Item I1County of Monroe
<r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�
Mayor David Rice, District 4
IleOI1da Keys
��x
t t 0.
Mayor Pro Tern Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
P f,<
George Neugent, District 2
a
Heather Carruthers, District 3
County Commission Meeting
April 19, 2018
Agenda Item Number: I.1
Agenda Item Summary #3027
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Michael Roberts (305) 289 -2502
NA
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Summary report of the status of the Permit Referral Process (PRP),
which is the process for the review of all development that occurs within areas designated as
"Species Focus Areas (SFAs)" or "Species Buffer Areas (SBAs)" within unincorporated Monroe
County. The PRP is required for parcels that contain habitat for any of the following listed species:
Key Largo Cotton Mouse, Key Largo woodrat, Key tree - cactus, Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Eastern
indigo snake, Key deer, Schaus swallowtail butterfly, silver rice rate, and Stock Island tree snail. If
the parcel is on the list of parcels that are within designated Species Focus Areas, staff reviews the
development permit application for impacts to the above species in accordance with Species
Assessment Guides (SAG'S) developed and provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
In 1990 the National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and the Defenders of Wildlife
filed suit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency claiming FEMA was not consulting
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the Endangered Species Act in their
administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in Monroe County, Florida. On
January 11, 2011 , the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiffs and
the Federal Defendants in which the Federal Defendants agreed to notify the Court and the parties
when Monroe County and the other "participating communities" in the Florida Keys revised their
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances and implemented procedures (permit referral process) to
reference and use the updated real estate list and Species Focus Area Maps which depict potentially
suitable habitat for eight (8) federally listed species in the review of floodplain development permit
applications.
In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Monroe County BOCC adopted
ORDINANCE 015 -2012 creating Section 122 -8 to provide for the inclusion of United States Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
requirements. This ORDINANCE creates and implements a "Permit Referral Process" for the
review of all development that occurs within areas designated as "Species Focus Areas (SFAs)" or
"Species Buffer Areas (SBAs)" within unincorporated Monroe County.
The "Species Focus Areas (SFAs)" or "Species Buffer Areas (SBAs)" are areas of potentially
suitable habitat for nine federally protected species including: Eastern Indigo Snake, Key Deer, Key
Largo Cotton Mouse, Key Largo Woodrat, Key Tree Cactus, Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit, Schaus
Swallowtail Butterfly, Silver Rice Rat, and Stock Island Tree Snail.
The Permit Referral Process is an additional layer of review for properties located within the SFAs
or SBAs, which are being proposed for development, to ensure compliance with the Federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Property owners are already required to comply with the ESA. The
Permit Referral Process is a streamlined method to ensure compliance with the federal law.
Monroe County staff uses Species Assessment Guides (SAGs) prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to determine whether the development proposed through permitting will cause any
incidental take of the federally protected species.
Then Monroe County uses the SAGs to determine whether a development permit application
requires NO CONDITIONS; CONDITIONS; or COORDINATION WITH FWS FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE as follows:
• NO CONDITIONS: County may issue permit; or
• CONDITIONS: County may issue the permit, pursuant to owner agreement" to conditions
and all applicable codes; or
• COORDINATION WITH FWS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
County shall issue the permit with a condition that:
• the applicant seek and obtain technical assistance from the Service; and
• the permit shall expire after 180 days; and
• the applicant obtain all applicable state or federal permits or approvals prior to
commencement of development. If the permit expires after 180 days, prior to the
applicant receiving applicable state or federal permits or approvals, the applicant shall
be required to reapply.
To date, Environmental Resources staff has completed 1025 PRP reviews. By determination, the
breakdown is as follows:
• 44 PRP reviews covered by the HCP
• 195 that had species covered by both the HCP and the FEMA BO
• 654 NLAA determinations
• 109 May Affect determinations (resulting in less than 10 acres of impact)
• 19 permits are still awaiting a final determination (usually because they are pending a
Stock Island tree snail survey and /or approval)
• The remainder were determined to have no species effect (N /A).
The following table shows a summary of the incidental take:
EXEMPTED, DEDUCTED, AND REMAINING INCIDENTAL TAKE IN ACRES OF HABITAT FROM 2012 TO 9/12/2017
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC adopted Ordinance 015 -2012 on June 20, 2012.
CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES:
NA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DOCUMENTATION:
Permit Referral Process Ordinance (015 -2012)
09- 12- 17PRPReporttoBOCC
Fifth Annual PRP Report 2016 -2017
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
(1)
V
a o
a
°'
-
V) 4°
v)
aa)
cn
o
a°o
a�i
J
0
J o
a�i U
s o
c =
i
3
L
u a�i
C:
0 Y,
Y
Y
�n m
o
>
Ln
U
cn
TOTAL EXEMPTED
INCIDENTAL TAKE
(ACRES)
772.5
290.6
217.8
217.8
249.5
217.2
83.6
172.3
249.5
CURRENT
DEDUCTED
0.0
3.45
1.36
1.36
0.0
1.12
3.85
3.73
3.84
INCIDENTAL TAKE
(ACRES)
REMAINING
INCIDENTAL TAKE
772.5
287.15
216.44
216.44
249.5
216.08
79.75
168.57
245.66
(ACRES)
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC adopted Ordinance 015 -2012 on June 20, 2012.
CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES:
NA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
DOCUMENTATION:
Permit Referral Process Ordinance (015 -2012)
09- 12- 17PRPReporttoBOCC
Fifth Annual PRP Report 2016 -2017
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
If yes, amount:
REVIEWED BY:
Mayte Santamaria
Skipped
Assistant County Administrator Christine
Hurley
03/22/2018 5:26 PM
Steve Williams
Completed
Peter Morris
Skipped
Jaclyn Carnago
Completed
Budget and Finance
Completed
Maria Slavik
Completed
Kathy Peters
Completed
Board of County Commissioners
Pending
03/22/2018 5:19 PM
Completed
03/23/2018 2:21 PM
03/22/2018 5:27 PM
03/23/2018 3:13 PM
03/26/2018 9:48 AM
03/26/2018 9:53 AM
03/26/2018 4:53 PM
04/19/2018 9:00 AM
I I ,
WHEREAS, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal program enabling
property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance in exchange for the
community's adoption of floodplain management regulations to reduce future flood damages; and
WHEREAS, in 1990 the National Wildlife Federation, Florida Wildlife Federation, and the
Defenders of Wildlife filed suit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
claiming FEMA was not consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) as
required by the Endangered Species Act in their administration of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) in Monroe County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, in 1997 the Service completed a Biological Opinion (130) for the effects of the
NFIP on Federally listed (threatened or endangered) species in the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, the 1997 BO found the NFIP jeopardized nine species in the Keys; and
WHEREAS, in 2003 the Service re-initiated consultation and amended the 1997 BO and
concluded that the effect of the NFIP would result in jeopardy on eight of 10 species evaluated in the
BO; and
WHEREAS, in a second amended complaint in 2003 the plaintiffs filed suit against FEMA and
the Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act; and
WHEREAS, on March 29, 2005 the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
(District Court) granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs which found that the Service
and FEMA violated the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2005, the District Court entered an order enjoining FEMA from
issuing flood insurance under the NFIP on any new residential or commercial developments in
suitable habitats of federally listed (threatened or endangered) species in the Keys; and
WHEREAS, the District Court also ordered the Service to submit a new BO by August 9, 2006.
The Service issued a new BO on August 8, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affinned the District Court's rulings of March 29, 2005 and September', 2005; and
WHEREAS, On February 26, 2009, the District Court ordered the Service to submit a new BO
by March 31, 2010 and on March 28, 2010, the Court granted a 30 day extension of this deadline;
and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2010, the Service published the revised BO for FEMA's administration
of the NFIP in Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, the BO contains "Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives" (RPA's) that require
Monroe County and other participating communities in the Florida Keys to revise their Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance(s) to reference and use the updated real estate list (referenced in RPA
paragraph 1) within 120 days of acceptance of this BO by the Court, and;
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2011, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement between
the Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants in which the Federal Defendants agreed to notify the
Court and the parties when Monroe County and the other "participating communities" in the Florida
Keys have: 1) revised their Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance(s); and 2) implemented procedures
to reference and use the updated real estate list and Species Focus Area Maps (referenced in
reasonable and prudent alternative ("RPA") paragraph 1) in compliance with paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and
5 of the RPA; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2011, FEMA notified Monroe County that if the County did not
implement the RPA's by January 11, 2012, then Monroe County would have been placed on
probation on May 10, 2012.1n response to the County's requested time extension, FEMA requested
and the Court granted an extension to June 30, 2012 for the ordinance revisions and permit referral
process implementation; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney, outside counsel, and the Growth Management Director have
advised the Board that adoption of the RPA's; ordinance language; and originally drafted Species
Assessment Guides (SACS) suggested by the Federal agencies would have resulted in increased
exposure to the County for liability for inverse condemnation or takings claims; and
WHEREAS, FEMA and the Service revised the SAGS to include provisions that substantially
reduce the County's potential exposure for liability for inverse condemnation or takings claims; and
WHEREAS, FEMA provided comments on the County's DRAFT Ordinance, transmitted by the
County to FEMA on various dates; and
WHEREAS, because the Florida Constitution prohibits the County from incorporating future
federal statutes and regulations into its existing ordinances, the County is unable to adopt the
"subsequent revisions" to the Species Focus Area Maps (SFAMs) or Species Assessment Guides
(SACS} into this ordinance as desired by FEMA, until the subsequent revisions are published and
adopted by the then sitting Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the process set forth in
Florida law; see, e.g., Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, 15 So. 3d 642 (Fla. l' DCA
2(109); and
WHEREAS, the County has revised said ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature adopted Chapter 2012-205 Laws of Florida, effective July 1,
2012, which states:
"For any development permit application filed with the county after July 1, 2012, a county may not
require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit that an applicant obtain a
permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency has issued a final agency
action that denies the federal or state permit before the county action on the local development
permit. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the
part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state car federal agency and does not create any
liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit lf the applicant /ails to obtain requisite
approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that
result in a violation qf state car federal law, A county may attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of
a development permit and may include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal
permits be obtained before commencement of the development. This section does not prohibit a
count
y from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits
may apply. "; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney, outside counsel, and the Growth Management Director have
proposed an ordinance with alternative language to meet the RPAS, which is consistent with Federal
law, addresses Chapter 2012-205, Laws of Florida, and adequately protects the County taxpayers
against accepting that additional liability; and
WHEREAS, the September 9, 2005 District Court injunction will only be lifted by the Court if
the FWS Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, which requires property
owners within the species focus areas and buffer areas to go through the Permit Referral Process, are
implemented by each of the participating communities; and
WHEREAS, any property owner has an obligation to comply with the Federal Endangered
Species Act; and
WHEREAS, the County has an obligation to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act;
and
' For the purposes of Chapter 2012-205 Laws of Florida, the definition of Development
Permit is. "Development permit" includes any building permit, zoningpennit,
subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or atq other
official action of local government having the effect ofpennitting the development of
land
WHEREAS, subject to resolutions 420-2005; 166-2006; 185-2007; 219-2008 and 282-2011,
property owners are able to "toll" their building permits and ROGO allocations because they were
not eligible for flood insurance as a result of the September 9, 2005 District Court injunction; and
WHEREAS, the only way the Court will terminate the 2.005 District Court injunction is if
participating communities comply with the BO RPA's; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is being adopted to provide owners with tolled building permits
and/or ROGO allocations a way to develop in a manner consistent with the Endangered Species Act
and that will be eligible for national flood insurance; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission during a regular meeting held on April
25, 2012, reviewed, discussed and approved the Sr. Director of Planning and Environmental
Resources' recommendation to the Planning Commission for the revisions to Chapter 122 of the
Monroe County Land Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 122-2 of the Monroe County Land Development Code shall be amended as
follows:
Sec. 122-2. General provisions.
