Loading...
Item L3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: September 18, 2002 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Planning and Environmental Resources AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a Resolution to submit the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Florida Key Deer and other protected species on Big Pine and No Name Keys to the U oS. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). ITEM BACKGROUND: The County, DCA and FOOT entered into a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) to prepare the HCP to address potential impacts from development activities in Big Pine and No Name Keys. The HCP describes a conservation and mitigation strategy to minimize and mitigate for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species due to any construction activities including residential and commercial development, transportation improvements, public facilities and institutional expansion. A maximum "take" from development activities over the 20-year period is given and a methodology to balance development with mitigation included. PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: Approval ofMOU between Monroe County, USFWS, DCA, FOOT and Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission to develop the HCP on September 9, 1998. Approval of JPA with DCA and FOOT on May ]2,1999 to fund and implement a HCP. A revised amended JPA was approved In January 2000. CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: Unknown BUDGETED: Yes No COST TO COUNTY: Unknown REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty ~ Risk Management N/ A_ DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included X. To Follow_ l, Not Required AGENDA ITEM # L ~ DISPOSITION: Revised 2/27/01 .~~ RESOLUTION -2002 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP) FOR BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR AN INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES INCLUDING MINIMIZING AND MITIGATING THE LEVEL OF TAKE. WHEREAS, on October 26, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Game and Fish Commission, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDAC), Florida Department of Transportation and Monroe County entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys; and WHEREAS, the public agencies are among the federal, state and local agencies that have regulatory authority or responsibility under certain federal and state statutes, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Constitution of Florida and state and local planning and zoning laws to conserve threatened and endangered species and their habitats on Big Pine and No Name Keys from adverse effects resulting from public and private development actions; and WHEREAS, the HCP is a mechanism whereby the concerns and responsibilities of the various public agencies with regard to the conservation of the Key Deer and other covered species, and public and private development of Big Pine and No Name Keys can be coordinated; and WHEREAS, all projects including state and county roadway improvements and all other public and private development activities on Big Pine and No Name Keys are subject to individual review by USFWS and will enjoy a benefit from this comprehensive review by USFWS; and WHEREAS, the traffic Level of Service (LOS) on US #1 in Big Pine Key is currently and has been since 1996 below the adopted standard and is anticipated to continue to worsen unless road improvements can be made to US # I; and WHEREAS, the USFWS agreed to allow FOOT to proceed with the construction of a short-term intersection improvement on US #1 on Big Pine under the condition that the FDCA, FOOT and Monroe County agree to develop the HCP; and WHEREAS, a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) was signed by FOOT, FDCA and Monroe County in January 2000 to fund and facilitate development of the HCP; and WHEREAS, an HCP Coordinating Committee, consisting of two representatives from each MOU signatory agency and two citizens designated by the County was established for purpose of assisting the contracting agency, FOOT, in selection of an experienced professional consulting firm to prepare the HCP and associated documents; and WHEREAS, URS Corporation Southern was selected as the Contractor to prepare the HCP; and WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act allows an applicant to apply for a pennit for "incidental take" of federally designated endangered species; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive study was completed of the Key Deer and other endangered species populations and conditions necessary for their continued viability; and WHEREAS, three workshops were held with thc community as part of the Momoe County Livable Communi Keys Program (LCP) to determine a preferred development action, which was analyzed by the Contractor to detennine the level of "take" of the endangered species by the action; and WHEREAS, the HCP is a plan for minimizing and mItigating the determined level of "take"; and WHEREAS, formal submittal of the HCP and it's associated documents and application of an Incidental Take permit shall only be made after all three HCP co-applicant agencies are in agreement with the submittal, NOW THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA to authorize the submittal of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of COWlty Conunissioners of Monroe COWlty, Florida at a regular meeting held on the I g day of September, A.D., 2002. Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy Mayor Pro Tem Dixie Spehar Commissioner Bert Jimenez Commissioner Murray Nelson Commissiont.'T George Neugent (SEAL) A TrEST: DANNY KOHLAGE, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COM:MISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson APPROVED AS 10 FORM ~ BY Attorney's Office Z- , Plannin~ and Environmental Resources K. Marlene Conaway, Director 2798 Overseas Highway Suite 400 Marathon, norida 33050 Voice: (305) 289-2500 FAX: (305) 289-2536 Board of County Commissioners Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy. Dist. 3 Mayor Pro Tern Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1 Corom. Bert Jimenez, District 4 Corom. Murray Nelson, Dist. 5 Corom. George Neugent, Dist. 2 August 29,2002 TO: Board of eounty Commissioners K. Marlene Conaway, Director~~ Planning and Environmental Resources FROM: SUBJEeT: Habitat Conservation Plan for Big Pine and No Name Keys Summary Monroe eounty, DeA and FDOT entered into a Joint Participation Agreement (JP A) to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (Hep) to address potential impacts from development activities in Big Pine and No Name Keys. The Hep describes a conservation and mitigation strategy to minimize and mitigate for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species due to any construction activities including residential and commercial development, transportation improvements, public facilities and institutional expansion. A maximum "take" from development activities over the 20- year period is given and a methodology to balance development with mitigation included. The Board of County Commissioner approval before submittal of the Hep is required in the JPA. Background With the establishment of the National Key Deer Refuge in 1957 an active program to protect the Key Deer on Big Pine and No Name Keys began. By the 1980's the deer population had recovered to approximately 300 individuals, but there was continuing concern that road mortality and habitat loss threatened the population. FDOT began consultation in the late 1980's and continued into the early 1990's to find a solution to the high incidence of road mortality of Key Deer along US#l. The underpasses currently being constructed on US#1 in Big Pine Key is a result of this work. It was also recognized that additional improvements are needed to US# 1 so that the roadway will meet the eoncurrency Level of Service required in the 2010 eomprehensive Plan. Policy 301.7.3 states that additional lanes might be added to US#1 to ease traffic congestion but that such improvements "shall be deferred until the completion of a Habitat eonservation Plan for the Island." Habitat Conservation Planning The Habitat Conservation Plan for Big Pine and No Name Keys was developed in conformance with a Memorandum of Understanding between the County, State and USFWS as a way to resolve the ongoing conflicts over the impacts of proposed development on the natural resources. Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act allows a developer, the "applicant," to apply for a permit for "incidental take" of federally-designated endangered species. The process basically involves determination of the level of reduction or "take" of the species caused by the proposed County of Monroe development. The applicant proposes the development along with a plan for mitigation of the "take" caused by the development. The mitigation plan is written in the form of a Habitat eonservation Plan. The Hep process for Big Pine and No Name Keys was initiated in February 2000. The applicants are Monroe eounty, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DeA) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), those entities that would build, or issue local permits to build, the proposed development. The Habitat Conservation Plan document was produced with the assistance of an Hep committee made up of concerned agencies and citizen representatives. The document was completed in September 2002 and an application for the incidental take permit is proposed to be sent to the USFWS in October 2002. The process to develop the HCP consisted of three major components: 1) study of the endangered species populations and conditions necessary for their continued viability, 2) crafting of a proposed development action within this context and determination of the level of "take" caused by the action, and 3) development of a plan for mitigating the determined level of "take." Livable CommuniKeys Program The Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) is a community-driven planning effort aimed at determining the amount, type and location of additional development appropriate for the planning area. The process was initiated in Big Pine Key and No Name Key in April 2000 and has run in close coordination with the HCP. Three major public workshops and meetings were held to facilitate the Lep effort; followed up by newsletters sent to both residents and landowners. Stakeholder discussions and citizen surveys were also conducted. The newsletters summarized the needs and desires expressed by the community in the workshops. From this summary a community vision was formulated. The community vision and stated planning objectives were used to evaluate possible development alternatives. Several alternative plans for Big Pine and No Name Keys were formulated. These plans were aimed at satisfaction of basic community needs within the existing regulatory framework. The alternatives were then subjected to a planning analysis to see which ones were consistent with the community vision, could meet community needs and desires and were within reasonable cost and feasibility. Alternatives for residential, commercial, recreational and transportation development were all evaluated. The analysis is contained in the Development Alternatives Report generated in March 200 I. Alternatives considered the most feasible means of fulfilling community needs and desires included a clustered residential plan and a commercial redevelopment plan. Preferred options for meeting community recreational and transportation needs were also presented. These preferred alternatives were then analyzed for consistency with environmental goals, particularly protection of endangered species in the Hep model developed for these islands. The LCP Master plan is currently being drafted and will implement the various requirements of the Hep. Future development is limited to ten residential units a year for a total of two hundred units over the 20 year planning horizon. commercial development will follow at 239 square feet for each residential unit permitted, some expansion of community facilities and recreation areas is included as well as expansion of existing community organizations. The plan will also provide other elements as identified in the community planning process. 2 County of Monroe The plan should be ready for review by the Planning Commission in January 2003. The MOU with DeA includes mechanisms to allow the eounty to move forward with changes to implement the HCP through a 380 Agreement before the plan amendment is complete. Action Proposed in the HCP The proposed development action in the HCP is expressed in terms of the total level of impact that will result in an acceptable level of "take" of the Key deer. The level of "take" is determined by the removal of habitat value measured in discrete units. The habitat value units are assigned to individual parcels within the planning area and consist of two main components: direct impact (habitat loss) and indirect impact (highway mortality). The location and traffic generated are the two primary development components causing these impacts. The Hep will equate the total loss of habitat value units to a specific level of acceptable impact. Monroe County will track the impact of issued permits to ensure that the total acceptable level of habitat value units is not exceeded. The HCP will not specify exactly where permits will be issued or for what type of development but it will provide clear direction to the county on which locations and types will have greater impact. The Habitat Conservation Plan proposes to mitigate the "take" of Key deer mainly by putting habitat under public protection. Habitat protection is considered the highest priority action for protection of Key deer and other listed animal and plant species. Thus the habitat value units expended by allowing development can be mitigated to some extent by purchase of a certain level of habitat value elsewhere. Mitigation will also involve management of the acquired habitat, and other activities. The Hep also proposes actions to minimize development impacts. Examples include implementation of traffic calming designs and restrictions on fencing. The application for incidental take will be reviewed by the USFWS under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act. Staff Recommendation Approve the resolution authorizing submittal of the Habitat eonservation Plan for Big Pine and No Name Keys. 3 County of Monroe Growth Management Division 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: (305) 289-2500 FPlX: (305)289-2536 Board of County Commissioners Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3 Mayor Pro Tem Dixie Spehar, Dist. 1 Comm. Bert Jimenez, Dist. 4 Comm. Murray Nelson, Dist. 5 Comm. George Neugent, Dist. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, DirectoVY'l'\ Growth Management Divisiorill I DATE: September 12,2002 SUBJECT: September 18, 2002 Agenda Item L3 Attachment Please attach the "Habitat eonservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and Other Protected Species" booklet to your Agenda Item "L3" with the information previously received for the upcoming meeting. [ f you have any questions, please contact me. \ttachment c: James Roberts, County Administrator James Hendrick, eounty Attorney Danny Kolhage, County Clerk Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Key Deer and Other Protected Species Habitat Conservation Plan for Florida Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) and other Protected Species on Big Pine and No Name Keys, Monroe County, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3559 Prepared by: Florida Department of Transportation, District VI 1000 NW 111th Avenue, Room #6101 Miami, Florida 33172 Monroe County 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410 Marathon, Florida 33050 Florida Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 33050 With assistance from consultants: URS Corporation 700 S. Royal Poinciana Blvd., Suite 1000 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 September 2002 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table of Contents List of Figures ..... ...................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ........................... .................................. ............................................... iv 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................. 7 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Plan ............................................................. 7 1.1.1 Historical Background and Memorandum of Agreement............... 9 1.1.2 Coordinating Committee.............................................. ................. 10 1.1.3 Objectives of the Plan.. ....... ........ .................. ...... ...... .................... 10 1.2 Plan Development Process and Methodology ............................................. 11 1.2.1 Technical Studies ............... ......................... ..... ............... .............. 11 1.2.2 Public Information and Involvement ............................................ 11 1.3 HCP Covered Area ...................................................................................... 13 2. BI 0 LOG I CAL CO ND ITI 0 NS.............................................................................. 14 2.1 Covered Species........................................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium)..................... 15 2.1.2 Silver rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus) ........................................... 21 2.1.3 Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) .............. 23 2.1.4 West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)................................. 24 2.1.5 Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) ............................................ 25 2.1.6 Southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) .......................... 26 2.1.7 Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius).................... 27 2.1.8 Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii)...................................... 28 2.1.9 Wood stork (Mycteria americana)................................................ 29 2.1.10 Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) ........................................ 29 2.1.11 Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)................................................ 30 2.1.12 Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi)..................... 31 2.1.13 Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)............................. 32 2.1.14 Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii).................................. 33 2.1.15 Stock Island tree snail (Ortha/icus reses reses) ............................ 34 2.1.16 Key tree cactus (Cereus robinii) ................................................... 35 2.1.17 Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce garberi) ........................................ 35 2.2 Vegetation and Habitat ................................................................................ 36 2.2.1 Pinelands. ......... ........... ...... ...... ............................ ....... ...... ..... ........ 38 2.2.2 Hammocks ... .... ......... .... ..... ............ ...... ...... ............... ............. ....... 39 2.2.3 Freshwater Wetlands... .......... ....... .... ...... ..... .................................. 40 2.2.4 Saltwater Marsh/Buttonwood Marsh ............................................ 40 2.2.5 Mangroves............... .................. ... .... ..... ....... .................... ............. 41 3. LAND USE CO ND ITI 0 N S ............................................... ..................................... 43 3.1 Introduction.................... .......... ......... .... ...... ....... .... ....... ...... ...... ..... .............. 43 3.2 Land Ownership............... ................................................................... ......... 43 3.3 Habitat Management Activities ................................................................... 44 3.4 Land Classification System.......... ................................................................ 46 3.5 Covered Activities ....................................................................................... 49 4. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGIES .................................................... 52 4.1 Introduction......................................................................................... ......... 52 11 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 4.2 Planning Strategies Analyzed ......................................................................53 4.2.1 Planning Strategy #1: No Action Alternative/No Take ................ 53 4.2.2 Planning Strategy #2: Reduced Take............................................ 53 4.2.3 Planning Strategy #3: Proposed Alternative................................. 54 4.3 Alternatives Analysis ............................................................ ....... ................ 54 5. CONSERV A nON STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES..................................... 55 5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 55 5.2 Legal and Regulatory Background .............................................................. 55 5.2.1 Endangered Species Act ............................................................... 55 5.2.2 Clean Water Act............................................................................ 56 5.3 Summary of Take and Its Effects on the Covered Species.......................... 56 5.4 Conservation Strategy - Mitigation Measures and Procedures.................... 59 5.4.1 Avoidance and Minimization........................................................ 59 5.4.2 Habitat Mitigation and Habitat Banking....................................... 61 5.4.3 Habitat Management ............................................... ................. ..... 63 5.5 Monitoring and Reporting............................................................................63 5.5.1 Reporting........................ ....................... ..... ...... ...... ... ............ ........ 64 6. IMPLEMENT A nON AND FINANCING........................................................... 66 6.1 Regulatory Actions ...................................................................................... 66 6.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................ 66 6.1.1.1 Monroe County Growth Management Division ............ 66 6.1.1.2 Monroe County Land Authority ....................................66 6.1.1.3 Monroe County Land Steward....................................... 66 6.1.1.4 Florida Department of Transportation ...........................67 6.1.2 Implementation Schedule.............................................................. 67 6.2 Funding .................................................................................... .................... 67 6.2.1 Funding Sources............... .................... ................. ........................ 67 6.2.2 HCP Funding Mechanisms ........................................................... 69 6.3 Permit Amendment Procedures ................................................................... 70 6.4 Permit Renewal........ ............ ................... ............................ ...... ................... 