birds 841

Table 4. Correlations based upon 47 roadside census points between the total counts and proportion of times recorded at each point for forest-dependent bird species in the Florida Keys and nine measures of habitat availability within 100 meters of census points.

Habitat Variables Measured at Each Census Pointa

Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Black-whiskered Vireo Total 0.72b 0.78b -0.68b -0.22 -0.31 -0.61b 0.67b 0.69b -0.63b Percentage 0.74b 0.75b -0.71b -0.15 -0.26 -0.65b 0.62b 0.70b -0.64c White-eyed Vireo Total 0.59b 0.77b -0.62b -0.21 -0.43c -0.59b 0.68b 0.72b -0.67b Percentage 0.63b 0.79b -0.67b -0.17 -0.45b -0.65b 0.68b 0.76b -0.73b Great Crested Flycatcher Total -0.03 -0.15 0.26 -0.11 0.33 0.17 -0.08 -0.22 0.28 Percentage 0.001 -0.09 0.24 -0.17 0.32 0.14 -0.02 -0.19 0.26 Northern Cardinal Total 0.12 0.48b -0.13 -0.37c -0.06 -0.30 0.53b 0.37c -0.27 Percentage 0.28 0.64b -0.28 -0.41c -0.10 -0.43c 0.67b 0.51b -0.39c Northern Flicker Total -0.25 -0.38c 0.09 0.34c 0.40c 0.06 -0.43c -0.24 0.23 Percentage -0.24 -0.37c 0.07 0.36c 0.37c 0.04 -0.42c -0.22 0.20 Red-bellied Woodpecker Total 0.62b 0.37c -0.24 -0.24 -0.01 -0.20 0.35c 0.25 -0.17 Percentage 0.58b 0.34 -0.20 -0.24 0.01 -0.16 0.33 0.21 -0.13 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Total 0.34c 0.33 -0.27 -0.07 -0.15 -0.37c 0.29 0.32 -0.37c Percentage 0.45b 0.40c -0.31 -0.11 -0.20 -0.40c 0.36c 0.38c -0.42c Mangrove Cuckoo Total 0.19 0.29 -0.32 0.10 -0.04 -0.45b 0.22 0.39c -0.38c Percentage 0.20 0.31 -0.33 0.10 -0.09 -0.44c 0.24 0.42c -0.40c

a (1) maximum fragment size within or touching the circumference of a circle of 100-meter radius; (2) percentage area within 100 meters that was contained in forest fragments; (3) isolated trees; (4) mangroves; (5) lawns; and (6) roads and buildings. Calculated from previous variables: (7) uplandforest (forestfragments + isolated trees); (8) totalforested area (forestfragments + isolated trees + mangroves); and (9) developed areas (lawns + roads + buildings). bp <0.01. cp <0.05.

the degree of area sensitivity for these species in eastern their distribution appears to be based on measures of North America (Lynch & Whigham 1984; Lynch 1987; forest structure. In other parts of Florida, White-eyed Robbins et al. 1989; Freemark & Collins 1992). Robbins Vireos appear to be a bird of second-growth forests and et al. (1989) also found Yellow-billed Cuckoos, Red-bel- early successional areas, so their preferences seem to lied Woodpeckers, and Great Crested Flycatchers to be differ in the temperate zone (personal observation). Our sensitive to forest area and degree of isolation. They results suggest that the response of a species to defores- found a significant area effect for Yellow-billed Cuckoos tation and fragmentation may vary over its geographic if fragments were moderately isolated. Lynch and Whit- range. gam (1984), however, found this cuckoo to be more fre- The viability of remaining populations may also be af- quent in isolated fragments. Little information is avail- fected by alterations in habitats surrounding remaining able for the area sensitivity of Mangrove Cuckoos. On patches. Fragmentation opens habitats to invasion by the mainland of Florida, Mangrove Cuckoos are re- edge predators, parasites, and exotic species (Ambuel & stricted to coastal areas and are generally found only in Temple 1983; Wilcove 1985; Brittingham & Temple mangroves (Sprunt 1954). Northern Flickers in the keys 1983; Temple & Cary 1988). Populations of nest preda- appear to be area sensitive but also show a negative cor- tors such as Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata), Common relation with the percentage of area in forests and a pos- Grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), raccoons (Procyon lo- itive relationship to the percentage of area in lawns. In tor), and feral cats (Felis domestica) are high or increas- the middle Atlantic, they appear to be more common in ing in the keys, in part because of food provided in isolated fragments (Lynch & Whitgam 1984; Robbins et human residential areas (personal observation). Brown- al. 1989). In Ontario, they appear to be insensitive to for- headed (Molothrus ater) and Shiny Cowbirds (M. est area (Freemark & Collins 1992). In the northeastern bonariensis), two nest parasites, have recently invaded United States, White-eyed Vireos appear insensitive to the Florida Keys (Smith & Sprunt 1987; Robertson & area (Robbins et al. 1989; Freemark & Collins 1992), and Woolfenden 1992). The presence of these species is ex-

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 842 Deforestation andForest-NestingBirds Bancroft et al. pected to reduce the nesting success of forest-depen- tected or designated for acquisition large areas of sea- dent species (Ambuel & Temple 1983; Brittingham & sonal deciduous forest in the upper and lower keys, al- Temple 1983; Wilcove 1985; Temple & Cary 1988). though current acquisition efforts are lagging because of Plants may be eliminated because the microclimate of limited resources, primarily funding. Protection of these the forest interior has been altered by the increased two areas is critical to the preservation of tropical sea- edge-to-area ratio (Lovejoy et al. 1986). Interior species sonal deciduous forest communities within the United are not necessarily adapted to the windier conditions States. Protection efforts in the upper and lower keys found along edges (Foster 1988). This may reduce the are not sufficient, however, because these ignore some survivability or fecundity of interior species (Lovejoy et important community types and do not help to maintain al. 1986; Brothers & Spingarn 1992). Isolated forests also biotic exchanges between areas. Between central Key may be more susceptible to invasion by exotic plants, es- Largo in the upper Florida Keys and Sugarloaf Key in the pecially along edges (Brothers & Spingarn 1992). Exotic lower Florida Keys lie 120 km of small, narrow islands plants are a serious threat to the communities of south that have been extensively cleared of tropical seasonal Florida (Snyder et al. 1990). deciduous forest (Strong & Bancroft 1994a). Currently, Deforestation and fragmentation increases the proba- only a few sizable parcels of such forest are protected in bility that species may become locally extirpated be- this region, and substantial distances occur between cause populations of individual species are reduced as them. The area contains some subcommunities and spe- patch size and available habitat decreased (Gilpin 1987; cies that are poorly represented in the upper or lower Goodman 1987; Fahrig & Paloheimo 1988; Stacey & keys (Ross et al. 1992). Roughly 20% of the flora and Taper 1992; Robertson & Frederick 1993) and because fauna of this area is listed by the Florida Natural Areas In- the distance between remaining fragments will increase ventory as rare to endangered (D. R. Jackson, personal (Levins 1970; Lande 1987; Doak 1989; Hanski 1991; Sta- comm.). cey & Taper 1992). Maintaining the dispersal capabilities To enhance a regional protection plan, we recom- of animals and plants between isolated fragments will be mend the acquisition and preservation by the county, critical for reducing the probability of stochastic extinc- state, or federal governments of all remaining moder- tion (Edwards et al. 1994). ately sized (> 5 ha) forest fragments (see also Strong & Suburban neighborhoods that maintain an extensive Bancroft 1994b). The resulting network of preserves cover of native trees and shrubs may help reduce the will serve as forested stepping stones for genetic and in- chance of local extirpation by providing habitat for dividual exchange and will protect a number of species some birds and plants (Rosenberg et al. 1987; Mills et al. not currently well represented on protected areas in the 1989). These areas may support surplus individuals from upper and lower keys. More than 70% of the woody core areas until prime habitat becomes available. Plants, plants in the upper keys produce a fleshy fruit that is especially native fruit-producing ones, are critical for consumed by birds and animals, which in turn disperse the continued maintenance of fruit-consuming species. the seeds (W. Hoffman, personal communication). White- Planting and maintenance of fruit-producing trees in res- crowned Pigeons (Columba leucocephala) are the most idential habitats may enhance the long-term viability of important medium- and long-distance disperser of seeds seed-dispersing species. (Bancroft, Strong, and Carrington, unpublished data). It appears that these stepping-stone preserves may be critical for maintaining healthy populations of this species Conservation Needs (Strong & Bancroft 1994b). In 1992, the National Audubon Society, in concert The long, narrow archipelagic nature of the Florida Keys with The Nature Conservancy and the Florida Natural creates a unique conservation problem for the native Areas Inventory, incorporated these needs into a formal biota. Seasonal deciduous forests were relatively small proposal submitted to the state of Florida's Conservation and isolated even before human-induced deforestation and Recreational Lands Program. This proposal called began. The high diversity of plant species (Tomlinson for the acquisition of 334 ha of seasonal deciduous for- 1980) and the small total forest area means that many est and 366 ha of adjacent mangrove forest in 17 sites species have relatively small populations in the Keys and from central Key Largo through Key Vaca. In 1994, the that some are patchily distributed (Ross et al. 1992). In proposal was ranked high, and preliminary work toward the face of deforestation and fragmentation, preserving acquisition had begun. This network will (1) help re- these species and communities will require maintaining duce the risk of extinction from catastrophic events, as much of the remaining habitat as possible, maintain- such as hurricanes, by maintaining populations across a ing key ecological processes such as seed dispersal, and broad area; (2) help provide refugia in which species spreading the risk from catastrophic events such as hur- can recolonize devastated areas; and (3) help maintain ricanes. dispersal processes that also will be critical for repopu- The federal and state governments have already pro- lating areas.

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Bancroft et al. Deforestation andForest-NestingBirds 843

Acknowledgments models and observations. Biology Journal Linnean Society 42:17- 38. Lande, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of terri- A grant from the John D. and torial populations.Catherine American Naturalist T. 130:624-635. MacArthur Foundation supported this research. W. Hoffman and R. Lazell, Jr., J.D. 1989. Wildlife of the Florida Keys: a natural history. Is- J. Sawicki helped with the censuses in the fragmented land Press, Washington, D.C. parcels. R. Bowman, R. J. Sawicki, and T. Glen helped Levins, R. 1970. Extinction. Pages 77-107 in M. Gustenhaver, editor. Some mathematical questions in biology, vol. II. American Mathe- with the road count censuses. J. O'Brien, W. Hoffman, matical Society, Providence, Rhode Island. M. Ross, and R. J. Sawicki provided helpful suggestions Lord, J. M., and D. A. Norton. 1990. Scale and the spatial concept of on various aspects of this study. R. J. Sawicki helped fragmentation. Conservation Biology 4:197-202. with the ground-truthing of the habitat map. J. Faaborg, Lovejoy, T. E., R. 0. Bierregaard, Jr., A. B. Rylands, J. R. Malcolm, C. E. D. R. Jackson, and T. Martin read and improved an ear- Quintela, L. H. Harper, K. S. Brown, Jr., A. H. Powell, G. V. N. Pow- ell, H. 0. R. Shubart, and M. B. Mays. 1986. Edge and other effects lier version of the manuscript. We thank all these people of isolation on Amazon forest fragments. Pages 257-285 in M. E. and organizations for their support. Soule, editor. Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Literature Cited Lynch, J. F. 1987. Responses of breeding bird communities to forest fragmentation. Pages 123-140 in D. A. Saunders, G. W. Arnold, A. Ambuel, B., and S. A. Temple. 1983. Area-dependent changes in the A. Burbridge, and A. J. M. Hopkins. editors. Nature conservation: bird communities and vegetation of southern Wisconsin forest. The role of remnants of native vegetation. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Ecology 64:1057-1068. Sydney, Australia. Beard, S. J. 1944. Climax vegetation in tropical America. Ecology 25: Lynch, J., and D. Whigham. 1984. Effects of forest fragmentation on 127-158. breeding bird communities in Maryland, USA. Biological Conserva- Blake, J. G., and J. R. Karr. 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: tion 28:287-324. area and habitat relationships. Ecology 68:1724-1734. Mills, G. S., J. B. Dunning Jr., and J. M. Bates. 1989. Effects of urbaniza- Brittingham, M. C., and S. A. Temple. 1983. Have Cowbirds caused for- tion on breeding bird community structure in southwestern desert est songbirds to decline? BioScience 33:31-35. habitats. Condor 91:416-428. Brothers, T. S., and A. Spingarn. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien Murphy, D. D., and B. R. Noon. 1992. Integrating scientific methods plant invasion of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conservation with habitat conservation planning: reserve design for Northern Biology 6:91-100. Spotted Owls. Ecological Applications 2:3-17. Brown, J. H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover rates in insular bio- Quinn, J. F., and J. R. Karr. 1993. Habitat fragmentation and global geography: Effects of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445- change. Pages 451-463 in P. M. Kareiva, J. G. Kingsolve, and R. B. 449. Huey, editors. Biotic interaction and global change. Sinauer Associ- Brussard, P. F., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1992. Conservation biology: The chal- ates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. lenges of conservation biology. Ecological Applications 2:1-2. Robbins, C. S., and W. T. Van Velzen. 1967. The breeding bird survey, Brussard, P. F., D. D. Murphy, and R.F. Noss. 1992. Strategy and tactics 1966. Special science report-wildlife 102. Bureau Sport Fishery for conserving biological diversity in the United States. Conserva- Wildlife, Washington, D.C. tion Biology 6:157-159. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area re- Doak, D. F. 1989. Spotted Owls and old growth logging in the Pacific quirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Northwest. Conservation Biology 3:389-396. Wildlife monograph 103, Wildlife Society. Edwards, P. J., R. M. May, and N. R. Webb. 1994. Large-scale ecology Robertson, W. B., Jr., and P. R. Frederick. 1994. The faunal chapters: and conservation biology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Ox- contests, synthesis and departures. Pages 709-737 in S. Davis and ford, England. J. C. Ogden, editors. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. Fahrig, L., and J. Paloheimo. 1988. Effects of spatial arrangement of St. Lucie Press, West Palm Beach, Florida. habitat patches on local population size. Ecology 69:468-475. Robertson, W. B., Jr., and J. A. Kushlan. 1974. The southern Florida avi- Foster, D. R. 1988. Species and stand response to catastrophic wind in fauna. Pages 414-452 in P. J. Gleason, editor. Environments of New England, USA. Journal of Ecology 76:135-151. south Florida: past and present. Miami Geological Society, Miami. Freemark, K., and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breed- Robertson, W. B., Jr., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1992. Florida bird spe- ing in temperate forest fragments. Pages 443-454 in J. M. Hagan, cies: an annotated list. Special publication 6. Florida Ornithological III, and D. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservation of neotro- Society, Gainesville. pical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, Rosenberg, K. V., S. B. Terrill, and G. H. Rosenberg. 1987. Value of D.C. suburban habitats to desert riparian birds. Wilson Bulletin 99:642- Gilpin, M. E. 1987. Spatial structure and population vulnerability. 654. Pages 125-139 in M. Soule, editor. Viable populations for conserva- Ross, M. S., J. J. O'Brien, and L. J. Flynn. 1992. Ecological site classification. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. tion of Florida Keys terrestrial habitats. Biotrapica 24:488-502. Goodman, D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. Pages 11- Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991. Biological con- 34 in M. E. Soule, editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cam- sequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Bi- bridge University Press, Cambridge, England. ology 5:18-32. Grant, P. R., and I. Abbot. 1980. Interspecific competition, island bio- Shafer, C. L. 1990. Nature reserves: Island theory and conservation geography and null hypotheses. Evolution 34:332-341. practice. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Groom, M. J., and N. Schumaker. 1993. Evaluating landscape change: Smith, P. W., and A. Sprunt, IV. 1987. The Shiny Cowbird reaches the Patterns of worldwide deforestation and local fragmentation. Pages United States. American Birds 41:370-371. 24-44 in P. M. Kareiva, J. G. Kingsolve, and R. B. Huey, editors. Bi- Snyder, J. R., A. Herndon, and W. B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida otic interactions and global change. Sinauer Associates, Sunder- rockland. Pages 230-270 in R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, editors. Eco- land, Massachusetts. systems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Hanski, I. 1991. Single-species metapopulation dynamics: concepts, Sprunt, A., Jr. 1954. Florida bird life. Coward-McCann, Inc., New York.

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 844 Deforestation and Forest-Nesting Birds Bancroft et al.

Stacey, P. B. and M. Taper. 1992. Environmental Temple, S. A., and B.variation A. Wilcox. 1986. Introduction:and the Predicting per- effects sistence of small populations. Ecological Applications 2:18-29. of habitat patchiness and fragmentation. Pages 261-262 in J. Ver- Strong, A. M., and G. T. Bancroft. 1994a. Patterns of deforestation and ner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, editors. Wildlife 2000: Model- fragmentation of mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests in the ing habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of upper Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54:795-804. Wisconsin Press, Madison. Strong, A. M., and G. T. Bancroft. 1994b. Postfledging dispersal of Tomlinson, P. B. 1980. The biology of trees native to tropical Florida. White-crowned Pigeons: implications for conservation of decidu- Harvard University Printing Office, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ous seasonal forests. Conservation Biology 8:770-779. Wilcove, D. S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of Strong, D. R., Jr., L. A. Szyska, and D. Simberloff. 1979. Tests of com- migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1214. munity-wide character displacement against null hypotheses. Evo- lution 33:897-913. Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat frag- Temple, S. A., andJ. R. Cary. 1988. Modelling dynamics of habitat-inte- mentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237-256 in M. E. Soule, ed- rior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biol- itor. Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. ogy 2:340-347. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

* K I '

Conservation Biology Volume 9, No. 4, August 1995

This content downloaded from 128.227.216.2 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:39:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 80(3): 839–861, 2007

Altered mangrove wetlands as habitat for estuarine nekton: Are dredged channels and tidal creeks equivalent?

Justin M. Krebs, Adam B. Brame, and Carole C. McIvor

ABSTRACT Hasty decisions are often made regarding the restoration of “altered” habitats, when in fact the ecological value of these habitats may be comparable to natural ones. To assess the “value” of altered mangrove-lined habitats for nekton, we sampled for 1 yr within three Tampa Bay wetlands. Species composition, abundance, and spatial distribution of nekton assemblages in permanent subtidal portions of natural tidal creeks and wetlands altered by construction of mosquito-control ditches and stormwater-drainage ditches were quantified through seasonal seine sampling. Results of repeated-measures analysis of variance and ordination of nekton community data suggested differences in species composition and abundance between natural and altered habitat, though not consistently among the three wetlands. In many cases, mosquito ditches were more similar in assemblage structure to tidal creeks than to stormwater ditches. In general, mosquito ditches and stormwater ditches were the most dissimilar in terms of nekton community structure. These dissimilarities were likely due to differences in design between the two types of ditches. Mosquito ditches tend to fill in over time and are thus more ephemeral features in the landscape. In contrast, stormwater ditches are a more permanent altered habitat that remain open due to periodic flushing from heavy runoff. Results indicate that environmental conditions (e.g., salinity, current velocity, vegetative structure) may provide a more useful indication of potential habitat “value” for nekton than whether the habitat has been altered. The type of ditching is therefore more important than ditching per se when judging the habitat quality of these altered channels for fishes, shrimps and crabs. Planning should entail careful consideration of environmental conditions rather than simply restoring for restoration’s sake.

Mangrove systems provide habitat for numerous species of estuarine fishes and invertebrates, many of which are ecologically or economically valuable (Thayer et al., 1978; Weinstein, 1979; Odum et al., 1982; Thayer et al., 1987;H ettler, 1989; Sheridan, 1992; Kneib, 1997; Ley et al., 1999). Due to human population growth in coastal regions, mangroves have experienced a substantial reduction in coverage since 1950 with worldwide losses approaching one third (Alongi, 2002). Anthropogenic alteration of mangroves is evident in the landscape along the Gulf Coast of Florida in the form of dredged channels, spoil mounds, and water-control structures. The ecological consequences of such habitat alteration, however, are not always as apparent. Un- derstanding the fundamental differences between natural vs altered wetlands, and how and why faunal assemblages vary between habitats, is necessary to evaluate the effects of alteration on the ecological functioning of the system. In an effort to repair the effects of wetland disturbance, wetland restoration and creation have become widespread management tools over the last few decades (Lewis, 1992; Weinstein et al., 2000; Alongi, 2002; Warren et al., 2002; Lewis, 2005). However, the creation of a functional wetland system often proves more of a challenge than simply creating wetland structure (i.e., tidal creeks, ponds, salt barrens). A thorough understanding of faunal ecology, including that of the nekton communities (i.e., fishes, shrimps,

Bulletin of Marine Science 839 © 2007 Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science of the University of Miami 840 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007 crabs) that utilize wetland habitats, is necessary for the successful creation of a functional wetland. Many of the wetlands in the Tampa Bay estuary on the Gulf coast of Florida have been subjected to dredge-and-fill activities since the mid-1900s (Johnston, 1981; Lewis and Estevez, 1988; Clark, 1992), while the overall coverage of the bay’s wetlands has been reduced by at least 44% over the last century (Lewis et al., 1985). Current wetland-restoration plans in the bay seek to restore areas that have been modified for mosquito control, stormwater drainage, and agriculture. However, hydrological changes induced by human activities such as dredge-and-fill and even restoration efforts may affect biotic components such as fish communities (Freeman et al., 2001; Bunn and Arthington, 2002; Roy et al., 2005). Whereas little is known of the composition and structure of nekton communities in shallow-wetland habitats of Tampa Bay, even less is known about comparative nekton use of natural and altered wetlands. Thus, fish-community data provide a useful baseline to assist resource managers with pre-restoration planning and post-restoration assessment. To determine fish-community response to habitat alteration and to provide baseline community conditions from which to plan and assess wetland-restoration projects, we initiated a three-year sampling program in several Tampa Bay wetlands. Objectives were to: (1) compare habitat characteristics of naturally formed tidal creeks and man-made ditches; and (2) compare spatial use of natural and man-made mangrove habitat by nekton relative to habitat characteristics. Here we report results from the first year of that ongoing study.

Methods

Study Site Tampa Bay is a large (1031 km2) urbanized estuary located on the central west coast of Flor- ida (27°45´N, 82°33´W) near the northern biogeographic limit of well-developed mangrove forests (Odum et al., 1982). Its watershed drains approximately 5700 km2 from six counties, including Pinellas, the most densely populated county in the state (1173 km²) according to recent census data. Approximately 2 million people live within the bay’s watershed, many of these in the coastal regions of the estuary. Coastal wetlands can be defined as those vegetated lands and associated intertidal features (e.g., creeks) that are alternately flooded and drained by lunar tides. By this definition, a wetland extends from the upland interface with terrestrial systems to the low tide interface with permanent subtidal waters (e.g., creeks, channels, tidal rivers, embayments, lagoons). For the purpose of this study, we consider small, primarily subtidal linear features nested within the wetland landscape to be functional parts of the wetland and we refer to these features including creeks, mosquito-control ditches, stormwater-drainage ditches, as “habitat types” (sensu Minello et al., 2003). Tidal creeks are naturally formed features (i.e., existing prior to dredge-and-fill disturbance) characterized by a meandering, sinuous channel with deeper erosional and shallower depositional areas (McIvor and Rozas, 1996), and a current regime that fluctuates depending on freshwater inflow from upstream as well as tidal ebb and flow. In Tampa Bay, tidal creek shorelines are typically lined by red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle Linnaeus, 1753), occasionally interspersed with white mangroves [Laguncularia racemosa (Linnaeus) Gaert- ner, 1807]. Substrates are muddier in depositional areas and sandier in erosional areas with patchy expanses of live and dead oyster habitat [Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791)]. Mos- quito-control ditches are similar to tidal creeks in terms of the homogenous red mangroves that often line the banks of both habitat types, but often differ in terms of bank inundation. KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 841

The steep banks of the mosquito-control ditches constrain the timing and extent of tidal inundation relative to that observed along the more gently sloped banks of the tidal creeks. In contrast to tidal creeks, mosquito ditches are typically linear features, lacking the sinuosity and variable bottom topography of creeks. Most mosquito ditches are generally narrower and in most cases receive less tidal circulation than creeks. A second type of man-made feature, stormwater-drainage ditches differ from mosquito-control ditches in that they typically have higher current velocities, are wider than mosquito ditches, and have lower mean salinities and firmer, sandy, shell-hash substrates, all a result of their function in conveying large vol- umes of stormwater runoff from freshwater retention ponds to the estuary.

Experimental Design Three wetland regions in Tampa Bay were chosen for study (Fig. 1) within county or state preserves and were sampled seasonally from December 2003 through November 2004. Sam- ple sites were selected by randomly generating points along creeks and ditches within each wetland. Fixed sites were designated as close as possible to the random points while avoiding areas of heavy vegetative structure that would prevent efficient and standardized gear deploy- ment and retrieval. These particular wetland preserves were selected for study because of proposed restoration plans in these areas, and thus the need for pre-restoration data. Tidal creeks were sampled at each of the three regions: Mobbly Bayou (upper bay), Weedon Island (mid-bay), and Terra Ceia (lower bay). Nine fixed sites within Mobbly Bayou in the upper bay, six sites within Grassy Creek in the mid-bay, and six sites within Frog Creek in the lower bay were chosen randomly along the tidal extent of each creek. For comparison with naturally-formed tidal creeks, nine and ten fixed sample sites were established in mosquito- control ditches at the upper- and mid-bay regions, respectively. Grid ditching typical of mosquito control throughout much of the bay was minimal in the lower bay and thus precluded the sampling of mosquito ditches in this region. In addition to creek and mosquito ditch habitat types, the upper-bay region provided a second type of man-made mangrove habitat type in the form of stormwater-drainage ditches. The availability of interconnected habitat types both naturally formed and man-made allowed an opportunity to examine nekton habitat use at greater resolution within this wetland. Nine fixed sites were sampled in stormwater ditches for comparison with creek and mosquito ditch sites in the upper bay.

Sampling Methodology Sample sites were characterized by documenting channel width, water depth, current velocity, and percent cover of shoreline vegetation on each bank. Channel width was measured once at both upstream and downstream ends of the site and averaged. Water depth was measured in the middle of the channel at both ends of the site at the start of the sample and averaged. Current velocity was recorded at the start of sampling by timing a floating object over a known distance and averaging three measurements. It should be noted that nekton samples were not taken when current velocity exceeded 0.4 m s–1, thus current data are representative of these sites when current allowed sampling. Water-quality measurements of temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen were also taken at each site during sampling with a YSI 556 MPS unit. Sites were sampled by isolating nekton in a 9-m section of the creek or ditch using two block nets (3-mm mesh) and then seining from one block net to the other using a center-bag haul seine (5 × 1.2 m, 10 × 1.2 m, or 15 × 1.2 m, with 3-mm mesh) stretched from bank to bank. Size of block nets (5, 6, 10, 12, or 15 m) and haul seines used depended on channel width. Three successive hauls were made at each site to allow more precise estimates of nekton abundance. For data analysis, abundances were pooled across all three hauls at a given site. Preliminary estimates of gear efficiency [based on the depletion method of Zippin (1958)] for the block net method was approximately 87% after three consecutive seine hauls (J. Krebs, unpubl. data), suggesting that nekton densities presented herein are conservative estimates of abso- 842 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007

Figure 1. Map of Tampa Bay depicting the location of wetland study sites. lute abundances in these habitat types. Each sample was processed in the field by identifying and enumerating fish and decapod crustacean species collected in replicate seine samples. Up to 20 individuals of each species were measured to the nearest 1-mm standard length, SL (fishes), carapace width, CW (blue crabs), or post-orbital head length, HL (pink shrimp) and released. Taxonomy follows Nelson et al. (2004).

Habitat Analysis Tidal creek, mosquito ditch, and stormwater ditch sites within each wetland region were compared in terms of the habitat conditions (i.e., temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, water depth, and current velocity) recorded at each site (Table 1). Because habitat parameters were not normally distributed, we used a nonparametric two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) developed by Scheirer et al. (1976) as an extension of the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA (both procedures described in Sokal and Rohlf, 1997). Habitat variables were also analyzed using principal components analysis (PCA) to examine the similarity among sites and the relation between habitat type (i.e., creek, mosquito-ditch, and stormwater-ditch) and habitat KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 843 UB (n = 9) 25 (7.8) 56 (9.6) 13 (6.6) 0.5 (0.03) 0.12 (0.02) 10.96 (0.15) Stormwater ditch 0 MB 53 (9.6) 40 (8.2) (n = 10) 0.4 (0.02) 4.59 (0.14) 0.07 (0.01) Mosquito ditch UB 7 (5.2) (n = 9) 41 (8.5) 60 (9.7) 0.4 (0.02) 5.24 (0.11) 0.06 (0.01) LB 4 (2.9) (n = 6) 32 (11.0) 73 (10.7) 0.5 (0.04) 9.19 (0.47) 0.08 (0.02) 0 MB (n = 6) Creeks 33 (9.4) 72 (10.6) 0.7 (0.04) 9.23 (0.51) 0.12 (0.02) 0 UB (n = 9) 47 (8.1) 62 (8.5) 0.4 (0.02) 7.37 (0.25) 0.09 (0.02) Habitat variable Table 1. Mean (SE) physical description of sample sites in natural and man-made wetland channels, Tampa Bay, Florida. Channel width and shoreline vegetation shoreline and width Channel Florida. Bay, Tampa channels, wetland man-made and natural in sites sample of description physical (SE) Mean 1. Table were measured once and water depth current velocity four times during the year at each of n-sample sites. UB = upper bay; MB mid-bay; LB lower bay Channel width (m) Mean water depth (m) Mean current velocity (m/s) Shoreline vegetation (% cover) Rhizophora mangle Laguncularia racemosa Schinus terebinthifolius 844 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007 descriptors. Variables included in the analysis were salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, channel width, water depth, and percent shoreline cover of R. mangle, L. racemosa, and Bra- zilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi). Data were normalized prior to analysis to ensure that variables were scaled similarly. Variables were considered to be explanatory on an axis if the corresponding values were > 0.40.

Nekton Analysis Wetland-associated nekton include a variety of fishes and macroinvertebrates that can be grouped by their use of the wetland based on life-history strategy (sensu Deegan and Thomp- son, 1985). Those species that use the wetland for their entire life cycle are considered residents. Although many of the species we classify as residents may not be exclusively wetland residents (i.e., many of them are found throughout the greater estuary; Nordlie, 2003), the strong site fidelity of many of these species (Lotrich, 1975; Teo and Able, 2003) and their ability to feed, grow, and reproduce without leaving the wetland (Coorey et al., 1985; Smith, 1995; Nordlie, 2000) suggests that many of the organisms in our collections are resident to the wetland in which they were collected. In contrast, those species that use the wetland (or the estuary) during only a specific life stage are considered transients. Some transient species may be of economic importance to recreational and/or commercial fisheries (e.g., black drum, Pogonias cromis and blue crab, Callinectes sapidus) and were analyzed separately to examine the relative importance of each of the habitat types to the economic class. A third group composed of schooling taxa in the families Atherinidae, Clupeidae, and Engraulidae is a dominant component (in terms of total abundance) in estuarine systems along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts (Kilby, 1955; Weinstein, 1979; Kneib, 1997). These three classes represented the majority of nekton collected and were tested for differences in density between habitat types and bay regions. Taxa from the non-economic transients, freshwater, and exotic classes (Table 2) were not collected in sufficient numbers for meaningful analyses. Nekton Density Among Habitat Types.—To examine trends in nekton density between creeks and man-made ditches within Tampa Bay, we modeled the dependent variable of mean density for: (1) total nekton, (2) resident, (3) economic, and (4) schooling taxa in three habitat types (i.e., tidal creeks, mosquito-control and stormwater-drainage ditches). Specifically, we performed repeated measures ANOVA (Littell et al., 1998) using the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) package (SAS Institute, 2000). Nekton density was calculated as number of individuals per 100 m2 to standardize catch data from sample sites of different areas (range: 24–120 m2). The first model compared creeks among bay regions using sample site nested within bay region as the subject effect. The second model compared creeks and mosquito ditches between the upper- and mid-bay regions with sample site nested within region and habitat type. The third model compared the creek, mosquito ditch and stormwater ditches within the upper-bay region with the subject effect of sample site nested within habitat type. Because of an unbalanced sample design (i.e., no lower-bay mosquito ditches, no mid-bay or lower-bay stormwater ditches), it was necessary to run three ANOVA models for each dependent variable (e.g., total nekton, resident, etc.). Each model was run with sample season as the repeated variable and using a first-order autoregressive covariance structure which assumes that spatial autocorrelation at a sample site decreases as time between sample collections increases. In each instance, we tested the null hypothesis of no difference in nekton density among treatments (habitat types). Season was included in all three models as a blocking factor because of the strong seasonal- ity of the nekton community and the improved fit of the model when accounting for seasonal variation in abundance. However, because our primary research questions focused on habitat-related differences, season was not considered in the interpretation of the ANOVAs (Sokal and Rohlf, 1997). Pair-wise comparisons were run on least square means using the post-hoc Tukey test for all significant main effects and/or interactions and were considered significant if P < 0.05. Data were evaluated for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and equal variance (Levene’s test) prior to analyses and log-transformed when either of the assumptions were not met. KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 845

Species Diversity.—Shannon diversity index was calculated as: ) HPl =-/ iePi ,log ^ ] gh where Pi equals the proportional abundance of species i. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in species diversity between regions and habitat types using a GLM followed by a test of the least squares means for significant main effects or interactions to identify the regions and habitat types that were statistically different. Diversity data met the assumption of normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Community Analysis.—Community analysis included ordination (non-metric multidimensional scaling MDS) and rank correlation (BVSTEP, BIO-ENV) to examine the relation between nekton assemblage structure (i.e., species densities averaged by site for 2004) and habitat type. Prior to analysis, Bray-Curtis sample similarity was calculated on square-root transformed densities for the 26 most abundant taxa (i.e., those representing ≥ 1% of all individuals collected). Sample sites were then plotted using MDS to visualize the relation between habitat type and nekton assemblage structure. Using MDS, samples with nekton assemblages having similar species composition and abundance were considered more similar and were grouped more closely in two-dimensional space than those samples that were less similar. Relegating a multidimensional dataset to two dimensional space imposes a “stress” which typically distorts the true multidimensional relations between samples (i.e., two samples appear to be similar based on spatial proximity when in fact, they are not). Stress values for each MDS plot were deemed acceptable at a level of ≤ 0.2 (Clarke and Gorley, 2006). Differences in community structure between habitat types were tested using the Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM) routine, a non-parametric test analogous to ANOVA. The ANOSIM R-value typically ranges from 0 to 1 and indicates the degree of similarity between habitat types. An R-value of 0 would indicate no difference in assemblage structure between habitat types, whereas an R-value of 1 would indicate greater similarity within, than between, habitat types. To define the smallest subset of the nekton community that best explained the pattern observed in the MDS plot, we used the BVSTEP routine. To test the strength of the habitat- nekton relation and to determine how well the measured habitat conditions explained nekton structure at each sample site, we correlated habitat data used in the PCA with nekton data used in the MDS using the BIO-ENV routine. Community analyses described here, and the habitat PCA described above, were performed using the PRIMER v6 software package (Clarke and Gorley, 2006).

Results

Habitat Water temperature did not differ between habitat types (ANOVA P = 0.385) or bay regions (P = 0.054; Fig. 2). Lowest salinities were observed in the lower bay creek (P < 0.002) and in the stormwater ditches in the upper bay, whereas the highest salinities occurred in mosquito ditches in the mid-bay (P < 0.0001). Low dissolved oxygen (3.8–4.4 mg L–1) was observed in both creek and mosquito ditch sites in the mid-bay and was statistically less (P < 0.0001) than that observed at upper and lower bay creeks or upper bay mosquito ditches (5.7–7.2 mg L–1). Mean water depth varied positively with current velocity and was shallowest in the mosquito ditches (P < 0.0001) which experienced significantly less current than the deeper stormwater ditches in the upper bay and the mid-bay creek (P < 0.05). Tidal creeks at upper- and lower-bay regions did not differ from mosquito ditches, which had some of the lowest current velocities (P > 0.05). 846 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007 0 0 0 1.4 (1.4) UB 0.79 (0.3) 1.51 (0.6) 0.9 (0.26) 0.19 (0.19) 0.03 (0.03) 0.15 (0.06) 0.06 (0.04) 0.08 (0.04) 0.03 (0.03) 0.03 (0.03) 4.28 (4.23) 0.22 (0.08) 0.24 (0.12) 0.39 (0.25) 1.93 (1.93) (n = 36) 57.68 (11.88) Stormwater ditches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.98 (1) MB (n = 39) 0.13 (0.09) 0.61 (0.41) 4.69 (2.36) 0.06 (0.06) 43.77 (13.68) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mosquito ditches UB 4.99 (2.2) 5.74 (2.33) 0.25 (0.15) (n = 36) 47.97 (24.92) Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LB (n = 24) 0.16 (0.11) 0.04 (0.04) 0.08 (0.05) 2.02 (0.86) 0.23 (0.16) 2.97 (2.97) 0.22 (0.22) 0.13 (0.13) 0.19 (0.19) 0.04 (0.04) 15.16 (3.24) 37.52 (17.41) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.92 (1) MB Creeks (n = 24) 3.05 (1.16) 0.77 (0.47) 1.66 (0.78) 0.09 (0.07) 70.97 (33.4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UB (n = 36) 0.15 (0.11) 0.19 (0.11) 2.32 (0.68) 3.87 (0.81) 0.58 (0.46) 0.06 (0.06) 0.77 (0.38) 0.03 (0.03) 1.69 (1.43) 83.84 (21.24) Strategy Resident Economic Resident Resident Economic Schooling Resident Economic Transient Exotic Transient Exotic Transient Schooling Transient Schooling Economic Schooling Economic Schooling in naturally formed tidal creeks and man-made mosquito-control and FL. The stormwater-drainage ditches Bay, number in Tampa of samples is indicated for 2 Species Poey, 1865 Poey, spp. Family Scientific name each habitat type and region. Families are arranged alphabetically regardless of whether they fish or crustaceans. Achiridae Achirus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Table 2. Mean Table nekton density (SE) per 100 m Rafinesque, 1819 Lepomis macrochirus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) maculatus (Bloch and Schneider, Trinectes Unidentified sole Micropterus salmoides (Lacépède, 1802) Micropterus Aplocheilidae 1880) Kryptolebias marmoratus (Poey, Centropomidae undecimalis (Bloch, 1792) Centropomus Batrachoididae Opsanus beta (Goode and Bean, 1880) Atherinidae Menidia Cichlidae Cichlid Belonidae 1860) notata (Poey, Strongylura (Steindachner, 1864) (Steindachner, aureus Oreochromis (Walbaum, 1792) timucu (Walbaum, Strongylura Clupeidae spp. Brevoortia Carangidae Oligoplites saurus (Bloch, 1793) Clupeidae Herring Centrarchidae Lepomis spp. Harengula jaguana Harengula (Valenciennes, 1831) Lepomis punctatus (Valenciennes, (Lesueur, 1818) Opisthonema oglinum (Lesueur, KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 847 0 0 0 0 UB 2.38 (0.9) 13.7 (6.65) 0.05 (0.05) 0.22 (0.22) 4.13 (1.33) 7.19 (2.57) 0.49 (0.22) 0.03 (0.03) 5.84 (2.54) 1.51 (0.53) 0.03 (0.03) 0.93 (0.35) 0.36 (0.15) 6.58 (1.71) (n = 36) 11.87 (4.39) 11.87 34.56 (7.94) 12.02 (2.86) 50.41 (28.58) 46.66 (21.04) Stormwater ditches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MB 1.6 (0.78) (n = 39) 4.11 (1.42) 4.11 2.07 (0.88) 2.48 (1.79) 0.12 (0.12) 4.52 (1.41) 0.84 (0.39) 0.45 (0.35) 17.93 (11.9) 27.12 (7.67) 12.63 (4.87) 58.6 (22.16) 92.35 (43.86) 197.89 (55.48) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mosquito ditches UB 0.11 (0.08) 0.11 2.49 (0.73) 0.06 (0.06) 5.58 (2.69) 1.29 (0.66) 0.25 (0.15) 1.74 (0.63) 0.38 (0.27) 4.23 (2.92) 4.96 (2.15) (n = 36) 30.88 (7.25) 23.18 (5.33) 91.99 (40.1) 15.38 (7.73) 29.32 (7.13) 14.92 (12.05) Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 (2) LB 0.2 (0.11) (n = 24) 4.27 (3.31) 0.41 (0.21) 1.82 (1.27) 0.27 (0.16) 0.07 (0.07) 4.57 (2.39) 2.77 (0.87) 3.26 (1.22) 20.67 (4.18) 84.22 (27.7) 38.64 (36.25) 47.46 (19.97) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 (0.2) MB Creeks 8.8 (4.58) (n = 24) 0.26 (0.17) 1.13 (0.39) 3.18 (0.97) 0.94 (0.68) 0.29 (0.18) 0.67 (0.48) 5.15 (1.33) 7.91 (4.16) 5.01 (2.27) 14.33 (4.75) 48.8 (16.89) 186.8 (75.99) 0 0 0 0 UB 4.6 (1.72) 0.8 (0.53) 0.13 (0.1) (n = 36) 7.72 (2.36) 3.16 (0.81) 1.51 (0.53) 0.03 (0.03) 0.04 (0.04) 5.32 (1.82) 0.88 (0.37) 0.82 (0.56) 3.29 (1.08) 48.01 (11.5) 15.29 (4.28) 14.02 (7.19) 12.41 (5.64) 13.34 (5.14) 31.74 (5.28) 54.24 (21.87) Strategy Resident Resident Freshwater Transient Resident Resident Resident Transient Resident Transient Freshwater Transient Resident Schooling Resident Transient Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident (Mitchill, 1814) Species Lacépède, 1803 Goode and Bean, 1879 (Broussonet, 1782) (Günter, 1866) (Günter, (Valenciennes, 1848) (Valenciennes, (Jordan and Gilbert, 1882) Family Scientific name Fundulus grandis Baird and Girard, 1853 Table 2. Continued. Table Cynoglossidae Symphurus plagiusa (Linnaeus, 1766) Fundulus similis (Baird and Girard, 1854) Floridichthys carpio Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon variegatus Fundulus spp. Dasyatidae 1824) Dasyatis sabina (Lesueur, Lucania parva (Baird and Girard, 1855) (Lesueur, 1817) Dasyatis say (Lesueur, Gerreidae 1830) plumieri (Cuvier, Eugerres Elopidae Elops saurus Linnaeus, 1766 Eucinostomus gula (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) Engraulidae Anchoa mitchilli Goode and Bean, 1879 Eucinostomus harengulus Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber Eucinostomus spp. Fundulidae Adinia xenica Gobiidae 1837) Ctenogobius smaragdus (Valenciennes, Fundulus confluentus Gobiosoma bosc (Lacépède, 1800) Gobiosoma spp. Microgobius gulosus (Girard, 1858) Microgobius 848 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UB 0.17 (0.1) 0.82 (0.47) 3.76 (1.19) 1.88 (1.31) 0.06 (0.04) 0.94 (0.65) 4.88 (2.32) 2.64 (0.68) 1.75 (0.54) 0.54 (0.17) 8.52 (2.01) 0.24 (0.07) 3.26 (0.94) (n = 36) 28.66 (8.81) 327.60 (44.47) Stormwater ditches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (154.04) MB 1,025.07 0.3 (0.22) 1.4 (0.84) (n = 39) 0.31 (0.31) 1.39 (0.89) 4.66 (2.67) 4.54 (1.67) 3.53 (1.49) 0.15 (0.15) 23.55 (13.9) 10.63 (2.64) 309.11 (73.01) 309.11 188.99 (32.86) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mosquito ditches UB 5.54 (4.8) 0.1 (0.07) 0.53 (0.31) 2.46 (0.89) 1.49 (0.94) 2.43 (1.19) 2.05 (1.52) 0.49 (0.33) 0.07 (0.07) (n = 36) 44.45 (10.9) 13.67 (11.86) 30.46 (10.14) 99.86 (25.71) 490.09 (81.48) Habitat 0 0 0 0 LB 3.6 (1.52) 19.0 (4.5) (n = 24) 0.15 (0.11) 0.35 (0.35) 0.32 (0.17) 0.24 (0.14) 1.86 (1.86) 0.18 (0.18) 0.07 (0.07) 1.36 (0.51) 0.04 (0.04) 0.66 (0.62) 4.76 (3.45) 4.42 (1.73) 0.04 (0.04) 34.37 (7.76) 32.64 (6.95) 26.02 (11.36) 401.84 (60.60) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MB Creeks 0.42 (0.2) (n = 24) 1.15 (0.61) 0.35 (0.15) 0.32 (0.19) 0.25 (0.17) 3.19 (1.01) 0.06 (0.06) 4.06 (1.79) 0.39 (0.28) 13.04 (5.57) 10.09 (2.26) 51.54 (22.71) 82.93 (31.19) 72.91 (27.02) 603.63 (123.02) 0 0 0 0 UB 1.39 (0.5) (n = 36) 0.06 (0.06) 2.12 (0.85) 9.93 (4.98) 0.06 (0.06) 0.05 (0.05) 1.13 (0.54) 8.96 (6.14) 6.86 (2.47) 5.39 (2.05) 8.54 (3.21) 0.15 (0.15) 0.12 (0.12) 10.63 (6.87) –0.14 (0.08) 14.29 (1.66) 16.53 (10.25) 93.89 (21.05) 492.23 (52.62) Strategy Economic Economic Economic Economic Economic Economic Economic Economic Economic Economic Transient Economic Economic Economic Resident Transient Freshwater Transient Transient Resident Economic Transient Species Gerard, 1959 (Linnaeus, 1766) (Evermann and Kendall, 1896) Rathbun, 1896 (Lesueur, 1821) (Lesueur, (Linnaeus, 1758) Linnaeus, 1758 Family Scientific name Table 2. Continued. Table Lutjanidae Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Cuvier, 1830) Cynoscion nebulosus (Cuvier, Mugilidae Mugil cephalus Leiostomus xanthurus Lacépède, 1802 americanus (Linnaeus, 1758) Menticirrhus Mugil gyrans (Jordan and Gilbert, 1884) (Linnaeus, 1766) Pogonias cromis Mugil spp. Sciaenops ocellatus Myliobatidae Rhinoptera bonasus (Mitchill, 1815) Unidentified sciaenid Penaeidae Farfantepenaeus duorarum (Burkenroad, 1939) Sparidae 1792) (Walbaum, probatocephalus Archosargus Poeciliidae Gambusia holbrooki (Linnaeus, 1766) Lagodon rhomboides Agassiz, 1855 Heterandria formosa Syngnathidae Syngnathus scovelli Poecilia latipinna Synodontidae Synodus foetens nekton density Total UB = upper bay; MB mid-bay; LB lower bay Portunidae Callinectes sapidus Sciaenidae chrysoura (Lacépède, 1803) Bairdiella Ginsberg, 1930 Ginsberg, Cynoscion arenarius KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 849

Figure 2. Water quality, depth and velocity in tidal creek (■), mosquito-control (■), and stormwater-drainage (®) ditches at each of the three bay regions. UB = upper bay; MB = mid-bay; LB = lower bay. Values within a plot that are not statistically different (P < 0.05) are identified by similar letters.

Shoreline vegetation along creeks at lower- and mid-bay regions was similar and consisted primarily of red mangrove, R. mangle, with some interspersed white mangrove, L. racemosa (Table 1). However, percent cover along creek shorelines in the upper bay was more evenly composed of R. mangle and L. racemosa, with five of the nine creek sites having at least 50% cover by both species. Many of the mosquito ditches in the upper bay (7 of 9 sites) and mid-bay (6 of 10 sites) were adjacent to higher elevation upland or dredge spoil and tended to have more L. racemosa (> 60% cover on at least one shoreline), while the remaining sites were along the main path of tidal circulation and had greater cover by R. mangle (> 80%). Shorelines along stormwater ditches consisted primarily of L. racemosa and had the greatest coverage of Brazilian pepper, S. terebinthifolius, of any habitat type (Table 1). Mosquito ditches and stormwater ditches were most dissimilar among the three habitat types (Fig. 3). These habitat types were separated on the first principal component axis (PC1) by channel width (factor loading = 0.461), salinity (−0.413) and percent composition of Brazilian pepper (0.467). Percent composition of red (0.481) and white (−0.459) mangroves in addition to water depth (0.420) separated deeper creek and mosquito ditch sites with more red mangroves from shallower sites with more white mangroves along the secondary component axis (PC2). These two principal components explained 48.6% of the variation in habitat factors between sites.