(a) Applicability. Except as provided for the elevated portion of a nonconforming residential
structure by section 1224(a) (10), no structure or manufactured home hereafter shall be located,
extended, converted or structurally altered, and no development shall occur, without full compliance
with the terms of this chapter in addition to other applicable regulations, including, but not limited
to, 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2).
(b) Basis for Establishing Special Flood Hazard Maps; Species Focus Area Maps (SFAMs) with
Species Focus Area Buffers and Federally Protected Species Area Real Estate (RE) List; and Species
Assessment Guides (SAGs).
1. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) in its February 18, 2005 Maps with accompanying supporting data, and any revisions
thereof, are adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter, and shall be kept on file,
available to the public, in the offices of the county Building Department. Letter of Map
Amendments, Letter of Map Revisions, Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill, and Conditional
Letter of Map Revisions approved by FEMA are acceptable for implementation of this regulation.
2. Species Focus Area Maps (SFAMs) with Species Focus Area Buffers and Species Real Estate
(RE) List. FEMA and FWS have provided the Species Focus Area Maps (SFAMs) mailed to
Monroe County and dated April 30, 2011, and a listing of real estate numbers of parcels (RE list)
ernailed to Monroe County and dated November 18, 2011, that are within the SFAMs and that have
been identified by FWS. The SFAMs and the RE List that are within the SFAMs identified by the
FWS in accordance with the Biological Opinion, dated April 30, 2010, as amended December 14,
2010, are hereby declared to be a part of this ordinance. The SFAMS and RE list are on file at the
Monroe County Clerk's office and the Monroe County Growth Management Division Office.
3. Species Assessment Guides (SAGS). FEMA and F'M'S have provided the Species Assessment
Guides (SAGs) mailed to Monroe County and dated May 20, 2012. These SAGS are declared to be a
part of this ordinance, The 'SAGS are on file at the Monroe County Clerk's office and the Monroe
County Growth Management Division Office.
(c) Rules for interpreting flood hazard issues. The boundaries of the flood hazard areas shown on
the official flood insurance rate maps may be determined by scaling distances. Required
interpretations of those maps for precise locations of such boundaries shall be made by the
floodplain administrator, in consultation with the building official. In interpreting other provisions of
this chapter, the building official shall be guided by the current edition of FA's 44 CFR, and
FEMA's interpretive letters, policy statements and technical bulletins as adopted by resolution from
time to time by the Board of County Commissioners . Additionally, the building official shall also
obtain, review and reasonably use any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a
federal, state or other source, as criteria for requiring that new construction, substantial
improvements, and other developments meet the criteria required in the appropriate flood zone.
Section 2. See. 122-3 of the Monroe County Land Development Code shall be amended as
follows:
See. 122 -3.— Permit requirements.
(a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Adjacent to contiguous native habitat means an area of native habitat sharing a boundary at one or
more points of intersection with other native habitat. For purposes of this land development code,
an intervening road, right-of-way or easement shall not destroy the adjacency of the habitat.
However, U.S. 1, canals and open water shall constitute a break in adjacency.
Alteration means any change or modification in construction type, materials, or occupancy.
Base florid means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year.
Basement means any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all
sides.
Development means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but
not limited to, buildings or other structures, clearing, mining dredging, filling, grading, paving,
excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials.
Elevated building means a nonbasement building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above
ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns.
Enclosure means that portion of an elevated building below the lowest elevated floor that is either
partially or fully shut in by rigid walls and used solely for limited storage, parking or entryways.
Enclosures shall not be constructed, equipped or used for habitational or other purposes.
Existing construction means structures for which the start of construction commenced before
January 1, 1975, Existing construction is also known as pre-FIRM structures.
Existing manqfactured home park means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the
construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed
(including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of the streets, and either final
site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before January 1, 1975, and in which, at
the time of application, there are no site built residences or the park or subdivision is limited to
manufactured home by this chapter.
Finishing materials means anything beyond basic wall construction pursuant to the most recent
FEMA Technical Bulletin, which is normally associated with habitable space. Finishing materials
include, but are not limited to, ceiling mold, trim, baseboards, decorative finish work, wainscoting,
and textured woods.
Historic Structure means any structure that is:
(a) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the
requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
(b) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the
Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
(c) Individually listed on state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation
programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or
(d) Individually listed on a County inventory of historic places in communities with historic
preservation programs that have been certified either:
(1) By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or
(2) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.
Illegal Structure or Use means a structure or use that is not a legal structure or legal use as defined
in this chapter.
Legal Structure means a structure that was permitted by the floodplain regulation in effect at the
time construction commenced on the structure in its current configuration and received a pennit or
final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the structure in its current configuration.
Legal Use means a use that was permitted by the floodplain regulations at the time the use
commenced on the property.
Limited storage means that which is incidental and accessory to the principal use of the structure.
For example, if the structure is a residence, storage should be limited to items such as lawn and
garden equipment, tires, and other low damage items which will not suffer flood damage or can be
conveniently moved to the elevated part of the building. Flood insurance coverage for enclosures
below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is very limited.
Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or
storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided,
that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-
elevation design requirements of this chapter.
Manqfactured home means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation when connected
to the required utilities. The term also includes park trailer, travel trailers, and similar transportable
structures placed on a site for 180 consecutive days or longer and intended to be improved property.
Market value means the county property appraiser's value of the structure plus 20 percent. A
uniform appraisal report for determination of market value submitted by the applicant may be used
if the county building official considers such appraisal consistent with local construction costs.
Where appraisal is not accepted because it appears to be inconsistent with local construction costs
an applicant may request review by an independent third party appraiser duly authorized by the
county. The cost of independent review shall be borne by the applicant. The reviewing appraiser
shall determine if the appraisal value reasonably reflects an appropriate value of the structure. The
independent appraiser's detennination shall be in writing. Professionals preparing appraisal shall be
required to possess certifications as state certified residential appraisers for appraising one to four
family residential properties and state certified general appraisers for all other properties including
commercial and multi-residential
New construction means those structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after
January 1, 1975. New construction is also knows as post-FI'RM structures.
Nonconforming structure means a below base flood elevation structure or a portion thereof (such as
an enclosure, materials with no openings, flood resistant materials), which was lawfully existing or
permitted, and is not fully compliant with the terms of this chapter. A nonconforming structure shall
remain subject to the terms of this chapter.
Notice to proceed means written authorization by the County Growth Management Division to the
permittee authorizing permitted development to begin.
Pure manufactured home park means a manufactured home park that at the time of application has
no site-built residences or a park or subdivision which is limited to manufactured homes only by
this chapter.
Recreational vehicle means a vehicle that is:
(1) Built on a single chassis;
(2) Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection;
(3) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and
(4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters
for recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use.
Start of construction means (for other than new construction or substantial improvements under the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act) includes substantial improvements, and means the date the building
permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation,
addition, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. For substantial
improvements the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or
other structural part of a building whether or not the alteration affects the external dimensions of the
building. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure
on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of
columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a
foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and
filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation
for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include
the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as
dwelling units or not part of the main structure.
Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to it's before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred. All structures that are determined to be
substantially damaged are automatically considered to be substantial improvements, regardless of the
actual repair work performed. If the cost necessary to fully repair the structure to its before damage
condition is equal to or greater than 50% of the structure's market value before damages, then the
structure must be elevated (or flood proofed if it is non-residential) to or above the Base Flood
Elevation (BFE), and meet other applicable NFIP requirements. Iterns that may be excluded from the
cost to repair include plans, specifications, survey costs, permit fees, and other items which are
separate from the repair. Items that may also be excluded includes demolition or emergency repairs
(costs to temporarily stabilize a building so that it's safe to enter to evaluate and identify required
repairs) and improvements to items outside the building, such as the driveway, septic systems, wells,
fencing, landscaping and detached structures.
Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of
a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before
the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred
"substantial damage, "regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however,
include either:
I . Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local building official
and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions or
2. The cost of repairs required to remedy health, safety, and sanitary code deficiencies can be
deducted from the overall cost of an improvement, but only &
a. an appropriate regulatory official such as a building official, fire marshal, or health
officer was informed about and knows the extent of the code related deficiencies, and
b. the deficiency was in existence prior to the damage event or improvement and will not be
triggered solely by the fact that the structure is being improved or repaired.
In addition, for any repair required to meet health, sanitary, and safety codes, only the
minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions should be deducted, including those
improvements required by Chapter 11, 2012 Florida Accessibility Code. Costs of repairs that
are in excess of the minimum necessary for continued occupancy or use will be counted
toward the cost of the overall improvement; or
3. Any alterations of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the
structure's continued designation as a "historic structure."
Floodplain management requirements for new construction apply to substantial improvements.
Supplemental Information for Substantial Improvement
The basic types of improvements the could be made to structures include but are not limited to
rehabilitations or reconstructions that do not increase square footage, and lateral or vertical
additions that do increase square footage.
Rehabilitation or reconstruction would be a partial or complete "gutting" and replacement of
internal workings and may or may not include structural changes. If this action is substantial, i.e.,
over 50 percent of the structure's market value, it is considered new construction, and the entire
building must be elevated to or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) (or floodproofed if the
building is non-residential).