71 7 . REFERENCES ................................... ....... ...... ..... ....... ....... .................. ....... ............ 72 7.1 Agencies and Persons Contacted .................................................................72 7.2 Bibliography................ ............ ............. ...... ................. ............... ................. 73 8. LIST OF PREP ARERS .......................................................................................... 81 8.1 URS Corporation ............... ......... .................................... ............................. 81 8.2 Sub-Consultants ... ...... ............... ...... ..... ...... ............................... ..... .............. 81 9. APPENDIX A: AGENCY COORDINA nON ..................................................... 83 10. APPENDIX B: PV A MODELING PAPER.......................................................... 83 11. APPENDIX C: MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ........... .................................... .................... ............ ....................... 83 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Project area Key deer locations from telemetry data Six grid layers used to generate weighting factor grid III INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 List of Tables Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Key deer PV A model grid layers Key deer PV A: potential effect of development on the Key deer population Key deer PV A: effect of development on the level of take of Key deer Vegetative cover of Big Pine and No Name Keys Land ownership within the project area Tier classification system in the project area Potential transportation improvements Development constraints map Effects of development on Key deer viability HCP public meetings Covered Species Key deer PV A: Potential effect on the Key deer population Habitat type distribution within the project area Land ownership within the project area Tier classification system Privately owned lots Tier classification system Summary of proposed development Proposed land use by Tier Proposed locations for community/recreational facilities Fences and accessory uses Native vegetation loss Recommended fencing Additional fencing setbacks H equivalency factors for land use categories Banked habitat, 1995 - 200 I MCLA revenue from State Park surcharge, 1988 - 2000 MCLA revenue from tourist impact tax, 1988 - 2000 Estimated costs of the HCP IV INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Act ADID BMP CCP CEQ CFR County CRAS CWA DOQQ EA FDCA FDOT FFWCC FHWA FKSH F.S. GIS GMD HCP IS ITP LCP LOS MCLA MCPD MM MOA N-ROGO NEPA NGVD NRCS NWR OFW OHT PD&E Plan Preserve PUV PVA Refuge ROGO ROW ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Endangered Species Act Advanced Identification of Wetlands Best Management Practices Comprehensive Conservation Plan Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Monroe County Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Clean Water Act Digital Ortho-Quarter Quadrangles Environmental Assessment Florida Department of Community Affairs Florida Department of Transportation Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Federal Highway Administration Florida Keys Scenic Highway Florida Statutes Geographic Information System Growth Management Division Habitat Conservation Plan Improved Subdivision Incidental Take Permit Livable CommuniKeys Program Level of Service Monroe County Land Authority Monroe County Planning Department Mile Marker on US-l Memorandum of Agreement Non-residential rate of growth ordinance National Environmental Policy Act National Geodetic Vertical Datum National Resource Conservation Service National Wildlife Refuge Outstanding Florida Water Overseas Heritage Trail Project Development and Environment Habitat Conservation Plan Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer Privately owned, upland, vacant lots Population Viability Analysis National Key Deer Refuge Rate of Growth Ordinance Right-of-Way v INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION SFWMD SHPO T&E TDR US-1 USC USFWS South Florida Water Management District State Historic Preservation Officer Threatened and Endangered Transfer of Development Rights U.S. Highway I United States Code United States Fish and Wildlife Service VI INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Plan The Florida Department of Transportation, Monroe County, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (the Applicants) submit this Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP or Plan), which addresses impacts to covered species resulting from potential development activities over a 20-year year period in Big Pine and No Name Keys, Monroe County, Florida (Figure 1.1). Activities covered under this HCP include residential and commercial development, as well as transportation improvements to meet the community needs of Big Pine and No Name Keys. The HCP describes a conservation and mitigation strategy to minimize and mitigate for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species during the execution of covered development activities. The Plan has been developed in accordance with the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act). A number of species listed at the Federal and/or state level(s), including the endangered Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), have been documented to occur, or have the potential to occur, within the project area. The Applicants have determined that the incidental take of Key deer may occur as a result of development activities during the next 20 years. Incidental take coverage is also requested for 16 additional species that may be indirectly affected by urban development activities throughout the 20-year period. No direct impacts to the Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefrzerii) are proposed. This HCP and accompanying ITP application support the Applicants' request for the incidental take of Key deer and other covered species within the project area from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service). In compliance with the ITP issuance criteria listed in Section lO(a)(l)(B) of the Act, the HCP provides for the minimization and mitigation of the resulting incidental take. Ultimately, the incidental take would not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. The Applicants understand that the ITP itself does not authorize development activities. Instead, the ITP authorizes the incidental take of covered species that may occur as a result of covered activities during the 20-year permit. In order to fulfill the NEPA requirements for the Federal action (issuance of the ITP by the Service), the Service will preparc the Environmental Assessment for issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit for the incidental take ofKcy dccr and othcr covercd species within the project area. 7 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Figure 1.1. Project area 8 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 1.1.1 Historical Backlrround and Memorandum of Agreement Several listed species, including the Key deer, occur on Big Pine and No Name Keys. The Key deer are wide-ranging and use a variety of habitats, including developed areas; consequently, they share much of their range with the human population. The Key deer was listed as endangered at the Federal level in March 1967 (32 CFR 4001). With the establishment of the National Key Deer Refuge (Refuge) in 1957, and the legal protection provided through listing, population levels recovered. In 1951, there were an estimated 25 to 80 individuals, and by 1973 the population had recovered to approximately 300 to 400, including 200 to 250 deer on Big Pine Key alone (FDOT 1999). However, mortality from road kills and habitat loss continued to threaten the population and, by 1982, population numbers were down to between 250 and 300 individuals (Klimstra 1985, USFWS 1985a). In the late 1980s, the FDOT began consultation to find a solution to the high incidence of road mortality of Key deer along portions of US-l on Big Pine Key. In September 1993, FDOT convened a stakeholders meeting, after which an Ad Hoc Committee was fonned to pursue solutions to the highway mortality of the Key deer. FDOT funded a Concept Study to examine viable alternatives for reducing Key deer mortality caused by vehicle collisions. The study focused on consensus-building via public involvement and agency coordination, coupled with scientific analyses, and identified a series of structural and non-structural alternatives (FDOT 1996). The Concept Study recommended that wildlife underpasses be installed to allow the Key deer to move safely across the undeveloped segment of US-l (approximately MM 33.0 to MM 31.0) and that a series of non- structural options, including signage, be implemented in the developed portion of US-l in Big Pine Key (approximately MM 31.0 to MM 29.5). Following the recommendations of the Concept Study, a FDOT funded a Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study to further evaluate the alternatives identified in the Concept Study (FDOT 1998). The PD&E Study included extensive public involvement and fonnal consultation with the USFWS.. In January 1999, the Service issued a Biological Opinion for the Key decr (USFWS 1999a). During the course of the PD&E Study, a Technical Task Force was created to develop possible solutions for alleviating traffic congestion on US-Ion Big Pine Key. The Task Force recommended an intersection improvement project in the vicinity of the signalized intersection at US-l and Key Deer Boulevard. Intersection improvements included addition of a northbound through lane on US-I, both north and south of the traffic signal; extension of the intersection's existing southbound left-turn lane on US-I; and improvements for the traffic signalization timing. The wildlife-underpasses and intersection improvement are undcr construction. Since 1995, Big Pine Key has been under a building moratorium due to an insufficient level of service (LOS) on US-I. Improvements to US-I could improve the LOS, thereby 9 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION alleviating the building moratorium. The Service agreed to allow the intersection improvement project to proceed on the condition that an HCP be prepared. In 1998, the Applicants and two Technical Assistance Agencies, the Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to develop an HCP for the Key deer and other protected species in the project area. The purpose of the MOA was to direct an interagency approach to the conservation offederally protected species on Big Pine and No Name Keys. Specific objectives of the MOA were to define the relationships and cooperative agreements between signatory parties, determine appropriate growth and build out levels for the project area and establish a multi-agency HCP Coordinating Committee. 1.1.2 Coordinating Committee In accordance with the MOA, the Applicants established a multi-agency HCP Coordinating Committee at the outset of the HCP process. The Coordinating Committee included representatives from the Applicants, Technical Assistance Agencies (USFWS and FFWCC), and two citizen representatives from Big Pine and No Name Keys. Objectives of the Coordinating Committee were as follows: · Acquire and manage consultants tasked with developing the HCP; · Establish funding obligations among the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies; · Define the desired outcome of the HCP; and . Define Applicant roles. Meetings for the HCP Coordinating Committee were scheduled approximately every other month, beginning in late 1999 and continuing through May 2002. 1.1.3 Obiectives of the Plan At the outset of the study, the Applicants worked in consultation with the Service to establish clear and measurable biological goals for the HCP. Initially, a 5% probability of extinction in 100 years for the Key deer was established as the biological threshold to measure the effect of development activities. During the development ofthe HCP, this threshold was modified (see Section 5). Biological studies performed for this HCP focused on the Key deer, and emphasized a habitat-based approach for other covered species. The Key deer are wide ranging and utilize virtually all available habitat in the project area, including developed areas (Lopez 200Ia). In contrast, all the other species included in the HCP (see Section 2.3) are restricted to one or two habitat types within the project area. For example, the Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) and the silver rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus) are restricted to wetland habitats. Therefore, the Plan focused on the Key deer as an "umbrella species" and operated under the assumption that avoiding and minimizing impacts to Key deer habitat, would also provide direct protection to both populations and habitats of other species. 10 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 1.2 Plan Development Process and Methodology The development of the HCP included scientific studies, developing and evaluating alternatives, and implementing a public information and participation program. Concurrently with the HCP, Monroe County carried out a planning effort firmly based on community participation, in order to determine community needs. A summary of the technical studies and public information and participation program are provided below. 1.2.1 Technical Studies Lopez (2001) studied the ecology and population dynamics of the Key deer for three years. He followed the movement, habitat utilization and fate of over 150 individual deer using radio-telemetry and census procedures. The study resulted in a Population Viability Analysis (PV A) model to evaluate the impacts of development scenarios on the Key deer population. The model evaluates the likelihood that the species will persist for a given time into the future under different scenarios. Land development alternatives produced by the community were evaluated using the PV A model to quantify the associated impacts to Key deer in the project area. The PV A model was reviewed and critiqued by Dr. Resit Akcakaya (Applied Biomathematics, Inc.), an expert in population models and PV A. Dr. Akcakaya reviewed the model twice, in June 2000 and August 2001. Additionally, two technical workshops were held in Miami, Florida, among the Applicants and the USFWS and the FFWCC, to review the Key deer PV A model. For a detailed description of PV A model development see Section 2.2 and Appendix B. Concurrently, Monroe County carried out a Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) to determine the community's preferred type, location, and amount of development in the project area. A Development Alternatives Report produced in March 2001 (Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources, 2001) provides a detailed description of the final LCP alternatives, the methods used to develop these alternatives and the planning criteria by which alternatives were evaluated. The LCP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, as well as this HCP, will ultimately provide the basis of a Master Plan for future development and community facilities within the project area. 1.2.2 Public Information and Involvement The development of the HCP included extensive public involvement activities. The public information and participation plan included identification of stakeholders, periodic project-update mailings, several public meetings, and an open-door policy for public input. Stakeholders are those individuals and organizations with an economic, cultural, social or environmental interest in the HCP. They included property owners, elected officials and other community leaders, Federal, State and local governments, permitting and reviewing 11 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION agencies, environmental organizations, members of the media, and interested private citizens. Using the 1999 Monroe County Property Appraiser database as a foundation, a stakeholder database containing the names and addresses of more than 4,400 landowners was developed. Public feedback helped identify over 100 additional stakeholders, who were included in the database. These additional stakeholders represent individuals or groups that did not own land within the project area but were interested in the process and outcome of the HCP, including non-profit and environmental organizations. The list of stakeholders was used to distribute public meeting invitations and project status reports. The stakeholder database was continually updated and maintained, per input received at public meetings by private landowners, citizen letters to the FDOT, and forwarding addresses provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Three public meetings were held in Big Pine Key between February 2000 and March 2001 (Table 1.1). The objectives of the meetings were to inform the public about the scientific basis of the HCP, describe how land development alternatives were evaluated, and obtain input to ensure that all points of view were considered. Meetings were announced through direct mailings to property owners and other stakeholders, radio announcements, and newspapers. Generally, the public meetings included a presentation and a question and answer session. Public comments were recorded in very meeting. Meetings were held in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws, including provisions for the disabled as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Table 1.1. HCP Public Meetings First Public Meeting Second Public Meeting Third Public Meeting Date February 1,2000 April 17, 2000 March 27, 2001 Time 7:00 pm 7:30 pm Two sessions: 4:30 pm and 7:30 pm Venue Big Pine Key United Big Pine Key United Big Pine Key Methodist Church Methodist Church Neighborhood School Number Approximately 35 at each of Approximately 400 Approximately 100 Attendees session (70 total) 12 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table 1.1. HCP Public Meetings First Public Meeting Meeting . Introductory meeting Objectives . Present background material and the HCP process . Present the project schedule and upcoming activities . Provide opportunity to identify public concerns Other Notes . A local radio station interviewed key members of the project team. . The meeting was announced with a lighted traffic sign, provided by the Monroe County Sheriff s Department Second Public Meeting . Present the model, its opportunities and constraints . Present current status of the Key deer . Discuss land acquisition programs, land use regulations and traffic analyses . Utilized facilitators to encourage, document and manage public response. Third Public Meeting . Present preliminary model results for biological analysis of the Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit . Discuss how the Livable Communi- Keys Program's scenarios will interrelate with the knowledge of the species biology . Utilized a facilitator to encourage, document and manage public response. 1.3 HCP Covered Area The Florida Keys, including the project area, comprise a 113-mile long chain of islands extending southwest from the southern tip of the Florida mainland peninsula to the Dry Tortugas. Key Largo (25.1 square miles) and Big Pine Key (l0.4 square miles) are the largest islands in this chain and possess the greatest diversity and acreage of habitats. Big Pine and No Name Keys are situated in the southern third ofthe Florida Keys, also known as the Lower Keys. Long narrow channels separate the islands and connect the Gulf of Mexico with the Straits of Florida (Figure 1.1). The HCP project area encompasses 7,031 total acres, including 5,840 acres on Big Pine Key and 1,191 acres No Name Key. These two islands support more than two-thirds of the Key deer population. Sixty-six percent of the project area is in conservation, including Federal lands within the Refuge, state-owned lands and lands owned by the Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA). Though these lands currently receive protection, they are included within the Plan's covered area since the effects of development are evaluated on Key deer throughout Big Pine and No Name Keys. 13 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 2.1 Covered Species 2. BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS The HCP provides for a conservation strategy for 16 federally listed species and one state listed species (Table 2.1). Based on the best available scientific information on each of the covered species, future development on Big Pine Key has the greatest probability of impacting the Key deer. The Florida Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit have been used as umbrella species in the analysis conducted for this Plan. A brief description of these umbrella species, as well as other Federal and one State listed species, follows. Table 2.1. Covered species. Common Name Scientific Name MAMMALS Key deer Silver rice rat Lower Keys marsh rabbit West Indian manatee BIRDS Piping plover Southern bald eagle Arctic peregrine falcon Wood stork Roseate tern Bachman's warbler REPTILES Eastern indigo snake Loggerhead sea turtle Green sea turtle Hawksbill sea turtle Kemp's ridley turtle MOLLUSCS Stock Island tree snail PLANTS Key tree cactus Cereus robinii Garber's spurge Chamaesyce garberi E=Endangered, T=Threatened, (S/ A)=Threatened/Similarity of appearance 1 Proposed for deli sting. 2State status Federal Status Odocoileus virginianus clavium Oryzomys argentatus Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Trichechus manatus E E E E Charadrius melodus Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus Falco peregrinus tundrius Mycteria americana Sterna dougallii Vermivora bachmanii T T1 E2 E T E Drymarchon corais couperi Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Eretmochelys imbricate Lepidochelys kempii T T E E E Ortha/icus reses reses T E T 14 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 2.1.1 Florida Kev deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) Description The Florida Key deer is the smallest race of North American white-tailed deer. Key deer are morphologically distinct from other races of white-tailed deer and exhibit a stocky body, with shorter legs and a wider skull. Mature adults measure between 25 to 30 inches at the shoulder with average weights of 55 to 75 pounds for males, and 45 to 65 pounds for females. The Key deer's primary food source is the red and black mangrove, but they also feed on approximately 160 other plants to meet nutritional requirements (Klimstra and Dooley 1990). Compared to northern white-tailed deer, Key deer are more solitary (Harding 1974). Home ranges average about 299 acres (greater during the breeding season) for male deer and 138 acres for females. The breeding season begins in September, peaks in October, and declines through December and January, while the peak of fawning coincides with the onset of the rainy season in April and May (Harding 1974, Silvy 1975). Factors resulting in the low reproductive performance of Key deer include low fecundity and reproductive activity as well as high fetal sex ratios and mean age of initial reproduction (Folk and Klimstra 1991b). Distribution The Key deer are wide ranging and utilize virtually all available habitat in the project area, including developed areas (Figure 2.1, Lopez 2001a). The principal factor influencing the distribution and movement of Key deer is the location and availability of fresh water. Deer swim easily between keys and use all islands during the wet season when drinking water is available, but congregate on large islands during the dry season (Folk and Klimstra 1991a, Silvy 1975). Permanent deer populations are found on islands with extensive pine and hardwood habitats in addition to a year-round supply of fresh water (Klimstra and Harding 1978). Hammocks provide important cover for fawning and bedding, whereas open developed areas are used for feeding and resting. Key deer have been documented as permanent residents throughout Big Pine, Big Torch, Cudjoe, Howe, Little Pine, Little Torch, Middle Torch, No Name, Sugarloaf, and Summerland Keys. Big Pine Key (5,840 acres) and No Name Key (1,191 acres) support more than two-thirds of the entire population, and both islands have permanent fresh water and extensive pineland habitat. Other keys receive transient use as a result of the lack of a permanent supply of fresh water: Annette, Big Munson, Little Munson, Johnson, Knockemdown, Mayo, Porpoise, Ramrod, Toptree Hammock, Wahoo, Water Key (east) and Water Keys (west). 