Nekton Sixty-five taxa (including 19 of economic value) were collected from 195 samples in tidal creeks, mosquito-control ditches, and stormwater-drainage ditches (Table 2). Fewer than half of the taxa (n = 29) constituted 99% of all nekton collected. The most common taxa (i.e., those occurring in > 50% of samples) included several species of residents: killifish and pupfish (Adinia xenica, Cyprinodon variegatus, Fundulus grandis, Lucania parva), two livebearers (Gambusia holbrooki and Poecilia latipin- 850 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007

Figure 3. Principal components analysis (PCA) of habitat conditions in tidal creeks (●), mosquito-control (●), and stormwater-drainage (°) ditches at three wetlands within Tampa Bay. Vec- tors represent the direction of increasing value for the habitat variable indicated at the end of the vector. Only factors with eigenvalues exceeding 0.40 were displayed as vectors. The first two PC axes explain 48.6% of the variability between habitat types.

na), and a goby (Microgobius gulosus). Schooling taxa Menidia spp. and two economically valuable species, C. sapidus and Leiostomus xanthurus (highly abundant but only collected in 37% of samples), were also among the dominant taxa. These ten taxa represented 81% of all nekton collected. Nekton Density Among Habitat Types.—Tidal Creeks.—Fifty-six taxa were collected in tidal-creek samples. Total nekton density did not differ between the three creeks (RMANOVA P = 0.535; Fig. 4), nor did mean density of residents (P = 0.216). There was a trend for greater density of schooling taxa in the upper bay creek, but it was not significant (P = 0.052; Fig. 4). The most dominant species in the creeks were residents or schooling taxa and included L. parva, P. latipinna, M. gulosus, Menidia spp., G. holbrooki, A. xenica, F. grandis, and Anchoa mitchilli though the abundances of any one species varied considerably between creeks (Table 2). Mean density of economic taxa was similar across all tidal creeks (P = 0.528). Economically important species were 18.3% of the overall assemblage in tidal creeks and consisted primarily of L. xanthurus, C. sapidus, Sciaenops ocellatus, Mugil spp. (including M. cephalus), and Farfantepenaeus duorarum (Table 2). Mosquito Ditches.—Thirty-eight taxa were collected in mosquito-ditch samples. However, the number of taxa collected in mosquito ditches at mid- (n = 32) and upper-bay (n =34) sites and in the mid-bay creek (n = 37) was considerably less than that collected from the upper-bay creek (n = 47). Total nekton densities did not differ between creeks and mosquito ditches (RMANOVA P = 0.198; Fig. 5) but, in general, were slightly greater at mid-bay sites, in general (P = 0.048). Significantly greater nekton densities in mosquito ditches in the mid-bay (P = 0.034) caused the difference be- KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 851 - SE) of (1) SE) total of (1) nekton, residents,(2) schooling,(3) and economic(4) taxa in tidal creeks and(crk) mosquito-control ditches (msq) SE) of (1) total schooling,economic residents,nekton, and SE) of (3) (1) taxa (2) (4) in three tidal creeks located mid-at upper-, and lower-bay ± ± Figure 4. Mean density ( regions in Tampa Bay, FL. Significancevalues Bay, regions in Tampa are reportedfor the maineffect. Note that the scale differs between the firsttwo and two last panels. Figure 5. Mean density ( located at upper- and mid-bay regions in Tampa Bay, FL. Significance values are reported for main effects of bay region (R) and habitat type (H) and the interac type habitat the (H) and and (R) region bay of effects mainFL.reported Significancevalues for are Bay, Tampa in regions mid-bay and upper- locatedat tion. Bars with the same letters not significantly were Note differentthat 0.05. at P < the scale differs between the firsttwo and two last panels. 852 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007 SE) of (1) total economicschooling, residents,and nekton,taxa (3) (4) of SE) (1) (2) in a tidal mosquito-control creek (crk), ditchesand (msq), ± Figure 6. Mean density ( stormwater-drainage locatedditches (stm) at the FL.region upper-bay in Bay, SignificanceTampa values are reportedfor the maineffect. Bars with the same letters not significantly were Note differentthat 0.05. at P < the scale differs between the firsttwo and two last panels. KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 853 tween upper- and mid-bay regions. Specifically, high abundances of resident nekton in these mosquito ditches likely contributed to the observed difference, as residents were significantly more abundant in mid-bay mosquito ditches than elsewhere (P = 0.002; Fig. 5). Five resident taxa dominated (87%) the mosquito ditches in the mid- bay and included P. latipinna, L. parva, G. holbrooki, C. variegatus, and A. xenica, and the schooling taxa, Menidia spp. The same taxa comprised slightly less (78%) of the assemblage collected at the equally species-poor mid-bay creek sites. In contrast, the abundant residents identified above were considerably less dominant at upper- bay creek (54%) and mosquito ditch (60%) sites. Schooling taxa were absent from mid-bay creek and mosquito ditch sites with the exception of Menidia spp. (Table 2), which explained the significantly higher abundance of schooling taxa observed in the upper bay creek (P = 0.022). Economic taxa did not differ in their abundance between bay regions (P = 0.154) or between creeks and mosquito ditches (P = 0.063), but species-specific abundances varied widely by region and habitat type (Table 2). Specifically, juvenile blue crabs C.( sapidus) and black drum (Pogonias cromis) were considerably more abundant in upper-bay mosquito ditches than in any of the other habitat types sampled in this study. Stormwater Ditches (Habitat Comparisons Restricted to Upper Bay Site).—Fifty taxa were collected in stormwater ditches, including eight unique taxa that were primarily schooling or of freshwater affinity. In comparison, 47 taxa were collected in the creek and 34 taxa in mosquito ditches. Total nekton density did not differ between the three habitat types in the upper bay (RMANOVA P = 0.072; Fig. 6). Despite high species richness in stormwater ditches (Table 2), this habitat type had statistically lower densities of resident (P = 0.044) and economic (P = 0.032) taxa compared to the creek. In terms of individual species, F. grandis and P. latipinna were dominant in all three habitat types though densities were lower in stormwater ditches (Table 2). Similarly, L. parva and M. gulosus were much less abundant in stormwater ditches. In contrast, A. mitchilli and Eucinostomus spp. (those individuals < 40 mm SL that could not be reliably identified to species) were much more abundant relative to creek and mosquito ditch sites. Other schooling taxa, including Menidia spp. and several clupeids (Harengula jaguana, Opisthonema oglinum, Brevoortia spp.) were also characteristic of the stormwater ditches (Table 2). However, their densities differed statistically only from those in mosquito ditches (P < 0.0001). Species Diversity.—Mean Shannon diversity ± SE in Tampa Bay wetlands was 1.64 ± 0.03. Diversity was statistically greatest at upper-bay creek sites (1.88 ± 0.06; P < 0.05 for all pair-wise comparisons) and least at mosquito ditches in the mid-bay (1.40 ± 0.06; P < 0.05). Diversity was statistically similar in all other habitat types (range = 1.52–1.66; GLM P > 0.05), though the mid-bay creek was among the least diverse of these (1.52 ± 0.08) and did not differ from mosquito ditches in the same region (P = 0.25). Community Analysis.—Nekton assemblage structure, defined as taxonomic composition and relative abundance, differed significantly among creeks and ditches (ANOSIM P < 0.001; Global R = 0.31), as is evident in the separation of sample sites in multidimensional space (Fig. 7). Eight taxa explained 88% of the pattern observed in the ordination (BVSTEP) and typically differed between habitat types in terms of rank and/or differential abundance (Table 2). Mosquito ditches and stormwater ditches were the most dissimilar of the habitat types, occurring at opposite ends of the first MDS axis (R = 0.64; Fig. 7). Distinguishing species were A. mitchilli and 854 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007

Figure 7. Non-metric multidimensional scaling plot of nekton assemblages in tidal creek (●), mosquito-control (●), and stormwater-drainage (°) ditches. Points represent the species composition and abundance of each sample site averaged across four seasonal samples taken during 2004.

Eucinostomus spp. (including Eucinostomus gula and Eucinostomus harengulus) in the stormwater ditches vs greater relative abundances of L. parva, P. latipinna, G. holbrooki, and C. variegatus in the mosquito ditches (Table 2). Tidal creeks in the center of the MDS plot overlapped with both ditch types in assemblage structure. Although creeks and mosquito ditches were characterized by high absolute abundances of P. latipinna, L. parva, and Menidia spp., these taxa were relatively more abundant in mosquito ditches, a pattern that contributed to the dissimilarity between the two habitat types. Additionally, G. holbrooki reached its greatest abundance in mosquito ditches whereas M. gulosus reached its greatest abundance in creeks, thus further distinguishing between the two habitat types. Finally, stormwater ditches were best distinguished from tidal creeks by the high abundance of Eucinostomus spp. and A. mitchilli, the same taxa that discriminated stormwater and mosquito ditches. Patterns of nekton assemblage structure were correlated with patterns observed in habitat data from tidal creeks, mosquito-control, and stormwater-drainage ditches (BIO-ENV; r = 0.43). This correlation was best explained by channel width, salinity, and dissolved oxygen.

Discussion

Our finding that nekton community structure in mosquito-control ditches was similar to that observed in natural tidal creeks suggests that the nature of the alteration (i.e., for mosquito-control vs stormwater-drainage) may be more important in determining habitat use than the fact that the habitat has been altered. For example, mosquito ditches in this study were similar to tidal creeks in terms of substrate type (J. Krebs, unpubl. data), channel width, and shoreline vegetation in many instances, but stormwater ditches were wider, had sandier, less organically enriched substrates, KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 855 and swifter current velocities. In some cases, man-made wetlands may support greater nekton densities than natural wetlands. In a study of created wetlands in Tampa Bay, four man-made tidal creeks (3 yrs old) supported a greater abundance of economic taxa (e.g., C. undecimalis, S. ocellatus, and Mugil spp.) than a naturally formed tidal creek (Kurz et al., 1998). On a local scale, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and channel width were the habitat factors that best linked with patterns of nekton distribution among tidal creeks, mosquito-control ditches, and stormwater-drainage ditches (BIO-ENV). Higher salinity, shallower depths, and narrower channel widths were characteristic of mosquito ditches, just as lower salinity, greater depths, and wider channels were characteristic of stormwater ditches (Table 1). Given the differences in terms of the habitat factors, it is not surprising that the two man-made ditch types were used by different nekton assemblages. Salinity regime is known to influence distribution patterns among nekton in estuaries (e.g., Gunter, 1961; Daiber, 1977; Rowe and Dunson, 1995; Nemerson and Able, 2004). In our study, site-specific salinity differences were a function of both freshwater inflow (qualitatively defined) and location within the estuary. Salinities at creek sites in the lower bay and stormwater ditches in the upper bay were lowest overall. The volume of freshwater input in the lower-bay creek with a sizable catchment (data not shown) and in upper-bay stormwater ditches that drain residential areas was likely greater than that at other locations. Water depth has also been shown to be a key determinant in structuring fish assemblages in shallow water habitats (McIvor and Odum, 1988; Paterson and Whitfield, 2000; Ellis and Bell, 2004) by excluding larger piscivores and providing refuge for smaller-sized nekton. Mosquito-control ditches, because of their characteristically shallow water depths, may play a role as a nursery area for newly recruited blue crab, C. sapidus (Yeager et al., 2007) and black drum, P. cromis (the present study) as both species were observed in greater abundance in mosquito-ditched mangrove wetlands. As such, mosquito-control ditches, despite their stigma as stagnant and anoxic, can provide shallow water habitat and possible spawning sites (Nordlie, 2000) for resident and forage taxa. Further, mosquito ditches may provide a source of prey to piscivorous predators during falling tides when small nekton are forced to move into adjacent deeper water habitats. Channel width and openness may also affect habitat value for small nekton. In our study, average width of stormwater ditches (11.0 m) was considerably greater than that of mosquito ditches (5.1 m). In contrast to the short distances and shallow depths between dense red mangrove prop roots on opposite banks of mosquito ditches, stormwater ditches provided relatively sparse white mangroves separated by greater depths and wider distances between banks. In areas which have been altered for mosquito-control or stormwater-drainage, increased surface elevation adjacent to ditches may create more suitable conditions for white mangrove recruitment (Craighead and Gilbert, 1962; Ball, 1980). In contrast, elevation along tidal creeks is naturally lower with more frequently inundated banks, conditions suitable for red mangroves. For this reason, stormwater ditches may have provided less structurally complex habitat than what is typically found in narrower mosquito ditches. Further- more, the closed mangrove canopy created by narrow distances between shorelines in mosquito ditches provides shade, an additional factor controlling habitat use by smaller-sized forage taxa (Ellis and Bell, 2004). 856 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007

On a larger scale, spatial location, both within the estuary and relative to prevailing tidal circulation throughout the estuary, may influence the degree of tidal exchange between wetland and bay, and thus access by migrating nekton to particular wetland regions in an estuary (Weinstein et al., 1988; Galperin et al., 1992). Spatial location may also influence the probability of settlement by passively transported planktonic larvae of nekton, which are spawned in the estuary or in offshore waters (Weinstein et al., 1988; Olmi, 1995; Wenner et al., 1998). The high abundance of resident nekton in mid-bay mosquito ditches in our study and concurrent low abundances of juvenile sportfish and other offshore-spawned species at this location (Table 2) would suggest a physical disconnect between these mosquito ditches and the larger estuary. Particularly notable in mid-bay mosquito ditches was the low abundance of young- of-the-year blue crabs (see also Yeager et al. 2007) and the absence here of hogchoker, Trinectes maculatus, an otherwise well-distributed species whose larvae are transported up-estuary by tidal currents (Dovel et al., 1969). Furthermore, similarities in species composition and diversity between the mid-bay mosquito ditches and tidal creek suggest that the spatial distribution of nekton in this region is driven by large- scale processes (i.e., tidal circulation) that may restrict dispersal of larvae of transient species and obscure small-scale selection of tidal creek or mosquito ditch habitat. Our finding of contrasting nekton assemblages from mosquito-control ditches at two mangrove wetlands in Tampa Bay, and similarity between tidal creek and man- made ditch habitat at the upper bay wetland further reinforces the argument that spatial location within the estuary may play a large role in structuring the nekton community. Our results also suggest that mosquito-control ditches, given the proper physical conditions, can serve as habitat for nekton assemblages typically associated with tidal creeks. Species composition and richness of the wetland-associated nekton collected in Tampa Bay (65 species) are similar to those observed in previous studies in the southeastern United States. Taxa from the families Poeciliidae, Cyprinodontidae, Fundu- lidae, Atherinidae, Mugilidae, Gobiidae, Gerreidae, and Sciaenidae have consistently been reported as dominant members of intertidal salt marsh communities along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (Kilby, 1955; Subrahmanyam and Drake, 1975; Weinstein, 1979; Rountree and Able, 1992; Kneib, 1997; Kurz et al., 1998). Several studies on the Gulf coast of Florida have observed 50–65 taxa (Kilby, 1955; Subrahmanyam and Drake, 1975; Kurz et al., 1998). For mangrove prop root habitat, Thayer et al. (1987) recorded 64 fish taxa inW hitewater, Coot, and Florida bays, Ley et al. (1999) recorded 76 fish species in northeastern Florida Bay, Serafy et al. (2003) recorded 38 fish species in Biscayne Bay, and Sheridan (1992) documented 13 fish species from the intertidal forest floor in Rookery Bay. This relatively large range in species richness in South Florida mangroves likely reflects differences in microhabitats, gear biases, and sampling effort. Stormwater-drainage ditches were characterized by schooling species from the families Atherinidae, Clupeidae, and Engraulidae. Association of schooling taxa with open water habitat types similar to that observed in stormwater-drainage ditches has been previously documented. Sheridan (1992) found the greatest abundances of schooling taxa (i.e., Brevoortia smithi, H. jaguana, and Anchoa hepsetus) in open waters in Rookery Bay, Florida, while Silverman (2006) documented large schools of engraulids, Anchoa spp., on intertidal mudflats (but not in adjacent mangrove forests) in Big Sable Creek, Everglades National Park, FL. Hettler (1989) cites a complete KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 857

absence of another schooling taxon, Brevoortia spp. in collections from Spartina salt marsh surfaces in North Carolina. In the present study, several other non-schooling species were collected almost solely in stormwater ditches. These included the transients, timucu (Strongylura timucu), blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus ( plagiusa), and Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus( faber), which are common in the adjacent estuary. Several taxa common to adjacent freshwater habitat, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and golden shiner (Notemigo- nus crysoleucas) occurred solely in stormwater ditches. The presence of these unique species from adjacent habitats suggests that stormwater ditches may act as a corridor between bay and freshwater habitats. Nekton densities observed in subtidal creeks and man-made ditches in this study averaged from 400–600 nekton 100 m–2, with the exception of mosquito-control ditches at Weedon Island where mean nekton density exceeded 1000 nekton 100 m–2. The nekton densities from our study are similar to those reported for mangrove prop root habitat in south Florida. Densities in Coot, Whitewater and Florida bays typically averaged 575 fish 100 –2m and rarely exceeded 1500 fish 100 –2m (Thayer et al., 1987), while mean fish density in Rookery Bay mangroves was estimated to be 551 fish 100 –2m (Sheridan, 1992). A recent study of mangrove-lined tidal creeks in Charlotte Harbor, FL, compared creeks having natural and altered watersheds and observed nekton densities in both types of watershed ranging from 100–600 nekton 100 m–2 during winter and spring, but exceeding 1000 nekton 100 m–2 in natural creeks during the summer and fall (Adams, 2005). Mean fish density, not including blue crabs (C. sapidus) or pink shrimp (F. duorarum) along Spartina alterniflora edge in Texas salt marshes was 771 fish 100 –2m (Minello, 1999), well within the range of nekton densities observed in our Tampa Bay study. In terms of specific species of economic value in Tampa Bay, mean densities of juvenile Mugil spp. and S. ocellatus did not typically exceed 20 fish 100 –2m in tidal creeks or mosquito-control ditches, while juvenile C. sapidus ranged from 10–44 crabs 100 m–2 in these habitat types (Table 2). In contrast, Minello (1999) reported densities for these three species in emergent marsh and over submerged aquatic vegetation, oyster reef, and bare substrate that varied considerably from the present study: blue crabs were considerably less abundant, striped mullet had similar densities, and red drum were more abundant in Tampa Bay wetlands compared with Texas wetlands. Although habitat and nekton assemblage structure were relatively similar between tidal creeks and mosquito-control ditches in this study, the mosquito ditches that we sampled were better flushed by the tide than were other, unsampled mosquito- control ditches. We were unable to sample with haul seines in the excessively muddy, more overgrown, and largely infilled ditches that typically occur in the poorly flushed interior portions of ditched wetlands in Tampa Bay. As a result, our conclusions about mosquito-control ditches as nekton habitat apply only to the sampled subset of mosquito ditches. Although Brown (1987) used small plexiglass Breder traps (Breder, 1960) in both relatively open and in older, more infilled mosquito ditches near our Weedon Island sites, his finding of greater dominance of resident species in infilled ditches is difficult to interpret as Breder traps are biased against transient species (Fulling et al., 1999). The similarity in nekton assemblages observed between naturally formed tidal creeks and mosquito-control ditches, coupled with the dissimilarity between sampled mosquito-control and stormwater-drainage ditches highlights the potential 858 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007 ecological differences between types of man-made mangrove habitat. Based on our data, we suggest that nekton community structure can not be predicted from habitat origin alone (i.e., naturally formed vs man-made). Instead it is necessary to consider the habitat conditions that result from alteration, as these conditions can be more similar between natural and man-made tidal channels than between man-made channels created for different purposes. For example, sampled mosquito-control ditches apparently provided comparable habitat to natural tidal creeks for forage fish and juvenile sportfish because habitat factors such as frequency of tidal flushing and presence of shoreline structure (e.g., Rhizophora prop roots) were similar. The caveat that must be considered, however, is that many of Tampa Bay’s mosquito ditches were constructed in areas of low tidal circulation and as a result have accumulated sediment that would have made them difficult to sample had they been included in our study. Such in-filling has resulted in habitat conditions that differ greatly from self-maintaining meandering channels typical of naturally formed tidal creeks. In summary, the results of this study demonstrate that existing physical conditions and patterns of habitat use by aquatic fauna need to be carefully assessed and integrated prior to implementing restoration projects in mosquito-ditched wetlands and in other systems affected by habitat alteration.

Acknowledgments

We thank, first and foremost, D. Nielsen, L. Yeager, No. Hansen, Na. Hansen, J. Sanford, G. Craig, K. Hart, G. Hill, K. Hill, R. Krebs, R. Poyner, N. Silverman, and K. Sommers for their tremendous effort in collecting and processing the samples.W e thank E. Sherwood and M. Greenwood for their statistical advice. We also acknowledge the continuing cooperation of county and state managers who have provided access to sample sites as well as historical information and assistance in the field. These include: K. Hill, P. Leasure and K. Thompson (Pinellas County), L. Rives (City of Oldsmar), and R. Runnels (Florida DEP). Special thanks to T. Burress for acquiring much of the literature cited in this study. We thank K. Hart, J. Kind- inger (U.S. Geological Survey) and R. Edwards (University of South Florida) as well as the editors and two anonymous reviewers whose comments have greatly improved this manuscript. Funding for this project was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Tampa Bay Integrated Science Study.

Literature Cited

Adams, A. J. 2005. Evaluating the effects of restoration of subtropical oligohaline marshes on abundance and habitat use by juvenile snook, Centropomus undecimalis and associated fish communities. Final Report to Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 54 p. Alongi, D. M. 2002. Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environ. Conser- vat. 29: 331–349. Ball, M. C. 1980. Patterns of secondary succession in a mangrove forest of southern Florida. Oecologia 44: 226–235. Breder, C. M. 1960. Design for a fry trap. Zool. N. Y. 45: 155–164. Brown, J. E. 1987. Distribution and diversity of fishes in a Tampa Bay mangrove swamp and the effects of rotary ditching. MS Thesis, University of South Florida. 61 p. Bunn, S. E. and A. H. Arthington. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ. Manage. 30: 492–507. Clark, P. A. 1992. Management directions and needs for Tampa Bay tidal tributaries. Pages 497–510 in S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark, eds. Proc. Tampa Bay Area Scientific and Informa- KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 859

tion Symp. 2, Feb. 27–Mar. 1, 1991. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL. Clarke, K. R. and R. N. Gorley. 2006. PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd: Plym- outh, United Kingdom. 190 p. Coorey, D. N., K. W. Able, and J. K. Shisler. 1985. Life history and food habits of the inland silverside, Menidia beryllina, in a New Jersey salt marsh. Bull. New Jersey Acad. Sci. 30: 29–38. Craighead, F. C. and V. C. Gilbert. 1962. The effects of hurricane Donna on the vegetation of southern Florida. Quar. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 25: 1–27. Daiber, F. C. 1977. Saltmarsh animals: distributions related to tidal flooding, salinity and vegetation. Pages 79–108 in V. Chapman, ed. Ecosystems of the World I: Wet Coastal Ecosys- tems. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Deegan, L. A. and B. A. Thompson. 1985. The ecology of fish communities in the Mississippi River deltaic plain. Pages 35–56 in A. Yáñez-Arancibia, ed. Fish community ecology in estuaries and coastal lagoons: Towards an Ecosystem Integration. UNAM Press, Mexico City. Dovel, W. L., J. A. Mihursky, and A. J. McErlean. 1969. Life history aspects of the hogchoker, Trinectes maculatus, in the Patuxent River estuary, Maryland. Chesap. Sci. 10: 104–119. Ellis, W. L. and S. S. Bell. 2004. Conditional use of mangrove habitats by fishes: Depth as a cue to avoid predators. Estuaries 27: 966–976. Freeman, M. C., Z. H. Bowen, K. D. Bovee, and E. R. Irwin. 2001. Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecol. Appl. 11: 179–190. Fulling, G. L., M. S. Peterson, and G. J. Crego. 1999. Comparison of Breder traps and seines used to sample marsh nekton. Estuaries 22: 224–230. Galperin, B., A. Blumberg, and R. Weisberg. 1992. A time-dependent three dimensional model of circulation in Tampa Bay. Pages 77–97 in S. F. Treat and P. A. Clark, eds. Proc. Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symp. 2, February 27–March 1, 1991. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL. Gunter, G. 1961. Some relations of estuarine organisms to salinity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 6: 182– 190. Hettler, W. F. 1989. Nekton use of regularly-flooded saltmarsh cordgrass habitat in North Caro- lina, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 56: 111–118. Johnston, Jr., S. A. 1981. Estuarine dredge and fill activities: A review of impacts. Environ. Man- age. 5: 427–440. Kilby, J. D. 1955. The fishes of two Gulf coastal marsh areas of Florida. Tul. Stu. Zool. 2: 175– 247. Kneib, R. T. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 35: 163–220. Kurz, R. C., R. W. Fenwick, and K. A. Davis. 1998. A comparison of fish communities in restored and natural salt marshes in Tampa Bay, FL. Tech. Rept., Southwest Florida Water Management District, 49 p. Lewis, R. R. 1992. Coastal habitat restoration as a fishery management tool. Stemming the tide of coastal fish habitat loss. Pages 169–173 in R. H. Stroud, ed., Proc. Symp. on Conserva- tion of Coastal Fish Habitat, March 7–9, 1991. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc., Savannah, GA. ______. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove forests. Ecol. Eng. 24: 403–418. ______and E. D. Estevez. 1988. The Ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An Estuarine Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rept. 85(7.18), 132 p. ______, R. G. Gilmore Jr., D. W. Crewz, and W. E. Odum. 1985. Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of Florida. Pages 281–336in W. Seaman, ed. Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources. Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Eustis, FL. Ley, J. A., C. C. McIvor, and C. L. Montague. 1999. Fishes in mangrove prop-root habitats of northeastern Florida Bay: distinct assemblages across an estuarine gradient. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 48: 701–723. 860 BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 80, NO. 3, 2007

Littell, R. C., P. R. Henry, and C. B. Ammerman. 1998. Statistical Analysis of Repeated Mea- sures Data Using SAS Procedures. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 1216–1231. Lotrich, V. A. 1975. Summer home range and movements of Fundulus heteroclitus (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae) in a tidal creek. Ecology 56: 191–198. McIvor, C. C. and W. E. Odum. 1988. Food, predation risk, and microhabitat selection in a marsh fish assemblage. Ecology 69: 1341–1351. McIvor, C. C. and L. P. Rozas. 1996. Direct nekton use of intertidal saltmarsh habitat and link- age with adjacent habitats: a review from the southeastern United States. Pages 311–333 in K. F. Nordstrom and C. T. Roman, eds. Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments and Human Alterations, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., New York. 486 p. Minello, T. J. 1999. Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the identification of essential fish habitat. Pages 43–75in L. Benaka, ed. Fish habitat: essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Symp. 22, Bethesda, Mary- land, 400 p. ______, K. W. Able, M. P. Weinstein, and C. G. Hays. 2003. Salt marshes as nurseries for nekton: Testing hypotheses on density, growth and survival through meta-analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 246: 39–59. Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publications 29, Bethesda. Nemerson, D. M. and K. W. Able. 2004. Spatial patterns in diet and distribution of juveniles of four fish species in Delaware Bay marsh creeks: Factors influencing fish abundance. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 276: 249–262. Nordlie, F. G. 2000. Patterns of reproduction and development of selected resident teleosts of Florida salt marshes. Hydrobiologia 434: 165–182. ______. 2003. Fish communities of estuarine salt marshes of eastern North America, and comparisons with temperate estuaries of other continents. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 13: 281–325. Odum, W. E., C. C. McIvor, and T. J. Smith III. 1982. The ecology of the mangroves of south Florida: a community profile.W ashington, D.C. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biologi- cal Services FWS/OBS-81/24. 144 p. Olmi III, E. J. 1995. Ingress of blue crab megalopae in the York River, Virginia, 1987–1989. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57: 753–780. Paterson, A. W. and A. K. Whitfield. 2000. Do shallow-water habitats function as refugia for juvenile fishes? Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 51: 359–364. Rountree, R. A. and K. W. Able. 1992. Fauna of polyhaline subtidal marsh creeks in southern New Jersey: Composition, abundance and biomass. Estuaries 15: 171–185. Rowe, C. L. and W. A. Dunson. 1995. Individual and interactive effects of salinity and initial fish density on a salt marsh assemblage. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 128: 271–278. Roy, A. H., M. C. Freeman, B. J. Freeman, S. J. Wenger, W. E. Ensign, and J. L. Meyer. 2005. Investigating hydrological alteration as a mechanism of fish assemblage shifts in urbanizing streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 24: 656–678. SAS Institute Inc. 2000. SAS OnlineDoc. Version 8, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Scheirer, C. J., W. S. Ray, and N. Hare. 1976. The analysis of ranked data derived from completely randomized factorial designs. Biometrics 32: 127–129. Serafy, J. E., C. E. Faunce, and J. J. Lorenz. 2003. Mangrove shoreline fishes of Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 72: 161–180. Sheridan, P. F. 1992. Comparative habitat utilization by estuarine macrofauna within the mangrove ecosystem of Rookery Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 50: 21–39. Silverman, N. L. 2006. Hurricane-induced conversion of mangrove forest to mudflat: impacts on nekton, Big Sable Creek, Florida. MS thesis. University of South Florida, Saint Peters- burg, FL. 50 p. KREBS ET AL.: NEKTON IN TIDAL CREEKS AND DITCHES 861

Smith, K. J. 1995. Processes regulating habitat use by salt marsh nekton in a southern New Jersey estuary. Ph.D Diss. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 166 p. Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1997. Biometry, 3rd Ed. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York. 887 p. Subrahmanyam, C. B. and S. H. Drake. 1975. Studies on the animal communities in two north Florida salt marshes Part I. Fish communities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 25: 445–465. Teo, S. L. H. and K. W. Able. 2003. Habitat use and movement of the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) in a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 26: 720–730. Thayer,G . W., D. R. Colby, and W. F. Hettler, Jr. 1987. Utilization of the red mangrove prop root habitat by fishes in south Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 35: 25–38. ______, H. H. Stuart, W. J. Kenworthy, J. F. Ustach, and A. B. Hall. 1978. Habitat values of salt marshes, mangroves, and seagrasses for aquatic organisms. Pages 235–247 in P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding. American Water Resources Association, Minnesota. 674 p. Warren, R. S., P. E. Fell, R. Rozsa, A. H. Brawley, A. C. Orsted, E. T. Olson, V. Swamy, and W. A. Niering. 2002. Salt Marsh Restoration in Connecticut: 20 Years of Science and Manage- ment. Restor. Ecol. 10: 497–513. Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fish. Bull. 77: 339–357. ______. 1988. Larval fish and shellfish transport through inlets. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 3. Bethesda, MD. 165 p. ______, J. M. Teal, J. H. Balletto, and K. A. Strait. 2000. Restoration principles emerg- ing from one of the world’s largest tidal marsh restoration projects. Wetl. Ecol. Manage. 9: 387–407. Wenner E., D. Knott, J. Blanton, C. Barans, and J. Amft. 1998. Roles of tidal and wind-generated currents in transporting white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) postlarvae through a South Carolina (USA) inlet. J. Plankton Res. 20: 2333–2356. Yeager, L. A., J. M. Krebs, A. B. Brame, and C. C. McIvor. 2007. Comparison of juvenile blue crab abundances in three mangrove habitat types in Tampa Bay, Florida USA. Bull. Mar. Sci. 80: 555–565. Zippin, C. 1958. The removal method of population estimation. J. Wildl. Manage. 22: 82–90.

Addresses: (J.M.K., A.B.B.) ETI Professionals, 4902 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 150, Tampa Florida 33634. (C.C.M.) United States Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center, 600 4th Street South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701. Corresponding Author: (J.M.K.) Email: . Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 DOI 10.1007/s10750-011-0865-3

HABITAT COMPLEXITY

Stand structure inﬂuences nekton community composition and provides protection from natural disturbance in Micronesian mangroves

Richard A. MacKenzie • Nicole Cormier

Received: 11 March 2011 / Accepted: 13 August 2011 / Published online: 2 September 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2011

Abstract Structurally complex mangrove roots are Atherinomorus lacunosus and diogenid crabs had thought to provide foraging habitat, predation refugia, significantly higher densities in Rhizophora spp. and typhoon protection for resident fish, shrimp, and creeks. Similar nekton densities 17 and 4 months crabs. The spatially compact nature of Micronesian after the typhoon in Rhizophora spp. creeks provided mangroves results in model ecosystems to test these indirect evidence that structural complexity increased ideas. Tidal creek nekton assemblages were com- protection for resident nekton from disturbances. pared among mangrove forests impacted by Typhoon Findings indicate that studies of structural complexity Sudal and differing in stand structure. Structurally and nekton densities may be better served when complex Rhizophora spp. stands were predicted to individual species are compared and that diverse support higher densities and different communities of mangrove tree assemblages will support diverse nekton and to provide greater protection from nekton assemblages that may be more resilient to typhoons compared to less complex Sonneratia disturbance. alba/Bruguiera gymnorrhiza stands. Lift net data revealed that structural complexity did not support Keywords Fish Á Shrimp Á Crabs Á Mangrove greater nekton densities, but did support significantly tidal creeks Á Micronesia Á Structural complexity Á different nekton assemblages. The cardinalfish Apo- Typhoon gon ceramensis and goby Oxyurichthys lonchotus had significantly higher densities in S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangrove creeks, whereas the silverside Introduction

Vascular plants are an important component of habitat Guest editors: K. E. Kovalenko & S. M. Thomaz / complexity in coastal marsh ecosystems (Vince et al., The importance of habitat complexity in waterscapes 1976; Rozas & Odum, 1987; MacKenzie & Dionne, 2008). In mangrove forests, tree trunks, prop roots, & R. A. MacKenzie ( ) buttresses, and/or pneumatophores can increase the USDA Forest Service, Paciﬁc Southwest Research Station, Institute of Paciﬁc Islands Forestry, structural and habitat complexity of the intertidal zone, 60 Nowelo St., Hilo, HI 96720, USA although the degree of complexity provided varies with e-mail: [email protected] stand structure and root type. For example, aerial prop roots that originate from trunks of Rhizophora spp. N. Cormier U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research create networks of branching, interwoven roots Center, 700 Cajundome Blvd., Lafayette, LA 70506, USA (Fig. 1) that are often taller and more complex than 123 156 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171

ecosystems (Morton, 1990; Primavera, 1997; Nagel- kerken & van der Velde, 2002). This is largely due to root structures: (1) increasing the surface area available for colonization by epiphytic organisms that are important nekton food resources (Alongi & Sasekumar, 1992; Layman, 2007; Demopoulos & Smith, 2010) and (2) providing refuge from predation by larger fish or crabs (Vance et al., 1996; Primavera, 1997;Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999). Despite the clear evidence of the functional important of mangroves for fish assemblages, studies correlating faunal densities and structural complexity have reported mixed results. An experiment using PVC as artificial mangrove roots reported that three-dimensional complexity and pipe length did not affect fish abundance, number of species, or community composition. Instead, pipe orientation had a stronger influence on fish community variables, with higher fish abundances and numbers of species observed in standing pipes versus hanging ones (Nagelkerken et al., 2010). Another experiment that recreated structural complexity using Rhizophora mangle prop root cuttings also revealed that structure did not influence fish densities; shade and water depth were more important (Ellis & Bell, 2004). Similar results were reported for shrimp densities in a northern Australia mangrove. However, when fish densities were compared in this Fig. 1 A Mixed stand of Rhizophora spp. and Bruguiera same Australian study, densities were greater in more gymnorrhiza trees. The denser, taller, and branched Rhizophora spp. prop roots (foreground and background) create greater structurally complex Rhizophora prop roots com- habitat complexity than the more open, shorter Bruguiera pared to less complex Ceriops pneumatophores gymnorrhiza knee roots (center). B Mixed stand of Sonneratia (Vance et al., 1996). Other studies have also reported alba, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, and Rhizophora spp. The open, that the presence of structural complexity signifi- shorter pneumatophores create less habitat complexity than the prop roots of Rhizophora spp. in the fore and background cantly increased fish and shrimp densities (Primavera, 1997;Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999). It is not clear if the different results reported above are due to differences stalagmite-like pneumatophores of Sonneratia (Fig. 1A) in mangrove tree species examined, laboratory versus or Avicennia, knee roots of Bruguiera (Fig. 1B), or field studies, differences in sampling gear, or geo- ribbon roots of Xylocarpus (Tomlinson, 1986;Bosire morphological differences among the different et al., 2006; Alongi, 2009). Thus, dense thickets of regions studied. Additional studies are needed that Rhizophora prop roots can provide complex habitat compare faunal assemblages across multiple man- throughout most, if not all, of the water column as they are grove forests that are geomorphologically similar but inundated with tidal waters. In contrast, the amount of that differ in stand structure and thus habitat structural complexity provided by shorter pneumato- complexity. phores and knee roots is limited by root height, and an Habitat complexity in mangrove forests may also open, less complex water column is usually present protect resident fish, shrimp, and crab populations directly above root tops. from the impacts of natural disturbances (e.g., The structural complexity of mangrove roots is hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis). High winds during thought to provide valuable habitat for resident and hurricanes and typhoons can result in turbulent wave transient fish, shrimp, and crabs that utilize these action and tidal surge that can be detrimental to fish 123 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 157 and shrimp communities; massive fish kills have been (Falanruw et al., 1987). Replicate mangrove forests reported from coastal areas following major natural are also present that vary in tree species assemblages disturbance events (Knott & Martore, 1992; Bouchon and thus habitat complexity. Finally, the island of Yap et al., 1994; Tilmant et al., 1994; Burkholder et al., was devastated by a category 3 typhoon in April of 2004). High winds can also uproot trees and severely 2004. Thus, tidal creek assemblages of fish, shrimp, damage crowns, resulting in high rates of tree and crabs could be easily sampled and compared mortality and defoliation, leading to degradation of across geomorphologically similar mangrove forests fish habitat (Bouchon et al., 1994; Milbrandt et al., that differed in stand structure, habitat complexity, 2006). Whereas vegetation can take several years to and that had been impacted by a major tropical storm. fully recover, impacts to fish communities appear to We compared resident small-bodied fish, shrimp, be short-lived. Fish assemblages can recover after and crab assemblages (\80-mm total length) among several months (Bouchon et al., 1994; Tilmant et al., tidal creeks from six different mangrove forests that 1994; Stevens et al., 2006). Although the mechanisms varied in basal area of Rhizophora spp., Sonneratia involved in the recovery of mangrove fish populations alba (Smith 1819), and Bruguiera gymnorrhiza are unknown, the ability of fish to move to deeper, (Lamarck, 1798). Mangroves with higher basal areas more protected waters and then recolonize mangrove of Rhizophora spp. were considered to provide forests after storms has been suggested (Switzer et al., greater habitat complexity due to abundance of 2006). Similarly, studies on coral reef ecosystems structurally complex prop roots; mangroves with have shown that larger nekton can avoid storms by higher basal areas of S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza were swimming out to deeper, more protected waters and considered to provide lower habitat complexity due then recolonize coastal areas afterwards. However, to less complex pneumatophores and knee roots juvenile fish often exhibit high levels of mortality and (Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999). We hypothesized that more low densities following hurricanes (Bouchon et al., structurally complex mangrove forests would: (1) 1994; Turpin & Bortone, 2002), which likely affects support higher densities of fish, shrimp, and crabs, (2) their recruitment (Turpin & Bortone, 2002). Structural support different fish, shrimp, and crab communities, complexity of mangrove forests may also aid in and (3) provide greater protection to fish, shrimp, and recovery from storms by protecting resident fauna crab communities from the impacts of typhoons. from intensive wave action or storm surge. Rhizopho- ra prop roots can significantly reduce the flow of water compared to pneumatophores or knee roots, resulting in increased deposition of sediment (Krauss Materials and methods et al., 2003) and decreased wave energy from storms (Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2005; Alongi, 2008). Lack of Study site description significant changes in fish assemblages after Hurri- cane Charley in Florida were attributed in part to Yap is the westernmost state in the Federated States the protection provided by Rhizophora prop roots of Micronesia and consists of 134 islands and atolls (Greenwood et al., 2006, 2007). that are part of the Caroline Archipelago and are Mangrove forests on the island of Yap, Federated spread out over 500,000 km2 of the ocean (Merlin States of Micronesia provided us with model ecosys- et al., 1996). Most of Yap ([75%) is represented by tems for examining: (1) relationships between struc- Yap proper (Wa’ab; hereafter referred to as Yap), tural complexity and the resident fauna that access four main islands formed by tectonic uplift and mangrove forests during high tide and (2) the potential volcanic activity 10–28 MYA (Merlin et al., 1996; role structural complexity plays in protecting resident Hasurmai et al., 2005). Yap is *10,000 ha, with an faunal assemblages from typhoons. Advantages of extensive coastal plain where most of the island’s these ecosystems included the fact that they are 15,000 inhabitants reside (Prior & Guard, 2005). spatially compact compared to larger mangrove Mangrove forests account for nearly 12% of the forests found in Australia, Indonesia, or South Amer- island area of Yap (Falanruw, 1994) and are largely ica (Ewel et al., 1998; Ewel et al., 2003); entire represented by narrow bands (\100 m wide) of mangrove forest stands range from 10 to 50 ha fringing, coastal mangrove forests (Ewel et al., 123 158 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171

1998; Kauffman & Cole, 2010). West coast man- structure is much less complex compared to Rhizo- grove forests are dominated by mixed stands of phora spp. prop roots and can result in a more open S. alba and B. gymnorrhiza assemblages, whereas forest floor (Fig. 1). In addition, their lower stature east coast mangrove forests are dominated by mixed results in less habitat at high tide, and there is stands of Rhizophora spp. assemblages that include typically an open water column directly above them R. apiculata, R. mucronata, and R. stylosa (Falanruw, that larger fish can access. Thus, habitat complexity 1994; Kauffman & Cole, 2010). Differences in west was considered to be greater in forest stands with versus east coast assemblages of mangrove forests greater basal areas of Rhizophora spp. than in forest have been attributed to impacts of previous tropical stands with greater basal areas of S. alba and storms (Kauffman & Cole, 2010), especially since all B. gymnorrhiza. three of these trees can coexist in similar hydrological Tree basal area was used as a proxy for habitat and geomorphological settings (Ewel et al., 1998; complexity (Gallina et al., 1996; Bosire et al., 2006) Krauss et al., 2003). Tropical storms originate east of for two reasons. First, basal area was positively the islands (Gray, 1968) and first reach the windward, correlated to tree density (Rhizophora spp. r2 = 0.68, eastern coast, where high winds tend to inflict more P \ 0.05; B. gymnorrhiza r2 = 0.60, P \ 0.05; damage than on the more protected, leeward western S. alba r2 = 0.44, P = 0.2). Thus, increasing basal coast (Schneider, 1967). As a result, S. alba trees that area represent increased densities of trees and thus are sensitive to high winds tend to occur at higher numbers of roots that provide habitat complexity. densities and basal areas in the more protected Secondly, basal area also takes into account the size of mangrove forests on the leeward side of the island the tree, and larger trees, especially Rhizophora spp., compared to the windward side (Allen et al., 2000; can produce significantly more prop roots than smaller Kauffman & Cole, 2010). trees (Tomlinson, 1986). For a detailed description of The average annual rainfall on Yap is 3,000 mm how basal area was measured, see Kauffman & Cole (Merlin et al., 1996). Most rainfall occurs from June (2010). Basal area was only measured in 2004. to October, while November to May tend to be relatively dry months with strong east to northeast Typhoon Sudal trade winds. Peak typhoon season occurs during the months that transition between the wet and dry On 9 April 2004, Typhoon Sudal, a category 3 seasons (e.g., May–June), although typhoons can typhoon passed directly over Yap (Boyle, 2004). occur throughout the year (Merlin et al., 1996). An Although the entire island was impacted by the storm, average of three typhoons per year enter Yapese the center of the storm stalled over the southeastern waters, but few pass over Yap (Schneider, 1967). The portion of the island and, as a result, higher winds last major, destructive typhoon to hit Yap was in were reported along the southeastern shore 1920 (Merlin et al., 1996). (155–210 km/h) compared to the northern shore (120-150 km/h) (Prior & Guard, 2005). The typhoon Habitat complexity hit Yap during a spring tide and, as a result, many of the lowland areas were submerged under 2–4 m of Rhizophora spp. produce dense assemblages of tall, water or damaged by wave action. Nearshore waves branching aerial prop roots that originate from their as high as 12 m (FSM, 2004) washed ashore trunks and are inter-woven amongst prop roots from thousands of dead reef fish (e.g., parrot fish, small other trees. The resulting tall, dense thickets of prop groupers; M. Lander, University of Guam, personal roots provide structurally complex habitat (Fig. 1) communication). throughout the water column at high tide. These dense thickets of prop roots are often impenetrable by larger organisms. In contrast, S. alba and B. gymno- Canopy cover rrhiza produce much shorter pneumatophores and knee roots, respectively, that emerge from the Aerial photographs from each forest (except sediments (Ellison, 1998; Krauss et al., 2003). While Runuuw) were taken 3 months after Typhoon Sudal these roots can also have high densities, their tertiary (July 2004) to estimate percent canopy cover. A grid 123 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 159

Fig. 2 Mangrove forests sampled on Yap Proper, Federated States of Micronesia. Black stars represent S. alba/ B. gymnorrhiza-dominated mangrove forests (SOAL), while white stars represent Rhizophora spp. dominated forests (RHIZ). Maaq, Qatliw, Runuuw, Qamun, Qaaf, and Tabiniﬁy are villages where the mangroves were sampled

of 1 9 1cm2 squares was laid over each mangrove ranged in Rhizophora spp., S. alba and B. gymnorrhiza forest photo and six squares were randomly chosen. abundance (Table 1) and thus habitat complexity. Squares that included tidal creeks were not included Nekton sampled from tidal creeks at low tide were for analyses. Images were converted to 8-bit images considered to be resident species, as they spend most if and analyzed for percent canopy cover using Image J not all of their lives in the subtidal habitat of tidal Analysis software (v. 1.39u 2005). Values were then creeks and the flooded intertidal zone of mangroves or averaged for each of the five forests. marshes (Weisberg & Lotrich, 1982; MacKenzie & Dionne, 2008). Samples collected from tidal creeks are Sampling methods also a good proxy for fish, shrimp, and crab assemblages found on the flooded marsh surface (Vance Resident small-bodied fish, shrimp, and crab assem- et al., 1996; Dionne et al., 1999; Eberhardt, 2004). blages (\80-mm total length) were sampled from the Tidal creeks were randomly selected from field mouths of three replicate tidal creeks within each of the surveys, with sampling stations located at the man- six different mangrove forests on Yap (Fig. 2) that grove forest edge (i.e., mangrove-ocean interface).

