Resolution 119-2003
RESOLUTION 119 -2003
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP) FOR
BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS TO THE U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR AN
INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT OF THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES INCLUDING
MINIMIZING AND MITIGATING THE LEVEL
OF TAKE.
WHEREAS, on October 26, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida
Game and Fish Commission, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDAC), Florida
Department of Transportation and Monroe County entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for
the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys; and
WHEREAS, the public agencies are among the federal, state and local agencies that
have regulatory authority or responsibility under certain federal and state statutes, including the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
the Constitution of Florida and state and local planning and zoning laws to conserve threatened
and endangered species and their habitats on Big Pine and No Name Keys from adverse effects
resulting from public and private development actions; and
WHEREAS, the HCP is a mechanism whereby the concerns and responsibilities of the
various public agencies with regard to the conservation of the Key Deer and other covered
species, and public and private development of Big Pine and No Name Keys can be coordinated;
and
WHEREAS, all projects including state and county roadway improvements and all other
public and private development activities on Big Pine and No Name Keys are subject to
individual review by USFWS and will enjoy a benefit from this comprehensive review by
USFWS; and
WHEREAS, the traffic Level of Service (LOS) on US #lin Big Pine Key is currently
and has been since 1996 below the adopted standard and is anticipated to continue to worsen
unless road improvements can be made to US # 1; and
WHEREAS, the USFWS agreed to allow FDOT to proceed with the construction of a
short-term intersection improvement on US # I on Big Pine under the condition that the FDCA,
FDOT and Monroe County agree to develop the HCP; and
WHEREAS, a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) was signed by FDOT, FDCA and
Monroe County in January 2000 to fund and facilitate development of the HCP; and
WHEREAS, an HCP Coordinating Committee, consisting of two representatives from
each MOU signatory agency and two citizens designated by the County was established for
purpose of assisting the contracting agency, FDOT, in selection of an experienced professional
consulting firm to prepare the HCP and associated documents; and
WHEREAS, URS Corporation Southern was selected as the Contractor to prepare the
HCP; and
WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act allows an applicant to apply for
a permit for "incidental take" of federally designated endangered species; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive study was completed of the Key Deer and other
endangered species populations and conditions necessary for their continued viability; and
WHEREAS, three workshops were held with the community as part of the Monroe
County Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) to determine a preferred development action,
which was analyzed by the Contractor to determine the level of "take" of the endangered species
by the action; and
WHEREAS, the HCP is a plan for minimizing and mitigating the determined level of
"take"; and
WHEREAS, formal submittal of the HCP and it's associated documents and application
of an Incidental Take permit shall only be made after all three HCP co-applicant agencies are in
agreement with the submittal, NOW THEREFORE;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA to authorize the submittal of the Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida
at a regular meeting held on the 19 day of March, A.D., 2003.
Mayor Dixie Spehar yes
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson yes
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy yes
Commissioner David Rice yes
Commissioner George Neugent yes
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY KOHLAGE, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By L)j# >n ~
Mayor/Chairperson
By9M~. ~aMtJ
Deputy Clerk
Cl r- 4:
c:.::: ....::: ~.d .-J
.'--' (~ La..
~"" C}.;" <t ;-: .
i,............- 'T-u>-
..-~.... ::c ,._J r-
c..... cd: ~:~~5
0:: co 00
t::J _.j .C)
u- N ~
cr:: --'~
0 0- uo:::
W ...a:: ::r..
..J cor.' 0
C:-' "'t""
= "-
l.l... C'"'......
Habitat Conservation Plan
for Florida Key Deer
(Odocoileus virginianus clavium)
and other Protected Species on
Big Pine Key and No Name Key,
Monroe County, Florida
Prepared for:
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3559
Prepared by:
Monroe County
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
Florida Department of Transportation, District VI
1000 NW lllth Avenue, Room #6101
Miami, Florida 33172
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212
Marathon, Florida 33050
With assistance from consultants:
URS Corporation
700 S. Royal Poinciana Blvd., Suite 1000
Miami Springs, Florida 33166
April 2003
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................. 1
1.1 Background and Purpose of the Plan ............................................................. I
1.1.1 Historical Background and Memorandum of Agreement............... 3
1.1.2 Coordinating Committee................................................................. 4
1.1.3 Objectives of the Plan ..................................................................... 4
1.2 Plan Development Process and Methodology............................................... 5
1.2.1 Technical Studies............................... ............................................. 5
1.2.2 Public Information and Involvement ..............................................5
1.3 HCP Covered Area ........................................................................................7
1.4 Regulatory Basis of the HCP ......................................................................... 7
1.4.1 Endangered Species Act .................... ............................................. 7
1.4.2 Clean Water Act............. ....... ..... ........ ............................................. 8
2. BI 0 LOGI CAL CO ND ITI 0 NS................................................................................ 9
2.1 Covered Species............................................................................................. 9
2.1.1 Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium)...................... 9
2.1.2 Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri)............. 10
2.1.3 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) .................... 14
2.2 Vegetation and Habitat..................... ........................................................... 14
2.2.1 Pine lands ....................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Hammocks ............ ....................................... ....... .......................... 17
2.2.3 Freshwater Wetlands..................................................................... 18
2.2.4 Saltwater Marsh/Buttonwood Marsh ............................................ 19
2.2.5 Mangroves..................................................................................... 19
2.3 Scientific Basis of the HCP: The Key Deer Population Viability
Analysis (PV A) Model and Its Application................................................. 20
2.3.1 Field Studies of the Population Dynamics ofthe Key Deer .........20
2.3.2 Development of the Key Deer Population Viability
Analysis Model............................................................................. 21
2.3.3 PV A Model Analysis and Results ................................................24
2.3.4 Application of the PV A Model to the Habitat Conservation Plan 26
3. LAND USE CONDITIONS.................................................................................... 30
3.1 Introduction..... ........ ..................................................................................... 30
3.2 Land Ownership........................................................................................... 30
3.3 Habitat Management Activities ................................................................... 31
3.4 Covered Activities .................................. ....................... ........... ................... 33
4. AL TERNA TIVE PLANNING STRATEGIES .................................................... 35
4.1 Introduction........... ............. .......................................................................... 35
4.2 Planning Strategies Analyzed ......................................................................36
4.2.1 Planning Strategy #1: No Action Alternative/No Take ................36
4.2.2 Planning Strategy #2: Reduced Take ............................................ 36
4.2.3 Planning Strategy #3: Proposed Alternative ................................. 37
4.3 Comparison of Alternatives .........................................................................37
11
5. CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES..................................... 38
5.1 Biological Goals........................................................................................... 38
5.2 Summary of Take and Its Effects on the Covered Species.......................... 39
5.3 Conservation Strategy - Mitigation Measures and Procedures.................... 40
5.3.1 Conservative Assumptions and Level of Take .............................40
5.3.2 Avoidance and Minimization..... ................... ................................ 41
5.3.3 Habitat Mitigation and Habitat Banking....................................... 44
5.3.4 Habitat Management..................................................................... 45
5.3.5 Regulatory Actions ..................................... .................................. 46
5.3.6 Other Considerations ............................ .... .................................... 46
5.4 Monitoring and Reporting.................................. ............ .............................. 47
5.4.1 Reporting....................................................................................... 48
5.5 Adaptive ManagementlUnforeseen Circumstances/fINo Surprises" ............49
6. IMPLEMENT A TI ON AND FIN AN CIN G........................................................... 51
6.1 Regulatory Actions...................... ........................................................ ........ 51
6.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................ 51
6.1.2 Implementation Schedule.............................................................. 51
6.2 Funding........................................................................................................ 52
6.3 Permit Amendment Procedures .......................................... ......................... 53
6.4 Permit Renewal....................................... ........ ............. ....................... ......... 54
7. REFE RE N CES. ...... .... ..... ...... ........ ........... ....... ........ ....... ...... ...... ....................... ...... 5S
7.1 Agencies and Persons Contacted ................................................................. 55
7.2 Bibliography................................................................................................ 56
8. LIST OF PREP ARERS .......................................................................................... 61
8.1 URS Corporation............................ ...... .................. .......... ........................... 61
8.2 Sub-Consultants........................................................................................... 62
List of Figures
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 3.1
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Project area
Key deer locations from telemetry data
Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat
Vegetative cover of Big Pine Key and No Name Key
Six grid layers used to generate weighting factor grid
Key deer PV A model grid layers
Tier classification system in the project area
Land ownership in the project area
Relationship between human-induced Key deer mortality and deer density
Key deer corridor across sands Subdivision
III
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 3.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 6.1
HCP public meetings
Covered species
Habitat type distribution within the project area
Gender and age-classes of radio collared Key deer in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key, 1998-1999
Effect of development on Key deer
H multiplier for land use development categories
Tier classification system
H values for transportation improvements. New roads are not covered by
the HCP
Land ownership in the project area as of mid-2002
Estimated loss of native vegetation from covered activities
Impacts and mitigation in Big Pine Key and No Name Key, 1995 - present
Projected budget for monitoring Key deer population for 20-year period
Estimated cost of the HCP
IV
Act
ADID
CARL
CCP
CFR
Corps
County
CWA
DCA
ESA
FDEP
FDOT
F.S.
FWC
GIS
HCP
IS
ITP
LCP
LDR
LOS
MCLA
MM
MOA
NEPA
NGVD
NRCS
PD&E
Plan
Preserve
PVA
Refuge
ROGO
US-l
USC
USFWS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Endangered Species Act
Advanced Identification of Wetlands
Conservation and Recreation Lands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Code of Federal Regulations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Monroe County
Clean Water Act
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Endangered Species Act
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Statutes
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Geographic Information System
Habitat Conservation Plan
Improved Subdivision
Incidental Take Permit
Livable CommuniKeys Program
Land Development Regulations
Level of Service
Monroe County Land Authority
Mile Marker on US-l
Memorandum of Agreement
National Environmental Policy Act
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
National Resource Conservation Service
Project Development and Environment
Habitat Conservation Plan
Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer
Population Viability Analysis
National Key Deer Refuge
Rate of Growth Ordinance
U.S. Highway 1
United States Code
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
v
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Background and Purpose of the Plan
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Monroe County, and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA)(the Applicants) submit this Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP or Plan), which addresses impacts to covered species resulting
from potential development activities over a 20-year year period in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key, Monroe County, Florida (Figure 1.1). Activities covered under this HCP
include residential and commercial development, as well as transportation improvements
to meet the community needs of Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The HCP establishes
the guidelines under which covered activities may occur and describes a conservation and
mitigation strategy to minimize and mitigate for the incidental take of threatened and
endangered species during the execution of covered development activities. The Plan has
been developed in accordance with the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA or Act).
A number of species listed at the Federal and/or state level(s), including the endangered
Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), have been documented to occur, or
have the potential to occur, within the project area. The Applicants have determined that
the incidental take of Key deer may occur as a result of development activities during the
next 20 years. Incidental take coverage is also requested for two additional species that
may be indirectly affected mainly through habitat loss by urban development activities
throughout the 20-year period.
This HCP and accompanying Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application support the
Applicants' request for the incidental take of Key deer and other covered species within
the project area from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service or USFWS). In
compliance with the ITP issuance criteria listed in Section lO(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the
HCP provides for the minimization and mitigation of the incidental take. Ultimately, the
incidental take would not significantly affect the likelihood of survival and recovery of
the species in the wild.
The Applicants understand that the ITP itself does not authorize development activities.
Instead, the ITP authorizes the incidental take of covered species that may occur as a
result of covered activities during the 20-year permit.
1
Figure 1.1. Project area
2
1.1.1 Historical Background and Memorandum of Agreement
Several listed species, including the Key deer, occur on Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
The Key deer are wide-ranging and use a variety of habitats, including developed areas;
consequently, they share much of their range with the human population. The Key deer
was listed as endangered at the federal level in March 1967 [32 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 4001]. Since the establishment of the National Key Deer Refuge
(Refuge) in 1957, population levels recovered. In 1951, there were an estimated 25 to 80
individuals; by 1973 the population had recovered to approximately 300 to 400, including
151 to 191 deer on Big Pine Key alone (FDOT 1999). However, mortality from road
kills and habitat loss continued to threaten the population and, by 1982, population
numbers were down to between 250 and 300 individuals (Klimstra 1985, USFWS 1985).
In the late 1980s, the FDOT began consultation to find a solution to the high road
mortality of Key deer along portions of US-Ion Big Pine Key. In September 1993,
FDOT convened a stakeholders meeting, after which an Ad Hoc Committee pursued
solutions to the highway mortality of the Key deer. FDOT funded a Concept Study to
examine viable alternatives for reducing Key deer mortality caused by vehicle collisions.
The study focused on consensus building via public involvement and agency
coordination, coupled with scientific analyses, and identified a series of structural and
non-structural alternatives (FDOT 1996). The Concept Study recommended that wildlife
underpasses be installed to allow the Key deer to move safely across the undeveloped
segment of US-l (approximately MM 33.0 to MM 31.0) and that a series of non-
structural options, including signage, be implemented in the developed portion of US-l in
Big Pine Key (approximately MM 31.0 to MM 29.5).
Following the recommendations of the Concept Study, FDOT funded a Project
Development & Environment (PD&E) Study to further evaluate the alternatives
identified in the Concept Study (FDOT 1998). The PD&E Study included extensive
public involvement and formal consultation with the USFWS. In January 1999 and April
2001, the Service issued Biological Opinions for the Key deer (USFWS 1999, 2001a).
During the course of the PD&E Study, a Technical Task Force developed possible
solutions for alleviating traffic congestion on US-Ion Big Pine Key. The Task Force
recommended an intersection improvement project in the vicinity of the signalized
intersection at US-l and Key Deer Boulevard. Intersection improvements included
adding a northbound through lane on US-I, both east and west of the traffic signal;
extending the intersection's existing southbound left-turn lane on US-I; and improving
the traffic signalization timing. The wildlife underpasses and intersection improvement
have been constructed.
Since 1995, Big Pine Key has been under a building moratorium due to an insufficient
level of service (LOS) on US-I. The moratorium was lifted temporarily in 1996.
Improvements to US-l would improve the LOS, thereby alleviating the building
moratorium. The Service agreed to allow the intersection improvement project to
proceed on the condition that an HCP be prepared.