For a lateral addition, if the substantial improvement is to add a room or rooms outside the footprint
of the existing building, only the addition is required to be elevated to or above the BFE, i.e.; the
existing building does not have to be elevated. If the proposed lateral addition also includes
rehabilitation or remodeling of the existing building, then the whole project as a combination of
work must be considered. Vertical additions would require that the entire structure be elevated to or
above the BFE. Even though the improvement itself is entirely above the BFE, it is dependent on
the walls and foundation of the existing building for structural support.
(b) Except for work specifically exempted under chapter 6, the building official shall require
building pennits/Floodplain Development Permits for all proposed construction or other
improvements within areas of special flood hazard. In addition to the standard requirements for a
building permit, an application for a building permit for construction or improvements within areas
of special flood hazard shall contain the information and certifications set forth in a form provided
by the Building Official.
(c) All building foundations shall rest directly on natural rock, on concrete piling driven to rock or
on friction piling (concrete or wood) and shall be anchored to such rock support by holes, 16 inches
in minimum diameter, augured into such rock a minimum depth of three feet and reinforced by a
minimum of four #5 vertical rods extending up into the piers above a minimum of 18 inches and
tied to the vertical steel of the pier. Wooden pilings shall be locked into 16-inch auger foundations
by at least a #5 rebar extending through the piling and three to five inches beyond.
(d) The permit holder shall provide a floor elevation after the lowest floor is completed or, in
instances where the structure is subject to the regulations applicable to coastal high-hazard areas,
ZMEM
after placement of the lowest horizontal structural members of the lowest floor. Floodproofing
certification for nonresidential structures in A-Zones shall be provided prior to a certificate of
occupancy or prior to final inspection.
(e) Within 21 calendar days of establishment of the lowest floor elevation, or upon placement of
the lowest horizontal structural members of the lowest floor, whichever is applicable, it shall be the
duty of the pen holder to submit to the building official a certification of the elevation of the
lowest floor within A zones or the lowest portion of the lowest horizontal structural members of the
lowest floor within V zones, whichever is applicable, as built in relation to mean sea level. Such
certification shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a registered land surveyor or
professional engineer and certified by the same. When floodproofing is used for a building within A
zones, the certification shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a professional
engineer or architect and certified by same. Any work done within the 2l -day period and prior to
submission of the certification shall be at the permit holder's risk. The building official shall review
the floor elevation survey data submitted. Deficiencies detected by such review shall be corrected
by the permit holder immediately and prior to further progressive work being permitted to proceed.
Failure to submit the survey or failure to make the corrections required hereby shall be causes to
issue a stop-work order for the project.
(f) The degree of flood protection required in this chapter is reasonable for regulatory purposes
and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare
occasions, Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not
imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazard or uses permitted within such areas will be
free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the
county or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this
chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
Section 3. The Monroe County Land Development Code is amended by adding Section 122-8
as follows:
Sec. 122-8. Inclusion of United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FERIA) and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Required Permit Referral Process (PIMP) in
Final Permit Determinations for Development
(a) Purpose and intent. It is the purpose of Section 122-8 to implement regulations that will
assure, consistent with the 14 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, state and County
regulations, proper record retention, coordination, and notification of Fly MA and FWS
regarding permit applications filed with or issued by Monroe County, inclusive of
FEMAJFWS requirements agreed to by the applicant.
(b) Lands to which this Section apply. See Section 122-2 (b) 2.
(c) Rules for interpreting SFAMs. The boundaries of the flood hazard areas shown on the
FWS SFAMs may be determined by scaling distances. Required interpretations of those
maps for precise locations of such boundaries shall be made by the County Planning
Director or his/her designee, in consultation with the building official.
(d) Administration of Development Approval in Species Focus Areas.
1. SFAM Review Required, For parcels or lots shown within the
SF in which an application for development permit has been made,
if the SFAM indicates the parcel or lot contains only unsuitable habitat
for any of the following species: Key Largo Cotton Mouse, Key Largo
woodrat, Key tree-cactus, Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Eastern indigo
snake, Key deer, Schaus swallowtail butterfly, silver rice rate, and Stock
Island tree snail, and the parcel or lot is not listed on the RE list, the
Planning Director or his/her designee shall provide for a notation in the
development application permit files that indicates:
a. The name of the official that reviewed the development
application for FWS requirements;
b. The date of the review;
74 M_
Once the review has established that a parcel or lot contains
unsuitable habitat, action may be taken on the permit application for
development by Monroe County staff.
2. FWS Technical Assistance Permit Requirements. For
parcels or lots shown within the SFAMs in which an application for a
permit for development has been made including 1) expanding the
footprint of a structure; and/or 2) expanding clearing in habitat (including
native vegetation removal); and/or 3) placement of fencing into key deer
habitat, if the SFAM indicates the parcel or lot contains suitable habitat
for any of the following species: Key Largo Cotton Mouse, Key Largo
woodrat, Key tree-cactus, Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Eastern indigo
snake, Key deer, Schaus swallowtail butterfly, silver rice rat, and/or
Stock Island tree snail, and the parcel or lot is listed on the RE list, the
Planning Director or his/her designee shall use the SAGS to determine
whether a floodplain development permit application requires:
a. incorporation of FMS SAG requirements as conditions
into the Monroe County permit and the County may issue the
permit, pursuant to all applicable codes; or
b, if, according to the SAGS, the proposed development
needs technical assistance by the Service, the County shall issue
the permit in accordance with Chapter 2012-205, Laws of Florida,
indicating a Notice to Proceed must be obtained prior to any
construction, removal of vegetation, or commencement of
development, with a condition that:
i. the applicant seek and obtain technical assistance from
the Service; and
ii. the applicant obtain, prior to the issuance of the Notice
to Proceed, all applicable state or federal permits or
approvals pursuant to Section 122-2 (a); and
iii. In accordance with the Florida Building Code and
Monroe County Section 6-103 (b), the permit shall
expire after 180 days; and
iv. If the permit expires, the applicant shall be required to
reapply for the permit.
c. For a floodplain development permit application that
requires the Services' technical, assistance, Monroe County shall
provide the application to the Service weekly. Based on the
Services technical assistance, the applicant shall submit the FWS
written requirements to the County. If the applicant agrees to the
FWS requirements, in writing, Monroe County may then issue a
NOTICE TO PROCEED that includes the technical assistance
requirements, provided by the federal agency to avoid possible
impacts on federally listed (threatened or endangered) species, as
conditions in the Monroe County permit.
d. For a development permit application that requires
mitigation and/or compensation for adverse effects to native
habitat, monetary compensation generated will be applied to
restoration and/or purchase of native habitat.
e. The County shall maintain an applicant acceptance
form, of the Service requirements, in the permit file.
f. For purposes of this Chapter the Notice to Proceed shall
be written authorization from the Monroe County Growth
Management Division to the permittee that the pennitted
development activities may begin.
g. If the parcel is within an area previously covered by a
Habitat Conservation Plan, and where that Habitat Conservation
Plan has expired at the time of development permit application,
the County shall apply this Permit Referral Process, unless
mitigation was completed for the associated impacts.
h. If the property owner does not agree to the FWS
technical assistance requirements to be included in the
development permit as conditions, the County shall not issue the
notice to proceed and shall rescind the previously issued
development permit.
i. For properties located in Key Largo wood rat, Key
Largo cotton mouse, silver rice rat and Lower Keys marsh rabbit
habitat, property owners shall agree to execute and record a
covenant restriction in favor of Monroe County which prohibits
free ranging cats. This requirement alleviates direct and
cumulative loss of species habitat which will not negatively
impact the total number of new residential permits that may be
issued under Species Assessment Guides (SAGs).
3. Provision for Flood Hazard Reduction and Avoiding impacts
on federally listed (threatened or endangered) species
Enforcement. All proposed development shall meet the conditions
established on the floodplain development permit and/or notice to
proceed, which includes FWS technical assistance requirements
included as conditions on the Monroe County development
permits, to avoid possible impacts on federally-listed species
(threatened or endangered). Violation of this Chapter, including
any development constructed not in accordance with the FWS
requirements, included as conditions on the Monroe County
development permit, derived through use of the SAGS or through
technical assistance by FWS, are hereby deemed to be violations
of the County Code and may be enforced utilizing the
administrative enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 8,
Monroe County Code of Ordinances. Further, Section 118-11
shall be utilized to require environmental restoration standards.
4. Permit issuance for previously tolled Rate of Growth Ordinance
(R GO) allocations, Non-Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance
(NROGO) allocations or building permits/Floodplain
Development Permits. Building permits and allocations have been
tolled under authority of Monroe County Resolutions 420-20►5,
166-2006, 185-2007 & 219-2008 and 282-2011 as a result of the
injunction prohibiting FEMA from issuing flood insurance
policies under the National Flood Insurance Program which was
imposed in the case of Florida Key Deer et. aL,v. Fugate et. al.,
90-10037-CIV-Moore. In order for those persons whose
allocations or whose building permits were tolled to be eligible
for Federal flood insurance and meet their obligations under the
Federal Endangered Species Act, the following is required:
Owners with allocations who do not need coordination
with FWS after they are processed through the Permit
Referral Process:
1. Have 180 days from the date of a County issued
written notice to pick up their building permits;
•
2. Have 300 days from the date of a county issued
written notice, if there is a need to redesign an
onsite wastewater treatment system, to receive - a
permit from the Department of Health (DOH)
and pick up their building permits.
b. Owners with building permits who do not need
coordination with FWS after they are processed
through the Permit Referral Process
1. Have 180 days from the date of a County issued
written notice, to recommence development and
receive a passed inspection; or
2. Have 300 days from the date of a County issued
written notice, if there is a need to redesign an
onsite wastewater treatment system to receive a
permit from the DOH, recommence
development and receive a passed inspection.
c. Permit applications processed through the Permit
Referral Process that result in a "may affect
det ermination" for the proposed development through
the application of the Species Assessment Guides
which require the permittee to coordinate with FWS
shall have a total of 360 days from the date of a
County issued written notice to conclude the required
coordination with FWS and pick up the building
permit, and receive a Notice to Proceed from Monroe
County. This timeframe may be extended by the
Planning Director if the applicant can affirmatively
demonstrate that he has timely and actively sought
coordination.
d. Properties for which a Permit has been issued and for
which development has not commenced will be
required to be processed through the Permit Referral
Process. Permit reviews that result in a 'may affect
determination" for the proposed development through
the application of the Species Assessment Guides
which require the permittee to coordinate with FWS
shall have a total of 360 days from the date of a
County issued written notice to conclude the required
coordination with FWS, commence development and
receive a passed inspection from Monroe County.
This timeframe may be extended by the Planning
Director if the applicant can affirmatively demonstrate
that he has timely and actively sought coordination.