123 160 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171

Table 1 Average values (± 1 SE) for site characteristics from the six mangrove forests sampled. Forest characteristics are based upon measurements made in August, 2004 SOAL RHIZ Maaq Qatliw Runuuw Qamun Qaaf Tabiniﬁy

Mangrove area (ha) 27.9 31.5 25.1 12.9 23.1 19.0 Canopy cover (%) 96.6 (0.4) 95.1 (0.9) – 90.8 (1.1) 82.8 (2.2) 69.8 (4.4) B. gymnorrhiza (m2/ha) 28.23 13.68 35.34 0.05 6.41 0.01 Rhizophora spp. (m2/ha) 1.19 8.78 0.00 15.99 27.62 20.69 S. alba (m2/ha) 53.25 28.17 57.34 21.89 8.57 0.00 2004 DO (mg/l) 4.65 (0.25) 3.32 (0.50) 4.02 (0.14) 4.25 (0.13) 3.49 (1.08) 7.34 (0.11) Temp. (°C) 26.93 (0.20) 28.93 (0.09) 27.43 (0.55) 28.73 (0.09) 27.43 (0.07) 32.40 (0.35) Salinity (%) 14.4 (3.5) 28.5 (0.09) 25.07 (0.55) 29.5 (0.3) 14.8 (4.4) 29.4 (1.15) 2005 DO (mg/l) 5.34 (0.29) 2.78 (0.59) 2.01 (0.77) 5.91 (na) 7.92 (0.07) 7.19 (0.28) Temp 28.40 (0.17) 30.33 (0.12) 30.60 (0.15) 27.60 (na) 32.63 (0.06) 32.60 (0.06) Salinity 30.3 (0.3) 30.5 (0.3) 28.5 (0.5) 28.0 (na) 31.0 (0.4) 30.7 (1.4) Mangrove area (ha) is from Falanruw et al. (1987); basal densities of mangroves (m2/ha) are from Kauffman & Cole (2010) SOAL represents mangroves dominated by S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza, RHIZ represents mangroves dominated by Rhizophora spp. Maaq, Qatliw, Runuuw, Qamun, Qaaf, and Tabinifiy are villages where the mangroves were sampled Creeks originated near the mangrove interior-upland had been deployed for 30–45 min, they were quietly interface and drained the entire width of the man- approached by two people in the water until they grove forest. Tidal input occurred twice a day, with were 3–4 m away (i.e., not directly over the net). maximum tidal height of 1 to 2 m. Mangrove trees After an additional 2 min, nets were quickly lifted out along the edge of the creeks represented the dominant of the water using lines that extended 3–4 m from species found within the mangrove forest. Thus, tidal each side of the net. Three lift net samples were creeks draining forests on the west coast were lined collected from each mangrove forest. Immediately by S. alba and B. gymnorrhiza and had low habitat after samples were collected, dissolved oxygen, complexity, whereas creeks draining forests on the temperature, and salinity were measured at the water east coast were lined by Rhizophora spp. and had surface in an undisturbed area of water adjacent to the TM high habitat complexity due to the presence of dense, sampling area with a YSI 85 multimeter (Table 2). tall prop root assemblages. Samples were collected Total lengths of fish and shrimps (rostrum to once at the end of August of 2004 and then again at telson) as well as carapace width of crabs were the beginning of September of 2005. Tidal creeks measured to the nearest mm in the field or in the lab. were 2–3 m wide with water depths of 10–20 cm at Specimens were then identified to the lowest practical slack low tide and creek lengths \100 m. Lift nets, taxon (Myers, 1991; Carpenter & Niem, 2001). which have been shown to effectively document Densities (no/m2) were calculated by dividing the community structure of small-bodied fish, shrimp, total catches by the areas of the nets used to sample and crab assemblages from subtidal and intertidal the nekton. habitats (Dionne, 2000; Eberhardt, 2004; MacKenzie & Dionne, 2008) were used to sample each of the Statistical analyses tidal creeks. Each site was sampled on consecutive days by laying one 3-mm, 2 m2 mesh lift net on the Average dissolved oxygen, salinity, and temperature bottom of each creek *1 h after slack low tide. All values were compared between years (2004 vs. 2005) sites were sampled during the same lunar phase in as well as between sites (RHIZ vs. SOAL) using a 2004 and 2005, four (August 2004) and 17 months two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Site desig- after (September 2005) Typhoon Sudal. After nets nations were based upon dominant basal densities of 123 yrbooi 21)685:155–171 (2012) Hydrobiologia Table 2 Average nekton densities (no/m2 ± 1 SE) sampled with a lift net from tidal creeks in six different mangrove forests in Yap, Federated States of Micronesia Taxa SOAL RHIZ Maaq Qatliw Runuuw Qamun Qaaf Tabinifiy 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005

Apogonidae Apogon ceramensis – 11.6 (4.9) 0.1 (0.1) – 0.3 (0.3) 3.7 (2.7) 3.4 (2.9) 4.5 (3.3) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.5 (0.5) Rhabdamia sp. 0.3 (0.3) – – – –––––––– Atherinidae Atherinomorus lacunosus 0.1 (0.1) – – – – – – 0.1 (0.1) – 4.2 (4.2) 2.5 (1.3) – Bothidae Bothus pantherinus 0.1 (0.1) – – – –––––––– Callionymidae Callionymus sp.–– –––––––––0.1(0.1) Carangidae Caranx sexfasciatus – – – 0.4 (0.4) –––––––– Gobiidae – – 0.1 (0.1) – –––––––– Acentrogobius suluensis – 0.1 (0.1) – – 0.3 (0.3) 3.1 (2.4) – 0.4 (0.4) –––– Amblygobius buanensis –– –––––––0.4(0.4) – – Asterropteryx semipunctatus – 0.5 (0.5) – – –––––––– Cryptocentroides sp.–– –––––––––0.1(0.1) Drombus hulei 0.1 (0.1) – – – –––––––0.1(0.1) Eviota sp. – – – – – – 0.6 (0.6) – –––– Exyrias puntang –– ––––––0.1(0.1) – – – Favonigobius reichei – – – – 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) – – –––– Oxyurichthys lonchotus 0.3 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 1.9 (0.5) 1.7 (1.7) 1.5 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 1.2 (0.7) 0.5 (0.3) –––– Pandaka rouxi –– ––––––1.8(1.2) – – – Redigobius sp.–– ––––––0.9(0.7) – – – Sphyraenidae Sphyraena sp.–– ––––––––0.1(0.1) – Hemiramphidae Zenarchopterus sp. – – 0.4 (0.4) – ––––0.1(0.1) – – 123 Alpheidae Alpheus sp. – – – – 0.3 (0.3) – – – –––– Synalpheus sp. – – 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) –––––––– 161 162 123 Table 2 continued Taxa SOAL RHIZ Maaq Qatliw Runuuw Qamun Qaaf Tabiniﬁy 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005

Palaemonidae – – – – – – – 1.9 (1.7) –––– Kemponia sp. 0.4 (0.4) – – – –––––––– Leandrites sp. nov. 0.1 (0.1) – 0.4 (0.3) 2.4 (2.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.3) 6.9 (1.5) 1.5 (1.5) 5.7 (3.1) 0.9 (0.9) – – Periclimenella sp. – – – – – – 1.3 (0.2) – 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) – – Diogenidae – – – – – – 0.4 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 1.9 (1.5) – 1.6 (0.8) 2.1 (1.4) Grapsidae – – – 0.1 (0.1) –––––––– Leucosiidae 0.3 (0.1) – – 0.1 (0.1) – – – 0.3 (0.3) –––– Majiidae 0.1 (0.1) – – – – – 0.3 (0.3) – –––– Ocypodidae – – – – – – 0.4 (0.4) – –––– Portunidae Charybdis truncate – – – – – 0.1 (0.1) – – –––– Thalamita sp. – – 0.6 (0.6) – – – 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) – 0.1 (0.1) – Jelly Fish – – – – ––––0.1(0.1) – – – Sepiidae – – 0.1 (0.1) – –––––––– Samples were collected once in August of 2004, four months after Typhoon Sudal, and again in September of 2005, 17 months after the typhoon. Eighteen samples were collected each year, for a total of 36 samples collected during the study. SOAL represents S.alba/B. gymnorrhiza-dominated mangroves; RHIZ represents Rhizophora spp. dominated mangroves. Maaq, Qatliw, Runuuw, Qamun, Qaaf, and Tabinifiy are villages where the mangroves were sampled yrbooi 21)685:155–171 (2012) Hydrobiologia Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 163 mangrove species (Kauffman & Cole, 2010), where habitat structure plays in the recovery of resident RHIZ represented mangrove forests dominated by faunal assemblages in mangrove forests. Rhizophora spp. and SOAL represented mangrove In order to assess the relationship between habitat forests dominated by mixed assemblages of S. alba structure and protection from natural disturbance, we and B. gymnorrhiza. Percent canopy covered was used ratios from 2005 and 2004 densities of total only measured in 2004. Thus, comparisons of percent fauna, fish, shrimp, or crabs as a proxy for faunal canopy could only be made between sites. Because response to the typhoon under the assumptions stated aerial photos were not included for the Runuuw site, above. Ratios represent a more robust comparison it was not included in the percent canopy analysis. among mangroves as they standardize the magnitude Pearson’s correlation was used to examine rela- of densities across sites. For example, fish densities tionships between 2004 and 2005 densities of total may have been lower in one mangrove forest, but fauna, fish, shrimp, crab and basal areas of Rhizo- higher in another in both 2004 and 2005. Direct phora spp., S. alba, and B. gymnorrhiza across comparisons made each year would simply confirm individual sites. Total fauna represents all fish, differences, whereas comparison of ratios would shrimp, and crabs that were sampled. reveal potential responses. For example, if ratios were Community composition of lift net fauna was the same, then we could assume that there was no compared at the species level among sites (RHIZ vs. change to the fish community between years and those SOAL) and between years using a two-way analysis sites provided fauna with greater protection from the of similarities (ANOSIM). ANOSIM estimates com- typhoon. If the ratio from one site was higher than that munity similarity using species composition and from the other site, then it would provide indirect species abundances in a non-parametric permutation evidence that the site with the higher ratio provided procedure applied to a Bray-Curtis similarity matrix fauna with less protection from the typhoon, because (Clarke & Warwick, 1994). Contributions of individ- higher ratios would have resulted from faunal densi- ual species to differences in community structure ties being much lower during the impacted year were determined using similarity percentages (SIM- (2004) compared to the recovered year (2005). PER). Pair-wise comparisons of species densities In order to account for the structural complexity in between sites (RHIZ vs. SOAL) generated an overall each of the six mangrove forests, an index of structural measure of dissimilarity, which was then used to rank complexity was developed using principal component species in order of their relative percent contribution analysis (PCA) on basal area data of the three dominant to that dissimilarity. Densities of the top four species mangrove tree species. Eigenvalues for each of the six contributing to dissimilarity were compared between sites were obtained from the first principle component sites and years using a two-way ANOVA. (PC1) and plotted against ratios of total fauna, fish, Due to the unpredictable and rare nature of shrimp, or crab densities. More positive eigenvalues typhoons on Yap Island, we lacked pre-typhoon data represented higher levels of structural complexity from on fish, shrimp, and crab assemblages. Furthermore, increased basal area of Rhizophora spp., whereas more we were unable to sample immediately after the negative values represented lower levels of structural typhoon. Fish assemblages can recover from complexity from increased basal areas of S. alba and typhoons within several months, although small- B. gymnorrhiza. bodied adults and juveniles require longer recovery Densities and ratios of total fauna, fish, shrimp, and times (Bouchon et al., 1994; Turpin & Bortone, crab densities did not meet assumptions of normality 2002). Thus, the small-bodied faunal assemblages and equal variance and were (log ? 1) transformed that were sampled four months after the typhoon in prior to analyses; percent canopy values were arcsine August of 2004 were assumed to represent resident transformed. All similarity analyses were performed communities still recovering from the typhoon. on (log ? 1) transformed abundances in the PRIMER Samples collected 17 months after the typhoon in statistical package (v. 6.1.9 2007) (Clarke & Warwick, September of 2005 were assumed to represent faunal 1994; Carr, 1997). Because the treatment factor was communities that had fully recovered. Although these unbalanced (two RHIZ vs. four SOAL), all ANOVAs were broad assumptions to make, we felt our data set were performed in PROC GLM in SAS 9.1 (SAS could provide indirect evidence on the potential role Institute, Cary, North Carolina) using Type III sums of 123 164 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 squares set at an alpha level of 0.05 to get the dominant fish collected (46.7 ± 15.7%), followed by appropriate F statistics for an unbalanced design (Shaw gobies (30.9 ± 12.2%) and then A. lacunosus & Mitchell-Olds, 1993). Pearson’s correlations were (16.5 ± 16.0%). Shrimp were largely represented by performed using SYSTAT v. 10.0 (SPSS, Chicago, the newly discovered Leandrites sp. nov. (Bruce, Illinois) and linear regressions were performed in 2004) and comprised 27.2 ±-8.6 and 18.6 ± 8.7% Sigma Plot v. 11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois). of the total catch in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Crabs only comprised 16.8 ± 5.3 and 13.6 ± 11.1% of the total catch in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Results Relationships between habitat complexity Tidal creek characteristics and tidal creek fauna

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were significantly In 2004, total catch, shrimp, and crab densities in tidal higher in tidal creeks in Rhizophora spp. mangrove creeks were positively correlated to basal densities of forests (6.49 ± 1.01 mg/l) than in tidal creeks in Rhizophora spp. (r = 0.58, P \ 0.01; r = 0.46, S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangrove forests (4.04 ± P \ 0.05; r = 0.59, P \ 0.01, respectively), but were 0.46 mg/l) (ANOVA, P \ 0.05, F = 6.60, df = 1), negatively correlated to B. gymnorrhiza (r =-0.59, but were similar between years as well as between P \ 0.01; r =-0.46, P \ 0.05; r =-0.51, P \ sites in 2004 and 2005 (Table 1). Water temperatures 0.05, respectively) and S. alba (r =-0.45, P = were also significantly higher in tidal creeks in 0.06; r =-0.29, P = 0.2; r =-0.56, P \ 0.01, Rhizophora spp. mangrove forests (31.3 ± 3.9°C) respectively). These correlations were not apparent in than in tidal creeks in S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza man- 2005 nor were there any significant correlations grove forests (28.6 ± 1.9°C) (ANOVA, P \ 0.05, between fish densities and basal areas in 2004 or 2005. F = 6.90, df = 1), but were similar between years. ANOSIM revealed that the community composition No significant differences were observed when of total catches from tidal creeks was significantly salinities were compared between sites or years, different between more complex mangroves domi- although sites exhibited a greater range in salinity nated by Rhizophora spp. and less complex mangroves values in 2004 (14.4–29.5 %) than in 2005 dominated by S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza (ANOSIM, (28.0–31.0 %). Comparison of individual sites r = 0.54, P \ 0.05). Community composition was revealed that Tabinifiy had the highest dissolved similar between years (ANOSIM, r =-0.04, oxygen concentrations and temperatures than the P = 0.5). SIMPER analyses revealed that differences other 5 sites, which was most apparent in 2004. between Rhizophora- and S.alba/B. gymnorrhiza- Percent canopy was nearly 20% greater in S. alba/ dominated habitats were driven by four main species B. gymnorrhiza-dominated forests (94.2 ± 1.7%) that contributed to a total of 53% of community compared to Rhizophora spp. dominated forests dissimilarity between forest types. These four species (76.3 ± 6.5%), and this difference was significant included A. ceramensis, A. lacunosus, a diogenid (ANOVA, P \ 0.05, F = 13.1, df = 1). hermit crab, and the goby, O. lonchotus, each of which contributed to 15, 14, 14, and 10% of community Fish, shrimp, and crab assemblages in tidal creeks dissimilarity, respectively. Specifically, A. ceramensis and O. lonchotus had significantly higher densities in Tidal creek samples were dominated by fish, whose tidal creeks in S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangroves than abundances represented 56.0 ± 8.6 and 67.8 ± in tidal creeks in Rhizophora spp. mangroves 11.3% of the total catch in 2004 and 2005, respec- (3.0 ± 1.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.1 no/m2; P \ 0.05, F = 5.52, tively. In 2004, fish were dominated by gobies df = 1 and 1.0± 0.3 no/m2 vs. 0 no/m2; P \ 0.01, (53.3 ± 14.6%), largely Oxyurichthys lonchotus F = 9.62, df = 1, respectively). A. lacunosus and (Jenkins, 1903), followed by the Atherinomorus diogenid crabs had significantly higher densities in lacunosus (Forster, 1801) silverside (17.3 ± 14.6%) tidal creeks in Rhizophora spp. mangroves than in tidal and the Apogon ceramensis (Bleeker, 1952) cardinal- creeks in S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangroves fish (16.9 ± 8.7%). In 2005, A. ceramensis were the (1.7 ± 1.0 vs. 0.1 ± 0.1 no/m2; P \ 0.05, F = 5.60, 123 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 165

Fig. 3 Size class distribution of Apogon ceramensis in S. alba/ B. gymnorrhiza-dominated mangrove forests (SOAL) (black bars) and Rhizophora spp. dominated forests (RHIZ) (white bars) from August, 2004 samples and September, 2005 samples. Eighteen samples were collected each year, for a total of 36 samples over the duration of the study df = 1 and 1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 0.1 ± 0.1 no/m2; P \ 0.001, F = 13.82, df = 1, respectively). Since A. ceramensis was the dominant fish species present in all six mangrove forests sampled, its size classes were compared between mangrove forest types. Fig. 4 Linear regressions of the ratios of total nekton, fish, Only one cohort of A. ceramensis was sampled in 2004 shrimp, and crab densities from 2004 and 2005 and PCA eigen values. Eigen values were determined from relationships from S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangroves; no A. ceram- among basal densities of S. alba, B. gymnorrhiza, and ensis were collected from Rhizophora spp. mangroves Rhizophora spp. More positive numbers indicate greater basal (Fig. 3). In 2005, three cohorts were observed in densities of Rhizophora and thus more structural complexity. S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangroves, while only one More negative numbers indicate greater basal densities of S. alba and B. gymnorrhiza and thus less structural complexity. cohort was observed in Rhizophora spp. mangroves. As Higher ratios represent nekton communities more impacted a result, size classes of A. ceramensis could only be from the typhoon and result from greater densities 17 months compared between S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza and Rhizo- after the typhoon (recovered) than four months after phora spp. mangroves in 2005. In 2005, significantly (impacted). Lower ratios represent nekton communities that were less impacted from the typhoon and result from similar smaller A. ceramensis were present in tidal creeks in densities 17 and 4 months after the typhoon S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangroves (23.7 ± 1.0 mm) than in Rhizophora spp. mangroves (32.3 ± 2.52 mm; 90.1 and 9.9% of total variation. Basal areas of ANOVA, P \ 0.01, F = 6.58, df = 1). Rhizophora spp. (45.3) and S. alba (-39.5) loaded more heavily on PC1 than B. gymnorrhiza (-5.89). Relationship between habitat complexity Basal areas were more evenly distributed across PC2, and protection from natural disturbances with basal areas of Rhizophora spp., S. alba, and B. gymnorrhiza having principal scores of -6.41, Principal component analysis conducted on basal 9.79, and 16.2, respectively. areas of mangrove trees yielded two principal com- Ratios of total faunal densities were linearly ponents with eigenvalues [1, which accounted for correlated to PC1 eigenvalues determined from basal 123 166 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 areas of S. alba, B. gymnorrhiza, and Rhizophora spp. correlations in 2004 may have been a result of (r2 = 0.85, P \ 0.01) (Fig. 4). Ratios of fish densi- Typhoon Sudal, because samples collected that year ties were also negatively correlated to PC1 eigen- were assumed to represent faunal communities still values, but this was only significant for a one-tailed recovering from the typhoon. Thus, significant comparison at an alpha level of 0.1 (r2 = 0.59, positive correlations between densities of shrimp P = 0.07). Higher total faunal and fish ratios were and crabs in Rhizophora spp. mangroves in 2004, but observed in less complex mangrove forests than in not in 2005, may have resulted from greater habitat more complex ones. Post- to pre-disturbance ratios of complexity providing greater protection to benthic neither shrimp nor crabs were significantly correlated fauna then the less complex S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza with PC1 eigenvalues (r2 = 0.07, P = 0.62 and forests. Alternatively, higher shrimp and crab densi- r2 = 0.16, P = 0.43, respectively). ties in Rhizophora spp. mangroves in 2004 may have been due to higher levels of dissolved oxygen in Rhizophora spp. tidal creeks or greater inputs of Discussion litterfall. Significantly lower canopy cover in Rhizo- phora spp. mangroves compared to S. alba/B. gym- Community structure of tidal creek assemblages norrhiza mangroves following the typhoon was likely in Yapese mangroves due to greater levels of defoliation that also occurred in these stands (N. Duke, personal communication). Fish, shrimp, and crab assemblages sampled from Shrimp densities commonly increase following hur- tidal creeks in Yap mangroves were considered to be ricanes (Knott & Martore, 1992; Crowl et al., 2001; representative of the resident fauna commonly found Stevens et al., 2006), which has been attributed to in mangrove forests in this region of the world. The additional food and shelter provided by increased cardinal fish A. ceramensis was the most abundant litterfall (Crowl et al., 2001; Stevens et al., 2006). fish species collected and has been previously Lack of correlations between 2005 faunal densi- described as a mangrove resident species (Robertson ties, which were assumed to represent fully recov- & Duke, 1990; Unsworth et al., 2009). Gobies were ered, pre-typhoon assemblages, and basal areas of another dominant fish collected, and many of the mangrove trees suggests that structural complexity genera collected are also mangrove residents (Kuo may not be the primary factor influencing faunal et al., 1999; Ikejima et al., 2003). Congenerics of densities in tidal creeks. Similar results were reported diogenid hermit crabs and palaemonid shrimp are from tidal creeks in northern Australia, where banana also commonly found in tidal creeks and flooded prawn densities from tidal creeks did not significantly forest floors of mangrove forests (R. MacKenzie, differ between more complex R. stylosa and less unpublished data; Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999; Rahayu & complex Ceriops tagal mangroves (Vance et al., Koma, 2000). The silverside, A. lacunosus is consid- 1996). Similarly, shrimp densities sampled using ered a reef-associated species, but is commonly found stake nets from the flooded forest floor of a Philip- in tidal creeks of mangroves (Conand, 1993). pines mangrove, were not significantly different between R.stylosa stands and less complex Avicennia Does habitat complexity influence densities officinalis (Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999). However, when of mangrove fauna? individual species were compared, differences were observed, with banana prawn having higher densities Comparison of faunal densities across sites that in R. stylosa prop roots (Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999). differed in structural complexity did not fully support Studies assessing fish densities on the flooded man- our first hypothesis that structurally complex mangrove forest floor have also reported mixed results. grove forests would harbor higher densities of fish, Fish densities were lower in more complex R. stylosa shrimp, and crabs. Positive correlations to structurally forests than less complex Avicennia forests in one complex Rhizophora spp. trees were only observed Australian mangrove (Morton, 1990; Halliday & for densities of total fauna, shrimp, and crabs, and Young, 1996), but were higher in R. stylosa than less only in 2004. These patterns were not apparent in complex Ceriops stands in another Australian study 2005 or for fish densities in either year. Significant (Vance et al., 1996). 123 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 167

Increased food availability and protection from Structural complexity influences tidal creek predation in structurally complex mangrove roots community composition (Alongi & Sasekumar, 1992; Primavera 1997;Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999; Layman, 2007; Demopoulos & Significant differences in tidal creek community Smith, 2010) was expected to result in strong positive structure fully supported our second expectation that correlations between habitat complexity and overall community structure would differ with habitat com- faunal densities in mangrove lined tidal creeks. Lack plexity. Over 50% of differences in community of correlation may have been due to several potential structure reported from ANOSIM were driven by reasons. First, habitat complexity may have a stronger four main species. Resident A. ceramensis cardinal- influence on individual species as opposed to total fish and O. lonchotus gobies had significantly greater nekton assemblages as discussed below. Second, the densities in the structurally less complex S. alba/ resident fauna we sampled may have utilized other B. gymnorrhiza mangroves. In contrast, A. lacunosus mechanisms to avoid predation, independent of silversides and diogenid hermit crabs had signifi- mangrove-related habitat structure. For example, cantly greater densities in the structurally more some species of shrimp or gobies can burrow into complex Rhizophora spp. mangroves. The dominant sediments or utilize crab burrows (Primavera & shrimp, Leandrites sp.nov. had similar densities Lebata, 1993; Berti et al., 2008). Other species may between mangrove types. have moved further into mangrove forests to use Greater densities of adult, juvenile, and young-of- shallower water depths to avoid predation (Vance year A. ceramensis cardinalfish in structurally less et al., 1996; Ellis & Bell, 2004). Third, the small- complex mangrove stands may have been due to their bodied fauna that we sampled may have been able to foraging habit. A. ceramensis are visual predators of hide in the smaller spaces provided by lower knee small fish and crustaceans (Unsworth et al., 2009), roots and pneumatophores compared to the larger and the less complex root structures of S. alba/ spaces present under taller prop roots (Primavera, B. gymnorrhiza, with the open water column above 1997). Fourth, complexity of Rhizophora spp. prop roots and the more open forest floor in these root roots may not have offered substantial refugia from types, may have provided optimal foraging habitat for predation compared to S. alba or B. gymnorrihiza. them. Furthermore, their small size, especially true Kon et al. (2009) demonstrated that the presence of for the abundant young-of-year, may have enabled mangrove root structures did not reduce benthic them to utilize the limited vertical structure provided invertebrate or crab predation in the laboratory or in by the shorter knee roots of B. gymnorrhiza. Thus, the field. However, their results contradict other S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza may provide better foraging studies that have demonstrated that predation rates of and nursery habitat for this common mangrove fish are much lower within mangrove roots than in inhabitant. Higher densities of gobies, especially open intertidal areas (Sheridan & Hays, 2003; Ellis & O. lonchotus,inS. alba/B. gymnorrhiza forests could Bell, 2004). Finally, food resources may have been be explained by the more open forest floor, as the abundant in mangrove forests regardless of root type. lower density of roots would provide more open The presence of mangrove roots can significantly muddy substrate for these demersal fish to burrow increase the amount epiphytic algae and animals into or forage (Ikejima et al., 2003). growing in a mangrove forest compared to areas with Although differences in densities of individual no structure (Laegdsgaard & Johnson, 2001; Mac- species, community composition and size class Donald et al., 2008; Demopoulos & Smith, 2010). distributions of A. ceramensis were attributed to However, few studies have compared benthic and/or differences in structural complexity, these patterns epiphytic organisms, and thus food sources, across may have also been due to other factors. Tidal creeks different root structures. A preliminary comparison of in Rhizophora spp. mangroves had significantly benthic infauna among our six mangrove forests higher levels of dissolved oxygen and temperatures revealed no differences in invertebrate abundances compared to tidal creeks in S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza among root types (A. Demopolous, unpublished mangroves. These were both attributed to lower data). This suggests that there were abundant food canopy cover in Rhizophora spp. mangroves than in sources available for nekton regardless of root type. S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza mangroves. Canopy cover 123 168 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 was not measured in 2005, but gaps in the canopy Our data also suggest that pelagic organisms in present in the second year suggest that canopy cover Yap mangroves were more susceptible to impacts was still lower in Rhizophora spp. mangroves in from the typhoon than benthic shrimp and crabs. The 2005. Other potential reasons for observed patterns dense, branching, thickets of Rhizophora spp. prop include differences in the soil properties associated roots can significantly reduce the flow of water with the different mangrove tree species described compared to pneumatophores or knee roots, which is above. For example, redox potential and extractable one reason why they are so effective at trapping phosphorous have been shown to be significantly sediments (Krauss et al., 2003) and protecting higher in Rhizophora plots compared to B. gymnorrh- shorelines from storm damage (Dahdouh-Guebas iza plots in a similar mangrove forests on the island et al., 2005; Alongi, 2008). This ability to reduce of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia (Gleason the flow of water moving through them may have et al., 2003). also provided protection to resident small-bodied fish assemblages present in the mangroves at high tide Relationships between habitat complexity when the typhoon struck. Small-bodied fish in and natural disturbance S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza were likely killed by the storm (Bouchon et al., 1994), although the larger size The unpredictable and rare nature of typhoons on the classes may have avoided the storm by swimming out island of Yap made it difficult for us to collect pre- to deeper, more protected waters (Switzer et al., typhoon data on tidal creek assemblages. However, if 2006). Shrimp and crabs likely burrowed into muddy we assume that 2005 data represented fully recovered substrate to avoid the storm. faunal assemblages and that 2004 data represented impacted assemblages, then our results can provide Summary initial insight into the relationship between habitat complexity and protection from natural disturbance. Mangrove forests on the main island of Yap provided Ratios of densities of total fauna from 2005 us with multiple spatially compact, geomorphologi- (recovered) and 2004 (impacted) significantly cally similar ecosystems that differed in structural decreased with increasing PC1 eigenvalues, a proxy complexity to examine how habitat complexity for habitat complexity. Lower ratios, indicative of influences densities and community composition of nekton densities that were more similar between years, tidal creek fauna. These forests also provided initial suggest that fauna were not severely impacted by the insight on the relationship between habitat complex- typhoon as the mangrove forests they resided in ity and natural disturbances, such as hurricanes and afforded them greater protection from the typhoon. typhoons. Structural complexity appeared to only be Alternatively, higher ratios that resulted from lower important for crab and shrimp densities immediately densities four months and higher densities 17 months after Typhoon Sudal, although these patterns may after the typhoon suggests that these fauna were have also been influenced by litter input. No patterns negatively impacted by the storm as the mangrove were apparent 17 months after the typhoon or for fish forests that they resided in did not afford them much assemblages in either year. Structural complexity had protection. These results suggest that the greater a stronger influence on individual species than on habitat complexity of Rhizophora spp. stands provided total abundance, which was evident from significant better protection from the typhoon compared to the differences in nekton community structure between lower habitat complexity of S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza Rhizophora spp. and S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza-domi- stands. Comparison of fish, shrimp, and crab ratios to nated forests. The most abundant resident fish PCA eigenvalues revealed that this trend was largely collected, A. ceramensis, preferred the less complex due to changes in fish densities; whereas shrimp and S. alba/B. gymnorrhiza habitat, as evident from the crab densities were similar 4 and 17 months after the presence of significantly higher densities of adults, typhoon. Thus, our data only partially supported or juveniles, and young-of-year in this habitat. Thus, our third hypothesis, that more structurally complex man- data only partially supported our first hypothesis, that grove would provide greater protection to tidal creek structural complexity would harbor/shelter higher fauna than less structurally complex mangroves. densities of fish, shrimp, and crabs, but fully 123 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 169 supported our second hypothesis, that structural References complexity would affect fish, shrimp, and crab communities. Finally, the correlation between ratios Allen, J. A., K. C. Ewel, B. D. Keeland, T. Tara & T. J. Smith of fish densities and structural complexity only III, 2000. Downed wood in Micronesian mangrove forests. Wetlands 20: 169–176. partially supported our third hypotheses. Increasing Alongi, D. M., 2008. Mangrove forests: resilience, protection structural complexity appeared to provide increased from tsunamis, and responses to global climate change. protection from natural disturbance to small-bodied Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76: 1–13. fish assemblages, but did not affect benthic shrimp or Alongi, D. M., 2009. The energetics of mangrove forests. Springer, Dordrecht. crab. Additional studies are needed to verify rela- Alongi, D. M. & A. Sasekumar, 1992. Benthic communities. In tionships between habitat complexity and protection Robertson, A. I. & D. M. Alongi (eds), Tropical Man- from natural disturbances in a more deterministic grove Ecosystems. Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 41. way. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC: 137–172. Berti, R., S. Cannicci, S. Fabbroni & G. Innocenti, 2008. Notes Our data revealed that the interaction between on the structure and the use of Neosarmatium meinerti and stand structure and tidal creek faunal assemblages is Cardisoma carnifex burrows in a Kenyan mangrove complex. Future studies examining relationships swamp (Decapoda Brachyura). Ethology, Ecology, and between habitat complexity of mangroves and fish, Evolution 20: 101–113. Bosire, J. O., F. Dahdouh-Guebas, J. G. Kairo, S. Wartel, J. shrimp, and crab assemblages may be better served Kazungu & N. Koedam, 2006. Success rates of recruited when community structure of abundance of individ- tree species and their contribution to the structural ual species are compared. Use of pooled species (i.e., development of reforested mangrove stands. Marine total fish, total shrimp, total crabs) may mask any Ecology Progress Series 325: 85–91. Bouchon, C., Y. Bouchon-Navaro & M. Louis, 1994. Changes influence habitat complexity has on faunal assem- in the coastal fish communities following Hurricane Hugo blages (i.e., Ro¨nnba¨ck et al., 1999). Although none of in Guadeloupe Island (French West Indies). Atoll the species we collected were of economic or cultural Research Bulletin 422: 1–13. importance in Yap, they are an important food source Boyle, K., 2004. Monthly global tropical cyclone summary. http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/2004/ linking mangrove production to nearshore production summ0404.htm. Accessed 23 Aug 2011. of larger species that are an important food source Burkholder, J., D. Eggleston, H. Glasgow, C. Brownie, R. for human populations (e.g., snappers, emperor fish) Reed, G. Janowitz, M. Posey, G. Melia, C. Kinder, R. (R. MacKenzie, unpublished data). Thus, relation- Corbett, D. Toms, T. Alphin, N. Deamer & J. Springer, 2004. Comparative impacts of two major hurricane sea- ships between stand structure and tidal creek nekton sons on the Neuse River and western Pamlico Sound assemblages should be considered when mangrove ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of restoration or preservation actions are taken. Sciences USA 101: 9291–9296. Mangroves that consist of diverse assemblages of Carpenter, K. E. & V. H. Niem, 2001. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. Food and trees will support diverse assemblages of ecologi- Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. cally, economically, and culturally important nekton Carr, M. R., 1997. PRIMER User Manual: Plymouth Routines species. This is particularly important now as island in Multivariate Ecological Research. Plymouth Marine governments have been challenged by the Microne- Laboratories, Plymouth. Clarke, K. R. & R. M. Warwick, 1994. Change In Marine sian Conservation Trust, a local NGO, to set aside Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and 30% of their coastal areas for conservation. Interpretation, 2nd ed. PRIMER-E, Plymouth. Conand, F., 1993. Life history of the silverside Atherinomorus Acknowledgments We are extremely grateful to the people lacunosus (Atherinidae) in New Caledonia. Journal of of Yap for providing us with access to and knowledge of their Fish Biology 42: 851–863. mangrove forests. We also thank M. Falanruw who helped Crowl,T.A.,W.H.McDowell,A.P.Covich&S.L.Johnson,2001. coordinate logistics and sampling efforts. J. Libiy, Freshwater shrimp effects on detrital processing and nutrients F. Ruegarong, S. Mar, F. Yinung, B. Nakahara, A. Demopolous, in a tropical headwater stream. Ecology 82: 775–783. and B. Tibbatts provided assistance in the field. Thanks to Dahdouh-Guebas, F., L. P. Jayatissa, D. Di Nitto, J. O. Bosire, M. Greenfield, B. Tibbatts, and two anonymous reviewers who D. Lo Seen & N. Koedam, 2005. How effective were provided constructive comments on an earlier version of this mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami? manuscript. H. Larson and A. Bruce verified goby and shrimp Current Biology 15: R443–R447. identifications. This project was funded by a grant from the Demopoulos, A. W. J. & C. R. Smith, 2010. Invasive man- Forest Service’s International Programs. groves alter macrofaunal community structure and

123 170 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171

facilitate opportunistic exotics. Marine Ecology Progress Halliday, I. A. & W. R. Young, 1996. Density, biomass, and Series 404: 51–67. species composition of fish in a subtropical Rhizophora Dionne, M., 2000. Ecosystem indicator: nekton. In Neckles, H. stylosa mangrove forest. Marine Freshwater Research 47: A. & M. Dionne (eds), Regional Standards to Identify and 609–615. Evaluate Tidal Wetland Restoration in the Gulf of Maine. Hasurmai, M., E. Joseph, S. Palik & K. Rikim, 2005. The State of Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve Technical Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Federated States of Micro- Report, Wells, ME: 7–9. nesia. Federated States of Micronesia. Palikir: 387–398. Dionne, M., F. T. Short & D. M. Burdick, 1999. Fish utilization Ikejima, K., P. Tongnunui, T. Medej & T. Taniuchi, 2003. of restored, created, and reference salt-marsh habitat in Juvenile and small fishes in a mangrove estuary in Trang the Gulf of Maine. American Fisheries Society Sympo- Province, Thailand: seasonal and habitat differences. sium 22: 384–404. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56: 447–457. Eberhardt, A. L., 2004. Fish versus human corridors: the Kauffman, J. B. & T. G. Cole, 2010. Micronesian mangrove impacts of road culverts on nekton community composi- forest structure and tree responses to a severe typhoon. tion and movement in New England salt marshes. M.S. Wetlands 30: 1077–1084. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Knott, D. M. & R. M. Martore, 1992. The short-term effects of Ellis, W. L. & S. S. Bell, 2004. Conditional use of mangrove Hurricane Hugo on fishes and decapod crustaceans in the habitats by fishes: depth as a cue to avoid predators. Ashley River and adjacent marsh creeks, South Carolina. Estuaries 27: 966–976. Journal of Coastal Research 8: 335–356. Ellison, J. C., 1998. Impacts of sediment burial on mangroves. Kon, K., H. Kurokura & P. Tongnunui, 2009. Do mangrove Marine Pollution Bulletin 37: 420–426. root structures function to shelter benthic macrofauna Ewel, K. C., J. A. Bourgeois & T. G. Cole, 1998. Variation in from predators? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology environmental characteristics and vegetation in high- and Ecology 370: 1–8. rainfall mangrove forests, Kosrae, Micronesia. Global Krauss, K. W., J. A. Allen & D. R. Cahoon, 2003. Differential Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7: 49–56. rates of vertical accretion and elevation change among Ewel, K. C., R. D. Hauff & T. G. Cole, 2003. Analyzing aerial root types in Micronesian mangrove forests. Estu- mangrove forest structure and species distribution on a arine and Coastal Marine Science 56: 251–259. Pacific Island. Phytocoenologia 33: 251–266. Kuo, S. R., H. J. Lin & K. T. Shao, 1999. Fish assemblages in Falanruw, M. C., 1994. Food production and ecosystem man- the mangrove creeks of northern and southern Taiwan. agement on Yap. ISLA Journal of Micronesian Studies 2: Estuaries and Coasts 22: 1004–1015. 15–22. Laegdsgaard, P. & C. Johnson, 2001. Why do juvenile fish Falanruw, M. C., C. D. Whitesell, T. G. Cole, C. D. MacLean utilise mangrove habitats? Journal of Experimental Mar- & A. H. Ambacher, 1987. Vegetation Survey of Yap, ine Biology and Ecology 257: 229–253. Federated States of Micronesia. Resource Bulletin PSW- Layman, C. A., 2007. What can stable isotope ratios reveal 21. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Sta- about mangroves as fish habitat? Bulletin of Marine Sci- tion, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture., ence 80: 513–527. Berkeley, CA, USA. MacDonald, J. A., T. Glover & J. S. Weis, 2008. The impact of FSM, 2004. Typhoon Sudal leaves Yap in state of emergency. mangrove prop-root epibionts on juvenile reef fishes: a http://www.fsmgov.org/press/pr041204.htm. Accessed 23 field experiment using artificial roots and epifauna. Estu- Aug 2011. aries and Coasts 31: 981–993. Gallina, S., S. Mandujano & A. Gonzalez-Romero, 1996. MacKenzie, R. A. & M. Dionne, 2008. Habitat heterogeneity: Conservation of mammalian biodiversity in coffee plan- the importance of salt marsh pools and high marsh sur- tations of Central Veracruz, Mexico. Agroforestry Sys- faces to fish production in two Gulf of Maine salt marshes. tems 33: 13–27. Marine Ecology Progress Series 368: 217–230. Gleason, S. M., K. C. Ewel & N. Hue, 2003. Soil redox con- Merlin, M., A. Kugfas, T. Keene & J. Juvik, 1996. Plants, ditions and plant-soil relationships in a Micronesian People and Ecology in Yap. East-West Center, Honolulu, mangrove forest. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56: HI. 1065–1074. Milbrandt, E. C., J. M. Greenawalt-Boswell, P. D. Sokoloff & Gray, W. M., 1968. Global view of the origin of tropical dis- S. A. Bortone, 2006. Impact and response of southwest turbances and storms. Monthly Weather Review 96: Florida mangroves to the 2004 Hurricane season. Estu- 669–700. aries and Coasts 29: 979–984. Greenwood, M. F. D., P. W. Stevens & R. E. J. Matheson, Morton, R. M., 1990. Community structure, density, and 2006. Effects of the 2004 hurricanes on the fish assem- standing crop of fishes in a subtropical Australian man- blages in two proximate southwest Florida estuaries: grove area. Marine Biology 105: 385–394. change in the context of interannual variability. Estuaries Myers, R. F., 1991. Micronesian Reef Fishes, 2nd ed. Coral and Coasts 29: 985–996. Graphics, Barrigada. Greenwood, M. F. D., C. F. Idelberger & P. W. Stevens, 2007. Nagelkerken, I. & G. van der Velde, 2002. Do non-estuarine Habitat associations of large-bodied mangrove-shoreline mangroves harbour higher densities of juvenile fish than fishes in a southwest Florida estuary and the effects of adjacent shallow-water and coral reef habitats in Curacao hurricane damage. Bulletin of Marine Science 80: (Netherlands Antilles)? Marine Ecology Progress Series 805–821. 245: 191–204.

123 Hydrobiologia (2012) 685:155–171 171

Nagelkerken, I., A. M. De Schryver, M. C. Verweif, F. Dah- Stevens, P. W., D. A. Blewett & J. P. Casey, 2006. Short-term douh-Guebas, G. Van der Velde & N. Koedam, 2010. effects of a low dissolved oxygen event on estuarine fish Differences in root architecture influence attraction of assemblages following the passage of Hurricane Charley. fishes to mangroves: a field experiment mimicking roots Estuaries and Coasts 29: 997–1003. of different length, orientation, and complexity. Journal of Switzer, T. S., B. L. Winner, N. M. Dunham, J. A. Whittington Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 396: 27–34. & M. Thomas, 2006. Influence of sequential hurricanes on Primavera, J. H., 1997. Fish predation on mangrove-associated nekton communities in a southeast Florida estuary: short- penaids: the role of structure and substrate. Journal of term effects in the context of historical variations in Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 215: 205–216. freshwater inflow. Estuaries and Coasts 29: 1011–1018. Primavera, J. H. & J. Lebata, 1993. Diel activity patterns in Tilmant, J. T., R. W. Curry, R. Jones, A. Szmant, J. C. Zieman, Metapenaeus and Penaeus juveniles. Hydrobiologia 295: M. Flora, M. B. Robblee, D. Smith, R. W. Snow & H. 295–302. Wanless, 1994. Hurricane Andrew’s effects on marine Prior, S. A. & C. Guard, 2005. In the Wake of a Destructive resources. BioScience 44: 230–237. Typhoon: Cold Water, Low Tides, and Fog. Mariners Tomlinson, P. B., 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge Weather Log 49. http://www.vos.noaa.gov/MWL/april_05/ University Press, Cambridge. typhoon.shtml. Accessed 23 Aug 2011. Turpin, R. K. & S. A. Bortone, 2002. Pre- and post-hurricane Rahayu, D. L. & T. Koma, 2000. Shallow-water hermit crabs assessment of artificial reefs: evidence for potential use as (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura: Diogenidae and Pag- refugia in a fishery management strategy. ICES Journal of uridae) of Phuket, Thailand. Phuket Marine Biological Marine Science 59: S74–S82. Center Research Bulletin 63: 21–44. Unsworth, R. K. F., S. L. Garrard, P. S. De Leoń, L. C. Cullen, Robertson, A. I. & N. C. Duke, 1990. Recruitment, growth and D. J. Smith, K. A. Sloman & J. J. Bell, 2009. Structuring residence time of fishes in a tropical Australian mangrove of Indo-Pacific fish assemblages along the mangrove– system. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 31: seagrass continuum. Aquatic Biology 5: 85–95. 723–743. Vance, D. J., M. D. E. Haywood, D. S. Heales, R. A. Kenyon, Ro¨nnba¨ck, P., M. Troell, N. Kautsky & J. H. Primavera, 1999. N. R. Loneragan & R. C. Pendrey, 1996. How far do Distribution Pattern of shrimps and fish among Avicennia prawns and fish move into mangroves? Distribution of and Rhizophora microhabitats in the Pagbilao Mangroves, juvenile banana prawns Penaeus merguiensis and fish in a Philippines. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 48: tropical mangrove forest in northern Australia. Marine 223–234. Ecology Progress Series 131: 115–124. Rozas, L. P. & W. E. Odum, 1987. Fish and macrocrustacean Vince, S. I., I. Valiela, N. Backus & J. M. Teal, 1976. Predation use of submerged plant beds in tidal freshwater marsh by the salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) in creeks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 38: 101–108. relation to prey size and habitat structure: consequences Schneider, D. M., 1967. Typhoons on Yap. Human Organiza- for prey distribution and abundance. Journal of Experi- tion 16: 12–15. mental Marine Biology and Ecology 23: 255–266. Shaw, R. G. & T. Mitchell-Olds, 1993. Anova for unbalanced Weisberg, S. B. & V. A. Lotrich, 1982. The importance of an data: an overview. Ecology 74: 1638–1645. infrequently flooded intertidal marsh surface as an energy Sheridan, P. & C. Hays, 2003. Are mangroves nursery habitat source for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus:an for transient fishes and decapods? Wetlands 23: 449–458. experimental approach. Marine Biology 66: 307–310.

123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Caribbean Journal of Science, Vol. 40, No. 2, 232-244, 2004 Copyright 2004 College of Arts and Sciences University of Puerto Rico, Mayagu¨ez

Degree of Fragmentation Affects Fish Assemblage Structure in Andros Island (Bahamas) Estuaries

CRAIG A. LAYMAN1*, D. ALBREY ARRINGTON2,R.BRIAN LANGERHANS3, AND BRIAN REED SILLIMAN4

1Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843-2258 2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487 3Department of Biology, Campus Box 1137, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899 4Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912. 1Corresponding author: [email protected] Current address: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8106

ABSTRACT.—We used underwater visual census (UVC) to characterize fish assemblages among estuaries with different degrees of fragmentation on Andros Island, Bahamas. Estuaries were classified a priori into four fragmentation categories: totally fragmented (no surface water connectivity to the ocean), partially fragmented, minimally fragmented, and unfragmented (unimpeded surface water connectivity through the estuary to the ocean). Visual surveys (n = 159) were conducted in thirty estuarine systems using snorkeling gear in four habitat types: flat, mangrove, rock, and seagrass. Fish species density differed significantly among habitat types and among estuaries with different degrees of fragmentation. Highest species density occurred in rock habitats in unfragmented or minimally fragmented estuaries; lowest species density was in totally fragmented estuaries. Assemblages in unfragmented and minimally fragmented estuaries were characterized by presence of reef-associated (e.g., damselfish and parrotfish) and transient marine (e.g., jacks) taxa. In completely fragmented sites, assemblages were dominated by species tolerant of temperature and salinity extremes (e.g., sheepshead minnow). Multi-dimensional scaling suggested fish assemblages in mangrove and rock habitats experienced the greatest impact of estuary fragmentation (i.e., the most differentia- tion among surveys in estuaries with different fragmentation status). Fish assemblages were especially variable among partially fragmented estuaries (i.e., estuaries where hydrologic connectivity was maintained by a culvert), suggesting hydrologic connectivity through culverts may not be sufficient to maintain habitat quality, recruitment dynamics, or upstream movements by vagile organisms. These data reveal effects fragmentation has on faunal assemblages, and demonstrates that faunal presence/absence may guide initiatives to conserve and restore sub-tropical estuaries.

KEYWORDS.—connectivity, estuary, fish, fragmentation, hydrology, mangrove recruitment

INTRODUCTION to estuaries (Lindeman et al. 2000). Further, estuarine mangrove habitats are often net Estuaries are a critical component of Car- exporters of carbon (e.g., in the form of or- ibbean island coastal zones that serve as ganisms), which may provide a spatial en- important nursery habitat for commercially ergy subsidy to coral reefs and other ma- important species such as Nassau grouper rine food webs (Odum 1971; Deegan 1993; Epinephalus striatus (Dahlgren and Eggles- Lee 1995). For most estuaries to function ton 2001) and spiny lobster Panulirus argus naturally, hydrologic connectivity, in par- (Acosta and Butler 1997). Greater than 75% ticular tidal exchange, is essential (Pringle of commercially caught fish in The Baha- 2001). mas, and 80-90% of fish caught recreation- One threat to estuarine function is frag- ally, may inhabit estuarine mangrove mentation, i.e., reducing the connectivity habitat at some point in their life (Sullivan- between marine and inland ecosystems. Sealey et al. 2002). Dependence on estuaries Many Caribbean island estuaries were frag- is obligate for many species, and popula- mented by the construction of roads, which tions of these species would be substan- affects sedimentation processes (Burdick et tially reduced or extirpated without access al. 1997; Portnoy and Giblin 1997; Anisfeld 232 FRAGMENTATION AFFECTS FISH ASSEMBLAGE 233 et al. 1999), nutrient cycling (Anisfeld and of fragmentation to the least): (1) totally Benoit 1997; Portnoy and Giblin 1997; Port- fragmented systems in which surface water noy 1999), vegetation patterns (Roman et connectivity from the ocean does not ex- al. 1984; Sinicrope et al. 1990; Roman et al. tend throughout the estuary, resulting in an 2002) and assemblages of resident and tran- isolated wetland (sensu Leibowitz 2003) up- sient organisms (Peck et al. 1994; Burdick et stream of the blockage (e.g., a road crossing al. 1997; Dionne et al. 1999; Roman et al. an estuary), (2) partially fragmented sys- 2002). There remain little quantitative data tems in which some surface water connec- characterizing ecological aspects of low- tivity remains (i.e., through culverts) gradient tropical estuaries with different throughout the estuary, (3) minimally frag- degrees of fragmentation, information that mented systems in which the majority of is critical to guide conservation and resto- surface water connectivity remains (i.e., ration initiatives. Our objectives were to de- through bridges), and (4) unfragmented scribe the composition of fish assemblages systems which have unimpeded surface using underwater visual census in estuaries water connectivity throughout the estuary. along the eastern shore of Andros Island, Totally fragmented estuaries result from Bahamas, and to evaluate the effects of eco- road construction without culverts or system fragmentation on these assem- bridges to permit surface water (i.e., tidal) blages. Specifically, we asked: (1) What ef- exchange. In partially fragmented systems, fect does estuary fragmentation have on the placement of culverts, ranging from fish species density?, and (2) How do fish <0.25 m to >2.0 m in diameter, permit dif- assemblages differ in estuaries with differ- ferent degrees of tidal flow upstream of the ent degrees of fragmentation? blockage. Bridges allow more tidal flow than culverts and, therefore, the presence of a bridge results in minimal fragmentation MATERIALS AND METHODS (i.e., loss of hydrologic connectivity). Because fish assemblages typically differ Study site among habitats in tropical estuarine systems (Robertson and Duke 1987; Sedberry Andros Island (Fig. 1) is a low-lying is- and Carter 1993; Laegdsgaard and Johnson land in the Bahamas archipelago, domi- 1995; Gray et al. 1996; Gray et al. 1998; Jen- nated geologically by karst formations. Es- kins and Wheatley 1998; Guidetti 2000), we tuaries, including tidal creeks and conducted fish surveys in each of four com- wetlands, are found throughout the island. mon habitats: flats, mangrove, rock struc- We conducted surveys in every accessible ture, and seagrass. These habitat designa- estuary on the eastern side of Andros Is- tions are based on earlier work in estuaries land (n = 30). Study systems varied from on Andros Island (Layman and Silliman estuaries thousands of hectares in area 2002), and are similar to those used by (Northern Bight) to sites that were en- Nagelkerken et al. (2000) in a Caribbean es- croached by mangroves so that no open tuarine bay. Flat was the most common water habitat remains (Man-of-War habitat type in estuaries, and represented Sound). Average depths in the latter sys- unvegetated substrate consisting of sand tems are <0.5 m, whereas channels in larger and mollusk shell fragments, for example, estuaries have maximum depths >10 m Battillarium spp. and Cerithium spp. (cer- (Stafford Creek). Some creek channels are iths), Neritina virginea (virgin nerite), and <10 m wide throughout their length (White Brachidontes exustus (scorched mussel). In Bight); others have widths >250 m (Deep some estuaries (usually those partially or Creek). A detailed description of an Andros completely fragmented), flat was com- Island estuary is provided by Newell et al. posed of fine mud and organic debris. (1951). Mangrove habitat was characterized by Following Dynesius and Nilsson (1994), monodominant stands of red mangrove. we identified four categories of estuarine We combined “fossil reef rock” and “fossil fragmentation (listed from highest degree reef boulders” used by Nagelkerken et al. 234 C. A. LAYMAN ET AL.