3
In 1998, the Applicants and two Technical Assistance Agencies, the Service and the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to develop an HCP for the Key deer and other protected species in the
project area. The purpose of the MOA was to direct an interagency approach to the
conservation of federally protected species on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. Specific
objectives of the MOA were to defme the relationships and cooperative agreements
between signatory parties, determine appropriate growth and build out levels for the
project area and establish a multi-agency HCP Coordinating Committee.
1.1.2 Coordinating Committee
In accordance with the MOA, the Applicants established a multi-agency HCP
Coordinating Committee at the outset of the HCP process. The Coordinating Committee
included representatives from the Applicants, Technical Assistance Agencies (USFWS
and FWC), and two citizen representatives from Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The
objectives of the Coordinating Committee were:
· Acquire and manage consultants tasked with developing the HCP;
· Establish funding obligations among the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies;
· Define the desired outcome of the HCP; and
· Defme Applicant roles.
The HCP Coordinating Committee met approximately every other month, beginning in
late 1999 and continuing through December 2002.
1.1.3 Objectives of the Plan
At the outset of the study, the Applicants worked in consultation with the Service to
establish clear and measurable biological goals for the HCP. Initially, a 5% probability
of extinction in 100 years for the Key deer was established as the biological threshold to
measure the effect of development activities. During the development of the HCP, this
threshold was modified (see Section 5).
Biological studies performed for this HCP focused on the Key deer, and emphasized a
habitat-based approach for other covered species. The Key deer are wide ranging and
utilize virtually all available habitat in the project area, including developed areas (Lopez
2001). In contrast, the other species included in the HCP (see Section 2.3) are restricted
to one or two habitat types within the project area. For example, the Lower Keys marsh
rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) is restricted to wetland habitats. Therefore, the Plan
focused on the Key deer as an "umbrella species" and operated under the assumption that
avoiding and minimizing impacts to Key deer habitat, would also provide direct
protection to both populations and habitats of other terrestrial species.
The plan aims at providing for the protection of covered species in the project area, while
allowing development activities that satisfy community needs in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key.
4
1.2 Plan Development Process and Methodology
The development of the HCP included scientific studies, developing and evaluating
alternatives, and implementing a public information and participation program.
Concurrently with the HCP, Monroe County carried out a planning effort based on
community participation, in order to determine community needs.
1.2.1 Technical Studies
Lopez (2001) studied the ecology and population dynamics of the Key deer for three
years. He followed the movement, habitat utilization and fate of over 200 deer using
radio-telemetry and census procedures. The study produced a Population Viability
Analysis (PV A) model to evaluate the impacts of development scenarios on the Key deer
population.
The model evaluates the likelihood that the species will persist for a given time into the
future under different scenarios. Land development alternatives produced by the
community were evaluated using the PV A model to quantify the associated impacts to
Key deer in the project area. The PV A model was reviewed and critiqued by Dr. Resit
Akcakaya (Applied Biomathematics, Inc.), an expert in population models and PV A. Dr.
Akcakaya reviewed the model twice, in June 2000 and August 2001. Additionally, two
technical workshops were held in Miami, Florida among the Applicants and the USFWS
and the FWC to review the Key deer PV A model. For a description of PV A model
development see Section 2.3.
Concurrently, Monroe County carried out a Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) to
determine the community's preferred type, location, and amount of development in the
project area. A Development Alternatives Report produced in March 2001 (Monroe
County 2001) provides a detailed description of the fmal LCP alternatives, the methods
used to develop these alternatives and the planning criteria by which alternatives were
evaluated. The LCP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, as well as this HCP provide
the basis of a Master Plan for future development within the project area.
1.2.2 Public Information and Involvement
The development of the HCP included extensive public involvement activities. The
public information and participation plan included identification of stakeholders, periodic
project-update mailings, several public meetings, and an open-door policy for public
input.
Stakeholders are those individuals and organizations with an economic, cultural, social or
environmental interest in the HCP. They included property owners, elected officials and
other community leaders, Federal, State and local governments, permitting and reviewing
agencies, environmental organizations, members of the media, and interested private
citizens. Using the 1999 Monroe County Property Appraiser database as a foundation, a
5
stakeholder database containing the names and addresses of more than 4,400 landowners
was developed.
Public feedback helped identify over 100 additional stakeholders, who were included in
the database. These additional stakeholders represent individuals or groups that did not
own land within the project area but were interested in the process and outcome of the
HCP, including non-profit and environmental organizations. The list of stakeholders was
used to distribute public meeting invitations and project status reports. The stakeholder
database was continually updated and maintained, per input received at public meetings
from private landowners, citizen letters to the FDOT, and forwarding addresses provided
by the U.S. Postal Service.
Three public meetings were held in Big Pine Key between February 2000 and March
2001 (Table 1.1). The objectives of the meetings were to inform the public about the
scientific basis of the HCP, describe how land development alternatives were evaluated,
and obtain input to ensure that all points of view were considered. Meetings were
announced through direct mailings to property owners and other stakeholders, radio
announcements, and newspapers. Generally, the public meetings included a presentation
and a question and answer session. Public comments were recorded in every meeting.
Meetings were held in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws, including
provisions for the disabled as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Table 1.1. HCP Public meetings
First Public Meetin2 Second Public Meetin2
Date February 1,2000 April 17, 2000
Time 7:00 pm 7:30 pm
Venue Big Pine Key United Big Pine Key United
Methodist Church Methodist Church
Number
of Approximately 400 Approximately 100
Attendees
Meeting . Introductory meeting . Present the model, its
Objectives . Present background opportunities and
material and the HCP constraints
process . Present current status
. Present the project of the Key deer
schedule and . Discuss land
upcoming activities acquisition programs,
. Provide opportunity land use regulations
to identify public and traffic analyses
concerns
Third Public Meetin2
March 27,2001
Two sessions: 4:30 pm
and 7:30 pm
Big Pine Key
Neighborhood School
Approximately 35 at each
session (70 total)
. Present preliminary
model results for
biological analysis of
the Key deer and
Lower Keys marsh
rabbit
. Discuss how the
Livable Communi-
Keys Program's
scenarios will
interrelate with the
knowledge of the
species biology
6
1.3 HCP Covered Area
The Florida Keys, including the project area, comprise a 113-mile long chain of islands
extending southwest from the southern tip of the Florida mainland peninsula to the Dry
Tortugas. Key Largo (25.1 square miles) and Big Pine Key (lOA square miles) are the
largest islands in this chain and possess the greatest diversity and acreage of habitats. Big
Pine Key and No Name Key are situated in the southern third of the Florida Keys, also
known as the Lower Keys. Long narrow channels separate the islands and connect the
Gulf of Mexico with the Straits of Florida (Figure 1.1).
The HCP project area encompasses 7,031 total acres, including 5,840 acres on Big Pine
Key and 1,191 acres No Name Key. These two islands support more than two-thirds of
the Key deer population. Sixty-six percent of the project area is in conservation,
including Federal lands within the Refuge, state-owned lands and lands owned by the
Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA). Though these lands currently receive
protection, they are included within the Plan's covered area since the effects of
development are evaluated on Key deer throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key.
1.4 Regulatory Basis of the HCP
1.4.1 Endane:ered Soecies Act
The U.S. Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973 (Act) to protect plant and
animal species that are likely to become extinct. The Service is responsible for
implementing the ESA for those species under its jurisdiction, which include all
terrestrial and freshwater species and sea turtles that utilize nesting beaches. Under the
ESA and its implementing regulations, taking protected species, even incidentally, is
prohibited with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206. As defined in Section 9 of the
ESA, the term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct, where harm is an act which
actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts include significant habitat modification or
degradation that may result in impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding,
feeding or sheltering (50 CFR Part 222).
Incidental take is the accidental capture of listed fish or wildlife species or take of critical
habitat, that is not intentional, but occurs as a result of an otherwise lawful project
activity conducted by a Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR Part 402.02). An action
which results in the incidental take of listed species or protected habitat, but will not
jeopardize the continued existence of species and systems, is required to have an
incidental take statement and permit to comply with Sections 7(b)(4) and lO(a)(I)(B) of
the Act.
Section 10 of the Act describes circumstances under which the incidental take of
federally listed species may be authorized for non-Federal activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Act establishes the ITP process by which the Secretary of the Interior authorizes
the incidental take ofa threatened or endangered species. Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act
7
requires ITP applicants to submit a "conservation plan" which specifies the impact to the
species likely to result from the proposed action and the measures that would be taken to
minimize and mitigate such impacts.
1.4.2 Clean Water Act
Lands containing jurisdictional wetlands are present in the project area. Dredge and fill
activities in jurisdictional areas, including wetlands, are regulated by the Section 404
Clean Water Act (CWA) program, which is jointly administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The
Key deer HCP does not support any Section 404 permit under the CW A nor does it
exempt landowners from obtaining CW A compliance from the Corps for activities that
may impact jurisdictional areas. If a federally listed covered species is to be adversely
affected by proposed development activities in a jurisdictional wetland, the Corps must
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
in accordance with Section 7 of the Act. Effects to federally listed covered species
resulting from impacts to jurisdictional wetlands within the project area will be addressed
through the Section 7 consultation at the time such development is proposed.
8
2. BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Covered Species
The HCP provides for a conservation strategy for three federally listed species (Table 2.1).
Based on the best available scientific information on each of the covered species, future
development on Big Pine Key has the greatest probability of impacting the Key deer. The
Florida Key deer has been used as umbrella species in the analysis conducted for this Plan.
A brief description of the covered species follows.
Table 2.1. Covered species
Common Name Scientific Name
Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium
Lower Keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi
E=Endangered, T=Threatened
Federal Status
E
E
T
2.1.1 Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium)
Description
The Florida Key deer is the smallest race of North American white-tailed deer. Key deer
are morphologically distinct from other races of white-tailed deer and exhibit a stocky
body, with shorter legs and a wider skull. Mature adults measure between 25 to 30
inches at the shoulder with average weights of 55 to 75 pounds for males, and 45 to 65
pounds for females. The Key deer's primary food source is the red and black mangrove,
but they also feed on approximately 160 other plants to meet nutritional requirements
(Klimstra and Dooley 1990).
Compared to northern white-tailed deer, Key deer are more solitary (Harding 1974).
Home ranges average about 299 acres (greater during the breeding season) for male deer
and 138 acres for females. The breeding season begins in September, peaks in October,
and declines through December and January, while the peak of fawning coincides with
the onset of the rainy season in April and May (Harding 1974, Silvy 1975). Factors
resulting in the low reproductive performance of Key deer include low fecundity and
reproductive activity as well as high fetal sex ratios and mean age of initial reproduction
(Folk and Klimstra 1991).
Distribution
The Key deer are wide ranging and utilize virtually all available habitat in the project
area, including developed areas (Figure 2.1, Lopez 2001). The principal factor
influencing the distribution and movement of Key deer is the location and availability of
fresh water. Deer swim easily between keys and use all islands during the wet season
9
when drinking water is available, but congregate on large islands during the dry season
(Folk and Klimstra 1991, Silvy 1975). Permanent deer populations are found on islands
with extensive pine and hardwood habitats in addition to a year-round supply of fresh
water (Klimstra 1985). Hammocks provide important cover for fawning and bedding,
whereas open developed areas are used for feeding and resting.
Key deer have been documented as permanent residents throughout Big Pine, Big Torch,
Cudjoe, Howe, Little Pine, Little Torch, Middle Torch, No Name, Sugarloaf, and
Summerland Keys. Big Pine Key (5,840 acres) and No Name Key (1,191 acres) support
more than two-thirds of the entire population, and both islands have permanent fresh
water and extensive pineland habitat. Other keys receive transient use as a result of the
lack of a permanent supply of fresh water: Annette, Big Munson, Little Munson,
Johnson, Knockemdown, Mayo, Porpoise, Ramrod, Toptree Hammock, Wahoo, Water
Key (east) and Water Keys (west).
Habitat
Development has led to the presence of patchy habitats where not all deer requirements
are met in a single area, thereby increasing the movements of Key deer (Silvy 1975).
Human-related mortality, primarily road kills, is the greatest known source of deer loss
and accounts for about 50 percent of identified deaths, or an average of 44 animals per
year (Lopez 2001). The current Key deer population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key
is estimated at 453-517 animals (Lopez 2001), compared to 151 to 191 animals in the
1970s (Silvy 1975) and 25 to 80 animals in 1955 (Dickson 1955). The greatest impact on
Key deer is the loss of habitat to development. Other factors include road kills, mortality
of young from falling into drainage ditches, and predation by free-roaming dogs (Folk
1991, Lopez 2001).
2.1.2 Lower Kevs Marsh Rabbit (SvlvilaI!Us palustris hefneri)
The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is listed as endangered by both the Service and the FWC.
Description
The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a subspecies of the marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris)
and is discernible from the adjacent Upper Keys subspecies (Sylvi/agus palustris
paludicola) by its skull proportions, sculpturing, and darker coloration (LazellI984).
The Lower Keys marsh rabbit has a shorter molariform tooth row, higher and more
convex frontonasal profile, broader cranium, and elongated dentary symphysis. The body
is 12 to 15 inches in length with short dark brown dorsal fur and gray-white ventral fur.
The tail is dark brown and inconspicuous. Hind feet range from two and one-half to three
inches while the ears range from 1.7 to 204 inches (Forys 1995).
10
Figure 2.1. Key deer locations from telemetry data (Lopez 2001)
11
The Lower Keys rabbit is most active at night, in early morning or late afternoon, or
during overcast weather. It feeds on a variety of plants, including leaves, shoots, buds,
and flowers of grasses, herbaceous, and woody plants. Breeding behavior includes
chasing of inferior males and receptive females by dominant males. In late summer, adult
rabbits may chase young from the nest area.
Distribution
The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is presently known from many of the larger Lower Keys
including Sugarloaf, Saddlebunch, Boca Chica, and Big Pine Keys and the small islands
near these keys (Forys et al. 1996). Historically, the species may also have existed on
Cudjoe, Ramrod, Middle Torch, Big Torch, and Key West Keys, but has been extirpated
from these areas (LazellI984). The Lower Keys marsh rabbit probably occurred on all
of the Lower Keys that supported suitable habitat but did not occur east of the Seven-mile
Bridge where it is replaced by S. p. paludicola. Known localities for the rabbit are on
privately owned land, state-owned land, and federal land within the National Key Deer
Refuge and Key West Naval Air Station. In 1995, a comprehensive survey for Lower
Keys marsh rabbits located 81 areas comprising 783 acres that provided suitable habitat,
with 50 of these areas occupied (Forys et al. 1996). Suitable habitat for this species is
highly fragmented across all of the Lower Keys.