171-=�
Section 4, SeverabAill.
If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision of this Ordinance shall be
adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect,
impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this Ordinance, but the effect thereof shall be
confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision immediately involved
in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be rendered.
Section S. Conflictin2frovisions.
In the case of direct conflict between any provision of this ordinance and a portion or provision of
any appropriate federal, state or county law, rule, code or regulation, the more restrictive shall
apply.
Section 6. FiUn& Transmittah and Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and
transmitted to the State Land Planning Agency, but shall not become effective until a notice is
issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administrative Commission approving the ordinance
pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and after any appeal period has expired and the
injunction has been lifted in the case of Florida Key Deer et, al. v. Fugate et. al. , 90-10037-CIV-
Moore.
Section 7. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated into the Code of Ordinances of
the County of Monroe, Florida, as an addition or amendment thereto and shall be appropriately
numbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the Code,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at
a regular meeting held on the 20th day of June, 2012.
Mayor David Rice Yes
Mayor Pro Tern Kim Wigington Yes
Commissioner Heather Carruthers Yes
Commissioner George Neugent Yes
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROJE COUSITY
FLORIDA
BY
C)
Mayor David Rice
CA
�E ST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
-`7
M0 U ORNEY
P V o M
DEPUTY CLERK
Date
Z.-MORM
1.1.b
EXEMPTED,
DEDUCTED,
AND REMAINING
INCIDENTAL
TAKE IN ACRES
OF HABITAT THROUGH 9/12/17
s
v
°
N
N
W
W
O
V "
O
�j
N
m
p
O 7
y
yu
71
7
T
m m
�
TOTAL
EXEMPTED
772.5
290.6
217.8
217.8
249.5
217.2
83.6
172.3
249.5
INCIDENTAL TAKE
(ACRES)
9/13/12 to
0
0
0.15
0.15
0
0.15
0
0
0.15
9/12/13
9/13/13 to
0
2.92
0.12
0.12
0
0.12
2.92
2.92
3.03
9/12/14
9/13/14 to
0
0.35
0.52
0.52
0
0.28
0.52
0.4
0.66
9/12/15
9/13/15 to
0
0.07
0.29
0.29
0
0.29
0.41
0.41
0
9/12/16
9/13/16 to
0
0.11
0.28
0.28
0
0.28
0
0
0
9/12/17
CURRENTTOTAL
DEDUCTED
0
3.45
1.36
1.36
0
1.12
3.85
3.73
3.84
INCIDENTAL TAKE
(ACRES)
REMAINING
INCIDENTAL TAKE
772.5
287.15
216.44
216.44
249.5
216.08
79.75
168.57
245.66
(ACRES)
d
a
IL
IL
d
v
IL
y
w
E
d
IL
mR
mmm�
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1339 20' Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
mfflp�
MEMM3=
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
klk�q - I I _L IM
and Prudent Alternatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) April 30, 2010
Biological Opinion (BO) that was amended December 14, 20 10:
The requirements for an Annual Database Summary are further detailed in the Species Assessment
Guides' (SAGs) "Monitoring and Reporting Effects" sections for all nine federally listed species
that are reviewed under the Permit Referral Process (PRP) for unincorporated Monroe County:
omm
The BO covers nine federally listed species in the Florida Keys for a thirteen-year period from
2010 to 2023. The covered species covered are:
The BO, however, does not cover five additional Keys' species that were listed subsequent to its
publication:
Monroe County
USFWS P Annual Report, Dec. 2017
Approximately 19.8% (20) of all the issued permits were for parcels located in the Upper KeyN
the remaining 80.2% (Z 1 permits) were for Lower Keys' properties (Table 1). Of the A
Monroe County
USFWS PP Annual Report, Dec. 2017
floodplain development permit applications, 2 resulted in determinations that those projects had
impacts, as assessed by the SAGs, that "may affect" one or more of the listed species. Because of
the "may affect" determinations, these 2 permits were referred to the Service for technical
Monroe County
USFWS P Annual Report, Dec. 2017 4
Monroe County
USFWS PRP Annual Report, Dec. 2017
1.1.c
Table l. ISSUED FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ASSESSED BY PERMIT REFERRAL PROCESS (PRP)
REPORTING PERIOD FROM 09/13/2016 to 09/12/2017
SFR -cony = conventional single family residence; SFR -mod = modular; SFR -afford = affordable housing
NO.
Date of
Permit
Issuance
KEY
Property
Identification
Number
Permit No.
Permit Type
Project
Area
(sq. ft.)
Impact
Area
(sq. ft.)
Monroe County and USFWS
Conservation Measures
ISSUED PERMITS WITH MAY AFFECT PRP DETERMINATION
1
4/10/2017
SUGARLOAF
00169860 - 000000
15103304
SFR -mod
5,000
5,000
Free - roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
2
11/10/2016
KEY LARGO
00573670- 000100
16401124
SFR -conv
26,736
12,020
Free - roaming cat OAPC/deed restriction
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
TOTALS FOR MAY AFFECT PERMITS
31,736
17,020
ISSUED PERMITS WITH NLAA (NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT) PRP DETERMINATIONS OR COVERED BY THE HCP
1
08/30/17
RAMROD KEY
00210811 - 011400
17104911
FENCE
3,250
0
Key deer compliant fencing
2
08/24/17
RAMROD KEY
00209971 - 002300
17104576
FENCE
6,000
0
Key deer compliant fencing
3
08/18/17
DUCK KEY
00379940 - 000000
16201613
SFR -conv
7,496
6,400
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
4
08/17/17
CUDJOE KEY
00179710- 000000
16107936
SFR -mod
6,000
0
NA
5
08/17/17
KEY LARGO
00497850- 000000
16306832
SFR -conv
8,050
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
6
08/17/17
SUGARLOAF KEY
00166977- 004800
17101045
SFR -mod
7,863
01
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free - roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
7
08/16/17
KEY LARGO
00501270- 000000
16302360
SFR -conv
6,600
3,0001
DAPC for indigo snake protection measures
8
08/15/17
BIG PINE KEY
00285380- 000000
14102226
SFR -mod
6,000
0
HCP
9
08/09/17
RAMROD KEY
00203760- 000000
16108997
SFR -mod
9,184
5,724
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
10
08/09/17
RAMROD KEY
00203700- 000000
17101319
SFR -mod
9,000
TBD - Corps
permit
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free - roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
11
08/09/17
BIG PINE KEY
00248730 - 000000
17104558
FENCE
7,500
0
HCP
12
08/07/17
DUCK KEY
00380590- 000000
16208677
SFR -conv
7,632
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
13
08/02/17
KEY LARGO
00464850- 000000
16308082
SFR -mod
5,350
3,0001
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
14
08/01/17
BIG PINE KEY
00285491- 002600
14103524
SFR -conv
16,750
01
HCP
15
07/26/17
CUDJOE KEY
00174631 - 000600
16108838
SFR -conv
9,988
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
16
07/21/17
KEY LARGO
00572460- 000000
17403461
SFR -conv
22,501
0
NA
17
07/19/17
LITTLE TORCH KEY
00219300- 000000
16108412
SFR -mod
7,412
0
NA
18
07/18/17
SUGARLOAF KEY
00166570 -00000
17100121
SFR -mod
10,319
0
NA
19
07/18/17
CUDJOE KEY
00178550- 000000
17100656
SFR -mod
6,000
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
20
07/18/17
RAMROD KEY
00203980 - 000100
17100660
SFR -mod
9,799
0
NA
21
07/18/17
RAMROD KEY
00204410- 000000
17101777
SFR -mod
6,000
01
NA
22
07/10/17
BIG PINE KEY
00248510- 000000
17103491
FENCE
7,500
01
HCP
23
07/06/17
RAMROD KEY
00210811 - 004900
17104318
FENCE
8,032
0
Key deer compliant fencing
24
06/30/17
BIG PINE KEY
00285270 - 000000
16103723
SFR -mod
5,400
0
HCP
25
06/29/17
BIG PINE KEY
00248900- 000000
17103787
FENCE
11,250
0
HCP
26
06/09/17
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
00159460 - 000000
16107149
SFR -mod
5,604
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free - roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
27
06/06/17
SUGARLOAF KEY
00168870- 000100
15104656
SFR -mod
5,000
0
NA
28
06/06/17
GRASSY KEY
00098970- 000000
15201297
SFR -conv
49.4 AC
7,500
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
29
06/05/17
BIG PINE KEY
00312572- 002100
17103854
FENCE
6,000
0
HCP
30
05/19/17
BIG PINE KEY
00245730- 000000
17102437
SFR -mod
6,599
0
HCP
31
05/17/17
SUGARLOAF KEY
00117510- 005601
13103520
SFR -conv
44,500
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free- roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
32
05/16/17
BIG PINE KEY
00304480- 000000
16106574
FENCE
3,620
0
HCP
33
05/12/17
RAMROD KEY
00202290 - 000000
16108623
SFR -mod
6,000
5,3701
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
34
05/12/17
KEY LARGO
00464400- 000000
16303138
SFR -conv
5,500
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
35
05/12/17
BIG PINE KEY
00310730- 000000
17103064
FENCE
11,866
0
HCP
36
05/11/17
DUCK KEY
00382980- 000000
16207075
SFR -conv
7,492
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
37
05/11/17
KEY LARGO
00496131- 012500
16305311
SFR -conv
10,827
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
38
05/09/17
SUGARLOAF KEY
00163800 - 000100
16108434
SFR -mod
8,053
0
NA
39
05/05/17
MIDDLE TORCH KEY
00112870 - 000000
17103013
FENCE
111,638
0
Key deer compliant fencing
40
05/02/17
BIG PINE KEY
00270270- 000000
17102024
FENCE
820
01
HCP
41
04/25/17
CUDJOE KEY
00180940 - 000000
16101068
SFR -mod
6,187
5,880
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
42
04/25/17
CUDJOE KEY
00180950 - 000000
16101071
SFR -mod
6,187
5,880
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
43
04/25/17
KEY LARGO
00085670- 000000
16305780
SFR -conv
6,000
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
44
04/24/17
SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
00159440- 000000
16101820
SFR -mod
5,686
0
Free - roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
45
04/21/17
SHARK KEY
00159252- 002600
16106221
SFR -conv
18,850
0
NA
46
04/18/17
CUD10E KEY
00184910- 000000
16107861
SFR -mod
7,500
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
47
04/12/17
DUCK KEY
00381530- 000000
16206583
SFR -mod
7,500
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
48
04/10/17
DUCK KEY
00383050- 000000
16208555
SFR -mod
7,838
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
49
04/07/17
BIG PINE KEY
00244810 - 000000
15103163
SFR -mod
6,000
0
HCP
50
04/05/17
KEY LARGO
00549970- 000000
16306431
SFR -conv
1 5,500
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
511
03/09/17
1 BIG PINE KEY
00248540- 000000
15101689
SFR -mod
7,500
0
HCP
521
02/06/17
1 KEY LARGO
00467160 - 000000
1 16302160
SFR -conv
6,360
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
N
R
CL
a
Q'
a
N
N
V
O
ii
�E
L
d
d
Q'
L
4)
IL
r-
r
O
N
tG
r
O
N
O
CL
d
w
a
w
IL
R
7
C
C
Q
t
r
LL
C
N
E
.O
V
M
r
Q
Packet Pg. 1593
1.1.c
Table 1. (CONTINUED)
ISSUED FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ASSESSED BY PERMIT REFERRAL PROCESS (PRP)
REPORTING PERIOD FROM 09/13/2016 to 09/12/2017
SFR -conv = conventional single family residence; SFR -mod = modular; SFR- afford = affordable housing
N0,
Date of
Permit
Issuance
KEY
Property
Identcation
Number
Permit No.