FIG. 1. Map of Andros Island with the location of sampled estuaries indicated. Site names are given in Table 1. Map courtesy of Robert L. Smith.

(2000a), as well as karst formations, into a poral integration of aquatic system influ- single rock structure designation. We des- ences); therefore, they can be excellent in- ignated seagrass habitat has substrate with dicators of the health of ecosystems (Karr >50% cover of Thallasia testudinum (turtle 1981). Fish often are collected using de- grass). structive techniques (Murphy and Willis 1996), however, in tropical and subtropical estuarine systems water clarity allows Survey methods aquatic fauna assessment in a non- destructive manner using underwater vi- Fishes represent multiple trophic levels, sual census (UVC). This technique, first de- are affected by large-scale influences, and veloped by Brock (1954), has become can be relatively long-lived (providing tem- standard methodology for assessing fish FRAGMENTATION AFFECTS FISH ASSEMBLAGE 235 populations in tropical estuarine and ma- completed by one of the authors. A 100 m2 rine habitats. UVC may result in an under- area was chosen haphazardly, and all fish estimate of cryptic species (Brock 1982; species observed within the area were re- Ackerman and Bellwood 2000; Willis 2001), corded. Each individual survey lasted for highly mobile species (Thresher and Gunn 30 minutes and was conducted within ap- 1986), and other large piscivores (Kulbicki proximately 2 hours of high tide. These sur- 1998; Willis et al. 2000), but has been used veys provide a “snapshot” of fishes at extensively because it is non-destructive, a given site, not fully incorporating the rapid, and simple. UVC is an especially diel, tidal, and seasonal changes of fauna useful method to assess fauna in aquatic (Weinstein and Heck 1979; Robblee and systems where destructive sampling tech- Zieman 1984; Rooker and Dennis 1991; niques are not desirable. Nagelkerken et al. 2000c), but were suffi- All estuaries were surveyed in either Au- cient to document common species in habi- gust 2001 or August 2002 (Table 1). Surveys tats surveyed. Surveys were conducted in were conducted during daylight hours us- water less than 2 m deep, and water clarity ing one of two techniques. In the majority was excellent (>10 m) for every census. The of cases, UVC, using snorkeling gear, was second survey protocol was necessary in

TABLE 1. Site numbers (from Fig. 1), names, status, and the number of surveys in each habitat type.

Habitat Site number Name Status Sand flat Seagrass Mangrove Rock 1 Red Bays Pond TF 1 - 1 - 2 Money Point U 2 4 4 - 3 Miller Creek U PF 3 1 3 1 4 Davy Creek PF 2 2 2 1 5 Conch Sound PF - - 2 1 6 Bird Pond PF 1 - 1 2 7 Cemetery Pond PF 1 - 2 2 8 Mastic Point Creek PF 3 - 2 3 9 South Blanket Sound TF 1 - 1 - 10 Thompson Creek TF 1 - 2 - 11 Stafford Creek U 1 - 3 2 12 Store Creek TF 2 - 2 - 13 Staniard Creek U MF 4 2 5 3 14 Sandy Creek TF 2 - 1 - 15 Love Hill Creek U PF 4 - 4 - 16 Middle Creek PF 1 - 1 - 17 Davis Creek U PF 4 3 4 2 18 Fresh Creek MF 2 2 2 2 19 Sommerset Creek U - 1 2 1 20 Bowen Sound TF 1 - 1 1 21 Man of War Sound TF 3 - 3 1 22 White Bight U 1 - 3 1 23 Cargill Creek MF 3 1 2 1 24 Independence Park TF 1 - 1 - 25 Northern Bight U 1 - - 1 26 Lisbon Creek U 1 1 3 1 27 Harrey’s Creek U 1 - - - 28 Deep Creek U 1 2 1 2 29 Little Creek U 1 1 1 1 30 Grassy Creek U - 1 - 1 Status refers to fragmentation category: TF = totally fragmented, PF = partially fragmented, MF = minimally fragmented, U = unfragmented). Multiple designations are given when parts of estuaries are characterized by a different degree of fragmentation. 236 C. A. LAYMAN ET AL.

TABLE 2. Frequency of occurrence of fish species in all surveys (Total %, n = 159), surveys in unfragmented estuaries (% U, n = 62), and surveys in totally fragmented estuaries (% TF, n = 27).

Scientific name Common name Total % % U % TF Habitat Gerres cinereus Yellowfin mojarra 65 68 30 FGMR Lutjanus griseus Gray snapper 59 69 22 FGMR Lutjanus apodus Schoolmaster 57 69 15 FGMR Eucinostomus spp. Mojarra spp. 51 56 26 FGMR Stegastes leucostictus Beaugregory 48 73 0 FGMR Sphyraena barracuda Barracuda 40 52 11 FGMR Lutjanus cyanopterus Cubera snapper 33 34 4 FGMR Abudefduf saxatilis Sergeant major 31 45 0 F M R Halichoeres bivittatus Slippery dick 31 63 0 FGMR Haemulon sciurus Bluestriped grunt 28 40 0 FGMR Sparisoma radians Bucktooth parrotfish 28 52 0 FGMR Engraulid/Atherinid spp. Anchovies and silversides 25 37 0 FGMR Sphoeroides testudineus Checkered puffer 19 16 4 FGMR Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow 18 0 78 F M R Stegastes fuscus Dusky damselfish 19 26 0 F M R Haemulon flavolineatum French grunt 19 32 0 FGMR Scarus croicensis Striped parrotfish 19 37 0 FGMR Chaetodon capistratus Foureye butterflyfish 18 31 0 F M R Gambusia hubbsi Bahamas mosquitofish 14 2 48 F M R Ocyurus chrysurus Yellowtail snapper 14 24 0 FGMR Strongylura notata Redfin needlefish 11 18 11 FGMR Thalassoma bifasciatum Bluehead wrasse 13 23 0 FGMR Acanthurus chirurgus Doctorfish 10 16 0 FGMR Blenny sp. 1 Blenny sp. 9 18 0 F G R Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 10 13 0 F M R Epinephalus striatus Nassau grouper 9 16 0 FGMR Lophogobius cyprinoides Crested goby 9 6 0 FGMR Coryphopterus glaucofraenum Bridled goby 8 16 0 FGMR Gobidae sp. 1 Goby sp. 8 8 0 FGMR Sparisoma viride Stoplight parrotfish 8 16 0 G M R Caranx ruber Bar jack 5 8 0 F G R Pomacanthus paru French angelfish 5 8 0 F M R Halichoeres garnoti Yellowhead wrasse 5 8 0 G M R Halichoeres radiatus Puddingwife 5 8 0 FGMR Acanthurus bahianus Ocean surgeonfish 5 13 0 FGMR Holocentrus coruscus Reef squirrelfish 4 5 0 R Halichoeres poeyi Blackear wrasse 4 10 0 F G R Caranx latus Horse-eye jack 3 5 0 F G R Chaetodon ocellatus Spotfin butterflyfish 4 10 0 F G R Haemulon parra Sailors choice 4 8 0 M R Calamus sp. 1 Porgy sp. 3 5 0 FGMR Gymnothorax funebris Green moray 3 2 0 R Latjanus analis Mutton snapper 3 3 0 F G R Lutjanus synagris Lane snapper 3 3 0 FGMR Diodon holocanthus Spiny pufferfish 3 2 0 M R Gnatholepis thompsoni Goldspot goby 3 2 0 F R Labrisomus nuchipinnis Hairy blenny 3 6 0 M R Acanthurus coeruleus Blue tang 3 5 0 R Epinephelus guttatus Red hind 2 3 0 R Malacoctenus macropus Rosy blenny 2 5 0 G M R Pomacanthus arcuatus Gray angelfish 2 2 0 M R Scarus taeniopterus Princess Parrotfish 2 3 0 M R Stegastes planifrons Threespot damselfish 2 2 0 F R FRAGMENTATION AFFECTS FISH ASSEMBLAGE 237

TABLE 2. Continued

Scientific name Common name Total % % U % TF Habitat Stegastes variabilis Cocoa damselfish 2 3 0 M R Apogon sp. 1 Cardinalfish sp. 1 1 2 0 R Chaetodon striatus Banded butterflyfish 1 2 0 M R Coryphopterus dicrus Colon goby 1 2 0 M R Haemulon carbonarium Ceasar grunt 1 2 0 M Megalops atlanticus Tarpon 1 0 4 M Scarus sp. 1 Parrotfish sp. 1 3 0 G R Holocanthus ciliaris Queen angelfish 1 3 0 R Mulloidichthys martinicus Yellow goatfish 1 3 0 G M Scarus coeruleus Blue parrotfish 1 3 0 M R Diodon hystrix Porcupinefish 1 3 0 R Albula vulpes Bonefish 1 0 0 F Canthigaster rostrata Sharpnose puffer 1 0 0 R Lachnolaimus maximus Spanish hogfish 1 2 0 R Malacoctenus triangulatus Saddled blenny 1 2 0 F Muraenidae sp. 1 Moray eel 1 2 0 R Mycteroperca bonaci Black grouper 1 0 0 R Mycteroperca tigris Tiger grouper 1 2 0 R Scorpaena plumieri Spotted Scorpionfish 1 2 0 R Sparisoma chrysopterum Redtail parrotfish 1 0 0 F Sparisoma rubripinne Yellowtail parrotfish 1 0 0 R Stegastes partitus Bicolor damselfish 1 0 0 R Dasyatis americana Southern stingray 1 2 0 F Myrichthys ocellatus Goldspotted moray eel 1 2 0 G Gramma loreto Fairy basslet 1 2 0 R Halichoeres sp. 1 Wrasse sp. 1 2 0 R Serranidae sp. 1 Other grouper sp. 1 2 0 R Hypoplectrus unicolor Butter hamlet 1 2 0 R Lutjanus sp. 1 Snapper sp. 1 2 0 R Sphoeroides spengleri Bandtail puffer 1 2 0 G Holocentrus adscensionis Squirrelfish 1 2 0 R Hypleurochilus bermudensis Barred blenny 1 2 0 R Holacanthus bermudensis Blue angelfish 1 2 0 R Mycteroperca venenosa Yellowfin grouper 1 0 0 R Haemulon plumieri White grunt 1 2 0 R Habitats in which species were observed: F = sand flat, G = seagrass, M = mangrove, R = rocky extremely shallow sites (depth < 30 cm), fringes, surveys were conducted in a 25 × 4 often in totally fragmented estuaries. For m area. these samples, fish species presence was Because of potential observer bias (Sale observed from above the water by one of and Sharp 1983; Cheal and Thompson the authors. Each survey was conducted for 1997), we conducted a pilot study to ensure 30 minutes in a 100 m2 area. All fishes ob- that underwater species identifications served in these sites, typically Cyprinodon were accurate (Layman and Silliman 2002). variegatus (sheepshead minnow) and Gam- A few problematic taxa were identified to busia hubbsi (Bahamas mosquitofish), were genus only, and most of these taxa were easily identified from above the water, rare. We collected specimens of one abun- though we collected some specimens to dant, yet problematic taxa, Eucinostomus verify their identification. Survey areas spp., in August 2001 and in a previous were typically conducted in areas 10 × 10 study (Layman and Silliman 2002), and m, except when habitat characteristics did identified species most likely included in not allow; for example, along mangrove this grouping: Eucinostomus jonesi (slender 238 C. A. LAYMAN ET AL. mojarra), Eucinostomus lefroyi (mottled motion categories. To test for differences in jarra), and Eucinostomus gula (silver jenny). species composition according to degree of Similar lumping of mojarra species were estuary fragmentation, we used analysis of made in other studies that employed UVC similarities (ANOSIM, Clarke and Warwick in the Caribbean (Nagelkerken et al. 2000a). 1994), a non-parametric analog of Some taxa, often juveniles, were given code MANOVA. When ANOSIM revealed sig- names (pseudo-species) to differentiate be- nificant differences, we performed similar- tween distinct members of the same genus ity percentage analysis (SIMPER, Clarke when the taxa could not be identified to and Warwick 1994) to identify species ac- species (e.g., Gobidae sp. 1). counting for differences. We also per- To avoid bias associated with pseudorep- formed a discriminant function analysis lication (Hulbert 1984), no particular site (DFA) to test for effects of a priori fragmen- was surveyed more than once, and no more tation categories on species composition. than two surveys were conducted within a This procedure predicts the fragmentation single habitat type in any estuary. If two category for each survey based on species surveys were conducted in the same habi- composition, with the null hypothesis be- tat type in the same estuary, sites were ing 25% of sites correctly classified by separated by at least 50 m, and were taken chance. in different years or in areas of the estuarine with a different fragmentation status RESULTS (e.g., when there were multiple connections We conducted 159 UVCs in 30 estuaries to marine waters). Species density was ex- on Andros Island and identified 89 fish pressed as the number of species recorded taxa (Table 2). Four taxa were observed in in the 100 m2 survey areas (following Go- more than half of the surveys: Gerres ci- telli and Colwell 2001). nereus, (yellowfin mojarra, 65% of surveys), Lutjanus griseus (gray snapper, 59%), Lutja- Statistical analysis nus apodus (schoolmaster, 57%), and Euci- nostomus spp. (mojarra spp., 51%). These We tested for differences in fish species taxa were found in all habitat types, and density due to degree of fragmentation and were common in most estuaries. The ma- habitat type using a two-factor analysis of jority of snappers were juveniles, whereas variance (ANOVA) model followed by both adult and juvenile mojarra were com- Tukey’s post-hoc tests. To compare assem- mon. Other fishes included juveniles and blage similarity/dissimilarity we used adults of commercially or recreationally Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) to com- important reef-associated species, includ- pare assemblage among samples. MDS ing Epinephalus striatus (Nassau grouper), constructs a 2-dimensional ordination in a Scarus croicensis (striped parrotfish), and manner that best represents relationships Chaetodon capistratus (foureye butterflyfish). among samples in a similarity matrix (Field Fish species density was affected by both et al. 1982; Clarke and Warwick 2001). In fragmentation category (F3,152 = 40.9, p < ordination plots, the relative distance be- 0.001) and habitat type (F3,152 = 24.5, p < tween points reflects the dissimilarity of 0.001) (Fig. 2). Tukey’s post-hoc analysis re- species composition in those samples. We vealed species density was higher in UVC calculated similarity matrices using the surveys conducted in unfragmented and Bray-Curtis similarity index (Bray and Cur- minimally fragmented estuaries than par- tis 1957). We conducted two types of MDS tially or totally fragmented estuaries, and analysis. First, we used MDS to ordinate higher in partially than totally fragmented fish assemblages from all surveys simulta- sites. There was significantly higher species neously, and analyzed ordination patterns density in rock habitats than mangroves, based on habitat type. Second, we carried and significantly higher species density in out a MDS ordination within each habitat both of these habitats than in flat and sea- type, and analyzed ordination patterns ac- grass. cording to a priori-designated fragmenta- MDS analysis of all surveys indicated FRAGMENTATION AFFECTS FISH ASSEMBLAGE 239

ily distributed. There was high similarity in assemblage composition between surveys collected in minimally fragmented and unfragmented estuaries, with degree of similarity depending on habitat type. In mangrove, rock, and flat habitats, samples from partially fragmented estuaries were characterized by assemblages that were “intermediate” in composition between that of totally fragmented and unfragmented systems. Estuary location (i.e., latitudinal position on Andros) did not appear to influence differences in fish assemblage com- FIG. 2. Mean fish species density, based on UVC position. samples, among estuaries with different degrees of Since mangrove is a common habitat in fragmentation and among habitat types. Error bars estuarine systems, and assemblages in this represent one standard deviation. We did not locate habitat apparently provided the best indi- any seagrass habitats in totally fragmented estuaries. The number above each bar represents the number of cation of degree of fragmentation, we fur- surveys conducted in that particular habitat classifica- ther analyzed mangrove survey data using tion. Small subscripts represent results of Tukey’s a Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA). post-hoc tests for differences among habitat or frag- DFA correctly classified the degree of estu- mentation category. ary fragmentation for 46 of 58 sites (79.3%, Wilks’ ⌳ = 0.045, p < 0.001) based on the overlap in fish assemblages among the presence/absence of fish taxa. Some taxa four habitat types. Despite this overlap, were particularly good indicators of frag- ANOSIM revealed significant differences mentation in mangrove sites. Cyprinodon in assemblage composition among habitats variegatus and Gambusia hubbsi were found (R = 0.23, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons only in totally fragmented estuaries, and revealed significant differences between all these species occurred in 78% and 48%, repairs of habitat types (p < 0.001), except spectively, of surveys conducted in totally between flat and seagrass (R = 0.059, p = fragmented systems (Table 2). The number 0.15). Since assemblages were found to dif- of species within specific phylogenetic (e.g., fer among habitat types, we conducted a grunts) or trophic (e.g., piscivores) groups separate MDS ordination for each habitat frequently associated with marine coral (Fig. 3). reef environments also indicated relative In three of the four habitats (seagrass the degree of fragmentation (Table 3). For ex- exception), MDS indicated a transition in ample, there were no damselfish species in assemblage composition from samples in samples from totally fragmented systems, totally fragmented estuaries to those col- 0.59 ± 0.21 species in samples from partially lected in estuaries with minimal or no frag- fragmented systems, 1.86 ± 0.34 in samples mentation. Similarity of assemblage com- from minimally fragmented systems, and position varied depending on habitat type; 2.14 ± 0.16 in samples from unfragmented ordination of samples taken from man- estuaries. grove and rock habitats revealed the largest separation among fragmentation catego- DISCUSSION ries. This can be attributed to the relatively Fish assemblages differed significantly high proportion of species that remain among sites based on a priori defined cat- within a relatively small area (e.g., within egories of estuary fragmentation. We pro- one 100 m2 survey area) during daylight pose that estuary fragmentation influences hours. In flat and seagrass habitats, by con- aquatic organisms in the following manner: trast, there was more overlap in assemblage (1) reduced tidal exchange results in de- composition because characteristic species creased habitat quality (e.g., greater salinity typically were extremely motile and patch- extremes), (2) reduced tidal exchange low- 240 C. A. LAYMAN ET AL.

FIG. 3. MDS ordination of fish assemblages based on species presence/absence data. Labels are based on a priori defined categories of estuary fragmentation. MDS analysis was conducted separately for each of the four habitat types. ers the influx of planktonic larvae and ju- aquatic habitat. This process results in shal- veniles with subsequent reduction in the lower water depths, a decrease in available colonization rate of demersal marine spe- aquatic habitat, lower dissolved oxygen, cies (e.g., Nassau grouper), and (3) non- and changes in other physiochemical pa- permeable landscape features (e.g., roads rameters (Arrington et al. unpublished without culverts) halt upstream move- manuscript). Fragmentation creates a physi- ments by transient marine species (e.g., cal barrier to movement, but also initiates bonefish). In fragmented Bahamian estuar- processes that render remaining aquatic ies, partial or total obstruction of tidal flow habitat inhospitable for many marine spe- leads to increased sediment accumulation. cies. Sediment buildup facilitates Rhizophora Fish observed in surveys on Andros Is- mangle (red mangrove) encroachment into land were similar to those described from creek channels. Mangroves further slow earlier studies in the Caribbean (e.g., water velocities, increasing sediment depo- Thayer et al. 1987; Sedberry and Carter sition, and leading to additional losses of 1993; Nagelkerken et al. 2000a, b, c). The FRAGMENTATION AFFECTS FISH ASSEMBLAGE 241

TABLE 3. Mean (± standard error) number of species of common taxa observed in UVC samples in mangrove habitats taken in estuaries of varying degrees of fragmentation.

Degree of fragmentation Partially Minimally Totally fragmented fragmented Fish group fragmented (culverts) (bridges) Unfragmented Grunt (Haemulidae spp.) 0.00 (±0.00) 0.24 (±0.14) 1.71 (±0.29) 1.29 (±0.17) Snappers (Lutjanidae spp.) 0.38 (±0.2) 1.71 (±0.25) 3.00 (±0.22) 2.90 (±0.18) Damselfishes (Pomacentridae spp.) 0.00 (±0.00) 0.59 (0.21) 1.86 (0.34) 2.14 (0.16) Piscivores 0.23 (±0.12) 0.65 (±0.19) 0.57 (±0.20) 1.43 (±0.21) The occurrences of these taxonomic and trophic groups correlate with the degree of estuary fragmentation. The “piscivore” category includes groupers, needlefish, barracuda, and tarpon. most commonly observed fishes in estuar- daily basis in association with tidal flux, ies were snappers (Lutjanus spp.) and mo- and therefore are largely dependent on jarra spp. (Gerres cinereus and Eucinostomus functional estuaries throughout their lives. spp.). Although there was much variability Assemblages in partially fragmented es- in assemblage structure among samples, tuaries were the most variable among the there was a distinct continuum in species four fragmentation categories, suggesting composition from unfragmented to totally installation of culverts may be a potentially fragmented estuaries. Unfragmented and effective means to minimize fragmentation. minimally fragmented estuaries were char- Nonetheless, this variability also indicates acterized by significantly higher species the potential inadequacy of culverts in density than partially and totally frag- maintaining hydrologic connectivity, mented estuaries, suggesting when roads which influences habitat quality, recruit- are constructed across estuaries, that ment dynamics, and migration potential by bridges (or multiple culverts) should be in- vagile species. In particular, the installation stalled to maintain fish species density. of a single culvert or small culverts (<0.5 m Sites with minimal anthropogenic fragmen- diameter) may limit hydrologic connectiv- tation supported species with a variety of ity and result in estuary degradation. Fish life histories. Some marine species periodi- assemblages in partially fragmented estu- cally enter estuaries to feed (e.g., jacks), and aries with a small culvert (or multiple col- juveniles of other species utilize estuaries lapsed culverts) were most similar to those as nursery grounds. For example, Nassau in totally fragmented estuaries, with only grouper enter estuaries as larvae and early small snapper, mosquitofish, and sheeps- juveniles (Eggleston et al. 1998), and they head minnow common. Those species can then undergo ontogenetic shifts in habitat tolerate shallow water depths (<0.1 m), low occupancy until they emigrate from estuar- salinities (<5 ppt), and high temperatures ies to patch reefs and ultimately deep off- (>42 °C), which characterize highly frag- shore reefs (Dahlgren and Eggleston 2001). mented estuaries. Field observations sug- Both juvenile and adults of other reef- gest the most effective design is the place- associated species, including damselfish, ment of multiple culverts arranged along parrotfish, angelfish, and wrasses, are com- an entire blockage (i.e. road) throughout mon in estuaries with a low degree of frag- the extent of the estuary, allowing a greater mentation. Juvenile snappers and grunts, volume of water to pass per tidal cycle and abundant along mangrove fringes of mini- more natural “sheet” flooding. Greater mally fragmented and unfragmented estu- tidal exchange increases water depth up- aries, either may move to marine habitats stream of the blockage, reclaiming addi- as adults or complete their life cycle in es- tional aquatic habitats. Multiple culverts tuaries. Other species, such as the recre- also allow more access points to upstream ationally important bonefish (Albula vul- habitat, likely increasing overall recruit- pes), may enter estuaries to forage on a ment of juvenile and adult organisms. For 242 C. A. LAYMAN ET AL. example, species density in partially frag- project. Margo Blackwell (Bahamas Envi- mented estuaries with multiple culverts ronmental Research Center), Jeff Birch was within the range found in minimally (Small Hope Bay Lodge), Mike and Petegay fragmented and unfragmented estuaries, Hartman (Tiamo Resort), and staff of the and reef-associated species were commonly FORFAR research station provided logisti- observed in estuaries. cal support. “Bonefish” Simon Bain, Jeff There is a need to further quantify crite- Cartwright, and Andy Bair helped us ac- ria that can be used to evaluate ecosystem cess remote parts of Andros. Jerry McCor- “health” (sensu Rapport et al. 1998) of estu- mick-Ray provided photographic and other aries. One approach is a faunal-based sys- field assistance. Kirk Winemiller provided tem similar to the Index of Biotic Integrity support for the project in numerous ways. (see Whittier and Hughes 2001), in which William Loftus, Jerry Lorenz, G. Carleton presence or absence of specific taxa can be Ray, and Kirk Winemiller provided valu- used as quantifiable metrics. We identified able comments that improved the quality six potential metrics based on our extensive of this manuscript. dataset: (1) total number of species, (2) number of species tolerant of extreme sa- LITERATURE CITED linity (i.e. mosquitofish, sheepshead minnow), (3) number of grunt species, (4) num- Ackerman, J. L., and D. R. Bellwood. 2000. Reef fish ber of snapper species, (5) number of assemblages: a re-evaluation using enclosed rote- none stations. Mar. Ecol-Prog. Ser. 206:227-237. damselfish species, and (6) number of pis- Acosta, C. A., and M. J. Butler. 1997. Role of mangrove civorous fish species (e.g., groupers, barra- habitat as a nursery for juvenile spiny lobster, cuda). Each of these metrics was shown to Panulirus argus, in Belize. Mar. Freshwater Res. 48: discriminate, to some degree, among as- 721-727. semblages in estuaries with different de- Anisfeld, S. C., and G. Benoit. 1997. Impacts of flow grees of fragmentation. Data from other restrictions on salt marshes: an instance of acidifi- Caribbean islands are needed to further re- cation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31:1650-1657. Anisfeld, S. C., M. J. Tobin, and G. Benoit. 1999. Sedi- fine these metrics and identify other faunal mentation rates in flow-restricted and restored salt indicators. marshes in Long Island Sound. Estuaries 22:231- Critical to the design and implementa- 244. tion of estuarine conservation and restora- Bray, J. R., and J. C. Curtis. 1957. An ordination of the tion initiatives is a better understanding of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. the effect of fragmentation on ecosystem Ecol. Monogr. 27:325-349. structure (e.g., species assemblages) and Brock, R. E. 1982. A critique of the visual census method for assessing coral reef fish populations. B. ecosystem function (e.g., energy flow). Mar. Sci. 32:269-276. Data collected with UVC provide infor- Brock, V. E. 1954. A preliminary report on a method of mation that can be used to this end, and estimating reef fish populations. J. Wildlife Manage. may provide be a primary tool for design- 18:297-308. ing management strategies for estuaries Burdick, D. M., M. Dionne, R. M. Boumans, and F. T. throughout the Caribbean. Short. 1997. Ecological responses to tidal restora- tions of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetlands Ecology Man. 4:129-144. Cheal, A. J., and A. A. Thompson. 1997. Comparing Acknowledgments.—This project was visual counts of coral reef fish: implications of tran- made possible by the assistance, guidance sect width and species selection. Mar. Ecol-Prog. and support of G. Carleton Ray at the Uni- Ser. 158:241-248. versity of Virginia Department of Environ- Clarke, K. R., and R. M. Warwick. 2001. Change in mental Sciences. The Henry Foundation of marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis Washington D.C. and Acorn Alcinda Foun- and interpretation. Plymouth, UK: PRIMER-E Ltd. dation funded this research. Permits MAF/ Clarke, K. R., and W. M. Warwick. 1994. Similarity- based testing for community pattern: the 2-way FIS 12 and MAF/FIS 17 provided by the layout with no replication. Mar. Biol. 118:167-176. Bahamas Department of Fisheries, and sup- Dahlgren, C. P., and D. B. Eggleston. 2001. Spatio- port by the Andros Conservancy and Trust, temporal variability in abundance, size, and micro- were essential to the completion of the habitat associations of early juvenile Nassau grou- FRAGMENTATION AFFECTS FISH ASSEMBLAGE 243

per Epinephelus striatus in an off-reef nursery Leibowitz, S. G. 2003. Isolated wetlands and their system. Mar. Ecol-Prog. Ser. 217:145-156. functions: an ecological perspective. Wetlands 23: Deegan, L. A. 1993. Nutrient and energy transport be- 517-531. tween estuaries and coastal marine ecosystems by Lindeman, K. C., R. Pugliese, G. T. Waugh, and J. S. fish migration. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:74-79. Ault. 2000. Developmental patterns within a mul- Dionne, M., F. T. Short, and D. M. Burdick. 1999. Fish tispecies reef fishery: Management applications for utilization of restored, created, and reference salt- essential fish habitats and protected areas. B. Mar. marsh habitat in the Gulf of Maine. American Fish- Sci. 66:929-956. eries Society Symposium 22:384-404. Murphy, B. R., and D. W. Willis (editors). 1996. Fish- Dynesius, M., and C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation eries Techniques, Second Edition. Bethesda, Mary- and flow regulation of river systems in the north- land, USA: American Fisheries Society. ern third of the world. Science 266:753-762. Nagelkerken, I., M. Dorenbosch, W. C. E. P. Verbeck, Eggleston, D. B., J. J. Grover, and R. N. Lipicuis. 1998. E. Cocheret de la Morinie`re, and G. van der Velde. Ontogenetic diet shifts in Nassau grouper: trophic 2000a. Importance of shallow-water biotopes of a linkages and predatory impact. B. Mar. Sci. 63:111- Caribbean bay for juvenile coral reef fishes: pat- 126. terns in biotope association, community structure Field, J. G., K. R. Clarke, and R. M. Warwick. 1982. A and spatial distribution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 202: practical strategy for analyzing multi-species dis- 175-192. tribution patterns. Mar. Ecol-Prog. Ser. 8:37-53. Nagelkerken, I., M. Dorenbosch, W. C. E. P. Verberk, Gotelli, N. J., and R. K. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying E. Cocheret de la Morinie`re and G. van der Velde. biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the mea- 2000b. Day-night shifts of fishes between shallow- surement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. water biotopes of a Caribbean bay, with emphasis Lett. 4:379-391. on the nocturnal feeding of Haemulidae and Lut- Gray, C. A., R. C. Chick, and D. J. McElligott. 1998. janidae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 194:55-64. Diel changes in assemblages of fishes associated Nagelkerken, I., G. van der Velde, M. W. Gorissen, G. with shallow seagrass and bare sand. Estuar. Coast. J. Meijer, T. van’t Hof and C. den Hartog. 2000c. Shelf. 46:849-859. Importance of mangroves, seagrass beds and the Gray, C. A., D. J. McElligott, and R. C. Chick. 1996. shallow coral reef as a nursery for important coral Intra- and inter-estuary differences in assemblages reef fishes, using a visual census technique. Estuar. of fishes associated with shallow seagrass and bare Coast. Shelf Sci. 51:31-44. sand. Mar. Freshwater Res. 47:723-735. Newell, N. D., J. K. Rigby, A. J. Whiteman, and J. S. Guidetti, P. 2000. Differences among fish assemblages Bradley. 1951. Shoal-water geology and environ- associated with nearshore Posidonia oceanica sea- ments, eastern Andros Island, Bahamas. Bull. Am. grass beds, rocky-algal reefs and unvegetated sand Mus. Nat. Hist. 97. habitats in the Adriatic Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. 50: Odum, W. E. 1971. Pathways of energy flow in a South 515-529. Florida estuary. University of Miami Program Sea Hulbert, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design Grant Technological Bulletin 7:1-162. of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54: Peck, M. A., P. E. Fell, E. A. Allen, J. A. Gieg, C. R. 187-211. Guthke, and M. D. Newkirk. 1994. Evaluation of Jenkins, G. P., and M. J. Wheatley. 1998. The influence tidal marsh restoration: comparison of selected of habitat structure on nearshore fish assemblages macroinvertebrate populations on a restored im- in a southern Australian embayment: comparison pounded valley marsh and an unimpounded val- of shallow seagrass, reef-algal, and unvegetated ley marsh within the same salt marsh system in sand habitats, with emphasis on their importance Connecticut, USA. Environ. Manage. 18:283-293. to recruitment. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 221:147-172. Portnoy, J. W. 1999. Salt marsh diking and restoration: Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using biogeochemical implications of altered wetland hy- fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27. drology Environ. Manage. 24:111-120. Kulbicki, M. 1998. How the acquired behavior of com- Portnoy, J. W., and A. E. Giblin. 1997. Effects of his- mercial reef fishes may influence the results ob- toric tidal restrictions on salt marsh sediment tained from visual census. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. chemistry. Biogeochemistry 36:275-303. 222:11-30. Pringle, C. M. 2001. Hydrologic connectivity and the Laegdsgaard, P., and C. R. Johnson. 1995. Mangrove management of biological reserves: a global per- habitats as nurseries: unique assemblages of juve- spective. Ecol. App. 11:981-998. nile fish in subtropical mangroves in eastern Aus- Rapport, D. J., R. Costanza, and A. J. McMicheal. 1998. tralia. Mar. Ecol-Prog. Ser. 126:67-81. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: Layman, C. A., and B. R. Silliman. 2002. Preliminary 397-402. survey and diet analysis of juvenile fishes of an Robblee, M. B., and J. C. Zieman. 1984. Diel variation estuarine creek on Andros Island, Bahamas. B. in the fish fauna of a tropical seagrass feeding Mar. Sci. 70:199-210. ground. B. Mar. Sci. 34:335-345. Lee, S. Y. 1995. Mangrove Outwelling—a Review. Hy- Robertson, A. I., and N. C. Duke. 1987. Mangroves as drobiologia 295:203-212. nursery sites: comparisons of the abundance and 244 C. A. LAYMAN ET AL.

species composition of fish and crustaceans in for the Bahamian Archipelago.—Jupiter, Florida: mangroves and other nearshore habitats in tropical Taras Oceanographic Foundation. Australia. Mar. Biol. 96:193-205. Thayer, G. W., D. R. Colby, and W. F. Hettler, Jr. 1987. Roman, C. T., W. A. Niering, and R. S. Warren. 1984. Utilization of the red mangrove prop root habitat Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal by fishes in south Florida. Mar. Ecol-Prog. Ser. 35: restriction. Environ. Manage. 8:141-150. 25-38. Roman, C. T., K. B. Raposa, S. C. Adamowicz, M.-J. Thresher, R. E., and J. S. Gunn. 1986. Comparative James-Pirri, and J. G. Catena. 2002. Quantifying analysis of visual census techniques for highly mo- vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration bile, reef-associated piscivores (Carangidae). Envi- of a New England salt marsh. Rest. Ecol. 10:450-460. ron. Biol. Fish. 17:93-116. Rooker, J. R., and J. D. Dennis. 1991. Diel, lunar, and Weinstein, M. P., and K. L. Heck, Jr. 1979. Ichthyo- seasonal changes in a mangrove fish assemblage fauna of seagrass meadows along the Caribbean off Southwestern Puerto Rico. B. Mar. Sci. 9:684- coast of Panama and in the Gulf of Mexico: com- 698. position, structure, and community ecology. Mar. Biol. 50:97-107. Sale, P. F., and B. J. Sharp. 1983. Correction for bias in Whittier, T. R., and R. M. Hughes. 2001. Comment: test visual transects of coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs 2: of an index of biotic integrity. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 37-42. 130:169-172. Sedberry, G. R., and J. Carter. 1993. The fish commu- Willis, T. J. 2001. Visual census methods underesti- nity of a shallow tropical lagoon in Belize, Central mate density and diversity of cryptic reef fishes. J. America. Estuaries 16:198-215. Fish Biol. 59:1408-1411. Sinicrope, T. L., P. G. Hine, R. S. Warren, and W. A. Willis, T. J., R. B. Miller, and R. C. Babcock. 2000. De- Niering. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt tection of spatial variability in relative density of marsh in New England. Estuaries 13:25-60. fishes: comparison of visual census, angling, and Sullivan-Sealey, K., B. Brunnick, S. Harzen, C. Luton, baited underwater video. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 198: V. Nero, and L. Flowers. 2002. An Ecoregional Plan 249-260. Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone

Saudamini Dasa,b and Jeffrey R. Vincentc,1 aSwami Shradhanand College, University of Delhi, Delhi 110036, India; bInstitute of Economic Growth, Delhi 110007, India; and cNicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

Edited by Gretchen C. Daily, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved March 12, 2009 (received for review October 16, 2008) Protection against coastal disasters has been identified as an might have affected the observed number of deaths. We are important service of mangrove ecosystems. Empirical studies on aware of only one other study on the impact of mangroves on this service have been criticized, however, for using small samples damage from this storm, and it analyzed just 3 villages (16). and inadequately controlling for confounding factors. We used The 1999 storm killed nearly 10,000 people, more than 70% data on several hundred villages to test the impact of mangroves of them drowned by its surge (17). The state of Orissa was hit on human deaths during a 1999 super cyclone that struck Orissa, hardest. We analyzed village-level data from Kendrapada Dis- India. We found that villages with wider mangroves between them trict, which is a low-income, predominantly agricultural district and the coast experienced significantly fewer deaths than ones in the state just north of the cyclone’s landfall (Fig. 1). We with narrower or no mangroves. This finding was robust to the focused on the 4 administrative units (tahasils) of the district that inclusion of a wide range of other variables to our statistical model, were inundated by the storm surge (17). This portion of the including controls for the historical extent of mangroves. Although district is low-lying, with an average elevation of just a few meters mangroves evidently saved fewer lives than an early warning (District Planning Map for Cuttack, Jajpur, Kendrapada and issued by the government, the retention of remaining mangroves Jagatsinghpur of Orissa, Reg. No. 112-NA/DP-1000–1000, Na- in Orissa is economically justified even without considering the tional Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organisation, Calcutta, many benefits they provide to human society besides storm- 2000) and a maximum elevation of 5.61 m (18). In comparison, protection services. the height of the storm surge at the coast is estimated to have reached 5.9 m (19). Potential surge barriers included saltwater ecosystem services ͉ India ͉ forest ͉ storm protection ͉ natural disaster dikes in low-lying farmland, a few narrow (0.2–0.4 km) strips of casuarinas planted on coastal dunes, and mangroves. Trees in the he ability of mangroves to reduce damage caused by tsunamis genera Avicennia, Ceriops, Excoecaria, and Heritiera dominate Tand tropical storms is reportedly one of the most underval- Kendrapada’s mangroves, with canopy heights rising from 2–3 m ued ecosystem services provided by such forests (1), but evidence on the coast to 20 m inland (20, 21).

supporting this claim is controversial. Studies conducted soon We analyzed the number of storm-related deaths in the 4 SCIENCE

after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami reported that mangroves tahasils. Although 564 villages in the 4 tahasils were inundated SUSTAINABILITY acted as bioshields, with villages located behind them suffering by the storm surge, we limited our sample to the 409 villages that less damage than ones directly exposed to the coast (2, 3). In historically (as of 1944) had mangroves between them and the response to these findings and anecdotal evidence, organizations coast. We did this to ensure that any observed absence of such as the United Nations Environment Program have empha- mangroves as of 1999 was due to the loss of vegetation, not sized rehabilitating ecosystems as a first line of tsunami defense unsuitable habitat. Loss of mangroves represents the ‘‘treat- (4). Subsequent publications criticized the initial studies, how- ment’’ in our study. Our null hypothesis was that, conditional on ever, for being based on small samples and failing to control for population and other relevant factors, villages with wider re- confounding factors such as distance to coast (5–8). One recent maining mangroves between them and the coast had the same review concluded that the value of coastal vegetation as a average number of deaths during the 1999 storm as villages with tsunami buffer is minor (9), and some critics have argued that narrower or no mangroves. We tested this hypothesis by (i) promoting coastal green belts to guard against tsunamis diverts compiling 1999 village-level socioeconomic data; (ii) using a GIS funding from early warning systems and evacuation programs to measure the villages’ spatial characteristics, such as 1999 and creates social injustices if rehabilitation projects evict coastal mangrove width; (iii) using regression methods to estimate residents (6). single-equation count-data models (poisson and negative bino- Some researchers who are skeptical about the ability of mial) that related the number of deaths to 1999 mangrove width, mangroves to protect against tsunamis have noted that man- while controlling for potentially confounding variables (e.g., groves might be more capable of protecting against tropical distance to coast and height of storm surge); and (iv) checking storm surges (6, 10). Storm surges differ from tsunamis in having whether the regression coefficient on 1999 mangrove width was shorter wavelengths and relatively more of their energy near the significantly different from zero. See Data and Methods for water surface (9). Theoretical models indicate that mangroves additional details. attenuate shorter waves more than longer waves (11), and field Our study’s focus on storm-surge damage, its village-level experiments confirm that relatively narrow strips of mangrove detail, and the range of controls we included distinguish it from can substantially reduce the energy of wind-driven waves (12, a recent province-level study in Thailand, which reported that 13). Although the ability of mangroves to provide protection against tropical storm surges has been debated since at least 1970 (14, 15), empirical studies that avoid the shortcomings of the Author contributions: S.D. designed research; S.D. performed research; S.D. and J.R.V. tsunami studies are lacking. analyzed data; and S.D. and J.R.V. wrote the paper. Here we show that mangroves were associated with statisti- The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. cally significant reductions in human deaths during a super This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. cyclone that struck the eastern coast of India in October 1999. 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. Compared with the tsunami studies, we analyzed a much larger This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/ sample and controlled for a much wider range of factors that 0810440106/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0810440106 PNAS ͉ May 5, 2009 ͉ vol. 106 ͉ no. 18 ͉ 7357–7360 Fig. 2. Deaths per village during October 29, 1999, cyclone plotted against the October 11, 1999, width of mangroves between each village and the coast. Data are from 409 villages in the 4 tahasils of Kendrapada District, Orissa state, India, that were inundated by the storm surge.

we added this control implies that remaining vegetation did indeed play a protective role. The cyclone made landfall on October 29. On October 26, the Orissa state government issued a warning to residents of Fig. 1. Map of study site in Kendrapada District, Orissa state, India. Main villages within 10 km of the coast. Nearly 150,000 people from map: black line represents district boundary; brown lines show boundaries of 4 districts, including Kendrapada, evacuated before the storm 4 tahasils inundated by storm surge; blue line is 10 km from the coast. Inset struck (17). To capture the impact of the warning, we allowed the map: black line shows Orissa state boundary; dot represents the study site. regression constant and the coefficient on population to differ between the 154 villages within 10 km of the coast and the 255 mangroves reduced the incidence of coastal natural disasters (of villages beyond. The coefficient on 1999 mangrove width re- all types, not just storm surges) during 1979–1996 (22). mained negative and significant, but the regression constant was much smaller for villages within 10 km than for those beyond Results (Table S4). This difference is consistent with the warning having Mangrove Loss and Storm-Related Deaths. We measured mangrove a lifesaving impact, and its magnitude implies that the warning width as the distance between the coast and the interior bound- saved 5.84 lives per village within 10 km (Table S5). (The actual ary of the forest along the shortest distance from each village to average death rate in these villages was 0.77.) To check this the coast. Average 1999 width across the 409 villages was 1.2 km, interpretation, we estimated the same model with the dependent down from 5.1 km in 1944. Total mangrove area fell from 30,766 variable (i.e., number of deaths) replaced by various measures of ha to 17,900 ha during the same period. Spontaneous agricultural damage to houses, which being immobile should be less affected expansion, mostly for rice, was the main cause, not government by the warning. Consistent with our interpretation, the 2 con- programs or commercial aquaculture (21). Remaining mangroves were in 2 major blocks. All were natural forests, with 93% being densely stocked according to the definition used by the Table 1. Estimates of regression coefficient on 1999 mangrove Forest Survey of India (canopy cover Ͼ40%) (23). width: Full sample (409 villages) The total number of deaths across the villages was 256, for an Coefficient estimate: average of 0.63 (average village population ϭ 1,002). The Regressors in model, in addition to village 1999 mangrove maximum was 21, and 307 villages had no deaths. The simple population width correlation of number of deaths with 1999 mangrove width was negative and significant (r ϭϪ0.13, P Ͻ 0.01; Fig. 2). Only 1999 mangrove width –0.631*** Add to above: 1944 mangrove width –0.515*** Regression Results: Full Sample. Our regression results rejected the Add to above: Height of storm surge at coast –0.524*** hypothesis that 1999 mangrove width did not affect storm- Add to above: Topography (three 0–1 –0.519*** related deaths (Table 1). (See Table S3 for full regression dummy variables: low elevation, casuarina results.) The coefficient on 1999 mangrove width was negative buffer, seawater dike) and statistically significant (P Ͻ 0.01) when this variable was the Add to above: Distances to: coast, minor –0.507*** only regressor other than population. It remained significant and rivers, major rivers, nearest road changed little in magnitude as controls were progressively added Add to above: Socioeconomic characteristics: –0.505*** for 1944 mangrove width; height of storm surge; topography; literacy rate, population share in scheduled distances to the coast and other landscape features; socioeco- castes, population shares in 5 occupations nomic characteristics; and government administration (the Add to above: Government administration –0.485*** tahasildar is responsible for emergency response systems). The (0–1 dummy variable for each tahasil) 1944 mangrove width is an important control because mangroves Estimates are from zero-inflated negative binomial models of number of tend to occur in sheltered areas, which suggests that physical deaths in villages in Kendrapada District, Orissa, India, during October 1999 aspects of their habitat, not the vegetation itself, could be cyclone. Variables were progressively added to those in preceding rows. responsible for reducing damage (10, 24). The fact that the ***P Ͻ 0.01 (two-tailed z tests). See Tables S1–S3 for variable descriptions and coefficient on 1999 mangrove width remained significant when complete regression results.