15 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Figure 2.1. Key deer locations from telemetry data (Lopez 2001) 16 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Habitat Development has led to the presence of patchy habitats where not all deer requirements are met in a single area, thereby increasing the movements of Key deer (Silvy 1975). Human-related mortality, primarily road kills, is the greatest known source of deer loss and contributes 75 to 80 percent of identified deaths, or an average of 44 animals per year (Drummond 1989, Silvy 1975, Harding 1974). The current Key deer population is estimated at 1,000 animals (Lopez 2001 b), compared to 250 to 300 animals in the 1970s, and 25 to 80 animals in 1955. The greatest impact on Key deer is the loss of habitat to development. Other factors include road kills, mortality of young from falling into drainage ditches, and predation by free-roaming dogs. Key Deer Population Viability Analysis Model Numerous models have been developed for estimating the risk of extinction for small populations. A Population Viability Analysis (PV A) model is a collection of methods for evaluating the threats faced by populations or species, their risks of extinction or decline, and their chances for recovery (Akcakaya and Sjogren-Gulve 2000). Species viability is often expressed as the risk or probability of extinction, population decline, expected time to extinction, or expected chance of recovery (Akcakaya and Sjogren-Gulve 2000). PV A models attempt to predict such measures based on demographic and habitat data. PV A modeling involves the use of computer simulations to assess extinction threats and is becoming one of the primary tools for the classification of threatened and endangered species by wildlife management agencies nationwide. A PV A model was developed to evaluate development impacts on the Florida Key deer population (see Appendix B). Key deer movements, habitat utilization, ecology and demographic data were used to construct the model (Lopez 2001). The PV A model included two main components: a matrix model of population dynamics and a spatial habitat model of carrying capacity and secondary impacts. Quantitative information on mortality and fecundity for deer of different ages was used to create a matrix model, which allows for simulating the fate of the population under different scenarios (Lopez 2001). In a matrix model, changes in mortality or fecundity result in changes in the way the population behaves through time. Coupled with the matrix model, Key deer habitat preferences as well as road mortality data were used to determine the contribution of different habitats to the carrying capacity (Leo, the number of deer the area can support) and the "harvest" (i.e., contribution to mortality due to roadkills) within Big Pine and No Name Keys. The spatial model included six layers that represented different habitat characteristics for the Key deer: deer corridors, deer density, house density, water barriers, distance from US-I, and patch quality (Figure 2.2). The six layers were averaged and a weighting factor was generated to weight the expected deer impacts in two forms - secondary impacts (e.g., increase in traffic) and loss of habitat or change in carrying capacity (Figure 2.2). 17 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION For any given scenario, the model chooses vacant parcels for development at random, from parcels least valuable to the Key deer to parcels containing high quality deer habitat. A series of eleven scenarios was evaluated to test the potential effects of development on Key deer. For changes in the type of development (e.g., commercial versus residential), a daily trip generation table was used to enumerate the total number of building units. The type of development was assumed not affect carrying capacity, however, increases in secondary impacts, that is, increases in roadkills, were anticipated to vary according to the type of development. An allocation unit or equivalent building units, calculated by dividing the average daily trips for single residential into all other estimates, was used as a measure of the expected risk increase to the Key deer population. Each scenario contained a different total number of equivalent building units to be developed. Deer Corridors Water Barriers Deer Density Distance from US 1 House Density Patch Quality Figure 2.2. Six grid layers used to generate weighting factor grid (darker shades = higher deer value) 18 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Recent PV A and conservation literature suggests that conservation planners should evaluate shorter-term risks to make management decisions (Akcakaya 2000, Akcakaya and Sjogren-Gulve 2000). The Key deer PV A model can estimate a variety of risk timeframes. Extinction risk may be expressed as the probability of extinction of the Key deer in 100 years. However, historically the Key deer population dwindled to less than 50 individuals, but rebounded with the implementation of protection measures (see Section 1.2.1). As protection measures will continue to strengthen with the implementation ofthis HCP, the risk of the population falling below 50 females at least once in 50 years was determined to provide a more conservative and realistic measure of risk in evaluating potential development activities. Model results from these scenarios are presented in terms of extinction risk in 100 years and the risk offalling below threshold at least once in 50 years (Table 2.2). Both are expressed as probabilities. Results suggest that the probability of extinction of the Key deer in 100 years is less than one percent, even in the presence of levels of development unlikely to occur in the project area (Figure 2.3). However, model results also indicate the probability that the Key deer population will fall below 50 females at least once in 50 years is just above five percent following development of 600 equivalent building units (Figure 2.4). The PV A model also provides an estimate of additional mortality, which represents an estimate of "take" due to development. The test model runs suggest that annual take increases with the intensity of development (Figure 2.5). Both model analyses are conservative. Model runs assume that an entire parcel is lost to the Key deer under any type of development. For example, a five-acre parcel that contains development on some portion of the site may anticipate clearing only a small portion of the remaining native habitat in the parcel. However, the model assumes that the entire parcel is cleared and made unavailable for the deer. The same conservative assumption is applied to other potentially partial uses, such as limited fencing or accessory uses. Therefore, model results tend to ovcrestimate the effects of urban development on the Key deer. 19 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Harvest Grid Carrying-Capacity Grid Figure 2.3. Key deer PV A model grid layers. For any given scenario, the location and intensity of development affect both the carrying capacity and the mortality of the Key deer (darker shades = higher deer value). 0.160 0.140 -+-RiIk oCfallina; bckrw 1bmboId.1ast once in 50 years... 0.500 0.450 -+- Risk offallinK below ttRlilo&d allcaIa once in 100 )'OOD'" 0.400 0.120 a 0.100 i ~ 0.080 ! 0.060 D.Ha ! O.lOO ! 0.250 ! 0.200 O.lMO a.lSo 0.100 0.020 0.050 0.000 0.000 SO SI- 52- 53 S4 S5 86 87 S8 59 SIO 811 SO SI- 52- S3 84 55 S6 87 S8 89 SIO 811 See..rI. ......... Figure 2.4. Key deer PV A: Potential effect of development on the Key deer population. Scenarios from Table 2.1 20 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table 2.2. Key deer PV A: Potential effect of development on the Key deer population Scenario Equivalent Habitat Habitat Total Extinction Risk Additional Building Loss Loss Harvest2 risk in 100 (probability) of average Units (acres) (K 2 years falling below mortality in decrease) ( expressed threshold at 100 years as least once in 50 probability) years 3 SO 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0023 0 SI I 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0023 0 S2 I 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0023 0 S3 200 74 4 0.0003 0.0005 0.0242 0 S4 300 111 6 0.0034 0.0006 0.0263 55 S5 400 148 8 0.0068 0.0007 0.0327 124 S6 500 185 10 0.0108 0.0011 0.0416 210 S7 600 222 12 0.0160 0.0017 0.0567 295 S8 700 259 14 0.0220 0.0028 0.0823 368 S9 800 297 24 0.0251 0.0066 0.0981 389 SIO 900 334 27 0.0288 0.0073 0.1173 412 SI1 1000 371 30 0.0331 0.0098 0.1470 435 ] SI = Ongoing US-l improvements (wildlife underpasses and intersection improvement); S2 = Ongoing US-l improvements plus cross-island road. All other scenarios include the US-l and cross-island road improvements. 2 K = canying capacity; habitat loss and harvest are estimated by the spatial component of the model. 3 Threshold = 50 individuals. 5{)(I 4lXl ~ Additional average mortalily in 100 years 4'(1 350 j 300 . ~ 250 t 200 '" 150 100 - 50~-- su SI- S2* S3 S4 S5 Sfl S7 Sl5' SIJ SIU 511 ScfllarW Figure 2.5. Key deer PV A: Effect of development on the level of take of Key deer 2.1.2 Silver rice rat (Orvzomvs arJ!entatus) On April 30, 1991, the rice rat was designated as endangered in the Lower Florida Keys, west of Seven Mile Bridge. 21 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Description The Service recognizes the Lower Keys population of the rice rat (0. argentatus) as endangered, although the Service has not granted the population a full species status. The FFWCC recognizes the silver rice rat as a full species (0. argentatus) and lists the animal as endangered. It has been suggested that the rice rats from the Lower Keys are a disjunct population of a subspecies (0. p. natator), ranging throughout peninsular Florida (Humphrey 1992). The silver rice rat has a generalized rat-like appearance, with a slender skull and coarse fur, which is colored silver-gray along its back. This rat has a sparsely-haired tail and reaches ten inches in total length. The dorsal pelage is brown, brownish-gray, or gray; sides are buff to pale gray; below is grayish white. The tail is sparsely haired, brown above and white below, and about the same length as the head and body. Basically nocturnal, the silver rice rat feeds on seeds, plant parts, and animal foods (arthropods). It constructs spherical grassy nests to sleep in during the day. Distribution This small mammal is restricted to 10,062 acres of the Lower Keys of Monroe County, Florida, and it is not considered abundant in the Lower Keys. On some Keys, it apparently occurs at very low densities, maintaining home ranges of up to 60 acres. Distribution studies over the past 25 years have confirmed they are widespread and present on a number of islands in the Lower Keys. These islands included Little Pine, Middle Torch, Big Torch, Summerland, Raccoon, Johnston, Cudjoe, Upper Sugarloaf, Saddlebunch and Water Keys (Vessey et al. 1976, Goodyear 1984, Wolfe 1986, Goodyear 1995). Suitable habitat is available on many islands including Big Pine Key, which have been trapped without success. No population numbers are available. Much silver rice rat habitat has been lost to commercial and residential development. This species has recently been extirpated from Cudjoe Key, and possibly also from Big Pine and Boca Chica Keys. Predation by raccoons and competition with the black rat (Rattus rattus) for food and living space may have contributed to the disappearance ofthe silver rice rat from Cudjoe, Big Pine, and Boca Chic a Keys. Habitat The silver rice rat inhabits primarily salt marsh. Additionally, they inhabit buttonwood transition, through salt flats and coastal strand, to the upslope face of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) forest (Goodyear 1987). These areas have moist and periodically flooded surfaces of open mud and scattered grasses and they are partly wooded. The rice rat uses mangroves as foraging habitat, while higher elevation salt marsh habitats are used for both nesting and foraging (Forys et al. 1996). The buttonwood transition is used extensively when other habitat areas are flooded. It uses frequently flooded inter-tidal areas vegetated with both red (Rhizophora mangle) and black mangroves for foraging and traveling. Saltwort (Batis maritima) is a major part of the diet and a good indicator of 22 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION habitat along with sea ox-eye daisy (Borrichiafrutescens). Animals usually nest in grass tussocks of Sporobolus and Distichlis. They can nest in these grass tussocks but also in disturbed areas or on spoil piles (Humphrey 1992). Silver rice rat densities range from 0.1 to 25 individuals per hectare (Negus et. al.1961, Wolfe 1985), with a high density of greater than 50 individuals per hectare (Smith and Brieze 1979). Populations occur at low densities, about 2.29 individuals per hectare on eleven islands in the Lower Keys (USFWS 1999). Threats include habitat loss and fragmentation, and competition from the non-native black rat (Rattus rattus), domestic cat, and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Other predators include snakes and owls. There is evidence that black rat density is an important and inversely correlated determinant on silver rice rat density (Goodyear 1984). All habitat areas currently known to support silver rice rats are protected as critical habitat. Two areas, 460 acres on Summerland Key and 572 acres on Cudjoe Key, are being excluded from the critical habitat designation because they have been extensively developed and no longer contain suitable habitat; both areas are south of US-I. There is no critical habitat designated within the project area. 2.1.3 Lower Kevs marsh rabbit (Svlvilaf!Us valustris hefneri) The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is listed as endangered by both the Service and the FFWCC. Description The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a subspecies of the marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) and is discernible from the adjacent Upper Keys subspecies (Sp. paludicola) by its skull proportions, sculpturing, and darker coloration (Lazell1984). The Lower Keys marsh rabbit has a shorter molariform tooth row, higher and more convex frontonasal profile, broader cranium, and elongated dentary symphysis. The body is 12 to 15 inches in length with short dark brown dorsal fur and gray-white ventral fur. The tail is dark brown and inconspicuous. Hind feet range from two and one-half to three inches while the ears range from 1.7 to 2.4 inches (Forys 1996). The Lower Keys rabbit is most active at night, in early morning or late afternoon, or during overcast weather. It feeds on a variety of plants, including leaves, shoots, buds, and flowers of grasses, herbaceous, and woody plants. Breeding behavior includes chasing of inferior males and receptive females by dominant males. In late summer, adult rabbits may chase young from the nest area. Distribution The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is presently known from many of the larger Lower Keys including Sugarloaf, Saddlebuneh, Boca Chica, and Big Pine Keys and the small islands near these keys (Forys et al. 1996). Historically, the species may also have existed on 23 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Cudjoe, Ramrod, Middle Torch, Big Torch, and Key West Keys, but has been extirpated from these areas (Lazell1984). The Lower Keys marsh rabbit probably occurred on all of the Lower Keys that supported suitable habitat but did not occur east of the Seven-mile Bridge where it is replaced by S. p. paludicola. Known localities for the rabbit are on privately owned land, state-owned land, and federal land within the National Key Deer Refuge and Key West Naval Air Station. In 1995, a comprehensive survey for Lower Keys marsh rabbits located 81 areas comprising 783 acres that provided suitable habitat, with 50 of these areas occupied (Forys et al. 1996). Suitable habitat for this species is highly fragmented across all of the Lower Keys. Natural marsh habitats are limited in the Florida Keys, and have decreased in total area due to development for residential, commercial, or military-related purposes. Since the rabbit occurs in small, relatively disjunct populations, has a low population density, and is subject to predation by domestic predators, the species is in danger of extinction. Predation by domestic cats is the principal cause of mortality. Some road mortality occurs as rabbits attempt to move among increasingly isolated Lower Keys marshes. In the past, the Lower Keys rabbit was often hunted by man; this is not known to be a current threat. Connectivity among suitable habitat patches is necessary for marsh rabbit dispersal among patches, and isolation from domestic predators is perhaps the main factor to help this species survive (Forys and Humphrey 1994). Habitat Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat occurs in saltmarshes and buttonwood areas throughout Big Pine Key. The species primarily occurs in grassy marshes and prairies of the Lower Keys in the middle of the salinity gradient but also includes less saline areas and the beach berm habitat. The Lower Keys marsh rabbit builds mazes of runs, dens, and nests in coastal (saline to brackish) or freshwater, inland marsh habitats. Two plant species, fringerush (Fimbristylis sp.) and bottonwood (Conocarpus erecta), are always present in the rabbit's habitat. In freshwater marshes, cattails (Typha latifolia), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and sedges (Cyperus sp.) are common associates. Sometimes, spikerush (Eleocharis sp.) is also found. In coastal marshes, common associates include cordgrass (Spartina sp.), saltwort (Batis maritima), glasswort (Salicornia virginica), sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense), and sea ox-eye daisy (Borrichiafrutescens). The rabbit's runs, dens and nests are made in cordgrass or sedges. Nests are lined with belly hair. 2.1.4 West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) On March II, 1967, the West Indian manatee was designated as endangered throughout its entire range. Description The West Indian Manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about ten feet long and weigh 1,000 pounds. They have no hindlimbs, and their forelimbs are modified as flippers. Manatee tails are flattened horizontally and rounded. 24 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Their body is covered with sparse hairs and their muzzles with stiff whiskers. Sexes are distinguished by the position ofthe genital openings and presence or absence of mammary glands. Manatees will consume any aquatic vegetation available to them and sometimes even shoreline vegetation. Although primarily herbivorous, they will occasionally feed on fish. Manatees may spend about five hours a day feeding, and may consume four to nine percent of their body weight (approximately 65 pound) a day. Distribution During the winter months, the United States' manatee population confines itself to the coastal waters of the southern half of peninsular Florida and to springs and warm water outfalls as far north as southeast Georgia. During swnmer months, they may migrate as far north as coastal Virginia on the east coast and the Louisiana coast on the Gulf of Mexico. The population of manatees in Florida has been estimated to be at least 1,865 individuals. In the last decade, yearly mortality in Florida has averaged nearly 150 animals a year; double that of the preceding decade. The average proportion of first-year calves in the population is ten percent with a range of five to 15 percent. Habitat Manatees inhabit both salt and fresh water of sufficient depth (five feet to usually less than 19 feet) throughout their range. They may be encountered in canals, rivers, estuarine habitats, saltwater bays, and on occasion have been observed as much as three and a half miles off the Florida Gulf coast. Between October and April, Florida manatees concentrate in areas of warmer water. When water temperatures drop below about 70 degrees Fahrenheit, they migrate to south Florida or form large aggregations in natural springs and industrial outfalls. Severe cold fronts have been known to kill manatees when the animals did not have access to warm water refuges. During warmer months they appear to choose areas based on an adequate food supply, water depth, and proximity to fresh water. Manatees may not need fresh water but they are frequently observed drinking fresh water from hoses, sewage outfalls, and culverts. Although there is critical habitat designated for this species and some does occur in Monroe County, no critical habitat has been designated within the project area. 2.1.5 Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) In 1986, the Northern Great Plains and Atlantic Coast populations of the piping plover were federally listed as threatened, whcrcas the Great Lakes population was listed as endangered. Piping plovers are considered threatened throughout their wintering range. 25 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Description The piping plover, named for its melodic mating call, is a small, pale-colored North American shorebird. They are approximately seven inches long with sand-colored plumage on their backs and crown and white underparts. Its light sand-colored plumage blends in well with beaches and sand flats, part of its primary habitat. Breeding birds have a single black breastband, a black bar across the forehead, bright orange legs and bill, and a black tip on the bill. Plumage and leg color help distinguish this bird from other plovers. During winter, the birds lose the black bands, the legs fade to pale yellow, and the bill becomes mostly black. It weighs one and a half to two ounces and measures approximately eight inches long (66 FR 36038). Distribution Piping plovers breed only in North America in three geographic regions: the Atlantic Coast, the Northern Great Plains, and the Great Lakes. Piping plovers from all three breeding populations winter along South Atlantic, Gulf Coast, and Caribbean beaches and barrier islands, primarily on inter-tidal beaches with sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse vegetation. Habitat Breeding and wintering plovers feed on invertebrates located at or just below the surface. Foraging areas include exposed wet sand in wash zones; intertidal ocean beach; wrack lines; washover passes; mud-, sand-, and algal flats; and shorelines of streams, ephemeral ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes. Beaches adjacent to foraging areas are used for roosting and preening. Small sand dunes, debris, and sparse vegetation within adjacent beaches provide shelter from wind and extreme temperatures. Several areas in Florida have been designated as critical habitat, including areas in the Lower Florida Keys. However, no critical habitat occurs within the project area. Critical habitat areas in proximity to the project area are located to the east, in Bahia Honda and Ohio Keys (50 CFR Part 17). 