Permit Type
Project
Area
(sq. ft,
Impact
Area
(sq. ft,
Monroe County and USFWS
Conservation Measures
ISSUED PERMITS WITH NLAA (NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT) PRP DETERMINATIONS OR COVERED BY THE HCP
53
02/02/17
KEY LARGO
00529280- 000000
16300496
SFR -conv
2,700
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
54
02/02/17
KEY LARGO
00529290- 000000
16300497
SFR -conv
2,700
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
55
01/30/17
KEY LARGO
00530650- 000000
16303743
SFR -conv
2,500
2,500
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
56
01/26/17
KEY HAVEN
00138270- 000000
16106192
SFR -conv
6,000
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
57
01/26/17
CUDJOE KEY
00187600 - 000000
16106821
SFR -mod
7,500
0
NA
58
01/26/17
DUCK KEY
00381050- 000000
16204985
SFR -conv
7,500
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
59
01/25/17
SHARK KEY
00159252 - 000900
15100867
SFR -conv
16,907
01
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free- roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
60
01/25/17
BIG PINE KEY
00245260- 000000
16101245
SFR -mod
6,000
0
HCP
61
01/25/17
BIG COPPITT KEY
00150200- 000000
16104255
SFR -mod
7,500
0
NA
62
01/25/17
LITTLE TORCH KEY
00223050 - 000000
16104404
SFR -mod
6,000
0
NA
63
01/25/17
BIG COPPITT KEY
00149011- 000500
16106876
SFR -mod
7,000
0
NA
64
01/20/17
BIG PINE KEY
00111078- 000000
16106247
MULTI FAM AFH
53,438
0
HCP
Free-roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
65
01/10/17
CUDJOE KEY
0017364 - 0000000
16105670
1 SFR -conv
9,640
01
NA
66
01/10/17
CUDJOE KEY
00187620 - 000000
16106545
SFR -mod
7,500
0
NA
67
12/22/16
1 KEY LARGO
00549960- 000000
16301624
SFR -conv
6,000
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
68
12/19/16
BIG PINE KEY
00310490 - 000000
7103911
SFR -mod
5,000
0
HCP
69
12/16/16
SUGARLOAF KEY
00166977 - 002000
16104150
SFR -mod
8,000
0
NA
70
12/15/16
BIG PINE KEY
00271270 - 000000
7102237
SFR -conv
6,000
2,128
HCP
71
12/15/16
SUGARLOAF KEY
00163730- 000000
16104463
SFR -conv
15,000
0
NA
72
12/15/16
SUGARLOAF KEY
00166977 - 004000
16108124
FENCE
8,000
01
Key deer compliant fencing
73
12/14/16
KEY LARGO
00548670- 000000
16300521
SFR -conv
7,200
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
74
11/29/16
BIG PINE KEY
00286140- 000000
16107845
FENCE
10,650
0
HCP
75
11/22/16
BIG COPPITT KEY
00151120- 000000
16103704
SFR -mod
8,000
0
NA
76
11/18/16
BIG PINE KEY
00249560- 000000
14101545
SFR -conv
7,500
0
HCP
77
11/18/16
BIG COPPITT KEY
00158510- 000100
15106223
SFR -mod
4,250
0
NA
78
11/18/16
RAMROD KEY
00203550- 000000
16103886
SFR -mod
6,000
0
NA
79
11/18/16
RAMROD KEY
00200820 - 000000
16102063
SFR mod
7,800
7,800
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free - roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
80
11/17/16
SUGARLOAF KEY
00172061- 003400
16101888
SFR -mod
6,193
01
NA
81
11/16/16
SUGARLOAF KEY
00166977 - 004700
16102615
SFR -mod
8,000
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free - roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
82
11/16/16
RAMROD KEY
00200830 - 000000
16107606
FILL (atf)
7,800
6,820
NA
83
11/14/16
LITTLE TORCH KEY
00219770 - 000000
16101289
SFR -conv
6,456
0
NA
84
11/14/16
KEY LARGO
00501240- 000000
16300972
SFR -conv
6,600
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
85
11/08/16
BIG PINE KEY
00311870- 000000
16107642
FENCE
6,477
0
HCP
86
11/04/16
KEY LARGO
00445960- 000000
16302627
SFR -conv
6,000
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
87
10/26/16
RAMROD KEY
0020994- 0000000
16102568
SFR -mod
6,000
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
88
10/25/16
KEY LARGO
00551260 - 000000
15305136 1
SFR -conv
11,827
0
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
89
10/24/16
RAMROD KEY
00209650 - 000000
16107338
FENCE
6,000
0
Key deer compliant fencing
90
10/21/16
BIG PINE KEY
00285550 -000000
16104264
WALL
17,500
0
HCP
91
10/19/16
SUGARLOAF KEY
00170540- 000000
16103630
SFR -mod
5,000
0
NA
92
10/18/16
BIG PINE KEY
00249840 - 000000
16107213
FENCE
7,500
0
HCP
93
10/14/16
KEY LARGO
00543910- 000000
16302903
SFR -conv
6,300
3,000
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
94
10/13/16
MONTALVO
00209970- 000000
16104611
FENCE
13,253
0
Key deer compliant fencing
95
10/11/16
BIG PINE KEY
00266720- 000000
16106232
FENCE
8,600
0
HCP
96
10/07/16
BIG PINE KEY
00312800- 000000
16106300
FENCE
5,500
0
HCP
97
10/03/16
SUMMERLAND KEY
00198730- 000000
16107097
FENCE
6,600
0
Key deer compliant fencing
98
09/30/16 1
SUGARLOAF KEY 1
00166977- 004000
16102806
SFR -mod
8,0001
01
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
Free- roaming cat OAPC /deed restriction
991
09/28/16 1
KEY LARGO 1
00519830- 000100
15305578
SFR -conv
6,6501
3,0001
OAPC for indigo snake protection measures
N
R
IZ
a
Q'
a
In
In
N
V
O
L
a
�E
L
L
d
Q'
r
E
L
d
IL
O
N
tG
CD
N
O
SZ
d
Q'
a
w
LL
ra
7
C
C
Q
t
LL
C
N
E
t
V
M
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 1594
Table 2. SERVICE DETERMINATION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE IN SQUARE FEET OF HABITAT FOR ISSUED PERMITS REFERRED TO USFWS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Property
Eastern
Key Largo
r
Lag o
Key ey La
Key Tree
Schaus
Lower
Keys
Silver Rice
Stock
NO.
Key
Identification
Permit No.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
Indigo
Key Deer
Cotton
r
Cactus
Swallowtail
Marsh
Rat
Island Tree
Number
Snake
Mouse
Butterfly
Rabbit
Snail
1
SUGARLOAF
00169860 - 000000
15103304
1 24.6663889
1 - 81.528611
NLAA
5000
NLAA
I NLAA
2 KEY LARGO 00573670- 000100 16401124 125.298512781 - 80.29028
NLAA
12020
12020
NLAA
12020
1
NLAA
TOTAL EXEMPTED INCIDENTAL TAKE FOR SPECIES
33,650,100
12,658,536
9,487,368
9,487,368
10,868,220
9,461,232
3,641,616
7,505,388
10,868,220
PRIOR YEAR(S) CUMULATIVE DEDUCTED INCIDENTAL TAKE (9/13/12 to 9/12/16)
0
145,178
46,881
46,881
0
36,739
167,368
162,270
167,730
CURRENT REPORTING PERIOD DEDUCTED INCIDENTAL TAKE (9/13/16 to 9/12/17)
0
5,000
12,020
12,020
0
12,020
0
0
0
REMAINING INCIDENTALTAKE
33,650,100
12,508,358
9,428,467
9,428,467
10,868,2.201
9,412,473
3,474,248
7,343,118
10,700,490
n
<D
n
L c�i, Attachment: Fifth Annual PRP Report 2016 -2017 (Permit Referral Process (PRP) Update) r I
Table 3. MONROE COUNTY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUED "MAY AFFECT" PERMITS
Property
CONSERVATION
TRANSPLANTING
MITIGATION
NO.
Key
Identification
Permit No.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
EASEMENT (SQ FT)
PLAN
PAYMENT
Number
1
SUGARLOAF
00169860- 000000
15103304
24.6663889
- 81.528611
NO
NO
NO
2
KEY LARGO
00573670 - 000100
1 16401124
25.29851278
- 80.29028
18,203
NO
$134,385.76
TOTALS
18,203
$134,385.76
a�
m
3
tn
rn
Attachment: Fifth Annual PRP Report 2016 -2017 (Permit Referral Process (PRP) Update)
3
Table 4. EXEMPTED, DEDUCTED, AND REMAINING INCIDENTAL TABS IN SQUARE FEET OF HABITAT AND NUMBER OF RESIDENCES FROM 9/13/12 TO 9/12/37.