7358 ͉ www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0810440106 Das and Vincent Table 2. Estimates of coefﬁcients on mangrove variables: mangroves in 1999 was 172,970 rupees per hectare (personal Subsample of villages within 10 km of coast (154 villages) communication, J. Dash, Indo-Asian News Service, Bhu- Model and mangrove variable Coefﬁcient estimate baneswar, Orissa, June 10, 2007), which in turn implies that the average opportunity cost of saving a life by retaining mangroves Model 1: Base model was 11.7 million rupees per life saved. This is less than the value 1999 mangrove width –1.64*** of reductions in mortality risks implied by wage differentials in Model 2: Add interaction with height of storm India, which has been estimated as ranging from 13.7–14.2 surge million rupees (25) to 55.5–60.6 million rupees (26) per avoided 1999 mangrove width –0.35 death (we used the Indian consumer price index to convert the 1999 mangrove width ϫ height of storm –1.24 original estimates to the 1999 price level). surge at coast Model 3: Drop 1999 mangrove width Discussion 1999 mangrove width ϫ height of storm –1.54*** Mangroves significantly reduced the number of deaths during surge at coast the 1999 cyclone that struck the eastern coast of India. Statistical Model 4: Split interaction term according to evidence of this lifesaving effect is robust, with the coefficient on height of storm surge 1999 mangrove width in our village-level regression analysis 1999 mangrove width ϫ below-mean height –1.85*** remaining highly significant after we controlled for a wide range of storm surge at coast of potentially confounding environmental and socioeconomic 1999 mangrove width ϫ above-mean height –1.36*** variables. By controlling for historical mangrove width, we of storm surge at coast revealed that the beneficial effect was mainly due to mangrove Estimates are from Poisson models of number of deaths in villages in vegetation, not physical characteristics of mangrove habitat. Kendrapada District, Orissa, India, during October 1999 cyclone. Other vari- Human impacts on the ecosystem (i.e., deforestation) thus ables in the models were the same as in the model described in the last row of affected the death toll. We emphasize that our findings refer only Table 1. to deaths associated with tropical storms and might not apply to ***P Ͻ 0.01 (two-tailed z tests); unmarked estimates, P Ͼ 0.1. See Table S7 for tsunamis, which we did not study. variable descriptions and complete regression results. Although an early warning issued by the government evidently saved more lives than mangroves did, our simple comparison of costs and benefits indicates that protecting remaining mangroves stants were not significantly different from each other in the in Orissa is economically justified. And our comparison likely house-damage models (Table S6). understates the case for protecting remaining mangroves, for 2 reasons. First, it ignores the value of the many other goods and Regression Results: Subsample of Villages Within 10 km of Coast. In services that mangroves provide (1). Second, it also ignores lives view of the apparent difference between villages within and saved by mangroves during future storms: severe cyclonic floods beyond 10 km of the coast, we reestimated the model separately occur in Orissa every 10 years, and moderate floods occur every for the 2 subsamples. The coefficient on 1999 mangrove width 4 years (27). The case for mangrove protection would be even SCIENCE

Ͻ SUSTAINABILITY was significant (P 0.05) only for the subsample within 10 km, stronger if we accounted for these additional benefits. and it was much larger than in the full sample (model 1 in Table 2). Mangroves evidently provided significant protection only Data and Methods within 10 km of the coast. If the impact of mangroves was indeed Data. We used October 11, 1999, images from the LISS-III Pan sensor of Indian due to attenuation of the storm surge, then the coefficient on satellite IRS-1D (23.58 m resolution) to map mangrove area just before the 1999 mangrove width should become insignificant when the cyclone and a 1:250,000 U.S. Army map to determine the historical area (India interaction of that variable with storm surge is added to the and Pakistan AMS topographic maps, NF 45–14 Cuttack, Perry-Castan˜ eda model. This was the case (model 2). Although the interaction Library Map Collection, University of Texas at Austin; www.lib.utexas.edu/ term was also insignificant, it was less so than the mangrove maps/ams/india/nf-45–14.jpg). The latter was based on 1929–1931 ground variable (P Ͻ 0.138 vs. P Ͻ 0.701), and it became significant (P Ͻ surveys, updated by 1944 aerial photographs. Extensive mangrove destruction 0.01) when we dropped the latter from the model (model 3). did not start in Orissa until feudal land ownership was abolished in 1952 (28). We measured the height of the storm surge along the coast from a surge Furthermore, if mangroves are less able to attenuate larger envelope curve constructed by the Indian Meteorological Department (19). storm surges, then the coefficient on the interaction term should We used ArcView 3.2 to construct the spatial variables. We measured the be smaller if the interaction is constructed using storm surge distance of each village from the coast in 3 directions (southeast, east, north- values above the mean rather than below. This too was the case east) and set the distance to coast equal to the minimum value. The minimum (model 4). value was southeastern for most villages (63%) and eastern for nearly all of the As a final check, we added the distance of each village from rest (33%). We used the same direction in measuring 1944 and 1999 mangrove the path of the cyclone eye to model 4 in Table 2. Average wind widths and height of the storm surge. The Kendrapada coast runs in a velocity is known to fall off with this distance. If deaths in our northeasterly direction (Fig. 1), and the cyclone came from the southeast, so sampled villages were due mainly to high winds, then the storm for most villages the direction used was perpendicular to the coast and parallel to the cyclone path. The addition of dummy variables to control for the surge variables should lose significance when we add this vari- direction of the distance measurements did not change the regression results able. Instead, the magnitudes and significance levels of the significantly, and the coefficients on these variables were not significantly coefficients on the storm surge variables changed little when we different from zero (details available upon request). added this variable, and the coefficient on the latter was insig- The 3 topographical variables were 0–1 dummy variables, defined (in turn) nificant (Table S8). as villages being located within the 1944 mangrove boundary (a proxy for low elevation), having a casuarina shelterbelt between them and the coast, or Predicted Impacts of Loss of Remaining Mangroves. Using model 4 having a seawater dike within their boundaries. The government administra- in Table 2, we predicted that there would have been 1.72 tion variables were also dummy variables, with one variable for each tahasil in the sample. We constructed socioeconomic variables for 1999 by interpolating additional deaths per village within 10 km of the coast if values from the 1991 and 2001 population censuses. Occupation shares re- mangrove width had been reduced to zero (Table S9). This is a ferred to 5 categories: cultivators, agricultural laborers, workers in home measure of the lifesaving impact of the mangroves that remained industries, marginal workers, and other workers. Means were not significantly in 1999. It implies that the remaining mangroves saved 0.0148 different (P Ͻ 0.05) between villages with mangroves (i.e., 1999 mangrove lives per hectare. The average price of agricultural land near width 0) and ones without mangroves for any of the socioeconomic vari-

Das and Vincent PNAS ͉ May 5, 2009 ͉ vol. 106 ͉ no. 18 ͉ 7359 ables. The ‘‘control’’ and ‘‘treatment’’ villages were thus not different on the the clustered and robust standard errors and with the lack of overdispersion basis of observable socioeconomic characteristics. in the sample of villages within 10 km of the coast (29). Two villages had an unusually large (Ͼ10) number of deaths. Excluding Regression Analysis. We used standard tests (␹2 goodness-of-fit test for pois- these villages did not significantly change the coefficient on 1999 mangrove son, likelihood ratio tests for overdispersion and zero inflation, Vuong test) to width in either the full sample or the subsample of villages within 10 km of the determine the appropriate count-data estimator (poisson or negative bino- coast (details available upon request). The findings thus do not appear to be mial, with or without zero-inflation adjustment). The preferred estimators driven by outliers. were zero-inflated negative binomial for the full sample and standard poisson for the subsample of villages within 10 km of the coast. The significance of the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank K. Chopra and members of the South Asian coefficient on 1999 mangrove width changed little when standard errors of Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE) for help- the coefficients were clustered by gram panchayat (an administrative unit ful comments during the research; S. K. Dash and C. Singh for technical support on meteorological issues; A. Das and Digital Cartography and Services (Bhu- between tahasil and village), to account for nonindependence of errors baneswar) for assistance with GIS analysis and mapping; J. Dash and the between nearby villages, or constructed using the robust Huber-White sand- Emergency Department of the Government of Orissa (Kendrapada) for human wich formula, to account for unequal variances across villages (Table S10). casualty data; and B. R. Vincent for inputting manuscript revisions. This work Moran’s I statistic indicated that regression errors were not spatially corre- was supported in part by SANDEE, with research facilities provided by the lated (details available upon request), which is consistent with the similarity of Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi.

1. Barbier EB, et al. (2008) Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear eco- 17. Gupta MC, Sharma VK (2000) Orissa Super Cyclone 99 (New United Press, New logical functions and values. Science 319:321–323. Delhi). 2. Danielsen F, et al. (2005) The Asian tsunami: A protective role for coastal vegetation. 18. Directorate of Ground Water Survey and Investigation (2004) Report on Hydrological Science 310:643. Study of Orissa (Water Resource Department, State Government of Orissa, Bhu- 3. Kathiresan K, Rajendran N (2005) Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami. Estuar baneswar, India). Coast Shelf Sci 65:601–606. 19. Kalsi SR, Jayanthi N, Roy Bhowmik SK (2004) A Review of Different Storm Surge Models 4. United Nations Environment Programme (2006) After the Tsunami: Rapid Environ- and Estimated Storm Surge Height in Respect of Orissa Supercyclonic Storm of 29 mental Assessment (United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi). October, 1999 (Indian Meteorological Department, New Delhi). 5. Baird AH, Kerr AM (2008) Landscape analysis and tsunami damages in Aceh: Comment 20. Choudury, BP (1994) in Forest, Wildlife, Environment, ed Subha Rao, MV (Andhra Univ on Iverson and Prasad (2007). Landscape Ecol 23:3–5. Press, Visakhapatnam, India), pp 33–41. 6. Kerr AM, Baird AH (2007) Natural barriers to natural disasters. BioScience 57:102–103. 21. Orissa Remote Sensing Application Centre (2002) Application of Remote Sensing 7. Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2006) Coastal vegetation and the Asian tsunami. for Coastal Habitat Studies in Mangroves in Bhitarkanika Sanctuary, Orissa (De- Science 311:37. partment of Science and Technology, State Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar, 8. Kerr AM, Baird AH, Campbell SJ (2006) Comments on ‘Coastal mangrove forests India). mitigated tsunami.’ Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 67:539–541. 22. Barbier EB (2007) Valuing ecosystems as productive inputs. Econ Policy 22:177– 9. Cochard R, et al. (2008) The 2004 tsunami in Aceh and Southern Thailand: A review on 229. coastal ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 10:3–40. 23. Forest Survey of India (2001) The State of Forest Report (Ministry of Environment and 10. Chatenoux B, Peduzzi P (2007) Impacts from the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: Analyzing Forests, Government of India, Dehradun). the potential protecting role of environmental features. Nat Hazards 40:289–304. 24. Feagin RA (2008) Vegetation’s role in coastal protection. Science 320:176–177. 11. Massel SR, Furukawa K, Brinkman RM (1999) Surface wave propagation in mangrove forests. Fluid Dyn Res 24:219–249. 25. Madheswaran S (2007) Measuring the value of statistical life: Estimating compensating 12. Mazda Y, Magi M, Kogo M, Hong PN (1997) Mangroves as a coastal protection from wage differentials among workers in India. Soc Indic Res 84:83–96. waves in the Tong King Delta, Vietnam. Mangroves and Salt Marshes 1:127–135. 26. Shanmugam KR (2006) Rate of time preference and the quantity adjusted value of life 13. Mazda Y, Michimasa M, Ikeda Y, Kurokawa T, Tetsumi A (2006) Wave reduction in a in India. Environ Dev Econ 11:569–583. mangrove forest dominated by Sonneratia sp. Wetlands Ecol Manage 14:365–378. 27. Chittibabu P, et al. (2004) Mitigation of ﬂooding and cyclone hazard in Orissa, India. 14. Chapman VJ (1971) Mangroves v. tidal waves. Biol Conserv 4:39. Nat Hazards 31:455–485. 15. Fosberg FR (1971) Mangroves v. tidal waves. Biol Conserv 4:38–39. 28. The Gazetteers Unit (1996) Orissa District Gazetteers, Cuttack (Department of Reve- 16. Badola R, Hussain SA (2005) Valuing ecosystem functions: An empirical study on the nue, State Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar, India). storm protection function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India. Environ Con- 29. Grifﬁth DA, Haining R (2006) Beyond mule kicks: The poisson distribution in geograph- serv 32:85–92. ical analysis. Geogr Anal 38:123–139.

7360 ͉ www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0810440106 Das and Vincent Global economic potential for reducing carbon dioxide SEE COMMENTARY emissions from mangrove loss

Juha Siikamäkia,1, James N. Sanchiricoa,b, and Sunny L. Jardinec aResources for the Future, Washington, DC 20036; and bDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy and cDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616

Edited by Gretchen C. Daily, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved June 29, 2012 (received for review January 11, 2012) Mangroves are among the most threatened and rapidly disappearing become prominent in international climate negotiations, under the natural environments worldwide. In addition to supporting a wide United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and range of other ecological and economic functions, mangroves store in various regional and state programs, such as the recently rolled- considerable carbon. Here, we consider the global economic poten- out California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB tial for protecting mangroves based exclusively on their carbon. We 32 (13), as well as various bilateral agreements, such as the Indo- develop unique high-resolution global estimates (5′ grid, about 9 × 9 nesia-Norway REDD partnership (14). A REDD-type program to km) of the projected carbon emissions from mangrove loss and the promote the conservation of mangroves and coastal ecosystems cost of avoiding the emissions. Using these spatial estimates, we de- more broadly has been suggested and may be warranted (15). rive global and regional supply curves (marginal cost curves) for Although the knowledge of mangrove carbon storage has im- avoided emissions. Under a broad range of assumptions, we find proved in recent years (2, 8, 10, 15), a paucity of economic as- that the majority of potential emissions from mangroves could be sessments of a potential carbon-credit system, similar to that of avoided at less than $10 per ton of CO2. Given the recent range of REDD programs, exist for mangroves (15). Here, our purpose is market price for carbon offsets and the cost of reducing emissions to address this gap by estimating the economic costs and benefits from other sources, this finding suggests that protecting mangroves of protecting mangroves to maintain their carbon storage. Al- for their carbon is an economically viable proposition. Political-econ- though the overall scope of our assessment is global (Fig. 1), we omy considerations related to the ability of doing business in devel- address essential spatial variation in various biophysical and SCIENCE oping countries, however, can severely limit the supply of offsets and economic conditions by developing localized estimates of the key SUSTAINABILITY fi increases their price per ton. We also nd that although a carbon- variables, such as carbon storage (above ground, below ground, focused conservation strategy does not automatically target areas and soil carbon), mangrove loss rates, and the opportunity cost of most valuable for biodiversity, implementing a biodiversity-focused avoiding emissions (preserving mangroves). strategy would only slightly increase the costs. More specifically, we draw from a broad range of data to develop unique spatially explicit, high-resolution (5′ grid, about 9 × 9km) emission offsets | deforestation | land-based carbon | carbon markets | global estimates of the carbon stored in mangroves, projected ecosystem services emissions from mangrove loss, and the cost of avoided emissions. Using these data, we systematically examine the biophysical and angroves are among the most threatened and rapidly dis- economic potential of mangrove preservation for avoiding CO2 Mappearing natural environments worldwide (1). Mangroves emissions. We first estimate global and regional supply curves are concentrated in the tropics, serve a wide range of ecological (marginal cost curves) for avoided emissions to assess the cost of functions, and provide people with various economically valuable different emissions reduction goals. Thereafter, we examine how products and services (2). However, as a result of conversion to political-economy considerations related to the barriers of doing other uses, mangroves in many areas of the world are degraded business in developing countries could affect the supply of carbon and their area is substantially reduced relative to their historic offsets. Finally, we evaluate the potential of carbon-offset pro- range (2, 3). grams to promote biodiversity conservation and the additional cost fi Mangrove ecosystems provide nursery habitats for sh, crus- of generating offset credits when targeting the purchase of offsets taceans, birds, and marine mammals (2, 4, 5), and they also offer based on biodiversity goals. Our exclusive consideration of carbon – fi considerable carbon (C) storage (6 9). Recent ndings indicate and the potential for REDD-type programs is motivated by the that each hectare of mangroves stores several times the amount of urgent policy relevancy of the issue and not intended to overlook carbon found in upland tropical forests (8). Although mangroves the broader ecological and economic rationales for the protection 2 cover only around 0.7% (around 140,000 km ) of global tropical of mangroves. forests (10), they possibly store up to 20 Pg C (8), equivalent to roughly 2.5 times annual global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Results Moreover, if left undisturbed, the carbon storage by mangroves Estimates of the Cost of Avoided Emissions. According to our re- currently continues to expand through biological sequestration of sults, preventing mangrove loss has the potential of reducing −1 CO2 and carbon burial (9). If current trends in conversion con- global emissions for a cost of roughly $4 to $10 ton CO2 tinue, however, much of the carbon stored in mangroves along with its future accumulation could be lost (8). Similar concerns relate to the general loss of tropical forests (11). Author contributions: J.S. and J.N.S. designed research; J.S., J.N.S., and S.J. performed Programs to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation research; J.S. and J.N.S. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; J.S., J.N.S., and S.J. ana- (REDD programs) are intended to address these concerns by en- lyzed data; and J.S. and J.N.S. wrote the paper. couraging developing countries to decrease forest-based emissions The authors declare no conflict of interest. of CO2 and, as such, generate carbon offsets. Carbon offsets can This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. then be sold to buyers, typically in developed countries, who are Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. voluntarily or under a regulatory requirement seeking to offset See Commentary on page 14287. their CO2 emissions. REDD programs are particularly attractive 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. for their potential to provide low-cost options to mitigate global This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the near term (12). REDD has 1073/pnas.1200519109/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200519109 PNAS | September 4, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 36 | 14369–14374 Fig. 1. A global map of mangroves and their division into three geographic regions. Compiled using data from Giri et al. (10).

(Fig. 2A). Dividing the world’s mangroves into three regions by estimate is the midpoint of the range. Logically, the cases with low longitude (Fig. 1), we find that the Asia and Oceania region has and high emissions profiles lead to a lower and greater potential the largest potential emissions offset supply, comprising roughly supply of emissions offsets, respectively, in terms of both the total two thirds of potential global offset availability (Fig. 2D). The potential supply and the supply for given price per ton CO2. other two regions—Americas and the Caribbean (Fig. 2B)and The economic attractiveness of avoiding GHG emissions from Africa and the Middle East (Fig. 2C)—each supply approximately mangroves depends on how costly it is relative to reducing emis- half of the remaining world supply. sions from other sources, such as industrial sector. To examine The supply curves (Fig. 2) represent the minimum cost per ton this question, we contrast (Fig. 2) the estimated marginal cost of (marginal cost) of avoiding different amounts of CO2 emissions avoided CO2 emissions from mangroves to the recent range of from mangroves. We construct the global and regional supply emissions-offset prices in the European Union’s Emissions Trad- curves using spatially explicit assessments of the area of mangroves, ing System (EU ETS). The EU ETS is the world’slargestemis- the volume of carbon contained in them, the loss rate of man- sions allowance trading system, and its credit prices well reflect groves, and the current costs of protecting them (Methods). other options for reducing CO2 emissions, such as decreasing Because the degree of emissions triggered by land conversions emissions from industrial and energy sectors. in a particular location is only partially understood, we construct In all three cases considered (low, central, and high supply), low and high estimates of potential offset supply to correspond to we project that the majority of available carbon offsets could be −1 the range of approaches taken by recent studies (8, 15). Our central generated at less than $10 ton CO2 (in 2005 US$). This

Fig. 2. Global and regional supply curves for emissions reductions from mangroves using low, central, and high estimates of avoided emissions. Supply curves were constructed by identifying the least-cost conﬁguration of protections to generate different amounts of avoided carbon emissions, ranging from zero to total emissions avoided from new protections equal in area to projected annual mangrove loss (Methods).

14370 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200519109 Siikamäki et al. estimate is below the recent EU ETS offset credit prices, which barriers associated with long-term conservation projects. Imple- − 1 SEE COMMENTARY have remained between roughly $10 and $20 ton CO2, even in menting offsets in certain counties may require investments in the current economic downturn (16). Our estimates are also management and institutional change above and beyond the below the recent estimates of damage cost caused by CO2 opportunity cost of avoided land conversion. It is also plausible emissions (“social cost of carbon”), including $19 by the United that countries with problematic management and institutional States Government (17), $12 by Nordhaus (18), and $96 by Stern environments could be effectively excluded from the market −1 (19), with all estimates in 2005 US$ ton CO2. Both compar- because of the costs associated with these risks and barriers. The isons above suggest that investing in reduced emissions from magnitude of such costs is difﬁcult to estimate and beyond the mangrove loss could be economically reasonable. scope of this analysis. However, we use the World Bank index on When evaluating the robustness of our results, we found that governance effectiveness (25) to shed light on the potential im- even highly unfavorable assumptions regarding the cost of pact of such considerations on the supply of carbon offsets. For avoiding emissions would add only around $1 to the estimated illustration, we consider two cases that limit the potential supply per-ton cost (SI Appendix). An exception is when we approxi- of offsets to countries in the top 50th or 90th percentile of the mate the opportunity cost for Indonesia and Thailand based governance index (SI Appendix). solely on local estimates of potential returns from oil palm plan- The effect of this restriction is both to reduce the supply of tations (20) and shrimp mariculture (21, 22), respectively (SI carbon offsets (less carbon available) and to increase the price per Appendix). Assuming all mangroves in these countries face these ton (Fig. 3). Although using the governance index to exclude the pressures clearly overestimates the opportunity costs but never- lowest 10th percentile of countries does not drastically change theless serves as a useful illustration. In this case, the supply global or regional carbon offset supply, removing the bottom half curve shifts inward, such that in the high soil carbon case, the reduces the global offset supply by roughly three quarters. Even −1 lower bound of the offset credit price ($10 ton CO2) is met at though they represent only a small share of potential offset supply, around 60% of the total potential supply. offsets from the Americas and Caribbean are remarkably robust to Mangroves are natural sources of methane (CH4) and nitrous governance considerations. At the other end of the spectrum, the oxide (N2O), the two primary GHGs besides CO2 (23, 24). Al- offset supply from Africa and Middle East is highly sensitive to though carbon offsets would potentially need to net out non-CO2 potential exclusions based on governance considerations. ﬁ

emissions from protected mangroves, we nd evidence that the SCIENCE ﬁ discharges of CH4 and N2O would likely increase rather than de- Potential for Carbon Offset Programs to Produce Cobene ts to Bio- SUSTAINABILITY crease after land conversion (SI Appendix). Because mangrove diversity. To examine the extent to which carbon-focused man- protection would likely reduce emissions of non-CO2 GHGs rela- grove conservation may also contribute toward biodiversity goals, tive to the alternative (baseline) land use, it is not necessary to re- we combined our spatial assessments of potential offset supply with Methods duce the volume of emissions offsets because of non-CO2 emissions. local estimates on species richness ( ). We constructed alternative biodiversity-focused programs, which select mangrove Governance and the Potential Supply of Avoided Emissions. Coun- areas for conservation based on the greatest mangrove species tries with mangroves differ considerably in governing institutions richness; combined species richness of birds, mammals, and and the corresponding political, economic, and social risks and mangroves; or the number of endangered birds. We then estimated

Fig. 3. Governance and the supply of emissions reduction from mangroves. The supply curves correspond to the central carbon case. The Top 90 line excludes the bottom 10th percentile of countries according to the government effectiveness rankings of the World Bank. The Top 50 line excludes the bottom 50th percentile.

Siikamäki et al. PNAS | September 4, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 36 | 14371 the additional cost of achieving different emissions reduction goals sions, coastal conservation would also bring other benefits, such under these alternative programs relative to the least-cost program as biodiversity protection and benefits to fisheries and local com- (targeting mangroves within each country from lowest to highest munities (26, 27). These additional benefits could be considerable −1 fi cost, ton CO2, of avoided emissions) (SI Appendix). and would add further justi cation for protecting mangroves. Under all biodiversity-focused strategies, the added total cost Our assessment is based on current information, but the op- from following a biodiversity-focused strategy is at most upward portunity costs of mangrove conservation and the potential rev- of $30 million to $35 million annually, with significantly lower enue from carbon offsets will change over time. In general, we extra costs for low levels of total avoided emissions (Fig. 4). expect the price of mangrove-based offsets to rise as opportuni- Therefore, added costs from a more biodiversity-focused ap- ties to generate additional offsets become more constricted (28). proach appear to be relatively small, on the order of around $1 Predicting the rate of increase along with the price at which other substitute offsets and other technological solutions become more or less per ton CO2 (SI Appendix). cost-effective is difficult because of the regulatory and techno- Discussion logical uncertainty associated with CO2 mitigation. Nevertheless, Here, we evaluate whether the carbon benefits from mangrove if no major changes in the supply and demand of emissions conservation outweigh the cost of their provision. Although un- allowances and the overall cost of GHG abatements occur, a re- doubtedly there will be locations where preventing mangrove alistic prediction would be that the price of offsets would rise at loss could be excessively costly, we find that preserving man- the rate of interest until the relative price of mangrove offsets groves by and large provides relatively low-cost opportunities to becomes equal to the GHG mitigation cost of a substitute source. fi Limitations in the management and institutional capacity in mitigate CO2 emissions. In most areas of the world, we nd that fi preventing a ton of carbon emissions from mangrove defores- host countries present speci c barriers for a potential carbon offset system. These limitations can hamper the implementation tation is competitive (less costly) relative to reducing a ton of of conservation programs, increase their cost, and also impose carbon emissions from currently regulated GHG sources in de- investment risks associated with achieving emissions reductions. veloped countries. The estimated cost of avoiding emissions Our results highlight how governance-based considerations can from mangrove loss is also below the recent monetized estimates affect the size of the market and, therefore, the potential role of damage caused by GHG emissions. carbon offsets could have in the conservation of mangroves Any global assessment requires several assumptions, entails around the world. Extending capacity-building efforts already considerable aggregation, and comprises substantial uncertainties. under way by the World Bank and nongovernmental organ- We address these issues by constructing a spatially high-resolution izations (29), intended to strengthen the necessary infrastructure assessment focused on local variation in the key variables. We also and institutions for REDD programs as well as mangrove pro- fl present our estimates as ranges to re ect uncertainties and key tection, could help alleviate these barriers. information gaps. Regardless, we emphasize the qualitative rather Our analysis indicates that if the carbon offset market were to fi than quantitative aspects of the ndings. Accordingly, under a proceed with mangroves and offsets were provided at the lowest broad range of assumptions, avoiding mangrove losses has the cost, some biodiversity gains would follow, but they may be lim- potential of being economically justified on the basis of avoided ited relative to a more biodiversity-focused approach. Whether CO2 emissions alone. the additional benefits of a more biodiversity-focused approach Although our results suggest that preserving mangroves may outweigh the additional costs and whether biodiversity benefits often be warranted simply on the basis of reducing carbon emis- from mangrove conservation could somehow be appropriated by the offset provider are open questions. If the gains could be appropriated, then there would be additional incentives for using a more biodiversity-focused strategy. For example, offsets that also guarantee specific cobenefits may be more valuable in the market, but experience in this context is limited. This study highlights a number of important areas for future work. For example, although we examine the issue in the robustness checks, further estimates of the opportunity costs of protecting mangroves based on the potential economic returns from palm oil and mariculture would be informative, especially for Southeast Asia, where these activities frequently occur and approximately half of the global mangroves are situated. Fur- thermore, additional information on land prices would be valuable in locations where urban and tourism developments are the fundamental drivers of land-use change. Nevertheless, although nonagricultural development pressures can result in higher land prices than considered here, agriculture is the main driver of mangrove deforestation. For example, in Southeast Asia between 1975 and 2007, about 80% of deforested mangrove areas became agricultural lands (30). Therefore, our focus on agricultural rents as the opportunity cost of land is well justified. Another key area of future research involves predicting the emissions profile after land conversions or other disturbances. The Fig. 4. Additional cost of using a targeting approach based on cobenefits. current literature offers only limited guidance in this regard. For Supply curves use the central carbon estimate and were generated in example, all currently available assessments of emissions, including a similar manner to the global and regional curves, except in this case, all this one, posit that the different forms of land conversions in one mangrove hectares within a cell were assumed to be fully protected and cells fi were included in the country supply until the country-level deforestation location have similar emissions pro les. In reality, emissions will hectares were met. The additional costs to supply different levels of CO2 likely differ between, say, agricultural and urban development of were generated by calculating the differences in costs between the target- mangroves. Emissions profiles of different forms of agriculture or ing approach and the lowest-cost scenario (SI Appendix). mariculture may also differ, and further information on them would

14372 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200519109 Siikamäki et al. not only help estimate emissions but also configure land use Table 1. Summary of carbon stock and burial by mangroves SEE COMMENTARY changes, if otherwise unavoidable, to minimize emissions. Per hectare, on Additionally, large-scale conservation efforts may induce broader average, globally Global total economic effects, especially locally. These effects could be considerable in some areas, potentially differentiating the opportunity cost tC tCO2e Pg C Pg CO2e of avoided emissions from our estimates. Therefore, formulating a better understanding of the local economy and its connections to Biomass 147.5 540.8 2.1 7.5 mangroves and their alternative uses would also help better evalu- Soil 319.0 1,169.7 4.4 16.3 ate mangrove conservation options, particularly where communities Total stock 466.5 1,710.5 6.5 23.8 are highly dependent on their potential alternative uses. Annual accumulation 1.15 4.22 0.02 0.06 Mangroves are known to provide considerable benefits to fisheries, providing juvenile and adult fish populations with nursery habitat, food, and protection from predation. Studies also show 60.8% relative to the volume of above-ground biomass. Following Bouillon that many fish species depend on both mangroves and coral reefs et al. (6), we estimate that 41.5% of the biomass is carbon ( SI Appendix). To fi (4), and there is increasing evidence that coral reefs in the prox- estimate location-speci c volume of soil carbon, we develop country-level estimates of soil carbon density by compiling and analyzing 941 primary imity of mangroves are considerably more productive for fisheries observations of mangrove soil carbon density available from the literature than reefs in mangrove-poor areas (4). Future work should con- (6–8) (SI Appendix). Our globally representative estimate of soil carbon fi − sider,forexample,methodologiesforconguring conservation density is about 0.0319 g C/cm 3. For annual carbon accumulation, we use − − programs to most effectively incorporate the beneficial impacts of the Bouillon et al. (6) carbon burial estimate of 1.15 t C ha 1 y 1. mangroves on fisheries (31). We find that mangroves contain, on average, altogether about 466.5 t −1 −1 Carbon stored in mangroves and other marine and coastal Cha (1,710.5 t CO2e ha ) (Table 1). Globally, the carbon stock is estimated habitats, such as seagrass meadows and salt marshes, is often re- at about 6.5 Pg C (23.8 CO2e). We estimate that if left undisturbed, un- ferred to as “blue carbon” (32). Although currently available sci- interrupted carbon sequestration and burial annually expand mangrove entific information prevents rigorous assessments of the economic carbon stock by about 16 million t C per year (60 million t CO2e) (Table 1). potential of preserving seagrasses and salt marshes for carbon, future research should address that topic, including estimating the Mangrove Losses. We project mangrove losses using data on the change, between 1990 and 2005, in mangrove area by country from the United opportunity cost of preserving those habitats. Such assessments SCIENCE Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (3). The annual mangrove also call for a more thorough understanding of the value of other loss between 1990 and 2005 was, on average, about 0.7%. To create cell- SUSTAINABILITY ecosystem services, such as those associated with nursery habitats level projections of mangrove loss, we use a range of alternative approaches for commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, species conserva- to determine how the total amount of mangrove loss by country is distrib- tion, storm protection, and water purification (33, 34). uted within each country (SI Appendix). In the base case, mangroves within On the other hand, information on mangroves is particularly each country are subject to a uniform risk of development. Alternative cases relevant because they have the greatest potential to be in- represent intuitive lower and upper bounds for the opportunity cost of pre- corporated into climate policy frameworks, especially in the near serving mangroves. These cases are constructed so that mangrove areas of term. For example, mangroves may already fit within the general either lowest or highest opportunity cost of land are developed each year REDD architecture. However, soil carbon, which constitutes the until reaching the country-level total projection of mangrove loss. vast majority of carbon in mangroves, generally is excluded from We use spatial data from the World Database on Protected Areas to net carbon offsets in REDD. Therefore, a critically important issue out the mangroves in each cell that are already protected (36). The assessment excludes countries where mangrove area had not declined according in the context of mangroves and other blue carbon is the need to to the FAO. We also exclude 24 countries, mostly small island nations, for develop a framework to include soil carbon in offset programs. which data on mangrove losses are unavailable. These countries represent Although uncertainty remains regarding various international, in total about 1.3% of global carbon storage in mangroves (SI Appendix). state, and regional climate policy frameworks, our results suggest the need for practical evaluations of mangrove-based carbon Carbon Emissions After Land Conversion. We consider that 75% of carbon in offsets, including rigorous local assessments of offsets as well as the above-ground and below-ground biomass is emitted after land con- developing their robust verification and monitoring. Current version (8, 15). We also assume that land conversion affects soil carbon down policy programs, such as the Indonesia-Norway REDD part- to 1 m and approximate a range of emissions to correspond to the range of nership and the offset provision under California’s Assembly Bill assumptions in the literature. At the lower bound (8), a total of 27.25% of 32, may already provide the necessary framework. For example, the soil carbon is released. At the upper bound (15), 90% of soil carbon is released. The midpoint of the lower and upper bounds serves as our central California has signed an agreement with Chiapas, Mexico, to estimate of the soil carbon emitted after land conversion (SI Appendix). Our provide forest offsets starting in 2015 (35). Our data suggest that low, central, and high estimates of annual global emissions because of carbon offsets from mangrove conservation in Chiapas could be mangrove loss are about 84 million, 122 million, and 159 million tons CO2. competitive relative to the predicted permit price in California, but further study is needed. Emissions Offset Credits from Additional Protections. We project for each hectare of mangroves the total avoided emissions (TAE) that could be Methods credited as a carbon offset as a result of additional protection. For each grid We identify the geographic extent of mangrove ecosystems (Fig. 1) using the cell (i=country,j=cell), we consider a 25-y time horizon and model offsets most recent and rigorous global dataset on mangroves (10). We divide the under the assumptions that they are granted only for the portion of the world surface area into a large number of regular quadrilaterals (grid cells), mangroves that are projected to be lost each year (SI Appendix). For ex- each with the side length of 5′ (about 9 km). For each of the 25,226 grid cells ample, when deforestation rate is 1%, protecting 100 ha of mangroves that currently comprise mangroves, we project current carbon storage (tons avoids emissions from the loss of 1 ha in year 1. In year 2, emissions are −1 CO2 ha ), including carbon above and below ground and in the soils, and avoided from the loss of 1% of the remaining 99 ha. Continuing from one −1 −1 accumulation (tons CO2 ha y ) by mangroves, mangrove loss rates (per- year to the next over the time horizon, TAE (tons CO2/ha) is characterized by −1 −1 fi cent loss y ), emissions associated with mangrove loss (tons CO2 ha ), the a nite geometric series as follows: −1 cost of avoiding emissions ($ ton CO2), and the current protections of h i h i T mangroves (see below and SI Appendix). TAEij = 1− ð1+ δiÞ ∗ Mij ∗ CABij + CBGij +CSij +T∗ CAAij [1],

Carbon Storage. We estimate a latitude-based above-ground mangrove where δi denotes the rate of change in mangrove area in country i between biomass according to Twilley et al. (5). Following Twilley et al. (5) and Donato 1990 and 2005; T is the horizon of the contract (25 y); Mij is the number of et al. (8), we estimate that the volume of below-ground living biomass is hectares of mangroves protected in country i,cellj; CABij is the above-

Siikamäki et al. PNAS | September 4, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 36 | 14373 ground carbon content; CBGij is the below-ground carbon content; CSij is the protections of mangroves that are equal in area to the global projected annual soil carbon content; and CAAij denotes the annual accumulation of carbon mangrove loss. We examine various assumptions on how mangroves are likely stock (carbon burial), which projected losses we credit for T years. to be converted. In the main assessment, we assume that mangroves in each grid cell within a country are subject to a constant risk of deforestation based Opportunity Cost of Avoided Emissions. The opportunity cost of avoided on the country’s deforestation rates. Other scenarios help develop realistic emissions is a function of the net present value of estimated economic returns bounds for the cost of avoided emissions, as explained above (SI Appendix). from the most proﬁtable land use (land value) for each cell, a one-time setup cost of the protected area, and the net present value of the annual costs of Governance Effectiveness. The World Bank index on government effective- managing the protected area. For land value, we calibrate a spatial global ness (25, 39) combines data on the views of a large number of enterprise, dataset on potential agricultural gross revenues developed in Naidoo and citizen, and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing coun- ’ Iwamura (37) to match the World Bank s country-level estimates of agri- tries, including perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of cultural land value (38). This approach maintains the spatial variation in the civil service, the degree of independence of civil service from political Naidoo and Iwamura and matches the World Bank land value estimates by pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the country. We increase the coverage of the original Naidoo and Iwamura credibility of the government’s commitment to policy (SI Appendix). dataset by using a nearest-neighbor averaging routine for three different distances (13 km, 26 km, and 39 km). Our main results use the 39-km aver- Biodiversity. We used the geographic information system to construct grid- aging but are robust to the averaging distance (SI Appendix). The onetime − cell level indicators of species richness by using spatial data on mangroves, cost of setting up protection from mangroves ($232 ha 1) and the annual − amphibians, reptiles, and marine mammals from the International Union for management cost ($25 ha 1) follow Murray et al. (15). We convert the per- year management cost into the present value of a stream of annual costs the Conservation of Nature (40). For birds, we used data from BirdLife In- over a 25-y period using a 10% discount rate. The cost of avoided emissions ternational (41) (SI Appendix). − − ($ ton 1 ha 1) by cell equals the per-hectare opportunity cost of conservation divided by TAE (SI Appendix). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank David McLaughlin for research assistance, including geographic information system analyses; Daniel Morris for information on climate policy; several colleagues, including Roger Ullman, Global Emissions Reduction Supply. Global supply curves of avoided carbon Larry Linden, and Vasco Bilbao-Bastida, for many helpful comments and ﬁ emissions are estimated by identifying the least-cost spatial con guration of suggestions; and Chandra Giri, Dan Donato, and Erik Kristensen for help protections worldwide to generate different amounts of avoided carbon with the data. This work was supported by the Linden Trust for Conserva- emissions, ranging from zero to the total emissions avoided from new tion, Vicki and Roger Sant, and Resources for the Future.

1. Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove Forests: One of the world’s threatened 22. Sathirathai S, Barbier EB (2001) Valuing mangrove conservation in southern Thailand. major tropical environments. Bioscience 51:807–815. Contemp Econ Policy 19:109–122. 2. Spalding M, Kainuma M, Collins L (2010) World Atlas of Mangroves (Earthscan Lon- 23. IPCC (2007) Chapter 4. Agriculture. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and don and Washington DC). Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of 3. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (2007) The World’s Mangroves the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, 1980–2005: A Thematic Study Prepared in the Framework of the Global Forest Re- Dave R, Meyer LA (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK). sources Assessment 2005 (United Nations, Rome). 24. Krithika K, Purvaja R, Ramesh R (2008) Fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide from an 4. Mumby PJ, et al. (2004) Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish commu- Indian mangrove. Curr Sci 94:218–224. nities in the Caribbean. Nature 427:533–536. 25. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2010) The worldwide governance indicators: 5. Twilley RR, Chen RH, Hargis T (1992) Carbon sinks in mangroves and their implications methodology and analytical issues. Policy Research Working Paper, ed Bank W , to carbon budget of tropical coastal ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut 64:265–288. Washington, DC). fi 6. Bouillon S, et al. (2008) Mangrove production and carbon sinks: A revision of global 26. Aburto-Oropeza O, et al. (2008) Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase shery – budget estimates. Global Biogeochem Cycles 22:GB2013. yields. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:10456 10459. 7. Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC (2003) Global carbon sequestration in 27. McNally CG, Uchida E, Gold AJ (2011) The effect of a protected area on the tradeoffs fi tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochem Cycles 17(4):1–12. between short-run and long-run bene ts from mangrove ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad – 8. Donato DC, et al. (2011) Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Sci USA 19(2):109 122. Nat Geosci 4:293–297. 28. Rubin J (1996) A model of intertemporal emission trading, banking and borrowing. J – 9. Kristensen E, Bouillon S, Dittmar T, Marchand C (2008) Organic carbon dynamics in Environ Econ Manage 31:269 286. mangrove ecosystems: A review. Aquat Bot 89:201–219. 29. Facility FCP (2008) Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: Information Memorandum. 10. Giri C, et al. (2011) Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using June 13, 2008 (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Washington, DC). 30. Giri C, et al. (2008) Mangrove forest distributions and dynamics (1975–2005) of the earth observation satellite data. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:154–159. tsunami-affected region of Asia. J Biogeogr 35:519–528. 11. Van der Werf G, et al. (2009) CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nat Geosci 2:737–738. 31. Mumby PJ (2006) Connectivity of reef fish between mangroves and coral reefs: Al- 12. Kindermann G, et al. (2008) Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions gorithms for the design of marine reserves at seascape scales. Biol Conserv 128: through avoided deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:10302–10307. 215–222. 13. California Legislature (2006) California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 32. Murray BC, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, Pendleton L, Baldera A (2010) Policy Brief: Payments (Sacramento, CA). for Blue Carbon Potential for Protecting Threatened Coastal Habitats (Nicholas In- 14. Norway-Indonesia (2010) Letter of Intent on “Cooperation on reducing greenhouse stitute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke Univ, Durham, NC). gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” (Kingdom of Norway and 33. Sanchirico JN, Springborn M (2011) How to get there from here: Ecological and Republic of Indonesia) http://www.norway.or.id/PageFiles/404362/Letter_of_Intent_ economic dynamics of ecosystem service provision. Environ Resour Econ 48(2): Norway_Indonesia_26_May_2010.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2012. 243–267. 15. Murray BC, Pendelton L, Jenkins AW, Sifleet S (2011) Green Payments for Blue Car- 34. Barbier EB, et al. (2008) Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear eco- bon: Economic Incentives for Protecting Threatened Coastal Habitats (Nicholas In- logical functions and values. Science 319:321–323. stitute, Duke Univ, Durham, NC). 35. Morris DF, Richardson N, Riddle A (2011) Importing climate mitigation: The potential – 16. European Energy Exchange (2011) Market Data January 2011 June 2011 (European and challenges of international forest offsets in California climate policy. Resources Energy Exchange) http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/. Accessed May 12, 2012. for the Future Issue Brief 2011–12. 17. United States Government (2010) Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon 36. UNEP-WCMC Ia (2010) The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (Cambridge for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (United States Govern- Univ, Cambridge, UK). ment Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, Washington, DC). 37. Naidoo R, Iwamura T (2007) Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agri- 18. Nordhaus W (2011) Estimates of social cost of carbon: Background and results from cultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities. Biol Conserv 140(1-2):40–49. the RICE-2011 model. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, 38. World Bank (2011) The Changing Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable De- Discussion Paper No. 1826 (Yale Univ, New Haven, CT). velopment in the New Millennium. (World Bank, Washington, DC). 19. Stern N (2006) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (HM Treasury, Lon- 39. World Bank (2011) The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Project (World Bank, don). Washington, DC). 20. Butler RA, Koh LP, Ghazoul J (2009) REDD in the red: Palm oil could undermine carbon 40. International Union for Conservation of Nature (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened payment schemes. Conservation Letters 2:67–73. Species (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Version 2010.4. http://www. 21. Koh LP, Ghazoul J (2010) Spatially explicit scenario analysis for reconciling agricultural iucnredlist.org. Downloaded February 28, 2011. expansion, forest protection, and carbon conservation in Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci 41. BirdLife International (2011) Distribution Maps of Birds of the World, (BirdLife In- USA 107:11140–11144. ternational, Cambridge, UK).

14374 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200519109 Siikamäki et al. Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 8:31 AM To: [email protected]; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: FW: Aqua By The Bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to the Board of County Commissioners to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

As a quasi-judicial item the Board of County Commissioners must refrain from prejudging this project outside of the public hearing on May 4, 2017, but will open the matter to public comment and be able to discuss this project publicly during the hearing which is scheduled to be heard at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

------Forwarded message ------From: Jill Moore Date: Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:09 PM Subject: Aqua By The Bay To: [email protected]

Dear Commissioner Jonnson:

After having read through some of the documents forwarded to you recently (available online) and the Manatee County Environmental and Cultural Resource Protection Laws (https://www.municode.com/library/fl/manatee_county/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=CH7ENCUREP R_PTIINAREPR_S705HAWIENSPPR),

I urge you to vote NO on May 4.

This is both an emotional and a scientific issue. I am not a scientist, so may not completely understand ALL the implications of disturbing the ecosystem. We have all seen the devastating effects when money wins over

1 common sense. I am on El Conquistador Parkway. We already battle near flood conditions during heavy storms, as was seen on Suncoast News video on August 31, 2016 when Hurricane Hermaine went through. The reporter was standing in knee deep water on El Conquistador Parkway and 34th Street. The waters damaged some homes in the area, and other homeowners were trying to get out onto El Conquistador that was flooded to get sandbags. What impact will altering the land in question add to the potential for flooding? What would a surge do in that area if the mangrove buffer were missing?

The seawall comes to a stop at both ends. Physics and hard experience say that storm surges will deflect off the seawall, spread outward, and threaten neighboring homes. County staff asked for a wave generation analysis; the applicant refused.

Manatee County has regulations in place, or am I missing something? The area in question is home to many of our native birds. Not to mention a few alligators and various wildlife. While I have not seen it myself, I have heard there are manatees in the area, too. Ten story buildings are quite out of place in the area, as you approach the Village of Cortez a short distance away. Anna Maria Island has managed to maintain an environment without high rises, etc. Why not this area of Manatee County? • Special Habitat Delineation. All applications for development approval shall be required to show the location of certain existing habitats that may be contained within the proposed development site or within fifty (50) feet of the development's boundary. The Building and Development Services Department shall determine if the proposed development activities will adversely affect the following habitats. If the project is found to have potentially significant adverse impacts, appropriate mitigation conditions shall be attached to the development approval, as required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the FFWCC. The following types of existing habitats shall be shown:

1. Mangrove swamps;

2. Tidal marshes;

3. Sea grass beds;

4. Oyster beds;

5. Coastal streams;

6. Freshwater wetlands (swamps, marshes, sloughs, wet prairies, and heads);

7. Hammocks (mesic or xeric);

8. Pine prairies (pine flatwoods or dry prairies); and

9. Scrubs (sand pine scrubs, scrubby flatwoods, turkey oak ridges).

D. Critical Habitat/Upland Preservation Identification and Protection. All critical habitat and upland preservation areas required by this Code or other applicable state or federal agencies shall be clearly staked or otherwise physically identified in the field prior to and during construction. Erosion and sediment control devices or other protective barriers shall be installed landward of the edge of the critical habitat, upland preservation and 2 conservation areas prior to commencement of construction, and shall be inspected and maintained on a regular basis until construction has been completed.

• Section 706. - Wetland Protection.

706.1. Purpose and Intent.

A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to implement Goal 3.3 of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, which provides policies that:

1. Prohibit wetlands impacts except in cases where no other practical alternative exists that will permit a reasonable use of land or where there is an overriding public benefit;

2. Require delineation of all wetlands on any proposed development or redevelopment site;

3. Require mitigation of all wetland impacts; and

4. Require protection of preserved wetlands from development impacts through wetland buffers and other measures.

5. The non-existence of wetland vegetation alone shall not exempt a project from complying with Wetland Protection Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

B. Intent. The intent of this Section is to preserve and protect the wetland functions of water quality enhancement, climatic moderation and flood and erosion control; to protect the renewable resources of water, timber, energy and food; and to protect the beneficial uses of wetlands by humanity and animals. Specifically, this Section is intended to:

1. Provide long-term wetland protection by directing growth away from sensitive areas through land use regulations;

2. Provide additional protection to those wetlands not within the jurisdiction of other reviewing agencies that require mitigation for wetland impacts;

3. Prevent the piecemeal or cumulative losses over time that may destroy remaining wetlands;

4. Prevent damaging or destroying wetlands that would threaten the public safety and general welfare or cause nuisances by destroying flood storage areas, causing water pollution, disposing of storm water runoff at inappropriate sites, increasing erosion, or increasing runoff of sediment and storm water;

5. Minimize the disruption of wetland functions by requiring a Wetland Impact Study for development activities proposed within wetlands and their wetland buffers;

6. Consider the impact of development activities on wetlands functions through the County land development regulation process;

3 7. Regulate development activities according to wetland significance, with the degree of protection afforded a wetland being in direct relationship to the significance of a wetland;

8. Use performance standards as the basis for minimizing the impact of development activities on wetland functions;

9. Provide for the use of wetlands for compatible activities that do not disrupt wetland functions; and

10. Provide for flexibility through the availability of mitigation/restoration measures where more beneficial environmental results can be achieved.

Please vote NO on May 4.

• Jill Moore

•

4 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:13 AM To: Lisa Varano Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

Hello Ms. Varano, Thank you for the opportunity to address your remarks regarding the emails sent to the commissioners as you may have misunderstood my response. Rest assured that all emails sent to commissioners are received by them and reviewed. My email to you was to acknowledge that your comments were received by the commissioners and to explain that, as a quasi-judicial item, commissioners themselves cannot respond to or discuss the item outside of the public hearing setting. They are only to voice their opinions during the public meeting. The letters and emails sent to commissioners will also made part of the official record filed with the Clerk of Circuit Court (Board Records).

I hope this explanation is helpful to you. Please let me know how I can be of further assistance.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Lisa Varano [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 7:49 AM To: Marianne Lopata Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: Re: Aqua by the Bay

So in other words, it is of no use to post the Commissioners email addresses on the website as they will never be given these 100's of emails that have been sent to them. Nor will the Citizens that elected these officials be represented. What a disgrace!!!

You bet I'll be at that meeting and so will 100's of others. I hope you have enough seating for us all!

Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Marianne Lopata wrote:

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G)

1 Thank you for writing to the Board of County Commissioners to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Lisa Varano [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:55 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Dear Commissioners,

Save Longbar Pointe

I've lived here my entire life and have never been happy with all the development. Progress is inevitable but this development, as many others, is too much. He's asking to double the size he's limited to, three or four times the height he's limited to and wants to cut through 2000 feet of land to create a lagoon that will destroy the Mangroves attached to the land. This development needs to be curtailed and his requests for his special variances denied! Period! We can't change the past. But we still have a voice and can save the future. Vote Aqua by the Bay down! Just say NO!

Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Sarah Schenk Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:26 AM To: Bobbi Roy Subject: FW: County Commissioners "blinders on"

For public hearing AQUA record.