2.1.6 Southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) On March 11, 1967, the bald eagle was designated as threatened throughout the conterminous (lower 48) States. On July 06, 1999, the bald eagle was proposed for delisting in the same area. Description The bald eagle is a bird of aquatic ecosystems that frequents estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, major rivers, and some seacoast habitats. Male bald eagles average almost three feet from head to tail, weigh seven to ten pounds, and a wing span of six to seven feet. Females are typically larger, reaching a mass of up to 14 pounds with wing spans of 26 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION eight feet. Adults have a blackish-brown back and breast; a white head, neck, and tail; yellow feet and bill. Juvenile bald eagles are a mixture of brown and white, with a black bill in young birds. Eagles are thought to live more than 30 years in the wild. Their diet is largely made up offish, especially salmon; also small mammals, waterfowl, seabirds, and carrion. Bald eagles build large stick nests lined with soft materials such as grass, leaves, and Spanish moss. Nests are used for several years by the same pair of eagles, with the birds adding materials each year and are often very large, measuring six feet across and weighing hundreds of pounds. Young eagles can fly in 11 to 12 weeks, but the parents continue to feed them for several more weeks while they learn to hunt. Distribution Nests have been reported from the Lower Keys in recent years including Cudjoe and Boca Chica Keys and backcountry islands. No nests have been documented recently on Big Pine or No Name Keys. Habitat This species congregates at specific wintering sites close to open water that offer good perch trees and night roosts along shorelines in relatively remote areas. Quiet coastal areas, rivers or lakeshores with large, tall trees as well as man-made reservoirs have provided excellent habitat. 2.1.7 Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco verewinus tundrius) On October 05, 1994, the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted throughout its entire range. Description The Artic peregrine falcon, delisted in 1999 (USFWS 200 1 b), is a medium-sized hawk with long pointed wings. Adults have slate blue-gray wings and backs barred with black pale undersides, white faces with a black stripe on each cheek and large, dark eyes. Younger birds are darker below and browner. Peregrine falcons are roughly crow-sized (about 15 to 21 inches long) with a wingspan of about 40 inches. As with many raptors, or birds of prey, females are larger than males. It preys on a variety of birds, including blackbirds, jays, swifts, doves, shorebirds, and songbirds. Distribution Historically, the Artie peregrine falcon was most common in parts of the Appalachian Mountains and nearby valleys from New England south to Georgia, the upper Mississippi River Valley, and the Rocky Mountains. Peregrines also inhabited mountain ranges and islands along the Pacific Coast from Mcxico north to Alaska and in the Arctic tundra. 27 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Most peregrines from northern Alaska, Canada, and Greenland migrate in the fall to Central and South America. During migration, they often forage along the barrier islands on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coasts. Peregrines that nest south of Canada migrate lesser distances, and some may not migrate at all. The falcon is present in the Florida Keys during the spring and fall migration only. Habitat Peregrine falcons live mostly along mountain ranges, river valleys, and coastlines. The nest is a scrape or depression dug in gravel on a cliff ledge. Rarely, peregrines will nest in a tree cavity or an old stick nest. Unlike many other animals that cannot coexist with urbanization, some peregrines have readily accepted man-made structures as breeding habitat. For example, skyscraper ledges, tall towers, and bridges can serve as the ecological equivalent of a cliff ledge. 2.1.8 Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dou$?allii) On November 02, 1987, the roseate tern was listed as endangered along the U.S. Atlantic Coast south to North Carolina, and designated as Threatened along the Atlantic Coast south from North Carolina to Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Description The roseate tern is nearly a foot and a half in length, with light-gray wings and back. Its first three or four primaries are black and so is its cap. The rest of the body is white, with a rosy tinge on the chest and belly during the breeding season. The tail is deeply forked, and the outermost streamers extend beyond the folded wings when perched. During the breeding season the basal three-fourths of the otherwise entirely black bill and legs turn orange-red. Distribution In the Caribbean, the roseate tern breeds from Florida through the West Indies to islands off Central America and northern South America. Halewyn and Norton (1984) give a total population estimate of about 4,000 pairs. More thorough and exact population surveys are not available, primarily due to the inaccessibility of some of the islands where these terns breed. The roseate tern has been recorded at the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the Key West NWR. Habitat Roseate terns breed primarily on small offshore islands, rocks, cays, and islets. Rarely do they breed on large islands. They have been reported nesting near vegetation or jagged rock, on open sandy beaches, close to the waterline on narrow ledges of emerging rocks, or among coral rubble. 28 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 2.1.9 Wood stork (Mvcteria americana) On February 28, 1984, the wood stork was designated as endangered in the U.S. Description The wood stork is a large, highly specialized wading bird standing over three feet tall with a five-foot wingspan. The plumage is white except for black primaries and secondaries and a short black tail. The head and neck are largely unfeathered and dark gray in color. The bill is black, thick at the base, and slightly decurved. Immature birds are dingy gray and have a yellowish bill. Small fish, especially topminnows and sunfish, provide this bird's primary diet. Feeding often occurs in shallow water, six to ten inches deep, where the stork probes with the bill partly open. When a fish touches the bill it quickly snaps shut. The wood stork is a highly colonial species usually nesting in large rookeries and feeding in flocks. In South Florida, wood storks lay eggs as early as October and fledge in February or March. Nests are frequently located in the upper branches of large cypress trees or in mangroves on islands. Several nests are usually located in each tree. Wood storks have also nested in man-made structures. Distribution Colonies of as many as 25 pairs can be found nesting in single cypress trees in the Everglades or on mangrove-dominated islands in the Florida Keys. Wood storks are non- migratory, but exhibit regular dispersal patterns and may travel up to 80 miles from their nests in search of food. Breeding is restricted to Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. In the Keys, this species is most often associated with Florida Bay and Key Largo. Habitat Storks are birds of freshwater and brackish wetlands, primarily nesting in cypress or mangrove swamps. They feed in freshwater marshes, narrow tidal creeks, or flooded tidal pools. Particularly attractive feeding sites are depressions in marshes or swamps where fish become concentrated during periods of falling water levels. Decline of wood storks is due to poor reproduction caused by the loss and degradation of foraging habitat. 2.1.10 Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) On July 28, 1978, the loggerhead sea turtle was designated as threatened throughout its entire range. 29 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Description The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common sea turtle species in South Florida. The total number of loggerhead sea turtle nests surveyed in South Florida accounts for approximately 60 percent of all nests reported statewide (Meylan et al. 1995). Loggerheads are characterized by a large head with blunt jaws; the shell, or carapace, has five or more costal scutes with the first touching the nuchal notch. Adults and sub-adults have a reddish-brown carapace; the plastron is medium yellow. Adult average size is 92 cm straight carapace length; average weight is 115 kg. Hatchlings are dull brown in color. This species feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals. Maturity is reached at between 16-40 years. Mating takes place from late March to early June and eggs are laid throughout the summer. Individual females nest several times a season at two to three year intervals. Nests hatch from May to November. The South Florida subpopulation appears to have shown significant increases over the last 25 years, suggesting the population is recovering, although the trend could not be detected over the most recent seven years of nesting. Distribution In the Atlantic, the loggerhead turtle's range extends from Newfoundland to as far south as Argentina. During the summer, nesting occurs in the lower latitudes. The primary Atlantic nesting sites are along the east coast of Florida, particularly in Brevard and Indian River counties, which host what may be the world's largest population of loggerheads. This species regularly nests on Big Pine Key (Long Beach) and the Newfound Harbor Keys. Adult male loggerheads are present year round in Florida Bay, which may contain critical foraging, developmental, and migratory habitats. Habitat Loggerheads are circumglobal, inhabiting continental shelves, bays, estuaries, and lagoons in temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters. Significant threats to the loggerhead populations include coastal development, commercial fisheries, and pollution. 2.1.11 Green sea turtle (Chelonia mvdas) On July 28, 1978, the green sea turtle Florida breeding populations were listed as endangered. Description Adult green turtles may reach more than three feet in length and weigh almost 400 pounds. The mean size offemale green turtles nesting in Florida is five feet (1.5 m) standard straight carapace length and 300 pounds (136.1 kg) body mass (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989). The carapace is smooth and is colored gray, green, brown and black; 30 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION the plastron is yellowish white. Hatchlings weigh about one ounce, are about two inches long, and are black on top and white on the bottom. Age at sexual maturity is estimated at 20 to 50 years. Their diet consists mainly of algae, but they will also eat small mollusks, sponges, crustaceans and jellyfish. During the nesting season, females come ashore at night and dig holes in which they lay between 80 to 120 eggs. Two months later, the eggs hatch and the hatchlings return to the ocean. Threats include loss of nesting beaches to human encroachment (including artificial lighting); excessive natural predation; inadvertent drownings in fishing gear and shrimp trawls; and marine pollution. Predators include raccoons, sharks, killer whales and humans. Distribution In the southeastern United States, green turtles are found around the continental U.S., from Texas to Massachusetts. Primary nesting sites in the Atlantic Ocean are found along the eastern coast of Florida. This species has not been documented to nest on Big Pine Key or the Newfound Harbor Keys, but it does nest in the Lower Keys backcountry, Marquesas and Dry Tortugas. Important feeding grounds in Florida include Indian River Lagoon, the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Homosassa, Crystal River and Cedar Key. Habitat The green turtle is a large sea turtle found in warm, shallow tropical oceans. Threats to nesting green sea turtles include: artificial lighting, beach nourishment, beach armoring, increased human presence, and exotic beach and dune vegetation. 2.1.12 Eastern indigo snake (Drvmarchon corais couperi) On January 31, 1978, the eastern indigo snake was designated as threatened throughout its entire range. Description The eastern indigo snake is a large, non-poisonous snake that grows to a maximum length of eight feet. The color in both young and adults is shiny bluish-black, including the belly, with some red or cream coloring about the chin and sides of the head. The indigo subdues its prey (including venomous snakes) through the use of its powerful jaws, swallowing the prey usually still alive. Food items include snakes, frogs, salamanders, toads, small mammals, birds, and young turtles. Distribution Currently, the species is known to occur throughout Florida, except in the Marquesas and Dry Tortugas. The indigo snake is wide ranging and may cover between 125 to 250 acres. 31 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Habitat The indigo snake seems to be strongly associated with high, dry, well-drained sandy soils, closely paralleling the sandhill habitat preferred by the gopher tortoise. It is also known to occur in mangrove swamps, wet prairie, xeric pinelands and scrub (Cox and Kautz 2000). During warmer months, indigo snakes also frequent streams and swamps, and individuals are occasionally found in flat woods. Gopher tortoise burrows and other subterranean cavities are commonly used as dens and for egg laying. 2.1.13 Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelvs imbricata) On June 02, 1970, the hawksbill sea turtle was designated as endangered throughout its entire range. Description The hawksbill is a relatively small to medium-sized sea turtle. Its carapace rarely exceeds two and a halffeet in length and may weigh up to 130 pounds. In the U.S. and Caribbean, nesting females average about 62 to 94 cm straight carapace length. The following characteristics distinguish the hawksbill from other sea turtles: two pairs of prefrontal scales; thick, posteriorly overlapping scutes on the carapace; four pairs of coastal scutes; two claws on each flipper; and a beak-like mouth. Lateral and posterior marginal scutes are sharply serrated in all but very old individuals. The epidermal scutes that overlay the bones of the shell are the tortoise shell of commerce; they are unusually thick and overlap posteriorly on the carapace in all but hatchlings and very old individuals. The plastron is usually clear yellow with little or no dark pigmentation. Nesting is solitary and associated with small beaches surrounded by rocky outcrops, although nesting may take place on larger beaches. Their diet consist of marine sponges associated with tropical coral reefs. The hawksbill is the most threatened of the species due to the high price of its shell, which is used internationally. Distribution The hawksbill is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. Within the U.S., hawksbills are most common in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands but are also recorded in all Gulf states and along the eastern seaboard as far north as Massachusetts. Hawksbills are observed in Florida with some regularity on the reefs off Palm Beach County and in the Florida Keys. Most sightings involve post-hatchlings and juveniles. Within the continental United States, nesting is restricted to the southeast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys. Hawksbills are also present in Florida Bay. 32 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Habitat Hawksbills live in clear offshore waters of mainland and island shelves. They are more common where coral reef formations are present. Hawksbill turtles nest on sandy beaches, often in the proximity of coral reefs, utilizing both low- and high-energy nesting beaches in tropical oceans. They will nest on small pocket beaches, and, because of their small body size and great agility, can traverse fringing reefs that limit access by other species. They exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate type. Nests are typically placed under vegetation. Hawksbills utilize different habitats at different stages of their life cycle. Post-hatchling hawks bills occupy the pelagic environment, taking shelter in weedlines that accumulate at convergence points. Hawksbills re-enter coastal waters when they reach approximately eight or nine inches in carapace length. Coral reefs are widely recognized as the resident foraging habitat of juveniles, sub-adults and adults. Hawksbills are also found around rocky outcrops and high energy shoals, which are also optimum sites for sponge growth. Hawksbills are also known to inhabit mangrove-fringed bays and estuaries, particularly along the eastern shore of continents where coral reefs are absent. 2.1.14 Kemp's ridley turtle (Levidochelvs kemvii) On December 02, 1970, the Kemp's ridley sea turtle was designated as endangered throughout its entire range. Description The Kemp's ridley is one of the smallest of all extant sea turtles, with an average adult weight of less than 100 pounds. Adult Kemp's ridleys' shells are almost as wide as they are long; an average straight carapace length is approximately two feet. Coloration changes significantly during development; the carapace changes from a gray-black to a lighter olive-olive with a cream-white or yellowish plastron of adults. Males resemble the females in size and coloration. Distribution The primary nesting beaches for Kemp's ridleys are located on the northeastern coast of Mexico. Kemp's ridley nesting is extremely rare in Florida, however, two nests have been reported from Pinellas County (one in 1989, and one in 1994), one from Lee County in 1996, and two from V olusia County in 1996. The species occurs in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Offshore waters support important feeding, developmental and migratory habitat such as Florida Bay, Rookery Bay, the mouth of the Mississippi River and the northeast Gulf of Mexico. 33 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Habitat Kemp's ridley turtles return to the same nearly unpopulated stretch of beach in Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, each year. Hatchlings occupy the pelagic environment, feeding on floating sea grass for the first few years. Sub-adult turtles typically inhabit coastal estuaries. Habitat preferences include red mangrove habitat, oyster reefs, seagrass shoals and mud and sand bay bottom in coastal marsh areas. Floating debris in the Gulf of Mexico constitutes an increasingly serious threat to Kemp's ridley turtles of all ages. Plastics, discarded netting and many other waste items are either eaten by Kemp's ridleys or become traps when the turtles become entangled. 2.1.15 Stock Island tree snail (Orthalicus reses reses) On July 03, 1978, the Stock Island tree snail was designated as threatened throughout its entire range. The Stock Island tree snail is also classified as endangered by the State of Florida. Description The Stock Island tree snail has a large white to buff conical shell, which is interrupted by three spiral bands and narrow purple-brown axial stripes. The subspecies is closely related to 0. r. nesodryas but distinguishable by color pattern, namely by the color of the apical whorls, which are predominately white in 0. r. reses, and dark brown in 0. r. nesodryas. The shell size reaches three inches (Binney 1885). Adult snails forage primarily on tamarind and other smooth-barked trees, removing epiphytic lichens, fungi and algae from the bark (Emmel and Cotter 1995, Franz 1982). Snails require extended periods of high moisture typically found in the larger, dense hammocks to forage and lay eggs. Reproduction occurs during the rainy season when snails lay their eggs in 1.5 to two inches of tree litter at the base of the forage trees. Snails are vulnerable during egg laying to predation, desiccation and trampling (Deisler 1987, USFWS 1999a). Distribution Historically, the Stock Island tree snail is known from several locations on Stock Island and Key West, 25 miles west of Big Pine Key. Evidence from museum collections show that the snail was last collected from Key West in 1938 (USFWS 1982a). The last population of snails on Stock Island went extinct in 1992. Stock Island tree snail conservation efforts have focused on habitat preservation, introduction, and population monitoring on Key West, Stock Island and other introduced sites. Threats to tree snails include widespread destruction of hardwood hammock habitat and collection pressure. The snail is not known from Big Pine Key either historically or presently, although suitable habitat may be identified for their introduction. 34 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Habitat Hardwood hammocks are understood to have been the Stock Island tree snail's primary habitat before recent larger-scale ecosystem disruption displaced most of these areas. The species lives on trees and shrubs in tropical hardwood hammocks. It is found on a large diversity of tree species, such as Acaciafarnesiana (sweet acacia); Bursera simaruba (gumbo limbo), Chrysobalanus icaco (coco plum), Ficus aurea (strangler fig), and Psidium guajava (guava) but will not live on the introduced Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus braziliensis), which forms large thickets on Stock Island. The Stock Island tree snail does best in hammocks of native trees that support large areas of lichens and algae. Larger trees with larger surface areas provide more foraging area for the snails (Deisler 1987). This tree snail is non-territorial, non-migratory and seasonally active. 2.1.16 Kev tree cactus (Cereus robinii) On July 19, 1984, the Key tree cactus was designated as endangered throughout the entire range. Description Key deer are known to feed on the Key tree cactus and may affect seed dispersal (Hennessey and Habeck, 1994). Distribution In 1993, the population was estimated at 600 plants distributed on Upper Matecumbe, Lower Matecumbe, Long Key and Big Pine Keys (USFWS I999b). All stands of this species known to occur on Big Pine Key occur on federally-owned lands. Habitat The Key tree cactus is limited to tropical hardwood hammocks and "cactus hammock," located on higher elevation coral rock that is rarely flooded (USFWS 1999b, Virginia Tech 1996). This species prefers lightly shaded, well-drained upland sites with little or no soil development and less than one inch of leaf litter. It grows in small, isolated patches (USFWS 1999b). 2.1.17 Garber's spurge (Chamaesvce r!arberi) On July 18, 1985, the Garber's spurge was designated as threatened throughout the entire range. 