Sk
La° 1
ct' �►`� ` ,poi \� �'�` rr � °'� �� °'�° �a'� fP � `
°
i� � X00 �0 ° ��� �° C� e�� p °� Q °� e °� �A
v e
s
TOTAL EXEMPTED INCIDENTAL TAKE
33,650,100 12,668,636 9,481,368 9 76 1 10,868 9,461,732 3,641,816 286 1 676 7,606,388 622 349 10,868,220
PRIOR YEAR(S) CUMULATIVE DEDUCTED INCIDENTAL
TAKE (9/13/12 to 9/12/361
0 145,178 46,8111 46,861 0 0 36,739 167,368 0 0 i 762,270 0 0 161,730
CURRENT REPORTING PERIOD DEDUCTED INCIDENTAL
TAKE (9113/16 to 9/12/17)
0 5 121020 "Am 1 0 0 12 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AVAILABLE REMAINING TAKE BEGINNING 9/13/17 33,650,100 12,508,358 9,426,467 I 9,428,467 76 1008,220 9,412A73 3,474,248 296 575 7,343,118 522 349 10,700,490
0
<D
3
to
w
4
Attachment: Fifth Annual PRP Report 2016 -2017 (Permit Referral Process (PRP) Update)
3
0
.. 1 t } \ {
Species Assess e?\ Guid ?
July ?f 2013
gusulm
Eastern indigo snake Species Assessment Guide
Threats: Although the species may occur in all referenced habitats, it is suspected that they prefer
hammocks and pine forest, because most observations occur in these habitats disproportionately to
their presence in the landscape (Steiner et al. 1983). In the Florida Keys, the primary threat to the
indigo snake is native habitat loss and fragmentation due to development. Residential housing is also
a threat because it increases the likelihood of indigo snakes being killed • property owners.
A. Parcel is not in the species focus area and/or on the Real Estate (RE) parcel list............ no effect
Parcel is in the species focus area or on the RE parcel list ................................................. go to B
M I M - IMIN Mlwlr - r
Fill iiiiiiii
i
E. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area
within 500 feet • the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed • scarified ............ go to G
The property is not as above .................................................................... go to F
July 29, 2013 ?
z •�
maj #I Jim I un 14 Lei I a rm I I I I tqml I Irg I I - W - - - - -
G. The applicant has received a copy of the Service's indigo snake protection measures
and has agreed to implement the measures and post the inforination sign on-site.
Signed verification of this is in the pem file maintained by the NFIP participant
*Habitat Compensation
Tlym Uf rt rif I ta ffcj - II LIaII31111L a 11
numbers and acreage of take to the Service quarterly.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
malgam
�teiner, T.M., O.L. Bass, Jr., and J.A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the eastern indigo snake in southern
Florida National Parks and vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC-83iO 1,
Everglades National Park; I lomestead, Florida.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Eastern indigo snake observation; Little Knockemdown Key
Email and photo provided to KDNWR, Big Pine Key, Florida.
July 29, 2013 4
Eastern Indigo Snake Protection Measures
It appears that harm to the eastern indigo snake occurs primarily through construction accidents, vehicular
strikes, and habitat loss and/or degradation. These adverse effects can be minimized by maintaining a carefial
watch during construction and when traveling onsite to avoid killing snakes. In addition, protecting burrows
and leaving native vegetation as reffi onsite for i di o snakes distisdaced bVA construction activiVA can benefit
this species.
The eastern indigo snake is not likely to be adversely affected if the following measures are implemented for
the project.
Other useful educational materials may consist • a combination of posters, videos, pamphlets, and lecttire�
an observer trained to identilAl ea .4min r + d instruct construction before ano
clearing activities occur).
Dead, injured, or sick animals: If a dead, injured, or sick eastern indigo snake is found onsite, notification
should be made to the Service at the address listed above. Secondary notification should be made to the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; South Region; 3900 Drane Field Road; Lakeland, FL
33811; Wildlife Alert Number 1-800-404-3922.
b
O
w
ci
C
C2
0
^o
cl
L
W
CIO
ca
W
• v, O o � � C � � � u v v '
bJbn R rA
em to
O G2
p , � � � � � � � •> i i
O., rn i�. O Q Q
t3 N PC ® G ca .0 Q. C
�
P C
O c' b
ow
wl
s U. N A., > • L
o > m >, y o= 6 u v� w
CLI cc3 cd O = .0 W A ci G cd %
C!1 N O O
o
o
b
-v o °
> O
U y..,
p •�
t O
O O
O
�"
O
U c
ar LL.
as
�
N
- 4 ®
cq U
U
bb
rn p nd V
y p ~
4- 40
co ul G
O
0b0� .®
cd 0 ^C
Ln
�,
� ai rs.y
cd
.ao
an o
=
bA Q
C
O
.9 — N
cSf
aU+
cd
'
p
4�
W
U W 00
�`b >,O
Z N a�
to
N p p
cd bb
' ' c r. � vi � -fl C
® O O
b
L O 0 42 cd cd -
0 cc
v
b
v C', 3
a cL O
c z 0 0 v =
cd 7- m ca
c t
t"�4. cz
.W
Wor�o�s;
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the Key de -rill
included all 13 land cover types. We also noted that potential habitat is present only in
unincorporated Monroe County (Lower Keys only).
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
U
Parcel is in the species focus area or on the • parcel list ................................. go to B
W
Parcel is not on Big Pine Ke)� or No Name Kev ........... .....................
July 29, 2013 2
RMI=_
Parcel contains native habitat (hammock, pineland, scrub mangrove, fi - eshwater wetland,
salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, • beach beiin) ........................................ go to F
U. The proposed action will not remove or modify native habitat ................................... go to H
The proposed action will remove or modify native habitat. A vegetation survey is required
to document the native plant species and size present on the property and a general
description of the surrounding properties within 500 feet is also required. Once complete ...
....................................................................................................................................... U0 to G
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or the proposed habitat
comUensation* does not meet minimum comnensation reauirements ............... mag Uffgct
11 1 1
1 11111 , 0
P414 WIN INT N kyj
The proposed action includes fencing that is not compliant with the attached Key deer
fencing guidelines. Habitat fragmented by non-compliant fencing will be considered a
deduction from the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses referenced in the BO ... may affect
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres of additional
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
compensation are provided, the credit granted would be 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
MAM
Literature Cited
Folk, M.L. 1991. Habitat of the Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale,
Illinois.
Hardin, J.W. 1974. Behavior, socio-biology, and reproductive life history of the Florida Key deer,
0doeoileus virginianus elaviuni. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University;
Carbondale, Illinois.
K limstra, W.D., J.W. Hardin, and N.J. Sihey. 1978. Population ecology of Key deer. Pages 313-321
In: P.H. Oehser and J. S. Lea (eds.) Research Reports, 1969. National Geographic Society;
walmllq• M'
Klimstra, W.D., J.W. Hardin, N.J. Silvy, B.N. Jacobson, and V.A. Terpening. 1974. Key deer
investigations final report: December 1967 - June 1973. U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Key Deer Reffige; Big Pine Key, Florida.
Lopez, R.R. 2001. Population ecology of Florida Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas AM
University, College Station, Texas.
Lopez, R R., N. 1. Silvy, B. L. Pierce, P. A. Frank, M. T. Wilson, and K. M. Burke. 200.
Population density of the endangered Florida Key deer. Journal of Wildlife Management.
68(3):570-575.
Lopez, RR, N.J. Silvy, N. Wilkens, P.A. Frank, M.I. Peterson, and M.N. Peterson. 2004c. Habitat-
use patterns of Florida Key deer: implications of urban development. Journal of Wildlife
Management 68(4):900-908.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc.St.
Petersburg, Florida
July 29, 2013 4
IL4311M
MMMM
The purpose • this section is to recognize and provide for the particular habitat needs of the
Florida Key Deer (0docoileus virginianits clavium) on Big Pine Key and No Name Key so that
deer movement throughout Big Pine Key and No Name Key is not hindered while allowing for
reasonable use of minimal fencing for the purposes of safety and protection of property. In
addition to all other standards set forth in this section, all fences located on Big Pine Key and
111111111111:qfflwmi # i�
a. In the improved subdivision (IS) land use district, fences shall be set back as follovIl
On canal lots, fences shall be set back at least 15 feet from the edge of abutting
street riLylits-of- ., , and built to t ie edge nf ill Qjher crofterto lines or as approved
through a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordination letter; and
Mvv•
Key Deer Species Assessment Guide
2. On all other lots, fences shall be set back at least 15 feet from the edge of abutting
street rights-of-way, at least five feet from side property lines and at least ten feet
from the rear property line, or as approved through a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service coordination letter.
C. All fences shall be designed and located such that Key Deer corridors, as identified by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be maintained.
C. Fences shall not be permitted without a principal use except where the enclosed area
consists
• disturbed lands or disturbed land with exotics.
July 29, 2013 6
rITY-frolm-
Ma2mim
Key tree-cactus
Threats: In the Florida Keys, the primary threat to the Key tree-cactus is native habitat loss and
fragmentation due to development, although much of the suitable protected habitat is currently
unoccupied. Natural disasters such, as hurricanes and drought can have a significant effect.
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of the Key tree-cactus' native habitat
(i.e., hammock • beach berin) ................................................................. NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of the Key tree-cactus' native habitat (i.e.,
hammock or beach berin). A vegetation survey is required to document plant species and
size present prior to construction impact. A general description of the surrounding
properties within 500 feet is also required ................................................................ .Lo to C
UEMZM���
July 29, 2013 2
Key tree-cactus
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinane
additional review by the Service will be necessary. I
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
Literature Cited
Adams, R.M. and A. X. Lima. 1994. The natural history of the Florida Keys tree cactus,
Pilosocereus robinii. Unpublished Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Jacksonville, Florida.
Austin, D.F. 1980. Cereus robinii var. robinii and Cereus robinii var. deeringii. In:
► .F. Austin, C.E. Naumann, and B.E. Tatie (eds.) Endangered and threatened plant species
survey in Southern Florida and the National Key Deer and Great White Heron National
Wildlife Refuges. U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office;
Atlanta, Georgia.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2008. Element Tracking Summary. Tallahassee,
Florida.
July 29, 2013 3
Key tree-cactus
I
Maschinski, J., J.L. Goodman, and D. Powell. 200• . Assessment of Population Status and Causes
of Decline for Pilosocereus robinii (Lem.) Byles & G.D. Rowley in the Florida Keys. Final
Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero
Beach, FL.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc.St.
Petersburg, Florida
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. Atlanta,
Georgia.
July 29, 2013 4
Species Profile: The Key Largo cotton mouse builds leaf-lined nests in logs, tree hollows, and
rock crevices. The entrances measure 1.2 to 3.5 inches in diameter. The cotton mouse often
partially covers entrances with leaves or bark. Their holes are usually located at the bases of
trees, or near or in woodrat nests. They also use recently burned areas where bracken fem
(Pteridium aquilinum) dominates ground layers (Goodyear 1985).
Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse Species Assessment Guide
The Key Largo cotton mouse feeds on leaves, buds, seeds, and fruits. They breed throughout the
Vear and produce two to three litters annually. The average litter is four and the cotton mouse's
average life expectancy is 5 months. However, individuals may live for 2 to 3 years (Service
2009).