Natural marsh habitats are limited in the Florida Keys, and have decreased in total area
due to development for residential, commercial, or military-related purposes. Since the
rabbit occurs in small, relatively disjunct populations, has a low population density, and
is subject to predation by domestic predators, the species is in danger of extinction.
Predation by domestic cats is the principal cause of mortality. Some road mortality
occurs as rabbits attempt to move among increasingly isolated Lower Keys marshes. In
the past, the Lower Keys rabbit was often hunted by man; this is not known to be a
current threat. Connectivity among suitable habitat patches is necessary for marsh rabbit
dispersal among patches, and isolation from domestic predators is perhaps the main
factor to help this species survive (Forys and Humphrey 1994).
Habitat
Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat occurs in saltmarshes and buttonwood areas throughout
Big Pine Key (Figure 2.2). The species primarily occurs in grassy marshes and prairies
of the Lower Keys in the middle of the salinity gradient but also includes less saline areas
and the beach berm habitat. The Lower Keys marsh rabbit builds mazes of runs, dens,
and nests in coastal (saline to brackish) or freshwater, inland marsh habitats. Two plant
12
010
MO
' a G00 Meter Buffer
•
_- Canal Barrier
cl,..,1\ . ,. .,
Marsh Rabbit Habitat
Big PIIIP_. Key ,
x-•
IP
4. No Name Key
�q _
o
t.
I
- - if AP A —_ _
1 '
S k"`_
it
1,3
C5I -,iffl ' t OE
L, t
_
A y _
1 't ,
_. .... r .
} „ l
._. 10 , ,,,. .
•
....._ __
0 5000 Feel
rt G1,112eromoarvaionoaat Iwo,'AA wr 44 J.
species, fringerush (Fimbristylis sp.) and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), are always
present in the rabbit's habitat. In freshwater marshes, cattails (Typha latifolia), sawgrass
(Cladiumjamaicense), and sedges (Cyperus sp.) are common associates. Sometimes,
spikerush (Eleocharis sp.) is also found. In coastal marshes, common associates include
cordgrass (Spartina sp.), saltwort (Batis maritima), glasswort (Salicornia virginica),
sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense), and sea ox-eye daisy (Borrichiajrutescens). The
rabbit's runs, dens and nests are made in cordgrass or sedges. Nests are lined with belly
hair.
2.1.3 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couper;)
On January 31, 1978, the eastern indigo snake was designated as threatened throughout
its entire range.
Description
The eastern indigo snake is a large, non-poisonous snake that grows to a maximum length
of eight feet. The color in both young and adults is shiny bluish-black, including the
belly, with some red or cream coloring about the chin and sides of the head. The indigo
subdues its prey (including venomous snakes) through the use of its powerful jaws,
swallowing the prey usually still alive. Food items include snakes, frogs, salamanders,
toads, small mammals, birds, and young turtles.
Distribution
Currently, the species is known to occur throughout Florida, except in the Marquesas and
Dry Tortugas. The indigo snake is wide ranging and may cover between 125 to 250
acres.
Habitat
The indigo snake seems to be strongly associated with high, dry, well-drained sandy
soils, closely paralleling the sandhill habitat preferred by the gopher tortoise. It is also
known to occur in mangrove swamps, wet prairie, xeric pine lands and scrub (Cox and
Kautz 2000). During warmer months, indigo snakes also frequent streams and swamps,
and individuals are occasionally found in flat woods. Gopher tortoise burrows and other
subterranean cavities are commonly used as dens and for egg laying.
2.2 Vegetation and Habitat
Mangroves and buttonwood saltwater wetlands are the most abundant habitat types in the
project area, and account for 40 percent and 48 percent of Big Pine Key and No Name
Key, respectively (Figure 2.3, Table 2.2). Uplands, including pinelands and hammocks,
are the second most abundant habitat type and cover 29 percent of Big Pine Key and 48
percent of No Name Key. Developed areas are the least abundant habitat type and cover
14
19 percent of Big Pine Key and five percent of No Name Key. Freshwater wetlands are
found in the central and northern portions of Big Pine Key.
Table 2.2. Habitat type distribution within the project area
Habitat type
Pinelands
Hammocks
Freshwater
Wetland
Buttonwoods
Mangrove
Developed
ADID categories]
Pinelands
Hammocks, ridgelhammock
Freshwater marsh, freshwater
hardwoods, freshwater pine
Buttonwoods, grasslands, saltmarsh
Mangrove, scrub mangrove
Developed, exotics
Percent Area
Big Pine Key No Name Key
22 12
7 36
12
15
25
19
100
I ADID: Advance Identification of Wetlands (McNeese and Taylor 1998).
12
36
4
100
The Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Project (McNeese and
Taylor 1998) was the source map to develop a vegetation map of the project area. All
land with the project area was field-verified and ADID habitat types were merged into six
categories: pineland, hammock, freshwater wetland, buttonwood, mangrove and
developed (Silvy 1975, Lopez 2001; Table 2.2). Water and Dune habitat categories were
deleted from the vegetation map because the Key deer rarely uses those types of habitat.
2.2.1 Pinelands
Pine lands are upland forest communities with an open canopy dominated by the native
slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa). Keys pinelands are fire-adapted and dependent on
periodic fires for their long-term persistence. Surrounded by wet prairie habitats and/or
mangroves, pine lands typically occur on locally elevated areas of bedrock, which may
flood seasonally or during extreme storm events. Xeric conditions in this habitat are
partly caused by locally low rainfall and the exposed rock ground cover.
The extent of subcanopy development in a pineland is dependent upon the frequency of
surface fires. Pinelands on Big Pine Key typically have a well-developed subcanopy
consisting of palms (silver thatch palm, Coccothrinax argentata; Key thatch palm,
Thrinax morissii; Thatch palm, T. radiata; saw palmetto, Serenoa repens) (Bergh and
Wisby 1996). Other species found in the pineland understory include strongbark
(Bourreria cassinifolia), locust berry (Byrsonima lucida), silver thatch palm, pineland
croton (Croton linearis), rough velvetseed (Guettarda scabra), wild sage (Lantana
involucrata), and long-stalked stopper (Psidium longipes). Shrub vegetation in Lower
Keys pine lands varies in composition and density. For example, Big Pine Key pine lands
have a low and sparse ground covering of grasses and bare limestone, whereas on
Cud joe, Little Pine, and No Name Keys a continuous hardwood understory of six meters
height or more is present due to prolonged absence of fire.
15
J'~,1\~,........I:...ALt
A?71, . .'IiIM~"_ W'llt
,(S)4 SU!ci'f8!S
~ _~~S~'21J __":.l~,,~"lD,:I_~;:~~.~~i,.~~~~~~~,,.~,:~.~_,:~Q.€,.:U.~~_
.
~"'" flOOIJ. lJ
s
!+~
t1l
~
00
~
is
>.
'"
E-
"t:l
fa
"
~
Z
()
::E
...
J!
.e
~
~
e
'"
z
0
Z
"t:l ~
fa
>>
~
"
c
i:i:
OIl
iii
.....
0
...
~
0
()
"
.~
I
>
,..;
N
a
~
More tropical plant species also occur in the Lower Keys pineland shrub stratum
including Caesalpinia (Caesalpinia pauciflora), dune lily-thorn (Catesbaea parviflora),
pisonia (Pisonia rotundata), and pride-of-Big-Pine (Strumpfia maritima). Plant species
from adjacent habitats may invade at the pineland margins. For example, gumbo limbo
(Bursera simaruba), inkwood (Exothea paniculata), and wild tamarind (Lysiloma
latisiliquum) occur in pinelands sited adjacent to a hammock. Only four plant species
endemic to South Florida pinelands (partridge pea, Chamescista lineata; small-leaved
melanthera, Melanthera parvifolia, rockland spurge, Chamaesyce deltoidea var.
serpyllum; sand flax, Linum arenicola) occur on Big Pine Key (Ross and Ruiz 1996),
likely as a result of water table depth, salinity, and other physical variables.
Pine lands in the Lower Keys have declined markedly in recent history, primarily as a
result of development. Coverage in Big Pine Key has decreased by 50% since 1940
(Ross 1989). At present, somewhat extensive pinelands occur on Big Pine, Little Pine,
No Name, Cudjoe, and SugarloafKeys. Distribution of pinel and vegetation in the Keys
appears to coincide with the presence of freshwater lenses (McNeese and Taylor 1998).
Other limiting factors on the establishment, growth, and persistence of pine lands appear
to be lack of fire (Alexander and Dickson 1970, Snyder et al. 1990, Carlson et al. 1993)
and salt-water intrusion into freshwater lenses (Ross et a1.1994). Without prescribed
burning, the 2,268 acres of pinelands remaining in the Lower Keys could succeed into
hardwood hammock in the next 50 years.
Pinelands occur throughout the project area. Key deer preferentially utilize this habitat
for the permanent freshwater sources that are critical to survival of the species. Key deer
also feed on herbaceous species and the fruits of woody species found in pinelands
(Monroe County 1987). The fire regime of pine lands creates an environment of easily
accessible food resources for the Key deer (Monroe County 1987).
2.2.2 Hammocks
Along with pinelands, tropical hardwood hammocks represent the climax upland
community type in the Florida Keys and are second to pinelands in terms of biodiversity
(Ross et al. 1992). Tropical hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys are closed, broad-
leaved forests that occupy elevated, well-drained and relatively fire-free areas.
Hammocks in the Lower Keys are more widespread than pinelands, except for Big Pine
Key where the area of pineland is greater than that of hammock. Approximately 560
acres of hammock occur on Big Pine Key and 385 acres on No Name Key (Figure 2.3).
The greatest limiting factor on hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys has been human
influence, in particular from development.
Canopy trees of the Lower Keys hammocks tend to be smaller than those in hammocks
occurring in other parts of Florida, and are often referred to as "low hammock" or "Keys
hammock thicket". Trees commonly found in low hammock generally have a smaller
trunk diameter and grow closer together. Species include poisonwood (Metopium
toxiferum), buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), blolly (Guapira discolor), Key thatch
17
palm, Spanish stopper (Eugeniafoetida), wild dilly (Manilkara bahamensis), Jamaica
dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), and white stopper (Eugenia axillaris). Other species
present on the windward side of low hammocks, referred to as transitional hammock or
thorn scrub, include black torch (Erithalis fruticosa), saffron plum (Bumelia celastrina),
sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera), blackbead (Pithecellobium guadalupense), indigo berry
(Randia aculeata), tallowwood (Ximenia americana), darling plum (Reynosia
septentrionalis), joewood (Jacquinia keyensis), barbed-wire cactus (Cereus pentagonus),
and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia stricta).
Herbaceous plants are largely absent from Keys hammocks. Grasses include low
panicum (Panicum spp.) and sour paspalum (Paspalum conjugatum) (NRCS 1989). In
addition, hammocks support a diverse flora of orchids, ferns, bromeliads, and other
epiphytes (Snyder et al. 1990, USEPA Undated 12), and are home to the federally
endangered Key tree cactus (Cereus robinii).
Tropical hammocks provide shelter for many animals during periods of high water and
also nesting, feeding and roosting sites for many local and migratory birds (NRCS 1989).
Key deer primarily utilize this habitat for cover, cool shelter, fawning and bedding (Silvy
1975). Other endangered and threatened species found in these areas include the Lower
Keys marsh rabbit and Eastern indigo snake (NRCS 1989). Additionally, tropical
hardwood hammocks provide essential habitat for the white-crowned pigeon (Columba
leucocephala), Schaus' swallowtail butterfly (Papilio aristodemus ponceanus), and tree
snails (Liguus spp.).
2.2.3 Freshwater Wetlands
Throughout the Keys, freshwater wetlands are restricted to areas landward of the seasonal
high tide line and in the Lower Keys are found in areas underlain by freshwater lenses
(McNeese and Taylor 1998). The persistence of freshwater ecosystems is limited
primarily by freshwater availability, tidal influence, and human activities, including
direct and indirect effects of development such as draw-down and contamination
(McNeese and Taylor 1998, Folk 1991). During the dry season, freshwater lenses of Big
Pine Key can diminish by as much as 50 percent (Stewart et al. 1989). Freshwater
wetlands are located in the northern and central portions of Big Pine Key but are present
in one parcel on No Name Key and represent 68904 and 304 acres, respectively.
This habitat type is dominated by sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense) and spikerush
(Eleocharis spp.). Forested freshwater systems in the Keys are generally pinelands with
a sawgrass understory (McNeese and Taylor 1998). Freshwater wetlands are typically
found in isolated, seasonally flooded depressions with elevations of +3.0 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) or less and may be found in conjunction with
pinelands. Freshwater wetlands provide critical habitat for several listed species, in
particular the Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri).
These habitats and surface waters represent the only dry season source of freshwater for
wildlife (McNeese and Taylor 1998, NRCS 1989) and play an important role in
attenuating nutrients and other contaminants in surface water runoff.
18
2.2.4 Saltwater Marsh/Buttonwood Marsh
Throughout the Florida Keys, salt marshes and buttonwood associations occur in coastal
locations similar to mangrove wetlands (Montague and Wiegert 1990). Salt marshes are
non-woody, salt-tolerant communities occupying supratidal zones that are occasionally
inundated with salt water. Two types of salt marsh are found in the Florida Keys, low
marsh and high marsh. Low marsh species include salt-tolerant herbs such as glasswort
(Salicornia spp.) and Keygrass (Monanthochloe littoralis), while high marsh is
dominated by Gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), fringe rushes (Fimbrystylis spp.), and
sea-oxeye daisy (Borrichiafrutescens) (McNeese and Taylor 1998).
Buttonwood associations border high marsh communities and have similar ecological
characteristics (McNeese and Taylor 1998). Plant species that inhabit this community
prefer low-energy waves with little tidal disturbance. Buttonwood forests are dominated
by the silver buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus). Other species include salt tolerant
herbaceous perennials and woody shrubs such as fringe-rushes, Keygrass, Gulf cordgrass,
and seashore drop seed (Sporobolus virginianus). There are approximately 685 acres of
buttonwood marsh on Big Pine Key and 170 acres on No Name Key (Figure 2.3).