35 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Description Garber's spurge is a prostrate herb found in rockridge pinelands and sandy coastal habitats (USFWS 1988). This spurge has hairy stems, ovate leaves, and inconspicuous cyathi - the distinctive inflorescences of Euphorbia. It is approximately 0.25 inches long. The species' reproductive biology has not been studied, however, a 1981 survey indicated that the plant was apparently reproducing sexually by seeds at all sites. The flowering and fruiting period is from March to December. Distribution Historically, this species occurred from the Miami area to the Lower Florida Keys. It is presently known to occur at four sites in the Everglades National Park, Dade and Monroe Counties, and one privately-owned site on Big Pine Key (USFWS Undated 18). There is no available estimate of the total number of plants. Habitat Garber's spurge occurs in transitional areas between hardwood hammocks and rock pinelands, and on beach ridges in saline coastal areas. This species grows in dry, sandy soil and bright light at low elevations (less than 25 feet NGVD) and on flat topography (less than 0.6 percent), forming a mat-like coverage over exposed limestone rock. Habitat requirements include open sunlight and periodic wildfires, which prevent overshading. 2.2 Vegetation and Habitat Mangroves and buttonwood saltwater wetlands are the most abundant habitat types in the project area, and account for 40 percent and 48 percent of Big Pine and No Name Keys, respectively (Figure 2.6, Table 2.3). Uplands, including pinelands and hammocks, are the second most abundant habitat type and cover 29 percent of Big Pine Key and 48 percent of No Name Key. Developed areas are the least abundant habitat type and cover 19 percent of Big Pine Key and five percent of No Name Key. Freshwater wetlands are found in the central and northern portions of Big Pine Key. Table 2.3. Habitat type distribution within the project area Habitat type Pinelands Hammocks Freshwater Wetland Buttonwoods Mangrove Developed ADID categories Pine lands Hammocks, ridgelhammock Freshwater marsh, freshwater hardwoods, freshwater pine Buttonwoods, grasslands, saltmarsh Mangrove, scrub mangrove Developed, exotics Percent Area Big Pine Key No Name Key 22 12 7 36 12 15 25 19 100 12 36 4 100 36 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Figure 2.6. Vegetative cover of Big Pine and No Name Keys 37 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION For the purposes of this project a vegetation map of the project area was created using a map from the Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Project (McNeese and Taylor 1998) as the source. All land with the project area was field- verified and ADID habitat types were merged into six categories: pineland, hammock, freshwater wetland, buttonwood, mangrove and developed (Silvy 1975, Lopez 2001; Table 2.4). Water and Dune habitat categories were deleted from the vegetation map due to the insignificance to Key deer. 2.2.1 Pinelands. Pinelands are upland forest communities with an open canopy dominated by the native slash pine (Pinus el/iottii var. densa). Keys pinelands are fire-adapted and dependent on periodic fires for their long-term persistence. Surrounded by wet prairie habitats and/or mangroves, pinelands typically occur on locally elevated areas of bedrock, which may flood seasonally or during extreme storm events. Xeric conditions in this habitat are partly caused by locally low rainfall and the exposed rock ground cover. The extent of subcanopy development in a pineland is dependent upon the frequency of surface fires. Pinelands on Big Pine Key typically have a well-developed sub canopy consisting of palms (silver thatch palm, Coccothrinax argentata; Key thatch palm, Thrinax morissii; Thatch palm, T. radiata; saw palmetto, Serenoa repens) (Bergh and Wisby 1996). Other species found in the pineland understory include strongbark (Bourreria cassinifolia), locust berry (Byrsonima lucida), silver thatch palm, pineland croton (Croton linearis), rough velvetseed (Guettarda scabra), wild sage (Lantana involucrata), and long-stalked stopper (Psidium longipes). Shrub vegetation in Lower Keys pinelands varies in composition and density. For example, Big Pine Key pinelands have a low and sparse ground covering of grasses and bare limestone, whereas on Cudjoe, Little Pine, and No Name Keys a continuous hardwood understory of six meters height or more is present due to prolonged absence of fire. More tropical plant species also occur in the Lower Keys pineland shrub stratum including Caesalpinia (Caesalpinia pauciflora), dune lily-thorn (Catesbaea parviflora), pi sonia (Pisonia rotundata), and pride-of-Big-Pine (Stnimpfia maritime). Plant species from adjacent habitats may invade at the pineland margins. For example, gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba), inkwood (Exothea paniculata) and wild tamarind (Lysi/oma latisiliquum) occur in pinelands sited adjacent to a hammock. Only four plant species endemic to South Florida pinelands (partridgc pea, Chamescista lineata; small-leaved melanthera, Me/anthera parvifolia, rockland spurge, Chamaesyce deltoidea var. serpyllum; sand flax, Linum arenicola) occur on Big Pine Key (Ross and Ruiz 1996), likely as a result of water table depth, salinity, and othcr physical variables. Pinelands in the Lower Keys have declined markedly in recent history, primarily as a result of development. Coverage in Big Pine Kcy has dccrcased by 50% since 1940 (Ross 1989). At present, somewhat extensive pinelands occur on Big Pine, Little Pine, No Name, Cudjoe, and SugarloafKeys. Distribution of pinel and vegetation in the Keys 38 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION appears to coincide with the presence of freshwater lenses (McNeese 1998). Other limiting factors on the establishment, growth, and persistence of pine lands appear to be lack of fire (Alexander and Dickson 1970, Snyder et al. 1990, Carlson et al. 1993) and salt-water intrusion into freshwater lenses (Ross et al.1994). Without prescribed burning, the 2,268 acres of pinelands remaining in the Lower Keys could succeed into hardwood hammock in the next 50 years. Pinelands occur throughout the project area. Key deer preferentially utilize this habitat for the permanent freshwater sources that are critical to survival of the species. Key deer also feed on herbaceous species and the fruits of woody species found in pinelands (Monroe County 1987). The fire regime of pinelands creates an environment of easily accessible food resources for the Key deer (Monroe County 1987). 2.2.2 Hammocks Along with pine lands, tropical hardwood hammocks represent the climax upland community type in the Florida Keys and are second to pinelands in terms of biodiversity (Ross et al. 1992). Tropical hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys are closed, broad- leaved forests that occupy elevated, well-drained and relatively fire-free areas. Hammocks in the Lower Keys are more widespread than pine lands, except for Big Pine Key where the area of pinel and is greater than that of hammock. Approximately 560 acres of hammock occur on Big Pine Key and 385 acres on No Name Key (Figure 2.6). The greatest limiting factor on hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys has been human influence, in particular from development. Canopy trees of the Lower Keys hammocks tend to be smaller than those in hammocks occurring in other parts of Florida, and are often referred to as "low hammock" or "Keys hammock thicket". Trees commonly found in low hammock generally have a smaller trunk diameter and grow closer together. Species include poisonwood (Metopium toxifenim), buttonwood (Conocarus erectus), blolly (Guapira discolor), Key thatch palm, Spanish stopper (Eugeniafoetida), wild dilly (Manilkara bahamensis), Jamaica dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), and white stopper (Eugenia axil/aris). Other species present on the windward side of low hammocks, referred to as transitional hammock or thorn scrub, include black torch (Erithalis fruticosa), saffron plum (Bumelia celastrina), sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera), blackbead (Pithecellobium guadalupense), indigo berry (Randia aculeata), tallowwood (Ximenia americana), darling plum (Reynosia septentrionalis), joewood (Jacquinia keyensis), barbed-wire cactus (Cereus pentagonus), and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia stricta). Herbaceous plants are largely absent from Keys hammocks. Grasses include low panicum (Panicum spp.) and sour paspalum (Paspalum conjugatum) (NRCS 1989). In addition, hammocks support a divcrse flora of orchids, ferns, bromeliads, and other epiphytes (Snyder et al. 1990, USEPA Undated 12), and are home to the federally endangered Key tree cactus (Cereus robinii). 39 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Tropical hammocks provide shelter for many animals during periods of high water and also nesting, feeding and roosting sites for many local and migratory birds (NRCS 1989). Key deer primarily utilize this habitat for cover, cool shelter, fawning and bedding (Silvy 1975). Other endangered and threatened species found in these areas include the Lower Keys marsh rabbit and Eastern indigo snake (NRCS 1989). Additionally, tropical hardwood hammocks provide essential habitat for the white-crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala), Schaus' swallowtail butterfly (Papilio aristodemus ponceanus), and tree snails (Liguus spp.). 2.2.3 Freshwater Wetlands Throughout the Keys, freshwater wetlands are restricted to areas landward of the seasonal high tide line and in the Lower Keys are found in areas underlain by freshwater lenses (McNeese 1998). The persistence of freshwater ecosystems is limited primarily by freshwater availability, tidal influence, and human activities, including direct and indirect effects of development such as draw-down and contamination (McNeese 1998, Folk et al. 1991, Kushlan 1990, McKenzie 1990, Lapointe 1989). During the dry season, freshwater lenses of Big Pine Key can diminish by as much as 50 percent (Stewart et al. 1989). Freshwater wetlands are located in the northern and central portions of Big Pine Key but are present in one parcel on No Name Key and represent 689.4 and 3.4 acres, respectively. This habitat type is dominated by sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense) and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.). Forested freshwater systems in the Keys are generally pinelands with a sawgrass understory (McNeese 1998). Freshwater wetlands are typically found in isolated, seasonally flooded depressions with elevations of +3.0 feet NGVD or less (Kruer 1995) and may be found in conjunction with pinelands. Freshwater wetlands provide critical habitat for several listed species, in particular the Key deer and Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri). These habitats and surface waters represent the only dry season source of freshwater for wildlife (McNeese 1998, NRCS 1989) and play an important role in attenuating nutrients and other contaminants in surface water runoff. 2.2.4 Saltwater Marsh/Buttonwood Marsh Throughout the Florida Keys, salt marshes and buttonwood associations occur in coastal locations similar to mangrove wetlands (Montague and Wiegert 1990). Salt marshes are non-woody, salt-tolerant communities occupying supratidal zones that are occasionally inundated with salt water. Two types of salt marsh are found in the Florida Keys, low marsh and high marsh. Low marsh species include salt-tolerant herbs such as glasswort (Salicornia spp.) and Keygrass (Monanthochloe littoralis), while high marsh is dominated by Gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), fringe rushes (Fimbrystylis spp.), and sea-oxeye daisy (Borrichia frutescens) (McNeese 1998). Buttonwood associations border high marsh communities and have similar ecological characteristics (McNeese 1998). Plant species that inhabit this community prefer low- 40 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION energy waves with little tidal disturbance. Buttonwood forests are dominated by the silver buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus). Other species include salt tolerant herbaceous perennials and woody shrubs such as fringe-rushes, Keygrass, Gulf cordgrass, and seashore drop seed (Sporobolus virginianus). There are approximately 685 acres of buttonwood marsh on Big Pine Key and 170 acres on No Name Key (Figure 2.6). Salt marsh/buttonwood marsh communities provide important habitat for terrestrial species including the federally endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit, silver rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus), and diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). Buttonwood areas provide herbaceous foods and loafing areas for Key deer. Common residents include polychaetes, gastropod mollusks, bivalve mollusks and crustaceans. Birds tend to use the marsh for feeding rather than for nesting however few species of birds, fish, reptiles, or mammals can be considered residents of salt marshes, and larger longer-lived organisms are not tolerant of the environmental fluctuations (Montague and Wiegert 1990). 2.2.5 Mangroves Mangrove communities consist of facultative halophytes, which are tolerant of anaerobic saline soils and tidal inundation. Three species are found in Florida: the red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). In general, the zonation of mangrove communities is regulated by elevation. Red mangroves occur in the middle and lower intertidal zone and upper subtidal zone. Black mangroves dominate the upper intertidal zone and are generally found between the red and white species. White mangroves occur on the landward edge of mangrove forests, throughout the intertidal and in the upper portions of the swamp. Ground cover within a mangrove forest consists of leaf litter and decomposing forest debris. Throughout the Florida Keys, mangrovc forests form the predominant coastal vegctation community. Mangroves are found along the edges of shorelines, bays and lagoons and on overwash areas throughout the Keys. Major limiting factors on mangrove establishment, growth and persistence in the Florida Keys appear to be water quality, substrate, and development (Lewis 1980, Snedaker and Lugo 1973, Strong and Bancroft 1994, Odum et al. 1982). Mangrovc habitat occurs on approximately 1,495 acres of Big Pine Key and 374 acres of No Name Key (Figure 2.6). Mangrove communities in thc Florida Keys provide essential habitat for numerous ecologically and economically important species (FFWCC Undated 7). The leaves and fruits of red and black mangroves are a primary food sourcc for the Key deer, which spend considerable time foraging in tidal wetlands (Monroe County 1987, Silvy 1975). In South Florida, mangroves are important habitat for at least 220 fish species, 24 reptile and amphibian species, 18 mammal species, and 181 bird species (Odum et al. 1982), and provide nesting habitat for a number of threatened and endangercd speeies, including the white-erowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala). Additionally dissolved organic matter 41 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION from mangroves serves as an alternate food source, the basis for heterotrophic microorganism food webs, and a source of chemical cues for estuarine species (Snedaker 1989). 42 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 3. LAND USE CONDITIONS 3.1 Introduction The Florida Keys encompass a group of islands and therefore terrestrial habitats are naturally fragmented. Development has greatly increased the degree of habitat fragmentation mainly by reducing patch size, increasing distances among patches, and in some cases creating barriers to dispersal (Strong and Bancroft 1994). Development in the Florida Keys has occurred primarily in upland areas, resulting in the loss of almost half of the upland habitats, from 20,038 acres in pre-development times to 10,353 acres in 1995 (URS 2002). Lower Keys islands were slower to develop than the Middle and Upper Keys, but many subdivision plats were filed throughout the 1950s and 1960s. As human alteration of the habitat on Big Pine and No Name Keys progressed, land was set aside for preservation establishing the National Key Deer Refuge (Refuge) in 1957. Habitat removal and alteration on remaining private lands continued through the 1970s and the population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key increased steadily. A "housing boom" during the late 1970s and early 1980s brought about significant changes in the configuration of native habitat on the islands and the composition of the human community. Presently 15 percent and 4.5 percent of the total landmass of Big Pine and No Name Keys, respectively, are developed. This chapter provides an overview of the land use and planning conditions in Big Pine and No Name Key, and focuses on future land use changes that are expected to occur over the next 20 years. The information contained herein provides that basis for the assessment of impacts to protected species and habitat in the project area that are likely to occur as the result of planned urban development in the future. Development occurring within the project area is used to model the amount of "take" that will be permitted under this HCP. 3.2 Land Ownership Approximately 66 percent of the land within the project area is in public ownership (Table 3.1; Figure 3.1). The main landowncr is the Federal government with 54 percent, all of which is within the Refuge. Federal, state and county agencics purchasc and manage lands within the project area for the purpose of environmental protection and conservation. The Federal government purchases lands for management by the Service within the Refuge, which accounts for 50 percent of Big Pine Key and 71 percent of No Name Key. The State of Florida purchases land under the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program, which is administered by the FDEP. State-owned lands within the project area include the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer Lands and lands within the Coupon BightlKey deer CARL project area, which combined are less than ten percent of the project area. The Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA) purchases a wide variety of vacant lands as directcd in thc Monroc County Comprehensive Plan and own two percent of the land within the project area. 43 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table 3.1. Land ownership in the project area 1 Land owner Big Pine Key No Name Key Total Parcels Acres % Parcels Acres % Acres % Federal 2 1357 2951 50.5 171 841.1 70.6 3792.1 53.9 State 993 664.2 11.4 4 31.7 2.7 695.9 9.9 County 492 126.6 2.2 151 24.2 2.0 150.8 2.1 Municipal 20 3.4 0.05 3.4 0.05 Utilities 4 6.8 0.12 6.8 0.1 Private 2799 869.5 14.9 47 53.1 4.5 922.6 13.1 Developed Private 3370 1218.5 20.9 137 240.6 20.2 1459.1 20.8 Undeveloped Total 9035 5840 100.0 510 1190.7 100.0 7030.7 100.0 I Numbers as of 2000. 2 Includes gravel pit. 3.3 Habitat Management Activities Federal, State and County agencies conduct habitat management activities within the project area. The federal Government, through the National Key Deer refuge is the main landowner in the study area. The Refuge also manages most of the land within the project area. Management activities include prescribed burning, mowing and clearing of fire breaks, filling of ditches to prevent deer drownings and limit salinity intrusion, habitat restoration and development and protection of habitat corridors. The Refuge is developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), scheduled for completion in 2006. The CCP will outline a vision for the Refuge, guide management decisions, and outline goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve the visions and purposes of the Refuge. Development of the CPP is a requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The FDEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas manages state-owned lands within the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and Preserve Buffer (Preserve), whereas the Service manages state-owned lands within the Coupon Bight/Key deer CARL project area under an existing lease agrecment. A management plan developed for the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve (Florida Department of Natural Resources 1992) states that research and habitat restoration are primary needs for the Prcserve. Current management activities include the installation of mooring and warning buoys, seagrass restoration, treatment of coral band disease, and sea turtle nesting beach surveys. Research activities within the Preserve include juvenile fish studies, larval recruitment of the spiny lobster, and studies on the effectiveness of fishing exclusion zones. 44 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Figure 3.1. Land ownership in the project area 45 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION The Monroe County Land Steward is responsible for the management of county-owned public lands within the project area and throughout the Florida Keys. Currently no formal management plan exists for these lands; however, several small habitat restoration and management plans have been developed for individual parcels and subdivisions within the project area. Ongoing management efforts are conducted as needed or when funding becomes available. Primary responsibilities include trash removal, invasive exotic plant control, prescribed burning and other issues related to natural resource management. The Land Steward works in conjunction with the Monroe County Public Works Division, the MCLA, and volunteer groups to implement management activities. Habitat management of county lands should commence Keys-wide during FY 2002-2003 that begins October 2002, contingent upon funding approval. Larger tracts of land, between two and six acres in area, will receive priority for management. These lands are primarily conservation lands acquired through grants from the Florida Communities Trust, for which contract requirements necessitate immediate management. Management of remaining county lands throughout the Keys will be prioritized depending upon several factors including logistics, habitat quality, presence ofrare species, and the character of the adjoining lands. Federal, state and county agencies also work together to jointly manage larger tracts of undeveloped land in which all are landowners. Within the project area this land is primarily pinelands. Management of pineland habitat will be addressed in a Fire Management Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is currently being developed by the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative. Prescribed burning will be conducted by all three agencies in the project area where there is contiguous pineland habitat. Individual undeveloped lots that cannot be burned because they are between developed properties will be maintained free of solid waste and non- native invasive plants and allowed to grow to hammock vegetation. 3.4 Land Classification System Based on the Key deer studies done under this HCP, a conservation priority classification was developed. The private undeveloped lands in the study area are classified into three "Tiers" (Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2). Tier 1 lands are high quality habitat. Tier 3 lands are the lowest quality habitat. The tier classification provided support to determining the location of potential development and prioritizing mitigation areas. 