July 29, 2013 2
WJMMM
Service will notify FEMA and the acreage of impacts will be subtracted from the take limits
provided in the BO. This guide is subject to revision as necessary.
A. Parcel is located in the species focus area, buffer area, or on the Real Estate (RE) Parcel
list ............................................................................... .................. go to B
i I Eff I I'M
A. Parcel is in the species focus area in North Key Largo. The Service will examine the sitL"-
specific parameters of the habitat and proposed development .......................... may affect
Parcel is located in the buffer area (a zone extending 500 meters [1,641 feet] from the focus
area). If a parcel is mapped as being both within the species focus area and the buffer zone,
Parcel is in South Key Largo ................... ............................................... go to C
C. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of these species' native habitat
(hammock, beach berm, and native habitat in the undeveloped lands classification)..
............................ I ............................... .............................. _ .......... NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of these species' native habitat (hammock,
beach berrn, and native habitat in the undeveloped lands classification). A vegetation
survey is required to document the native plant species and size present on the property and
a general description of the surrounding properties within 500 feet is also required. Once
thesehave been completed ..................................................................................... go to D
D. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified .................... NLAA
The property is not as above and contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of this
species' native habitat greater than I acre in size. Further coordination with the Service is
necessary and a small marnmal survey may be reguired ............................... mat affect
mr. M I 11W.1 Imill"111 a till a grallorgym M4 I
E. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost ......................................................... NLAA
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
meet minimum compensation reguirements .............................................. /lug IL&CL
F. The applicant proposes the construction of a new residence and does not agree to
enforceable cat restrictions" ................................................................. go to G
Proposal is for actions other than a new residence OR is for a residence with enforceable
cat restrictions". Provide cat brochure ..................................................... NL.,
G. Parcel is within a canal subdivision and is separated by a canal, open water, or US-1 from
these species' native habitat in the buffered woodrat/cotton mouse focus area OR the parcel
is adjacent to less than I acre of these species' native habitat in the buffered woodrat/cotton
mouse focus area. Provide cat brochure .................................................................. VLA,0 —
The parcel is not as above ..................................................................... go to H
H. The new residence is proposed in the buffer area, does not result in a cumulative loss
species habitat, and the total number of new residential pen issued in buffer lands h
not exceeded 76. Provide cat brochure .................................. take exempted in B
additional consultation with the Service not required I
The proposed new residence in the buffer exceeds the limits of take in the 2010 BO
(76 residences) ............................ ............................................... may affect
au����
If habitat compensation is being provided in excess of the minimum recommended, the Service
may consider the additional compensation as a credit to the not-to-exceed habitat acreage losses
referenced in the BO. To be considered for credit, the compensation must be like for like habitat
compensation and credit will be granted at half value. For example, if 4 acres • additional
compensation are provided, the credit granted would • 2 acres. This partial credit is considered
July 29, 2013 4
Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse Species Assessment Guide
appropriate as existing vegetation currently provides benefit and the credit vegetation may not
provide the same habitat benefit until later in time.
WaN116y M I I -
in Key Largo wood rat and Key Largo cotton mouse habitat to agree to execute and record a
covenant restriction in favor of Monroe County which prohibits keeping free-ranging cats.
lm�
Literature Cited
Brown, L.N. 1978a. Key Largo cotton mouse. Pages 10-11. In: J.N. Layne (ed.) Rare and endangered
biota of Florida, Volume 1: Mammals. University Presses of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
Brown, L.N. 1978b. Key Largo woodrat. Pages 11-12. In: J.N. Layne (ed.) Rare and endangered
biota
• Florida, Volume 1: Mammals. University Presses of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
Frank, P.A. H.F. Percival, and B. Keith. 1997. A status survey for the Key Largo woodrat and Key
Largo cotton mouse on North Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. Unpublished report, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.
Goodyear, N.C. 1985. Results of a study of Key Largo woodrats and cotton mice: Phase 1, spring and
summer 1985. Unpublished report to North Key Largo Study Committee.
Hersh, S.L. 198 1. Ecology oft e Key Largo woodrat (Neoton7afloridana smalli). Journal of
Mammalogy 62(1 ):201-206.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc. St.
Petersburg, Florida
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Key largo cotton mouse, 5-year status review. Atlanta,
Georgia.
July 29, 201 3 5
MMEM 111 11 ililillil 1 111 11 , 1 111111:1:111pilipplig ===
Typical LATM habitat includes wetlands with a dense herbaceous cover that is dominateg=y4
mixture of grasses, sedges, and forbs. This community is considered a transitional plant
community that is similar in forin and species composition to comparable communities
interspersed among the mangrove forests of mainland Florida (Forys and Humphrey 1994).
Forys (1995) concluded that marsh rabbits spend most of their time in the mid-marsh (seaside
Species Assessment Guide
oxeye) and high-marsh (cordgrasses and marsh fimbry) and avoid areas with mature
buttonwoods and high canopy cover.
Marsh rabbits have been documented to feed on at least 19 different plant species (Forys 1995).
However, the most abundant species in the rabbit's diet is seashore dropseed, glassworts,
cordgrass, seaside oxeye, red mangrove, and white mangrove.
101 Lejr-Imm I I rwbw ILYA ar-D Ig,
July 29, 2013 2
Species Assessment Guide
NOTE: The Service recommends that all new residences in the LKMR focus area or
buffer, except as outlined in couplet G (below), be subject to a covenant restriction which
prohibits keeping free-ranging cats, per Monroe County Ordinance 015-2012, Section 122-
8(d)2-i**. A new residence for which the applicant does not agree to such a restriction
shall be subtracted from the allocated residences take (couplet H).
[I I WN,=11MMIa
Parcel is located in the buffer area (a zone extending 5 00 meters [ 1,641 feet] from the focus
area). If a parcel is mapped as being both within the species focus area and the buffer zone,
it should be wholly considered as being in the species focus area ............................... g a
to F
Parcel is not in the species focus area, the buffer area, or on the RE parcel list ... no effect
B. Parcel is on Big Pine Key or No Name Key ... ............................. refer to HCPfor coverage
C. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of this species' native habitat
(pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, and beach
berm) .......................................................... .............................................................. go to F
The applicant proposes removal or modification of this species' native habitat (pinclands,
scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, and beach berm). A
vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and size present on the
property and a general description of the surrounding properties within 500 feet is also
I equired. Once these have been completed ................................................... go to D
I FG. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified ................ go to F
The property is not as above, and contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of this
species' native habitat greater than I acre in size, Further coordination with the Service is
I ecessary and a small marnmal survey may be required ............................... may affect
Species Assessment Guide
E. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurat-4
with the amount of native habitat lost ........................................................ go to F
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
meet minimum compensation requirements .............................................. may affect
F. The applicant proposes the construction of a new residence and does not agree to
enforceable cat restrictions" ................................................................ go to G
1 is for actions other than a new residence OR is for a residence with enforceable
cat restrictions". Provide cat brochure ..................................................... NLAA
G. Parcel is within a canal subdivision and is separated by a canal, open water, and/or US-1
from this species' native habitat in the buffered LKMR focus area OR the parcel is adjacent
to less than I acre of this species' native habitat in the buffered LK-MR focus area. Provide
c,?-t brochure ............................................................................................................ NLAA
The parcel is not as above ........ ......................................................... go to H
H. The new residence is proposed in the species focus area, does not result in a cumulati-"
loss of species habitat, and the total of new residential permits issued in the focus ar
lands has not exceeded 296. Provide cat brochure........ take exempted in BO, addition.]
consultation with the Service not required
The new residence is proposed in the buffer area and the total number of new residential
permits issued in buffer lands has not exceeded 575. Provide cat brochure.
...................... take exempted in BO, additional consultation with the Service not required
The proposed new residence exceeds the limits of take in the 2010 BO (296 residences in
the focus area, 575 residences in buffer lands) ........................................ may affect
July 29, 2013 4
ordinances that meet the minimum recommended habitat compensation. If the paiticipatinz
community proposes to modify the habitat compensation requirements of their ordinance,
additional review by the Service will be necessary.
On June 20, 2012, the Monroe County Board of Commissioners passed Ordinance 015-2012.
Section 122-8(d)2-i of this ordinance requires property owners applying for new construction pennits
in LKMR habitat to agree to execute and record a covenant restriction in favor of Monroe County
which prohibits keeping free-ranging cats.
rl=
Literature Cited
Forys, E.A. 1995. Metapopulations of marsh rabbits: a population viability analysis of the Lower
Keys rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Florida;
Gainesville, Florida.
Forys, E.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1994. Biology and status of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit.
Final Report, Contract No. N62467-90-C-0766. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Forys, E.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1999. Use of population viability analysis to evaluate
management options for the endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit. Journal of Wildlife
Management 63:251-260.
� M
mwj��
LEM
July 29, 2013 6
1111111 111!1111111111 q I I iiiliiiiiiii 11111111 �jg�jqjillli 1 1!!!! 1 !!1!!1
It, E1131M
IMMMIM
The County's boundary map land cover types containing suitable habitat for the Schaus
swallowtail butterfly include undeveloped land, hammock, and beach berm. Undeveloped land
and beach berm cover types were included as these mapping units could also include small
inclusions of tropical hardwood hammock.
been assessed on a frequent or widespread basis (Service 2008). The amount of suitable habital
undoubtedly fluctuates depending on hurricanes, wildfires, and subsequent vegetation
succession, but the primary upland habitat is hardwood harnmocks.
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification • the Schaus swallowtail butterfly's
native habitat (i.e., beach berin, hammock, and native habitat in the undeveloped lands
classification) ...................................................................................... NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of the Schaus swallowtail butterfly's
native habitat. A vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and
size present on the property and a general description of the surrounding properties within
500 feet is also required ......................................................................... go to C
C. The property is in North Key Largo. The Service will examine the site-specific parameters
D. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed
July 29, 2013 2
Notas above .--......—...........'...—...—...'.—.....................--'.--. ge to E
The property contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous native habitat greater than I acre in
0�= 027=3
Brown, L.N. 1973. Populations of Papilio andraemon bonhotei Sharpe and Papilio aristodemus
ponceanus Schaus in Biscayne National Monument Florida. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 27(2):136-140.
Emmel, T. C. 1985. Status survey of the Schaus swallowtail in Florida in 1984. Technical Report
No. 145, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Emmel, T.C. 1986. Status survey and habitat requirements of Florida's endemic Schaus
swallowtail butterfly. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Final Report
GFC-84-028. Tallahassee.