Salt marshlbuttonwood marsh communities provide important habitat for terrestrial
species including the federally endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit, silver rice rat
(Oryzomys argentatus), and diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). Buttonwood
areas provide herbaceous foods and loafmg areas for Key deer. Common residents
include polychaetes, gastropod mollusks, bivalve mollusks and crustaceans. Birds tend to
use the marsh for feeding rather than for nesting however few species of birds, fish,
reptiles, or mammals can be considered residents of salt marshes, and larger longer-lived
organisms are not tolerant of the environmental fluctuations (Montague and Wiegert
1990).
2.2.5 Mangroves
Mangrove communities consist of facultative halophytes, which are tolerant of anaerobic
saline soils and tidal inundation. Three species are found in Florida: the red mangrove
(Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove
(Laguncularia racemosa).
In general, the zonation of mangrove communities is regulated by elevation. Red
mangroves occur in the middle and lower intertidal zone and upper subtidal zone. Black
mangroves dominate the upper intertidal zone and are generally found between the red
and white species. White mangroves occur on the landward edge of mangrove forests,
throughout the intertidal and in the upper portions of the swamp. Ground cover within a
mangrove forest consists of leaf litter and decomposing forest debris.
19
Throughout the Florida Keys, mangrove forests form the predominant coastal vegetation
community. Mangroves are found along the edges of shorelines, bays and lagoons and
on overwash areas throughout the Keys. Major limiting factors on mangrove
establishment, growth and persistence in the Florida Keys appear to be water quality,
substrate, and development (Lewis 1980, Snedaker and Lugo 1973, Strong and Bancroft
1994, Odum et al. 1982). Mangrove habitat occurs on approximately 1,495 acres of Big
Pine Key and 374 acres of No Name Key (Figure 2.3).
Mangrove communities in the Florida Keys provide essential habitat for numerous
ecologically and economically important species (FFWCC Undated 7). The leaves and
fruits of red and black mangroves are a primary food source for the Key deer, which
spend considerable time foraging in tidal wetlands (Monroe County 1987, Silvy 1975).
In South Florida, mangroves are important habitat for at least 220 fish species, 24 reptile
and amphibian species, 18 mammal species, and 181 bird species (Odum et al. 1982), and
provide nesting habitat for a number of threatened and endangered species, including the
white-crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala). Additionally dissolved organic matter
from mangroves serves as an alternate food source, the basis for heterotrophic
microorganism food webs, and a source of chemical cues for estuarine species (Snedaker
1989).
2.3 Scientific Basis of the HCP: The Key Deer Population Viability Analysis
(PV A> Model and Its Application
2.3.1 Field Studies of the Population Dvoamics of the Kev Deer
Prior to 1998, Silvy (1975) had conducted the most recent, comprehensive population
study of Key deer population dynamics in the early 1970s. Between 1998 and 2001,
Lopez (2001) studied the Key deer population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. To
determine the fate of individual Key deer through time, Lopez placed radio transmitters
on over 200 deer (Table 2.3) and monitored the status of individual deer for up to three
years. Information on individual deer provided an assessment of the year-to-year
probability of mortality and fecundity. Radio telemetry data also provided a clear picture
of habitat utilization, deer movement, and deer distribution in the study area.
Table 2.3. Gender and age-classes) of radio collared Key deer in Big Pine Key and No
Name Key, 1998-1999 (after Lopez 2001)
Adults Yearlings
Male 52 35
Female 82 32
Total 134 67
I Fawns: <I year old; Yearlings: 1-2 years old; Adults: >2 years old.
Fawns
9
12
21
Total
96
126
222
From March 1998 to December 1999, Lopez (2001) also performed weekly censuses
along 10 miles of roads and bi-monthly censuses along 44 miles of roads in Big Pine Key
and No Name Key. The censuses provided information on deer number and density.
20
2.3.2 Development of the Key Deer Population Viability Analvsis Model
Numerous models have been developed for estimating the risk of extinction for small
populations (Akcakaya 2000). A Population Viability Analysis (PV A) model is a
collection of methods for evaluating the threats faced by populations or species, their
risks of extinction or decline, and their chances for recovery (Akcakaya and Sjogren-
Gulve 2000). Species viability is often expressed as the risk or probability of extinction,
population decline, expected time to extinction, or expected chance of recovery
(Akcakaya and Sjogren-Gulve 2000). PV A models attempt to predict such measures
based on demographic and habitat data. PV A modeling involves the use of computer
simulations to assess extinction threats and is becoming one of the primary tools for the
classification of threatened and endangered species by wildlife management agencies
nationwide.
A PV A model was developed to evaluate development impacts on the Florida Key deer
population. Key deer movements, habitat utilization, ecology and demographic data were
used to construct the model (Lopez 2001). The PV A model included two main
components: a) a matrix model of population dynamics and b) a spatial habitat model of
carrying capacity and secondary impacts.
Matrix Model
Quantitative information on mortality and fecundity for deer of different stages (e.g.,
fawn, yearling, adult) was used to create a matrix model, which allows for simulating the
fate of the population under different scenarios (Lopez 2001). In a matrix model,
changes in mortality or fecundity result in changes in the way the population size changes
through time. A stage-based matrix model of population dynamics represents the
dynamics of the population as a function of annual estimates of fecundity (average
number of fawns produced by females) and survival (probability of surviving from one
year to the next). The Key deer model is applied only to females and takes the form:
[ Fy Fa]
Sf ,
Sy Sa
Where Sf, Sy, and Sa are fawn, yearling, and adult survival, respectively, and Fy and Fa are
yearling and adult fecundity estimates, respectively.
The matrix model allows for the analysis of stochasticity (i.e., the haphazard, year-to-year
variation in fecundity and survival associated with changes in the environment).
Stochastic events are particularly significant for small populations and, therefore, the
model includes estimates of the variability of the population parameters. For example,
annual female survival and variance estimates for each stage class were determined using
21
a known-fate model framework in the computer program MARK (White and Burnham
1999, Lopez 2001). The model also allows for evaluating the effects of stochastic events,
such as hurricanes. A detailed discussion of the methodology to estimate model
parameters is found in Lopez (2001, 2003) and Lopez et al. (2003).
Spatial Model
While the matrix model represents the overall dynamics of the Key deer population in the
study area, the spatial model represents the location-specific contribution to the matrix
model parameters. For example, localized changes in habitat quality and distribution, or
in the number and location of paved roads may affect both fecundity and survival.
The spatial model also sought to address the anticipated impacts of development. Urban
development causes two main types of impacts on the Key deer:
1. A change in carrying capacity. Urban development displaces and modifies Key
deer habitat, therefore affecting the capacity of the remaining habitat to sustain
Key deer.
2. An increase in human-induced Key deer mortality. A change in the amount of
development and resulting changes in the human population may in turn result in
changes in the mortality of Key deer caused by motor vehicle collisions,
entanglement in fences, and other human-related effects.
Therefore, in order to address impacts to carrying capacity and mortality, the spatial
model includes a carrying capacity and a "harvest" (i.e., human-induced mortality) grid.
The grids represent the entire study area as an array of lOx 10 meter cells; each cell's
value represents its contribution to the total carrying capacity or harvest of the study area.
A weighting factor grid supported the development of the carrying capacity and harvest
grids. The objective of the weighting grid was to address location-specific conditions
that affect carrying capacity and harvest. For example, two grid cells of the same
vegetation type may contribute differently to the carrying capacity of the Key deer
depending on their proximity to canals: a pineland cell located in the middle of a large
pineland area would provide better habitat to the Key deer than an isolated pineland cell
surrounded by canals. Similarly, development of a pineland cell near US-l would create
a lesser vehicle collision impact (due to shorter travel distance to US-I) than
development of a pineland cell located far from US-l (because of the longer travel
distance to US-I).
Six parameters entered into the weighting factor grid (Figure 204):
· House density. Development in areas with areas with higher house density would
have a lesser impact on the deer than development in areas of lower house density.
· Deer corridors. Development outside Key deer corridors would have a lesser impact
than development in areas in Key deer corridors.
22
· Patch quality: Development in smaller, fragmented, uninterrupted habitat areas
would have a lesser impact on the Key deer than development in larger, uninterrupted
habitat areas.
· Deer density: Development in areas of low Key deer density would have a lesser
impact than development in areas of high density.
· Distance from US-I. Development near US-l would have a lesser impact on the Key
deer than development farther from US-I.
· Water barriers. Development in areas with canals would have a lesser impact than
development in areas without canals.
Deer Corridors
Water Barriers
Deer Density
Distance from US 1
House Density
Patch Quality
Figure 204. Six grid layers used to generate weighting factor grid
(Darker Shades = Higher Deer Value)
23
Because more than one factor may affect the value of a given cell, the final cell value in
the weighting factor grid was the average of the six parameters, where 0 represented the
lowest value to the Key deer and 2 represented the highest value to the Key deer.
The final carrying capacity grid (Figure 2.5) represents the contribution of each lOxlO
meter cell to the total carrying capacity ofthe study area after applying the weighting
factor. Similarly, the final harvest grid represents the proportional contribution of each
lOxlO meter cell to the total harvest in the study area.
Harvest Grid
Carrying-Capacity Grid
Figure 2.5. Key deer PV A model grid layers.
For any given scenario, the location and intensity of development affect both the carrying
capacity and the mortality of the Key deer (Darker Shades = Higher Deer Value).
2.3.3 PV A Model Analvsis and Results
The final PV A model includes the matrix model of population dynamics and the spatial
model, which allows for addressing development impacts. The program RAMAS
Metapop (Applied Biomathematics, Inc.) was used to run the model. The model provides
estimates of population size, probability of extinction, and other risk estimates.
In a model "run," the initial population number by stage class is multiplied by the matrix;
the result represents the number of Key deer in each stage class one year later. This new
number is multiplied by the matrix again, to generate the population number for year 2.
The model run simulates 100 years. The process is repeated 10,000 times. Each time,
24
the computer randomly varies matrix parameters and hurricane probabilities, within
documented ranges (Lopez 2001) to account for stochastic events. The final model run
result represents the average of the 10,000 iterations.
To estimate the effects of increasing levels of development on the Key deer population,
10 scenarios were evaluated with the Key deer PV A model (Table 204) beginning with a
no action scenario, which represents initial conditions prior to the construction of any
US-l project. For any given scenario, the model chose the least valuable vacant parcels
for development (parcels with the lowest K, H). As parcels are selected, the spatial
model calculated the change in carrying capacity (K) and harvest (H). New K and H
values, which represent the direct effects of development, are then input into the matrix
model. Therefore, the model run simulates the effect of development on the Key deer
population through time.
Table 204. Effect of development on Key deer
RiskS
(probability)
of falling
Number of Habitat Total RiskS below SO Additional
Residential Loss3 Harvest4 (probability) females at average
Parcels (decrease (increase of Extinction least once in annual
Scenario Developed2 in K) in H) in 100 years SO years 3 mortalitys
No Action 0 0 0.00 0.0005 0.0230 0
81 I 0 0 (-0.80) 0.0005 0.0230 0
82 200 4 (-0.38) 0.0005 0.0230 0
S3 300 6 (-0.07) 0.0005 0.0230 0
S4 400 8 0.27 0.0005 0.0276 0.28
856 500 10 0.67 0.0005 0.0291 1.21
866 600 12 1.20 0.0011 0.0459 2.32
87 700 14 1.79 0.0021 0.0653 3.23
88 800 24 2.10 0.0023 0.0774 3.50
89 900 27 2.47 0.0037 0.0956 3.82
810 1000 30 2.91 0.0068 0.1198 4.13
8 I includes U8-1 projects: wildlife underpasses, intersection improvement, and three-lanes. The
combined effect of these projects is a surplus of three Key deer per year. AlI other scenarios include
these projects.
2 The model selected parcels with lowest total habitat value to the Key deer.
3 From the carrying capacity grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model.
4 From the harvest grid in the spatial model. It is an input to the matrix model. H in scenarios 8 I, 82 and
83 is a surplus caused by the overalI effect ofU8-1 projects (i.e., surplus of three deer per year, per
U8FW8 1999, 200Ia). In the model, net harvest was kept at 0 for these scenarios; therefore the no net
change in model results (risk and additional mortality).
S Results from matrix model run. Refers to females only.
6 The level of development proposed falIs between 85 and 86 (net total Hover 20 years: H = 1.0).
25
The model runs provide an estimate of the risk of extinction in 100 years and the risk of
the population falling below 50 individuals (females) at least once in 50 years
(Table 2.2). Both are expressed as probabilities. The model also estimates the average
additional human-induced mortality (number of female deer).
Results suggest that the probability of extinction of the Key deer in 100 years is less than
one percent, even in the presence of levels of development above initial conditions
unlikely to occur in the project area (Table 204). Model results also indicate the
probability that the Key deer population will fall below 50 females at least once in 50
years is 2.3 percent even with no further development. The model suggests that annual
human-induced mortality is likely to increase with the intensity of development.
The matrix model is more sensitive to changes in H than to changes in K. In turn,
changes in H are highly correlated with predicted impacts measured as either the risk of
falling under 50 female individuals in 50 years or additional annual human-induced
mortality. The equations that relate H with these impact assessment variables are:
Percent RiS~50) = 2.2eo.58H, and
Additional Annual Human-Induced Mortality (males plus females) = -O.65H2 + 4.85H - 0.34
In both cases, the equations explain 99% of the variance; therefore, H is an excellent
predictor of development impacts to the Key deer.
2.304 Application of the PV A Model to the Habitat Conservation Plan
First, the spatial component of the PV A model provides a reliable predictor of
development impacts on the Key deer: Harvest (H), which is highly correlated with
estimates of impacts. Throughout this HCP, H is used as the measure of impact and
incidental take on the Key deer.
The spatial model provides the H value of any given parcel. H for a parcel is the sum of
the H value for each lOx 1 O-m grid cell inside the parcel. A cell is counted within a
parcel if>50% of its area is inside the parcel. To estimate the H value ofa development
activity, the H value from the H grid is multiplied by a factor that accounts for the traffic
generated by specific land uses (Table 2.5). The multiplier is based on traffic generation
because vehicle collisions with Key deer is, by far, the most important human-related
cause of mortality for the Key deer. Therefore, the H impact areas can be readily
measured for any parcel and any type of development activity.
26
Table 2.5. H multiplier for land use development categories)
Average Daily Trip
Land Use Generation2 H Multiplier
Single family residential 9.5 1
Fences only 0.23
Auxiliary uses 0.23
Retail 70.0 704 (perl,OOO sq. ft.)