46 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table 3.2. Tier classification system (vacant privately-owned lands) Tier Description 2 Lands where all or a significant portion of the land area is characterized as environmentally sensitive and important for the continued viability ofHCP covered species. These lands are high quality Key deer habitat, generally representing large contiguous patches of native vegetation, which provide habitat for other protected species as well. Scattered lots and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands that may be found in platted subdivisions. A large number of these lots are located on canals, which are of minimal value to the Key deer and other protected species since the canal presents a barrier to dispersal. Scattered lots within already heavily developed areas, which provide little habitat value to the Key deer and other protected species. Some of the undeveloped lots in this Tier are located between existing developed commercial lots within the US-I corridor or are located on canals. 3 Total Area (acres) Big Pine No Name Key Key 1078.3 240.6 103.1 o 58.5 o 1239.9 240.6 47 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION N w+. s o 5000 Feet L_____ - - ----I _ Private Developed L.lIndl _ Public: landi _ Natural Area . Tier I _ Transition Area = Tier II Infill Area = Tier III No Name Key Figure 3.2. Tier classification system in the project area 48 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 3.5 Covered Activities This HCP covers the incidental take of protected species that may result from development activities in Big Pine and No Name Keys in the next 20 years. Covered activities include residential development, limited commercial development and expansion, expansion of community and institutional facilities, and transportation improvements. Monroe County would issue building permits for new residential units in areas of lower habitat quality (i.e., Tier 2 and 3 lands, Figure 3.2), at a similar rate per year. Commercial development would occur in infill of existing commercial areas on Tier 2 and Tier 3, mainly along the US-l corridor on Big Pine Key. This includes all current commercially zoned areas south of Lytton's Way. All new commercial development would be limited to disturbed or scarified lands, as defined in the Monroe County Code (9.5-4 [D-14][S-2]). Clearing of pine lands and/or hammock would not be permitted for commercial development activities. Other activities could include the installation of fences and allowing for accessory uses on existing vacant, accessory lots, and new developed lots in Tier 2 and Tier 3 lands (Table 3.2). Monroe County would issue building permits for accessory uses that serve an existing or new residence, or for a public utility such as sewage lift stations. Building permits would also be issued to existing and new residences for accessory uses within the same lots. Residential accessory uses would be limited to those listed in the Monroe County Code (Chapter 9.5-4[A-2]). New recreational facilities may be constructed on existing developed or disturbed/scarified lots. Major facilities could include county parks, athletic fields, and a county library and meeting facility. Minor facilities could be constructed in some neighborhoods on Big Pine Key and could include boat ramps, parks, playgrounds, volleyball courts, tennis courts, and small "sand lot" athletic fields. These facilities would be restricted to individual upland disturbed or scarified sites of 10,000 square feet or less. Expansion of existing community organizations, such as churches, may be pcrmitted on Big Pine Key (Figure 3.3). Additional floor area would be limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet per facility, or less, depending on zoning regulations. Associated development could include construction of required accessory facilities such as parking and outdoor accessory uses. Wastewater treatment improvements may occur on Big Pine Key. Any required improvements for utilities would be constructed in existing filled or cleared right-of-way (ROW) areas. Clearing of undisturbed habitat would not occur for any of these facilities. 49 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Figure 3.3. Potential transportation improvements 50 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Monroe County could also issue permits for the expansion of County and other public offices and expansion of an existing fire station. Additional floor area would be limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet for the County and public offices and 7,000 square feet for the fire station. Associated development could include construction of required accessory facilities such as parking and outdoor accessory uses. Transportation improvements may include the construction of a cross-island access road and widening of other existing, paved local roads to accommodate bicycle paths, stormwater infrastructure and sanitary sewer infrastructure. Based on current estimates provided by the Monroe County Department of Public Works, if all local road widening activities were conducted, up to five acres of native vegetation would be affected. Of the five acres, two acres of pineland habitat, two acres of wetlands and one acre of hammock will be affected. Wetlands would be impacted only to the extent that Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat and the associated buffer areas would not be disturbed. The FDOT would expand US-l from two to three lanes, to include a center turn lane in the business district portion of Big Pine Key. The additional lane would commence near St. Peter's Catholic Church (MM 31.5) and continue through Big Pine Key to the Pine Channel Bridge (MM 29.5). The project would include two separate portions, one east and one west of the intersection improvement project currently under construction. Once the proposed improvements are completed, the entire business segment of US-l in Big Pine Key would have a center turn lane. Road widening activities along US-l would occur within existing cleared and filled portions of the existing FDOT ROW. No habitat clearing is required for these activities. FDOT would also replace the existing bridge between Big Pine and No name Keys. Such replacement would not increase the traffic capacity of the bridge. 51 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 4. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGIES 4.1 Introduction Monroe County initiated the Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) in April 2000. The LCP was developed concurrently with the HCP and, while it focused on addressing the needs of the local citizens, all development alternatives were discussed in the context of the Key deer's biology. Like the HCP, the overall goal of the LCP was to determine the appropriate amount, type and location of development in the project area and the associated mitigation that would maximize conservation of the Key deer other covered speCIes. Monroe County held public workshops and open houses to ascertain public views on planning and conservation issues; it used local media outlets and mailings to alert the public and to distribute surveys. Public workshops were held on April 6, May 25, and September 21,2000 (Monroe County 2001a). The public's understanding ofthe habitat needs of the Key deer was facilitated during presentations and open discussion at three HCP meetings held in tandem with LCP meetings (see Section 1.2.2). Results of the community workshops and meetings were used to identify key community issues, develop planning objectives and generate conceptual land use alternatives and conservation strategies for the project area. In the LCP workshops, the following key community issues were identified: I. Ascertain the distribution of future residential development within the project area. 2. Maintain the rural character of the project area while still allowing some future development. 3. Implement solutions to the traffic congestion on US-l and minimize the need for local trips on US-I. 4. Develop a community gathering facility and/or more active recreation facilities on Big Pine Key. 5. Discourage new development on No Name Key. During the LCP process, Monroe County developed planning objectives to evaluate potential development scenarios. These objectives were based on the combined key issues expressed by the community, existing planning constraints and the existing habitat needs of the Key deer and other covered species. The ten objectives are: 1. To minimize the need for local vehicular trips on and across US-I, from north to south; 52 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 2. To improve the level of traffic service on US-l to a standard that, in accordance with local regulations, would allow some development and to maintain that level of service over the planning horizon; 3. To discourage new development on No Name Key; 4. To encourage additional commercial development to be oriented to the local community rather than to the regional or tourist communities; 5. To continue to allow some development but generally keep the level low to achieve the maintenance of a "rural community" envisioned by the citizens; 6. To provide for a community gathering center and some active recreation; 7. To provide for a conservation plan with a reasonable level of implementation costs and logistics; 8. To provide for a conservation plan which complies with current regulatory constraints (for example, wetlands protection); 9. To provide greater certainty to the property owners and Key deer herd managers as to the location of future development; and 10. To minimize the alteration of undisturbed natural habitat. 4.2 Planning Strategies Analyzed 4.2.1 Planning Strategy #1: No Action Alternative/No Take Under this strategy, no HCP would be prepared. With no improvement in the LOS for US-I, the building moratorium would continue indefinitely. No new residential, commercial or recreational development would occur within the project area. The community would retain its rural character, but no additional community facilities would be provided. With the construction of the wildlife underpasses and the intersection improvement project on US-I, Key deer mortality would be reduced and there would be a surplus of three deer over pre-construction conditions (FWS 1999). 4.2.2 Planning Strategy #2: Reduced Take Ongoing US-1 projects result in a surplus of three deer. A reduced take alternative would involve a reduced amount of development that would overcome the surplus and result in no net take. The PV A model suggests (Table 2.2) that a development program including up to 200 "building units", as well as three-laning US-l and installing a cross-island road, would result in no net take. Under this alternative, important community needs would remain unsatisfied, such as community and government facilities expansions. 53 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 4.2.3 Planning Strategy #3: Proposed Alternative The proposed alternative provides for development activities that alleviate the building moratorium, improve the level of service on US-I, restore a low rate of growth in the study area, and offer community and public facilities improvements that meet community needs (see Section 3.5). With the mitigation measures described in this HCP, no significant negative impacts on covered species are anticipated. 4.3 Alternatives Analysis Both the no action and reduced take alternatives were rejected mainly because they would impose undue restrictions on the communities ability to meet key needs, such as traffic improvements, while not providing significant added value to the conservation of the covered species. The proposed alternative provides for a development program that satisfies the community's needs for growth and infrastructure, while ensuring habitat protection in perpetuity for the conservation of covered species. 54 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 5. CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND PROCEDURES 5.1 Introduction The Applicants developed the conservation strategy described in this HCP based on three years of investigations, sustained consultation with local, State and Federal agencies and non-governmental organizations, technical peer-review of the PV A model, and an active public participation program. The HCP focuses primarily on the Key deer but also applies a multi-species habitat-based conservation strategy. Development impacts on Key deer are assessed using a PV A model whereas impacts on other covered species are evaluated by the anticipated loss of selected habitat types (e.g. pineland or hammock). Conservation of all covered species is achieved primarily through long-term protection and management of native habitat. 5.2 Legal and Regulatory Background 5.2.1 Endangered Species Act The U.S. Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 1973 (Act) to protect plant and animal species that are likely to become extinct. The Service is responsible for implementing the ESA for those species under its jurisdiction, which include all terrestrial and freshwater species and sea turtles that utilize nesting beaches. Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking protected species, even incidentally, is prohibited with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206. As defmed in Section 9 of the ESA, "The term take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct", where harm is an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts include significant habitat modification or degradation that may result in impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR Part 222). Incidental take is the accidental capture of listed fish or wildlife species or take of critical habitat, that is not intentional, but occurs as a result of an otherwise lawful project activity conducted by a Federal agency or applicant (50 CFR Part 402.02). An action which results in the incidental take of listed species or protected habitat, but will not jeopardize the continued existence of species and systems, is required to have an incidental take statement and permit to comply with Sections 7(b)(4) and lO(a)(l)(B) of the Act. Section 10 of the Act describes circumstances under which the incidental take of federally listed species may be authorized for non-Fedcral activities. Section 1 O(a)(l )(B) of the Act establishes the ITP process by which the Secretary of the Interior authorizes the incidental taking of a threatened or endangered species. Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires ITP applicants to submit a "conservation plan" which specifies the impact to the species likely to result from the proposed action and the mcasurcs that would be takcn to minimize and mitigate such impacts. 55 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION This HCP covers 16 federally listed species and one state listed species (see Section 2.3). The ITP would provide authorization for the incidental take of the covered species. The effects of development on all covered species within the project area are addressed in the HCP and all covered species will be individually listed on the ITP. Authorization for the incidental take of covered species will be effective immediately upon issuance of the ITP. 5.2.2 Clean Water Act Lands containing jurisdictional wetlands are present in the project area (Figure 5.1). Dredge and fill activities in jurisdictional areas, including wetlands, are regulated by the Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) program, which is jointly administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Key deer HCP does not support any Section 404 permit under the CW A nor does it exempt landowners from obtaining CW A compliance from the Corps for activities that may impact jurisdictional areas. If a federally listed covered species is to be adversely affected by proposed development activities in a jurisdictional wetland, the Corps must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service in accordance with Section 7 of the Act. Effects to federally listed covered species resulting from impacts to jurisdictional wetlands within the project area will be addressed through the Section 7 consultation at the time such development is proposed. 5.3 Summary of Take and Its Effects on the Covered Species Section 3 discusses the types of development activities that could occur within the project area over the 20-year life of the Plan. The Plan provides for these activities to occur progressively over the 20 years, with a cumulative effect on the Key deer that results a probability of quasi-extinction in 50 years no higher than 4.0%, estimated by the Key deer PV A model (cf. Table 2.2, Figure 5.2). The Key deer PV A model indicates that the combined effects of the total proposed amount of development would result in an estimated extinction risk in 100 years of 0.1 percent, fifty times lower than the five percent threshold originally established for this HCP. The HCP follows a more stringent measure of extinction risk: the probability of the population falling to below 50 females at least once in 50 years. The Key deer PV A model suggests that the proposed 20-year level of development for Big Pine and No Name Keys will not place the species in jeopardy. Finally, the model indicates an additional "harvest" (mortality) of 1.75 female deer per year, for a total of about 35 female deer in the 20-yr ITP period. 56 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Figure 5.1. Development constraints map 57 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION '''' 0'601 --------------------- OI40t ~RiskoffallillJbc1owtbrnbold.1 kill once in ~-~, "... 0.120 I I 0_100 I 0080 t---- "'" 0.040 45" ofOO 0.060 -r---- '''' jJOO . ~ 250 i! 200 = '00 0.020 ~{1 o.o(X) so 51- 52- 53 54 55 56 57 S8 59 510 51! so 5\- 51- S3 54 S5 56 57 511 59 SJlI 51l Sefltuin Sa.trio:! Figure 5-2. Effects of development on Key deer viability No incidental take of Lower Keys marsh rabbit is anticipated as a result of development activities. No new development will occur on marsh rabbit habitat or within 500 meters of accessible marsh rabbit habitat. Development activities likely to occur within the 500- meter buffer area are limited to roadway expansions and the expansion of two existing churches not to exceed more than 2,500 square feet of floor area per church. Housing development activities that may occur in subdivisions within the 500-meter buffer area will be inaccessible to the marsh rabbit due to roads or canals. Thus residential development is expected to have no direct effect on the marsh rabbit. Community facilities, commercial development, and other infrastructure development will occur either outside areas of concern for the marsh rabbit or on parcels already altered and of no value to the marsh rabbit. Moreover, road widening activities will not occur in marsh rabbit habitat. Development activities were estimated to result in the loss of up to approximately 7.1 acres of native vegetation, affecting pinelands, hammocks and freshwater wetlands (Table 5.1). This represents a loss of about 0.1 percent of native habitat in the HCP covered area and a minor direct effect or take on the covered species other that Key deer. However, construction activities will cause temporary and localized indirect impacts in the vicinity of the construction areas. After construction, other indirect effects may remain, such as edge effects. Given that the majority of the activities contemplated in the 20-year development plan will occur in areas of low habitat quality or on already disturbed areas, indirect and secondary effects are expected to be minimal. While not anticipated, direct killing or injuring of covered animal species other than Key deer as a result of building development could occur. However, most of the species are mobile and able to avoid direct disturbance. Direct take of covered plant species, however, could occur during habitat clearing. 58 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table 5.1. Estimated loss of native vegetation from covered activities Type of Development Acres of Habitat Cleared Pineland Hammock Wetland Residential 0.3 0.8 N/A Commercial N/A N/A N/A Community/ N/A N/A N/A Recreational Facilities N/A N/A N/A Institutional uses 1.0 N/A N/A Public N/A N/A N/A Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Transportation 2.0 1.0 2.0 Improvements N/A N/A N/A Other Proposed N/A N/A N/A Activities N/A N/A N/A Total: 3.3 1.8 2.0 5.4 Conservation Strategy - Mitigation Measures and Procedures The conservation program is focused primarily on strict avoidance and minimization measures, habitat mitigation based on replacing lost habitat value, and the protection and management in perpetuity of acquired habitat. The main goal of the Plan is to mitigate for the anticipated incidental take of covered species in accordance with the requirements for issuance ofa Section lO(a)(1)(B) ITP. 5.4.1 Avoidance and Minimization A voidance and minimization measures were applied at every step in the preparation of the HCP. Key decisions were made in the application of biological concepts to the development and use of the Key deer PV Amodel, which resulted in a conservative approach to modeling that tends to overstate the extent of impacts. The following two key decisions were made: · A more stringent population viability measure was applied. Initially, the FWS had agreed to apply the probability of extinction in 100 years for the Key deer as the key measure of viability. Early model runs suggested that the Key deer is resilient and could sustain levels of development higher than are likely to occur in the project area while meeting the 100-year extinction criterion. The more stringent threshold of "quasi-extinction" was applied, and guided subsequent viability and take analyses. 59 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION . The model assumed total habitat loss for newly developed or redeveloped areas. Habitat utilization analysis for the Key deer shows that the deer use all available open areas, including developed areas. However, the PV A assumes that any development results in the loss of the entire parcel. For example, 200 developed residential lots in Pine Channel States contribute 1.8 Key deer to the carrying capacity of the study area. However, the model assumes that 200 new houses will contribute nothing to the carrying capacity. Therefore, the model overestimates the impact of development and therefore, provides a conservative support to planning for development activities. A voidance and minimization criteria were applied to decisions on the location and timing of development: . Residential development will occur at a steady rate over 20 years, thus minimizing the extent of construction impacts that occur at any given time. Potential secondary effects will be gradually accrued, providing time for the Key deer and other species to adapt. . Similarly, Monroe County will issue permits for commercial construction at a steady rate throughout the 20 years of the plan. · Monroe County will restrict issuance of new commercial space to expansion of existing commercial space or new development within scarified lots adjacent to US-I, in areas of lower habitat value. · Proposed recreational and community facilities development would be restricted to areas within existing developed areas that are either already publicly owned or that would be acquired for that purpose. All sites under consideration are already disturbed or scarified. · Proposed minor recreational and community facilities will be restricted to areas within existing improved subdivisions. · Proposed community organizations' development will be restricted to expansions up to the buildable area limits per Monroe County Code on existing applicant-owned land. · Local road development will be restricted as follows: Construct the cross-island road using areas of existing roads, cleared rights-of way, and easements; construct the cross-island access road to include speed controls, signage and/or other appropriate measures mutually agreeable to Monroe County and USFWS to alert motorists to the possibility of vehicle/animal conflicts; · Limit local road widening and maintenance to those local roads that are already paved; and, 60 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION . For the proposed public infrastructure development, Monroe County will restrict infrastructure to disturbed lands. . In order to minimize impacts of the other proposed development actions, Monroe County will not permit fences in any Tier 1 lands, except Port Pine Heights and Kyle- Dyer Subdivisions, nor would fences be permitted in the US-l commercial corridor. Fences would be subject to the restrictions described in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. . FDOT will avoid impacts to wetland from US-l improvements. Recommendation Maintain minimum setback of 25' from Watson Boulevard. Maintain minimum setback of 25' from Avenue B. Maintain minimum setback of 25' from Wilder Road. Maintain minimum setback of 25' from Key Deer Boulevard. Table 5.2. Recommended fencing allowances Parcel size Fencing allowed 10,000 sq. ft. (1;4 acre) Entire lot except for the 15 ft or less roadway setback. 