From: Carol Whitmore Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:21 PM To: Dan Murphy - City of AnnaMaria; Sarah Schenk; William Clague; Mitchell Palmer Subject: Re: County Commissioners "blinders on"

Mayor,

Not sure what this issue is they are talking about. If they wrote regarding Aqua, we cannot respond. We read the emails but all of these type landuse issues are heard in a quasi judicial hearing. We act as judges and act on testimony at the hearing and what is sent to us. If Jean would have attended the educational seminar for all elected officials today she would have heard that. I sat next to Dale Woodland and he realized how serious it is so we don't jeopardize getting sued by developers. Again, we read what is sent to us but cannot respond . As this may be related to Thursday, I have to send to our attorney to include in the public record. Sorry, FYI they are retired so am sure they will attend. Carol

Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Dan Murphy - City of AnnaMaria wrote:

Carol. The position that county commissioners cannot be addressed and read differing points of view on an issue makes no sense and I believe it could have serious implications going forward. Freedom to express oneself has been going on for both sides of this equation since it began. Please tell me where I am missing out on this position the county has taken.

Dan Murphy Mayor-City of Anna Maria P.O. Box 779 10005 Gulf Drive Anna Maria FL 34216 941-708-6130 ext. 24 Under Florida law emails sent to or from this device are public records.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Renee Ferguson Date: May 1, 2017 at 7:32:18 PM EDT To:

1 Cc: , , , Subject: Re: County Commissioners "blinders on"

This can't be possible.

We can write to our state legislators, we can write to our federal government. We can't write to a county commissioner?

Whom, besides someone that is retired can show up in the middle of the afternoon for a county meeting. What choice do those people that work have but to write to their ward representatives.

You know if I had any doubts about attend ing this meeting I don't now.

I have not received a reply to my email yet but when I do you can bet they will hear my dissent.

Renee

Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2017, at 4:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:

him

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Christine Boulter <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:38 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: Aqua by the Bay/Long Point Bar

To: Commissioners, Staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

We read an article in the Bradenton Herald about Aqua by the Bay/Long Point Bar development this morning….

VOTE NO ON THURSDAY, MAY 4TH!! DO Not allow the ecosystem to be destroyed. Do Not allow the Mangroves be destroyed. Keep the property for fish, birds, wildlife and the beautiful cattle that graze there.

Please do not let Mr. Beruff's development move forward. We live on El Conquistador Parkway and the mangroves offer protection for the property. We watch walkers, runners and bikers along the El Con Parkway. We use the Parkway to walk ourselves. It is a beautiful Parkway (or was) until they destroyed the land. It looks like a pit now. When he burns his piles, we can smell it all the way to 34th street and have to keep our windows closed.

Please consider the impact of the increased traffic along El Con Parkway. That will changes dramatically for those of us who live here. We already have the noise and views of heavy truck equipment all day long, rumbling along and revving up their engines. We are watching El Con Parkway deteriorate into pot holes. This Parkway is not a major street like Cortez or 53rd and was not built to carry that traffic load now or later.

We are asking, please support a "do not allow" this development to move forward. We have enough shopping centers, homes and businesses already. Keep some of natures best in view too.

Thank You,

Frank and Christine Boulter

3500 El Conquistador Parkway #318

Bradenton, Florida 34210

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:03 AM To: Sue Wait Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please STOP Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Sue Wait [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:43 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Please STOP Aqua by the Bay

From two long time Manatee County residents - enough is enough - please act responsibly and don't let this development happen. Bill and Sue Wait Palmetto, FL

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:04 AM To: Jeannie Hudkins Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Vote Against Aqua by the Bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commission Chairman Betsy Benac to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners, staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Jeannie Hudkins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:39 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Vote Against Aqua by the Bay

Please vote against Carl Beruff's Aqua By the Bay project. We do not want the hotel, the thousands of new houses, the traffic, and, especially, the destruction of the wetlands.

Jeannie Hudkins Holmes Beach

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:04 AM To: Peggy Hanchette Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Peggy Hanchette [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:35 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Pointe development

Please don't disappoint all of the people in our county by giving in to Carlos Beruff. He has shown to be a liar and a cheat. He thinks he can get away with anything he wants by threatening with lawsuits.

Please stay true to your voters. If you vote in favor of this - it will be time to drain the swamp of manatee county!

Peggy Hanchette 4009 5th Avenue NE Bradenton, FL

Sent from my iPhone 1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:06 AM To: Mike Willis Cc: Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: aqua by the bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commission Chairman Betsy Benac and Commissioner Stephen Jonsson to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners, staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac, Commissioner Jonsson, and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Mike Willis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:29 AM To: Stephen R Jonsson; Betsy Benac Cc: pam Subject: aqua by the bay

The honorable Steve Jonsson,

Dear Steve, I am writing in opposition to Beruffs proposals for development of Long Bar Point. I reside in San Remo Shores. I do not think the county should change the development criteria for an individual developer. The traffic issues that the county has refused to address going to and from AMI are reason enough, but messing with the mangroves in any way I believe would detract from what the voters of this side of the county have envisioned for a long long time. To turn Long Bar Point into downtown Sarasota would eliminate a side of Florida that is not replicated anywhere else.

1 I grew up in Lakeland, Fl. and have been coming to this area to fish and boat for over 40 years. As a retired professional pilot I have seen these kind of development moves destroy other precious areas in not only our state but others as well. This county government has been critically reactive rather than proactive when it comes to traffic and development. Please do not continue to make it worse.

Sincerely, Michael Willis 7 year resident and tax payer in San Remo Shores

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:08 AM To: Ray V Cc: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Mangrove flood protection and Long Bar Point development proposal

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commission Chairman Betsy Benac and Commissioners Charles Smith and Carol Whitmore to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners, staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac, Commissioners Smith and Whitmore, and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Ray V [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:26 AM To: Charles Smith; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Mangrove flood protection and Long Bar Point development proposal

Dear Honorable Charles B. Smith, Crop Whitmore and Betsy Benac,

I sincerely hope you consider the serious consequences of developing Long Bar Point in the manner currently proposed. Putting a lagoon directly inshore of the mangrove swamp eliminates the buffering capacity for storm surge and takes away the land where mangroves will retreat as sea levels rise. I strongly support development of the agricultural lands on the parcel, but not at the expense of the rest of the county's flood protection. You should also consider what this exception to the coastal building height will do to our community. I've been boating in Sarasota bay and spending days on Bradenton Beach since I was a toddler and I can't imagine losing that special place to high rise condos. There are plenty of parcels in Clearwater and St. Pete if the region needs more high rises. I'll miss the old Florida character of Cortez and the Bridge street pier. The reason folks

1 visit and love Bradenton and the county at large is our nature and quiet feel. Please don't forget what Manatee county was and could continue to be even with a reasonable plan to develop a portion of the uplands at Long Bar Point. There's an option for everyone to win by developing the parcel within the rules allowing for urban in fill, developer profit and increasing the tax roll while maintaining the flood protection of mangroves and old Florida feel of our community.

Thank you for your service and your time, Ray Vinson 1435 15th St. W. Bradenton, FL 34205 813-767-6982

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:08 AM To: Mary Highlands Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua By The Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Mary Highlands [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:26 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua By The Bay

Mrs. Benac,

I am writing you today to implore you to join the efforts to stop "Aqua by the Bay". It will ruin the "Old Florida" feel that everyone visits to experience. That is by far the least of it though as you are aware of. The sea life that will be negatively affected at best, and destroyed at worst (and most likely) is not something to be taken lightly. If you have never taken a tour of the area that this proposal will destroy, I strongly urge you to do so as soon as possible. You will be absolutely shocked and amazed at the life inhabited by the area. If you have experienced the beauty of this sea life and you are still in favor of destroying it, I beg of you to search your heart because if you did, I would only hope that you would realize the horrific damage this place will

1 inflict on these beautiful creatures. Please help. Let's not take this beautiful place from future generations. Let's not destroy our natural resources.

Sincerely,

Lindsay Stubblefield Edwards

Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:09 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:15 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Dear Commissioners: I just wanted to express my dismay that this project is even being considered. Are the developers asking for this and when it gets rejected will come back with what they wanted in the first place, having pulled yet another fast one?

Think about what can't be replaced, nesting areas for all kinds of birds, turtles and other native species, habitats for many, loss of sea grass.

Anyone who thinks this multi-story gated community is an improvement probably would be happier in one of the existing over-developed areas up and down Florida's disappearing shorelines. Unlike hips and knees, the loss of natural beauty cannot be replaced. 1

I was speaking to someone in Ellenton the other day and they mentioned that what used to be 1 light between their house and place of work, is now 18. As a long time resident of El Con, I have seen increasing noise and traffic between the road extension and IMG. Some days I feel like I'm on a speedway.

While I apologize for the length of this message I would also like to draw your attention to the condition of the median close to the other previously failed developments to the west. What about working to clean up that mess before creating more? Why would you trust these developers when they have walked away from other projects?

Thank you Annalee (Annie) Hunter 4649 La Jolla Dr Bradenton, FL 34310 941-730-7277 [email protected]

Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:09 AM To: Shawn DuVall Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua By the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Shawn DuVall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:43 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua By the Bay

As this community opposed Long Bar Pointe, I also oppose Mr. Beruff’s latest development. His seeking of mitigation bank credits shows where his ultimate motives lie. He will make use of those credits by damaging mangroves and shoreline. He isn't requesting those credits for no reason. I think you probably all know that.

This county needs to protect it’s natural resources. Please take a stand and be the voice of the vast majority of your constituents, and vote no on this proposal.

M. Shawn DuVall

2218 17th ave. w.

Bradenton, FL 34205

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:09 AM To: HELE MALL SIBUL Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe, Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: HELE MALL SIBUL [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:28 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Pointe, Aqua by the Bay i oppose the development of the Aqua site because it will destroy the natural environment and there is not infrastructure to handle the traffic to the beach. In season it takes about an hour to get to the beaches on Anna Maria Island. With this development it is hopeless to get to the beach. Have you traveled Cortez Road from 75th St intersection to the beach, then you should know about the traffic? Please vote no. I live off El Conquistador Pkwy at Palm Court. Hele Mall Sibul

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:10 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua By The Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:17 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua By The Bay

Please reconsider the development known as Aqua By the Bay. I am not against development of this area but fully agree with the concerns that the mangroves and other eco system infrastructure will be completely destroyed in the process.

Please STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT until all concerns are satisfied.

Sincerely

Jim and Sharon Westlake 1417 22nd Ave W, Bradenton, 34205

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:10 AM To: Promotional Products Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Stop Aqua By The Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Promotional Products [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:15 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Stop Aqua By The Bay

We do not want it. There is no room on the roads for more homes in the NW. It think it would destroy our wetlands, Cortez and Anna Maria Island. We need for more infrastructure before more buildings.

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:10 AM To: Debby Bell Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: We do not want Aqua By The Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Debby Bell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:14 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: We do not want Aqua By The Bay

Stop Aqua By The Bay

We do not want it. There is no room on the roads for more homes in the NW. It think it would destroy our wetlands, Cortez and Anna Maria Island. We need for more infrastructure before more buildings.

Deb Bell 10226 46th Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34210 941.792.6030

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:10 AM To: Patricia Salem Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: FLORIDA

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Patricia Salem [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 8:54 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: FLORIDA

Please stop Aqua by the Bay and save our eco system for future generations. The roads are already too crowded and more housing will crowd us all out. Save Florida for those of us that have lived and loved here for many years. Speak out for the PEOPLE!

Sent from Windows Mail

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:11 AM To: Linda Perara Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Stop Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Linda Perara [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 8:49 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Stop Aqua by the Bay

County Comissioners, When you vote on this permit please remember the reason most folks , like me, decided to live in Manatee. If I wanted to look at tall buildings I would have bought on the East Coast of Fl. The West Coast charm was the draw for our family. Aqua by the Bay will ruin bird, fish and other sanctuaries. PLEASE STOP the development as it is now proposed. There are other uses for that land besides 10 storied buildings. Thank you, Linda Perara 6415 1st St E. Bradenton. Sent from my iPad

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:12 AM To: Constance Zack Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Constance Zack [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 7:57 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Please, please, please DO NOT APPROVE Beruff's requests for Aqua By The Bay. It would be such a tragedy for Manatee County to destroy this natural habitat. This shows that with enough money, you can keep coming back again and again until you get what you want. Please do not allow this to happen.

Sincerely, Connie and Dominick Zack 6819 Massachusetts St. Bradenton

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:12 AM To: Sue Longacre Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: No Aqua on the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Sue Longacre [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 7:43 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: No Aqua on the Bay

Please turn down Aqua on the Bay. Sue Longacre

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:13 AM To: Sue Longacre Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Vote against the development of Sarasota Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

Vote against Aqua by the Bay PLEASE! Joe Crowe

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:13 AM To: Buddy Odom Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: STOP AQUA BY THE BAY

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Buddy Odom [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 5:57 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: STOP AQUA BY THE BAY

As a 14 year resident of Bradenton Beach, I have watched this particular developer try and try again to convince the commission to approve his projects by stating they will not harm the environment when in fact they would. This particular one, Aqua by the Bay is the retry of Long Pointe Bar which the Manatee County Commission voted against approving. (Bravo!) Please do not make us all look so ignorant as to believe that if this commission approves Aqua that Long Pointe will eventually prevail as well. If this happens there goes the neighborhood and the damage to the immediate environmental area will be significant. Do not let this man’s greed win your trust! Thank you if you vote it down and shame on you if you do not.

Respectfully;

1 Buddy Odom Compressed Air Specialist Phone (813) 621-9671 Mobile (813) 781-5453

www.AirCentersofFlorida.com Email [email protected] Connect

--Air Compressors Systems (Ingersoll Rand) --Pneumatic Tools / Hoists / Fluids / Material Handling (Ingersoll Rand) --Stationary Generator Sets / Towable Generators and Light Towers (ABB Baldor) --Electric Motors (ABB Baldor) --Uninterruptible Power Supply / UPS (ABB) --Switchgear and controllers (ComAp) --Automatic Transfer Switches --Vacuum Pump Systems (Dekker and Becker) --VFD Retrofits for existing Compressors (Baldor and Danfoss) --Breathing Air Purifiers (Domnick-Hunter & Deltech) --Natural Gas Vehicle “NGV” Filling Stations (Ingersoll Rand) --Cooling Systems and Towers (Ingersoll Rand) --Installations

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:13 AM To: Sophia Ryan Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: your decision/vote on Aqua-By-The-Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Sophia Ryan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:12 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Betsy Benac Cc: Robin DiSabatino; Charles Smith; Carol Whitmore Subject: re: your decision/vote on Aqua-By-The-Bay

Dear respected and elected commissioners;

This email is with regard and deep concern with the development and ruination of the bay front shore line. I am asking you ALL to consider the negatives of all this development. - The pollution that will run off into the bay and follow out to the gulf waters as well.

1 - The wildlife that will have their natural habitat taken away or destroyed. - The native plants, trees, mangroves and the like are being removed and destroyed.

Placing the structures, homes and other building plannings within this close to the end of the bay has no benefit to anyone. You all must be honest in your decisions and voting; and you know it is all a money making core plan. This will be a huge mistake and ruination of the entire area. The roads, traffic and the addition to the issues with travel to AMI.

This area was perfect for the original blue collar Florida residents, this project in whole will and already is running families out of this region. In entirety this idea on any level should never more forward. The land is unstable to withstand the type, size and massive buildings with the sit plans. We the people have rights, the decisions you the commissioners are not representing the people nor hearing anything but greed. There is no benefit to this project. If you have any type of conscious or actual interest in the future of this area you will make the right choice and vote NO. Do not allow this to pass permitting or any other authorization needed.

Even if you poorly choose to go forward the future ramifications will be long lasting and come with legal litigation's. It will result in all of you that voted it in that will have issues sleeping. It will be the future damages to the other housing area that will become flooded where there never was a wind, flooding or damages or issues from hurricanes before.

How much money does it take to sway to do the right thing? As we watch all the ligation and permit pulling and the violations of the vegetation as well as the Eagle Nest removal that no one has addressed or charged legally.

2 This pretty much covers the issues at hand, think with the voice of the people that voted you in, as apposed to the personal gain you may be getting. We the voters deserve truth and preservation justice.

~ Respectfully, Irene Ryan Bradenton

-- Inspire Restore EnJOY Nourish Enough be grateful for today, you are not promised a tomorrow. Remember: Sorrow looks back < , Worry looks around > and Faith looks Up ^!

3 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:13 AM To: Eileen Grabenstein Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Point development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Eileen Grabenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:26 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Long Bar Point development

Dear Manatee County Commissioners,

We do not want you to approve Aqua by the Bay or any projects to be built there, other than one-story, single-family homes, if necessary. We live on Chicago Avenue in Bradenton, two blocks east of 34th Street at Bayshore Gardens Parkway, in Cambridge Village. We live here year round. This spring, at times every day, traffic on Bayshore Gardens Parkway is backed up 1/2 mile, west of the route 41 traffic light at the Target store. It is no better since the "snow birds" have left. Much of the traffic is heading toward Sarasota, coming from west Bradenton and Anna Maria Island.

1 Most large cities are planned, with a grid of parallel crossing streets at every block. If traffic on one street is blocked, there are dozens of alternate streets to travel. This is not so in the Long Bar Point, El Conquistador, Bayshore Gardens area. We have very few cross streets to speed our travel. There is no way the thousands of residents In this area can quickly and safely evacuate now, in a hurricane or disaster. If thousands more people live here, MANY WIll DIE in an emergency. In Cambridge Village alone, all residents are over 55 years old. Many are disabled and home-bound, with no car or bus transportation. The home values in our area will decline. Where can we afford to move to? Look at downtown Tampa, on Tampa Bay. I don't see nice residential areas there any more, just skyscrapers, commercial buildings and dilapidated homes. People have moved away from there. Do we want southwest Bradenton to become another Tampa? We moved here because it was a small, retirement town. Our area is 4- 10 feet above sea level. Heavy rainstorms already flood our streets and some homes. Destroying the Long Bar Pointe wetlands will surely cause more flooding. WE IMPLORE YOU to NOT APPROVE the Long Bar Development on Sarasota Bay, with its 24 new, ten story buildings, marinas, canals, dredging, ruination of Cortez village and other nearby communities!!!

Sincerely yours,

Walter and Eileen Grabenstein 3224 Chicago Ave. Bradenton, Fl. 34207 (941-755-0048)

Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:14 AM To: edna SINNOTT Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: "Aqua By the Bay"

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: edna SINNOTT [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:13 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: "Aqua By the Bay"

I strongly urge you to defeat this project!!! I thought this was already settled! Carlos Beruff is the most hated developer for a reason!

Edna Sinnott

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:15 AM To: Beth Weir Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua by the bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to the Commissioner Stephen Jonsson to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners and staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Beth Weir [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:03 PM To: Stephen R Jonsson Subject: Aqua by the bay

Vote no to the destructive and unwanted development Aqua by the bay. We have a unique area rich in environment, history, and many citizens that depend on our community remaining the gem that exists currently. This development will be devastating to this entire area. Sent from my iPad

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:15 AM To: Jaynie Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Regarding the Development of Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Jaynie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:52 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Cc: [email protected] Subject: Regarding the Development of Aqua by the Bay

Honorable Commissioners of Manatee County, Respectfully: Vote "NO" on the development of Aqua by the Bay. I'm not against development, but this development, as planned, does not belong near Cortez or Manatee County's barrier islands. Make Beruff whole again by buying the land (eminent domain if needed), build the third bridge from the mainland to north Longboat Key (safety reasons), and donate the land to Mote Marine (or the likes). What better use for this eco-sensitive land? And, everyone involved is financially whole. Place whatever restrictions on development you think are appropriate to maintain the ecosystem. Think what research Mote Marine could do with this 500+ acre tract. Research labs, classrooms, schools, eco-education, employee development, habitat salvation and on and on and on. Trust your Comprehensive Plan as it is written today - this type of development doesn't belong and will be detrimental to Manatee County's, and certainly the barrier islands of Manatee County, prosperity in

1 the future. Remember, your decision could be for all time. (Clearwater Beach, FL certainly wishes they could go back in time and not allow certain changes to their Comp Plan 25/30 years ago.)

The Christenson Family Jayne, Joseph and 12 year old son Evan Holmes Beach homeowners since 1989; full time voting residents since 2007.

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:16 AM To: mabozz Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Stop Aqua By the Bay Project.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: mabozz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:41 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Stop Aqua By the Bay Project.

Not only will this harm ecology of our waterways. It will ruin our Fl. Treasures. Cortez village. Anna Maria,and our beaches. You need to work on the infrastructure in the country before we build anymore homes. Greed ruins all. Thank you for your time and I hope you listen to the people who elected you to take care of our homes and laws. Not to the wealthy that only care about their profits.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:16 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:16 PM To: [email protected]; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; [email protected] Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Sent from my iPad ..... Please show Bradenton you care...I am a lifelong resident of Bradenton and I'm sickened by the growth and destruction that this county is allowing to happen! This man Carlos Beruff has used his money and connections to get what he wants and needs to be stopped!! 3000 more homes !!! Which will overpopulate northwest Bradenton even more, not to mention the destruction of land , animals and fish breeding grounds , for what?? GREED!! In my 42 years I have seen my small town , explode in growth, more snowbirds and tourists are taking over this town, when does it stop ? When do you listen to the people and not the developers..when do you stop approving every piece of land left to be developed? I urge you to take a stand and do the right thing, to preserve some of what old Bradenton was,to protect the last piece of undeveloped coastline that our town has!! Thank you, Jennifer Brantley 1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:16 AM To: JANET PRINGLE Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua By the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: JANET PRINGLE [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:07 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua By the Bay

Dear Commissioners: We own property in Cortez FL at 4440 123rd St. We are opposed to Aqua by the Bay because of the ecological, environmental and financial impact to the health of the wetlands, breeding grounds, bird rookery and water quality damage. Please vote NO on this project. Raymond S. Pringle, Jr. and Janet M. Pringle 4440 123rd. St. [email protected]

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:16 AM To: Sharon Townsend Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay/Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Sharon Townsend [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 6:31 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay/Long Bar Pointe

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing to you as a very concerned Manatee County citizen. I have live her for 23 years and in that time I have seen development after development take over our town. As good as some development can be for our community it is time to slow down, especially near our coastline. Like many other people who live and vacation in the area, I was attracted to Manatee County because of it's laid back environment. This area offers both the conveniences of a small city and the beauty of a sleepy, coastal town with it's miles of beaches and acres of nature preserves. Manatee County is a special and unique place, but we've got to work to keep it this way. If the current rate of growth continues, it will lose it's charm and become like all the other over-developed cities up and down Florida's coast.

1 I am writing to ask that you please vote NO on the Long Bar Pointe/Aqua by the Bay development. Not only will it wreak havok on our coastal wetlands, it will stress our already overcrowded roadways as well as the schools. The proposed lagoon will cause an imbalance to the ecosystem, and negatively affect both commercial and sport fishing in the area and well into the Gulf of Mexico.

Think about the next generation. Think about your grandchildren or future grandchildren. Think about what's best for the majority of people in the community and not just what an already wealthy developer wants. He is not thinking about us. He is not thinking about our precious environment. He is only thinking about himself and about making himself even richer. VOTE NO!!

Sincerely, Sharon Townsend Teacher, Parent, and Concerned Manatee County Resident

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:17 AM To: Ashok Sawe Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please vote NO on Aqua by the Bay development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Ashok Sawe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 4:32 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Please vote NO on Aqua by the Bay development

Dear Honorable Commissioners:

I am writing this to respectfully request you to vote NO at the upcoming session on the subject development.

As a permanent full time resident of Anna Maria since 2001, I am strongly opposed to this development. As proposed, this development poses significant and permanent danger not only to the area’s eco system, but also to the quality of life of the people living in the surrounding areas as well as to the enjoyment of the county residents who visit regularly.

The undeveloped land around the bay and the gulf that belongs to the county should be viewed as a treasure to be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations as well as a key to the protection of the county’s eco system. Please try to take a long term view and look for ways to permanently remove these lands, including the land slated for the subject project, from any future development.

1 Respectfully,

Ashok Sawe Anna Maria

Virus-free. www.avast.com

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:17 AM To: John Russo Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua Bay Development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: John Russo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 4:17 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Re: Aqua Bay Development

To Board of County Commissioners,

I want to go on record that I am requesting that you do not approve Aqua Bay Development at your meeting on Thursday, May 4, 2017.

Aqua by the Bay presents several big problems which can be used by the BOCC to deny the application outright at your meeting on Thursday. The dense development will put thousands of additional cars on roadways that are not designed to support such intense use, which will impact an already troublesome traffic problem far beyond the immediate area as all of those new residents access the beaches, downtown and head toward the interstate. The roads are already overwhelmed during season.

There’s also the height issue. The current plan would allow for heights of up to ten stories from grade, which would be

1 about 150 feet—approximately the size of the two large towers at Riviera Dunes in Palmetto on the north side of the Manatee River. There are plans to build 24 of these massive structures. This not only violates the county’s rule on coastal height (which is limited to 35 feet without a special finding for compatibility) but grossly distorts the vistas of the bay’s shoreline. Eco and fishing tourists, along with residents on Longboat Key and Tidy Island, all of whom currently look at a natural vista, will instead see something for which there is no local example to compare, as even downtown Sarasota does not have 24 buildings of such height visible in its skyline. A proposed seawall would also threaten Tidy with flooding as it pushes water laterally toward their roads and homes.

As proposed, the development would simply wreak havoc on coastal wetlands, a full 13 acres of which would be directly impacted. A proposed lagoon would be dug at the back of the wetlands, disregarding the county’s rules requiring 50 foot buffer areas, without abutting solid land, making them less effective and more vulnerable to erosion. This particular portion of the bay is often referred to as "the kitchen" because so many of the small feeder fish in the food chain develop along the mangroves, but the deep lagoon behind them would invite larger predators. The impact of this imbalance on our fisheries would be felt all the way out to the Gulf of Mexico and negatively affect both the commercial and sport fishing industries.

Clearly, there is every reason for the BOCC to deny the general development plan Beruff is submitting. At the end of the day, if you want to be re-elected then don’t deny the will of the people. Voters will remember those who do the bidding of the developer , even when it’s clearly not in the best interest of the people who are their real constituents.

I was chairman of the local Zoning Board of Appeals for 7 years when I lived in Westchester County NY in the 1990’s and am familiar with developers who don’t care about what havoc is caused by their developments as long as they are squeezing the last dollar out of their development. Don’t sell us and the entire county out. Stand up and be counted as being in favor of what is right for the people who live in this area of Manatee County, you owe that to us and to yourself.

John R. Russo 4707 61st Ave Dr, W Bradenton, FL 34210

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:17 AM To: spreziosi Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: spreziosi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 4:01 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Dear Ms. Benac: Given the negative impact this development would cause to the wildlife and environment of the bay that makes our area such a special place in which to live, I don't understand how the proposal was approved. A developer's greed should not be allowed to ruin what we have.

In addition, the local infrastructure just isn't able to support the additional population growth.

Please, please listen to those who live snd love this area and save Longbar Pointe.

Sincerely Sara Preziosi

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:17 AM To: Sheri White Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please deny request for permit ERP 338349 Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Sheri White [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 3:49 PM To: Carol Whitmore Cc: Betsy Benac; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Betsy Benac Subject: Please deny request for permit ERP 338349 Long Bar Pointe

Please deny request for permit ERP 338349 Long Bar Pointe and preserve what is left of our HISTORIC shoreline!

I am unable to attend the Commissioners Meeting on May 4th, however, I want my voice to be heard!

Allowing Carlos Beruff to develop Long Bar Pointe will DESTROY not only our shoreline including aquatic life and our bird habitat, but also open up the possibility of destruction to our community without the protection of mangroves from natural forces like Hurricanes!

Carlos Beruff must be stopped!

Sincerely,

1 Sheri White

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:18 AM To: Jack Brennan Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Jack Brennan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 3:43 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Respectfully: Vote "NO" on the development of Aqua by the Bay. I'm not against development, but this development, as planned, does not belong near Cortez or Manatee County's barrier islands. Make Beruff whole again by buying the land (eminent domain if needed), build the third bridge from the mainland to north Longboat Key (safety reasons), and donate the land to Mote Marine (or the likes). What better use for this eco- sensitive land? And, everyone involved is financially whole. Place whatever restrictions on development you think are appropriate to maintain the ecosystem. Think what research Mote Marine could do with this 500+ acre tract. Research labs, classrooms, schools, eco-education, employee development, habitat salvation and on and on and on. Trust your Comprehensive Plan as it is written today - this type of development doesn't belong and will be detrimental to Manatee County's, and certainly the barrier islands of Manatee County, prosperity in the future. Remember, your decision could be for all time. (Clearwater Beach, FL certainly wishes they could go back in time and not allow certain changes to their Comp Plan.)

1 Jack Brennan Anna Maria homeowner since 1990; full time voting resident since 2012.

Jack Brennan PALADIN Golf Marketing Making the Business of Golf More Profitable www.golfcoursemarketingplans.com 813.545.4600 Cell 941.778.4600 Home Member of GCBC since 1999 www.gcbcinc.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission is confidential and is intended only for the person(s) named above. Its contents may also be protected by privilege, and all rights to privilege are expressly claimed and not waived. If you have received this email in error, please call us immediately and destroy the entire email. If this email is not intended for you, any reading, distribution, copying or disclosure of this email is strictly prohibited.

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:18 AM To: Jerry Swink Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Jerry Swink [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:48 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Honorable Commissioners

I urge you to reject the proposed Aqua by the Bay development. The last unspoiled shoreline on Sarasota Bay must be preserved as is. No assurances by a developer to respect the environmental importance of this shoreline will be honored forever. Once approval of this development is granted the demise of this shoreline is imminent.

Development such as Inspiration Terrace to the south will not infringe upon the property owners' exercise of development rights while preserving the integrity of this Manatee County asset. Negotiate a donation of shoreline property to the County for creation of a Preserve park for approval of development of the remainder of this parcel.

Respectfully yours,

1 Jerry Swink

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:18 AM To: Tom & Lois Huntington Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay Project

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Tom & Lois Huntington [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:39 PM To: Betsy Benac; [email protected]; Carol Whitmore; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh Subject: Aqua by the Bay Project

Dear County Commissioners:

We understand that the commission will vote whether to approve this proposed project at their meeting on May 4.

There has never been, nor can we conceive of, a single project that would be more detrimental to the citizens of Manatee County and to our environment, than the proposed Aqua by the Bay project. The enormity of it would create gridlock on state and county roads and bridges that are already inadequate for the current traffic. Storm evacuation would become impossible. The beaches would become so overcrowded that tourists will shun them. Not only would the skyline be blighted by high-rise buildings, but the ecology of coastal waters would be destroyed forever.

As residents of Anna Maria Island, we cannot imagine the amount of damage it would do to the island’s appeal and the way of life it offers residents and visitors. No amount of money is worth approving this proposed project. If it is approved, we can only conclude that the commissioners have total disregard for the safety and welfare of their

1 constituents and that money is their only motivator. There can be no other conclusion. We hope you will do the right thing and disapprove this project.

Sincerely,

Tom and Lois Huntington Holmes Beach

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:19 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Point/Aqua Bay project

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:29 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Point/Aqua Bay project

I am writing to make it be known to each of you that I totally disapprove of this entire project and the bullying taking place. Do not let it go through. Do not be puppets Sent from my iPhone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:19 AM To: Dan Johnson Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please support the Aqua GDP Application

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Dan Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:26 PM To: Betsy Benac; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Charles Smith; Robin DiSabatino; Carol Whitmore; Priscilla WhisenantTrace Subject: Please support the Aqua GDP Application

Dear Commissioners:

As a member of the construction industry in Manatee County, I wanted to share with you my support for the Aqua GDP application which is pending before you. Many are already forgetting the worst recession of our collective lifetimes; when good upstanding citizens struggled to put food on their tables and keep a roof over their family's heads. Aqua's application for 2,894 units mean THOUSANDS of JOBS. The word "jobs" used to be important; but folks either became numb to it or have already forgotten. The approval of this project could mean 2 decades worth of work for my company and my family. Please support the Aqua GDP application.

Dan Johnson

1 Dan Johnson, CBP Swim Incorporated Clean Water Design, LLC

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:19 AM To: Estelle Schultz Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: I am in Sopposition to development of Long Bar pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Estelle Schultz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:20 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: I am in Sopposition to development of Long Bar pointe

Sent from Windows Mail

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:20 AM To: Penny Bray Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Save Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Penny Bray [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:03 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Save Long Bar Pointe

The proposed project sounds outrageous, seriously destroying that pristine area. When does the County learn...... BUY these few fragile areas remaining to prevent the destructive development. Hearing we have aquifers running short on water....why isn't that enough to deny more development??? Wake up County et al, we don't need more and more and more development!!! Keep our beautiful open lands while we still have some. Who voted in favor of this planning review in the first place? Names should be posted so never to hold elected office again.!! Don't support this outrageous development, please... Penny Bray 1269 Edgewater Circle Bradenton

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:21 AM To: Sandra Mahler Cc: Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commissioner Stephen Jonsson to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners, staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Commissioner Jonsson and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Sandra Mahler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 1:48 PM To: Stephen R Jonsson Subject: Aqua by the bay

VOTE NO ON THURSDAY , MAY 4TH!! DO not allow our ecosystem to be destroyed. NO LAGOON NO SEAWALL NO trimming of mangroves No 10 story structures.

If Mr Beroff wants to develop his land please be sure he does it in a responsible way. I live on El Conquistador Parkway and the mangroves offer protection for our property as well as our coastline fishing community . We do not need more fertilizers and waste water washed into the bay. In addition, please consider the impact of the increased traffic along El Con Parkway. This area is heavily used

1 by pedestrians and bikers. That will changes dramatically for those of us who live here. Please do not allow this development to move forward as planned. Thankyou, SANDRA MAHLER

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:22 AM To: Gerald Langlykke Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: destructive development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Gerald Langlykke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 1:37 PM To: Stephen R Jonsson Cc: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: destructive development

Dear Commissioner, The commission has approved two developments that will have devastating effect on everyone living near or traveling on Cortez Rd West. Now there is a development coming before the board that will not only compound that problem, but also have a very damaging effect on the bay. Projects like these demand infrastructure improvements, which I believe the county is incapable of providing. One just has to look at the interminable 53rd Ave project. Please do not issue a permit for Aqua, Regards, Gerald Langlykke 3711 Royal Palm Dr Bradenton, FL 34210

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:22 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 1:24 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Please vote no on this development. As a former commissioner for the City of Anna Maria I have personally experienced what happens when developers think they can build what ever they please. As a resident for the past 6 years in Cortez I can only imagine what a development of this size will do to the traffic. But most important is to save the coastal waters for our future generations. Thank you.

Chris Tollette Tom Tollette

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:23 AM To: Valerie Forster Cc: Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Saying NO to Aqua on the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Commissioner Jonsson and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Valerie Forster [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 1:20 PM To: Stephen R Jonsson Subject: Saying NO to Aqua on the Bay

Counting on your NO vote on the Aqua bay development.

Valerie Forster 3607 99th St W

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:28 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Long Bar Point

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 12:59 PM To: Marianne Lopata Subject: Long Bar Point

I am not in favor of Long Bar Point development. Should you, Commissioner Jonnson, approve the project, I will remember that in the next election.

Thank you.

Jay A Poppe.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:52 PM To: Janel Borne Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: YOU ARE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Janel Borne [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:11 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: YOU ARE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!

Commissioners,

With the upcoming vote on the Aqua by the Bay development, I would like to remind you that YOU ARE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE NOT DEVELOPERS! We, the people, elected you to act on our behalf. The fact that Carlos Beruff funds your campaigns or is a related party must be set aside when it comes to commission voting matters. Carols Beruff does not elect you and his bully like attitude should not deter you from adhering to the voice of your constituents. We have been loud and clear on this issue! Hopefully, you recognize if you allow this development to pass you will be personally responsible for the destruction of our coastal wetlands and the negative impact this development will have on Manatee County.

I respectfully trust you will not, once again, let the citizens of this County down,

J. C. Borne, CPA

1 PO Box 14512 Bradenton, FL 34280 941-795-8776 (O) 941-592-5498 (C)

Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message and any related attachments. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy, review, distribute or forward the contents of this message to anyone. If you suspect that you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (941)795-8776, or email at [email protected] and immediately delete this message and all of its attachments.

Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230 we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication attachments and enclosures, is not intended by the Sender or J Borne, CPA, LLC. to constitute a covered opinion pursuant to regulation section 10.35 or to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:52 PM To: Andrew White Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Vote No to Aqua By the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Andrew White [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:53 AM To: Stephen R Jonsson; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Vote No to Aqua By the Bay

I am a 48 year old native of Bradenton and a life long resident of Manatee County. This is the first time in my life that I have felt strongly enough about an issue to contact the County Commission.

I am asking you to please vote no to the Aqua by the Bay project. This development is too far outside the county's regulations and allowing it to go through would be problematic for local residents and devastating to the fragile ecosystem of Long Bar.

The current plan for the development disregards the county's rules regarding 50 foot buffer areas for coastal wetlands.

1 The height of the proposed structures is well over the limit of the county's coastal height rule.

The development is too dense and would add to the traffic problems already being experienced on Cortez Road.

Please consider these points and vote NO to Aqua by the Bay.

Thank you,

Andrew White

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:53 PM To: rustyth1 Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Destroy Manatee County

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: rustyth1 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:51 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Destroy Manatee County

Please reject Aqua by the Bay -

Take a stand for our enviromental please

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:53 PM To: Barbara Hyde Cc: Debbie Bassett; Bobbi Roy; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Barbara Hyde [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:13 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Pointe

This is probably an exercise in futility as far as you are concerned but I am registering strong opposition to Carlos Beruff’s plans to destroy Long Bar Pointe. You characterize all opposition to Beruff, who has been your long-time supporter, as lies. Let’s see how many times you have voted to give him what he wants. He should be sitting in jail for the federal crime of destroying an eagle’s nest. You care about your pocketbook and the power you wield, not the constituents whom you are supposed to serve. You are on notice that you will not continue to get away with this, and you will be held accountable for destruction of precious wetland habitat. The opposition is energized and activated, and we will speak at the ballot box. Civic engagement is at an unprecedented level, and we will not be ignored.

Barbara Hyde

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:53 PM To: Anne McCarthy Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe - Aqua By The Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Anne McCarthy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:12 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Pointe - Aqua By The Bay

Dear Commissioner Benac:

I am writing to you in the hope to let you know my feelings about the destruction of one of the most valuable commodities Bradenton has. The pristine landscape is about to be destructed along Sarasota Bay for the betterment of only two people, Carlos Beruff and Larry Zimmerman. I implore you to vote against any of these new plans/schemes that Carlos is proposing. You have the ability to maintain the beautiful scenic shoreline or to turn into something even Sarasota wouldn’t allow with all the high-rises he wants!

Sincerely,

Anne McCarthy 4711 61st Avenue Drive West 1 Bradenton, FL 34210 941-739-1472 Anne McCarthy

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:54 PM To: Charles Faulkner Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: STOP AQUA BY THE BAY

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Charles Faulkner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:08 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: STOP AQUA BY THE BAY

As my elected representative, you must represent me, a property owner and resident of Bradenton,Manatee County. You work for the TAXPAYERS. Please, please stand up for US and KEEP MANATEE GREAT! Do not let Mr. Beruff ruin our home.

I will be at your Board Meeting and at the POLLING BOOTH. Do your job and represent your constituents.

Thank you

Sent from my iPad

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:54 PM To: Edward Nichols Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua By The Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Edward Nichols [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:02 AM To: Robin DiSabatino Subject: Aqua By The Bay

Please don't approve the Aqua-By-The-Bay Project, it will devistate the environment in that area!

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:11 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: mymanatee contact form [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] AQUA BY THE BAY

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:01 AM To: Tellus Subject: mymanatee contact form

The following variables were submitted in the form: Field Submitted Value Name name: Mary Anne Faulkner__Mary Anne phone:

email: [email protected] subject: AQUA BY THE BAY Please do not allow this development be approved. As a resident and property owner here message: in Bradenton, you the BOARD are employed by US the TAXPAYERS. You MUST abide 1 Field Submitted Value Name by the people you represent. You must STOP Carlos and the demise of our community.... I will see you at the Board Meeting and also at the POLLING BOOTH table_name: mymanatee_contact

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:54 PM To: Barbara Hyde Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Barbara Hyde [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:55 AM To: Vanessa Baugh Subject: Long Bar Pointe

I am intensely opposed to acceding to Carlos Beruff’s plan to DESTROY this important wetland and build ugly high rise buildings. You seem to think developers are more important than the constituents you serve. Believe me, that is not the case, and your constituents will let you know this at the ballot box and also at your jewelry store in Lakewood Ranch. You will never get my support nor my patronage if you demonstrate again that developers are more important than the will of the people who put you in office and that you do not care about destruction of precious natural habitat.

Barbara Hyde

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:55 PM To: Bill Wellstead Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Bill Wellstead [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:21 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Development

Please do NOT approve this development. It serves only Carlos Beruff's desire to become richer and destroys the natural environment in that area. William R. Wellstead 9610 53rd Drive East Bradenton 34211

Sent from my iPad

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:55 PM To: Richard Motzer Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Richard Motzer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:00 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace Subject: Aqua by the Bay

Commissioner,

Aqua by the Bay presents several big problems. The dense development will put thousands of additional cars on roadways that are not designed to support such intense use, which will impact an already troublesome traffic problem far beyond the immediate area as all of those new residents access the beaches, downtown and head toward the interstate.

There’s also the height issue. The current plan would allow for heights of up to ten stories from grade, which would be about 150 feet—approximately the size of the two large towers at Riviera Dunes in Palmetto on the north side of the Manatee River. Beruff plans to build 24 of

1 these massive structures. This not only violates the county’s rule on coastal height (which is limited to 35 feet without a special finding for compatibility) but grossly distorts the vistas of the bay’s shoreline. Eco and fishing tourists, along with residents on Longboat Key and Tidy Island, all of whom currently look at a natural vista, will instead see something for which there is no local example to compare, as even downtown Sarasota does not have 24 buildings of such height visible in its skyline. A proposed seawall would also threaten Tidy with flooding as it pushes water laterally toward their roads and homes.

As proposed, the development would simply wreak havoc on coastal wetlands, a full 13 acres of which would be directly impacted. A proposed lagoon would be dug at the back of the wetlands, disregarding the county is rules requiring 50-foot buffer areas, without abutting solid land, making them less effective and more vulnerable to erosion. This particular portion of the bay is often referred to as "the kitchen" because so many of the small feeder fish in the food chain develop along the mangroves, but the deep lagoon behind them would invite larger predators. The impact of this imbalance on our fisheries would be felt all the way out to the Gulf of Mexico and negatively affect both the commercial and sport fishing industries.

PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE RAPE OF OUR SHORE LINE.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Motzer

Holmes Beach, Florida

Portions of this article were copied from Dennis Maley’s article

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:55 PM To: Kathy Caserta Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: This does not seem good.....$$$

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Kathy Caserta [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 7:07 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: This does not seem good.....$$$

Stop, look and listen!

This does not sound like paradise to me:

Re: Aqua by destroying the Bay! "There’s also the height issue. The current plan would allow for heights of up to ten stories from grade, which would be about 150 feet—approximately the size of the two large towers at Riviera Dunes in Palmetto on the north side of the Manatee River. Beruff plans to build 24 of these massive structures. This not only violates the county’s rule on coastal height (which is limited to 35 feet without a special finding for compatibility) but grossly distorts the vistas of the bay’s shoreline."

1 I can see why people move off Anna Maria Island and out of this State if the Commissioners don't listen to the people! This entire Community will suffer at the hands of a greedy Developer. I attended the last meeting in 2013 to show support and it looks like no one listens. Everyone wants to ruin the environment for profit. Build it and they will come or destroy it and they will leave and you can deal with the mess you allowed in Manatee County.

We purchased on Anna Maria Island in 1995 after searching for ten years for the perfect location to continue to work and then retire. We moved here full time in 1999 and I always wondered how anyone could ever leave the Island and this beautiful area. It has turned into a nightmare of a traffic problem holding Islanders prisoners in paradise. Who wants to live in the middle of a nightmare and you are thinking of creating an additional one?

Does it always have to be about money? What about the environment?

Please take time to listen to the people!

All the best from the beach (for now!),

Kathy Caserta Mike Norman Realty Florida Realtor, GRI, CRS Cell (941) 704-2023

Kathy Caserta Pennsylvania Broker of Record Toll Brothers, Inc

All the best from the beach,

Kathy Caserta Mike Norman Realty Florida Realtor, GRI, CRS Cell (941) 704-2023

Kathy Caserta Pennsylvania Broker of Record Toll Brothers, Inc

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Carol Whitmore Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 10:07 PM To: Bobbi Roy; Marianne Lopata Subject: Fwd: Please vote "NO" to the current plan for Aqua by the Bay

Only sent to me i think Carol

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Carol Carter Date: April 29, 2017 at 5:42:38 PM EDT To: "[email protected]" Subject: Please vote "NO" to the current plan for Aqua by the Bay

Please think about your grandsons and their ability to enjoy the habitat created by the mangroves and sea grasses along Sarasota Bay. That is a fragile environment and the current plan will destroy much of the native habitat for fish spawning, mammal habitat and storm protection, not to mention the impact on all those new residents on your beloved Anna Maria Island. Please stand up for our beautiful, abundant, life-giving habitat and way of life. Thank you.

Carol Carol A. Carter, 239 Willow Avenue, Anna Maria, FL 34216 http://www.carter.global

400 Madison Drive, Suite 204 |Sarasota, FL 34236 |Office: 941.779.9553 |Mobile: 941.538.2229

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:56 PM To: Carol Carter Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please vote "NO" on the Aqua by the Bay plan

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Carol Carter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 5:37 PM To: Stephen R Jonsson Subject: Please vote "NO" on the Aqua by the Bay plan

Or … make a major change in the plans near the Bay and the mangroves – this fragile environment will be forever destroyed if this plan goes through. Think about the subsequent generations of Manatee Countians. Thank you.

Carol Carol A. Carter, 239 Willow Avenue, Anna Maria, FL 34216 http://www.carter.global

400 Madison Drive, Suite 204 |Sarasota, FL 34236 |Office: 941.779.9553 |Mobile: 941.538.2229

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:56 PM To: Pam McNeel Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Pam McNeel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 4:43 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Pointe

Please do not vote for development. Everything about this project jeopardizes fragile ecosystem. We live here because of the nature and do not want to see it gone!!!!! Pam McNeel 3922 Bridlecrest Ln

Sent from my iPhone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:56 PM To: Terry Axley Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua on the bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Terry Axley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 2:29 PM To: Betsy Benac Cc: Woody Bell Subject: Aqua on the bay

Ms. Benac, Please oppose this destruction of one of the last remaining habitats on Sarasota Bay . As a fisherman, I will be following the votes on this greedy attempt to make money at the expense of the enviroment.

Thank You, Terry Axley Bradenton, Fl.

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:56 PM To: Ann Hall Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Planning Needs to Think about the Big Picture; Our Character as a town and not just the developers Big Bucks for Development- Deny General Devlopment for Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ann Hall Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 2:24 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Planning Needs to Think about the Big Picture; Our Character as a town and not just the developers Big Bucks for Development- Deny General Devlopment for Aqua by the Bay

I ask the commission to deny the General Development Plan for Aqua by the Bay. The Board of County Commissioners meets May 4. I am sending my request for Denial, so that it can become part of the permanent record for this meeting. They have decimated and flattened and burned much of the land, and will take it to a recreation of giant buildings dwarfing the sky line and changing the character of our town forever. Palmetto and downtown Bradenton have not been improved by tall buildings in their environments. They are ugly and out of proportion for the coast.No wildlife remains as there is very little green space Do the right thing for a Forever Florida!

In 2013, Mr. Beruff tried to build a marina and dredge a boat channel through the mangroves, but Manatee County turned him down. After suing in vain for three years, he’s back, and now wants to 1:

1 - Dredge a 2½ mile long lagoon right behind the mangroves. - Build a seawall behind right behind the lagoon. - Build nearly 3,000 homes behind the seawall. - Install dozens of docks along the shoreline. - Build at least one 145’ building – four times higher than allowed. He also has applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a “mitigation bank” that would 2: - Let him trim more than a mile of mangroves. - Have a 100’ gap leading to the lagoon right where he wanted the channel. - Impose a conservation easement that overrides county authority. The development and the bank would 3: - Violate several county laws against dredging and wetland protection. - Severely impact the mangroves and their ecological function. - Endanger the finest seagrass, bird habitat and fishing ground on the bay. - Destroy the character of this peaceful Old Florida coastline. Thank you for helping save Manatee County’s last great place. I support the Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club and Suncoast Waterkeeper.