HotellMotel 7.9 0.8 (per room)
Office 5.9 0.6 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Institutional 13.0 1.4 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Industrial 5.0 0.5 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Recreational 67.0 7.0
I The multiplier is based on traffic generation because vehicle collisions with Key deer is the most
important human-related cause of mortality for the Key deer.
2 Average daily trip generation was estimated from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual; daily trip
generation by land use has not been verified for the Florida Keys.
3 Fences and auxiliary uses, as defined in the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, are assumed
to cause no additional traffic impacts; they were assumed to cause habitat loss (change in K), which has a
lesser effect on the matrix model than changes in H.
For example, to estimate the H impact of a recreation park on a 5-acre parcel, first the
spatial model is queried to obtain the H for the parcel; then H is multiplied by the
corresponding factor, 7.0 in this case (Table 2.5), to obtain the total H for the proposed
development. For land uses in which the factor depends on the square footage of
development, the procedure is the same, but the factor is applied after the square footage
is taken into account. For example, a 2,500 sq. ft. expansion of a retail site would result
in a total H equal to: H for the parcel from spatial model x (2,500/1,000 sq. ft.) x 704
(retail multiplier).
Second, the Key deer studies done under this HCP and the resulting spatial model
provided the basis to develop a conservation priority classification for undeveloped lands
in the study area. The private undeveloped lands in the study area are classified into
three "Tiers" (Table 2.6 and Figure 2.6). Tier 1 lands are high quality habitat. Tier 3
lands are the lowest quality habitat. The tier classification provided support to
determining the location of potential development and prioritizing mitigation areas.
27
Table 2.6. Tier classification system (vacant privately-owned lands)
Tier
I
2
Description
Lands where all or a significant portion of the land area is
characterized as environmentally sensitive and important for
the continued viability ofHCP covered species (mean H per
IOxlO meter cell = 0.259 x 1013). These lands are high quality
Key deer habitat, generally representing large contiguous
patches of native vegetation, which provide habitat for other
protected species as well.
Scattered lots and fragments of environmentally sensitive
lands that may be found in platted subdivisions (mean H per
lOx I 0 meter cell = 0.183 x 10-3). A large number of these
lots are located on canals, which are of minimal value to the
Key deer and other protected species since the canal presents
a barrier to dispersal.
Scattered lots within already heavily developed areas, which
provide little habitat value to the Key deer and other protected
species (mean H per 10x1O meter cell = 0.168 x 10-3). Some
of the undeveloped lots in this Tier are located between
existing developed cornmerciallots within the US-l corridor
or are located on canals.
Area (acres)
Big Pine No Name
Key Key
973.4 217.0
101.6 0
58.5 0
1133.5
217.0
3
Total
Finally, H values were calculated for transportation improvements based on mortality
data (Table 2.7). Methods to estimate H for these improvements follow those applied by
the Service in recent biological opinions (USFWS 1999, 2001a).
Table 2.7. H values for transportation improvements.
New roads are not covered by this HCP.
Improvement
US-l (underpasses, intersection improvement,
three-laning)
Paving of dirt roads
H Value
-0.801
0.0372/mile
[(additional pavement width)/
(original pavement width)] x 0.0372
I All model runs incorporated this H value to the initial conditions.
Widening of paved roads (per mile)
28
,--
~
c
~
r
,
~ -
-
-
r
~
c-
.
.
I
.
I:~ ;
N
w.+,
~
o
!:..-..-- ~._.~
.. --:-'
~';,,:. J II,,; ~..
5000 Feel
Big Pine Key
f
it
'-~~
r\.-
hc.n::::
.~~:~
:<<
I
ltj
W
e,."
.......i-;;
-
.~
-,1
J1
)~
-.
..
..
..
..
Pnv.v t="~ r_'H'.' AI. "18d ! :~indr
0l1t.1 c La"lds
lit:; "'
Tie'"
r I/:"'_~
No Name Key
'II:~
"ja. .-
.,,~:
fill'
~~ ~
~~;f~
",tI.-.....~
.,
't',.
....
....
I
3. LAND USE CONDITIONS
3.1 Introduction
The Florida Keys encompass a group of islands and therefore terrestrial habitats are
naturally fragmented. Development has greatly increased the degree of habitat
fragmentation mainly by reducing patch size, increasing distances among patches, and in
some cases creating barriers to dispersal (Strong and Bancroft 1994). Development in the
Florida Keys has occurred primarily in upland areas, resulting in the loss of almost half of
the upland habitats, from 20,038 acres in pre-development times to 10,353 acres in 1995
(URS 2001).
Lower Keys islands developed at a slower pace than the Middle and Upper Keys, but
many subdivision plats were filed throughout the 1950s and 1960s. As human alteration
of the habitat on Big Pine Key and No Name Key progressed, land was set aside for
preservation, establishing the National Key Deer Refuge (Refuge) in 1957. Habitat
removal and alteration on remaining private lands continued through the 1970s and the
population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key increased steadily. A "housing boom"
during the late 1970s and early 1980s brought about significant changes in the
configuration of native habitat on the islands and the composition of the human
community. Presently 15 percent and 4.5 percent of the total landmass of Big Pine Key
and No Name Key, respectively, are developed.
This chapter provides an overview of the land use and planning conditions in Big Pine
and No Name Key, and focuses on future land use changes that are expected to occur
over the next 20 years. The information contained herein provides that basis for the
assessment of impacts to protected species and habitat in the project area that are likely to
occur as the result of planned urban development in the future. Development occurring
within the project area is used to model the amount of "take" that will be permitted under
this HCP.
3.2 Land Ownership
Approximately 69 percent of the land within the project area is in public ownership
(Table 3.1; Figure 3.1). The main landowner is the Federal government with 55 percent,
all of which is within the Refuge. Federal, state and county agencies purchase and
manage lands within the project area for the purpose of environmental protection and
conservation. The USFWS owns 52 percent of Big Pine Key and 71 percent of No Name
Key. The State of Florida purchases land under the Conservation and Recreation Lands
(CARL) program, which is administered by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). State-owned lands within the project area include the Coupon Bight
Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer Lands and lands within the Coupon Bight/Key deer
CARL project area, which combined are less than ten percent of the project area. The
Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA) purchases a wide variety of vacant lands as
30
directed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and owns two percent of the land
within the project area.
Table 3.1. Land ownership in the project area as of mid-20021.
Big Pine Key No Name Key Total
Acres 0/0 Acres % Acres %
Federal 3,184 51.8 801 70.8 3,985 54.8
State 856 13.9 50 404 906 12.5
County 135 2.2 12 1.0 147 2.0
Private 836 13.6 52 4.6 888 12.2
Developed
Private 1,134 18.5 217 19.2 1,351 18.5
Undeveloped
Total 6,145 100.0 1,132 100.0 7,277 100.0
I Includes submerged lands.
3.3 Habitat Management Activities
Federal, State and County agencies conduct habitat management activities within the
project area. The federal Government, through the National Key Deer Refuge is the main
landowner in the study area. The Refuge also manages most of the land within the
project area. Management activities include prescribed burning, mowing and clearing of
fire breaks, filling of ditches to prevent deer drownings and limit salinity intrusion,
habitat restoration and development and protection of habitat corridors. The Refuge is
developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), scheduled for completion in
2006. The CCP will outline a vision for the Refuge, guide management decisions, and
outline goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve the visions and purposes of the Refuge.
Development of the CPP is a requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997.
The FDEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas manages state-owned lands
within the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer (Preserve), whereas the
USFWS manages state-owned lands within the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project
area under an existing lease agreement. A management plan developed for the Coupon
Bight Aquatic Preserve (Nielsen, 1990) states that research and habitat restoration are
primary needs for the Preserve. Current management activities include the installation of
mooring and warning buoys, seagrass restoration, treatment of coral band disease, and
sea turtle nesting beach surveys. Research activities within the Preserve include juvenile
fish studies, larval recruitment of the spiny lobster, and studies on the effectiveness of
fishing exclusion zones.
31
Ilimr 0
Lands In
Private Ownership
brititk;in
Public Onottf,rwup
Big Pine Key
Itai 1 I
ritti 4-..
• A 11'
el:1 1
r 1 ,
...,.. No Name Key
.•rou P.=
• • i I
'21 4,14,Atttki .,
C-ji •• 'r"• * r 1 I !Pr 1
co
r...) i • .: I
l L _ • "
I , [,
-JIiit:
,--
l•J 0 7.••••• tr.,its
le
,...., ,
F. Tam
..c, , •
E. 1 i: • 4.,L;•.%
q.-,i• .4. ...
-.I . .•
C 1 _._A• I Li. "
co , . .. •
lig ill**:41 /II it/ lav ,
g ,
2 . iel...45046L
-21101 1.1 6 III*1 -MIN
1 1 rila
lig
I vie
....., .. I I
3111
i 4...
1
lbw
, N
'SO 4
isalg.I
W* f:
g•••
S 111111
0 5000 Feet -.
r•,,,12S14,1•4•01•111WAV•111_•••••1_1.44 a.1 I 141.1
The Monroe County Land Steward is responsible for the management of county-owned
public lands within the project area and throughout the Florida Keys. Currently no
formal management plan exists for these lands; however, several small habitat restoration
and management plans have been developed for individual parcels and subdivisions
within the project area. Ongoing management efforts are conducted as needed or when
funding becomes available. Primary responsibilities include trash removal, invasive
exotic plant control, prescribed burning and other issues related to natural resource
management. The Land Steward works in conjunction with the Monroe County Public
Works Division, the MCLA, and volunteer groups to implement management activities.
Habitat management of county lands should commence Keys-wide during FY 2002-2003
that begins October 2002, contingent upon funding approval. Larger tracts of land will
receive priority for management. These lands are primarily conservation lands acquired
through grants from the Florida Communities Trust, for which contract requirements
necessitate immediate management. Management of remaining county lands throughout
the Keys will be prioritized depending upon several factors including logistics, habitat
quality, presence of rare species, and the character of the adjoining lands.
Federal, state and county agencies also work together to jointly manage larger tracts of
undeveloped land in which all are landowners. Within the project area this land is
primarily pinelands. Management of pineland habitat will be addressed in a Fire
Management Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is currently being
developed by the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative. Prescribed
burning will be conducted by all three agencies in the project area where there is
contiguous pineland habitat. Individual undeveloped lots that cannot be burned because
they are between developed properties will be maintained free of solid waste and non-
native invasive plants and allowed to grow to hammock vegetation.
3.4 Covered Activities
This HCP addresses the incidental take of protected species that may result from
development activities in Big Pine Key and No Name Key in the next 20 years. The
types of activities covered under this HCP include residential development, commercial
development and expansion, community and institutional facilities, and transportation
improvements. This HCP establishes the total amount of impact, expressed in terms of
H, over 20 years to be allowed in the execution of the types of activities listed above.
Covered activities will comply with the avoidance and minimization guidelines
established in this HCP (see Section 5.3). Finally, the Master Plan for Future
Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is being developed in
accordance with this HCP, will regulate the amount and extent of each type of covered
activity over the next 20 years in the project area. Other activities not described in this
HCP are not authorized under this HCP. Whether or not specifically described in this
HCP, all public and private development, including infrastructure, on Big Pine Key and
No Name Key permitted since March 13, 1995, shall be assigned an H value which shall
be counted against the total H value authorized under this HCP.
33
A key development activity included in this HCP is the widening of US-l in the
developed segment of Big Pine Key. The Florida Department of Transportation may
expand US-l from two to three lanes, to provide a center turn lane in the business district
portion of Big Pine Key. The additional lane would commence near St. Peter's Catholic
Church (MM 31.5) and continue through Big Pine Key to the Pine Channel Bridge (MM
29.5). The project would include two separate portions, one east and one west of the
recently completed intersection improvement project. This project is necessary to satisfy
State of Florida concurrency requirements and therefore to lift the building moratorium in
the project area.
34
4. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGIES
4.1 Introduction
Monroe County initiated the Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) in April 2000. The
LCP was developed concurrently with the HCP and, while it focused on addressing the
needs of the local citizens, all development alternatives were discussed in the context of
the Key deer's biology. Like the HCP, the overall goal of the LCP was to determine the
appropriate amount, type and location of development in the project area and the
associated mitigation that would provide for community needs while maximizing
conservation of the Key deer and other covered species.
Monroe County held public workshops and open houses to ascertain public views on
planning and conservation issues; it used local media outlets and mailings to alert the
public and to distribute surveys. Public workshops were held on April 6, May 25, and
September 21,2000 (Monroe County 2001). The public's understanding of the habitat
needs of the Key deer was facilitated during presentations and open discussion at three
HCP meetings held in tandem with LCP meetings (see Section 1.2.2). Results of the
community workshops and meetings were used to identify key community issues,
develop planning objectives and generate conceptual land use alternatives and
conservation strategies for the project area.
In the LCP workshops, the following key community issues were identified:
1. Ascertain the distribution of future residential development within the project
area.
2. Maintain the rural character of the project area while still allowing some future
development.
3. Implement solutions to the traffic congestion on US-l and minimize the need for
local trips on US-I.
4. Develop a community gathering facility and/or more active recreation facilities on
Big Pine Key.
5. Discourage new development on No Name Key.
During the LCP process, Monroe County developed planning objectives to evaluate
potential development scenarios. These objectives were based on the combined key
issues expressed by the community, existing planning constraints and the existing habitat
needs of the Key deer and other covered species. The ten objectives are:
1. Minimize the need for local vehicular trips on and across US-I, from north to
south;
35
2. Improve the level of traffic service on US-l to a standard that, in accordance with
local regulations, would allow some development and to maintain that level of
service over the planning horizon;
3. Discourage new development on No Name Key;
4. Encourage additional commercial development to be oriented to the local
community rather than to the regional or tourist communities;
5. Continue to allow some development but generally keep the level low to achieve
the maintenance of a "rural community" envisioned by the citizens;
6. Provide for a community gathering center and some active recreation;
7. Provide for a conservation plan with a reasonable level of implementation costs
and logistics;
8. Provide for a conservation plan which complies with current regulatory
constraints (for example, wetlands protection);
9. Provide greater certainty to the property owners and Key deer herd managers as to
the location of future development; and
10. Minimize the alteration of undisturbed natural habitat.
4.2 Planning Strategies Analyzed
4.2.1 Planning Strategy #1: No Action AlternativelNo Take
Under this strategy, no HCP would be prepared. With no improvement in the LOS for
US-I, the building moratorium would continue indefinitely. No new residential,
commercial or recreational development would occur within the project area. The
community would retain its rural character, but no additional community facilities would
be provided. With the construction of the wildlife underpasses and the intersection
improvement project on US-I, Key deer mortality would be reduced and there would be a
surplus of six deer over pre-construction conditions (USFWS 1999).