10,001 to 21,781 Up to 10,890 sq. ft. (';4 acre) sq. ft. (1;4 to 1;2 acre) maximum area including the 15 ft roadway setback. 21,781 to 43,560 sq. Up to 10,890 sq. ft. (1;4 acre) ft. (1;2 to 1 acre) maximum area and maintain 15 ft setback from all roadways. Up to 10,890 sq. ft. (1;4 acre) per acre owned. > 43,560 sq. ft. (l acre) Table 5.3. Additional fencing setbacks Location Lots adjacent to Watson Boulevard from Key Deer Blyd. to No Name Bridge. Palm Villa, Lots adjacent to Avenue B. Lots adjacent to Wilder Road. Lots adjacent to Key Deer Boulevard. 5.4.2 Habitat Mitigation and Habitat Banking Restrictive easement No restrictive easement required. Restrictive easement required over remaining unfenced portions of the property prohibiting additional fencing. The Applicants propose to mitigate for the incidental take of covered species by acquiring and managing native habitat areas within the HCP covered. The "harvest grid, H" used in the PV A (see Section 3) provides a measure of habitat quality and potential secondary effects (i.e., increased mortality) on the Key deer. It also provides a straightforward currency to compare impacts versus mitigation. This HCP proposes a level of incidental take that results in a total H loss of H = 1.1. The H value ofa given parcel is calculated as the sum of the H value for each IOxlOO-ft grid "cell" inside the parcel. A cell is counted within a parcel if >50% of its area is inside the 61 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION parcel. The final H for a parcel is modified by a multiplier factor that accounts for the traffic generated by specific land uses (Table 5.4). Therefore, the H value for impacted areas and areas acquired for mitigation can be readily measured. Table 5.4. H equivalency factors for land use categories Average Daily Trip Generation 9.5 Land Use Single family residential Fences only Auxiliary uses Retail HotellMotel Office Institutional Industrial 70.0 7.9 5.9 13.0 5.0 H Equivalency Factor 1 .2 .2 7.4 (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 0.8 (per room) 0.6 (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 1.4 (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 0.5 (per 1,000 sq. ft.) The Applicants will mitigate incidental take impacts by acquiring and managing habitat areas at a 3: 1 ratio, using H as the currency. For example, if a parcel with H = 0.001 is developed, the Applicants would have to acquire one or more parcel with a total H = 0.003. Since 1995, when the building moratorium entered into effect and efforts to develop an HCP began, a total of 106 parcels have been permitted for development in Big Pine and No Name Keys (data from Monroe County Planning Department). In the same period, the County has acquired 531 parcels. The ratio between the mitigation H and the impact H is Hrn/Hi = 6.56 (Table 5.5), which is higher than the target mitigation ratio of 3: 1. Therefore, the Applicants have accrued a mitigation credit ofH = 0.57. Table 5.5. Impacts and mitigation in Big Pine and No Name Keys, 1995 - present Impacts Mitigation* H Ratio (H credit) (development) (acquisition and management) 531 107.6 1.05 106 Number of Parcels Total Area (ac) TotalH * Data through 2000. 0.16 6.56 (0.57) 62 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 5.4.3 Habitat Management Monroe County will ensure active management of all acquired natural lands either directly or indirectly through agreements with other managing entities. Lands in the project area acquired for the HCP will comprise lands purchased by the Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA) for the Florida Forever Program and lands purchased by the MCLA in accordance with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Lands acquired through the Florida Forever Program, either during HCP development or throughout the 20-year life of the ITP, will be managed by the Service in accordance with existing practices and lease agreement. These lands are part of the Coupon BightlKey deer CARL project and encompass 3,452 acres of undeveloped land between the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve and the Refuge on Big Pine Key. No formal management plan exists for these lands, however it is anticipated that these lands will likely be included in the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to ensure a unified habitat management approach. The Refuge CCP is anticipated to be completed by 2006. The Monroe County Land Steward is responsible for managing all other lands acquired by the MCLA either during HCP development or throughout the 20-year life of the ITP. Habitat management activities for these lands will vary depending on the habitat quality, presence of rare species and the character of the adjoining lands. Larger tracts of contiguous pineland habitat will be managed in conjunction with Federal and State agencies and the Lower Keys Wildland Fire Hazard Reduction Initiative. Prescribed burning activities on these lands will be conducted in accordance with the Fire Management Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, which is presently in development. Other county lands acquired under the HCP will be primarily individual undeveloped lots that cannot be burned due to the proximity of development. These lands will be maintained free of solid waste and non-native invasive plants and allowed to grow to hammock vegetation. The Land Steward will conduct additional management efforts as needed, including trash removal, invasive exotic plant control and other issues related to natural resource management. Management of mitigation lands will commence no later than 120 days following acquisition of land in fee title. 5.5 Monitoring and Reporting Monitoring activities will include an annual assessment (spring and fall surveys) of Key deer status and mortality, number of acres acquired, amount of development completed and acres converted, and a summary of habitat management activities by Monroe County. Results from monitoring activities will be used to determine the Plan's success in meeting the conservation goals and objectives, success of the mitigation efforts, and whether adjustments or revisions need to be made under the Plan's adaptive management provisions. Monitoring efforts will focus on biological monitoring of the Key deer within 63 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION the project area and monitoring of habitat acquisition and management efforts for county lands acquired under the HCP. Annual assessments will be supplemented with Refuge data. The Refuge currently conducts biological monitoring of Key deer. Weekly population counts and monthly deer census data collected by the Refuge will be used to supplement annual assessments of the deer herd in the project area. Mortality data also collected by the Refuge will be reviewed to determine any changes in the number of observed deer mortalities relative to a change in the level of development in the project area. During construction activities of county facilities and road expansion activities, the County biologist will conduct regular monitoring to ensure that development is occurring in accordance with the conditions of the Plan. Population surveys of the other covered species will not be conducted since the effects on these species are anticipated to be nominal. Monitoring data submitted by the Refuge will be compiled and evaluated by the County biologist. A summary of the biological monitoring efforts will be submitted by the County biologist for inclusion in the annual report. Development activities will be monitored by the County's Growth Management Division, whereas habitat acquisition efforts conducted under the HCP will be monitored by the MCLA. Acquisition activities include lands purchased for the Coupon BightlKey deer CARL project and lands purchased by the MCLA as required by the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Monroe County Growth Management Division and MCLA will submit an annual summary of the acres of land developed and acquired under the HCP, respectively. Documentation of habitat management activities will be conducted by the Monroe County Land Steward for lands acquired under the HCP, that are not part of the Coupon BightlKey deer CARL project. Habitat management activities should parallel land acquisition efforts, that is, the amount of land acquired by the MCLA annually, outside of the Coupon BightlKey deer CARL project, should be equivalent to that which is managed. The Monroe County Land Steward will submit an annual summary of the number of the county's habitat management activities. Monroe County is responsible for ensuring that these monitoring activities are funded and implemented. Actual monitoring efforts will be conducted by the Monroe County Growth Management Division, MCLA, Monroe County Biologist and the Monroe County Land Steward. Monitoring activities will bc detailed and summarized in an annual report for the 20-year life of the ITP. Annual reports will be submitted at the close of the County's fiscal year. Public comments will be received by the County for a period of 30 days following issuance of the draft annual report. 5.5.1 Reporting Brief annual reports will be prepared by Monroc County and submitted to the Service at the end of the reporting year. The reporting period will cover January 1 through 64 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION December 31 and will be submitted by February 28 following end of the reporting period. Information to be included in the annual report is as follows: 1. The amount, habitat type and location of lands approved for development; 2. A description of the acreage, location and condition of the lands acquired; 3. A summary of habitat management, enhancement and monitoring activities conducted on lands acquired under the HCP; 4. A summary of the biological monitoring activities conducted by the Refuge and Monroe County biologist; 5. A comparison of the number of acres and habitat type of lands approved for development and the number of acres and habitat type of lands acquired for conservation purposes to ensure that mitigation ratios are being achieved; and 6. Any other pertinent information relative to the implementation of the HCP. 5.6 Adaptive Management/Unforeseen Circumstances/"No Surprises" Adaptive management provisions in HCPs aim at reducing risk to the species due to significant data or information gaps. The Key deer has been extensively studied (Lopez 2001) and ongoing research programs at Texas A&M University are addressing the Key deer, the silver rice rat and the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The Key deer PV A model (Appendix A) is state-of-the-art and will likely be fully applicable unless conditions change dramatically. One area where research is scarce is the effect of natural disasters, such as fires or hurricanes, on the ecology of the Key deer and other covered species. Provided that the Applicants carried out the provisions of the HCP appropriately, such events would not change the provisions of the ITP. Under the "No Surprises" policy establishes a clear commitment from the Federal government to honor its agreements under an approved HCP for which the permittee is in good faith implementing the HCP's terms and conditions (USFWS 1996). The HCP handbook (USFWS 1996) states that the Service will not require the commitment of additional land or financial compensation beyond the level of mitigation, which was provided in the HCP. The success of the proposed mitigation strategy relies heavily on the willingness of landowners to enter into a sales agreement with the Applicants. Should unwilling sellers pose a threat to accomplishing the mitigation goals, the Applicants may seek alternative mitigation avenues, such as funding recovery measures. Should mitigation lag by 30 percent or more at any point in the 20-year permit, a review session between the Applicant and the USFWS will be convened to evaluate the reasons for the lag and potential adaptive actions. 65 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 6. IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCING 6.1 Regulatory Actions Upon approval of the HCP and issuance of the ITP, the County will amend its Comprehensive Development Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Regulations (LDR) to codify the development guidelines described in this HCP. Sections of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan that will be amended as a result of the HCP are listed in Appendix C. Pursuant to the 1998 MOU between the Applicants and technical agencies, the DCA and the County will enter into an agreement under Section 380.032, F.S., whereby the County may proceed with development activities in the HCP before amendments to the Comp Plan are completed. 6.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities 6.1.1.1 Monroe County Growth Management Division Monroe County's Growth Management Division (GMD) will act on behalf ofthe Applicants in conducting the Plan's mitigation program. In addition, GMD will be responsible for the following activities: approving development consistent with the covered activities in the HCP; maintaining a GIS database on the number, habitat type and location of development activities and mitigation actions including acquisition and management activities; funding or providing staff for biological monitoring and annual reporting activities; establishing and maintaining an annual budget and budget amendments for HCP adoption and implementation; and all other duties and responsibilities relating to the execution of the HCP. Moreover, the GMD will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation activities are implemented concomitant with development activities. 6.1.1.2 Monroe County Land Authority The MCLA is the agency responsible for identifying, negotiating, and purchasing mitigation lands under the HCP. Other responsibilities under the HCP include: maintaining a database on the number, habitat type and location of mitigation lands, and, assisting the GMD with development of a GIS database on the location of proposed and acquired mitigation lands. Within 30 days following the acquisition of land in fee title under the HCP, the MCLA will contact the Land Steward with information regarding the location and extent of recently acquired lands. The MCLA will be responsible for providing annual updates regarding the HCP's mitigation program to the GMD. 6.1.1.3 Monroe County Land Steward Under the HCP, responsibilities of the Land Steward will include conducting or overseeing the management of mitigation lands consistent with the goals of the HCP and providing annual reports on all management activities conducted on mitigation lands. 66 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION The Land Steward will contact the MCLA on a regular basis to determine the status of newly acquired mitigation lands within the project area. Management of mitigation lands will commence no later than 120 days following the date ofland acquisition in fee title. The Land Steward will also work with the GMD to maintain a GIS database on the management of mitigation lands. The Land Steward may obtain outside funding, such as grants, and resources, such as the County Public Works Division and volunteer groups, to assist with habitat management efforts on mitigation lands. Management activities on State-owned lands, that is, within the Coupon BightlKey deer CARL project area, will be conducted by the Service under an existing agreement. However the Land Steward will work with the Service to monitor habitat management activities on these lands. 6.1.1.4 Florida Department of Transportation FDOT will be responsible for maintaining a database on the status of US-l improvement activities. Responsibilities include: providing notification and periodic updates to the GMD upon the commencement of construction activities, and, providing annual reports to the GMD regarding the status of US-l improvements, including the total area of completed improvements. 6.1.2 Implementation Schedule Over the 20-year life of the ITP, Monroe County will authorize residential development at a steady rate. Commercial development and local road improvements would also occur progressively through the plan period at an approximate rate of 2,390 square feet per year and 10,890 square feet per year, respectively. Expansion of the existing fire station and institutions, and approximately half of the community facilities and county offices will be constructed during year one. The remaining community facilities and expansion of county offices will be completed in year two of the Plan. The interim wastewater treatment plants will be constructed in years five, six and seven of the Plan. FDOT would construct the US-l three-Ianing project following completion of the design phase, which is scheduled for 2004. Construction may be completed within the first seven years of the plan period. Issuance of permits for accessory uses and fences will occur at the time of request, for the purposes of the schedule permit issuance was averaged over the 20 years. Management of mitigation lands will be commensurate with land acquisition. 6.2 Funding 6.2.1 Funding Sources Since 1986, the MCLA has been tasked with acquiring lands for the County in accordance with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Land Authority Ordinance (Ord. No. 31-1986, 1), and by s. 380.0661-380.0685, F.S., s. 125.0108, F.S. The MCLA 67 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION was enacted to conduct land acquisition activities necessary to deal with property rights of small landowners, environmental protection, park and recreational space, affordable housing and public infrastructure should there be an environmental component. The MCLA provides a mechanism to, "deal with the challenges of implementing comprehensive land use plans pursuant to the area of critical state concern program, which challenges are often complicated by the environmental sensitivity of such areas... (and to provide) a stable funding source and the flexibility to address plan implementation innovatively and by acting as an intermediary between landowners and the governmental entities regulating land use." (Section 1-3, Rule 02-1991, MCLA). Funding for the MCLA was initially supplied by recurring revenue from a Florida Department of Natural Resources park surcharge and one half cent of tourist impact tax revenue. The State Park surcharge (s. 380.0685, F.S.) is collected at a rate of 50 cents per person per day, or $5 per annual family auto entrance permit, or $2.50 per night per campsite, cabin, or other overnight recreational occupancy unit. Ninety-eight percent of this surcharge is provided to the MCLA for the purpose of land acquisition, ten percent of which may be used for administrative purposes. The tourist impact tax (s. 125.0108, F.S.) is collected as a 0.5 cent bed tax per $1 lodging money on rentals with 6-month term or less, segregated by Area of Critical State Concern. Fifty percent of this Tax is provided to the MCLA for the purpose of land acquisition, five percent of which may be used for administrative purposes. Revenue from the park surcharge and tourist impact tax, for the years 1988 through 2000 is shown in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2, respectively. These funds are used to purchase lands for a variety of projects, including the Coupon BightlKey Deer CARL project. Additional sources of revenue for the MCLA include grants from programs such as Preservation 2000. Since 1998 to 2001, contributions to MCLA revenue from the State have been to the amount of $3,000,000 per year, with a total of$14,793,174 provided since 1985 (FDEP 2001). These funds are being used by thc MCLA to purchase lands for the Coupon BightlKey Deer CARL project. Whereas funds generated by grants fluctuate, revenue produced by the state park surcharge is relatively constant. Funds from the tourist impact tax continue to increase with increasing numbers of tourists visiting the Keys. All revenue provided to the MCLA is deposited into an interest bearing account for the purpose of land acquisition and program administration costs. 68 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table 6.1. MCLA revenue from State Park surcharge, 1988 - 2000 FY 95% Acquisition 10 % Administration Park Total 1988 $416,258 $46,251 $462,509 1989 $407,382 $45,265 $452,646 1990 $411,970 $45,774 $457,745 1991 $403,190 $44,799 $447,989 1992 $376,127 $41,792 $417,919 1993 $375,210 $41,690 $416,900 1994 $349,732 $38,859 $388,591 1995 $350,021 $38,891 $388,912 1996 $366,709 $40,745 $407,455 1997 $372,635 $41,404 $414,039 1998 $381,587 $42,399 $423,986 1999 $340,038 $37,782 $377,820 2000 $392,479 $43,609 $436,088 Table 6.2. MCLA revenue from tourist impact tax, 1988 - 2000 FY Florida Keys Key West 95% 5% Total 95% 5% Total Acquisition Admin. Acquisition Admin. 1988 $87,155 $4,587 $91,742 $96,069 $5,056 $101,125 1989 $424,715 $22,353 $447,069 $407,225 $21,433 $428,657 1990 $471,025 $24,791 $495,816 $473,381 $24,915 $498,296 1991 $475,989 $25,052 $501,041 $500,418 $26,338 $526,756 1992 $469,898 $24,731 $494,630 $546,118 $28,743 $574,861 1993 $663,898 $34,942 $698,840 $593,419 $31,233 $624,652 1994 $528,421 $27,812 $556,233 $664,557 $34,977 $699,534 1995 $589,514 $31,027 $620,541 $669,814 $35,253 $705,067 1996 $646,785 $34,041 $680,827 $772,577 $40,662 $813,239 1997 $680,704 $35,827 $716,531 $827,645 $43,560 $871,205 1998 $727,545 $38,292 $765,836 $856,399 $45,074 $901,473 1999 $726,645 $38,244 $764,889 $865,954 $45,577 $911,530 2000 $848,546 $44,660 $893,206 $973,832 $51,254 $1,025,087 6.2.2 HCP Funding Mechanisms The funding mechanisms for the HCP include Monroe County's operating budget and the MCLA revenue. Costs are not borne by individual land developers in the project area; rather mitigation costs are incurred by and distributed throughout the County. Table 6.3 provides a preliminary estimate of the costs for Plan implementation. This cost estimate assumes that management costs for mitigation lands purchased by the MCLA for the Coupon BightlKey deer CARL project are not sustained by the County. Mitigation lands to be managed under the HCP include lands acquired in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas. Administrative costs for land acquisition activities and reporting efforts will primarily constitute staff time and therefore are not shown in the estimate below. 