1 Large Project Application, Aqua by the Bay, September 2016 2 Notice of Intent to Issue Mitigation Bank Permit No. 338349-002 for the Long Bar Pointe Mitigation Bank, December 2016; Long Bar Point Mitigation Bank Prospectus, January 2017 3 Manatee County Comprehensive Plan policies 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.5, 4.1.2.2 & 4.1.2.5; Land Development Code sections 402.14, 403.8 & 706; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, January 12, 2015; Manatee County, May 17, 2016; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA Marine Fisheries Service, September 14, 2016. Ann Hall [email protected]

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:57 PM To: Darlene Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: "Aqua" project

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Darlene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 2:12 PM To: Stephen R Jonsson; Charles Smith; [email protected]; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac; [email protected] Subject: "Aqua" project

Hello Mr. Jonson,

We are urging you to vote no on the "Aqua By The Bay" project for the following reasons:

1. Height exceeds the county limits!

2. Density is too high for the infrastructure, setting a dangerous future for our roads and discourages rejuvenation of our existing older neighborhoods/a continuation of a throw away possibly greedy mentality.

1 3. Very short sighted in the use of our natural resources; a better plan might be a green styled neighborhood that attracts younger families that may want to utilize the water way in more natural less obtrusive ways. Thus bring children to our schools and vitality to our area that way; they do not like these types of neighborhoods.

4. The jobs created are temporary and not easily filled with qualified tradespeople as there is a shortage already that is delaying projects and causing expensive repairs. I am a contractor; I know.

5. You can not get back green space and waterways. Do not forget that the reasons most people came to Florida are our natural resources. We need to be very good stewards of what God has given us so it will be here for future generations.)

6.As for the commercial space; all have noticed the vacancies around Manatee County which indicates no real necessity for that.

7. There doesn't seem to be a need for this many residences, too many are planned for our area at this time.

Thank you so much,

Fredrick and Darlene Kunkel 1103 77th St NW Bradenton, Fl 34209 Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:57 PM To: Diana Daley Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua By The Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Diana Daley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 1:54 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua By The Bay

I am writing to implore you to Vote NO on Aqua By The Bay. This development will lead to the destruction of important ecosystems in the bay and of the last protected shoreline we have. We do not need to expand an already massive development to build an unneeded high rise and other destructive structures. A high rise is totally out of character for this area and there is no need to set this precedent now or in the future. Beruff does not care about about any of the effects of this destruction but I am in hope that you do. I ask you to do the right thing and vote no!

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Diana Daley 7708 10th Ave NW 1 Bradenton 34209

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:57 PM To: Deb Comeau Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: The Clock is Ticking on Florida's Mountains of Hazardous Phosphate Waste | Sarasota Magazine

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Deb Comeau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 12:27 PM To: Robin DiSabatino; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Priscilla WhisenantTrace Subject: The Clock is Ticking on Florida's Mountains of Hazardous Phosphate Waste | Sarasota Magazine

Commissioners, I remind you of previous decisions you have made. Please do not let Aqua by the Bay be another. The environment of our county can only take so much. Please! https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/articles/2017/4/26/florida-phosphate

Debra Comeau PO Box 5901 1 Bradenton, FL 34281 941-752-1835

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Robin DiSabatino Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 3:51 PM To: Joseph McClash; Sarah Schenk; Bobbi Roy; Sheri Smith; Nicole Knapp Cc: John Barnott; Justin Bloom; Sandra Ripberger; Judy Johnson/Stu Smith; ManaSota-88 Subject: Re: Aqua on the Bay May 4th submission for the record - please review

Received

Cordially Sent from my iPhone

Robin Sue DiSabatino Manatee County Commissioner District 4 941-685-5368

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Joseph McClash wrote: > > Commissioners, > > I know some of you are looking over the information for the Aqua on the Bay item for Thursday's May 4th meeting. Years ago our staff would color code the site plan to show the differences in what we were approving. I am sure Betsy remembers this. I did not see a whole lot of information on your site plan that we as commissioners relied upon for making these tough decisions. > > Since the applicant recently had a notice to issue for a conceptual plan from SWFMD and Ed Vogler for the applicant included this action by SWFMD as reason to approve at teh planning commission public hearing, it is only proper to show the plan they approved. The applicant requests approval for a General Development Plan along with some zoning, for which you can deny for many good reasons that will be introduced into the record at the public hearing for which I request you would deny this request. > > The plan attached was from the permitted plans for the SWFMD conceptual permit and is public information. I just added a bit of color. The orange are wetlands that will be dredged and filled, blue the lagoon which include dredging wetlands and possible significant historical impacts and so called buffer area on the plans, green the mangroves and wetlands. > > As you can see the permitted plans show 24 high rises about 150 feet above sea level. This would be the most impacted shoreline in the west coast of Florida creating a wall of condos not intended to ever exist under our rules. > > I respect the hard work of a commissioner, and land use decisions are the most difficult. We live in a different political climate and it just makes decisions like this so much harder. As trustees of the County your have great responsibilities. > > For 22 years I helped shape a County that prospered, and protected the environment and waterfront vistas, and I am proud of those accomplishments. I ask you do the same Thursday when you vote on this project, by denying it. Just like the islands have policies for a 35 foot height restriction, Manatee County has a similar policy that provides some latitude to exceed 35 feet. When we voted on the policy it was to prevent the wall of buildings like this and the excessive heights ruining waterfront vistas for people that live in Tidy island, to those that use our waters and even our eco-tourism business like Captain Kathe. We took great measures to approve height above 35 feet in 2004 for the first phase on Long Bar. Flying balloons and working with the developer to approve a good compromise that met the codes and comp plan,

1 and one that Judge Laiken used as an example of a reasonable exercise of your powers for balancing property rights with the responsibility to protect the public, when this developer took you to court to remove protections important to the residents and visitors to this County. > > Please feel free to ask me questions after I provide comments. After all I voted into existence the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Codes you are using today and I might be able to provide the reasons and expectations we had when we approved them. > > This last remaining shoreline of Sarasota Bay is extremely valuable to our County and region. Someone asked me yesterday if this was a done deal knowing the situation. I answered no, I am optimistic many of you share the importance of maintaining the character of our community, especially our coastal areas, and what evidence you will see Thursday, in a request by the applicant that does not meet your rules for development. > > You have great powers to protect the history and culture of our community in denying a project for many reasons. And it would be legally defensible. You must consider doing exactly that or else we just may change into what Miami became. > > Please enter these comments into the record with the attachment. > > Respectfully submitted, > > Joe McClash > Manatee County Commissioner 1990-2012 >

Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:58 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: "Aqua" development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 11:35 AM To: Vanessa Baugh Subject: "Aqua" development

Please DO NOT APPROVE the outrageous "Aqua" at Long Bar Pointe. This is not compatible with the area and is damaging to the environment.The overwhelming majority of County residents are against this plan.Thank you.

Richard Bush 6644 Pebble Beach Way Lakewood Ranch,Fl 34202

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:59 PM To: Lisa Varano Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

Dear Commissioners,

Save Longbar Pointe

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:59 PM To: Tricia HARRIS Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Tricia HARRIS [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:00 AM To: Stephen R Jonsson Subject: Aqua by the Bay

To the Honorable Stephen Jonsson:

Our mangrove coastline will be permanently destroyed if Aqua by the Bay is built, it will destroy a multitude of flora and fauna, The County Commission must protect this last remaining pristine coast. If you look at other communities that have allowed the destruction of mangrove forests you will see that when large storms occur there is nothing to protect the homes. Please do not allow this man to pull down our first line of defense, do not allow his money to kill the nurseries of a multitude of birds and aquatic creatures.

I have seen American bald eagles flying in this area they use it for hunting and perhaps nesting, what happens to them...

1 Traffic as we are all aware is making beaches and certain businesses along Cortez Road and Manatee Avenue impossible to access, especially during the winter months. I have had to change physicians and veterinarians because of the extreme traffic conditions. Adding 3000+ families will make this area so congested no one will want to visit here. Last march, on a weekday we attempted to go watch the sunset. We waited one hour in line, watched 5+ instances of road rage and two accidents before we returned home, never having made it over the bridge. Our roads cannot handle the additional families. The west side has an aging water and sewer system, it cannot take this additional load.

Additionally , the developer plans to build a 145 foot tall eyesore along a coastline that doesn't have any tall buildings for miles and miles. Isn't that FOUR TIMES the legal limit? At what point do we say enough is enough. At what point do we realize that not every inch of this county needs to be concrete. At what point do we stop allowing developers to put dollars in our pocket while we turn the other way and let this county be destroyed.

We have already allowed Anna Maria Island to be turned into a wall of condos and motels when it used to be incredibly beautiful. When I was a teenager one could drive down the entire length of the island and see the water now you can only see building after building. While the beaches are beautiful that island is not. And of course it was all about the money.

Shame on anyone that allows this to happen, for we know the true reason and it always has a pathway to dirty money.

Please vote against this destruction.

Sincerely,

Tricia and Scott Harris 2804 68th Street Cir, W. Bradenton, Fl 34209

Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:59 PM To: Jake Russell Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua By the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Jake Russell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:16 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua By the Bay

Manatee County Commissioners, thank you for taking the time to read this. I am writing you today because I have concern for one of the most beloved places for me and my family. When I was 20, my wife and I decided we didn't want to live in Kansas anymore so we decided we were going to move to Florida. We picked Bradenton and the rest is history. A few years later due to family circumstances, we left and moved back to Kansas. Since then we have had 2 children and we have returned each year to vacation for a few weeks. I'm 31 now. We have brought family and friends with us by the dozen. We have also made many friends down in the Bradenton area. Friends whose livelyhood depends on a healthy eco system. My daughter and son, they love it so much down there they want us to move back so they can see the birds, fish, and other animals and wildlife. My wife and I love the unspoiledness(not sure if that's a word) of the region. It's beautiful. We all know how Mangroves are nature's seawall and we all know how they provide a habitat so I'm not going to try to sell you on that because you know the facts... But please think of the tourists who come down there for the getaway from the city life, if you will. I don't bring my family down there so see views of condos or stay in them or want

1 to see all of those houses on the last untouched shoreline. We go on boat charters and we get out and walk the shores. Our kids love it. They're 9 & 4. We rent from local folks to keep our money local in Manatee. We don't want Aqua by the Bay, our friends don't want Aqua by the Bay, and the wildlife definitely doesn't want Aqua by the bay. I appreciate your time for reading this. And I hope you folks look beyond the money and do what's right. Thank you. -Jacob Russell

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:59 PM To: Deb Comeau Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay -LBP

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Deb Comeau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:06 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay -LBP

Dear County Commissioners,

Please, you must stand up to all and any demands of Carlos on Long Bar Point! It is an environmental disaster and you know it! The Sarasota bay is a protected area and if you give in to ANY of his Aqua by the Bay plan, we all lose our future! You All have been elected by us to make the best decisions for our county. You have not been doing well on any environmental decisions. Mosaic is now sucking up vast amounts of water that we can not afford. This time, do the right thing. Vote no, stand up to greed.

Debra Comeau PO Box 5901 1 Bradenton, FL 34281 941-752-1835

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:00 PM To: Sherri Mancuso Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Save Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Sherri Mancuso [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 8:03 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Save Long Bar Pointe

Dear Commissioners: I live in Southwest Bradenton with my husband. We are against the proposed development on Long Bar Pointe. It is such a beautiful and natural coastline and we need to keep it that way. I am also against the building of all those homes. They are widening 53rd Ave, but what about Cortez Rd and the bridge to the Island? All those cars will add to the bottleneck that we already have. Commissioners, please vote NO on this project. Sincerely, Sherri & Peter Mancuso

Sent from my iPad

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:00 PM To: Melinda Zeller Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Save our coastline

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Melinda Zeller [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 7:56 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Save our coastline

Stop aqua by the bay and preserve what little bit of natural coastline we have left! Focus on things we NEED! Better roads, improve our schools, and better services/things for those of us that live here year round! I am a Florida native born and raised in Bradenton....please don't let this development happen!!!!!!!! Sent from my iPad

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:00 PM To: Dick Comeau Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua Bay Project

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Dick Comeau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 7:40 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua Bay Project

Please follow the majority of Manatee voters and vote against Carlos Beruff's Aqua Bay project. The commissioners need to do the right thing for everyone's future.

Dick Comeau PO Box 5901 Bradenton, FL 34281 941-752-1835 phone/fax

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:00 PM To: Kate Willis Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Stop Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Kate Willis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 7:34 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Stop Aqua by the Bay

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing to implore all of you to please stop Carlos Beruff and Aqua by the Bay from devastating our Sarasota Bay shorelines.

There will be horrendous environmental consequences if this community is allowed to impact the mangroves and wetlands on and near the site. As many of you know the waters near this planned development support our local tourism, not to mention serve as a nursery ground for many species of marine creatures. The developers have already shown blatant disregard for our County's rules and procedures when they bulldozed a conservation area near the development "on accident". Really?

1 Planting some extra palm trees in a "mitigation effort" will not replace what Carlos plans to destroy.

I am a proud homeowner and taxpayer in Manatee County. My husband and I enjoy the waters of Sarasota Bay almost every weekend, as do thousands of other locals and tourists. Please, listen to your residents and community members and prevent Aqua by the Bay from destroying a unique part of Manatee County!

With concern,

Kate Willis

Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:45 PM To: Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: Petition in opposition of Aqua by the Bay Attachments: 17-04-28 McGrath Petition opposing Aqua by the Bay.pdf

1 RECEIVED

APR282017

BoardofCountyCommissioners ManateeCounty

25 April2017

4771 Independence Drive Bradenton, FL 34210

Commissioner Stephen Jonsson P.O. Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206

Commissioner Jonsson,

Enclosed are copiesof petitions opposing the latest plan from from “Aqua by the Bay” (aka Long Bar Pointe). It has already been barely approved by the Planning Commission and willbe considered by the BOCC on May 4th.

Petitions with the original signatures of approximately 250 residents willbe submitted to Chair

Betsy Benac, and Iassume she willshare them with all the commissioners. You are receiving copies with this accompanying letter so that Ican point out that the overwhelming majority of the 250signers are your west county constituents.

Iwould also note that a half dozen volunteers distributed the petitions, and not a single person who was asked to sign refused—regardless of party affiliation. Time was the only reason that additional signatures were not collected.

Ithink Ispeak for all the signers when I ask you to consider their opinions, not just those of Carlos Beruff and company.

/f.1i,1 i’V’W;

BillMcGrath

wqi aauew

aqi isanbai /iuno) ap

pio jo iuawdolaAaa siauosswwo Auap aq nb iauao aiji Jo4 Aq UJ uo i

aldmnw iutod sawoLA it snaq suawaa jo aq aAsuaqaJdwo ugd upiei pua siajjnq pu ‘spudw ‘upaJp pu

aouew ‘iqaq siw upnq sj o uno ioj u pouud ‘si1oid sMuno) o pu azuooj iejnwu o paoid kjuoqin st

.saDJnosaJ

ININd

3WVN

sssaav 3Ifl1VNIS

33IVNVW OJININd

p7wicr-:-)ot/J t L /

t{. ‘)OY

A/,YA !Q J 3 ZZZ/ 9

(7/

LT2

-61

V2/

71J

- Y //

t22272 S/’1i

1 f3i/

cr •‘

¶‘

:: 5O7 94 1-’ QZ

—

‘‘J Y) p

As*Y-9

1’1

7/’

- / a

-iflrfl2’

l •6

‘- y

.o -c i. d)hQ

a—) J\) L L”\

‘__(>-z cty

-V< 4y

-197 ‘c/ Qc97

E 7//ui

‘-d T

p iii -e t7

c’))ç

12 Jc2.

Lt/

LrVLAJ/2P5) i2Jr,l

2( t ]/2

‘J’1?

S I.

t_a?2i2

ZQ 2 / ,!/

F 9 6 I 1P 2/ ______.Q 1c 2 . \.. I1’l • i ,1 I ) J jj i••H C HI U IpDI I P’P “1 2 C:

- I I I •i II L s_( I I I S.I 4 I I. I I I \I jj I C 4..’C —w>tow a) - c • .:

(V:

>% a) w •- .C -o o - w a.; -.

Z - ! • - oE° c. Ca)O C i - u -

a) 0 .c 5:

C S • - -

-•

•

• I .- i.-;‘- u_) -‘0 H — -- • — ..- — ‘Sop- a’ ‘- -I _- (D C)

ua - —‘ Di _ ‘

UI -. Ill

I —.-

-4 j

ç —

u. . V’ UI 0. ‘ — •.\• c—.ç., -I

ç- C) -

r ç/’ -

P..

isnbai aqi aawuew

wifl

Aiunoj

sJuossIwwo)

pio jo uawdo1aAaa iPiU9 Auap oq liPid ioj nby Aq aq A uoj i

a1dinw UOd

asnaq

sot jo suawa aq PU12M UQd aAsuaqaJdwo) aupiew siajjnq pu ‘spedwi ‘3uipaip pu

upnq

sjj ‘qLaq o WflODD io pauud z1uoJ ‘speloid pu sMuno) aawuw sj o kuoq2n o inwu paoid si

saunosJ

ININd ]WVN

33!VNVW SSS3NIIV OJININd -

zL )/L

I. I. L.. — DO Z C 4-’

OA LI) Lu Lu 0 U ro w‘- 4Jw a) D 0 .C - u >-‘ 0 . Lu 4-’ u r0. 4-’>

4-’

LI) Q9- EC° 0 oJ! a) Lu > C G) t , CL) C a)L. “I CL)0 a)Lu I

a) .;; C . L. C

-. o C U) II) 4-’ 0 (-) =W 0 o .C4- - -. 0 C 0U) 4-’ C ‘.- C a) j LU — COoE 4-’Ca) ‘-.0 oD () 4- C ‘ 0 :•t U Ca)LULI) ‘U LU4-’ 0 OW) .C •

— Lu LI) 4-, C CL) .0 CL)

•— • U) 0.0 _ 9% -‘ tR9.

CD uQ 0• C LI) C,td(D(D CD uo C t-P (D0) < - CD LI) 0 0)

C, C,0 3CD C CCD

0-‘ (DD 0) CD’< 30CD 0;CD 0) V) CD 0 0 0 . re0 0 CD CD (-. 3L1) LI) -o 0 0) -‘ D CD(D

‘MCD (D’< 0 -.‘ 0)CD CD C, 0 CD D N 0;-’ CD

0) U CD 0; .-q. CD — CD CD C, 0 0 CD C D

CD0; LI) 0) C 0> 0 —. .0 •0 ‘ 0; 0 - -LI) 0.. CD r1 CD CD 0) C, (JQ’< -1. 0; I- 0) 0)0 C 0-Va 0) 0;1 —

3-J 00 ui >004-a 0 U J . 0I. .0>U 0 .a 0. >

I-. Ot C Z CL to Q4- J 4-a DC 0 E o..! 0)

0)> C a)> 00

‘-to.— a)to

0) .; •6 2.c I-to - C t-. 0_ - ..- C U’ ,I I- 4-? LnO U 0 w .C ‘- o 4.? 0. I4_0 a) Ov C I ‘I oE 0. 0) •I I... Ca)— 0 o ._ .4- C 0 I.) Ca)(04.10 0U’ -C0) r —

Ill .t .t00 to Q) Q).C v •D .0 an

In OD LA I- 0’

to —

C C ‘i-’

tO C to U - a) co L_ 4-I) a) o 0 4-’>t-’ov - to 4-’ to a.>’ r 4-’ ‘C

I- C 4-’

tO DC

a. to C > to a)

C C on a). 0Oh a)tO

a) .;; . !.tcI)a) - C o - VI VI0 U

I.0 o 4-I a. 0 ov•) C 4-’ - C C to a) — oE °- a) 4.>to Ca) 0L. 0.-,D — L) C a)D D 4-0 U “C U Ca) (0 to’.’ 0

0) 0vr —, .C 4.’ ‘4- (0 j) .4-I _C VI 4-’ D oh 4.’ tO “ a) a) .C VI D - on a) . 0)OD 0 —

D jD C 4-’ oc • Cf 4.•c Cfl v >‘.4-J C t U C) C) — 4-’ a.’ v 0 - I 4-’ *.n

> U 4-’0 t-Q 4-> c7- C 4-’ ‘-C D Ot to In _4- 4-, -‘ - D ‘1) - .‘

Co C)— C >C) con ‘- to.— Di) C C)’ ato

a. C

£0 (-I •cJInOIn .‘4-.’() G.’ 0 o 4-.’

‘,- 0 C) °In C 4-’ C -‘ C f0 C) — oEto °- C) Co >‘ C) 4-’CC) I._ — ‘4—0 0 ._ ‘J C “.‘ 0 totn CC) ’to4- 0 C) 0v 4J4.’’4 - .C In C 4-’ D Ot)

C) C) C In - on C ,... ODQ) In • •-‘ z — Z CD m rP - vo to (D-pGI ( f-i.

rPr) -— o (D •1

CD Ifl

m On - 0—. J (D(D

-h D . . CD

o-‘ WCD

o CD

N -‘ CD

D UQ CD D CD r1 L’ — CD t0 CD E”D z m (M- m U, - m V.)

-U 00.CD-‘ m (JQ- DJ C CD C D C i-’ -i” 0 —. 0 0. CD CD CD -‘ C CD 0)

-w 2. CD C -? r0 (DD — CDD CD t i-,. o

O r-. 0v D 2. (D(D CD CD 0)CD CD -i rO 0 0)0 -‘ 0. 0) CD Q. 0.U° 0 ‘

9. —D ‘-i-.. LflO D D -l .

o ro D D)

o D 0 D CD -I r 0) O(D D . -‘ D 0 0) D D 0) DC tf CD CD C (10 0 rf - UD 0) ri3 - D o o< f- CD 0)0)0 C . ‘<-0 - ‘

o C R

C CD

0 C

- 0

—.

—. CD

0 o.

CD CD

01 -I

Cl CD I—

_ ‘CD I’ L

CD -‘

CD -• Lflni

c -p

.-.D) D CD

“o o — (DD

t-,. (

Ov CD(D

. 0)(D r-i0

VI —V -.—

o f’<

0’ D VI

0_UQ 0

(JQ

.CD

9- .9. —

- -q

o v,o O

t’ D

o o D

-, -.

CD 0

0(D VI

D 0) . -‘

-... o

o 0)

•

D 0

CD CD g.

cjo r+ C 01 o

-I

( VI

lFfl

r_i• C

0) (Jo

,< < -

1 —

-I

z -V -‘ CD D D C - U.. 0 0. CD I-p D CD — - C -‘ 0)

CD c P t-’. Uf c Lfl t.q0) ‘ vG) CD CD — CDD (_. t- 0n D CD(D . CD CD 0)CD

P0 -

f-n 0)0 CD

0. -t 0. .U0 U0 —

9.2. -h . o o =

O(D CD -i r’ -h (n . - - o CD

f_p CD CD zC 0 r • U, 0) . C DO>

- 0 o’<

—, 0

CD O D t-PUo< I-p U, 0)0)0 C o ‘ D CD

z -I x m

z rn z m

rn -I -o m

0 .-‘ - - 9.9. . z CD - CDd,

cio C .•-‘ - V D e.

o r’rD) (DZ C, f-p 0 C iP f-I- .• 0 — C -o CDD-r = CD

CD o -I-s f-p 0(D.-‘ C, f-P Lfl 0—. D -4., 0. . . D c.)o- D)(D 0 U‘(D (;0

CD 0.

CD — CD CD E 0. (1)

‘4, C -4’ -‘ 1 C 0 ,‘< 0 -.,• ‘4 rP 0 0. CD f-4• -‘ CD CD O 0. ‘

(3D

D) D)O D C N

— ci C C .J -,g CCA n f . c) a) -o 0 >%‘ 0 .0 4-’ >. ‘ •.-0. 4-’ oE c

C 4-.’ 4-

‘ a) >‘

a) 0 E a) a)> re > C a) CA

CA G)... 0CA I

a) 0 .C I o t - U 0 .-a) .C L o a-.’ 0. 4.. 0 ou C I“C 4-’ C oE >-3tOa) 4-’Ca) I_ D 4-0 (J C

4-’ Ca)tV, ’4(C 0 0 -c > •; 4-’— n - 4-’ D CA 4-’ e a) .c Z.0 CA G) . vi 0 .0 a)

snbai WIfl

aawu,%’

Lfl

p.iog iUflO)

SJUOSSLWWOJ

Auap uawdo1Aaa

U1d 1fl

ioj nby /q

Aeçj uo- i

ULOd

idinw snaq

SOA suw jo

4suqaJdwoJ U1d upiai pupa pu sijnq ‘cpdwi

‘upaJp pu

upnq

‘qaq

sej o uno

ioj

pauued ‘sçoid

sj o wuEw sMunoD aztuoi icuoqin oi paioid s inu

.saDJnosJ

1NId 3WVN

Nfl1VN9IS

SSS3NGV 3.LYNVW -

99d7

4c/L. /Qg

_A?

). 2

- .\ L-

‘

‘\—,‘

\J\\ - -‘

i;7/ Z 7

jJ -Z 7/ f?1’?t’

& 3 W

Yj/

22’

•I7 JtJ/?[’ 7z2 dI) y cUJj//71/ 11

f /

/A/cJ

•s

‘(

‘‘7L ‘/ /r)f(J/pf54, Y 37

LLV-(

z2/-

o9 -1

)‘/7 ?

c’fl(’ ((1 (7 i-dc c) fr) O//t/ .2

) (

L4.2r

L (_‘7 5’

C??7& (.24C

L(i2P4Iq

4) ‘2

)‘V

1Oli ( ic:

c 7./

•-i

•‘-

/7J 1 4’

•OL

f?4E p7 7j-/b7

I o

&WJ7 r:ijJv

—jFVW

r’w

9/49

w 7$ 1_v• L2 z:7t

9L ______

We request that the Manatee County Board of Commissioners deny the General Development Plan for Aqua by the Bay at Long Bar Pointe because it vioLates multiple elements of the Comprehensive Plan regarding wetland buffers and impacts, dredging, and building height, fails to account for all pLanned projects, and fails to recognize Manatee County’s authority to protect its natural resources.

- PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ‘“._- MANATEE ADDRESSS PRINTED 3

• ‘-7$ / LJIO

6. Lt( /V 4 ,p’L1r 73,’AId L-ro/u LI q i- &i:i5 li Q. k1I grL& Pri* Lj7/L(tC Cl 9. r,,114J 4’,/ AT V12N j,E1rJ1)IQ 10. /‘2k fl Yiii.1 tL Iii ‘): 11., 12.,

I 3.,

14., 15.

16. Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:01 PM To: Pat Ridgeway Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Point

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Pat Ridgeway [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:15 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Point

I recently kayaked the length of Long Bar point and observed beautiful, natural mangroves and the hundreds of beautiful birds and fish that call this habitat home. I am strongly opposed to any plan that would compromise this special environment for the sake of selling houses by creating a lagoon. Even more environmental impact would occur with a proposed dredged channel into Sarasota Bay. Please view this area by boat and observe for yourself the treasure that is Long Bar Point. Thank you for your time, Pat Ridgeway

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:01 PM To: Jamie Gooden Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Commission Meeting

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Jamie Gooden [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:14 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Commission Meeting

Commissioner Benac, I will be attending the commission meeting on May 4th to voice my opinion on the Aqua by the Bay plans. As I lifelong Manatee Resident, I am dismayed at the plans that will have such a negative impact on Sarasota Bay and the place I call home. Angry Voter, Jamie Gooden

Sent from my iPhone

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:59 PM To: Michael Prohidney Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Michael Prohidney [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:00 PM To: Betsy Benac; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Charles Smith; Carol Whitmore; Robin DiSabatino; [email protected] Subject: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application

Dear Commissioners:

I am a Manatee County resident and local business owner. I have been following the Aqua GDP proposal, which I understand will be in front of you on Thursday, May 4th. While there is likely going to be a vocal group at the public hearing voicing their concerns against the proposal for nearly 3,000 units, please be advised that there are numerous business owners and concerned residents, like myself, that believe that this will be a major asset to West Bradenton. While the immediate downtown area has been significantly improved since the recession with the addition of Riverwalk, the Hampton Inn, the new Spring Hill Suites, and other beautification projects, West Bradenton has not had a similar resurgence. The new construction will help revitalize the surrounding area. Besides the immediate benefits such as construction jobs, increases in support services, restaurants, and the like, the additional homes will bring increased tax revenues, restaurants, hospitality, retail, etc.

1 I will do my best to attend the hearing. However, please understand that there are many of us working hard to support our local community. While many of us may not be able to attend, the Commission should be aware that we support the Aqua project.

Best Regards,

Michael J. Prohidney

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:58 PM To: Joe Brinn Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Long Bar Point Rezoning

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commissioner Vanessa Baugh to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners, staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Joe Brinn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:29 PM To: Vanessa Baugh Subject: Long Bar Point Rezoning

Dear Commissioners:

1 Custom Bath Accessories, Inc Joe Brinn

Virus-free. www.avast.com

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:57 PM To: Robert Wilson Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Robert Wilson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:21 PM To: Betsy Benac; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Charles Smith; Carol Whitmore; Robin DiSabatino; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application

Dear Commissioners:

Robert Wilson Alligator Pool Products, Inc

1 dba Pool Safety Barrier of Sarasota

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:15 PM To: Rob Allegra Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Rob Allegra [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 1:59 PM To: Charles Smith Subject: Long Bar Pointe

Dear Commissioners:

I'm writing to you today as a member of the local business community. You have a forthcoming public hearing on the Aqua GDP proposal for nearly 3,000 units. As opposed to the vocal minority with a lot of time on their hands, I submit to you that this investment in West Bradenton is much needed and overdue. This area of town has struggled ever since the recession with little to no reinvestment into it. New construction will bring with it revitalization into the surrounding area. Aside from the significant increase in tax base (tax assessor valuations that would likely exceed $1 Billion), think about the thousands of jobs this will bring to our community! Construction, hospitality, support services, restaurants, banks, retail, office, etc.

1 When the vocal minority are waiving at you in the hearing, please know the silent majority is working continuing to support and boost our local economy and community. And we support the Aqua project.

Rob Allegra Allegra Homes 941-915-5000 WWW.Allegra-Homes.com

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:17 PM To: Karen Willey Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: VOTE NO: Long Bar Pointe May 4 Land Use Meeting

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Karen Willey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 1:35 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: VOTE NO: Long Bar Pointe May 4 Land Use Meeting

Mangroves protect our shorelines from erosion Mangroves will need to move inland as sea levels rise Mangroves provide nesting for many threatened and endangered bird species locally Mangrove provide safe haven for key game and commercial fisheries Mangroves don’t block the view, mangroves are the view

New engineering projects are moving toward living shorelines rather than seawalls.

Long Bar Pointe is not in the public interest. You cannot claim an overriding public benefit for the proposed development.

1 For all of these reasons you must vote against Long Bar Point, or Aqua by the Bay, or whatever Mr. Beruff is calling the latest iteration of this application VOTE NO ON Item 15 - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) - Long Bar Pointe, LLLP & Cargor Partners VIII, Long Bar Pointe, LLLP Rezone/Aqua by the Bay - 20150224

Karen Fraley Willey, CIG Sarasota Bay Guardians Coordinator Manager/Naturalist Around the Bend Nature Tours LLC

Bradenton, FLORIDA (941) 794-8773 Go Wild! and Learn the Florida Story [email protected] www.aroundbend.com i thank You God for most this amazing day: for the leaping greenly spirits of trees and a blue true dream of sky; and for everything which is natural which is infinite which is yes -- e.e. cummings

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:20 PM To: Gerald J. Devirgilis Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua Project

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Gerald J. Devirgilis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 1:03 PM To: Betsy Benac; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Charles Smith; Robin DiSabatino; Carol Whitmore; Priscilla WhisenantTrace Subject: Aqua Project

Dear Commissioners:

GerryDeVirgilis, Territory Sales Manager Waste Connections, Inc.

1 1312 16th Ave E. Palmetto, FL 34221 O: 941.953.6559| C: 941.915.9047 [email protected]

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:21 PM To: Joe Ernst Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Joe Ernst [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:46 PM To: Betsy Benac; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Charles Smith; Carol Whitmore; Robin DiSabatino; '[email protected]' Subject: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application

Dear Commissioners:

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:22 PM To: David Cartee Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Please oppose approval of Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: David Cartee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:53 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Please oppose approval of Aqua by the Bay

Dear Commissioner Benac,

Please oppose approval of Aqua by the Bay.

There is no need for me to repeat the many reasons why this development must be prevented, they are well known. I just wish to add my voice to those who believe this development is not in the best interest of the residents of Bradenton and Manatee County.

I know the developer is a well-known builder and politician and has deep pockets and connections. That is no reason to approve a development that was previously prevented by the courts.

I urge you to oppose Aqua by the Bay.

1 Thank you,

David Cartee Bradenton

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:24 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Meeting May 4th - Longbar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:49 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Meeting May 4th - Longbar Pointe

Hello Besty,

I live in Cortez Village and will be attending the meeting on May 4th at 9am. I have very strong feelings about Beruff's plans and I'd like our voices to be heard.

Amy M Tobin

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:23 PM To: Bill Merrill Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: I SUPPORT the AQUA Project

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Bill Merrill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:44 AM To: Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: I SUPPORT the AQUA Project Importance: High

Dear Commissioners:

William W. Merrill, III

2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Sarasota, FL 34237 Direct telephone: 941-953-8116 Email: [email protected] Please visit our website: www.icardmerrill.com The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in this message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete the material from any computer. Thank you very much.

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:18 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Please oppose Aqua by the Bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commissioner Charles Smith to express your concerns regarding this project. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners, staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: David Cartee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:41 AM To: Sheri Smith Subject: Please oppose Aqua by the Bay

Dear Commissioner Smith,

Please oppose approval of Aqua by the Bay.

I know the developer is a well-known builder and politician and has deep pockets and connections. That is no reason to approve a development that was previously prevented by the courts.

I urge you to oppose Aqua by the Bay.

1 David Cartee

Zip 34205

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:28 PM To: Marge Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: AQUA BY THE BAY aka LONG BAR POINTE 2013 DENIED DENIED DENIED

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Marge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:24 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: AQUA BY THE BAY aka LONG BAR POINTE 2013 DENIED DENIED DENIED

Good Morning All , REGARDING YOUR MANATEE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING, 9 a.m. THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2017.

This development has already been DENIED in 2013 as Long Bar Pointe.

Reconsideration of this same location build under a new name with a few modifications to Mr. Beruff’s plan SHOULD BE DENIED again!

You are all breaking the law! This has already been denied and is still a violation of Manatee County Development Plan and Code! Again FOLLOW, and Read Manatee Counties Code, it is called, just to remind all of you, The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

With all due respect AQUA by the Bay needs to be DENIED!

Respectfully, Margaret Dutton and Richard Dutton 913 ELL Way Sarasota FL 34243 941-755-8093

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:32 PM To: Mike Manning Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua Project rezoning

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Mike Manning [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:14 AM To: Betsy Benac; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Charles Smith; Robin DiSabatino; Carol Whitmore; Priscilla WhisenantTrace Subject: Aqua Project rezoning

Dear Commissioners:

When the vocal minority are waiving at you in the hearing, please know the silent majority is working continuing to support and boost our local economy and community. And we support the Aqua project.

Michael Manning, Pres. Premium Resource Management, Inc. 1877 Northgate Boulevard #4 Sarasota, FL 34234

941.359.4876 941.360-9773 FAX

*************************************************** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTIFICATION: This document is intended only for use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and contains information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, kindly notify the sender as soon as possible, and delete it from any device/media where the message is stored. Thank you. ***************************************************

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:23 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Patti Clauser Date: April 28, 2017 at 8:58:44 AM EDT To: [email protected] Subject: Development

Dear ms benac, I am writing to you to voice my disgust about the development that is happening in Manatee County. I support the conservation of the Sarasota Bay, to keep it a viable water source for fish and wildlife. I also uphold the law that it is illegal to cut mangroves down. I will be remembering this as I cast my vote next election. Patti clauser Parrish

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:35 PM To: Larry Grossman Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua on the Bay Attachments: DevelopmentConceptChecklist.pdf

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commission Chairman Betsy Benac. I am sharing your comments with all commissioners, staff from Building and Development Services, and the County Attorney’s Office.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing which is scheduled to be heard at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Larry Grossman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 8:18 AM To: Betsy Benac Cc: JudyJohnson/StuSmith Subject: Aqua on the Bay

Dear Betsy:

I have attached what Alexandria Virginia Government requires of developers to submit for consideration of approval of a Concept Plan for large scale developments. I have reviewed large scale plans when I worked for the City and what we required was far more comprehensive than what I am seeing submitted for approval in Manatee County such as for Aqua on the Bay.

Also Alexandria required that preliminary site plans be subject to public hearing and review so that the public could view how the concept plan was being implemented for each phase, how the engineered site plans conformed to the approved concept plan and the conditions or stipulations that were made contingent and binding upon site plan approval.

The County might consider how to amend the LDR’s to require more information at the GDP level to give the County Planning staff and the public more information with which to evaluate large project developments.

Thanks

Larry Grossman from Mail for Windows 10

2 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST Department of Planning and Zoning Development Division, City Hall 301 King Street, Room 2100 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Phone: (703) 746- 4666

DSP/DSUP #______

Project Name: ______Project Location (Address):______Tax Map References:______Applicant’s Name:______Applicant’s Address:______Applicant’s E-mail Address:______Applicant’s Phone______

Submission Deadline: The deadline for concept submissions is every Friday by noon. Plans will be routed to staff for review the following week and comments will be forwarded to the applicant within 14 working days after the submission.

_____ Site Plans. For each submission, provide 14 full-sized folded sets and 6 half-sized sets of drawings (where applicable, 2 color sets labeled for P&Z). Unfolded plans will not be accepted. Additional copies may be requested as necessary (ex: if the application is within a special district or area). Electronic Copy. For each submission, provide a copy of the drawings and other submitted documents on a CD disk(s) in .pdf format. Please submit as few PDF files as possible named with the corresponding sheet/or information titles. (i.e. Sheet C1-Sheet C10, Traffic study, etc)

_____ Completed Phase I Concept Submission Checklist.

_____ Filing Fee (DSUP and DSP): There is no filing fee for the concept review.

_____ Signature of professional certifying that the submission meets all requirements:

I, ______(print name), hereby certify that the drawings and other materials that accompany this checklist have met the requirements of the checklist, and the accompanying electronic copy is an exact duplicate of the hard copy submission.

Signature ______Date ______

Prior to submission of a preliminary site plan, a Concept Plan that meets all of the

criteria in Phase I and II of this checklist shall be submitted.

At a minimum, submit the following materials for each concept submission:

Page 1 of 5 For Staff Use Only:

Concept Submission # ______

Date Submitted: ______Time Submitted: ______

Development Concept Plan Checklist DSUP/DSP #______

Stage I Concept Submission – Overall General Concept Design:

_____ A brief narrative explaining existing site conditions, zoning of the property, and the proposed development. ____ Existing and Proposed Trip Generation (ADT) using ITE Trip Generation Method

Formatting Requirements:

_____ Concept Plan at a scale of 1”= 20’ or 1”= 30’ _____ North arrow on all plans

Existing Conditions: _____ Property lines (with course and distance) _____ Public and private streets appropriately labeled _____ Existing easements, major public utility lines, and any other encumbrances that may impact development _____ Delineation of all floodplains, resource protection areas, associated buffers, and existing stormwater facilities. _____ Information on soils, environmental issues, and contamination known to applicant

Proposed: _____ Building footprints and entrances _____ Proposed uses and location of uses in buildings _____ Tabulations of lot area(s) _____ Approximate tabulations of density, gross square feet of buildings, building height, number of units, open space, area of disturbance during construction, and proposed parking compared to zone requirements and/or limitations _____ Public and private streets appropriately labeled _____ Driveways, parking areas, access aisles, and site entrances _____ Open space _____ Significant proposed site features (such as retaining walls, steep slopes, etc.)

Stage II Concept Submission and Subsequent Submissions:

ONCE CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE GENERAL BUILDING LOCATION AND SITE LAYOUT, A PHASE II CONCEPT SUBMISSION SHOULD BE FILED. THE PHASE II SUBMISSION SHOULD INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED IN THE PHASE I SUBMISSION AS WELL AS THE INFORMATION IDENTIFIED BELOW.

Narrative Requirements: _____ A response narrative addressing City comments to previous submissions. _____ Clearly identify the revised location/configuration of the building and changes to the site design as a result of the Phase I review.

Format Requirements: _____ Print size of 24” x 36” _____ Scale of 1”= 20’ or 1”= 30’ _____ North point with reference to source of meridian _____ Name, address, signature and registration number of professional preparing the plan, certifying that the submission meets all requirements. Page 2 of 5 Development Concept Plan Checklist DSUP/DSP #______Include all of the Development Concept Plan Checklist requirements as well as 2 color sets of applicable elevations. Submit an electronic copy of all submission materials on a disk in .pdf format.

Cover Sheet: _____ Name and address of the developer, property owner, engineers, attorney and others on the development team _____ A narrative description of the project _____ Location Map _____ A list of all special use permits, site plan and modifications being requested. _____ Development Team information (i.e. property owner, engineers, attorney, etc.) _____ Sheet Index

Zoning Tabulations: _____ Zoning of the site _____ Existing uses on the site _____ Proposed uses on the site _____ Lot area (required and provided) _____ Refined tabulations of lot area(s), density, gross square footage of buildings, FAR, building height, parking layout, open space, and proposed parking compared to zone requirements and/or limitations _____ Number of dwelling units and unit types _____ Units/Acre for residential uses. _____ Gross floor area and net floor area. _____ Open space (ground level, roof-top and total) with square foot total and percentage _____ Average finished grade and height for each building. _____ Building setbacks (required and proposed) for each building. _____ Lot frontage (required and provided) _____ Parking Spaces (compact, standard, handicap and total) _____ Loading spaces (required and provided) _____ Existing and Proposed Trip Generation (ADT) using ITE Trip Generation method

Existing Site Conditions: _____ Existing conditions plan _____ Where sites have slopes steeper than 2:1 provide information on topography _____ A statement whether or not the site has areas of Marine Clay _____ A statement describing any known or expected contamination or brief narrative of due diligence completed (site history) if none is expected _____ Existing tree survey, where applicable

Concept Site Plan: _____ Public Utilities (full description labeled with flow direction, where applicable) _____ Significant proposed site features (such as retaining walls, steep slopes) _____ Site sections _____ Contextual Site Plan showing the proposed project site(s) and adjacent areas affected by the project ___ Proposed project site appropriately labeled ___ Display a minimum of a quarter (1/4) mile in radius of proposed project ___ Existing property lines, buildings, streets, metro, transit stops and routes, and major thoroughfares, if any, appropriately labeled _____ Dimensions for circulation patterns and lane widths Page 3 of 5 Development Concept Plan Checklist DSUP/DSP #______Public and private streets appropriately labeled _____ Roadway and Parking Dimensions _____ Alignment and major features of existing and public proposed utilities _____ Emergency vehicle access to the site and buildings _____ Building Sections to scale, with dimensions, showing setbacks and stepbacks and referenced to building plans. _____ Provide sections demonstrating compliance with the Section 6-403 _____ Show any transition zone setback, if applicable _____ Indicate whether project is located in the Combined Sewer Area. _____ If additional sanitary flows exceed 10,000 GPD, provide statement on adequate outfall per Memo to Industry 2002-0007. _____ If post-development stormwater runoff exceeds pre-development, provide statement addressing planned mitigation. _____ Identify stormwater outfall to receiving storm trunk sewer on plan. _____ Conceptual plans for open space and graphic depiction of included areas used for the calculations. _____ Obtain scope of work from Alexandria Archaeology to satisfy archaeological requirements.

Environment: _____ Resource Protection Areas (RPA) as defined in Article XIII of the Zoning Ordinance. _____ Identify constituents and approximate area of soil and/or groundwater contamination. _____ Narrative describing how the project will comply with the stormwater quality requirements of Article XIII of the Zoning Ordinance.

Building: _____ A brief narrative describing the environmentally sensitive site design, green building and/or low impact development techniques to be considered in this proposal. _____ Schematic building massing information, to show proposed height and scale of buildings _____ Building Elevations to scale, with dimensions where appropriate, indicating all materials

Transportation: _____ Truck turning templates, to include loading and trash pickup. (Per AASHTO Guidelines) _____ Show full right-of-way on both sides of the street ____ Transportation Scoping form as required.

Design Guidelines – Identify and Acknowledge Applicable Guidelines

If the proposed project is: ____ Located along Mount Vernon Avenue, the Mount Vernon Avenue Design Guidelines apply. ____ Located within the Old Town North area, information required by the Old Town North Design Guidelines apply. ____ Located within the Old and Historic Alexandria District, the Alexandria Historic District Design Guidelines apply. ____ Located within the Parker Gray Historic District, the Alexandria Historic District Design Guidelines apply. ____ Involves a site which occupied by a building on the list Buildings over 100 Years Old Outside the Historic Districts, the Alexandria Historic District Design Guidelines apply. ____ Located along Washington Street, the Washington Street Standards, the Washington Street Guidelines, the Old Town North Urban Design Guidelines and the Alexandria Historic District Design Guidelines apply. ____ Located within the Carlyle CDD, the Carlyle Design Guidelines and the Carlyle

Page 4 of 5 Development Concept Plan Checklist DSUP/DSP #______Streetscape Design Guidelines apply. ____ Located within the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens Small Area, the Potomac Yard Urban Design Guidelines apply.

Page 5 of 5 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:36 PM To: David Hunihan Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: David Hunihan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 8:04 AM To: Betsy Benac; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh; Charles Smith; Carol Whitmore; Robin DiSabatino; [email protected] Subject: Please Support the Aqua GDP Application Importance: High

Dear Commissioners:

I'm writing to you today as a member of the local business community. You have a forthcoming public hearing on the Aqua GDP proposal for nearly 3,000 units. I submit to you that this investment in West Bradenton is much needed and overdue. This area of town has struggled ever since the recession with little to no reinvestment into it. New construction will bring with it revitalization into the surrounding area. Aside from the significant increase in tax base (tax assessor valuations that would likely exceed $1 Billion), think about the thousands of jobs this will bring to our community! Construction, hospitality, support services, restaurants, banks, retail, office, etc.

We all saw during the recession how important the housing industry and smart growth are to our local economy.

1 My team and I would like to attend the hearing to show our support, but in the event that we are unable to attend due to it occurring during business hours, please accept this email as evidence that we feel this would be a beneficial addition to West Bradenton and Manatee County as a whole.

I urge you to approve the Aqua GDP proposal.

Best Regards,

David C. Hunihan Area President - Sarasota

M/I Homes of Sarasota, LLC | Office: (941) 554-2301 8433 Enterprise Circle | Suite 200 | Lakewood Ranch FL | 34202-4109 Mobile: (941) 348-8414 www.mihomes.com/sarasota [email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please contact the sender by reply email or phone and delete/destroy all copies of this message.

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:37 PM To: John Donovan Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Commissioner Baugh and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: John Donovan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 8:01 AM To: Vanessa Baugh Subject: Aqua

Dear Commissioner Baugh,

When the vocal minority are waiving at you in the hearing, please know the silent majority is working continuing to support and boost our local economy and community. And we support the Aqua project.

Thank you,

John F. Donovan West Coast Commercial Brokers Inc. P.O. Box 19733 Sarasota FL. 34276 PH: 941-400-8413 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 8:05 AM To: A and D Duke Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Betsy Benac; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) - Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III Attachments: 17-04-27 Ltr Dukanauskas re Aqua by the Bay.pdf

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

1 RECEIVED

APR272017 Arlene M. Dukanauskas BoardofCountyCommissioners 6225 Signature Pointe Lane ManateeCounty Bradenton, FL34210 (941)782-8171 [email protected] April 25, 2017

The Honorable Betsy Benac P. o. Box 1000 Bradenton, FL34206-1000

Dear Honorable Benac:

I am a resident of Manatee County, and I am writing to express my concerns about the ongoing development at Long Bar Pointe, now known as Aqua by the Bay. I am very much opposed to the new proposals to build a seawall and construct a 145-foot-high building.

This letter explains why I am asking the board of commissioners to deny approval of the proposal.

First, I am quite concerned that the action will imperil the community by damaging or destroying the mangroves on Sarasota Bay. The creation of a lagoon will necessitate dredging, whether the developer admits it or not. The removal or even the severe trimming of the mangroves will weaken their ecological function, i.e., to stabilize the coastline, prevent erosion from waves and storms, and mitigate coastal damage from hurricanes.

Since I live in Legends Bay, adjacent to Aqua by the Bay, the risk of hurricane destruction is very real.