4.2.2 Planning Strategy #2: Reduced Take
Recently completed US-l projects result in a surplus of six deer. A reduced take
alternative would involve a reduced amount of development that would overcome the
surplus and result in no net take. The PV A model suggests (Table 2.2) that developing
up to 300 low-H single-family residential parcels, as well as three-laning US-I, would
result in no net take. Under this alternative, important community needs would remain
unsatisfied, such as community and government facilities expansions.
36
4.2.3 Planning Stratel!V #3: Proposed Alternative
The proposed alternative provides for development activities that alleviate the building
moratorium, improve the level of service on US-I, restore a low rate of growth in the
study area, and offer community and public facilities improvements that satisfy
community needs (see Section 1.2.1). With the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures described in this HCP, no significant negative impacts on covered species are
anticipated.
4.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Both the no action and reduced take alternatives were rejected mainly because they
would impose undue restrictions on the community's ability to meet key needs, such as
traffic improvements, while not providing significant added value to the conservation of
the covered species. The proposed alternative provides for a development program that
satisfies the community's needs for growth and infrastructure, while ensuring habitat
protection in perpetuity for the conservation of covered species.
37
5. CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES
5.1 Biological Goals
The two primary, measurable goals of this HCP are: a) to ensure the protection of
covered species habitat, and b) to limit the increase in human-induced mortality of Key
deer so that no significant negative effect on the species occurs.
The following measures will ensure habitat protection:
· The loss of native habitat will be severely restricted under this HCP: Native habitat
loss caused by development activities over the next 20 years will be limited to no
more than 0.5% of the current native habitat area.
. Land development regulations will direct development activities to areas of low
habitat quality. No more than 2 percent of the total net impact over 20 years will be
allowed in Tier 1 areas (H = 0.02).
· A land acquisition program to protect habitat areas in perpetuity.
. Habitat management of acquired lands.
The number of human-induced deaths for Key deer varies year to year and is significantly
correlated with a measure of deer density (Figure 5.1). The goal of this HCP is to ensure
that development activities do not result in a significant increase in the relative
occurrence of human-induced mortality of Key deer.
"
8 70.00
-5 60.00
c
~ 50.00
~ : 40.00
::J III
:: .! 30.00
~ 20.00
~ 10.00
~ 0.00
o
.
:/
.
y = 0.382x + 20.255
R2 = 0.574
50 100
Average Number of Deer Seen In Road Censuses
(1988 .2000)
Figure 5.1. Relationship between human-induced Key deer mortality and deer density.
Data from USFWS, and Roel Lopez (Pers. Comm.)
38
5.2 Summary of Take and Its Effects on the Covered Species
Under this HCP, the Applicants will carry out covered activities progressively over
20 years. All development activities combined over the 20-year period will have a
maximum cumulative impact ofH = 1.0. For a net total H = 1.0 over initial conditions,
the resulting probability that the population will fall below 50 females at least one in 50
years and the average additional total annual human-induced mortality are, respectively:
Percent RiS~50) = 2.2eo.5S*l.o = 4.0%
Additional Annual Human-Induced Mortality = -0.65*1.02 + 4.85*1.0 - 0.34 = 3.9 deer/year
Thus, the PV A model predicts that the combined effect of 20 years of development for a
total H = 1.0 would raise the probability that the population will fall under 50 females at
least once in 50 years by 1.7 percent (from 2.3 to 4.0 percent) and increase human-related
Key deer mortality by 3.9 deer a year. Additionally, the probability of extinction in 100
years is <0.1 percent, nearly undistinguishable from current conditions.
No direct loss of Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat is anticipated as a result of
development activities. No new residential or commercial development will be allowed
on marsh rabbit habitat or within 500 meters of accessible marsh rabbit habitat.
Development activities likely to occur within the 500-meter buffer area are limited to
roadway expansions and the expansion of two existing churches not to exceed more than
2,500 square feet of floor area per church. These types of development usually do not
bring up typical causes of indirect impacts to marsh rabbits, namely domestic predators
such as cats. However, minor secondary effects may occur. Housing development
activities may occur in subdivisions within 500 meters from marsh rabbit habitat; these
areas are largely inaccessible to the marsh rabbit due to roads or canals. Thus residential
development is expected to have no direct effect on the marsh rabbit. Community
facilities, commercial development, and other infrastructure development will occur
either outside areas of concern for the marsh rabbit or on parcels already altered and of no
value to the marsh rabbit. Moreover, road widening activities will not be allowed in
marsh rabbit habitat.
Development activities were estimated to result in the loss of up to approximately 7.1
acres of native vegetation, affecting pine lands, hammocks, and freshwater wetlands
(Table 5.1). This represents a loss of about 0.1 percent of native habitat in the HCP
covered area and a minor direct effect or take on the covered species.
Construction activities will cause temporary and localized indirect impacts in the vicinity
of the construction areas. After construction, other indirect effects may remain, such as
edge effects. Given that the majority of the activities contemplated in the 20-year
development plan will occur in areas of low habitat quality or on already disturbed areas,
indirect and secondary effects are expected to be minimal.
39
Table 5.1. Estimated loss of native vegetation from covered activities
Acres of Habitat Cleared
Type of Development
Residential
Commercial
Community/
Recreational Facilities
Institutional Uses
Pineland
0.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.3
Hammock
0.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.8
Public
Facilities
Transportation
Improvements
Other Proposed Activities
Total:
5.3 Conservation Strategy - Mitigation Measures and Procedures
Wetland
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.0
The conservation program is focused primarily on strict avoidance and minimization
measures, habitat mitigation based on replacing lost habitat value, and the protection and
management in perpetuity of acquired habitat. The main goal of the Plan is to mitigate
for the anticipated incidental take of covered species in accordance with the requirements
for issuance ofa Section lO(a)(1)(B) ITP.
5.3.1 Conservative Assumptions and Level of Take
The reported level of take, H = 1.0, is used in this HCP to measure the maximum amount
of impacts over 20 years and to establish the level of impact to be mitigated. The model
assumes that the entire net impact ofH = 1.0 is incurred at the outset of the model run. In
practice, H = 1.0 will be accrued over 20 years. The progressive increase in impact levels
will allow the Key deer to adapt to changing circumstances, whereas the assumption that
all impacts occur at once increases the impact estimates in the model runs.
The model assumed total habitat loss for newly developed or redeveloped parcels, as well
as for the facilities expansion. The Key deer uses all available open areas, including
developed areas. However, the PV A model assumes that any development results in the
loss of the entire parcel. For example, 200 developed residential lots in Pine Channel
States contribute 1.8 Key deer to the carrying capacity of the study area (i.e., K = 1.8).
However, the model assumes that 200 new houses will contribute nothing to the carrying
capacity. Therefore, the model overestimates the impact of development and provides a
conservative support to planning for development activities.
40
The Applicants chose to evaluate a more stringent population viability measure. Recent
PV A and conservation literature recommends that conservation planners evaluate shorter-
term risks to make management decisions (Akcakaya 2000, Akcakaya and Sjogren-Gulve
2000). The Key deer PV A model can estimate a variety of risk timeframes. For
example, extinction risk may be expressed as the probability of extinction of the Key deer
in 100 years. Historically, the Key deer population dwindled to less than 50 individuals,
but rebounded with the implementation of protection measures (see Section 1.2.1). The
Applicants chose to use the risk that the population falls below 50 females at least once in
50 years as a more conservative and realistic measure of risk in evaluating potential
development activities. This more stringent indicator guided subsequent viability and
incidental take analyses.
Finally, the PV A model predicts an average of 3.9 additional human-induced Key deer
deaths per year. The number of human-induced Key deer deaths varies from year to year,
but is strongly correlated with a measure of deer density (Figure 5.1). Therefore, the ratio
"deaths/deer seen" provides an indicator ofthe potential effects of development on the
relative occurrence of human-induced deaths. If development impacts are small, and
other factors remain the same, future development should not significantly increase the
ratio. For the last 13 years (1988-2000), the mean ratio of human-induced Key deer
deaths an average deer seen in censuses is:
deaths/average deer seen = 1.38
Standard deviation = 0.28
95% confidence interval = (1.23 - 1.53)
The predicted average increase in human-induced mortality (3.9 deer) would fall within
the 95% confidence interval, suggesting that no significant increase in the ratio should
occur as a consequence of the proposed level of take. For example, an increase of four
deer deaths in each of the last 11 years would have produced a mean ratio of 1048, which
is well within the 95% confidence interval. The overall effect of the proposed level of
development over 20 years is expected to fall within the existing yearly variability.
5.3.2 Avoidance and Minimization
A voidance and minimization measures were applied at every step in the preparation of
the HCP. First, the Applicants made key decisions, discussed above, in the development
and use of the Key deer PV A model, which resulted in a conservative approach to
modeling.
Second, development activities in the project area will occur in accordance to the
following guidelines, which ensures avoidance and minimization of impacts to the Key
deer and other covered species:
· The total net impact over 20 years will not exceed H = 1.0.
41
. Residential development will be limited to a maximum of 200 dwelling units over 20
years.
. Clearing of native habitat will be limited to parcels to be developed for residential use
or for local road widening. The total amount of clearing over 20 years will be limited
to no more than 0.2 percent of the current extent of native habitat in the project area
(15 acres). No clearing of native habitat, other than that necessary and authorized for
residential development or local road widening, will be allowed.
. Development in Tier 1 areas will be limited to no more than five percent of all
residential units permitted over the 20-year period or a total H = 0.02 (two percent of
the total net H), whichever results in a lower H.
. No development other than single family residential will be permitted in Tier 1.
. No development will be permitted which may interfere with Key deer movement
along the Sands corridor, as shown in Figure 5.2. With the completion of the Key
deer underpasses and the proposed widening of US-l along the business segment on
Big Pine Key, native habitat in the Sands Subdivision area constitutes the main
corridor connecting Key deer habitat south and north of US-l (Figure 5.2).
. Residential and commercial development will occur progressively over 20 years, thus
minimizing the extent of construction impacts that occur at any given time.
. Commercial development will be limited to infill in existing commercial areas on
Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands, mainly along the US-l corridor on Big Pine Key. This
includes all current commercially zoned areas south of Lytton's Way. All new
commercial development would be limited to disturbed or scarified lands, as defined
in the Monroe County Code (9.5-4 [D-14][S-2]). Clearing of pine lands and/or
hammock will not be permitted for commercial development activities.
. The modified ROGO will continue to give development priority to Tier 3 over Tier 2
and Tier 1 lands.
. Recreational and community facilities development would be restricted to existing
developed areas that are either already publicly owned or that would be acquired for
that purpose.
. Minor recreational and community facilities will be restricted to areas within existing
improved subdivisions.
. Community organizations' development will be restricted to expansions, on existing
applicant-owned land, up to the buildable area limits per Monroe County Code.
42
N
w.'
s
l 0 2000 Feet
;=-----=-' --~-=----_..
v \ t 1 1.:\oOtW)'<PtIWl!'8IKIl~\f.utrtpQrt_~ W 2.,,[4"03
Figure 5.2
Key deer corridor across Sands Subdivision
· Speed limits, traffic calming devices, and other measures will be applied to lower the
probability of Key deer/vehicle collisions on County roads.
· Public infrastructure development will be restricted to disturbed lands as defined in
the Monroe County Code (9.5-4 [D-14][S-2]).
· No fences will be allowed in Tier 1 lands, except Port Pine Heights and Kyle-Dyer
Subdivisions.
· No additional fences will be allowed in the US-l commercial corridor.
· Fences will be subject to restrictions and guidelines established in agreement with the
USFWS.
· FDOT will avoid impacts to wetlands during US-l three-laning.
43
· Accessory uses will be permitted for lots adjacent to existing developed lots only in
Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands. Residential accessory uses would be limited to those listed in
the Monroe County Code (Chapter 9.5-4[A-2]).
· No development will be allowed in Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat. No residential
or commercial development will be allowed within 500 meters of marsh rabbit
habitat, with the exception of isolated areas (Figure 2.2), which will be given negative
ROGO points.
· Road widening activities along US-l would occur within existing cleared and filled
portions of the existing FDOT right-of-way.
5.3.3 Habitat Mitigation and Habitat Banking
The Applicants propose to mitigate for the incidental take of covered species by
acquiring and managing native habitat areas within the HCP project area. The harvest
grid used in the PV A (see Section 3) provides a measure of habitat quality and potential
secondary effects (i.e., increased human-induced mortality) on the Key deer. It also
provides a simple currency to compare impacts versus mitigation.
This HCP proposes a level of incidental take that results in a total net H = 1.0. The
Applicants will mitigate incidental take impacts by acquiring and managing habitat areas
at a 3: 1 ratio, using H as the currency. Therefore, over 20 years, lands for a total H = 3.0
will be acquired and managed. Land acquisition will occur in advance of or
simultaneously with development activities. Should the cumulative Hacquired lag the
cumulative Himpact by five percent at any time during the 20-year permit, Monroe County
will halt development permit issuance until sufficient Hacquired is available.
During the building moratorium, Monroe County has continued to acquire lands for
conservation. Monroe County issued 29 development permits - during a temporary
lifting of the moratorium in 1996 - as well as 266 fencing permits. The Applicants
propose to use the H value of acquired parcels, after taking into account permits issued
for residential units and fences at a 3: 1 ratio, as part of the overall mitigation required
under this HCP. The proposed mitigation H, accrued through land acquisition is
H = 0.3390 (Table 5.2).
44
Table 5.2. Impacts and mitigation in Big Pine Key and No Name Key, 1995 - present
Mitigation (acquisition, credit)
Properties acquired from 3/15/95 to 11/13/98
Properties acquired from 1999 through 2002
Total:
Impacts (permits, debits)
H=0.5211
H = 0.2646
H = 0.7857
Fences (266 permits)
Building permits (29 permits)
H = 0.1118
H = 0.0371
H = 0.1489
Total:
Habitat Banking Credit Calculation
H required to mitigate impacts at 3:1 H = (0.1489*3) = 0.4467
Credit Requested (Hacquired - Hrequired) H = (0.7857 - 0.4467) = 0.3390
The total H value for all development approvals on Big Pine Kay and No Name Key from
March 13, 1995, to the date of the incidental Take Permit Issuance will be compiled and
provided to the USFWS within one month after permit issuance. This shall be included
in the Habitat Mitigation and Habitat Banking calculations at a 3: 1 ratio and deducted
from the total net H value of the Incidental Take Permit.