69 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Table 6.3. Estimated costs of the HCP Item Development impact (H) Mitigation (H) Estimated land value (based on average cost for lands totaling H=3.3) Estimated number of acres (based on Tier 1 lands) Average annual per acre management costs 20-year monitoring ($5,000/year) Total estimated HCP cost (Raw Cost over 20 Years) Unit 1.1 3.3 $6,797,000 300 $1000 $100,000 $7,197,000 6.3 Permit Amendment Procedures The HCP may be amended through the adaptive management provisions set forth in Section 5.7. These changes would not require modifications to the ITP. Modifications to the ITP would need to be made in the event that: 1. Modifications to the boundaries of the project area or the location of development activities; 2. Increases in the acreage of development activities; 3. The listing of a species protected under the Act which is not covered under the HCP and which would likely be taken as a result of covered development activities; 4. A change in the development action or land acquisition mitigation activities that would result in an increased take of one or more of the covered species; and 5. Changes which would result in significant adverse effects to the covered species or new effects to covered species that were not addressed in the HCP. Amendments to the ITP will require a revised HCP, a permit application and application fee, a NEP A document and a 30-day public comment period. The USFWS must be consulted and concur on all proposed amendments. Thcrc are two types of proposed amendments: Minor Amendments. Minor amendments involve routine administrative revisions or changes to the operation and management program, which do not deplete the level or means of mitigation. Such minor amendments do not alter the terms of the Permit. Upon written request of the applicants, the USFWS is authorized to approve minor amendments to the HCP, if the amendment does not conflict with the purpose of the HCP as stated in Section 1.2. All Other Amendments. All other amendments will be considered an amendment to the ITP, and will be subject to any othcr procedural requirements oflaws or regulations that may be applicable. 70 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 6.4 Permit Renewal The ITP may be renewed prior to expiration if the biological conditions described in the HCP are not significantly different and no additional take of covered species is requested. In the event that renewal of the ITP is sought, the Applicants will submit a written request to the Service certifying that the provisions within the HCP and all subsequent amendments are valid. The request for renewal will also include a description of the portions of the project to be completed or development activities that would be covered under the ITP renewal period. The request for renewal must be submitted 30 days prior to the ITP's date of expiration. The Service may renew the ITP if its findings are eonsistent with those detailed in the Applicant's request. Renewal procedures will be conducted in accordance with 50 CFR 13.22. Renewal ofthe ITP does not authorize an increase in take levels beyond those which were stated in the original HCP. All annual reports and reporting requirements must be completed prior to submittal of the request for renewal. 71 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 7. REFERENCES 7.1 Agencies and Persons Contacted Below is a list of persons and agencies consulted. Florida Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning Florida Keys Field Office Rebecca Jetton, Community Program Administrator 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, FL 33050 Florida Department of Transportation Environmental Management Office C. Leroy Irwin, Director 605 Suwannee Street, MS-37 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Florida Department of Transportation, District VI Environmental Management Office Catherine B. Owen, Project Manager 1000 NW I11th Avenue, Room 6101 Miami, FL 33172 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Office of Environmental Services Habitat Protection Planning Randy S. Kautz, Section Leader 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 HCP Coordinating Committee Member Jim Cameron, Citizen Representative Big Pine Key Resident HCP Coordinating Committee Member Alicia Putney, Citizen Representative No Name Key Resident Monroe County Growth Management Division Planning Department Marlene Conaway, Director 3101 Overseas Highway 72 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Marathon, FL 33050 Monroe County Growth Management Division Laurie McHargue, Ph.D., Land Steward 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, FL 33050 Monroe County Land Authority Mark J. Rosch, Executive Director 1200 Truman Avenue, Suite 207 Key West, FL 33040 United States Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office Michael Jennings, Fish and Wildlife Biologist 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559 United States Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office Philip A. Frank, Ph.D., Fish and Wildlife Biologist P.O. Box 510 Big Pine Key, FL 33043 United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Key Deer Refuge Emery Hoyle, Acting Refuge Manager 610 Wilder Road Big Pine Key, FL 33043 7.2 Bibliography Akcakaya, H.R. and P. Sjogren-Gulve. 2000. Population viability analyses in conservation planning: an overview. Ecological Bulletins 48:9-21. Alexander, T.R. and J.H. Dickson, Ill. 1970. Vegetational changes in the National Key Deer Refuge-II. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Acadcmy of Sciences 32(2):81-89. Bergh, C. and J. Wisby. 1996. Fire History of Lower Keys Pine Rocklands. Thc Naturc Conservancy, Florida Keys Initiative. Key Wcst, FL. Binney, W.G. 1885. A manual of American land shells. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, Vol. 28. 528p. 73 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Boyce, M.S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Reviews Ecology and Systematics 23 :481-506. Britton, N.L. and J.N. Rose. 1937. The Cactaceae, 2nd edition. Dover. New York, NY. Burgman, M.A., S. Ferson, and H.R. Akcakaya. 1993. Risk assessment in conservation biology. Chapman and Hall, London, England. Camp, Dresser and McKee Inc. 2000. Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Carlson, P.C., G.W. Tanner, J.M. Wood, and S.R. Humphrey. 1993. Fire in Key deer habitat improves browse, prevents succession, and preserves endemic herbs. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(4):914-928. Cox, lA. and R.S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Wildlife in Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 156p. Dickson, J.G. III. 1955. An ecological study of the Key deer. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tech. Bull. 3. 104p. Emmel, T.e. and A.J. Cotter. 1995. A summary of the historical distribution and current status ofthe Florida tree snail, Liguus fasciatus. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Project Report. 467p. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4. Florida Department of Environmental Protcction. 2001. Florida Forever Five Year Plan. Prepared for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvcment trust Fund in cooperation with the Acquisition and Restoration Council. Florida Department of Transportation. 1996. US-l/SR-5 Key deer/Motorist concept report. District VI. Florida Department of Transportation. 1997. US-1 Kcy Deer PD&E Study. Noise Study Report. District VI. Florida Department of Transportation. 1998. SR5/US-l Kcy Deer/Motorist Conflict PD&E Study. District VI. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Environmental Dctcrmination for SR5/US-1 Key Deer/Motorist Conflict PD&E Study. Categorical Exclusion Typc II. 74 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Undated 7. Ecosystem assessment and restoration - habitat assessment and restoration. Florida Marine Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL. http://www.fmri.usf.edulprograms/earhar.htm Folk, M.L. and W. D. Klimstra. 1991. Reproductive performance of female Key deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:386-390. Forys, E.A., P.A. Frank, and R.S. Kautz. 1996. Recovery actions for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit, silver rice rat, and Stock Island tree snail. Unpublished report to Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Tallahassee, FL. Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Invertebrates. Rarc and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. 6. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Goodyear, N.C. 1984. Final report on the distribution, habitat, status of the silver rice rat Oryzomys argentatus. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jacksonville, FL. 49p. Goodyear, N.C. 1987. Distribution and habitat of the silver rice rat, Oryzomys argentatus. Journal ofMammology 73:186-200. Halewyn, R. van and R. Norton. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Caribbean, pp. 169-222. In Status and Conservation of the World's Seabirds, ed. by 1. P. Croxall, P. G. H. Evans, and R. W. Schreiber, ICBP Tech Publ. No.2. Hardin, J.W. 1974. Behavior, socio-biology, and reproductive life history of the Florida Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Dissertation, Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL. Hennessey, M.K. and D.H.Habeck. 1994. Observations on reproduction of an endangered cactus Cereus robinii (Lemaire) L. Benson. Florida Scicntist 57(3):93-101. Humprey, S.R. 1992. Lower Keys population of rice rat: rare. Pp. 300-309 In Humprey, S.R. (ed) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume 1, Mammals. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Jackson, D.R. 1989. The fauna of freshwater and non-tidal wetlands on Big Pine Key. Pp. 37-581n Robertson, M.L. and J.M. Young (eds.) Freshwater and Surface Watcr Resources of Big Pine Key, Monroc County, Florida. 122p. Jaeobsen, B.N. 1974. Effects of drinking water on habitat utilization by Key deer. M.S. research paper. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL. 43p. Klimstra, W.D. 1985. The Key deer. The Florida Naturalist. 58(4): 2-5. 75 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Klimstra, W.D. and A. Dooley. 1990. Foods of the Key deer. Florida Scientist 53:264- 273. Lazell, J.D., Jr. 1984. A New Marsh Rabbit from Florida's Lower Keys. Journal of Mammology 65(1):26-33. Lewis, RR 1980. Impact of oil spills on mangrove forests. International Symposium on the Biology and Management of Mangroves in Tropical Shallow Water Communities, 2nd. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Lopez, R. R. 2001b. Population ecology of Florida Key deer. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 203pp. Lopez, R.R. 2001a. Demographic and Spatially Structured Population Model. Texas A&M University. College Station, TX. 43p. MacAulay, G.M., TJ. Leary, F.J. Sargent, M. M Colby, E.l Prouty and c.A. Friel. 1994. Advanced Identification of Wetlands in the Florida Keys, Final Report. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Resources. Marathon, FL. McNeese, P.L. and lG. Taylor. 1998. Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Project Technical Summary Document - Final Draft. Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., Summerland Key, FL. Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 52; St. Petersburg, Florida. Monroe County. 1987. A Focal Point Plan for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL. Monroe County. 1995. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehcnsivc Plan. Tcchnical Document. Monroe County Planning Department. Key West, FL. Monroe County. 2000. Property Appraiser Tax Role Database. Monroe County. 2001a. Big Pine and No Namc Kcy Development Alternatives Report. Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmcntal Resources. Marathon, FL. 33p. Monroe County. 2001 b. Monroe County Public Facility Capacity Asscssment Rcport. Monroe County Division of Growth Management. Key West, FL. http://www.co.monroe.fl.us/pages/hottopies/hottopics.htm Montague, c.L. and R.G. Wiegert. 1990. Salt marshes. Pp. 481-516 In Myers, RL. and J.J. Ewe! (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. Univcrsity of Central Florida. Orlando, FL. 76 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1989. The 26 ecological communities of Florida, correlated to the natural soil landscape positions. Florida Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Service. Gainesville, FL. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture. u.s. Government Printing Office: 1995-386-441/20005/SCS. Odum, W.E., C.C. McIvor and T.J. Smith. 1982. The ecology of the mangroves of South Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS 81-24. 105p. Ogden, lC. and B.W. Patty. 1981. The Recent Status ofthe Wood Stork in Florida and Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Technical Bulletin WL 5:97-101. Ross, M.S. 1989. Effects of hydrologic factors on the vegetation of Big Pine Key. In Robertson, M.L. and lM. Young (eds.) Freshwater and surface water resources of Big Pine Key, Florida. The Nature Conservancy. Key West, FL. Ross, M.S. and P.L. Ruiz. 1996. A Study of the Distribution of Several South Florida Endemic Plants in the Florida Keys. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University. Miami, FL. Ross, M.S., J.J. O'Brien and LJ. Flynn. 1992. Vegetation and landscape ecology of central Big Pine Key. The Nature Conservancy, Key West, Florida. Ross, M.S., J.J. O'Brien, and L.d.S.L. Sternberg. 1994. Sea-level rise and the reduction in pine forests in the Florida Keys. Ecological Applications 4(1): 144-156. Silvy, N.J. 1975. Population density, movements, and habitat utilization of Key deer, Odocoileus virginianus clavium. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University. Carbondale, IL. Snedaker, S.c. 1989. Overview of ecology of mangroves and information needs for Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marinc Science 44:341-347. Snedaker, S.C. and A.E. Lupo. 1973. The Role of Mangrove Ecosystems in the Maintenance of Environmental Quality and a High Productivity of Desirable Fisheries. Final Report. Contract # 14-16-008-606. U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Washington D.C. Snyder, J.R., A. Herndon, W.B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida rockland. Pp. 230-277 In Myers, R.L. and lJ. Ewel (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. University ofCcntral Florida. Orlando, FL. 77 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION Stewart, M.T., M.l Wightman, and K.M Beaudoin. 1989. The freshwater lenses of Big Pine Key. Pp 11-281n Robertson, M.L. and lM. Young (eds.) Freshwater and Surface Water Resources of Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The Nature Conservancy. 122p. Strong, A.M. and G.T. Bancroft. 1994. Patterns of deforestation and fragmcntation of mangrove and deciduous seasonal forests in the Upper Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marinc Science 54:795-804. Texas Parks and Wildlife. Threatened and Endangered Speeies Fact Sheets, Bald Eagle. http://www.tpwd.statc.tx.us/nature/endang/birds/baldeagl.htm U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Keys Area, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated 12. Hammocks. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/lagoon/hammock.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. Undated 18. Garbcr's spurge Chamaesyce garberi. In Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States. FWS region 4. httn://cndangcrcd.fws.gov/i/q/saq2p.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Stock Island tree snail recovery plan. Atlanta, GA. 15p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Scrvice. 1985a. Revised Florida Key Deer Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 46p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovcry Plan for Five Pine Rockland Plant Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Gcorgia. 18p. U.S. Fish and Wildlifc Scrvice. 1999a. Biological Opinion. South Florida Ecosystem Office, Vero Beach, FL. U.S. Fish and Wildlifc Service. 1999b. Stock Island tree snail (Orthalicus reses). Pp. 4- 767 to 4-786 In South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. 21 79p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999c. Key tree cactus Pilosocereus robinii (Lemaire) L. Benson. Pp. 4-1111 to 4-1124 In South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. 2l79p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Biological Opinion. South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Bcach, FL. 78 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Threatened and Endangered Species System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species. httv:11 ecos. fws. gov Iweboage/. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, All About Piping Plovers, http://plover. fws. gov Ifacts.html University of Nevada, Reno. Biological Resource Research Center, Bald Eagle species account. httv :llwww.brrc.unr.edu/datalbirds/halilcuc.html URS. 2001a. Arterial and Travel TimelDelay Study. URS. 2001b. Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study. Miami, FL. URS. 200lc. Carrying Capacity Analysis Model. Final Report. Tampa, FL. US Census Bureau. 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet Virginia Tech. 1996. Taxonomy species cactus, tree-, Key-. Virginia Technical Institute Endangered Species Information System. http://fwie. fw. vt.edu/WWW 1 esis/lists/e704004.html Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. Pp 351-3521n Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds) Proceedings of the second western Atlantic turtle symposium. NOAA Tech Mem NMFS-SEFC-226. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Species Accounts: Green sea turtle. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/turtles/green.html. Web page last updated: 04113/2001. Loggerhead sea turtle. http://www.nrnfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/turtles/loggerhead.html. Web page last updated: 08110/2001. Hawksbill sea turtle. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/turtles/hawksbil1.html. Web page last updated: 04/13/2001. Kemp's Ridley Turtle. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/turtlesikemps.html. Web page last updated: 04/13/2001. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Species Accounts: Eastern indigo snake. http://endangered.fws.g:ov/i/c/sacl Q.html Wood Stork. http://endangered.fws.gov/ifb/sab5z.html Silver rice rat. http://endangcrcd.fws.govfifa/saa9a.html Lower Keys marsh rabbit. http://endangcrcd.fws.govliiaisaa94.html. 79 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION West Indian manatee. htto://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saaOc.html Roseate tern. http://endangered.fws.g:ov/ilb/sab6i.html Stock Island tree snail. http://endangered.fws.gov/ilglsag05.html Garber's spurge. htto:/ /endangered. fws.gov/ilq/saq2p.html Artie peregrine falcon. http://speeies.fws.goVlbio perc.html 80 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 8. LIST OF PREP ARERS 8.1 URS Corporation Ricardo N. Calvo, Ph.D., Project Manager. Dr. Calvo has more than 12 years of experience in ecological research and environmcntal consulting in the u.s. and abroad. His project experience includes environmental impact assessments for diverse infrastructure projects, threatened and endangered species, prcscrvc design and management, wildlife surveys, mitigation design and environmental planning. Hc was the Project Director for the PD&E for wildlife underpasses to address Key deerlUS-l motorist conflicts in Big Pine Key. Dr. Calvo also served as the Project Managcr for a study to develop feasible alternatives to reduce Key deer mortality along US-l in Big Pine Key. He received in Ph.D. in Biology in 1990. Dr. Calvo served as project manager and document author for this Habitat Conservation Plan. Roel Lopez, Ph.D., Key Deer Expert. Dr. Lopez is a wildlife biologist, published scientific author, and a Key deer expert. He received his Ph.D. in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences in 2001. Dr. Lopez's specific research interests include Key deer ccology, wildlife population dynamics, habitat management, computer simulation and modeling, use of GIS and databases in resource management. He providcd biological expertise on the Florida Key deer including estimating population parameters for the PV A, statistical analysis, and database management. Barry Lenz, Senior Ecologist. Mr. Lenz is an ecologist with more than 21 years of experience, including 16 years with URS, with a specialization in ecology and threatened and endangered species. He has extensive background in environmental and ecological assessment, environmental permitting, and vegetation community mapping. Mr. Lcnz served as a technical researcher and document reviewer. Amy Lecours, M.S., Environmental Scientist. Ms. Lecours has more than cight ycars of experience and holds a Master's Degree in Coastal Zonc Management and Marine Biology. She has experienee in coastal and marine biological investigations for NEP A documents and environmental assessments. Ms. Lccours served as a teclmical researcher and document author. Laura Cherney, Environmental Scientist. Ms. Chcmcy has more than three years of experience in threatened and endangered species surveys, NEP A documentation and wetland delincations. She holds a Bachelor's in Enviroml1ental Enginccring Sciences. Ms. Cherney served as projcct coordinator, technical researcher and documcnt author. 8.2 Sub-Consultants Patricia L. McNeese, M.S., Environmental consultant. Ms. McNeese has 18 years of cxpcricncc including 14 years working in the Florida Keys cnvironmcnt. She holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees in marine biology. Her Florida Keys expericncc 81 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION includes work on such projects as the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys Advance Identification of Wetlands, the Habitat Evaluation Index and the Livable CommuniKeys Program for Big Pine and No Name Keys. Her latest activities in the Keys have focused on restoration and management of natural habitats. Mrs. McNeese has been accepted as an expert witness in environmental planning and Florida Keys biology and ecology. She served as a technical researcher and document author. 82 INTERNAL WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT - NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION - SUBJECT TO REVISION 9. APPENDIX A: AGENCY COORDINA nON Coordination letters to be included here. 10. APPENDIX B: PV A MODELING PAPER Revised modeling paper to be included here. 11. APPENDIX C: MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Policy 301.7.3 - Defers any lane additions to U.S. 1, Big Pine, until the HCP is completed. This is one of the primary policy decisions that motivated the FDOT to take such an active role in the HCP process. 83