Emmel, T. C. 1995. Designated species management plan for the reintroduction of the Schaus
swallowtail butterfly in the Florida Keys. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Klots, A.B. 1951. A field guide to the butterflies of North America east of the Great Plains.
Houghton Mifflin Co.; Boston, A.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida
ill WE FIRTMIERE V 11101 1 i 11
July 29, 2013 4
Schaus swallowtail butterfly
Species Assessment Guide
Pyle, R.M. 1981. The Audubon Society field guide to North American butterflies. Chanticleer;
New York, New York.
Rutkowski, F. 1971. Observations on Papilio aristodemus ponceanus (Papilionidae). Journal of
the Lepidopterists' Society. 25(2):126-136.
Salvato M., Personal communication. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,
Florida
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Schaus swallowtail butterfly, 5-year status review,
Atlanta, Georgia
July 29, 2013 5
a n1wo MI
Critical habitat for the rice rat includes areas containing mangrove swamps, salt marsh flats, a
buttonwood transition vegetation. The major constituent elements of this critical habitat that
require special management considerations or protection are:
(1) mangrove swamps containing red mangrove, black mangrove, white mangrove, and
buttonwood;
(2) salt marshes, swales, and adjacent transitional wetlands containing saltwort, perenni
glasswort, saltgrass, sea ox-eye, Key grass and
cor gr s l
(3) coastal droj2seed and freshwater marshes containing cattails, sawgrass, and d a ,
The County's boundary map land cover types containing critical habitat constituent elements for
the rice rat include six habitat classifications. These land cover types include scrub mangrove,
freshwater wetlat * id, salt marsh, and buttonwood. We also noted that potential habitat is present
only in unincorporated Monroe County (Lower Keys only).
Critical habitat only affects Federal agency actions and does not apply to private or local or State
government activities that are not subject to Federal authorization or ftinding. Federal agencies
that may be affected by the designation of rice rat critical habitat include, but are not limited to
the Service (National Key Deer Reffige [NKDR]), Corps, FEMA, U.S. Navy, and the Federal
Silver Rice Rat Critical Habitat
Highway Administration. Seven of the nine Keys in critical habitat are within the NKDR
boundaries. Although the NKDR is managed for Key deer, the habitat requirements and
biological needs • the two species do not conflict (Service 2006).
Threats: The primary threat to rice rat critical habitat is degradation and loss of wetland habitat
(Barbour and Humphrey 1982). Construction activities typically result in the direct loss of
habitat as well as secondary effects that extend into surrounding habitats. Related secondary
effects include habitat fragmentation.
A. Parcel is not located within designated rice rat critical habitat and/or on the Real Estate
(RE) parcel list ................ .............. ................. .................................. no effect
Parcel is located within designated rice rat critical habitat or is on the RE parcel list
.......................................... .................................................. go to B
The applicant proposes removal • modification • this species' native habitat (hammock,
pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, and
beach berin). A vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and size
present on the property and a general description of the surrounding properties within 500
C. The property contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of the rice rat's native habitat
greater than I acre in size ..................................................................... in ay affect
The property is not as above. ................................................................... go to D
D. The applicant has proposed either on-site • off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost. Peirnit with habitat compensation* and provide cat
brochure.......................................................................................... NLAA
July 29, 2013 2
Silver Rice Rat Critical Habitat
Species Assessment Guide
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
rfeet rw�fgimjmi QQr4Qe �Ttt, ............ MW ect
M=
•
�I=
jai
-
� I LTAM as txw "I w wde, rd ra man 0,117-1 Mrsig ME 011XIM
V.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Nological Opinion. FEMA's continued administration
the NFIP in Monroe County, Florida. Atlanta, Georgia. i
July 29, 2013 4
Otff-=
mavm�
7 map iano cover types containing suitanie I n r or tf7e - rice rat me ucte
hammock, pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove,
?,nd beach berm. We also noted that potential habitat is present only in unincorporated Monroe
County (Lower Keys only).
V cl Lsdrc� I •• •
1982). The diet of the rice rat includes seeds of saltwort, mangroves, Borrichia spp., coconut
palm (Cocos nucifera), and invertebrates, including isopods (Spitzer 1983; Goodyear 1992).
However, they probably eat a greater variety • foods than those listed above.
NOTE: The Service recommends that all new residences in the rice rat focus area or
M uffer, except as outlined in couplet F (below), be subject to a covenant restriction which
prohibits keeping free-ranging cats, per Monroe County Ordinance 015-2012, Section 122-
8(d)2-i**. A new residence for which the applicant does not agree to such a restriction
shall be subtracted from the allocated residences take (couplet G).
Parcel is located in the buffer area (a zone extending 500 meters [1,641 feet] from the focus
area). If a parcel is mapped as being both within the species focus area and the buffer zone,
ias icus areg ....................................... ............ go to E
July 29, 2013 2
Parcel is not in the species focus area, the buffer area, or on the RE parcel list ...... no effect
B. The applicant proposes no removal or modification of this species' native habitat
(hammock, pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood,
mangrove, and beach berm) .......................................................................................... go to E
The applicant proposes removal or modification of this species' native habitat (hammock,
pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh, buttonwood, mangrove, and
beach berin). A vegetation survey is required to document the native plant species and size
present on the property and a general description of the surrounding properties within 500
C. The property is within a developed subdivision or canal subdivision and the area within
500 feet of the parcel is greater than 60 percent developed or scarified ................ go to E
The property is not as above, and contains and/or is adjacent to contiguous tracts of this
species' native habitat greater than I acre in size. Further coordination with the Service is
necessary and a small mammal survey may be required ............................... may affect
Native habitat (hammock, pinelands, scrub mangrove, freshwater wetland, salt marsh,
buttonwood, mangrove, and beach berm) will be impacted but neither of the above applies
to thamtr*Dertv ............................................................................................................. U to D
D. The applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate
with the amount of native habitat lost ........................................................ go to E
The applicant is not proposing habitat compensation* or habitat compensation* does not
rneet minimum compensation requirements ............................................. may affect
E. The applicant proposes the construction of a new residence and does not agree to
enforceable cat restrictions" .................................................... ............. go to F
Proposal is for actions other than a new residence OR is for a residence with enforceabla
cat restrictions". Provide cat brochure ................................................... NLAA
F. Parcel is within a canal subdivision and is separated by a r.. nal, open water, and/or US-I
from this species' native habitat in the buffered rice rat focus area OR the parcel is adjacent
to less than I acre of this species' native habitat in the buffered rice rat focus area. Provide
ew .t brochure ................................................................................................... ........... NLAA
The parcel is not as above ...... ............. ...................................... .......... go to G
t�
The new residence is proposed in the species focus area, does not result in a cumulative
loss of species habitat, and the total of new residential pennits issued in the focus area
9MINUMM
M
Species Assessment Guide
fands has not exceeded 522. Provide cat brochure........ take exempted in BO, additional
considtation with the Service not required
The new residence is proposed in the buffer area and the total number of new residential
f1trinits issued in buffer lands has not exceeded 349. Provide cat brochure.
..................... take exempted in BO, additional consultation with the Service not required
The proposed new residence exceeds the limits of take in the 2010 BO (522 residences in
the focus area, 349 residences in buffer lands) ...................................... may affect
On June 20, 2012, the Monroe County Board of Commissioners passed Ordinance 015-2012.
Section 122-8(d)2-i of this ordinance requires property owners applying for new construction permits
in silver rice rat habitat to agree to execute and record a covenant restriction in favor of Monroe
County which prohibits keeping free-ranging cats.
Monitoring and Reporting Effects
P Service to monitor cumulative Meets an I- Laro, U,-,'.A11FL •
rice rat, it is important for FEMA and the NFIP participants to monitor the number of permits
and provide inforination to the Service regarding the number of permits issued. In order to meet
the reporting requirements in the B request that FEMA and/or the NFIP participants send
July 29, 2013 4
Silver rice rat Species Assessment Guide
IF
110121 or-OWNIMA 111F.11111111 F01
NO
eage 11 W-
acreage, naLIVC IMPUCE acr, amount oi acres 01 LICCSIPIMILS 1uplaccu as HL1 1111d
compensation, and project location in latitude and longitude in decimal degrees.
Literature Cited
Barbour, D.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1982 . Status and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse
(Neoton7afloridana sinalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola). Journal of Mammalogy
63(1):144-148.
Uorys 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. Final Report to Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission, Cooperative Agreement No. 1448-0004-94-9164, Tallahassee, Florida.
argentatus Unpublished Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Under contra�t
No. 14-16-0604-83-57. Jacksonville, Florida.
Goodyear, N.C. 1987. Distribution and habitat of the silver rice rat, Orymmys argentatus. Journal of
Mammalogy 68:692-695.
Goodyear, N.C. 1992. Spatial overlap and dietary selection of native rice rats and exotic black rats.
Journal of Mammalogy 73:186-200.
Mitchell, N.C. 1996. Silver rice rat status. Draft final report to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission.
Monroe County. 2009. Geospatial Land Cover Dataset of the Florida Keys. Photo Science, Inc. St.
Petersburg, Florida
Perry,.N.D. 2006. Lower Keys marsh rabbit and silver rice rat: steps towards recovery. Master's Thesis,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Spitzer, T.M. 1983. Aspects of the biology of the silver rice rat, Oryzomys argentatus. M.S. Thesis.
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI
MR201M
HEINUME
Species Assessment Guide
A. The parcel IS in a known location of the Stock Island tree snail, in the species focus area
and/or on the RE parcel list ............................................................................... go to B
The parcel IS NOT in a known location of the Stock Island tree snail, in the species focus
area and/or on the RE parcel list ........................................................... ............... no effect
B. The applicant proposes no removal • modification of the Stock Island tree snail's native
habitat (hammock and beach benn) ............................................................ NLAA
The applicant proposes removal or modification of the Stock Island tree snail's native
habitat. A Stock Island tree snail survey and a vegetation survey are required. Once these
14ave been completed ........................................................................... go to C
C. A negative Stock Island tree snail survey, following Service protocol, has been provided to
and accepted as valid by the Service (i.e., Stock Island tree snails are not present). The
applicant has proposed either on-site or off-site habitat compensation* commensurate with
the amount of native habitat lost. Permit with habitat compensation* ................. NLAA
A Stock Island tree snail survey documents presence, or habitat compensation* is either not
proposed or not sufficient ................................................................ may affect
July 29, 2013 2
I a - . I .
i
Wonal review by the Service will be necessary.
m�
Voss, R.S. 1976. Observations on the Ecology of the Florida Tree Snail Lig
(Muller). Nautilus, 90:6569.
July 29, 2013 3