5.304 Habitat ManalZement
Monroe County will manage all natural lands acquired under this HCP, either directly or
indirectly through agreements with other managing entities. Lands in the project area
acquired for the HCP will comprise lands purchased by the Monroe County Land
Authority (MCLA) for the Florida Forever Program and lands purchased by the MCLA
in accordance with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan.
Lands acquired through the Florida Forever Program, either during HCP development or
throughout the 20-year life of the ITP, will be managed by the Service in accordance with
existing practices and lease agreement. These lands are part of the Coupon BightlKey
deer CARL project and encompass 3,452 acres of undeveloped land between the Coupon
Bight Aquatic Preserve and the Refuge on Big Pine Key. No formal management plan
exists for these lands; however, these lands will likely be included in the Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to ensure a unified habitat management
approach. The Refuge CCP is anticipated to be completed by 2006.
The Monroe County Land Steward is responsible for managing all other lands acquired
by the MCLA either during HCP development or throughout the 20-year life of the ITP.
Habitat management activities for these lands will vary depending on the habitat quality,
presence of rare species and the character of the adjoining lands. Larger tracts of
contiguous pineland habitat will be managed in conjunction with Federal and State
agencies and the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative. Prescribed
burning activities on these lands will be conducted in accordance with the Fire
Management Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is in preparation.
45
Other county lands acquired under the HCP will be primarily individual undeveloped lots
that cannot be burned due to the proximity of development. These lands will be
maintained free of solid waste and non-native invasive plants and allowed to grow to
hammock vegetation. The Land Steward will conduct additional management efforts as
needed, including trash removal, invasive exotic plant control and other issues related to
natural resource management. Management of mitigation lands will commence no later
than 120 days following acquisition of land in fee title.
5.3.5 Regulatory Actions
Monroe County will enact land development regulations, which will follow the
guidelines for a rate of growth and development standards described in this HCP. Since
1992, Monroe County has successfully administered a Rate of Growth Ordinance, which
directs growth into disturbed areas and protects environmentally sensitive lands. The
County has awarded 2,014 Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) allocations since July
1992, of which only about six percent of the total were awarded to parcels with
environmental sensitive characteristics. Nearly half of this six percent were awarded to
affordable housing projects.
This HCP limits the proportion of permits in environmentally sensitive areas to five
percent of all residential units permitted over 20 years or a total H = 0.02 (two percent of
the total Hover 20 years), whichever results in a lower total H.
The Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key
(Appendix A), in preparation, will direct the rate of growth and development standards in
the project area. The master plan will follow the avoidance and minimization guidelines
described in this HCP.
5.3.6 Other Considerations
With this HCP, the Applicants consolidate their efforts to provide for the protection of
the Key deer and other covered species in the project area. For example, ongoing land
acquisition has increased the amount of habitat protected in perpetuity. Beginning in
1993, the Florida Department of Transportation invested approximately $12 million to
study, plan and execute projects to reduce highway mortality of Key deer and improve
safety on US-l in Big Pine Key.
In addition to co-funding the development of this HCP, the FDOT has also funded the
following studies, for a total of $252,500, which are consistent with recovery plans for
covered species in the project area:
· Development of a Methodology for Determining Optimum Locations for Wildlife
Crossings on State Highways Using a Geographic Information System (GIS)
Approach, with Application to Key Deer on Big Pine Key: $18,994.
· Evaluation of Deer Guards for Key Deer, Big Pine Key: $45,000.
46
. Evaluating Reintroduction as a Conservation Strategy for Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit:
$18,000.
. Effectiveness of Fencing, Underpasses, and Deer Guards in Reducing Key Deer
Mortality on the US-l Corridor, Big Pine Key: $170,506.
5.4 Monitoring and Reporting
The Applicants will carry out biological and compliance monitoring to ensure that the
biological goals and the commitments made in this HCP are met.
Biological monitoring of the Key deer will focus on assessing the relative occurrence of
human-induced mortality. The main objective of the biological monitoring is to
determine if human-induced mortality is increasing beyond the levels observed in recent
years. Specifically, the biological monitoring will test the null hypothesis that, as
development activities proceed in the project area, there will be no significant increase in
the relative incidence of human-induced mortality. Based on the statistical relationship
between human-induced deaths and the mean number of deer seen in standard field
censuses (Sections 5.1 and 5.2), the ratio of human-induced deaths to mean number of
deer seen should remain below 1.53 during the 20-year permit period.
The USFWS conducts weekly population counts and monthly deer census. The
Applicants will conduct a yearly census to supplement and verify data from the USFWS
(Table 5.3). Census data will provide the "average number of deer seen." Also, the
Applicants will request Key deer mortality data the USFWS collects. Mortality data will
provide the "number of human-induced deaths." The ratio will then be calculated for the
reporting period and compared against the reference value, 1.53.
The Applicants will also review the USFWS mortality data every year to determine if
new spatial patterns emerge, or if any other change in the mortality patterns occur which
may be explained by the additional development.
During construction activities of county facilities and road expansion activities, the
County biologist will conduct regular monitoring to ensure that development is occurring
in accordance with the conditions of the Plan.
Population surveys of the other covered species will not be conducted since the effects on
these species are anticipated to be minimal. For these species, only habitat loss data will
be compiled.
47
Table 5.3. Projected budget for monitoring Key deer population for 20-year period
Item/Service Annual Costs Costs for 20- Year Plan
Marking supplies 500 10,000
Trapping/surveys 1,000 20,000
Travel costs (2 trips) 3,000 60,000
Data analysis/reporting 500 10,000
Total Costs $5,000 $100,000
Compliance monitoring will include an annual compilation of the amount of development
completed and acres converted, number of acres acquired, and a summary of habitat
management activities by Monroe County. The total H for development and acquisition
will be determined using the spatial model and the appropriate land use H conversion
factors.
Documentation of habitat management activities will be conducted by the Monroe
County Land Steward for lands acquired under the HCP, that are not part of the Coupon
Bight/Key deer CARL project. Habitat management activities should parallel land
acquisition efforts, that is, the amount of land acquired by the MCLA annually, outside of
the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project, should be equivalent to that which is
managed. The Monroe County Land Steward will submit an annual summary of the
number of the county's habitat management activities.
Monroe County is responsible for ensuring that these monitoring activities are funded and
implemented. Actual monitoring efforts will be conducted by the Monroe County
Growth Management Division, MCLA, Monroe County Biologist and the Monroe
County Land Steward. Monitoring activities will be detailed and summarized in an
annual report for the 20-year life ofthe ITP.
504.1 Reporting
Monroe County will prepare and submit an annual HCP Report to the Service at the end
of the reporting year. The reporting period will cover January 1 through December 31
and will be submitted by March 31 following the end of the reporting period. The report
will address both the biological monitoring and the compliance monitoring. The report
will include the following information:
. Biological Information:
o Results of the Key deer census, including the calculation of the average
number of deer seen.
o A summary of Key deer mortality information, including the calculation of the
number of human-induced deaths. Human induced deaths include those due
to road kills, entanglement, attacks from domestic predators, and poaching.
o A discussion and interpretation of mortality data.
48
o An assessment of whether the ratio of the number of human-induced deaths to
average deer seen remains below 1.53.
. Compliance Information:
o A list and map of development activities approved and completed.
o The H value associated with each activity and the total H value of all activities
for the year.
o The cumulative H value of all development since permit issuance.
o A discussion of observation made during construction monitoring.
o A list and map of parcels acquired in the reporting year.
o The H value for each parcel and the total H value of parcels acquired during
the reporting period.
o The cumulative H value of all acquisition since permit issuance including the
mitigation credit of H = 0.3999 discussed above.
o A discussion of management activities conducted during the reporting year.
o An assessment of the status of all mitigation parcels, addressing the extent of
invasion by exotic species, trash disposal, and other potential human-induced
impacts.
o A statement confirming that mitigation has occurred as to maintain a 3H: IH
ratio with respect to development activities.
o Any other pertinent information relative to the implementation of the HCP.
o Monroe County will prepare and maintain an updated master list of all
development permitted on Big Pine Key and No Name Key with the start date
of March 13, 1995, which records the H value for each development approval
and a running total, which is cumulatively subtracted from the total net H
value. This master list shall be readily available to the public, USFWS, and
the DCA.
5.5 Adaptive Management/Unforeseen Circumstances/fIN 0 Surprises"
Adaptive management provisions in HCPs aim at reducing risk to the species due to
significant data or information gaps. The Key deer has been extensively studied (Lopez
2001) and ongoing research programs at Texas A&M University are addressing the Key
deer, the silver rice rat and the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The Key deer PV A model is
the state-of-the-art and will likely be fully applicable unless conditions change
dramatically. No further studies are proposed as part of this HCP.
The "No Surprises" policy establishes a clear commitment from the Federal government
to honor its agreements under an approved HCP for which the permittee is in good faith
implementing the HCP's terms and conditions (USFWS 1996). The HCP handbook
(USFWS 1996) states that the Service will not require the commitment of additional land
or financial compensation beyond the level of mitigation, which was provided in the
HCP.
The success of the proposed mitigation strategy relies heavily on the willingness of
landowners to enter into a sales agreement with the Applicants. Should unwilling sellers
49
prevent the County from accomplishing the mitigation goals, Monroe County will halt
the issuance development permits until willing sellers become available. Under no
circumstance will the County issue permits if mitigation is not assured; to the extent
practicable, land acquisition will occur in advance of incurring impacts.
Should the relative occurrence of human-induced mortality surpass 1.53 for two
consecutive years, the County will halt the issuance of permits until consultation with the
FWS is completed and a decision on how to proceed is made.
Finally, monitoring the success of this HCP depends on annual data the FWS gathers.
Should the FWS stop gathering deer density and mortality data, other options to gather
these data should be agreed upon between the Applicants and the Service.
50
6. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING
6.1 Regulatory Actions
Upon approval of the HCP and issuance of the ITP, the County will amend its
Comprehensive Development Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Regulations
(LDR) to codify the development guidelines described in this HCP. A Master Plan for
Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, in preparation, will rule the rate
of growth and development standards in the project area, in accordance with the
guidelines described in this HCP. Pursuant to the 1998 MOU between the Applicants
and technical agencies, the DCA and the County may enter into an agreement under
Section 380.032, F.S., whereby the County may proceed with development activities in
the HCP before amendments to the Comp Plan are completed.
6.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities
Monroe County will act on behalf of the Applicants in conducting the Plan's mitigation
program and for all reporting activities under this HCP. In addition, Monroe County will
be responsible for the following activities: approving development consistent with the
covered activities in the HCP; maintaining a GIS database on the number, habitat type
and location of development activities and mitigation actions including acquisition and
management activities; funding or providing staff for biological monitoring and annual
reporting activities; establishing and maintaining an annual budget and budget
amendments for HCP adoption and implementation; and all other duties and
responsibilities relating to the execution of the HCP. Moreover, the County will be
responsible for ensuring that all mitigation activities are implemented concomitant with
development activities. Finally, Monroe County will coordinate with the FDOT and
DCA to ensure that the provisions of this HCP are met.
6.1.2 Implementation Schedule
Over the 20-year life of the ITP, Monroe County will authorize residential development
at a steady rate to be determined in the Master Plan. Commercial development and local
road improvements would also occur progressively through the plan period at an
approximate rate of 2,390 square feet per year and 10,890 square feet per year,
respectively. Expansion of the existing fire station and institutions, and approximately
half of the community facilities and county offices will be constructed during year one.
The remaining community facilities and expansion of county offices will likely be
completed in year two of the Plan.
The interim wastewater treatment plants will be constructed in years five, six and seven
of the Plan. FDOT would construct the US-l three-laning project following completion
of the design phase, which is scheduled for 2004. Construction may be completed within
the first seven years of the plan period. Issuance of permits for accessory uses and fences
51
will occur at the time of request, for the purposes of the schedule permit issuance was
averaged over the 20 years. Management of mitigation lands will be commensurate with
land acquisition.
6.2 Funding
Monroe County will fund land acquisition and management under this HCP through
existing funding mechanisms. Since 1986, the MCLA has been tasked with acquiring
lands for the County in accordance with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Land
Authority Ordinance (Ord. No. 31-1986, 1), and by s. 380.0661-380.0685, F.S., s.
125.0108, F.S. The MCLA was established to conduct land acquisition activities
necessary to deal with property rights of small landowners, environmental protection,
park and recreational space, affordable housing and public infrastructure should there be
an environmental component. The MCLA provides a mechanism to "deal with the
challenges of implementing comprehensive land use plans pursuant to the area of critical
state concern program, which challenges are often complicated by the environmental
sensitivity of such areas (and to provide) a stable funding source and the flexibility to
address plan implementation innovatively and by acting as an intermediary between
landowners and the governmental entities regulating land use" (Section 1-3,
Rule 02-1991, MCLA).
Funding for the MCLA was initially supplied by recurring revenue from a Florida
Department of Natural Resources park surcharge and one half cent of tourist impact tax
revenue. The State Park surcharge (s. 380.0685, F.S.) is collected at a rate of 50 cents per
person per day, or $5 per annual family auto entrance permit, or $2.50 per night per
campsite, cabin, or other overnight recreational occupancy unit. Ninety-eight percent of
this surcharge is provided to the MCLA for the purpose of land acquisition, ten percent of
which may be used for administrative purposes. The tourist impact tax (s. 125.0108,
F.S.) is collected as a 0.5 cent bed tax per $1 lodging money on rentals with 6-month
term or less, segregated by Area of Critical State Concern. Fifty percent of this tax is
provided to the MCLA for the purpose of land acquisition, five percent of which may be
used for administrative purposes.
Additional sources of revenue for the MCLA include grants from programs such as
Preservation 2000. Since 1998 to 2001, contributions to MCLA revenue from the State
have been to the amount of $3,000,000 per year, with a total of$14,793,174 provided
since 1985 (FDEP 2001). These funds are being used by the MCLA to purchase lands
for the Coupon Bight/Key Deer CARL project. Whereas funds generated by grants
fluctuate, revenue produced by the state park surcharge is relatively constant. Funds
from the tourist impact tax continue to increase with increasing numbers of tourists
visiting the Keys. All revenue provided to the MCLA is deposited into an
interest-bearing account for the purpose of land acquisition and program administration
costs.