Second, the action will devastate our fish and bird habitat along the shoreline on Sarasota Bay. The cleared land at Long Bar Pointe has already diminished a great deal of the habitat. The area already is a virtual wasteland where nothing exists but sand, devoid of wildlife. If the Aqua by the Bay Proposal were granted, the healthy seagrass would be decimated and the small fish which supply the bay with a harvest would be depleted. The fish population in the entire Sarasota Bay would be decreased. The proposal would convert the natural environment of the shoreline to a sterile artificial “LasVegas” look. This alteration is contrary to the Manatee county culture. The reason people come to Manatee County is because of the way it is, not the way it would look after the mangroves and trees are gone. The Honorable Betsy Benac April 25, 2017 Page 2

Sarasota Bay shoreline is already magnificent in its natural appearance. The residents along the ElConquistador Boulevard treasure the wild birds and other creatures. It’s a pleasure to watch an eagle or a big blue heron land in my backyard, observe the roseate spoonbills nesting in the mangroves, or see the mullet jumping in the bay. The proposals by the Aqua developers simply show absurdity in their attempt to “gild the lily.”

Third, I oppose the expansion of the existing plans because it will increase traffic on El Conquistador to a point that will make it intolerable to the neighborhoods that live in that area. The traffic is already quite heavy. With the increased population implied in the current proposal, the traffic will increase the noise, endanger bikers, and pollute the air. The residents along ElConquistador Boulevard will find that our property values as well as our quality of life diminished as the congestion rises.

And finally, the proposal must be defeated because the developer cannot be trusted to preserve the environment or even abide by our current environmental laws. The developer has demonstrated disrespect for the county’s residents on numerous occasions. Just six months ago Aqua Bay’scontractors who were clearing land in Long Bar Pointe bulldozed a conservation area adjacent to Legends Bay, where I live. Mature trees and bushes were ripped from their roots with bare ground left in their place. A conservation area and wildlife drawn to the greenery was altered to a gaping hole exposing the construction site. Did Aqua Bay’sdevelopers take responsibility and immediately resolve the issue? No. The company was forced by the county to comply with the law and replace trees. To this day, the work is not completed. This whole incident provides a portrait of the character of a person who values only financial gain with no regard to consequences to the environment or commitment to community residents. We cannot take a chance on this developer because there is too much at stake.

The various courts, as well as the Corps of Engineers, have done their due diligence in rejecting all of Aqua Bay’s proposals, and now, I am asking you, as a Manatee Commissioner, to do your duty and say no once again to this flawed proposal.

Sincerely, 7- c -, 7 7- 7- ARLENEM. DUKANAUSKAS Bobbi Roy

From: Carol Whitmore Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 10:20 PM To: Bobbi Roy; Marianne Lopata Subject: Fwd: Aqua Project concerns

Looks like only sent to me.

Carol

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Karl Sclichter" Date: April 27, 2017 at 2:15:52 PM EDT To: "'Carol Whitmore'" Subject: Aqua Project concerns

Dear Carol,

Hope all is well . I haven’t emailed concerns lately, but this one is important . Your decision will impact AMI, the Sarasota bay FOREVER . And Forever is a long long time !

I feel I have a unique perspective being blessed to live on the Chesapeake Bay half the year and a tributary of the Sarasota Bay in Manatee County half the year . I am not a tree hugging environmentalist and understand the importance of development as a an economic engine for a local economy . To a great extent I respect and admire successful business people like Mr. Beruff .

My wife Paula grew up on the Chesapeake in the 60’s and 70’s and recalls the time when it was filled with grasses and crabs and all sorts of fish that no longer can thrive in the bay. She’s told me many times that as a child while crabbing you could see the bottom of the bay in high water . Now the visibility in the summer is about a foot ,if that, and the grasses no longer are prevalent . I tell my friends come visit me on the BROWN WATERS OF THE Cheseapeake . History here tells us that a hurricane in the early 70’s exacerbated the death of the bay , then in the 1980’s development in Maryland exploded around the DC and Baltimore suburbs . Of course the environmentalists blame development as the root cause of the decline , but actually our decline is a combination of mother nature and development . Simply put Mother Nature tore out the grasses and man s development stifled those e grasses from coming back. Billions of your federal tax dollars have been spent to “ Clean up the bay “ and laws made to curtail development by the water . When the Chesapeake bays water quality is listed yearly it vacillates between a D and a C-. Pretty pathetic huh ? and we spent billions of your money to get a c- quality rating at best !

What makes you think the same things couldn’t happen on the Sarasota Bay ? Particularly when the Chesapeake bays decline began with a hurricane . Aren’t we in Manatee county due for a Hurricane or two or no name storm or two . I suspect water runoff mitigation has improved dramatically over the past 40 years , but I don’t care how solid the plan might be, one major storm or hurricane will not stop the harm done to the Sarasota Bay . And that’s a fact !

1 Furthermore, The Beruff project will unnecessarily add to the traffic congestion to and from AMI . Anyone who supports the project needs to support tax relief to the property owners on AMI . Here we go again , more and more people coming to” golden goose island” and I get to pay for the infrastructure and services so our visitors have a grand time . Don’t mind visitors , mind me paying for their visit !

If I was King of Manatee county , this project would not happen rather one of two things would :

1. Float a 30 year bond, pay off Mr. Beruff . Beg him not to development anything near the water . A. Designate the area agricultural preservation and farm it using enviromentally friendly techniques and sustainability . Or B. Make it a public park over time that would act as a buffer for the Sarasota Bay .

Or if you must : 2. Come up with a formula that would severely reduce the amount of dwellings allowed . Severely cut the development not the mangroves . (Environmentally , I see the Mangroves as the Chesapeake bays equivalent of grasses . ) You have read from me in the past , that in the 80’s our county Executive James Lighthizer had the vison to preserve the rural character of south Anne Arundel County where I live. If one owned a 100 acre farm , they could only put 1 house per 20 acres . The exception was if you passed on land to family members , the provision was less restrictive . Because of limiting the supply of housing and a thirsty demand for a rural quality of life , the property values of the farms grew in spades . It’s easy to draw the same supply and demand picture with this proposed development . If Manatee county must approve this project in some form, reduce the dwelling significantly, possibly only single family homes on large tracts of land . While I favor no development of this property other than agriculture or recreation, if it must be done to satiate Mr. Beruffs greed , the number of dwellings should be severely limited . That to me is the only satisfactory compromise .

If you support this project , please do what it takes so that the influx of people to our overcrowded island pay for the increases in public service that come out of my taxes . I feel that familiar tug on my wallet as I read this project . Also if you support this project it is incumbent on you to at some point in time put an effort into lobbying for the money to clean up the Sarasota bay . If you don’t think this project will be detrimental to the health of the bay , you are kidding yourself . Has history not taught us anything ? If this project is approved , Expect over time that billions of dollars will be needed to clean up where man failed to act responsibly.

Respectfully

Karl P Sclichter Fairhaven Md Holmes Beach Fl

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:51 PM To: PEG MILLER Cc: [email protected]; Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: objection to Aqua by the Bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commission Chairman Betsy Benac. You are welcome to attend the public hearing which is scheduled to be heard at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: PEG MILLER [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 2:10 PM To: Betsy Benac Cc: [email protected] Subject: objection to Aqua by the Bay

I will attend the commissioners meeting May 4th!

Plan for a large group of disappointed citizens.

When I attended the last planning and land use meeting, it seemed like the staff was working for Carlos. The conforming building argument was ridiculous!

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Betsy Benac Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:16 PM To: Bobbi Roy; Sarah Schenk Subject: FW: Addition to Record for Aqua by the Bay Attachments: 041417 Environmental Worksheet Clean 23.23 acres of impact.pdf

Sincerely,

Betsy Benac Manatee County Commissioner, Distric t 7 1112 Manatee Ave W Bradenton, FL 34205 Cell: 941.685.4209 Bus: 941.745.3818

From: JudyJohnson/StuSmith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:57 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Addition to Record for Aqua by the Bay

Dear Commissioner Benac - Please insert the attached document into the record for the May 4 hearing on Aqua by the Bay. Sincerely - Stuart Smith

1 Date: April 12, 2017

MEMORANDUM

To: File

From: Lee Hughes, Staff Environmental Scientist

Subject: Application No. 732499 (Long Bar Pointe Conceptual SWERP, Conceptual Permit Modification)

I have reviewed the application received on 8/01/2016 and the supplemental information received on 2/06/2017 and 3/31/2017, submitted by the Applicant’s engineer, Cavoli Engineering, Inc. The project involves construction of a lagoon enhancement mitigation area along approximately 2 miles of the upland /wetland interface of the Long Bar Pointe project area. The project site is located at Parcel Id. No.’s 5164800059, 6146900079, 6146900219, 6146901009, 6146900369, 6146901509, 6147110359, Bradenton, Sections 07, 17, 18 & 20, Township 35 South, Range 17 East, and Sections 12 & 13, Township 35 South, Range 16 East, Manatee County.

Environmental Comments:

There are 13.21 acres of exotic wetland hardwoods / wetland scrub (FLUCCS 619/631) and 10.02 acres of other surface waters (FLUCCS 510) located within the project area for this permit. There will be 5.28 acres of temporary dredging impacts to exotic wetland hardwoods / wetland scrub, 7.93 acres of permanent dredging and filling impacts to exotic wetland hardwoods / wetland scrub, 1.05 acres of temporary dredging impacts to other surface waters, and 8.97 acres of permanent dredging and filling impacts to other surface waters associated with the construction activities conceptually authorized in this permit.

The approved UMAM mitigation scores for the lagoon enhancement mitigation area were evaluated so that a landward 25-foot strip of the lagoon enhancement area was given reduced UMAM scores so as to address secondary impacts due to the fact that the lagoon enhancement mitigation area was designed without an average 25-foot / minimum 15-foot wetland buffer.

The wetland lines are being bound in the permit due to the fact that Formal Wetland Boundary Determination No. 42040157.009 was issued on December 28, 2016, and included the same project area wetlands that are included in this permit.

Mitigation Comments:

Wetland mitigation is not required for the 5.28 acres of temporary dredging impacts to exotic wetland hardwoods / wetland scrub (FLUCCS 619/631) pursuant to Subsection 10.2.2 of the A.H.V.I. Under this Subsection, wetland mitigation is not required for impacts that have been determined to be de minimis to fish, wildlife, and listed species.

Wetland mitigation for the 7.93 acres of permanent dredging and filling impacts to exotic wetland hardwoods / wetland scrub (Wetlands 1-7) will be provided by on-site wetland enhancement and creation associated with the creation of the on-site Lagoon Enhancement Mitigation Area (LEMA). The result of the UMAM analysis indicates a Functional Loss of 3.31 units of exotic wetland hardwoods / wetland scrub and the Functional Gain of 4.08 units of bays and estuaries and 2.66 Functional Gain units of saltwater marsh. This leaves an excess of 3.43 bays and estuaries Functional Gain units. The UMAM analysis determined that the mitigation provided by the permit adequately offsets the projects proposed impacts to functional wetland habitat.

Wetland mitigation is not required for the 1.05 acres of temporary dredging impacts to upland dug ditches pursuant to Subsection 10.2.2.2 of the Environmental Resource Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 (A.H.V.I). Under this Subsection, wetland mitigation is not required for impacts to upland dug ditches that do not provide significant habitat for threatened or endangered species and were not constructed to divert natural stream flow.

Wetland mitigation is not required for the 8.97 acres of permanent dredging impacts to upland dug ditches pursuant to Subsection 10.2.2.2 of the Environmental Resource Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 (A.H.V.I). Under this Subsection, wetland mitigation is not required for impacts to upland dug ditches that do not provide significant habitat for threatened or endangered species and were not constructed to divert natural stream flow.

Specific Conditions:

Condition # 19 (Binding Wetland Lines) Condition # 980 (DHR Custom Condition) Condition # 981 (Bald Eagle Custom Condition) Condition # 982 (Flushing Study Custom Condition) Condition # 983 (Construction Plans Custom Condition) Condition # 984 (Boating Restriction Custom Condition) Condition # 985 (Sandhill Crane Condition)

Noticing:

• A Wetland Application Notice was submitted on August 2, 2016 to USACE, FFWCC, DOS, FDEP Division of Rec. & Parks, and the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. • Agency Action Notice to USACE upon issuance of permit. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Rule 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Long Bar Pointe Area 1

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

619 Brazilian Pepper Mitigation 2.87

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Sarasota Bay

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands The Long Bar Pointe Conceptual SWERP Modification project area consists of agricultural lands; a series of agricultural ditches; several large agricultural canals; upland-cut ponds; and seven disturbed exotic wetland hardwoods dominated by Brazilian pepper with few areas of bay swamp/swamp fern and spoil areas supporting oaks and saw palmetto. The onsite wetlands continue offsite to the south and west and transition from exotic hardwood wetlands (freshwater) to mangrove swamps and seagrass beds associated with Long Bar and Sarasota Bay. Historical mosquito ditching is also present throughout the Brazilian pepper/mangrove transitions, as well as within the mangrove swamps. The large agricultural canals traverse through the property and also connect to Sarasota Bay. To the north and east is El Conquistador Parkway and extensive agricultural lands and borrow pits. Assessment area description Area 1 is a low quality exotic wetland hardwood dominated by Brazilian Pepper in which there is almost no understory. In few locations, leather fern and other fern species have exploited areas of sunlight through the monocultures of Brazilian pepper. There are few stands of native canopy that include swamp bay (Persea palustris) and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) tree species, but generally still have Brazilian pepper shrub understory. Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Sarasota Bay to the southwest. Area 1 is not unique.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Area 1 is dominated by Brazilian Pepper and has limited wetland function. N/A

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessment area)

Limited wildlife utilization based on the fact that the area is dominated by a Listed species are not anticipated to utilize the assessment area. nuisance species.

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

None

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon E Co Consultants Inc. July 2016

Form 62-345.300(1) [effective date 02-04-2004] Incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-345.300(3)(a), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Rules 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Long Bar Pointe Area 1 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon July 2016

Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0) The scoring of each Condition is less than indicator is based on what Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to would be suitable for the supports wetland/surface maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface type of wetland or surface water functions wetland/surface functions water functions water assessed waterfunctions

.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support

Location and landscape support will not change. w/o pres or current with 5 5

Area 1 has has been hydrologically impacted from decades of historical agricultural activities and in it's current state has limited wetland function. The proposed Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon will be a significant benefit to .500(6)(b)Water Environment the water quality of Sarasota Bay by enhancing these highly degraded wetlands and creating new brackish (n/a for uplands) transitional marsh. In the current condition, water high in nutrients and suspended sediments is being directly discharged into the bay at a high velocity from upland agricultural areas through a system of canals and large ditches. This is evidenced by sedimentation/scouring at the many discharge locations along the shoreline, which has displaced seagrasses. In the proposed condition, runoff from the adjacent uplands will be routed through the projects stormwater management system before it is discharged at multiple locations into the Estuary Enhancement Area where it will be mixed with tidal water and slowly discharged into Sarasota Bay. This will w/o pres or reduce the nutrient loading and sedimentation/scouring that is currently occurring allowing the reestablishment of current with seagrasses in impacted areas and an improvement in the overall water quality of Sarasota Bay.

3 8

.500(6)(c)Community structure

The current community structure of Area 1 is very poor and consists primarily of a Brazilian Pepper monoculture with no understory. The proposed Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon will greatly improve the vegetative 1. Vegetation and/or community structure by removing exotic vegetation and creating a brackish transitional marsh. Saltmarsh cordgrass 2. Benthic Community (Spartina alterniflora), marsh hay cordgrass (Spartina patens), sand cordgrass(Spartina bakeri), and leather fern (Acrostichum aureum) will be planted in the created brackish transitional marsh which will greatly improve community structure of the vegetation in the area. w/o pres or current with

2 8

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = N/A or w/o pres with Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.33 0.7

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.07 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = 0.17 0.37 Risk factor = 2.00

Form 62-345.300(2) [effective date 02-04-2004] Incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-345.300(3)(b), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Rule 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Long Bar Pointe Area 2

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

619 Brazilian Pepper Mitigation 2.41

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Sarasota Bay

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands The Long Bar Pointe Conceptual SWERP Modification project area consists of agricultural lands; a series of agricultural ditches; several large agricultural canals; upland-cut ponds; and seven disturbed exotic wetland hardwoods dominated by Brazilian pepper with few areas of bay swamp/swamp fern and spoil areas supporting oaks and saw palmetto. The onsite wetlands continue offsite to the south and west and transition from exotic hardwood wetlands (freshwater) to mangrove swamps and seagrass beds associated with Long Bar and Sarasota Bay. Historical mosquito ditching is also present throughout the Brazilian pepper/mangrove transitions, as well as within the mangrove swamps. The large agricultural canals traverse through the property and also connect to Sarasota Bay. To the north and east is El Conquistador Parkway and extensive agricultural lands and borrow pits. Assessment area description Area 2 is a low quality exotic wetland hardwood dominated by Brazilian Pepper in which there is almost no understory. In few locations, leather fern and other fern species have exploited areas of sunlight through the monocultures of Brazilian pepper. There are few stands of native canopy that include swamp bay (Persea palustris) and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) tree species, but generally still have Brazilian pepper shrub understory. Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Sarasota Bay to the southwest. Area 2 is not unique.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Area 2 is dominated by Brazilian Pepper and has limited wetland function. N/A

Limited wildlife utilization based on the fact that the area is dominated by a Listed species are not anticipated to utilize the assessment area. nuisance species.

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

None

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon E Co Consultants Inc. July 2016

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Long Bar Pointe Area 2 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon July 2016

.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support

Location and landscape support will not change. w/o pres or current with 5 5

Area 2 has has been hydrologically impacted from decades of historical agricultural activities and in it's current state has limited wetland function. The proposed Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon will be a significant benefit to .500(6)(b)Water Environment the water quality of Sarasota Bay. In the current condition, water high in nutrients and suspended sediments is (n/a for uplands) being directly discharged into the bay at a high velocity from upland agricultural areas through a system of canals and large ditches. This is evidenced by sedimentation/scouring at the many discharge locations along the shoreline, which has displaced seagrasses. In the proposed condition, runoff from the adjacent uplands will be routed through the projects stormwater management system before it is discharged at multiple locations into the Estuary Enhancement Area where it will be mixed with tidal water and slowly discharged into Sarasota Bay. This w/o pres or will reduce the nutrient loading and sedimentation/scouring that is currently occurring allowing the reestablishment of seagrasses in impacted areas and an improvement in the overall water quality of Sarasota Bay. current with

3 7

.500(6)(c)Community structure

1. Vegetation and/or The current community structure of Area 2 is very poor and consists primarily of a Brazilian Pepper monoculture 2. Benthic Community with no understory. The propsed condition of area 2 will be shallow/deeper open water refugia ranging from 5 to 8 ft. in depth that are shallower in narrow portions and deeper in wider portions of the lagoon. w/o pres or current with

2 0

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.00 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = 0.07 0.07 Risk factor = 1.00

Form 62-345.300(2) [effective date 02-04-2004] Incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-345.300(3)(b), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Rule 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Long Bar Pointe Area 3

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

422 Brazilian Pepper Mitigation 6.79

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Sarasota Bay

Area 3 currently dominated by Brazilian pepper with small inclusions of native canopy including live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oaks (Quercus laurifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Sparse native understory includes wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), beautyberry (Calicarpa americana), and saw palmetto (Sabal palmetto).

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Sarasota Bay to the southwest. Area 3 is not unique.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Area 3 is dominated by Brazilian Pepper and has limited habitat function. N/A

Limited wildlife utilization based on the fact that the area is dominated by a Listed species are not anticipated to utilize the assessment area. nuisance species.

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

None

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon E Co Consultants Inc. July 2016

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Long Bar Pointe Area 3 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon July 2016

.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support Brackish transitional marsh will be created from existing poor quality uplands that will provide significant new estuary areas to the shoreline of Sarasota Bay. This habitat will be available to invertebrates, fish and bird species already documented utilizing this portion of Sarasota Bay. Several listed bird species including roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) are anticipated to utilize this part of the Estuary Enhancement Area. . w/o pres or current with 0 5

Area 3 is currently poor quality uplands dominated by a nuisance species. The proposed Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon will be a significant benefit to the water quality of Sarasota Bay by creating new brackish transitional .500(6)(b)Water Environment marsh from poor quality uplands. In the current condition, water high in nutrients and suspended sediments is (n/a for uplands) being directly discharged into the bay at a high velocity from upland agricultural areas through a system of canals and large ditches. This is evidenced by sedimentation/scouring at the many discharge locations along the shoreline, which has displaced seagrasses. In the proposed condition, runoff from the adjacent uplands will be routed through the projects stormwater management system before it is discharged at multiple locations into the Estuary Enhancement Area where it will be mixed with tidal water and slowly discharged into Sarasota Bay. This w/o pres or will reduce the nutrient loading and sedimentation/scouring that is currently occurring allowing the reestablishment of seagrasses in impacted areas and an improvement in the overall water quality of Sarasota Bay. current with

0 7

.500(6)(c)Community structure

The current community structure of Area 3 is upland exotic hardwood and contains no wetland vegetation. The proposed Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon will greatly improve the vegetative community structure by removing 1. Vegetation and/or exotic vegetation and creating a brackish transitional marsh. Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), marsh hay 2. Benthic Community cordgrass (Spartina patens), sand cordgrass(Spartina bakeri), and leather fern (Acrostichum aureum) will be planted in the created brackish transitional marsh which will greatly improve community structure of the vegetation in the area. w/o pres or current with

0 8

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.07 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = 0.33 0.7 Risk factor = 2.00

Form 62-345.300(2) [effective date 02-04-2004] Incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-345.300(3)(b), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Rule 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Long Bar Pointe Area 4

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

422 Brazilian Pepper Mitigation 10.08

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Sarasota Bay

Area 4 currently dominated by Brazilian pepper with small inclusions of native canopy including live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oaks (Quercus laurifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Sparse native understory includes wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), beautyberry (Calicarpa americana), and saw palmetto (Sabal palmetto).

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Sarasota Bay to the southwest. Area 4 is not unique.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Area 4 is dominated by Brazilian Pepper and has limited habitat function. N/A

Limited wildlife utilization based on the fact that the area is dominated by a Listed species are not anticipated to utilize the assessment area. nuisance species.

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

None

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon E Co Consultants Inc. July 2016

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Long Bar Pointe Area 4 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon July 2016

Deep/shallow water refugia from existing low quality uplands. The Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon will have .500(6)(a) Location and multiple connections to Sarasota Bay that will provide tidal flushing to the Estuary Enhancement Area. By Landscape Support connecting the Estuary Enhancement Area to Sarasota Bay, game fish such as snook (Centropomus undecimalis), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus), sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), and mangrove snapper (Lutjanus griseus) will be able utilize the Estuary Enhancement Area. The Estuary Enhancement Area will provide additional and critical nurseries for these important game fish species. The Estuary Enhancement Area fish nurseries will provide structure and cover for juvenile fish species to avoid predation from larger fish and bird species that forage in w/o pres or Sarasota Bay. Also as part of an estuary ecosystem, the Estuary Enhancement Area will create additional shallow current with and deeper water areas for larger snook to ambush prey. 0 5

Area 4 is currently poor quality uplands dominated by a nuisance species. The proposed Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon will be a significant benefit to the water quality of Sarasota Bay by creating new brackish transitional .500(6)(b)Water Environment marsh from poor quality uplands. In the current condition, water high in nutrients and suspended sediments is (n/a for uplands) being directly discharged into the bay at a high velocity from upland agricultural areas through a system of canals and large ditches. This is evidenced by sedimentation/scouring at the many discharge locations along the shoreline, which has displaced seagrasses. In the proposed condition, runoff from the adjacent uplands will be routed through the projects stormwater management system before it is discharged at multiple locations into the Estuary Enhancement Area where it will be mixed with tidal water and slowly discharged into Sarasota Bay. This w/o pres or will reduce the nutrient loading and sedimentation/scouring that is currently occurring allowing the reestablishment of seagrasses in impacted areas and an improvement in the overall water quality of Sarasota Bay. current with

0 7

.500(6)(c)Community structure

1. Vegetation and/or The current community structure of Area 1 is upland exotic hardwood and contains no wetland vegetation. The 2. Benthic Community propsed condition of area 2 will be shallow/deeper open water refugia ranging from 5 to 8 ft. in depth that are shallower in narrow portions and deeper in wider portions of the lagoon. w/o pres or current with

0 0

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.00 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = 0.4 0.4 Risk factor = 1.00

Form 62-345.300(2) [effective date 02-04-2004] Incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-345.300(3)(b), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Rule 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Long Bar Pointe Area 5

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

640 Impact (secondary) 1.96

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Sarasota Bay

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands The Long Bar Pointe Conceptual SWERP Modification project area consists of agricultural lands; a series of agricultural ditches; several large agricultural canals; upland-cut ponds; and seven disturbed exotic wetland hardwoods dominated by Brazilian pepper with few areas of bay swamp/swamp fern and spoil areas supporting oaks and saw palmetto. The onsite wetlands continue offsite to the south and west and transition from exotic hardwood wetlands (freshwater) to mangrove swamps and seagrass beds associated with Long Bar and Sarasota Bay. Historical mosquito ditching is also present throughout the Brazilian pepper/mangrove transitions, as well as within the mangrove swamps. The large agricultural canals traverse through the property and also connect to Sarasota Bay. To the north and east is El Conquistador Parkway and extensive agricultural lands and borrow pits. Assessment area description Area 5 is a brackish transitional marsh. Vegetation will include Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), marsh hay cordgrass (Spartina patens), sand cordgrass(Spartina bakeri), and leather fern (Acrostichum aureum).

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Area 5 will be similar to functioning brackish transitional marsh which Sarasota Bay to the southwest. is common to the area.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Area 5 will have moderate/good wetland function. N/A

Several listed bird species including roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and osprey A variety of invertebrates, fish and bird species already documented (Pandion haliaetus) are anticipated to utilize the Estuary utilizing this portion of Sarasota Bay Enhancement Area. These species are frequently observed loafing or feeding in the mangroves or foraging within shallow bottomlands near the project site. Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

None

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon E Co Consultants Inc. July 2016

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Long Bar Pointe Area 5 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Mitigation Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon July 2016

.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support Location and landscape support will be reduced slightly due to proximity to clearing for site development and construction. w/o pres or current with 5 4

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands)

The water environment of Area 5 will not change as a result of secondary impacts.

w/o pres or current with

8 8

.500(6)(c)Community structure

1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community Community structure will not change. Area 5 will remain a brackish transitional marsh. w/o pres or current with

8 8

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = -0.06 or w/o pres with Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.6 0.57

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.00 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = N/A -0.03 Risk factor = 1.00

Form 62-345.300(2) [effective date 02-04-2004] Incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-345.300(3)(b), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Rule 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Long Bar Pointe Area 6

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

540 Impact (secondary) 4.16

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e. OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Sarasota Bay

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands The Long Bar Pointe Conceptual SWERP Modification project area consists of agricultural lands; a series of agricultural ditches; several large agricultural canals; upland-cut ponds; and seven disturbed exotic wetland hardwoods dominated by Brazilian pepper with few areas of bay swamp/swamp fern and spoil areas supporting oaks and saw palmetto. The onsite wetlands continue offsite to the south and west and transition from exotic hardwood wetlands (freshwater) to mangrove swamps and seagrass beds associated with Long Bar and Sarasota Bay. Historical mosquito ditching is also present throughout the Brazilian pepper/mangrove transitions, as well as within the mangrove swamps. The large agricultural canals traverse through the property and also connect to Sarasota Bay. To the north and east is El Conquistador Parkway and extensive agricultural lands and borrow pits. Assessment area description Area 6 will be shallow/deeper open water refugia ranging from 5 to 8 ft. in depth that are shallower in narrow portions and deeper in wider portions of the lagoon.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Sarasota Bay to the southwest. Area 6 will be similar to functioning estuaries common to the area.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Area 6 will function as an estuary for invertebrates, fish and bird species in N/A Sarasota Bay

Several listed bird species including roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and osprey (Pandion A variety of invertebrates, fish and bird species already documented haliaetus) are anticipated to utilize the Estuary Enhancement Area. utilizing this portion of Sarasota Bay These species are frequently observed loafing or feeding in the mangroves or foraging within shallow bottomlands near the project site. Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

None

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon E Co Consultants Inc. July 2016

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Long Bar Pointe Area 6 Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact Alec Hoffner and Brett Solomon July 2016

.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support Location and landscape support will be reduced slightly due to proximity to clearing for site development and construction. w/o pres or current with 5 4

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands)

The water environment of Area 6 will not change as a result of secondary impacts.

w/o pres or current with

7 7

.500(6)(c)Community structure

1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community Community structure will not change. w/o pres or current with

0 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = -0.12 or w/o pres with Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.37 0.33

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = 1.00 RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = N/A -0.03 Risk factor = 1.00

Form 62-345.300(2) [effective date 02-04-2004] Incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-345.300(3)(b), F.A.C. UMAM Calculations Long Bar Pointe Conceptual SWERP Modification UMAM Impacts and Mitigation Revised 1/13/17 Estuary Enhancement Area/Lagoon Mitigation Wetland and Open Water Creation and Enhancement Water Location/ Environ Vegetation Functional Landscape ment Community Score Delta T-Factor Risk RFG Acreage Lift/Loss Enhancement – Current (Exotic Wetland Hardwood Area 1 [BP]) 5 3 2 0.33 0.37 1.07 2.00 0.17 2.87 0.48 Enhancement - Brackish Transitional Marsh 5 8 8 0.70 Enhancement – Current (Exotic Wetland Hardwood Area 2 [BP]) 5 3 2 0.33 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.07 2.41 0.17 Enhancement – Shallow/Deeper Refugia Open Water 5 7 0 0.40 Creation – Current (Uplands) 0 0 0 0.00 0.70 1.07 2.00 0.33 6.79 2.24 Area 3 Creation – Brackish Transitional Marsh 5 8 8 0.70 Creation – Current (Uplands) 0 0 0 0.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.40 10.08 4.03 Area 4 Creation – Shallow/Deeper Refugia Open Water 5 7 0 0.40 Secondarily Impacted – Current (Brackish Transitional Marsh) 5 8 8 0.70 -0.03 1.96 -0.06 Area 5 Secondarily Impacted – Brackish Transitional Marsh 4 8 8 0.67 Secondarily Impacted – Current Shallow/Deeper Area 6 Refugia Open Water 5 7 0 0.40 -0.03 4.16 -0.12 Secondarily Impacted –Shallow/Deeper Refugia Open Water 4 7 0 0.37

Total UMAM Lift 6.74

Total Lagoon Acreage 22.2

Total Lagoon Uplands 17.0

Total UMAM Function Loss from the previously issued Conceptual ERP 3.31

Page 1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:51 PM To: CoAnne Johnson Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: CoAnne Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:20 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Pointe

I am opposed to the Aqua by the Bay development. Our elected officials should stand up for the people and the environment. We live in such a beautiful place - don't let self serving developers spoil it. CoAnne Johnson

Sent from iDa iBrain

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:53 PM To: Linda Huizenga Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua by the bay.

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Linda Huizenga [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:10 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the bay.

Sent from my iPad. Betsy Please respect the beautiful mangrove and the birds we have here in Fl. I am against Carlos Be ruff wanting to disturb nature and the natural beauty in Long Boat Key. I belong to Manatee Audubon and have a love for the protection of birds !!!!! Thank you. LInda Huizenga.

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:53 PM To: Lauren Pipkorn Design Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Long Bar Point/Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Lauren Pipkorn Design [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:52 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Point/Aqua by the Bay Importance: High

Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to urge you to PLEASE vote to stop the Aqua by the Bay Development proposed on Long Bar Point. Florida is such a gorgeous state, we are already negatively affected by over development, traffic and pollutants as it is. I work as an assistant to seabird rehabilitators at Save Our Seabirds Sanctuary on City Island. At any given time we are home to hundreds of shorebirds sick or dying from pollutants, plastics, loss of habitat, fishing line/hooks, car strikes, loss/disturbance of nesting grounds, etc. I invite you all to come and visit our Sanctuary and see first hand what we are up against day after day.

1 This proposal will absolutely devastate the natural sanctuary there of many birds already of concern and/or endangered including white pelicans, brown pelicans, magnificent frigate birds, Great Egrets, snowy Egrets, Great blue herons, night herons, Ibis, Spoon Bills, Cormorants, etc. Since the 1970’s many bird species across our country are down in their populations by 45%, many more as much as 60-70%, and some like our beloved wintering little shore bird the Red Knot are down as much is 90% ! Of the approximate 1000 species of birds in this country alone, 1 in 3 are threatened with extinction. PLEASE KNOW that these type of projects are EXACTLY what are directly affecting/driving these statistics, and they can NEVER ever be fixed/reversed. This shouldn’t be about money but it obviously is – so please know that bird watching in Florida (being one of the top bird watching destinations in the world due to the nesting rookeries/winter migrations to our state) brings in more revenue than golf ! PLEASE don’t let the developers win once again, the “win” for their bank accounts is a HUGE and IRREVERSIBLE loss for Florida and it’s delicate wildlife and it’s habitat. Thank you, Sincerely, Lauren Pipkorn Assistant Bird Rehabilitator/Assistant Avian Hospital Technician Save Our Seabirds Sarasota, FL 917-270-0407

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:54 PM To: Janet Paisley Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Please vote NO

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Janet Paisley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:31 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Please vote NO

Please vote AGAINST Aqua by the Bay, Carlos Beruff's latest ploy to destroy Longbar Pointe and the Bay. Thank you!

Janet Paisley and Roger Frank 1716 Glenhouse Drive, GL 424 Sarasota, FL 34231

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:54 PM To: Paul F. Dain Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Aqua Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Paul F. Dain [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 7:42 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua Bay

On Aqua Bay.

1. Beruff is asking for a special consideration change that will allow a 145 foot building (10 stories + parking garage/13 total). This is a request the planning commission and the bocc have to grant - it is not part of the current regulations and he is not allowed to build something this tall without a vote from the commission to allow it. This building would be completely out of line from the existing structures in or near that community - hence a point to be made.

2. He wants to build boat docks, but has not stated how many or where they would be. Would it involve cutting mangroves, destroying sea grass? This is something the planning commission needs to ask because otherwise, no one will know until the final site plan is submitted and then it is too late because approvals will already have been given.

3. What are the specific environmental impacts? One recurring problem with Beruff is that he has a specific history - he cuts things down - like mangroves - and then after it is done, he asks for forgiveness when it is too late to do anything about it. He needs to be held accountable for his past action patterns no matter what he promises now.. The commission needs to be reminded of this and held accountable - what will the county do if he does this again?

Please deny Beruff’s requests.

Paul Dain

Paul F. Dain 8544 54th Avenue Circle East Bradenton, Florida 34211 941-756-4050 [email protected]

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:55 PM To: Hector Munoz Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Against Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Hector Munoz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:01 PM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Against Aqua by the Bay

Please do not allow the Aqua by the Bay development to cause harm to the environment. Do not allow dredging, a marina, and destruction to the mangroves or pollution and run off to reach our precious bay. Please conserve our precious resource

Hector Munoz

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:58 PM To: sandra frater Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett Subject: RE: Aqua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: sandra frater [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:48 AM To: Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Charles Smith; Stephen R Jonsson; Robin DiSabatino; Vanessa Baugh; Carol Whitmore; Betsy Benac Subject: Aqua by the Bay

My husband and I are Florida residents in Manatee County. We live in Mt. Vernon off Cortez Road.

I personally have lived in Florida both part time and full time over the past 40 years and have seen the decline in Florida gulf coast rivers because of construction, fertilizer run-off and sewage run-off. In Crystal River in Citrus County, you used to be able to see bottom all the way out to the Gulf of Mexico. Now you can only see bottom in the springs.

We started coming to Manatee County from Citrus County in 2011 and have seen a decline in Sarasota Bay's water quality in just 6 years. The water is not as clear as 6 years ago, and some of the grassy areas are disappearing.

1 Are you certain beyond a reasonable doubt that further run-off from fertilizers and sewage will be avoided with this new subdivision. There are already two other subdivisions scheduled to be built along Cortez Road near the Bay. How much more stress can our Bay take? If you allow this subdivision to be built, and the mangroves to be destroyed, there is risk that Roseate Spoonbills will no longer nest here, and that the White Pelicans will no longer migrate here. But a bigger concern for us is that if you allow Aqua Bay to be built, you won't be able to deny any developers in the future who want to build on the Bay, because you will be setting a DANGEROUS precedent. If this developer is allowed to defy wetland protection laws, to destroy the ecology of the bay, endanger fish and shorebirds, how can you deny future developers who may also want do similar destruction? How can you in good conscience approve this development and risk destroying the Bay that all of us in Manatee County love so much?

We also worry about the supply of city water that will be stressed further. We fear our taxes will go up significantly to cover the costs of the added needs of water and sewer.

Another big concern is the added traffic going out to Anna Maria Island. We're already having trouble getting in and out of the Mt. Vernon subdivision January - April, because of the snowbird traffic. Now there are 3 more proposed subdivisions that will make it even worse. I'm willing to bet that the residents of Anna Maria Island are livid about all this new development, and the other two. Residents of Mt. Vernon and the Village of Cortez sure are.

PLEASE, PLEASE, DON'T LET THIS DEVELOPER FURTHER DESTROY OUR BAY. PUT YOUR BIG GIRL AND BIG BOY PANTS ON AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COUNTY AND THE MAJORITY OF IT'S RESIDENTS AND NOT LINE THE POCKETS OF THIS DEVELOPER. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Sandy Frater

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:00 PM To: Susan Fernald Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Susan Fernald [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 6:13 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Long Bar Pointe

I am a resident of Anna Maria Island in Holmes beach for 17 years and I am so against development Aqua by the Bay, it makes me sad every time I pass by the ConQuistador parkway. I am hoping that people will listen and vote it down, especially the high rises. I have tried numerous times to do the petitions site but can’t get it up, any suggestions. Thanks, Susan M. Fernald

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:00 PM To: Anne Hartmann Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: save Long Bar Pointe

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Anne Hartmann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 6:12 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: save Long Bar Pointe

Dear Betsy,

I am sending you this e-mail to register my strong opposition to the development plans for Aqua by the Bay. This is a terrible project, for environmental reasons, for aesthetic and zoning reasons, and of course for reasons of the inadequate infrastructure, meaning roads, in the area. Who ever heard of a building of this size in Manatee County? I will sign the online petition also. My husband and I live in Mariners Cove, down the road from the Seafood Shack, in Cortez.

I do wonder why two planning commissioners were absent from the important meeting where the planning commission approved the project, 3 - 2.

Most people around here are absolutely incensed to think that this project might move forward.

Thank you for being so involved.

Anne Hartmann

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:01 PM To: Marsha Wikle Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: May 4 Longbar Pointe at Co Comm

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Marsha Wikle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 5:39 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: May 4 Longbar Pointe at Co Comm

Ms Benac - I have sent more than one letter and spoke at the planning commission meeting about Aqua By the Bay. I plan to attend the May 4 Commission meeting and plan to speak. Please demand to see the entire project before considering whether to approve it or not. It will destroy mangroves. Beruff is playing you for fools - your constituents need you to see through his deception.

You will have many citizens attending this meeting - please show us the consideration of not waiting around most of the day to make our contributions.

Thank you for your service. Marsha Lee Wikle West Bradenton

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Betsy Benac Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 6:20 PM To: Bobbi Roy; Marianne Lopata Subject: Fwd: May 4th Commissioners Meeting

Betsy Benac Manatee County Commissioner , District 7 Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Carol Alt Date: April 25, 2017 at 10:51:55 AM EDT To: [email protected] Subject: May 4th Commissioners Meeting

Dear Betsy,

This is to let you know that I and many from my Mt. Vernon Community will be attending the meeting on May 4th where the issue of Aqua by the Bay will be discussed. We are a very concerned neighbor of the property Carlos Beruff is hoping to develop, and most concerned about our Sarasota Bay. Some of us will probably want to speak.

I would appreciate a possible time for this. We are seniors for whom waiting several hours could be difficult.

Thank you.

Carol Alt 4819 Independence Dr. Bradenton, FL 34210

Sent from my iPad

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Betsy Benac Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:22 AM To: Bobbi Roy; Sarah Schenk; Marianne Lopata Subject: Fwd: CB&I Study Attachments: CBI_344582_Coastal_Processes_Review_Memorandum_04-20-16_2_.pdf; ATT00001.htm

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "JudyJohnson/StuSmith" Date: April 25, 2017 at 9:33:46 AM EDT To: Betsy Benac Subject: CB&I Study

Dear Commissioner - Attached is the full report from CB&I, the county's consultant on the lagoon at Aqua by the Bay. In my opinion, it conveys a different impression than the excerpt in the staff report. I have highlighted the pertinent parts.

Please make this part of the record for the hearing. Thank you - Stuart Smith

Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:10 PM To: JudyJohnson/StuSmith Cc: Debbie Bassett; Bobbi Roy; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Comments from Audubon Florida on Lagoon and Seawall at Aqua by the Bay

Aqua by the Bay/Long Par Point, LLLP/Cargor Partners III - PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G) Thank you for writing to Commission Chairman Betsy Benac. Your email has been shared with the other commissioners and staff of Building & Development Services and the County Attorney’s Office. You are welcome to attend the public hearing which is scheduled to be heard at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: JudyJohnson/StuSmith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 7:08 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Comments from Audubon Florida on Lagoon and Seawall at Aqua by the Bay

This type of “compromise” was tried long ago on the south shoreline of Biscayne Bay. It did preserve a mangrove fringe with a manmade waterway behind, which was better than the traditional 1960’s era Florida coastal development where a stark seawall out in the bay replaced all the mangroves.

However just saving the fringe while interrupting the surface and groundwater flows into the mangroves from adjacent uplands dramatically changed the mangrove ecosystem and left it much less ecologically productive.

It turns out that those freshwater flows from surface and groundwater are very important to the movement of detritus from the mangroves out into the bay, which is what brings about the high productivity of mangrove ecosystems.

Doing the development as proposed at Long Bar Pointe will preserve a relic or artifact mangrove shoreline without its original productivity. The knowledge gained by the actual placement of developments like this on the Biscayne Bay shoreline was later used to defeat the massive development by Deltona at Marco Island, which was denied permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers circa 1976.

Charles Lee, Director of Advocacy, Audubon Florida, Orlando

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:10 PM To: JudyJohnson/StuSmith Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Marine Scientist Comments on Lagoon and Seawall at Aqua by the Bay

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: JudyJohnson/StuSmith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 7:07 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Marine Scientist Comments on Lagoon and Seawall at Aqua by the Bay

If this were approved, the fringe mangroves would not have a long time left to be viable. They’d be stranded, and eventually inundated, by sea level rise in the long run. The ecosystem can naturally adapt to sea level rise by shoreward migration.

Mangrove forests naturally transition, shore to inland, from red, to black, to white species, which are each adapted to being constantly inundated, tidally inundated, or occasionally inundated, respectively. But being cut off from the rest of the system by dredging the lagoon and building a sea wall will compromise that entirely.

Mark R. Hafen, Ph.D. College of Marine Science, University of South Florida Assistant Director & Senior Instructor, School of Public Affairs, University of South Florida

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:07 PM To: JudyJohnson/StuSmith Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Wetlands Expert on Aqua by the Bay

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: JudyJohnson/StuSmith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:20 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Wetlands Expert on Aqua by the Bay

Dear Commissioner - Please find below comments supplied by Professional Wetland Scientist Robin Lewis to the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the probable impact of mangrove trimming planned at the Aqua by the Bay site.

The letter from Mr. Reese to which Mr. Lewis refers contains additional comments from attorney Thomas Reese. This expert testimony should give you pause about the proposed GDP, since it could hasten the destruction of the last intact shoreline ecosystem on Sarasota Bay.

Please enter this communication into the record for the Aqua by the Bay hearing on May 4. Thanks for you attention - Stuart Smith

From: Date: Aug 12, 2016 11:22 AM Subject: Re: FWF's Opposition to Proposed Long Bar Pointe Mitigation Bank, Manatee Cou... To: Cc: , , , ,

1 , , , , , , , ,

Dear Colonel Dodd:

I would like to fully endorse the letter provided by Mr. Reese on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. The proposed "mitigation bank" is not a valid proposal for a mitigation bank and will not provide ANY valid mitigation credits that the Corps should support for offsetting any local or regional permitted impacts to wetlands including seagrass meadows.

I state this as a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist with the Society of Wetland Scientists, and an environmental scientist and consultant who has worked in Florida wetland ecosystems for 50 years. I was a partner in the first private mitigation bank permitted by the Corps in Florida (Pembroke Pines) and currently am president of Coastal Resources Group, Inc., which operates, under your staff's supervision, the Keys Restoration Fund In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation Bank in Monroe County, Florida. In this latter role we perform in-lieu-fee seagrass and mangrove forest mitigation projects as reviewed and approved by your staff and the bank's IRT. We are currently working, with your staff's approval, on seagrass restoration/mitigation activities within 7,000 acres of seagrass meadows in the 10,000 acre Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Park.

Mr. Reese's letter references a report I prepared as a consultant to Pinellas County in 2003 in which I reviewed the science behind mangrove trimming (Lewis 2003). The best practices I recommended for Pinellas County were adopted, but have not been adopted to my knowledge by any other counties. The proposed mangrove trimming for this project does not abide by the recommended "best practices" in that document (although a copy is attached to the applicant's supplied RAI responses), and certainly does not result in any ecological "lift" even with minor removal of Brazilian peppers, and would in fact, in my professional opinion, result in the death of many of the mangroves proposed for the severe instantaneous cutting, particularly the larger red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle).

Roy R. "Robin" Lewis III, Professional Wetland Scientist #725 Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America Board Certified Environmental Professional #1161 President, Coastal Resources Group, Inc. Keys Restoration Fund PO Box 5430 Salt Springs, FL 32134-5430 Street Address: 23797 NE 189th Street, Salt Springs, FL 32134 E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] Please copy to both Web: http://www.lewisenv.com, http://www.mangroverestoration.com, http://www.RoyRLewis3.com, http://www.seagrassrestorationnow.com,http://www.coastalresourcesgroup.org, http://www.keysrestorationfund.org, http://www.marcomangroves.com

Voice: 01.352.546.4842 Fax: 01.352.546.5224 Mobile: 01.813.505.3999

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:03 PM To: Mary Carpin Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Longbar point

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Mary Carpin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:57 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Fwd: Longbar point

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary Carpin Date: April 14, 2017 at 9:56:48 AM EDT To: [email protected] Subject: Long bar

1 I am reading the plans for longbar point and the real glaring irreversible mistake will be to let the natural shoreline be altered! You cannot replace or replenish in front of a sea wall after all the disturbed sea life has been displaced or destroyed. I have traveled all over the state of Florida and Cortez is the only natural unique place left!! PLEASE let them build if necessary but nothing near the shoreline should be touched!!!! Praying for level heads to prevail and protect what is left of nature!!!! Mary C. Carpin

Sent from my iPhone

2 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:04 PM To: Robert Mcgarry Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: long bar point nad carlos beruff

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Robert Mcgarry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:47 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: long bar point nad carlos beruff

I strongly oppose the general development plan of carlos beruff at longbar point. please vote against it!!!!

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:05 PM To: Robert Kelly Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Agua by the Bay

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: Robert Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:22 AM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Agua by the Bay

For the record, as a citizen, veteran, and resident of Manatee county, I strongly oppose the development, “Agua by the Bay”, for a multitude of reasons.

Thank you.

Robert W. Kelly

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Marianne Lopata Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 3:05 PM To: John Wuepper Cc: Bobbi Roy; Debbie Bassett; Carol Whitmore; Charles Smith; Priscilla WhisenantTrace; Robin DiSabatino; Stephen R Jonsson; Vanessa Baugh Subject: RE: Longbar Point Development

You are welcome to attend the public hearing to voice your concerns and opinions. On behalf of Chairman Benac and the other Commissioners, thank you for your interest and participation.

Marianne Lopata Executive Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners Phone: (941) 745-3707; Fax: (941) 745-3790 E-mail: [email protected]

-----Original Message----- From: John Wuepper [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:19 PM To: Betsy Benac Subject: Longbar Point Development

Dear Betsy Benac:

I am opposed to the environmentally destructive development proposed for Longbar Point. I am asking that the rule of law be strictly adhered to in any considerations involving that development. Urbanization of the few coastal natural areas that remain in this area would be sad, indeed.

John Wuepper 4786 Independence Dr. Bradenton, Fl 34210

1 Bobbi Roy

From: Betsy Benac Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 7:22 PM To: Bobbi Roy Subject: Fwd: of Long Bar Pointe and County Commission Meeting on May 4th

Betsy Benac Manatee County Commissioner , District 7 Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Wilcox, Debbie" Date: April 26, 2017 at 11:23:26 AM EDT To: "[email protected]" Subject: of Long Bar Pointe and County Commission Meeting on May 4th

I am writing about the County Commission meeting on May 4th where the topic of Long Bar Pointe is on the agenda. As a concerned citizen of Manatee County I plan to be at this meeting. I would also like to understand what time this item will be discussed that day. Like many , I work during the day and it would very helpful to all of us to understand the agenda for that meeting and when this topic will be reviewed. This is critically important to many of us and your consideration to provide a time is appreciated.

Thank you.

Debbie Wilcox 334 Castaway Cay Drive Bradenton Florida 34209