Table 6.1 provides a preliminary estimate of the costs for Plan implementation. This cost
estimate assumes that management costs for mitigation lands purchased by the MCLA for
the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project are not sustained by the County. Mitigation
52
lands to be managed under the HCP include lands acquired in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas.
Administrative costs for land acquisition activities and reporting efforts will primarily
constitute staff time and therefore are not shown in the estimate below.
Table 6.1. Estimated cost ofthe HCP
Item
Development impact (H)
Mitigation (H)
Estimated land value (based on average cost for
lands totaling H=3.0)
Estimated number of acres (based on Tier 1 lands)
Annual management costs (based on $1 ,OOO/acre)
20-year management
20-year monitoring ($5,000/year)
Total estimated HCP cost (Raw Cost over 20 Years)
Unit
1.0
3.0
$6,185,000
270
$270,000
$5,400,000
$100,000
$11,685,000
6.3 Permit Amendment Procedures
Modifications to the ITP would need to be made in the event of:
1. Modifications to the boundaries of the project area or the location of development
activities;
2. Increases in the acreage of development activities;
3. The listing ofa species protected under the Act which is not covered under the HCP
and which would likely be taken as a result of covered development activities;
4. A change in the development action or land acquisition mitigation activities that
would result in an increased take of one or more of the covered species; and
5. Changes which would result in significant adverse effects to the covered species or
new effects to covered species that were not addressed in the HCP.
Amendments to the ITP will require a revised HCP, a permit application and application
fee, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) document and a 30-day public
comment period. The USFWS must be consulted and concur on all proposed
amendments. There are two types of proposed amendments:
. Minor Amendments. Minor amendments involve routine administrative revisions or
changes to the operation and management program, which do not deplete the level or
means of mitigation. Such minor amendments do not alter the terms of the Permit.
Upon written request of the applicants, the USFWS is authorized to approve minor
amendments to the HCP, if the amendment does not conflict with the purpose of the
HCP as stated in Section 1.2.
· All Other Amendments. All other amendments will be considered an amendment to
the ITP, and will be subject to any other procedural requirements of laws or
regulations that may be applicable.
53
6.4 Permit Renewal
The ITP may be renewed prior to expiration if the biological conditions described in the
HCP are not significantly different and no additional take of covered species is requested.
In the event that renewal of the ITP is sought, the Applicants will submit a written
request to the Service certifying that the provisions within the HCP and all subsequent
amendments are valid. The request for renewal will also include a description of the
portions of the project to be completed or development activities that would be covered
under the ITP renewal period. The request for renewal must be submitted 30 days prior
to the ITP's date of expiration.
The Service may renew the ITP if its fmdings are consistent with those detailed in the
Applicant's request. Renewal procedures will be conducted in accordance with 50 CFR
13.22. Renewal of the ITP does not authorize an increase in take levels beyond those
stated in the original HCP. All annual reports and reporting requirements must be
completed prior to submittal of the request for renewal.
54
7. REFERENCES
7.1 Agencies and Persons Contacted
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning
Florida Keys Field Office
Rebecca Jetton, Community Program Administrator
2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212
Marathon, FL 33050
Florida Department of Transportation
Environmental Management Office
C. Leroy Irwin, Director
605 Suwannee Street, MS-37
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Florida Department of Transportation, District VI
Environmental Management Office
Catherine B. Owen, Environmental Manager
1000 NW Illth Avenue, Room 6101
Miami, FL 33172
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Office of Environmental Services
Habitat Protection Planning
Randy S. Kautz, Section Leader
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
HCP Coordinating Committee Member
Jim Cameron, Citizen Representative
Big Pine Key Resident
HCP Coordinating Committee Member
Alicia Putney, Citizen Representative
No Name Key Resident
Monroe County
Growth Management Division
Department of Planning and Environmental Resources
Marlene Conaway, Director
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, FL 33050
55
Monroe County
Growth Management Division
Laurie McHargue, Ph.D., Land Steward
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400
Marathon, FL 33050
Monroe County Land Authority
Mark J. Rosch, Executive Director
1200 Truman Avenue, Suite 207
Key West, FL 33040
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
South Florida Ecological Services Office
Michael Jennings, HCPINEPA Coordinator
1339 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
National Key Deer Refuge
Philip A. Frank, Ph.D., Refuge Manager
28950 Watson Boulevard
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
7.2 Bibliography
Akcakaya, H.R. 2000. Population viability analyses with demographically and spatially
structured models. Ecological Bulletins 48:23-38.
Akcakaya, H.R. and P. Sjogren-Gulve. 2000. Population viability analyses in
conservation planning: an overview. Ecological Bulletins 48:9-21.
Alexander, T.R. and J.H. Dickson, III. 1970. Vegetational changes in the National Key
Deer Refuge-II. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 32(2):81-89.
Bergh, C. and J. Wisby. 1996. Fire History of Lower Keys Pine Rocklands. The Nature
Conservancy, Florida Keys Initiative. Key West, FL.
Boyce, M.S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Reviews Ecology and
Systematics 23:481-506.
Carlson, P.C., G.W. Tanner, J.M. Wood, and S.R. Humphrey. 1993. Fire in Key deer
habitat improves browse, prevents succession, and preserves endemic herbs. Journal of
Wildlife Management 57(4):914-928.
56
Cox, J.A. and R.S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled
Wildlife in Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 156p.
Dickson, J.G. m. 1955. An ecological study of the Key deer. Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission. Tech. Bull. 3. 104p.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. Florida Forever Five Year Plan.
Prepared for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement trust Fund in cooperation
with the Acquisition and Restoration Council.
Florida Department of Transportation. 1996. US-lISR-5 Key deerlMotorist concept
report. District VI.
Florida Department of Transportation. 1998. SR5/US-l Key DeerlMotorist Conflict
PD&E Study. District VI.
Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Environmental Determination for SRS/US-
1 Key DeerlMotorist Conflict PD&E Study. Categorical Exclusion Type II.
Folk, M.L. 1991. Habitat of the Key Deer. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois
University; Carbondale, IL.
Folk, M.L. and W. D. Klimstra. 1991. Reproductive performance of female Key deer.
Journal of Wildlife Management 55:386-390.
Forys, E.A. 1995. Metapopulations of marsh rabbits: A Population Viability Analysis of
the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (sylvilagus palustris hetneri). Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Florida, Gainesville.
Forys, E.A., P.A. Frank, and R.S. Kautz. 1996. Recovery actions for the Lower Keys
marsh rabbit, silver rice rat, and Stock Island tree snail. Unpublished report to Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Tallahassee, FL.
Forys, E.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1994. Biology of the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit at
Navy Lands in the Lower Florida Keys. MS.
Harding, J.W. 1974. Behavior, socio-biology, and reproductive life history of the Florida
Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Dissertation, Southern Illinois University.
Carbondale, IL.
Klimstra, W.D. 1985. The Key deer. The Florida Naturalist. 58(4): 2-5.
Klimstra, W.D. and A. Dooley. 1990. Foods of the Key deer. Florida Scientist 53:264-
273.
57
Lazell, J.D., Jr. 1984. A New Marsh Rabbit from Florida's Lower Keys. Journal of
Mammology 65(1):26-33.
Lewis, RR. 1980. Impact of oil spills on mangrove forests. International Symposium on
the Biology and Management of Mangroves in Tropical Shallow Water Communities,
2nd. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
Lopez, R. R. 2001. Population ecology of Florida Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas. 203pp.
Lopez, RR. 2003. Conservation of Florida Key Deer. In: H.R. Akcakaya, M. Burgman,
O. Kindvall, C.C. Wood, P. Sjogren-Gulve, J. Hatfield, and M. McCarthy (eds.) Species
Conservation and Management: Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lopez, R.R., M.E. Viera, N.J. Silvy, P.A. Frank, S.W. Whisenant, and D.A. Jones. 2003.
Survival, Mortality, and Life Expectancy of the Florida Key Deer. Journal of Wildlife
Management. In press.
MacAulay, G.M., T.J. Leary, FJ. Sargent, M. M Colby, EJ. Prouty and C.A. Friel. 1994.
Advanced Identification of Wetlands in the Florida Keys, Final Report. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Resources. Marathon, FL.
McNeese, P.L. and J.G. Taylor. 1998. Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands
(ADID) Project Technical Summary Document - Final Draft. Lewis Environmental
Services, Inc., Summerland Key, FL.
Monroe County. 1987. A Focal Point Plan for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County
Concern. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL.
Monroe County. 2001. Big Pine and No Name Key Development Alternatives Report.
Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. Marathon, FL.
33p.
Montague, C.L. and RG. Wiegert. 1990. Salt marshes. Pp. 481-516 In Myers, RL. and
J.J. Ewel (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida. Orlando, FL.
Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1989. The 26 ecological communities of Florida,
correlated to the natural soil landscape positions. Florida Chapter ofthe Soil and Water
Conservation Service. Gainesville, FL.
Nielsen, A. 1990. Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve management plan. 188 p.
Odum, W.E., C.C. McIvor and TJ. Smith. 1982. The ecology of the mangroves of South
Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 81-24. 105p.
58
Ross, M.S. 1989. Effects of hydrologic factors on the vegetation of Big Pine Key. In
Robertson, M.L. and J .M. Young (eds.) Freshwater and surface water resources of Big
Pine Key, Florida. The Nature Conservancy. Key West, FL.
Ross, M.S. and P.L. Ruiz. 1996. A Study of the Distribution of Several South Florida
Endemic Plants in the Florida Keys. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University. Miami, FL.
Ross, M.S., JJ. O'Brien and LJ. Flynn. 1992. Vegetation and landscape ecology of
central Big Pine Key. The Nature Conservancy, Key West, Florida.
Ross, M.S., J.J. O'Brien, and L.d.S.L. Sternberg. 1994. Sea-level rise and the reduction in
pine forests in the Florida Keys. Ecological Applications 4(1): 144-156.
Silvy, N.J. 1975. Population density, movements, and habitat utilization of Key deer,
Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University.
Carbondale, IL.
Snedaker, S.C. 1989. Overview of ecology of mangroves and information needs for
Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:341-347.
Snedaker, S.c. and AE. Lugo. 1973. The Role of Mangrove Ecosystems in the
Maintenance of Environmental Quality and a High Productivity of Desirable Fisheries.
Final Report. Contract # 14-16-008-606. U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Washington D.C.
Snyder, J.R., A. Herndon, W.B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida rockland. Pp. 230-277
In Myers, R.L. and J J. Ewel (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida.
Orlando, FL.
Stewart, M.T., M.J. Wightman, and K.M Beaudoin. 1989. The freshwater lenses of Big
Pine Key. Pp 11-28 In Robertson, M.L. and J.M. Young (eds.) Freshwater and Surface
Water Resources of Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The Nature
Conservancy. 122p.
Strong, AM. and G. T. Bancroft. 1994. Patterns of deforestation and fragmentation of
mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests in the Upper Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine
Science 54:795-804.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil
Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated 12. Hammocks. Indian River Lagoon
National Estuary Program. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/lagoon/hammock.html
59
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Revised Florida Key Deer Recovery Plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 46p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take
Permit Processing Handbook.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Biological Opinion. South Florida Ecological
Services Office, Vero Beach, FL.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Biological Opinion. South Florida Ecological
Services Office, Vero Beach, FL.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Threatened and Endangered Species System. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species.
hap:/ /ecos. fws. gov/webpage/.
URS. 2001. Carrying Capacity Analysis Model. Final Report. Tampa, FL.
White, G.C., and K.P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from
populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:S120-S138.
60
8. LIST OF PREP ARERS
8.1 URS Corporation
Ricardo N. Calvo, Ph.D., Project Manager. Dr. Calvo has more than 12 years of
experience in ecological research and environmental consulting in the U.S. and abroad.
His project experience includes environmental impact assessments for diverse
infrastructure projects, threatened and endangered species, preserve design and
management, wildlife surveys, mitigation design and environmental planning. He was the
Project Director for the PD&E for wildlife underpasses to address Key deer/US-l
motorist conflicts in Big Pine Key. Dr. Calvo also served as the Project Manager for a
study to develop feasible alternatives to reduce Key deer mortality along US-l in Big
Pine Key. He received in Ph.D. in Biology in 1990. Dr. Calvo served as project manager
and document author for this Habitat Conservation Plan.
Roel Lopez, Ph.D., Key Deer Expert. Dr. Lopez is a wildlife biologist, published
scientific author, and a Key deer expert. He received his Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences in 2001. Dr. Lopez's specific research interests include Key deer ecology,
wildlife population dynamics, habitat management, computer simulation and modeling,
use of GIS and databases in resource management. He provided biological expertise on
the Florida Key deer including estimating population parameters for the PV A, statistical
analysis, and database management.
Barry Lenz, Senior Ecologist. Mr. Lenz is an ecologist with more than 21 years of
experience, including 16 years with URS, with a specialization in ecology and threatened
and endangered species. He has extensive background in environmental and ecological
assessment, environmental permitting, and vegetation community mapping. Mr. Lenz
served as a technical researcher and document reviewer.
Amy Lecours, M.S., Environmental Scientist. Ms. Lecours has more than eight years
of experience and holds a Master's Degree in Coastal Zone Management and Marine
Biology. She has experience in coastal and marine biological investigations for NEP A
documents and environmental assessments. Ms. Lecours served as a technical researcher
and document author.
Laura Cherney, Environmental Scientist. Ms. Cherney has more than three years of
experience in threatened and endangered species surveys, NEP A documentation and
wetland delineations. She holds a Bachelor's in Environmental Engineering Sciences.
Ms. Cherney served as project coordinator, technical researcher and document author.
61
8.2 Sub-Consultants
Patricia L. McNeese, M.S., Environmental consultant. Ms. McNeese has 18 years of
experience including 14 years working in the Florida Keys environment. She holds
Bachelor's and Master's degrees in marine biology. Her Florida Keys experience
includes work on such projects as the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the
Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands, the Habitat Evaluation Index and the
Livable CommuniKeys Program for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. Her latest
activities in the Keys have focused on restoration and management of natural habitats.
Mrs. McNeese has been accepted as an expert witness in environmental planning and
Florida Keys biology and ecology. She served as a technical researcher and document
author.
62